In plain English; the Department of Municipal Development and the audit.

Making sense of an audit is no mean task. I read fairly well.
I have been practicing hard all my life. There are parts of the
audit that I had to read and read again, in order to understand.

After reading this audit, I am convinced that the average citizen, reading at an 8th grade level, would find it difficult to see exactly how their trust has been betrayed.

In plain English then; tax dollars are divided into two piles.
One is called "operational", the other is called "capital".

Operational funds pay salaries and administrative overhead.
Capital funds buy tangible things; bridges, sidewalks, landscapes.

The Department of Municipal Development spends "capital" funding. Millions and millions and millions of tax dollars.

You place your trust and your treasure in their hands.
You have a right to expect that it be spent well; according to
some meaningful standards. You trust that, they will.

A recent audit revealed that the DMD has not protected your trust and treasure. Both have been squandered. The audit was an audit of the DMD's management of contracts with a landscaping company that did contract work for the city. The DMD was responsible for managing those contracts, to make sure that tax payers got their money's worth.

The audit revealed that the DMD had done an incredibly bad job managing the contracts with Mountain West GolfScapes. For example, they gave over your money to pay for substandard concrete; concrete that was known to be substandard, before it was placed.

The landscaping company belongs to the Mayor's crony's nephew.

The audit revealed a lack of standards, a lack of accountability to such standards as there are, and inadequate record keeping.

Mountain West GolfScapes was paid almost 10 million dollars more than contracted, on a little more than 20 million dollars worth of contracts, they were paid an average of 41% more than the agreed upon price. One project netted the mayor's crony's nephew's landscaping company, 173% of the contracted amount.

There are written rules and procedures. The audit reveals that one after another, after another of them were ignored.

The audit, link, has a format;

• a finding
• related citations, and
• a response.

For example, auditors found that perfectly good tax dollars had been traded for substandard concrete; concrete that was known to be substandard before it was placed.

The auditors state what needs to be done according to established criteria. It looks like this;

DMD SHOULD REVIEW CONCRETE TEST RESULTS
TO ENSURE THEY MEET CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS.

Then the auditors relate the circumstances. In plain English, they found 14 times out of 121 tests, where the concrete was identified as substandard. They offered an explanation of the testing procedure and some background on why the standard is necessary. Then they report that tests were done, the results were shown to the DMD's on site construction personnel, they poured the concrete anyway. DMD blamed it on MWG, the auditors blamed it on DMD personnel. It looks like this;

OIAI identified 14 (12%) out of the 121 concrete materials tests, relating to 4 different park projects, where the concrete used by MWG had a slump greater than 5 inches.
Slump is an indirect field measurement of how much water is in the concrete mix. The City Standard Specifications, which are included in all of the MWG contracts, require the slump not to exceed 5 inches.
Too much water in a concrete mix reduces the durability of the concrete. According to the Portland Cement Association, which is a trade association of cement manufacturers, the water/cement ratio should be as low as possible to improve durability. Too much water in the mix will produce a weaker, less durable concrete contributing to early flaking of the surface.
The field measurements were made by an independent materials testing company at the job site before the concrete was poured by MWG. DMD construction personnel did not take any action when they subsequently received the test results indicating the slump did not meet City Standard Specifications. DMD construction management personnel said they considered it the responsibility of MWG to use concrete that meets City Standard Specifications.

Then the auditors point to the policy that was not followed.

AI No. 3-4 states it is the responsibility of the receiving department to inspect all work being performed by vendors to ensure that it is in accordance with the contract.

Then they make a recommendation;

RECOMMENDATION
DMD should review concrete test results to ensure they meet City Standard Specifications.

And finally the DMD responds. It is unclear who is individually responsible for the response.

RESPONSE FROM DMD
“DMD agrees. All DMD Divisions have been reminded of the need to ensure materials comply with the specs and reject non-conforming goods.”

"All divisions have been reminded of the need to ensure that materials comply with the specs and reject non-conforming goods." Notice that no mention is made of the fact that people signing away tax dollars for concrete, need to be reminded to make sure that it's not crappy concrete.

I would like to call your attention to one "response" in particular. In comes in response to a finding that the DMD was paying for work that was not listed in contract documentation. The DMD responded;

“DMD agrees, however, there is no indication that DMD paid an incorrect price for any work nor that DMD paid for any work that was not performed. Independent of this Audit, DMD has been updating the Project Manager’s Manual. The updated Project Manual will inform Project Managers of the correct procedures to document contractual changes and how to properly document field measurement verification. The Manual will be distributed to all present and future project
managers.”

Lets take a closer look at the response.

DMD agrees, however, there is no indication that DMD paid an
incorrect price for any work nor that DMD paid for any work
that was not performed.

DMD admitted to the finding, and then offered up a red herring. It doesn't make any difference whether they paid an incorrect amount or not, it doesn't make any difference if the work was ever performed. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the DMD paid for work which was not listed in the contract.

Their response continued;

Independent of this Audit, DMD has been updating the Project Manager’s Manual.

In plain English, the existing Project Manager's Manual has not been updated to include the part where you don't pay for stuff that isn't listed in the contract. Further, they are on top of things; not only are they fixing their grossly inadequate Project Manger's Manual, but in fact, they were doing it even before they got busted by an honest management audit.

And ends with;

The updated Project Manual will inform Project Managers of the correct procedures to document contractual changes and how to properly document field measurement verification. The Manual will be distributed to all present and future project managers.”

In plain English, Project Managers were not aware of correct procedures for contractual changes. They will be "reminded", and then we will forget about the past, and focus upon the future.

No heads rolled, none will.



FYI These are exactly the same circumstances, and exactly the same kind of audit that is needed for the management of the APS.