HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 7338 INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 2338 _p.. 1
.Off* Decomber 8, 1988
"
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
-W L'f C.0,J
_ _ 4
subject: IN-HOUSE DESIGN AUDIT REPORT A7
On August 16,1988 Informal Report No. 7310 was presented to the
City Council in an effort to answer questions concerning the
In-house Design Section of the Transportation and Public Works
Department. This presentation generated further questions, and
efforts were begun to gather the information necessary to answer
these questions. On September 1, 1988 Informal Report No. 7317 was
presented to the City Council outlining the current operational
criteria employed in making decisions whether to perform design
work in-house or to contract it out. This report also recommended
that a comprehensive review of this issue be made . The Internal
Audit Department would perform one phase of the review which would
consist of a cost analysis of in-house design activities and a
comparison of the in-house cost to the cost of outside consultants.
The other phase of the review would be conducted by the Office of
Management Services and would consist of a detailed survey of other
comparable cities to establish the prevailing practices in the
assignment of design work and the rationales .for those actions. A
preliminary report of the results of this review was presented to
the City Council by Internal Audit and Management Services on
November 1, 1988. The following material represents a summary of
the final results of the review. Additional detail regarding these
results is available in the attached "Review of In-House Design
Procedures".
A. INTERNAL AUDIT - COST COMPARISON OVERALL EVALUATION
The City's current practice of using both in-house staff and
outside consultants for various design projects appears to be an
effective method of accomplishing those projects. Although accurate
comparisons of in-house costs to outside design costs could not be
made for the reasons stated in the report, all three departments
appear to have a lover ratio of design to construction costs for
in-house projects than for consultant projects .
DgDartmCnt In-House Ratio Consultant Ratio
T&PW 6.29% 7.24%
Water 3.84% 7.38%
P&R 7.26% 10.28%
Additionally, the consultant projects for T&PW and Water are
generally such larger than the in-house projects. Since there is
normally an inverse relationship between the size of the project
and the ratio of design to construction cost, the consultant ratios
would be expected to be lover than In-house ratios for these two
departments.
-ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS NO. p`
~4iOPP TO the Mayor and Members Of the City Council December $, 19$$
{ xAy. Subject: IN-HOUSE DESIGN AUDIT REPORT
B. MANAGEMENT SERVICES - SURVEY CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATION
1. Conclusions
The City of Fort Worth appears to be in the main stream of the
surveyed cities in the areas of no formally adopted policy, the
methodology utilized to decide whether to contract out or not, and
in the area of staffing ratios.
The MBE/WBE information received from other cities has been given
to the City's MBE Coordinator, Sundra Davis . Several of the
documents received from other cities may be of some use in
strengthening and/or enhancing the City's program.
2. Policy Recommendation
The following guidelines are recommended to the City Council to be
utilized by the departments of Transportation & Public Works, Mater
& Sewer, and Park & Recreation to determine whether to contract out
design work or perform it with City staff:
In-House Contract Out
Projects under $400, 000 ** Projects over $700,000
* Street Maintenance Projects Sanitary Sewer Pipeline
over 30 inches
Minor Building Construction Water Pipelines over 24 inches
All Bridge Mork
All Treatment Plants
Most Building Construction
Projects between $400,000 and $700,000 would normally be contracted
out. Departmental staff would utilize the following criteria to
make a recommendation whether to contract out or not: 1. ) project
complexity, 2. ) staff workload, 3. ) staff experience, and 4. ) time
requirements of the project. These criteria would also be used on
projects under $400,000.
* These are projects which use General Fund monies only and
require a minimal amount of design work.
** The figure of $700,000 was used because most of the projects
presently contracted out meet or exceed this figure, and management
feels it is more cost effective because the City does not have the
expertise or experience to process projects of this size .
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH, TEXAS
INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Na. 7338 U,3
ecember 8, 1988
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council
"rtxr`',
Subject: IN-HOUSE DESIGN AUDIT REPORT
if further information is required in this matters it will be
furnished upon request.
Doug as Harman
City manager
ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER FORT WORTH. TEXAS
E
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION A - MANAGEMENT SERVICES
BACKGROUND • ■ • • • i • ! • • • • • . • • • ! • • ! ■ ! • ■ i • . . • . • ■ i • .i . . .!1 i • . ! 1
SURVEY QUESTIONS . • . . . • . . . . ■ . . • • • . ■ . . . . . . . . l . . .. . ..•« . . ! • • 1
CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . i . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
SECTION B - INTERNAL AUDIT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . 1
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ■ . . 2
CONCLUSIONS . . • . . . ■ . . . . . . . . . . • . . .,. . . . . . « . . . . ■ . • . . . . . 4
OVERALL EVALUATION . . . . . . ! • . . . ■ • . . . • . . « . • • . . . . l . • . • . T
FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUDITEE RESPONSES . . . . . . . . . . B
SCHEDULESA - I . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . • . ! . • . . . . • . . . . • • . l . . . 16
•op"
63 ECT I C3 M A
In-House Design Survey
On August 16, 1988 Informal Report No. 7310 was presented to City
Council in an effort to answer questions concerning Transportation and
Public Works in-house design section. This presentation generated further
questions and efforts were undertaken to gather the necessary information.
On September 1, 1988 Informal Report No. 7317 was presented to City Council
outlining the current operational criteria employed in making decisions
regarding in-house versus consultant design assignments and recommended a
procedure for addressing this issue in a comprehensive fashion. The
procedure was divided into two parts: first, a thorough cost analysis of
in-house design activities and a cost comparison with consultant design
efforts was performed by Internal Audit; second, a detailed survey of
other comparable cities was conducted by Management Services to establish
the prevailing practices in the assignment of design work and the rationales
for these actions . A preliminary report was presented to City Council on
November 1, 1988 by Internal Audit and Management Services . The following
material presents the results and recommendation based on the survey of
eighteen cites throughout the country.
A survey was conducted of the ten largest cities in Texas and
eight cities outside of Texas as a part of the in-house design project. The
survey consisted of four questions as follows:
1. ) Does your City have a formal policy to determine whether
resign work should be contracted out or performed in-house?
2. ) If your City does not have a formal policy, how do you decide
whether to contract out or perform the work in-house?
3. ) Does your City have an MDR/WBE policy ? If so, what is it?
4. ) What is your in-house design staff ratio of Engineers to
Technicians or Aides?
Analysis of survey results by question:
Question 1.
All of the cities answered "no" to this question. Formal policy is
defined as one either adopted or approved by their City Council . No city
that was survey had formally adopted policy or guidelines to determine
whether to contract out or perform the work with city staff. The City of
Fort Worth was consistent with all of the surveyed cites in response to this
question.
Question 2.
Eleven of the cities, or 61%, used the following criteria to make
a decision: complexity of the project, size of the project , time
v-aguirements of project completion, city staff workload and staff expertise.
F�en cities, or 39%, either contract out part or all of their design work.
The City of Fort Worth utilizes the same criteria as the eleven cities above
when deciding whether to contract out or not.
Question 3.
Eleven cities, or 61% responded that they did have an MBE/WBE
policy that varied in degrees of application primarily in the percentages
applies to each area. Four cites, or 22% had policies that applied to
either federal, state or construction projects only. Three cities, or 17%
,had no policy at all. Several of cities that also sent copies of their
policy. The copies have been forwarded to the City MBE/WBE office for review
and possible incorporation into our policy. The City of Dayton, Ohio had an
unusual sub program in their MBR/WBE program entitled a "Sheltered Market
Program". Briefly this program involves reserving specific contracts for
services or goods for minority and/or women business participation. Only
those firms certified by the City were eligible to submit bids. This program
may have some application for Fort Worth.
Question 4.
Nine of the cites, or 50% had staffing ratios of 1 to 1 . Six
cites, or 33% , staffing ratios varied between 1 to 2 and 1 to 5. The
raining three cities, or 17% had staffing ratios of 2 to 1 . The City of
t Worth staffing in the Transportation & Public Works Department of 1 to
I was consistent with 50% of the cities that were surveyed.
Conclusions:
The City of Fort Worth appears be in the main stream of the
surveyed cites in the areas of no formally adopted policy, the methodology
utilized to decide whether to contract out or not, and in the area of
staffing ratios .
The MDR/WBR information received from other cities has been given
to the City of Fort Worth Minority Business Enterprise Coordinator, Sundra
Davis. There were several documents that we received from other cities that
maybe of some use in strengthening and/or enhancing our program.
#Po•
2
The following guidelines are recommended to City Council to be
utilized by the Departments of Transportation & Public Works, Water & Sewer
and Park & Recreation to determine whether to contract design work or to
perform it with City staff:
In-House Contract Out
1. Projects under $400,000 Projects over $700, 000
2. Street Maintenance Projects Sanitary Sewer Pipelines
over 30 inches.
Minor Building Construction
Water Pipelines over 24 inches.
Any Bridge Work
Treatment Plants
Most Building Construction
Projects between $400,000 and $700, 000
Most projects in this price range would be contracted out. Departmental
staff would utilize the following criteria 1. ) project complexity, 2. )
staff workload, 3. ) staff experience, and 4. ) time requirements of the
project to make a recommendation whether to contract out or not. This same
criterion would also be used on projects under $400,000.
The figure of $400,000 was based on the following rationale:
Over a two year period 94% of all Transportation & Public Works in-house
designed projects and 98% of all Water Department projects designed
In-house and all but one for Park and Recreation were under $400,000.
Also on projects of this size the departments feel that staff can be more
responsive to citizen concerns and management can control the project.
Finally, management can phase in the projects to control bond sales and
thereby control the impact of debt service.
These are projects that use General Fund monies only and require a
minimal amount of design work.
The figure of $700,000 was used because most of the projects presently
contracted out meet or exceed this figure and management feels it is more
east effective because the City does not have the expertise or experience
process project of this size.
3
S3 EC:T I C IkJ 8
BACKGROUND
Three City departments, Transportation & Public Works
(T&PW), Water & Sewer (Water), and Park & Recreation (P&R),
currently have staff engineers and/or architects who do
design work for City projects.
T&PW performs some engineering design work with staff
engineers, and uses outside contractors for other
engineering design projects. During the period reviewed the
T&PW In-House Design Section consisted of 8 Engineers, 1
Engineer Assistant, ? Engineer technicians, 3 Engineer
Aides, and 1 High School Trainee. In addition to T&PW
. design work this section does some design work for other
City departments (such as Aviation, Police, Health, etc. ),
reviews design work done by Water and P&R if it affects
streets and/or storm drains, and handles complaints from
citizens regarding flooding/drainage problems. The handling
of these complaints, including on-site investigations
requires approximately 1. 25 full time positions.
Water also performs some engineering design work with staff
engineers, and uses outside contractors for other
engineering design projects. During the period reviewed the
Water In-House Design Section consisted of 6 Engineers, and
7 Engineer technicians. In addition to Water design work
this section handles complaints from citizens regarding
sewer overflow, patches to streets, and easements. The
handling of these complaints, including on-site
investigations requires approximately 1. 6 full time
positions.
During the period reviewed, P&R did all design work
in-house. The Design Section consisted of 6 Landscape
Architects, and 2 Engineering aides. In addition to Park &
Recreation design work this section handles a variety of
other projects for the Department which are not related to
a bond-funded project and, so, are not included in the
projects listed on Schedule F (e. g. minor alterations for
other P&R facilities such as the zoo, golf courses,
existing parks, the Botanic Gardens, etc. , signs for
existing facilities, etc. ).
SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The review was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted internal auditing standards and accordingly
included tests of accounting records; review of operational
reports, organizational procedures and policies; and other
auditing procedures we considered necessary. The review
covered the period from October 1986 through September 1988.
The primary objective of the review was to determine the
City's actual cost of performing engineering and/or
landscape design work in-house, and to compare that cost to
the cost of using outside consultants.
_1_
METHODOLOGY
Due to the lack of accurate cost accounting data available
op"`` in the City's accounting system, we were unable to
determine the City's actual cost on a per-project basis for
T&PW or Water ( Per-project design costs could be
determined for Water, given sufficient time; however, T&PW
does not keep any records which could be used to obtain the
necessary information). Instead, we determined the total
costs incurred during the two year audit period, and
compared those costs to the total construction costs of
projects designed during that two year period. Salaries
were obtained from the City's payroll system, while all
other costs were calculated by using accepted cost
allocation principles. For P&R we were able to determine
those design salaries which were charged directly to the
projects completed during the audit period.
The costs shown in the accompanying schedules are for the
two year period covered by the review and were determined
as follows:
a. Salaries-Direct - Actual salaries paid to employees of
the three In-House Design Sections were obtained from
the City's payroll records and adjusted for non-design
activities. Additionally all non-work time (e. g.
vacation, training, holidays, etc. ) was deducted from
this category and shown separately in item b.
b. Salaries-Indirect - Actual salaries (for vacation,
training, holidays, etc. ) paid to employees of the three
In-House Design Sections were obtained from the City's
payroll records and adjusted for non-design activities.
c. Retirement - Calculated at 11. 5% of the sum of items
a. and b.
d. Medical Insurance - Calculated at the budgeted amount
per employee.
e. Workers' Compensation Insurance - Calculated by
pro-rating the total expense charged to the T&PW and
Water Engineering Divisions and the P&R Planning &
Development Division based on the number of employees in
each section.
f. Character 2 Expenditures (Supplies) - Calculated by
pro-rating the total expense charged to the T&PW and
Water Engineering Divisions and the P&R Planning &
Development Division based on the number of employees in
each section.
dr'
-2-
g. Character 3 Expenditures (Contractual services) -
Calculated by pro-rating the total expense charged to
the T&PW and Water Engineering Divisions and the P&R
Planning & Development Division (less certain index
codes which were determined to be totally allocable to
other areas) based on the number of employees in each
section.
h. Administration-Salaries - Calculated by prorating the
total applicable departmental administration salaries
based on the number of employees in each section.
i. Administration-Other Expenditures - Calculated by
pro-rating the total character 2 and 3 expense charged
to applicable departmental administration based on the
number of employees in each section.
j. City-Wide Indirect Costs - Calculated by pro-rating
the total indirect costs charged to the applicable
departments based on the number of employees in each
section.
CONCLUSIONS
A. TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC WORKS
r 1. The City's actual cost of performing T&PW engineering
design work in-house over the past two fiscal years is
shown on Schedule A. Some of the in-house designed
projects listed on Schedule D are related to the City's
on-going street maintenance program (e. g. resurfacing,
recycling, seal coating, etc. ). These maintenance
projects require only about one-half as much time in the
design/drafting stage as a street reconstruction
project. However, these maintenance projects do require
more of the engineers' time in the site inspection and
identification of replacement requirements phases
because the projects cover a large number of locations
rather than a single street. To adjust for these
differences for the maintenance projects, Schedule A
presents three calculations (two using arbitrarily
assigned values of 60% and 75% for the construction
costs, and one using the full costs) . As shown on
Schedule A, the 60% adjustment results in a ratio of
7. 65% of design to construction costs. A 75% adjustment
results in a ratio of 7. 23%, and using full costs
results in a 6. 62% ratio.
2. Due to the widely differing scope and level of
difficulty between most projects done in-house and those
contracted out, we do not believe it would be accurate
1P' to make a direct comparison of the design costs for
these projects.
3. If a comparison of costs between in-house and outside
contractors is made, the comparison must consider that
the overhead costs (items h, i, and j on page 3) shown
on Schedule A would not be significantly reduced even if
all engineering design work were contracted out.
Therefore the in-house rate that should be used for
comparative purposes is either 6. 29%, 5. 94% or 5. 44%,
depending on what value is used for the maintenance
projects (see discussion in Ho. 1 above).
4. For a sample of nine projects designed by outside
consultants during the last two fiscal years, the design
costs averaged 6. 50% of construction costs.
Additionally, the cost of review by City engineers, of
consultants' design work averaged 0. 74% during the two
year period reviewed. Thus the actual cost incurred by
the City for the sample of consultant designed projects
averaged 7. 24% of construction cost.
Note: The nine projects in the sample were selected because
they were the most similar to projects designed in-house.
r
-4-
B. WATER & SEWER
1. The City's actual cost of performing Water engineering
op` design work in-house over the past two fiscal years is
shown on Schedule B. Over 85% of the in-house designed
projects listed on Schedule E were relatively minor
repair projects which were done by the Water Field
Operations Division. These projects require much less
time in the design/drafting stage because they do not
require a full set of detailed engineering plans,
specifications, and drawings. However, these projects do
still require some design effort. To adjust for these
differences for the maintenance projects, Schedule B
presents three calculations (two using arbitrarily
assigned values of 10% and 25% for the construction
costs, and one using the full costs). As shown on
Schedule B, the 10% adjustment results in a ratio of
4. 52% of design to construction costs. A 25% adjustment
results in a ratio of 4. 25'%«, and using full costs
results in a 3. 28% ratio.
2. Due to the widely differing scope and level of
difficulty between most projects done in-house and those
contracted out, we do not believe it would be accurate
to make a direct comparison of the design costs for
these projects.
3. If a comparison of costs between in-house and outside
contractors is made, the comparison must consider that
the overhead costs (items h, i, and j on page 3) shown
on Schedule B would not be significantly reduced even if
all engineering design work were contracted out.
Therefore the in-house rate that should be used for
comparative purposes is either 3. 84%, 3. 61% or 2. 79%,
depending on what value is used for the repair projects
(see discussion in Ho. 1 above).
4. For the projects designed by outside consultants during
the last two fiscal years, the design costs averaged
7. 28% of construction costs. Additionally, the cost of
review by City engineers, of consultants' design work
averaged 0. 10% during the two year period reviewed. Thus
the actual cost incurred by the City for the sample of
consultant designed projects averaged 7. 38% of
construction cost.
opbl
-5-
C. PARK & RECREATION
1. The City's actual cost of performing P&R landscape
design work in-house has averaged 11. 33% of the project
opbl construction costs over the past two fiscal years.
2. Since all P&R design projects done during the audit
period were done in-house, we were unable to make a
direct comparison of the design costs for these
projects. However, during fiscal year 1980 (the latest
period in which P&R contracted out substantial amounts
of design work), P&R did contract out nearly all of its
design work. The average ratio of design cost to
construction cost for those projects was 10. 28! (not
including the cost of the City's review and contract
administration).
3. If a comparison of costs between in-house and outside
contractors is made, the comparison must consider that
the overhead costs (items h, i, and j on page 3) shown
on Schedule C would not be significantly reduced even if
all engineering design work were contracted out.
Therefore the in-house rate that should be used for
comparative purposes is 7. 267.
Auditee Response
The Park and Recreation Department utilizes an in-house
staff of landscape architects for nearly all projects in
I ` that area of expertise. Consultants are utilized for other
professions, most notably architects, electrical and
mechanical engineers, soils engineers, and surveyors. This
staff has an excellent reputation in the professional
community for the qualify of work produced. Figures in
this report indicate a substantial savings in utilizing
in-house staff that further reflects on the professional
quality of work carried out by this department.
It should be noted that percentage costs for landscape
architecture are higher than those for engineering found in
street and water relatead projects. This is accepted
throughout the industry as an accurate reflection of the
costs in practicing of the profession. Most park
development projects in the 1986 CIP fall within the
*30-&80, 000 range and in-house staff would continue to
design these projects. This department will take an active
approach in analyzing projects over 8100, 000 to determine
the feasibility of using consultants for two park
development projects where we need to meet certain deadlines
and that require expertise beyound our capabilities. ,
Due to the nature and size of most park development
projects, we expect to continue using in-house staff to
design most of the projects. Consultants will be used in
compliance with an adopeted policy and when conditions call
for exceeding the policy requirements.
-6-
OVERALL EVALUATION
THe City's current practice of using both in-house staff
and outside consultants for various design projects appears
to be an effective method of accomplishing those projects.
Although accurate comparisons of in-house costs to outside
design costs could not be made for the reasons stated
previously in this report, all three departments appear to
have a lower ratio of design to construction costs for
in-house projects than for consultant projects.
Department In-House Ratio Consultant Ratio
T&PW 6. 29% 7. 24%
Water 3. 84% 7. 38%
P&R 7. 26% 10. 28%
Additionally, the consultant projects for T&PW and Water
are generally much larger than the in-house projects. Since
there is normally an inverse relationship between the size
of the project and the ratio of design to construction
cost, the consultant ratios would be expected to be lower
than in-house ratios for these two departments.
-7-
RELATED FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND AUDITEE RESPONSES
1. Finding
The City does not currently have a formal policy stating
which projects will be designed in-house and which will be
contracted out. Both T&PW and Water use a combination of
factors (e. g. size of the project, complexity of the
project, existing workload of staff engineers, etc. ) to
make this decision. Additionally, some design projects,
such as those for street repair, are especially suited for
in-house performance because of the timing of the work
which is all done during the summer months, and because
these projects cover extensive areas but do not require the
depth of detail that reconstruction projects require.
Likewise, the Water projects which are constructed by the
Field Operations Division are small projects which do not
require deatiled plans and specifications, but which often
must be done immediately. As a general. rule both T&PW and
Water try to design most projects under $400, 000 in-house
and contract out projects over $400, 000 and/or projects
which require special expertise such as bridges, buildings,
etc.
Formalizing a policy for performing design work should help
the departments to improve controls over work flow and also
give the consulting engineering firms a better
understanding of what work the City will be contracting out.
Recommendation
The City should formulate and adopt a written policy for
determining which design projects should be performed by
in-house staff and which should be performed by outside
consultants.
T&PW Response
Concur.
-8-
Water Response
The Water Department has no objection to the development of
a written policy for determining projects that should be
performed by outside consultants. This would provide
guidance and direction when a project occurs as to how the
project is to be designed and a basis for requesting
proposals from consultants.
It is suggested that basic factors be considered including
the cost of the project, the degree of complexity, and the
time constraints for completion.
The following criteria is suggested for outside consultant
design.
1. Project costs of over $400, 000
2. Complex projects (including treatment plants, buildings,
electrical pro3ects, . and computer projects)
3. Major Studies
4. Smaller projects where in-house staff is not available.
The in-house staff should be used primarily for projects
for City force projects, maintenance, rehabilitation and
short extensions.
P&R Response
JOPk
c. Finding
The method of recording expenses related to bond funded
projects currently used by T&PW is not adequate for either
audit or budgetary purposes. Under this system, all
personnel expenses (including administrative, engineering,
inspection, audit, etc. ) are recorded in one index code as
an administrative expense. Likewise most other expenses
(e. g. supplies, equipment rental, utilities, etc. ) are
recorded as administrative expenses, and no documentation
is available to show where the expense was actually
incurred (i. e. by general administrative personnel,
engineering, inspection, etc. ). This system makes it
impossible to determine what costs were incurred on any
specific project, and thus removes any budgetary control
other than at the Fund level. It also leaves no audit trail
and no way to evaluate the efficiency of the work done on
bond funded projects. Moreover, the new bond arbitrage
regulations require that expenses be indentfied at least to
the bond issue, which the current system does not do.
Recommendation
T&PW should have all personnel who charge time to bond
funded projects keep time sheets (either weekly or
bi-weekly) which show the amount of time spent on each
project. While it would be preferable to have this
information coded on the City's Time and Attendance
Records, the administrative burden of doing this may
outweigh the advantages to be gained. However, the time
sheets should be available so that periodic studies of
actual project costs can be made.
T&PW Response
We cannot concur with this recommendation based on our
experience utilizing both systems.
Prior to the issuance of AR 3-3 in August, 1984, the
employees of the Engineering Division of T&PW charged
salaries and related expenses directly to bond project
accounts. The procedure was changed for the following
reasons:
1. The processing of the payroll by both T&PW and Finance
personnel was extremely time consuming because of the
large number of project numbers which had to be entered.
2. Account overruns and resulting batch errors were numerous
and were costly and time consuming to correct.
3. The accuracy of the manhour data was questionable since
the distribution of charges was generally estimated at
the end of the week or the pay period.
4. Charges for equipment rental were distorted because the
accounting system could accept only one project . number
per month.
-10-
5. Supply purchases, made in quantity, were charged to large
projects, distorting both large and small project cost
figures.
6. There was no way to readily determine the aggregate
operating cost of the Engineering Division.
7. We were accumulating a vast amount of information at
great expense which was of minimal value to the
department and apparently no value to other areas of
City government.
The revised AR permitted the establishment of annual
engineering cost accounts, which have the following
advantages over the previous system:
1. Payroll preparation is significantly simplified.
2. Aggregate operating costs for the division are
readily ascertainable.
3. Costs for purchases of supplies and minor equipment
that are utilized for both general funds and capital
project work can be more accurately distributed.
No accounting system can provide raw data that will
guarantee the efficiency of an operation. Under the old
system, manual adjustments had to be made to cost figures to
redistribute supplies, equipment rental, and other operating
costs, and to overcome the human tendency to overcharge to
some projects and to undercharge to others. In the long
run, averages were utilized to determine the general cost
effectiveness of the operation, and the averages are such
more readily available under the present system than under
the old. In the long run, the efficiency of an operation
can only be determined and controlled by good management.
With regard to arbitrage reulations, neither the present
nor the proposed account system will automatically reflect
the date of the sale of the bonds funding an activity. The
T&PW staff is working with the City Treasurer on tracking
the expenditures of the various sales, and the tracking is
considerably easier with the current method of charging
engineering costs than it would be if engineering money
sold in one sale were mixed in a project account with
construction money sold in another sale. Under the present
system, the year's bond funded engineering budget is
isolated in one account, and the date of its sale is known.
In summary, we strongly urge that our present method of
charging engineering time be retained.
-11-
3. Finding
The microcomputer spreadsheet used by T&PW to record
information related to bond funded construction projects
could be more useful if several changes were made.
Currently, the program does not contain the project number
assigned to each project. Including this number in the
spreadsheet would help to more clearly identify projects
and should help to ensure that duplicate numbers are not
used. Other types of useful information which are not
currently contained in the spreadsheet are:
• Name of the design engineer (whether in-house or
outside consultant).
• Cost of the contract for design work if done by an
outside consultant.
In addition to including additional information in the
existing system, a change which would make the system more
flexible and easier to maintain is the-use of a data base
system in place of the existing spreadsheet.
Recommendation
a. Include project numbers, names of the engineers
responsible for the design work, and the cost of the
design work if done by an outside consultant.
b. Provide training in data base microcomputer systems to
the personnel responsible for maintaining the current
spreadsheet so that a data base system can be
implemented to replace the spreadsheet.
T&PW Response
The microcomputer spreadsheet referred to in this finding
and used in the audit research was developed to track Mayor
and Council Communications (M&C's) prepared by the T&PW
Department (Engineering Division) through the review and
approval process. It was not intended to provide status or
project development.
We have however developed a comprehensive spreadsheet for
the 1986-88 Street Construction and Reconstruction Program.
This spreadsheet provides information on each project such
as project number, project name and limits, City Council
District, type of construction, type of street,
target/non-target area, project status, bond funding, CDSG
funding, revolving fund funding, actual expenditure of bond
funds, bond fund balance, and target contract award date,
This tool is used daily by T&PW (Engineering) Management to
keep abreast of program development.
-12-
In addition to the above, we have just recently converted
our monthly status report on streets and storm drains to a
data base system which in addition to most of the above
items includes such additional information as Mapsco page
numbers, staff design engineer, consultant engineer, and
completion date of significant events. Updating of the data
base system is currently being done by an Administrative
Assistant III and we plan to train others in the Department
on this system at the earliest possible time.
It is our opinion that currently available data contained
in spreadsheets and regular reports adequately addresses
this audit finding.
Op`
�13_
4. Finding
Neither Water nor P&R currently have an automated system
for maintaining basic information related to their bond
0011' funded projects (e. g. Project Name, Project Number, Amount
of Construction Contract/Final Construction Cost, Name of
Contractor, Name of Design Engineer (whether inside or
outside), Cost of Design (if done outside), etc. ). Although
the relatively small number of projects administered by P&R
does not absolutely require an automated system, it would
still be helpful. An automated system similar to the
spreadsheet used by T&PW (with the additions recommended in
Finding No. 3) would certainly help Water to better manage
the large number of projects currently under its control.
Recommendation
Both Water and P&R should develop and implement
microcomputer programs to help them maintain information
related to bond funded projects.
Water Response
We concur that a useful, automated project tracking system
should be developed. At the present time various pieces of
project information are recorded in the City's PAC-II
system, FAMIS, FATS and manual systems. We are of the
opinion, however, that the addition of a micro computer
program to record and amintain information related to bond
funded projects will lead to another level of bureaucracy.
Perhaps it would be more prudent to focus attention to the
development of a project tracking system in conjunction
with the development of MARS which will centralize the
information in one system, will assure that there are not
redundant reporting requirements, and will guarantee that
the funding status is compatible with the accounting system.
It has been our experience that difficulties are created
with stand alone reporting systems maintaining consistency
with other reports. Centralization of this function will
assure accuracy and compatibility with time and attendance
reports and other accounting transactions. Management
would thus be able to rely on one source of information to
better manage construction activities.
P&R Response
Park development projects are currently monitored on a
manual basis for scheduling and current cost data. We have
attempted to secure funding for an automated system to
perform there functions for several years. We anticipate
acquiring an appropriate automatead system within six
months.
-14-
5. Finding
Water does not currently maintain individual design status
forms for their in-house design projects. T&PW uses a form
O` which contains information regarding originally scheduled
completion dates for various stages of the design process
(from conception through to the award of a construction
project). P&R uses a form which, although it does not
contain original scheduled completion dates, does contain
actual completion dates and other related information.
These forms can be very helpful in evaluating the City's
in-house design program.
Recommendation
Water should consider using a design status form similar to
the ones used by T&PW or P&R for each of their in-house
design projects.
Water Response
The Water Department has no objection to using a design
status form similar to the one used by TP&W on their
in-house design projects. This form will allow better
tracking of the project on a day to day basis and if
updated monthly provides management with valid workload
information.
There is no question that this form will be useful in
tracking design projects which will be constructed by a
contractor and the larger field operations projects (over
030, 000) which require council approval. It may not be as
useful for the smaller projects constructed by Field
Operations, such as fire hydrants, short main extensions,
fire lines, etc. which are dependant on the applicant paying
for the service.
The following criterial are suggested for implementation of
this finding;
1. Use on all design projects to be constructed by
contractors, and all field operations projects over
$30, 000.
2. Update monthly by the project engineer.
-15-
SCHEDULE A
TRW IN—HOUSE DESIGN COSTS (INCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS
USING 100% OF USING 75% OF USING 60% OF
COSTS FOR MAINT. COSTS FOR MAINT. COSTS FOR MAINT.
PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 842, 296. 56 842, 296. 56 842, 296. 56
SALARIES-INDIRECT 143, 187. 29 143, 187. 29 143, 187. 29
RETIREMENT 113, 330. 64 113, 330. 64 113, 330. 64
MED INS 55, 993. 00 55, 993. 00 55, 993. 00
W/C INS 9, 264. 42 9, 264. 42 9, 264. 42
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 69, 117. 19 69, 117. 19 69, 117. 19
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 26, 298. 48 26, 298. 48 26, 298. 48
ADMIN. -SALARIES 43, 670- 58 43, 670. 58 43, 670. 58
ADMIN. OTHER EXP. 98, 655. 19 98, 655. 19 98, 655. 19
CITY WIDE INDIRECT 130, 127. 54 130, 127. 54 130, 127. 54
TOTAL EXP 1, 531, 940. 90 1, 531, 940. 90 1, 531, 940. 90
NO. OF PROJ. 152 152 152
9 OF PROD. 23, 139, 779. 44 21, 199, 379. 77 20, 035, 139. 96
EXP/* OF PROD 6. 62% 7. 23% 7. 65%
TPW IN—HOUSE DESIGN COSTS (EXCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS
USING 100% OF USING 75% OF USING 60% OF
COSTS FOR MAINT. COSTS FOR MAINT. COSTS FOR MAINT.
PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 842, 296. 56 842, 296. 56 842, 296. 56
SALARIES-INDIRECT 143, 187. 29 143, 187. 29 143, 187. 29
RETIREMENT 113, 330. 64 113, 330. 64 113, 330. 64
MED INS 55, 993. 00 55, 993. 00 55, 993. 00
W/C INS 9, 264. 42 9, 264. 42 9, 264. 42
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 69, 117. 19 69, 117. 19 69, 117. 19
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 26, 298. 48 26, 298. 48 26, 298. 48
TOTAL EXP 1, 259, 487. 58 1, 259, 487. 58 1, 259, 487. 58
NO. OF PROJ. 152 152 152
* OF PROJ. 23, 139, 779. 44 21, 199, 379. 77 20, 035, 139. 96
EXP/8 OF PROJ 5. 44% 5. 94% 6. 29%,
Notes Some of the in-house designed projects listed on Schedule D are
related to the City's on-going street maintenance program (e. g. seal
coating, resurfacing, recycling, etc. ). These projects require only
about one-half as much time in the design/drafting stage as a street
reconstruction project. However, these projects require sore of the
pr•engineers' time in the site inspection and replacement requirements
phases because the projects cover a large number of locations rather
than a single street. To adjust for these differences, the above totals
for construction costs (S of prof. ) are shown using three different
values for the repair projects (i. e. 100% of actual cost, 75% of actual
cost, and 60% of actual cost).
16
SCHEDULE 8
WATER IN--HOUSE DESIGN COSTS (INCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS
op1`` USING 100% OF USING 251 OF USING 10% OF
COSTS FOR REPAIR COSTS FOR REPAIR COSTS FOR REPAIR
PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 451, 655. 52 451, 655. 52 451, 655. 52
SALARIES-INDIRECT 70, 781. 47 70, 781. 47 70, 781- 47
RETIREMENT 60, 080. 25 60, 080. 25 60, 080. 25
MED INS 38, 311. 00 38, 311. 00 38, 311. 00
W%C INS 15, 307. 24 15, 307. 24 15, 307- 24
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 57, 963. 39 57, 963. 39 57, 963. 39
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 52, 613. 12 52, 613. 12 52, 613. 12
ADMIN. -SALARIES 35, 070. 67 35, 070. 67 35, 070. 67
ADMIN. OTHER EXP. 35, 506. 84 35, 506. 84 35, 506. 84
CITY WIDE INDIRECT 62, 289. 45 62, 289. 45 62, 289- 45
TOTAL EXP 879, 578. 95 879, 578. 95 879, 578. 95
NO. OF PROJ. 658 658 658
$ OF PROJ. 26, 785, 583. 43 20, 689, 138. 46 19, 469, 849. 47
EXP/9 OF PROJ 3. 287. 4. 25% 4. 52%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
WATER IN—HOUSE DESIGN COSTS (EXCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS ALLOCATED COSTS
USING 100% OF USING 25% OF USING 10% OF
COSTS FOR REPAIR COSTS FOR REPAIR COSTS FOR REPAIR
PROJECTS PROJECTS PROJECTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 451, 655. 52 451, 655. 52 451, 655. 52
SALARIES-INDIRECT 70, 781. 47 70, 781. 47 70, 781. 47
RETIREMENT 60, 080. 25 60, 080. 25 60, 080. 25
MED INS 38, 311. 00 38, 311. 00 38, 311. 00
W%C INS 15, 307. 24 15, 307. 24 15, 307. 24
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 57, 963. 39 57, 963. 39 57, 963. 39
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 52, 613- 12 52, 613- 12 52, 613- 12
TOTAL EXP 746, 711. 99 746, 711. 99 746, 711. 99
NO. OF PROJ. 658 658 658
$ OF PROD. 26, 785, 583. 43 20, 689, 138. 46 19, 469, 849. 47
EXP%$ OF PROJ 2. 79•'%. 3. 61% 3. 84%
Note: Over 85% of the in-house designed projects listed on Schedule E
were relatively minor repair projects which were done by the Water Field
Operations Division. These projects require much less time in the
design/drafting stage because they do not require a full met of detailed
engineering plans, specifications, and drawings. However, theme projects
OP,,do still require some degree of design effort. To adjust for these
differences, the above totals for construction costs (* of Proj. ) are
shown using three different values for the repair projects (i. e. 100%
of actual cost, 25% of actual cost, and 10% of actual cost).
17
SCHEDULE C
PARK & RECREATION - IN--HOUSE DESIGN COSTS ( INCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED
o"'' COSTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 93, 540. 31
SALARIES-INDIRECT 13, 365. 61
RETIREMENT 12, 294. 18
NED INS 8, 470. 86
W/C INS 5, 596. 08
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 2, 423. 70
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 4, 368. 71
P&R ADMIN. -SALARIE 43, 289. 09
P&R ADMIN. OTHER E 9, 584. 72
CITY WIDE INDIRECT 25, 684. 73
TOTAL EXP 218, 617. 99
NO. OF PROJ. 21
S OF PROJ. 1, 929, 230. 25
EXP/S OF PROD 11. 33%
PARK & RECREATION IN--HOUSE DESIGN COSTS (EXCLUDING OVERHEAD)
ALLOCATED
COSTS
SALARIES-DIRECT 93, 540. 31
SALARIES-INDIRECT 13, 365. 61
RETIREMENT 12, 294. 18
NED INS 8, 470. 68
W/C INS 5, 596. 08
CHARACTER 2 EXP. 2, 423. 70
CHARACTER 3 EXP. 4, 368. 71
TOTAL EXP 140, 059. 27
NO. OF PROJ. 21
5 OF PROJ. 1, 929, 230. 25
EXP/$ OF PROD 7. 26%
18
0
do 1 i M'9 N S M jm
p N_ p� 1 f t_S �l i' w w f r+ O mw•
/ � � w ���P�~ N�.�•MMMiii N
NOw
Qil{�(�y'
.0 r?,�+.0!► dp r r.0 %N���g Y;a
n7Vl
ti w W J W J
Sir
+�E t33itt3�33i1 3 � �333ji 3i331 I3t3t83i33i1
o
"iHMes , Y
ca
AN W w w% a J
2w 20
1 i .4 1+! ~ W *_
XE
4 f 777EEE
WiW y�y�, Y
i
a
�! p Iff n �y py �j ACMp w p p s p+C,p p,P'!id .�wM M Mp p pp OpP pN pr,p Q O+r CIy p
!+
w i g.ei ay ra .i m �gg s+a g � 'e !•: ey ri "a+:a.t I+.g�+e ,•: tV �g s �"e" I,++o
_at�8i o^- _aNS_1��pppp_p_er. _m t.4 .0 14�S t4a ° ,"�2S_�Zw' 1� °ai N+ �rtir.0
6.a / !V M+nw O ay�aap�M P1,y aIra �!M V .a P — M.r oa+i M,+. m P SMMawsO -
NN NNa4 V9 S S S�� Nea$.FI/,awO Fw/'ti�� i S !i i � +M! ! NN
4 i !i i !! i !!i ! i i i !! ! !! ►'a M S S Ua O i ! 4040 i i i
i f!! i i! ! !• i i
1
1
/
1
1
i T 4 id jr 2 w w eC Am
F w y�
i IS-10
Uig r� � oo + �wa= � � i s I
u.=v�
C7 iii/ Y. i,atl W� U. Sy' 95 W T J m,
me
I ` T w
Si�� ,iWWt Y
N Iw1-�'Ima
/ 9 "." y W !-aM. w .W F►� q a=
i' �W+l�w��=_H���w aat��aS- �Y►��.��a�J a. wa-_�,Ci M!1HO F�-
IBM-
RY�i aMM$4 w +YI'yp1 Sne gy yy�l Z C
O W.
is R�-"5 O i
i�i
�0���
wi e6 J w M
!� a- ii T H N S w
$ 33 s"4r`S. 403
Rog LS��ES��e7i3��73�111�ef. ���ili� ��o a6 1 1 4 4# 1 *4 4 1
cj
0004 004004 170 4�01D w0 0�000 Op0 400�OO O�O�OoOO p er<e►O.O.eL e1.e► 6 dO.�`i� d�
: 1 JAE h 4Y N y
11"VIrIffile ; {!4`f g i'P�yR°�l 1 My h� �N 4 11—M h h l t p �
N
f Y 1111 Y�Y Y Y Y Y 1v Y M M Y Y Y N m Y Y Y Y tY M W
1151 11ga=ilk _
- J M i.0i p1�
i iiiillllllll Y. i�
mm j
4y ♦y�i {my 11i _ �/ 1yy' _ J � �i J
1
i
i
�- i ppm a r �y y11� sr /rya mn pN .rN .►Inria"S��i _�_ -
a7i� 1 O O i17 m P 1�'!O O+1!�'i m 4+� I+i M Mf P P Imo!+1 Y!M'►�!!S N+i P N 1!` N �`Ml i
N "P P a�1ry1�♦. yf N h N +K'F'! tV w► P a ♦P m M 1/_ F F. H �N
�_lMw,f�r}f 4` ! m �S �+! N ev h h r}�S Mh h IA 1mN O? aid Y! O �_ � _ �t V'N O�t h P+1!' !�_m_A_{�/ 4 8_�!s Y'i� O_�!_i�M+R P N � _a���_�O!♦�.r
i n.ert/1/♦�f 1f/1ys 1+ a r♦a`n f1f 1♦f a h Ils`.o f►p f+7. r»{�•` at 1w`n .,p,�� f+'i.Op ar h na.._ri a
/ N N
t ' • 1 4w ob m N f+f M 4f h r I+f Im• 4w Im� i S�y a•F
S tii +1!r M��M • �� �M• m�• �Ilf �!M M#i+1! !r1 • M il!1!�m�r r�
OF /
W_ r W m Z N ! m
/ D!� y W x / J P d m m f�
J W i V H F m m m m K
1 A pS i �{{ m y�Iir
/ O
} v v W KA�1Z1yy �
I I'm iY! xi m A W ! m >ti r m !��« #
i Q Y M m W H Z O iY F!� ► arlC i W! m 1y Q H
i m—C m W a a V a#A l� H 1. Y_ 1. F y� x z W O
1 1� {gy ijy Ia�Q�y � OG ip {ate,iyii 1�
1 i OOOJ S ��� wM a ss Y iiY�J � W Y{�a•� �m O� ~1 i�Y� f!i O_! �. GC Yt i rIC O.W.r
m i W
E oh_O !�7S r OG.1O.m. ! O Y io�1Y .m.. S t0- s j xl Yt Zit S f_i
i Q+ r7 s '�R'/� YtlY�Lt" y{y/{� S O J ♦s♦J'!S�� �y yj Y F_ f� O
N F! f O F }
i Y
�
fs i �:+��1z1f a +TYcica►-'1yy� j:11p,11.a �trlo{,.y. ...... m f � � � Mal
co
~
♦� ,c qq.Y J Y. """ rW1 Y yid �=r � x yA{ F �iyy��1 y�i�y1,J t� �{yyy�
J i 1 1�1 H{ J♦ Y Q�1 i C/ F O�mm 1 �tm Yi i nm Y{'1 Y f �4 qi+pm^.+�t R L{i'W{{ta►y �w{ if�Y Y J/ m 1 ~1 I �l/ W�S Y 1 m yt_Y+*O'�'yK�`wS Vim!~i'ir t{ZYR y m
a
�y O p/{JS y/� m YJ VyK/�CI K m�Y 1Y##~W Q®W W o]L
i i
F_i
1
I j r .t 4m d i i Y i Y l Y wS
d�O. d0d dL�d dd 6.iL`Y.lid R d IL Ai,�i iLi 0.�� f►S 6.i Ld
A
J
M
RF 40s gOCM ^O�?�
W � �N NIY N NN hh R N R
1 ,W�Y,�Jy ii Y T ris $�j u-� yid
=A } 1111 =Hw }jW� li f ul
I +t r M s
s •cam eSi`a •smsoars masw
� 1
� _
Z
tW-�.r r i�i+�� °'
W ± 1 OOOCCCS�`��Oriir� I � ►��r���
.. w
a
1
1 �'1
1. t
. . .. . . .+►+�` . . S
I !h i7 1✓!a li'! ''1•
—m m N N pN N Vii..=O P= Q .�
-W Y�
I !! ! !!
6 t ! N
! !
1
1
3 S
i cm
to
+itOO �
I W r
3yN+1
1 �r i S W N W �Hs! r
A��'yy°a
Hill!l KfY
i m y O ! 'Jr dry !
C-3 am
slZmall
aj
= 13 IL]!
ut
t i4 i4i �d� L7pOO�O4 i► 4dt1.d44O.i iL iii tl.
1iQ� Qa!F ism.it
pp o p OQa4"' 4 S ;Sa � B S o®o00d 000 50 HUMP
P
ff*r ! ---�V--p{-F F__Q�1F_l�+--y---#QK7_�''#�.Q_#�#Q7M1_�µy�y�K�Ky l.��#rh�y� Kp�l3KQ_#y�yM1 lF_Qj M1yK�rhy M1ph yF #QSK_�#QM1�1�7K_#�`y��4M1_Q yM1#�3KM�hh#Q7K_�Y4hh�yy#ry lMp(�f ?,*?IT;
..2222 ''#�Q�
2 2#17"ri;a;2 a Y�7!!111#ill!#f'J Ilf'i#ff�7 rf�t�+�11�ff M'1 Ms r!!!}i!Y#AR7 !�R�N7 ICI#/'!♦Y�j1 11171 li�7 Mi Ylti� p
' atr$ 1111111111111M3Mus MErM o
1M 15 $ r #Itr as III"� Fw-- � #r#.Ir�F IMM w.w @
at
1
i
W ; a".'=� ipgwrr1 w .: $ � � W Mill ;ME
� ,�- H #y w_ z.} } �. gill 1-V
! r r 4 r§w is111 $$ r urr
i 7J ii J " f 0�•J OOO`�rrr fi J '�A w� +'i ti *� � i
ii 7 =1'ft mfr i jw #„#
.1!
,
i
i ! N004 nrN Y7!V O'yl!'OF N +f H4+. . .0 �P80 i 0Ip O00O+6 NO.1�.N88 8N0 8544+400001#. . ..O iO C�hpj
dC # F. !y'Ilj O�ty'Oly' . •fig •gegg g'. •O P see all q�4g !"! g#"M1�if
i Kdiizx 31M#4O++�irR ° 5 �i3 #7f+33 753_8 '/�. _3 r- i3°` ZSS+'�i3 x34 ll-
I h +F .# _ yK M._ O p F9 O+► p y.�h M1 K @+ApO� #1M1� �K d' M1 M1 #V
RA j Egm ; O-orife !O -"v vaj
a^' ::�#rt".#L'sFi!*we�•+4�s��'al�ero#
#
i
+I[ i
i
i
#
1
I
/
i
,
1
1
I
,
,
1
1
#
#
1+
r i
ii ' 41L >R
# r.
1
all 71L W 7►�q} >� y/ r
MEN W
i - W rr C!I�MWj#_-
� � H ail r = te: xv ' .�, °"`
I�c �s.�r m jw6j ���6 1 ��� ���rr4= � �I a i � �y
�iy �sy W® �/�a4�W/Jy O 7��r J
S i r w w #O fA 1Syyi +"KILO @ Li y��(dam O@.W (py fO i y�1 O. S e J= _
Qa QK� �
Z1-� wF.I�rH�H �M s FF"! ir>DI SF yF� �F y�y� 4 FsF yF�n�F y�H`yr� SS �@ i0 My7
as k%. 3! S i s sas ii sK �(O I7• itO
1 1 i 1 001 O +LIO'.► Oi QpI O, p, W y1 �m
d= dot ga
i +O N+ .r Tpp+ w■ Vf Y! ■OO7 �/!' Ir.. Nyy����l1 Gr y1pO p•� O pOOZpZ �
Q 0000000� OOOO OOOOOQ OOO $' �
/� i !'+ tw iw !+` �+ !+ P+#� iw t+ 1+ 1'► !+ K t+.
a.
: cr cc 2 tC ca dam co OG Rpt OC +r■; !CO Z_ OC to M M M =
[� ZZZ y4yd
1 O aQy± i7 pr O W O O tip d Si YW. ia�+ �
cc "# m .a 1
so
I ao
ca
IkA
id
1 cc
W C � � � sams
W I ? r r r r r «-� r r r 1-• s r
Z¢ J
S / tWA �L7 i I.- 09� Go trO
IGI CO? C-2
r ; + J W JfiQ tfi J to ti
Q W J c L :S
/ ° �
I.- cc
K7 f ca to tj to
/ ac
1 r •s .r
/
f 1✓f P pp,, /+ O Y7 Yf O O to 0 4'! O O O O O M O O O p O pp O O / wF 1 a- / H ■
O O O O !� !'^! O O O O O �+ H O O O O O' O O 1 +� 1 N / r' ■
0: / N_ O Y7 0 O• N O Pr H 0 O ..pp O pp �+ n ..� O O O 4:0
/ 1 M! / sh ■
r 1 �_M O _,,,p 40 tV w O p N '�'� ,pp p 6 •' O tlrk '1t //7 O O S p spry i gyp+ 1 CI. 1 M ■
i O R _ _S_O_�f a N CR O_O 1'+_O N_Mme! !rt wt O_O_O O O_ If7_ 1 Yi
ty t O tD N O ti O .r A O Ir! O � N l+? R O O 4:7.1:;Ii7 : .0 1 O 1 Y7 ■
.0 H .0 O O N N h +� W3 w! n W —d` M r h m O /'• i M7 / N 1 O M
1� i N Yf Yl N N -P O_+4^ •r tV N H H H N .r Y7
O 1 ++O Mr
M Y
1
.f7 M i.... 1 a
i J,'i •
i x � -A
L O .0
1 .M C +r
1 M 0 M &W
U6 1
1
Ot'6 2 s te1
to cc Z am W
R i tD 2 M a0 ^s
CM 4c
! r ca Z OL cs Li
...
Q Sys �► 0! i� r �y tI>; to W
~i 1 N -j LEA _ O cm O Kryrt 1++47 W
r 1 = tM 31C J 6~i r 6 O O p
N +1./ i.r cc why H w a Q Ia. C'S
1 tlO 1+. ars +rr a.� n.r 1! tq /-� p m Cf .adte +r to s� t1 d 0:
1 N At !s art ii' Z t0 J r C, O 2 />l r J r W
I 3c 1-- rrit ti l0 JtaL ra a■ to 1-- ! r W a
I fJ r Z t1D cc c!.J.s 1 2-c � 3M i Z
+ � aaic tQ7� t� �� � +�ia o J � � � � o � a �
I ac /- orrsrro. .. ti rs �-+ cI � oc �. toac � r J
1 Z J WW1�l r +■ 6i y=y aD r �.r � r aQ r O � KC aa,i Q t3 .■ A +4c
1 ryLLjoWC � ICi � QQ iQ /-
112 ta. OC �+ 2 2
a{a�y t3 r Q Z .'- CL. ate^ W W Q OC
W tY t7 A f� i t .J.e 4 Q ,tC wJ.s eD W l ` t .Z. tC r OC 4c 6 Q
tli m } } J tq GC !+ F- Z Z .'� Z 1-
1 S CM Q J W � ... .4� � Q Wr ai
1 4 ec W CC �7 K is a=ii W w Ci W fA 2 i i i s aYi Q t
t0 Q Z Q 0: c c I/7 iR� cc ta. W iOC O: t>C tr d Z t.7 O
W W W W O O +r
Z
Lid
�qy ttl d i i iki C7 t/7 00 It7 r N _LL,I tjl 4 iA m WN W 13 m Z W O: 01 W Z Z =4c Ac
i Z g i ■." �++ i
KNIOULE F
TITLE OF PROJECT AMT OF CONTRACT CONTRACTOR EN61MEER PROJECT 1
d
.................................------ ---......-........-......--........-........................_------------
i� NORTHSIDE PARK 50,766.33 K&S LIMN SPRINKLER COOPER 05-041005-00
SILVER SASE PARK 37,764.93 PARK i REC HANNAH 05-041006-00
M.M. LEONARD PARK 25,745.59 PARK 6 REC VEBER 05-041011-00
LEBLANC PARK 20,214.20 PARK 6 REC MORALES "1013-00
JOHN T. WHITE PARK 126,245.00 RANDALL & BLAKE COMET, FICKE/HANNAH OS-041017-00
NCDONALD PARK 34,407.48 PARK i REC VEBER 05-041024-00
HALLMARK PARK 45,300.00 PARK & REC ROAN Vo-01027-00
THOMAS PLACE PARK 199291.04 PARK i REC WEBER 05-041031-00
ROLLIN6 HILLS PARK 2911819.90 CALVERT PAVING CORP. CHIPLEY/MORALES 05-041036-00
BLUEBONNET CIRCLE PARK 42,500.00 PARK i REC HOOVER 05-041038-00
CAPPS PARK 17,760.00 KA-TEX ELECTRICAL CONTR.HANNAN 05-041040-00
SOUTH Z. BOAZ PARK 106,585.50 LAND CONSTRUCTORS, INC. FICKE 05-041060-00
CANDLERINE PARK 43,343.19 PARK & REC MORALES 36-041015-00
J.M. LEONARD PARK 72,263.35 PARK i REC VEBER 36-041017-00
HALLMARK PARK 32,766.43 PARK i REC MANNAR 36-041029-00
WESTERN HILLS PARK 16,000.00 PARK 6 REC CHIPLEY 36-041032-00
CID ENTRANCES 575,472.00 PARK i REC RILEY/HAMWiAN 36-041035-00
RIVER PARK 90,000.00 PARK i REC CHIPLEY/HHIOVER 36-041056-00
CLEAR FORK TRAIL CROSSIN6 55,017.31 PARK & REC CHIPLEY/RILEY 23-04100-00
SWIFT PARK 49,361.00 PARK i REC FICKE/MORALES 70-003110-00
HANDLEY PARK 172,607.00 M.W. HALPERN i CO., INC.CHIPLEY/MANNAN 05-041063-00
TOTAL P&R PROJECTS 51,929,230.25
1�
24
SCHEDULE G
TIPW PROJECTS DESIGNED BY OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DURING FY 1987 11988
'�• PROJECT NAME PROJECT NO. DESIGN CONSTRUCT,
COST COST %
1 COOKS LANE - A.P. t INTERCHANGE UNIT 1 38-V31711 238,808 4065815% 4.94%
38-823194
2 SEMINARY-THORNHILL CONNECTION 30-835421 18,680 357,745 5.20%
3 A.P. ALAMO E NELLESLY 36-848114 34,682 738,804 4.69%
4 TCU/COLONIAL STORM DRAIN 67-828820/ 104,w 1,949,688 5.36%
98-136837
5 HOUSTONITHROCKMORTON BUS SPINE (BELKNAP TO 8TH) 76-224668/ 377,500 5,133,617 7.35%
21-029119
6 A.P. SYCAMORE ROAD UNITS 1 & 2 94-023192 158,300 11653,689 9.57%
7 A.P. N. BEACH ST. (FOSSIL CREEK TO WESTERN CENTER) 94-036825 167,588 21469,155 6.79%
8 A.P. HAt81LEY EDERVILLE RD. (JACK KNELLS BLVD TO) 38/94-036812 282,398 4,889,714 6.91%
94-632263
9 A.P. MCCART M. UNIT 1 67194-023203 18,854 381,127 4.95%
94-832034
)010,
TOTALS 19392,514 21,431,537 6.58%
25
SCHEDULE H
MATER PROJECTS DESIGNED BY OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS DURING FY 1987 E 1988
PROJECT NK PROJECT NO. DESIGN CONSTRUCT.
0057 CAST %
1 VILLAGE CREEK - ODOR CONTROL AID 88-16801-88 723,288 6,142,257 11.77%
2 AERATION ARCA III N/A 125,080 2,4!8,880 5.21%
3 24 MGD EXPANSION - PFIASE IIA, IIB, I IIC 84-16MI-00 1,955,588 52,824,920 3.76%
4 EAGLE NUTAIN LAKE WTP N/A 3,421,888 29,888,888 11.77%
5 TRANS=ORMER REP-4CEMENT 09-16005-0(11 41,964 143,987 29.1471
6 SUN COUNTRY ELEVATED TANK I TRANSMISSION MAIM N/A 2371000 3,500,800 6,77%
7 N-245 N/A 777,580 7,380,880 16.65%
8 N-129 N/A 40,110 250,000 16.64%
9 N-174 58-017026-00 23,595 78,112 30.21%
10 N-211 N/A 52,430 684,157 7.66%
11 FM-731 53-817081-88; 32,800 459,367 6.97%
56-017055-00
TOTALS 7,430,899 182,862,880 7.28%
26
SCHEDULE I
P&R PROJECTS DESISNED BY OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS
PROJECT NAPE PROJECT NO. DESIGN CONSTRUCT. %
COST COST
1 COBB PARK 22,354.85 198,568.88 11.73%
2 FOREST PARK 34,752.88 278,492.88 12.85%
3 SWIM POOLS-SYCAMRE, SYLVANIA,MARIK 75,288.80 8111988.88 9.26%
4 ROSEMONt PARK 24,267,88 157,398.88 15.42%
5 ROSENTHAL PARK 181888.88 111,438.88 9.69%
6 WESTERN HILLS PARK 6,398.88 67,184.88 9.51%
7 WEDGWOOD PARK 91729.80 98,2(A.18 16.77%
8 OAKLAND PARK 16,748.88 186,888.88 9.80%
9 BUCK SANSOM PARK 18,638.88 226,437.88 8.23%
18 LAKE COMC PART{ 15,M.88 126,925.88 12.29%
11 RIDGLEA HILLS PARK 79658.80 116,546.28 6.56%
TOTALS 2429103.85 2,355,224.28 18.28%
27