The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0279.000 2010-2012 • . NZl.GF Fq. tao V117.: a Colleen M. Schrandt . '!1./! ;. Legislative Auditor • 4`0. Mailing Pp _ Address: q� oc'Np. g Business Address: Hawai `i County Building 1266 Kamehameha Avenue 25 Aupuni Street County fg D f paiti t t Ironworks Building, Room A -1 Hilo, Hawai `i 96720 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR Telephone: (808) 961 -8386 Facsimile: (808) 961 -8905 MEMORANDUM Date: July 21, 2011 To: Dominic Yagong, Chairman, and Members of the Hawai'i County Council From: Colleen Schrandt, Legislative Auditor N5 Subject: Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation's Facilities Asset Management -1 ... ,..v .a,,. I. +u ..+ ✓4 l.r.i" ul d.. II VIY_i!i . _ S wu +.iJP,. ._.,, Yils.w.n .. rtu..:!1y�rt L.<6. .. d. ,,. :. .'i D i ., xin .. _... _ M1 „� Attached is the Office of the Legislative Auditor's Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation's Facilities Asset Management. May we request that the report be placed on the agenda of the appropriate Council Committee. Thank you. C . - �--- N ; T co CD :r Comm. No, 2 1 Ref. To: JU e ft G. Ref. Date JU 2 2011 Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation's Facilities Asset Management [Conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS)] This limited scope performance audit examines the Department of Parks and Recreation's asset management of recreational facilities, including maintenance and repair, and its progress in meeting the goals for facilities, fiscal responsibility, and safety set forth in its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. The County's recreational facilities are public assets acquired through the investment of public tax dollars. County officials are stewards of these public assets, and their decisions about how public facilities are used, operated, maintained, retired, or replaced can have far-reaching financial and social consequences. Currently, certain recreational facilities cannot be fully utilized by the public in their existing condition; games have had to be stopped due to leaking roofs; other major events have been impacted by facility conditions; and facilities or parts of facilities have been closed due to hazardous materials safety issues. Nationwide, many government jurisdictions and their constituents are experiencing the consequences of deferring maintenance and repair of public assets and infrastructure. In Hawaii County, the current Parks and Recreation Administration and Parks Maintenance Division have inherited the responsibility for managing deteriorated facilities with a backlog of critical maintenance and repairs. Many of the County's older recreational facilities require rehabilitation due to the long history of deferred maintenance, prior construction with materials now determined to be hazardous, and new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) access requirements. Although we observed Parks Maintenance Division staff diligently performing custodial activities and completing routine work orders, the Department's reactive processes and procedures for critical maintenance and insufficient proactive processes and procedures for periodic critical maintenance have contributed to deteriorating facilities. Critical periodic maintenance — including roof painting and repair and termite treatment— has been inadequate as evidenced by leaking roofs at 11 of the 16 recreational sites visited by the auditors, and termite infestation reported by facility staff at 6 of the 16 sites. Critical maintenance and repair deficiencies were observed by the auditors or reported by facility staff at 15 of the16 sites visited, with certain deficiencies being reported but left uncorrected for several years. The interrelated processes of planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring necessary for the upkeep of public facilities and effective asset management need to be integrated by the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Department's current system of asset management is ineffective, with the Department lacking a detailed facility inventory, condition assessment, and repair cost estimates to provide the information necessary to develop adequate plans and budgets. The Department does not have an asset management plan for recreational facilities, a plan to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs, a written plan to remediate hazardous materials with interim safety measures, and an annual work plan scheduling proactive preventative maintenance of critical facility components. While the Department of Parks and Recreation roughly estimated costs to remediate its deferred maintenance backlog at approximately $80 million, $1.3 million of appropriated and allocated CIP funding for Repairs/Improvements is scheduled to lapse unused on June 30, 2011. The Department's Operating Budget is not based on actual maintenance and repair needs, with the Parks Maintenance Division's Miscellaneous Contract Services account for roof painting and repair being reduced to zero despite unmet roof maintenance needs and the lack of trained staff and equipment to conduct necessary work. The Department of Parks and Recreation has insufficient written policies and procedures for facilities maintenance and repair. Its current work order system lacks sufficient follow-up procedures for critical maintenance and major repair work orders that are forwarded to the Park Planner for completion with CIP funds, resulting in certain critical repairs (such as leaking roofs) often not completed years later. While the Parks Maintenance Superintendent is a proponent of preventative maintenance, the Division has not yet been able to implement proactive maintenance processes, and as a result, work orders for unplanned repairs inundate the maintenance staff. A "crazy cycle" develops with maintenance workers patching deficiencies caused by neglected maintenance, leaving less time for completing preventative maintenance, which results in more deficiencies that become repair or safety issues. Insufficient planning, monitoring, reporting, transparency, and accountability relating to the Department's project plans and priorities and asset management in general, leave decision- makers and stakeholders with insufficient information to determine whether the Department is meeting its own strategic plan goals for facilities, fiscal responsibility, and safety as well as the goals of the County Administration, Council, and taxpayers relating to delivery of public services and access to public facilities. A root cause of deteriorating facilities appears to be the failure of prior County Administrations to recognize the impact of deferring maintenance and repairs, which has resulted in insufficient processes and insufficient budget resources allocated to maintain facilities in fully functional condition. Without proper maintenance, public facilities can prematurely fail. Lack of timely preventative maintenance and minor repairs leads to more costly major repairs. By implementing best practices in asset management such as those recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and National Research Council (NRC) that are cited in this audit report, the useful lives of public facilities can be extended for their lowest life cycle costs, access to public facilities can be improved, and the Department and all stakeholders will have the information necessary to determine how effective the County has been in meeting its goals and responsibilities relating to facilities maintenance. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING ONE: INSUFFICIENTLY INTEGRATED PLANNING, BUDGETING, OPERATIONS, AND MONITORING PROCESSES RESULT IN INADEQUATE CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Recommendation: The P&R Department, County Administration, and County Council need to ensure that there is an integrated overall process to facilitate adequate critical maintenance and repair of the County's recreational facilities. FINDING TWO: P&R's PLANNING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS IS INSUFFICIENT Lack of an Asset Management Plan for Facilities Recommendation 2.1: P&R should develop a comprehensive asset management plan, which should integrate plans to address the deferred maintenance and repair backlog, ADA rehabilitation, and hazardous materials remediation. The asset management plan should also include a timeline for returning all facilities to the conditions set forth in its Strategic Plan. 2 Strategic Plan Outdated and Has Not Been Fully Implemented Recommendation 2.2: P&R should complete updating its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. An ongoing process for updating its strategic plan, and reviewing and reporting progress toward achieving strategic goals should also be developed. No Written Hazardous Materials Mediation Plan Recommendation 2.3: P&R should develop a plan to remediate hazardous materials issues at its facilities, and integrate it into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. The hazardous materials remediation plan should include any safety measures implemented at each facility as well as cost estimates to remediate each identified hazardous condition. ADA Access Plan Not Integrated into Asset Management Plan Recommendation 2.4: P&R should integrate its ADA Access Plan into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. Insufficient Periodic Maintenance Plan Recommendation 2.5: The Parks Maintenance Division should develop a comprehensive periodic maintenance plan that includes schedules for critical maintenance of facility components, such as roof painting and termite treatment. Lack of Plan to Reduce Maintenance and Repair Backlog Recommendation 2.6: P&R should develop a plan to reduce its backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs based on a current facilities condition assessment, and integrate it into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. Insufficient Prioritization of Projects Recommendation 2.7: P&R should develop a method for prioritizing its facilities maintenance projects that is based on asset management best practices. This would include placing a high priority on preventative maintenance and timely completion of minor repairs before major repairs are required. FINDING THREE: P&R's BUDGETING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS IS INSUFFICIENT Budget Process Does Not Incorporate Facilities Data Recommendation 3.1: P&R needs to develop and implement a budget process that incorporates facilities condition information reported by its Parks Maintenance and Recreation Divisions in order to sufficiently plan, prioritize, and budget for its critical repair needs and corrective measures. Once budgeted, Operating funds should be expended for planned and prioritized periodic maintenance and repair activities to prevent the deterioration of facilities and the need for major repairs requiring CIP funds. Budget Process is Insufficient and Lacks Transparency Recommendation 3.2: P&R needs to develop and implement a budget process that incorporates assessing the condition of all of its facilities; prioritizing its maintenance and repair needs; planning its maintenance and repair activities and schedules; and tracking its activities, performance, and outcomes in order to adequately budget for its maintenance and repair operations and projects. 3 P&R Does Not Have Reliable Estimates of Building Replacement Values Recommendation 3.3: P&R should calculate the current costs to replace each building and record this data in its facilities inventory. P&R Does Not Have Accurate Cost Estimates for Deferred Maintenance Backlog Recommendation 3.4: P&R should calculate current cost estimates to return each facility to a "safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing" condition that is one of its strategic goals for facilities. A condition assessment and cost analysis for repairs, hazardous materials abatement, and ADA improvements should be completed for each facility in order to evaluate whether it would be more cost-effective to rehabilitate or replace the facility. FINDING FOUR: P&R OPERATIONAL PROCESSES FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS ARE INSUFFICIENT Inventory of Facilities is Missing Key Components Recommendation 4.1: P&R should develop a complete facilities inventory that includes the essential inventory information recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and National Research Council (NRC), and sufficient detail to assess current condition of facilities and their major components. Insufficient Periodic Maintenance and Repair Operations Recommendation 4.2: The Parks Maintenance Division should develop a list and schedule of critical maintenance and repair activities. All maintenance and repair activities should be tracked to completion in the Maintenance Work Request System maintained by the Division. The County Administration should also evaluate the possibility of supplementing Parks Maintenance Division manpower and equipment with any capacity from other departments, and clarify any resource-sharing responsibilities of the departments in written policies and procedures. Insufficient Recognition of the Impact of Deferring Maintenance and Repair is a Root Cause of Deteriorating Facilities Recommendation 4.3: The County Administration and Council could facilitate the success of P&R's asset management efforts by setting a "Tone at the Top"establishing the highest priority for performance of and accountability for maintenance of existing recreational assets and infrastructure by: • Establishing and communicating the priority for maintaining existing assets and infrastructure. • Requiring the development of CIP and Operating Budgets funded with County-generated revenues to be based on long-term plans that recognize the priority for routine and preventative maintenance and major rehabilitation or replacement. • Requiring that all proposed CIP project data sheets (Financial Impact Statements) include the analysis and disclosure of: o Ongoing maintenance costs, including full-time employee (FTE) requirements. o Life cycle cost estimates and plans to reduce life cycle costs through the use of alternative materials and construction methods. • Requiring the establishment of and reporting on relevant and quantifiable performance measures for long-term asset and infrastructure maintenance. 4 • Requiring project plans and status reports for maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and new construction projects that clearly show timelines and document progress. • Supporting adequate resource allocations and budgets for operations. Insufficient Process to Collect, Report, and Communicate Information Recommendation 4.4: P&R needs to develop and implement a process that adequately and timely coordinates the collection, reporting, and communication of relevant data for use by the public, County Council, County Administration, P&R Administration, and Park Planning and Parks Maintenance Divisions. Lack of Current Facilities Condition Assessment Recommendation 4.5: P&R should have a complete facilities condition assessment conducted by qualified professionals. Historically Reactive Maintenance and Repair Recommendation 4.6: The Parks Maintenance Division should adopt proactive work schedules and practices that focus on preventative maintenance. P&R Does Not Have Performance Measures for Facility Conditions Recommendation 4.7: P&R should establish clear and reliable performance measures that will permit tracking the condition of its facilities over time. Insufficient Monitoring of and Reporting on Relevant Performance Measures for Facilities Management Recommendation 4.8: P&R should implement a system to track progress toward achieving its strategic goals for facilities. P&R should develop relevant and quantifiable performance measures to monitor and report on improvement of facilities conditions. The Department also needs to implement a formal program for regular inspection of and reporting on all major facility components, such as roofs, mechanical and electrical systems, and wood components prone to termite infestation. CONCLUSION The County has an opportunity to establish a new direction regarding its management of public infrastructure and capital assets that stresses the need to take a long-term perspective with a focus on preventative maintenance. By implementing recommendations and best practices in asset management to improve its planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring processes, the Department of Parks and Recreation can better achieve its strategic plan goal for providing "safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing facilities." The timing for implementation of the recommendations included in this report will depend upon the priority placed by elected officials and the Department's administration on maintaining and rehabilitating the County's Parks and Recreation facilities. A dialog between the Department and elected officials to establish an acceptable implementation timeframe, which balances the immediate need for a comprehensive facilities asset management system and the reality of monetary and human resource constraints, should be initiated. It must be recognized, however, that implementation will, at a minimum, require the commitment of significant staff hours. The auditors suggest that the Department of Parks and Recreation immediately determine the order of and timing for implementation of the recommendations and communicate the same in writing to the County Administration, Council, and public, and provide regular reports on the Department's progress to stakeholders. 5 imo ite Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation's Facilities Asset Management A Report to the Hawaii County Council alaw vaaa Op oar lie �. July 2011 ..r .T4,1941,' art OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR COUNTY OF HAWAII a Table of Contents CHAPTER 1: AUDIT PLAN 1 - 4 CHAPTER 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ..5 - 10 CHAPTER 3: P&R OPERATIONS 11 - 36 CHAPTER 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT 37 - 56 CHAPTER 5: BUDGET 57 - 73 CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENTATIONS 74 - 78 CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION 79 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 80 - 87 Listing of Appendices Appendix I: Organizational Chart: P&R Office of the Director 89 Appendix II: Organizational Chart: P&R Parks Maintenance Division 90 - 93 Appendix III: Organizational Chart: P&R Recreation Division 94 - 97 Appendix A: Example of Inventory Components 98 - 100 Appendix B: Strategic Planning Best Practices, Asset Management Best Practices, Maintenance Best Practices 101 - 105 Appendix C: P&R CIP Project List for FY2006-2007 through FY2011-2012 106 Appendix D: P&R Project Data/Financial Impact Statement 107 Appendix E: Hawai`i County Council Communication No. 1226 108 - 114 Listing of Charts Chart# 1: The "Crazy Cycle" of Reactive Maintenance 15 Chart# 2: Lack of Preventative Maintenance 36 Chart# 3: Interrelated Processes Necessary For Upkeep of Recreational Facilities 38 Chart# 4: Key Components Necessary for Long-Term, Cost-Effective Facility/Asset Management 39 Chart# 5: Facility Attendance 53 Chart# 6: Parks Maintenance OCE Miscellaneous Contract Services 60 Chart# 7: P&R CIP Budget 62 Chart# 8: Sample of Facilities Prioritization 66 Chart# 9: P&R CIP Budget Line Item for Repairs/Improvements 67 Chart#10: P&R Capital Projects Status 68 - 70 Chart#11: Sample Dupage FY2009 Capital Improvements Budget 71 Listing of Photographs Photograph # 1: Naalehu Community Center 22 Photograph # 2: Sign indicating asbestos at Na'alehu Community Center 23 Photograph # 3: Rusted-through handrail at Kailua Park 23 Photograph # 4: A walkway torn-up for plumbing repairs may pose a safety and ADA access issue at Kailua Park 24 Photograph # 5: Uneven floor at Hawaiian Beaches Park 25 Photograph # 6: Tarp used to divert rainwater from electrical panel box at Honomu Gym 25 Photograph # 7: Fallen fencing around building with lead paint at Na'alehu Community Center 25 Photograph # 8: Rusting and leaking roof at Yano Hall 27 Photograph # 9: Termite damage at Yano Hall 28 Photograph #10: Leaking roof at Pahoa Neighborhood Facility 28 Photograph #11: Termite leavings at Hawaiian Beaches Park 29 Photograph #12: Peeling and leaking roof at Edith Kanaka'ole Multi-Purpose Stadium 29 Photograph #13: Ground termite damage at Hilo Municipal Golf Course 30 Photograph #14: Rusting supports within Quonset Hut at Waiakea Recreational Center 30 Photograph #15: Tarp diverting water from leaking roof at the Waiakea Recreational Center 31 Photograph #16: Rusted and leaking roof at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym 31 Photograph #17: Peeling and flaking paint at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym 32 Photograph #18: Rusted roof at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center 32 Photograph #19: Hole at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center 33 Photograph #20: Holes in leaky roof at Honomu Gym 33 Photograph #21: Sky visible through roof at Papa'ikou Gym 34 Photograph #22: Rusting and leaking roof at Honoka'a Gym 34 Photograph #23: Rusting and leaking roof at Pahala Community Center 37 Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN CHAPTER 1 AUDIT PLAN The Office of the Legislative Auditor would like to thank the Department of Parks and Recreation for its cooperation. Further, we would like to recognize the hard work and dedication of the Department's staff, especially that of the Parks Maintenance Division. The purpose of this report is not to in any way detract from the work and efforts of the P&R staff, but to suggest processes and tools that if implemented would permit the Department to be more effective in reaching its facility related goals and objectives. COMPLIANCE WITH GAGAS This limited scope performance audit was conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS). AUDIT SCOPE This limited scope performance audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation examines the Department's asset management of its recreational facilities, including maintenance and repair. Our initial audit plan was to review the Department of Parks and Recreation's progress toward reaching the various goals set forth in its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. Our preliminary review of documentation, staff interviews, and site visits indicated that the Department had taken significant steps toward achieving some of its strategic plan goals, such as providing recreational activities to meet community needs. It became apparent, however, that the Department has not been as successful at meeting its goals relating to facilities. As a result, our audit scope was revised to specifically focus on the facilities goals within the Department's strategic plan. The audit period encompassed FY2006-2007 through FY2010-2011. AUDIT OBJECTIVES Assess the performance of the Department of Parks and Recreation in meeting its strategic goals and objectives relating to facilities, and compare the Department's policies and procedures to recognized industry best practices. In the analysis that follows, we begin by examining the Department's efforts to meet its stated goals relating to facilities, then present industry best practices relating to an asset management system that would assist the Department in achieving its stated facilities goals as well its broader goals of public service and safety, and employee safety and satisfaction. We provide information pervasively recognized in our research as being key to an effective asset management system, as well as some source references for consideration. We do not present a single model or system for several reasons: 1) it is unlikely that any one system is going to be a perfect model or match for the Department's needs; 2) it is not the auditors' role to suggest that a particular system meets the Department's needs; and 3) there are many variables to be considered, and it is the County Administration's and P&R management's role to define the importance of each of those variables in developing the systems and processes for managing the Department's facilities. 1 Ala Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN AUDIT METHODOLGY Review departmental documentation provided by the Department of Parks and Recreation pertaining to the audit objectives outlined above. Review industry best practices for facilities asset management, including planning and budgeting, maintenance and repair operations, and monitoring. Interview key personnel in the Department of Parks and Recreation. Observe and conduct visits to sixteen Parks and Recreation sites based on a judgmental sample, with at least one recreational site selected in each district. AUDIT CRITERIA We compared the performance results of the Department to its stated goals and action plans for facilities, fiscal responsibility, and safety, which were specifically set forth in the Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan booklet, as follows: FACILITIES: Provide adequate and well-maintained facilities in each district to meet the needs of the public. Focus Area 2 FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY: Ensure that financial resources are used in a proper and efficient manner. Focus Area 3 SAFETY: Ensure safe environment for our employees and patrons. Focus Area 5 Focus Area 2: Facilities— Provide safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing facilities by: Goal 2.3— Developing and implementing maintenance standards 1) Use a list of minimum tasks for maintenance of each type of facility, i.e. the minimum tasks for cleaning a restroom; the minimum tasks for cleaning a picnic pavilion, etc.; and Parks Maintenance supervisors will do random checks to see that minimum standards are being maintained. 2) Develop a secondary set of tasks for periodic maintenance of each type of facility, i.e. once every 2 months, scrub walls, clean cob webs, pressure wash sidewalks, etc. By September 2005, this secondary set of tasks will be included in the random inspections by Parks Maintenance supervisors. 3) Maintain a system of logging Maintenance Work Orders, with a list of work orders sent to each Division and Section monthly at the staff meeting so that outstanding and closed work orders can be monitored. 2 Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN Goal 2.4 - Maintaining a 5-year plan for repairs and maintenance 1) Turn in a list annually at the July staff meeting which will contain the large repair and maintenance items needed at each facility. 2) From the list of large repair and maintenance items, prioritize the projects by safety and usage before September staff meeting, where they will be discussed before submittal to the CIP and R&M budgets. 3) Semi-annually review the priority list to ascertain what has been completed and what has been replaced by more pressing priorities. In addition to the July listing, there will be a review in December. Goal 2.5- Providing regular facilities and safety inspections and monitoring the results and recommendations 1) Each managed facility will be inspected daily by the site personnel and deficiencies noted on a daily checklist. These will be reported, as necessary, via maintenance work orders or to the division head if they can't be fixed immediately. 2) Each unmanaged facility will be inspected daily by Parks Maintenance personnel and deficiencies noted weekly on a checklist. 3) Each Division Head will conduct a random check of a facility at least once monthly and will report the results in the quarterly report that is submitted to Administration on the 20th of the month following the end of the quarter. Focus Area 3: Fiscal Responsibility Goal 3.1: - Refine fiscal management and performance of the department 5) Review past problems and identify recurring problems with staff. Provide training on key items and procedures. Focus Area 5: Safety Goal 5.3: - Perform regular safety inspections of all facilities 1) Safety and maintenance checks will be performed daily with random checks by supervisory personnel to be performed monthly. (See Facilities Goal 2.5) We also compared the Department's practices to industry best practices for implementing an asset management system, including best practices noted by the National Research Council, the Federal Benchmarking Consortium, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other authoritative sources specifically cited in our report. The Department's maintenance and repair practices were also 3 Chapter 1: AUDIT PLAN compared to industry best practices cited by the: Office of the Legislative Auditor - State of Minnesota; Department of Education - State of Idaho (Middleton School District), and other governmental jurisdictions. In addition, we analyzed the Department's internal controls for facilities management in light of generally accepted government auditing standards set forth in Government Auditing Standards (Yellow Book), which state: "Internal control comprises the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the organization's mission, goals, and objectives. Internal control includes the processes and procedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations, and management's system for measuring, reporting and monitoring program performance." (GAO-07-731 G, Government Auditing Standards, Comptroller General of the United States, July 2007, p. 20) 4 Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATION PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION RECREATION DIVISION Hawai'i County Code section 2-53 establishes the powers and authority of the Department of Parks and Recreation as follows: The department of parks and recreation shall be responsible for all public parks, recreational facilities and playgrounds in the County, owned by the County or in its possession or control, together with all equipment, supplies, and paraphernalia used in connection with them. The department shall care for the recreational needs in the County and provide such organized and supervised games and recreation as may be conducive to the mental, physical and moral development of the people of the County. Wherever and whenever feasible, the department shall use public school property and buildings by agreement with the State department of education to the extent that such property and buildings may be adaptable and available for use in County recreational programs and purposes. This limited scope performance audit examines the Parks and Recreation Administration, Parks Maintenance Division, and Recreation Division in the performance of their duties within their respective scopes of authority in achieving the goals for facilities, fiscal responsibility, and safety set forth in the Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. The following Department mission statement and Division program descriptions are contained in the County's FY2011-2012 Proposed Operating Budget: Mission Statement: To provide a wide array of services for the public with excellence, integrity and aloha. Administration: The Parks & Recreation Administration provides organizational support services to all the divisions/sections and bands to achieve the development and implementation of the department's mission. Parks Maintenance Division: The Parks Maintenance Division maintains neighborhood parks, beach parks, playgrounds, ball fields, and other recreational facilities; undertakes construction, repairs and renovation projects for buildings, equipment and grounds; operates a plant nursery to support landscaping and beautification projects; operates a storeroom for departmental maintenance supplies. Recreation Division: The Recreation Division plans, conducts, arranges or promotes organized recreation, athletics, crafts and other leisure time activities for all age groups at recreation centers and facilities throughout the County of Hawai'i. 5 Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION vie Administration In FY2010-2011, the Parks and Recreation Administration was authorized 23 positions, among which were a Parks and Recreation Director and Deputy Director, a Park Planner, and a Park Projects Manager, and a total program budget of$2,174,685: Salaries and Wages: $ 978,888 Operations: $1,192,797 Equipment: $ 3,000 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$36,028.77] See, Appendix I: Office of the Director— 2009 Organization Chart. Parks Maintenance Division In FY2010-2011, the Parks Maintenance Division was authorized 150 positions, among which were a Superintendent of Park Maintenance, Park District Superintendent, Building Repair and Maintenance Supervisor, Park Building and Grounds Maintenance Supervisor, Park Construction and Maintenance Supervisor, and Tree Trimming Parks Maintenance Supervisor, and a total program budget of$6,635,773: Salaries and Wages: $4,412,553 Operations: $2,218,220 Equipment: $ 5,000 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$210,991.6 See, Appendix II: Parks Maintenance Division — 2009 Organization Chart. Recreation Division In FY2010-2011, the Recreation Division was authorized 45 positions, among which were a Recreation Administrator, 2 administrative staff, 33 full-time recreation staff, and 9 part-time recreation staff, and a total program budget of$2,295,147: Salaries and Wages: $1,583,597 Operations: $ 711,450 Equipment: $ 100 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$12,932.07] +u See, Appendix III: Recreation Division— 2009 Organization Chart. sek 6 Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HAWAI'I COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Hawai'i County Code section 15-68.1 lists the following County parks and recreational facilities: Section 15-68.1. Parks and recreational facility schedule. PARKS Hilo/Hamakua Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium Ahualani Park `Ainako Park `Ainaola Park Aunty Sally Kaleohano's Luau Hale Bakers Beach Carlsmith Beach Park Charles "Sparky" Kawamoto Swim Stadium Clem Akina Park East Hawaii Cultural Center Edith Kanakaole Multi-purpose Stadium Francis F.C. Wong Stadium Frank M. Santos Park [Papalkou Gym] Gilbert Carvalho Park Haina Park Hakalau Veterans Park Hilo Armory Hilo Bayfront Soccerfields Hilo Bayfront Beach Hilo Drag Strip Hilo Municipal Golf Course Hilo Pomaika`i Senior Center Hilo Skeet Range Honoka`a Park Honoka`a Rodeo Arena Honoka`a Swimming Pool Honoli`i Beach Park Honomu Park Ho`olulu Complex Hualani Park James Kealoha Beach Park Kaiwiki Park Kalakaua Park Kamana Senior Center Kanakea Pond Kaumana Caves Kaumana Lani Park Keikiland Playground Kolekole Gulch Park Kuhio Kalaniana`ole Park Kukuihaele Park Kula`imano Park 7 Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Lalakea Pond Beach Park Laupahoehoe Point Beach Park Laupahoehoe Senior Center Laupahoehoe Swimming Pool Leleiwi Beach Park Liholiho Garden Lili`uokalani Gardens Lincoln Park (1) Dr. Ruth E. Oda Playground Lokahi Park Mama Park Mohouli Park Mokuola Island Mo`oheau Park NAS Swimming Pool Onekahakaha Beach Park (1) Uncle David K. Calles, Sr. Horseshoe Courts `O`okala Park Pa'auilo Park Pana`ewa Equestrian Center Pana`ewa Park Pana`ewa Rainforest Zoo and Gardens Papa`aloa Park Pepe`ekeo Community Center Princess Abigail Wahiika`ahu`ula Kawananakoa Center Reeds Bay Beach Park Richardson Ocean Park University Heights Park Waiakea Recreation Center Waiakea-Uka Park (1) Stanley Costales Waiakea-Uka Gym Waiakea Waena Park Waikaumalo Park Wainaku Gym Wainaku Playground Wai`olena Beach Park Waipi`o Community Park Waipi`o Look Out Wai`uli Beach Park Walter C.K. Victor Baseball Complex Ka`U Kahuku Park Na'alehu Park Pahala Ballfield Pahala Community Center Pahala Swimming Pool Pahala Tennis and Basketball Courts Punalu`u Black Sand Beach Park Waiohinu Park Whittington Beach Park 8 Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Kohala Kamehameha Park Kapa'a Beach Park Keokea Beach Park Lily Yoshimatsu Senior Center Mahukona Beach Park Mahukona Wharf North Kohala Senior Center North Kohala Veterans Field Spencer Park at 'Ohai'ula Beach (1) Samuel Mahuka Spencer Pavilion Waikoloa Community Park Waikoloa Neighborhood Park Waimea Church Row Park Waimea Park Kona Arthur C. Greenwell Park Clarence Lum Won Park Hale Halawai Harold H. Higashihara Park Honaunau Boat Ramp Honaunau Rodeo Arena Ho'okena Beach Park Kahalu'u Beach Park Kailua Park Kailua Playground Kekuaokalani Gymnasium Kona Hillcrest Park Kona Imin Center Kona Waena Swimming Pool Ku'emanu Heiau La'aloa Bay Beach Park Magic Sands Beach Park Miloli'i Beach Park Nakamalei Playground Old Kona Airport Park Pahoehoe Beach Park Sgt. Rodney J. T. Yano Memorial Hall [Yano Hall] Wai`aha Beach Park William Charles Lunalilo Playground Puna 'Ahalanui Park/Maunakea Pond A.J. Watt Gym Glenwood Park Hawaiian Beaches Park Isaac Kepo'okalani Hale Beach Park Kahakai Park Kea'au Community Center 9 or Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Kurtistown Park Mt. View Park Pahoa Aquatic Center Pahoa Neighborhood Facility Herbert Shipman Park Volcano Park 10 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS CHAPTER 3 OPERATIONS Although the Parks Maintenance Division has adequately addressed its custodial activities, this performance audit focuses on the Department of Parks and Recreation's facilities asset management plan, which by industry best practices, should include a facilities maintenance and repair program that highlights periodic or preventative maintenance activities in order to ensure adequate levels of public service at the lowest life cycle cost for each facility. While the Parks Maintenance Superintendent recognizes the benefits of periodic or preventative maintenance, the Department has not developed action plans or policies that comply with its facilities goal set forth in the Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan: "Focus Area 2, Facilities: Provide adequate and well-maintained facilities in each district to meet the needs of the public." HISTORICAL LACK OF PERIODIC MAINTENANCE AND DELAYED REPAIRS HAVE LEFT FACILITIES TO DETERIORATE It should be stressed that the deterioration of recreational facilities has been a long- standing problem inherited by the current Parks and Recreation Administration. Why are the County's recreational facilities deteriorating? We'll use deteriorating roofs as an example. Why do P&R facilities have roofs that are rusted and leaking? The Department has no periodic or preventative maintenance plan for metal roofs that clearly states what preventative maintenance activities should be performed and at what intervals. For example: METAL ROOFS Complete Physical Inspection Annually Inspection for debris/mildew/etc. Monthly Debris/mildew removal As Needed Paint Every 10 years Not only have roofs not been cleaned and painted on a proactive basis to extend the life of this critical facility component, the Department has permitted identified deficiencies to continue for months and in some cases years, increasing the possibility that damage to other critical facility components will occur. (See, Photographs#1 through #23) Many of the metal roofs on the County's recreational facilities are not being routinely inspected, cleaned, or painted. The Parks Maintenance Division reported that it does not have the equipment or trained staff to perform major roof repairs or painting in-house, and yet, the Division's budget for contracting of roof and gutter work had been reduced to zero in the current fiscal year. Further review of prior fiscal years indicates that the Division's budget for contracting or outsourcing of these preventative maintenance activities has historically been minimal and often gone unused. 11 WN Chapter 3: OPERATIONS P&R Maintenance Division's Operating Budgets for Miscellaneous Contract Services Budgeted Expended Budgeted Expended Roof/Gutters Roof/Gutters Painting Painting FY 2008-2009 $25,000 $0 $6,000 $0 FY 2009-2010 $35,000 $0 $6,000 $0 FY 2010-2011 $0 $0 $0 $0 Interdepartmental communication regarding possible efficiencies for sharing of maintenance staff has not occurred. When the Parks Maintenance Division was asked whether there are currently any County personnel with equipment capable of painting metal roofs, the Auditors were told that the Department of Public Works may have the necessary resources. The Parks and Recreation Deputy Director stated at the audit exit interview that they had initiated discussions with the Department of Public Works regarding the possibility of utilizing DPW's painters to address P&R's major painting needs, which include painting metal roofs at certain facilities. COMMUNICATION FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR AMONG P&R ADMINISTRATION, PARK PLANNING, AND PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION NEED IMPROVEMENT Interviews and documentation show cases of repeated requests by P&R facility staff to repair leaking roofs that remain unaddressed years later. In addition to the lack of planned preventative roof maintenance, Maintenance Work Requests and Recreational Facility Reports submitted by P&R facility staff for repairs of leaking roofs have not resulted in repairs being completed in a timely manner. The Auditors were advised that the Parks Maintenance Division forwards Maintenance Work Requests for roof repairs to the Park Planner. The Parks Maintenance Division then closes the Maintenance Work Request in its tracking system, which makes it difficult to determine how much time has passed between the initial request for repair and when the repair is actually completed. Even if repairs are made immediately upon request, the maintenance process remains reactive (i.e.; waiting for the leak to become severe enough to affect the interior of the facility), as opposed to proactive. If repairs are not immediately made, there is no process in place to ensure that the Park Planner adds the repair project to the Department's proposed CIP project list to be ranked and prioritized with all other proposed projects. Again, Departmental documentation and interviews with facility staff indicate that roof leaks have gone unrepaired for months and often years. Documentation indicates that Yano Hall has been left to deteriorate with a leaking roof for more than eight years. A Maintenance Work Request dated August 8, 2002 for Yano Hall stated: "PAINT YANO HALL'S 3 (THREE) ROOFS. PAINT AND REPAIR AS NEEDED, THE BADLY RUSTED AND LEAKING ROOFS ON THE 3 (THREE) MAIN BUILDINGS AT YANO HALL/ GREENWELL PARK." A Maintenance Work Request dated March 3, 2003 for Yano Hall stated: "REPAIR AND PAINT ROOFS OF THE THREE BUILDINGS AT YANO HALL. ALL THREE ROOFS ON THE MAIN BUILDING 12 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS ARE LEAKING AND ARE IN DESPERATE NEED OF REPAIRS AND PAINTING." A Maintenance Work Request dated March 3, 2005 for Yano Hall stated: "Paint the roof (3). ANNUAL REQUEST". The Department's First Quarter Evaluation Report dated October 1, 2008 stated: "Yano Hall: This past year we have had a lot of rain in Capt. Cook. In the days when my office was located at Yano Hall, it would pour rain almost every day. It would rain so much, that rain would wash in one door, and out the other. It seems that maybe we are returning to rainier days up mauka. Regardless, the roofs are leaking worse than ever. I was in an [staff member's] office and could see water dripping through the white particle board ceiling. We cover his computer and other office machines to keep from sustaining water damage. The termites are getting worse. We find new piles of termite leavings all over the complex." The Department's Third Quarter Evaluation Report dated April 15, 2009 stated: "Yano Hall: Our roofs are getting worse, and we have had a lot of rain this year. The roofs need repair and painting." The Yano Hall facility manager reports that roof repairs have not been completed prior to the conclusion of our audit fieldwork in May 2011. Honomu Gym is another example of neglected roof maintenance and repair. The Department's First Quarter Evaluation Report dated October 1, 2008 stated: "Honomu Gym roof has several 1" by 2" long holes which rain falls through onto the floor. The sky can be seen by standing below these holes. If the roof is not changed more water damage will occur. The water runs down the inside of the gym and behind the Electrical circuit breaker box." The Department's 2nd Quarter Report dated January 6, 2009 stated: "Honomu Gym roof has many leaks and water falls through onto the floor. Rain flows down the internal wall into the circuit boxes. The electrician has covered the conduits and panel boxes with tarps." The Department's Third Quarter Evaluation Report dated April 15, 2009 stated: "Honomu Gym roof has several long holes which rain falls through onto the floor. The rain water runs down the inside gym walls and onto the electrical circuit breakers. The sky can be seen by standing below these holes. If the roof is not changed more water damage will occur. The roof is not safe for the Parks carpenters to do repairs." 13 Pr Chapter 3: OPERATIONS The Honomu Gym facility manager reports that roof repairs have not been completed prior to the conclusion of our audit fieldwork in May 2011. Repeated requests by P&R facility staff to treat termite infestation also remain unaddressed. While the FY2008-2009 Operating Budget in account number 010.500.5505.02.115 included $20,000 for Miscellaneous Contract Services for FUMIGATION, departmental records indicate that the fumigation costs for large structures can be significant. For example, tenting and fumigating of the Mountain View Gym for termites cost $10,406. Site observations and Recreational Facility Reports reviewed by the Auditors also indicate that at least 6 facilities (Yano Hall, Hale Halawai, Papa'ikou Gym, Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym, Hawaiian Beaches Park, Hilo Municipal Golf Course) have identified active termite infestation. Yet, the Department's FY2010-2011 Operating Budget included zero funds in its Miscellaneous Contract Services account 010.500.5505.02.115 for FUMIGATION. Departmental records for Yano Hall indicate that termite infestation has gone untreated for at least two years. The Department's First Quarter Evaluation Report dated October 1, 2008 stated: "The termites are getting worse. We find new piles of termite leavings all over the complex." The Department's Third Quarter Evaluation Report dated April 15, 2009 stated: • "The halls and offices show signs of termite infestation." The Yano Hall facility manager reports that termite fumigation has not been completed prior to the conclusion of our audit fieldwork in May 2011. HISTORICALLY REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OPERATIONS In its report Committing to the Cost of Ownership—Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, the National Research Council concluded: "In its discussions of the impacts of underfunding M&R [maintenance and repair] functions, the committee observed that one of the worst consequences of long-term neglect of maintenance is the crisis management condition in which building managers and owners are put. Hasty decisions are often made, with expensive and even inappropriate products and services purchased." (Committing to the Cost of Ownership—Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, Building Research Board and National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1990, pp.12-13) 14 Pima Chapter 3: OPERATIONS r CHART #1 THE "CRAZY CYCLE" OF REACTIVE MAINTENANCE Backlog ( ruvws Standards Drop PM is Missed More Morale _ Preventable ar Declines Failures Head/Budget Resources Reductions taken by Breakdowns Band-aid More Repeat Work Maintenance Source: OMCS Asia-Pacific Sdn. Bhd. It should be noted that the current Parks and Recreation Administration and maintenance staff inherited the situation of deteriorating recreational buildings. When preventative maintenance is neglected, more unplanned repairs inundate the maintenance staff. A "crazy cycle" develops where maintenance workers are busy trying to patch problems resulting from neglected maintenance that have become repair or safety issues that can no longer be ignored, leaving less time for completing preventative maintenance, which results in more problems that become repair or safety issues. A backlog of deferred maintenance and repair grows, and the "crazy cycle" continues to inundate maintenance staff with more unplanned repairs. Over time, roofs without adequate maintenance and repair begin to leak, and rainwater leaking through roofs may then cause corrosion, wood rot, mold, or other problems. This "crazy cycle" of reactive maintenance accurately describes the current situation within the Parks Maintenance Division, in which quick fix or band-aid repairs prompt repeat work, which makes its way back into the deferred maintenance backlog. INSUFFICIENT WRITTEN POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR "• The Auditors requested all written policies and procedures that pertain to facilities maintenance and repair from the Department and its Divisions. However, very limited written documentation has been provided. During interviews, Department personnel provided their own definitions for "regular maintenance", "repair", and "preventative maintenance", which were all somewhat similar. In general, the examples given for "regular maintenance" were custodial activities (such as power and tractor mowing, cleaning picnic grills and refuse containers, and cleaning walls and ceilings), and the examples given for "repair" were generally responsive activities (such as service calls, emergency calls, acts of nature and vandalism), and examples given for "preventative maintenance" were generally contractual outsourcing activities (such as rust mitigation, priming and painting, and termite fumigation and tenting). 15 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS The Department has not formally delineated its maintenance and repair[M&R] functions from its construction functions, or what activities fall within each of these categories, such as routine custodial, routine preventative, and critical preventative M&R activities as opposed to construction activities for facility improvement or rehabilitation. It is critical that these activities be formally defined and delineated so that plans to carry them out can be developed; responsibility for their performance can be assigned; relevant performance measures can be implemented; and communication and information processes for ranking, assigning, tracking, and reporting on activities can be put in place. The Department cannot perform critical periodic or preventative maintenance (such as roof sealing or painting) in a timely manner until it has defined "critical periodic maintenance" and delineated what activities need to be performed at what frequency. For example, there is no formal policy that provides that metal roofs with an estimated 30-year life be painted at regular intervals to maintain or extend their useful lives, or that tennis courts with clay surfaces be resurfaced at regular intervals to maintain or extend their useful lives based on industry standards. There is also no formal policy requiring that resources first be allocated to maintaining existing assets at current service levels, and second to addressing the backlog of deferred maintenance, or vice versa. The Department acknowledges that its inventory of assets is aging and continually deferred maintenance and repair has only exacerbated the deterioration of its recreational facilities. We interviewed the Parks Maintenance Superintendent to obtain background information on the maintenance and repair processes. Information provided by the Division included personnel safety training, and documentation provided by the Division included safety and "" maintenance checklists (routine or custodial), work order and work report forms, vandalism report forms, and complaint report forms. However, no written policies or instructions for critical periodic maintenance inspections and activities were provided. WORK ORDER SYSTEM NEEDS TO INCLUDE FOLLOW-UP PROCEDURES Department personnel utilize Maintenance Work Requests to request and document non-routine or non-custodial maintenance or repairs. This work order process is initiated when any Parks .w and Recreation employee discovers or is informed of a maintenance or repair problem, and completes a Maintenance Work Request to report the problem and request corrective action (noting the severity of the problem). The completed Maintenance Work Request is routed to Parks Maintenance Division clerks, who input the information into an Access Database. A copy of the Maintenance Work Request is routed to the Parks Maintenance Superintendent, who then distributes it to the appropriate work unit for corrective action. If the problem is one that the Parks Maintenance Division can correct, the work is scheduled, and when work is completed, Ilk information from the Maintenance Work Request is inputted and stored in the Parks Maintenance Division's Access Database. If the Parks Maintenance Division determines that its workmen are unable to complete a work order, a Work Order Denial Justification Form is completed and returned to the Parks Maintenance Superintendent. The Superintendent then closes the work order in the Parks Maintenance Division's Access Database, and routes the Maintenance Work Request and Work Wit, Order Denial Justification Form to the Park Planning Division to be addressed through the CIP 16 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS Budget process. The Park Planning Division then determines whether the work order can and should be addressed immediately with existing CIP funds, or whether the job should be included in a future CIP Budget. The Parks Maintenance Superintendent indicates that there is no further formal communication between the Parks Maintenance and Park Planning Divisions regarding the work order, its priority, or recommended method of and timeline for completion. The Park Planning Division does not maintain a separate database or other system to track work orders submitted by the Parks Maintenance Division, and does not have a formal process in place for prioritizing work orders or ensuring that work orders are addressed in the current fiscal year with existing funds or included in the next budget cycle. As stated in the State of Idaho's "Best Practices Maintenance Plan for School Buildings" (September 2006), an additional component to a Work Order System is the maintenance of systematic records that ensure building managers have sufficient information to properly oversee building maintenance work and to evaluate the maintenance work periodically. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO IMPLEMENT PROCEDURES TO ENSURE BETTER COORDINATION AMONG P&R ADMINISTRATION, PARK PLANNING, PARKS MAINTENANCE, AND RECREATION DIVISIONS Department of Parks and Recreation administrators are charged with the management, development, and submission of a proposed annual Operating Budget, including funding requests for routine and periodic facility maintenance and repair, and a proposed annual CIP Budget, including funding requests for projects related to major facility repair, rehabilitation, or replacement. Responsibility for actual performance or contracting of corrective work rests with the Parks Maintenance Superintendent for in-house work or outsourced work funded under the Miscellaneous Contract Services account in the P&R Operating Budget, and with the Park Planner for larger outsourced projects funded under the P&R CIP Budget. However, the Department has no formal policies in place to clearly define or plan for each category or type of maintenance and repair activity (routine versus preventative; periodic versus repair; repair versus rehabilitation; or rehabilitation versus improvement). The Department also has no formal policies in place to clearly establish who is responsible for budgeting, executing, monitoring, and reporting on specific activities within each maintenance and repair category. Currently, once a Maintenance Work Request and accompanying Work Order Denial Justification Form are submitted to the Park Planning Division, the Parks Maintenance Division no longer monitors the work order and has no formal input to or communication from the Park Planning Division as to its ranking, prioritization or timing for completion. When Auditors inquired, "Can you provide documentation of how the Work Order Forms and/or Work Order Denial Forms received from Parks Maintenance are used in the CIP Project Budgeting process?, the Park Planner responded: "Work order forms forwarded to the Planning Section and Administration are referred to on occasion but are not specifically referenced in the preparation of the CIP Budget unless there is a 17 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS PPP particular issue that has been prioritized prior to the process and has already made it onto the CIP consideration list." If the Work Order Process requires that certain repair requests be transferred from the Parks Maintenance Division to the Park Planning Division based on estimated repair costs, complexity of repair, or lack of in-house expertise, then monitoring controls need to be implemented to ensure that the work order will be prioritized and completed within the current CIP Budget, or prioritized and submitted for completion in the next fiscal year's CIP Budget. Having a common database for all necessary maintenance and repair requests — whether periodic or preventative maintenance, emergency repair, or major rehabilitation — would facilitate prioritization, ranking, planning, budgeting, scheduling, monitoring, and reporting of work orders. As recommended in the State of Idaho's "Best Practices Maintenance Plan for School Buildings" (September 2006): "Involve appropriate maintenance personnel in decision marking and in communicating buildings' needs." The Parks Maintenance Division advises that it communicates with the P&R Administration and Park Planning Division during the annual departmental budget process. However, the number of documented, but uncorrected critical repair issues indicates a breakdown in the ability of existing processes and systems to ensure timely identification, communication, prioritization, budgeting, and correction of critical maintenance and repair issues. Another example of the breakdown or disconnect in P&R's current systems regarding repair and maintenance is found when reviewing the Quarterly and Annual Recreational Facility Reports completed by the Recreation Division's facility and program staff. In their quarterly and annual reports, Recreation Division personnel submit information regarding needed maintenance and repair at their respective facilities and any negative impacts of facility conditions on their ability to provide programs and services to their respective communities. The Quarterly and Annual Recreational Facility Reports are routed to P&R administrators, but are not integrated into corrective work or remediation plans or into the Department's Operating or CIP Budgets. A review of Quarterly and Annual Recreational Facility Reports dating back several years indicate g;g that although consistently reported, critical repair problems at certain facilities — such as termite infestation and leaking roofs — continue to go unaddressed. It should also be noted that although these deficiencies still exist, the Department's proposed Operating Budget for FY2011- 2012 includes zero dollars in the "fumigation" and "roof and gutters" categories for Miscellaneous Contract Services. P&R DEPARTMENT LACKS ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN TO GUIDE PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION Lack of an asset management plan makes it difficult for the Parks Maintenance Division to carry out its daily, monthly, semi-annual, and annual maintenance and repair duties. In an email response dated April 7, 2011 to our request for documentation of the Department's asset management policies, the Department stated that it does not have a comprehensive policies manual or similar document that establishes a formal asset management policy. The email goes on to explain that the Department and its Divisions determine their individual and collective asset management policies through informal processes involving the P&R Administration, its Division and Section Heads, employee feedback, the Mayor's Office, the County Council, public a,, input, and other sources. The fact that the Department has not expended all of its maintenance and repair funds appropriated and allocated over several fiscal years, when critical repair issues have been documented, indicates that its current planning and budgeting processes are not adequate to support its needs in managing facilities. The Department's current planning and 18 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS budgeting processes are reactionary rather than proactive, and generally only address maintenance and repair issues once they have become obvious or severe enough to garner comment and attention from elected County officials or the public. A formal asset management plan with established maintenance and repair activities and schedules would better guide the Parks Maintenance Division as to what routine and periodic activities need to be completed, and with what frequency, before major corrective work is required. PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION'S FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PLAN IS INCOMPLETE The Parks Maintenance Division has a partial facilities maintenance plan that deals with routine custodial maintenance tasks and less critical periodic maintenance, such as repainting of interior facility walls and power washing of sidewalks. In organizations with assets that require maintenance and repair, an essential part of the planning process is the development of a facilities maintenance plan that is detailed enough to allow for scheduling of periodic maintenance activities and inspections for critical facility components, as well as tracking and reporting on those maintenance and repair activities and inspections in order to plan future work schedules or revise the timing, frequency, or type of maintenance applied. The Parks Maintenance Division's current performance measures generally assess custodial and routine work order activities, and the Division needs to develop relevant performance measures to include critical maintenance and repair activities and quantify its outputs and outcomes. In so doing, the Division's operational needs for adequate maintenance and repair of the County's recreational facilities can be better integrated into the Department's future resource allocations and annual work plans. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE ITS ABILITY TO MONITOR RELEVANT PERFORMANCE MEASURES The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends: "Monitoring and communicating progress toward stated goals and the overall condition of its capital assets with appropriate controls to ensure the validity and accuracy of the information. This process should describe how actual facility condition and performance compares to the targeted standard for each asset type. Governments should also review and report the operating impacts related to capital investments during project implementation and for a specified time period following project implementation." (GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy(2007 and 2010), Government Finance Officers Association, 2010) The Department of Parks and Recreation has not sufficiently tracked its progress toward achieving its stated facilities goal to: "Provide adequate and well-maintained facilities in each district to meet the needs of the public". The Department lacks formalized plans to reduce its backlog of deferred maintenance and repair, as well as the necessary processes to monitor and report on its progress on these rehabilitative projects. While the Parks Maintenance Division tracks how many individual work orders it completes, the Division has no 19 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS performance measures relating to its maintenance of other facility components, since larger repair requests are forwarded to the Park Planner, after which work orders are closed within the Parks Maintenance Division database and no formal tracking is conducted by the Park Planning Division. The Department of Parks and Recreation has not sufficiently assessed the condition of o its facilities in order to achieve its stated safety goal to: "Ensure safe environment for "" our employees and patrons". The Department does not have a measurable objective or targeted standard for maintaining the condition of its buildings. While our observations indicate that conditions of key building components at many facilities we visited are deteriorating, the Department has not adopted a formal method of measuring changes in facility condition over time in order to assess and quantify whether conditions are being improved or whether facilities are continuing to deteriorate. To determine whether facilities and safety goals are being achieved requires the monitoring of facility conditions over time. Are facility conditions improving or deteriorating? Is facility safety being improved? How quickly is the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair being reduced? These are all questions that can be answered by establishing measurable performance objectives, tracking relevant performance data, and reporting on actual performance against measurable objectives. While the Department should be commended for its efforts in seeking public input, the Department of Parks and Recreation Service Survey could elicit better feedback on the condition of its facilities. A current survey question reads: "In your opinion, is the facility adequately maintained? Yes No" While this question allows for calculating the number and percentage of customers who answered "yes"or "no", asking customers to rate specific facility conditions may provide more useful feedback. Sample questions that seek responses about reaching strategic goals include: • "How well are we doing at cleaning recreational facilities?Excellent Good Fair Poor" • "How well are we doing at repairing recreational facilities?Excellent Good Fair Poor" • "How well are we doing at providing safe recreational facilities?Excellent Good Fair Poor" If the customer survey also includes the name of the recreational facility, information regarding conditions at specific facilities can be tracked to measure customer perceptions over time. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO IMPROVE REPORTING ON FACILITY CONDITIONS AND REPAIR PROJECTS The Government Finance Officers Association in its GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy(2007 and 2010), recommends: "At least every one to three years, providing a "plain language" Report on Capital Facilities to elected officials and made available to the general public that describes: a. Condition ratings jurisdiction-wide compared to established policy standards. 20 Ix A Chapter 3: OPERATIONS b. Condition ratings by geographical area, asset class, and other relevant factors. c. Indirect condition data (e.g., water main breaks, sewer back-up complaints). d. Replacement life cycle(s) by infrastructure type. e. Funding sources for assets, including any restrictions that might be imposed on use and/or disposal. f. Year-to-year changes in net value of assets. g. Actual expenditures and performance data on capital maintenance compared to budgeted expenditures performance data (e.g., budgeted street miles, reconstructed compared to actual). h. Long-term trends extending over the prior four to six or more years. Year-to-year expenditure figures are less valuable due to general inflation rates and the changing supply and cost of construction contractors and contract bids over time. Other more "global" measures such as replacement cycle, 4 year-to-year comparisons of work completed (e.g., miles of sewers, water mains, street lights, etc., repaired/replaced), book value, etc., may also be used." (Ibid.) Currently, the Department of Parks and Recreation does not report sufficient information to allow elected officials and the general public to reasonably determine the condition of its facilities or the status of its repair and rehabilitation projects. What reports are provided, are difficult to decipher. 21 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO DEVELOP A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PLAN Any discussion of hazardous materials must be prefaced by the fact that public safety issues created by the prior use of construction materials now determined to be hazardous is a problem inherited by the current County Administration. However, while the Department of Parks and Recreation maintains hazardous materials documentation by facility, it has not developed a comprehensive plan, including estimated costs and timelines, for remediation of those identified issues. Reports do detail where hazardous materials were found in P&R facilities. RINS IF 41..7 • Wit ,...rte .•'.•�� •..+sMl�' :.s+.'`-1'.,.i r...�' a4 r .r - ..y}. ,./ •+^"` ywt,r., a s, r - Photograph#1: Building with lead paint at Na'alehu Community Center sow 22 W' IWO IChapter 3: OPERATIONS I FACILITY CONDITIONS THAT MAY POSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY RISKS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY I ) \ I:I I\ Ceiling Tit , Floor Tiles&Mastic 1 _ € W ,a art)tomato' "Do not Low*tv aril the i,to I 1 IPhotograph#2: Sign indicating asbestos�at Na'alehu Community Center The Government Finance Officers Association in its GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset i Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy(2007 and 2010), also states: "Ultimately, deferring essential maintenance or asset replacement could reduce the organization's ability to provide services and Icould threaten public health, safety and overall quality of life." ,' et.,,, ,, , ,4 4 - 1 . - — ti 1 , , . . I Photograph#3: Rusted-through handrail at Kailua Park 23 I Chapter 3: OPERATIONS • } IM I I i Photograph#4: A walkway torn-up for plumbing repairs may pose a safety and ADA access issue at Kailua Park 5TT 4 My w .w J"k „Y s „..*; qth ae ss.. .,» `ar Photograph #5: Uneven floor at Hawaiian Beaches Park 24 ' Chapter 3: OPERATIONS Various Recreation Directors reported safety concerns due to facility conditions, such as wet floors, wet electrical boxes, termite-damaged bleachers, mold, and hazardous materials. During our site visits, we observed potential safety issues related to hazardous materials, such as knocked-down orange plastic fencing around buildings with chipping lead paint, and people accessing rooms with broken and chipped floor tiles reported to contain asbestos. 1 1 I . Photograph#6: Tarp used to divert rainwater from electrical panel box at Honomu Gym • : « 1 1 Photograph#7: Fallen fencing around building with lead paint at Na'alehu Community Center ' 25 I Chapter 3: OPERATIONS MP THE HISTORICAL LACK OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR HAS RESULTED IN SOME FACILITIES THAT CANNOT BE FULLY UTILIZED BY THE PUBLIC Deteriorating recreational facilities cannot be fully utilized by the public. Various Recreation Directors also reported that games and community events needed to be cancelled or stopped midway due to roof leaks in gyms. Buildings or building sections have also been closed due to the presence of hazardous materials, leaving communities without adequate recreational facilities at which to meet and play. The Auditors were also provided with documented complaints from the coordinator of an event held in November 2010, indicating that _ the event and its exhibitors were negatively impacted by the leaking facilities at the Edith Kanaka'ole Multi-Purpose Stadium. The Auditors observed roof repair work being conducted in March 2011. DETERIORATING FACILITIES ARE AN ONGOING PROBLEM During our site visits and review of departmental reports, the Auditors noted that many recreational facilities have rusted and/or leaking roofs and gutters, wood rot, and termite damage. It should be noted that the sites observed by the auditors were based on a judgmental sample to ensure observation of at least one facility in each district, and that a judgmental sample is not statistically based and the results should not be extrapolated over the population as the sample may not be representative of the population. Leaking roofs were observed or reported at 11 of the 16 recreational sites visited, and outstanding maintenance and repair work observed or reported at 15 of the 16 sites visited. Various facility staff reported a backlog of maintenance and repair that has been deferred for years. While the Department informed the Auditors that it had not completed a County-wide facilities condition assessment inclusive of estimated repair costs, the Department reported to the Council in May of 2008 that it estimated remediation of the then existing deferred maintenance and repair backlog at approximately $80 million dollars based on a list of repairs and estimated expenses completed in about 2004. (See. Appendix E). When the Auditors requested the list of facility repairs and estimated costs that were used to provide the Council with this rehabilitation estimate, the Park Planner responded: "The Planning Section of the Department originally prepared a list of maintenance needs at each park site with corresponding estimates in 2003 in order to quickly illustrate the condition and status of the department's inventory and determine what the overall deferred maintenance picture looked like for the Department. That list was prepared based on cursory site visits, with limited input of site staff, using basic cost estimating procedures, etc. and therefore should not be considered comprehensive in terms of an audit. Moreover, that list was not maintained and no new spreadsheet prepared that could provide a more realistic or accurate picture of the current state of the department's major maintenance needs." Review of the spreadsheet (Appendix E) further exemplifies the need for a process to assess and prioritize capital projects, and additionally ensure that funding allotments are directed to those projects deemed the highest priority. For example, the listed repairs to the leaking roofs of Yano Hall, Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym, and Honomu Gym have still not been completed. 26 w 1 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS IP The Park Planner also stated that he reported to the Council in FY2010-2011 that he estimated remediation of the existing deferred maintenance and repair backlog at approximately $80 million dollars. When the Auditors requested the list of facility repairs and estimated costs that were used to provide the Council with an $80 million rehabilitation estimate, the Park Planner responded: I "The number was provided as a spur of the moment response to a question posed to us by a sitting council member; it was not derived at by the compilation of specific maintenance efforts but I merely an educated approximation based on the recollection of figures entertained in the past when similar questions were posed by various officials then projected forward to current material and labor costs. There is no current detailed assessment of deferred I maintenance projects with specifically corresponding cost estimates to submit." 1 I I r £t - m a1.aYA j iLI ' I NW i- 1 I 1 Photograph#8: Rusting and leaking roof at Yano Hall I 1 1 1 27 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS I `' • r"" NO SKATEBOARDING �� BICYCLING •• ROLLER SKATING SCOOTER RIDING ALLOWED • • NO DOGS 11 00 ALLOWED IN PARK Tr I 1 OP 11.111111r ejiL Photograph#9: Termite damage at Yano Hall Photograph#10: Leaking roof at Pahoa Neighborhood Facility 28 ' Chapter 3: OPERATIONS { 1 or- 1 „z I>r p Xr� Photograph#11: Termite leavings at Hawaiian Beaches Park I 1 # . r kwu _ a — 1 J 1 Photograph#12: Peeling and leaking roof at Edith Kanaka'ole Multi-Purpose Stadium Note: Auditors observed roof repairs being conducted in March 2011. 1 29 1 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS MP ' 11111 1 ' ark V a'! TO/RA tr, 4y 1r �sM rr � 1 I r � - i c 1r Photograph#13: Ground termite damage at Hilo Municipal Golf Course El 4 t if re, '. i SI i 1 ` ., F. . . a .. m ., Photograph#14: Rusting supports within Quonset Hut at Waiakea Recreational Center 30 IChapter 3: OPERATIONS 1I laisiost, t , 1 I I I ---_ I F i P 4 iC Photograph#15: Tarp diverting water from leaking roof at the Waiakea Recreational Center I I I ..� ' 1 . I 1 Photograph#16: Rusted and leaking roof at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym 1 31 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS I AMP ACGESSIB{E OPPOSITE Ehp pfi "-- , • ,0 GYM ` , HIDING ON Sr 1RWtiDS ;N., j' f.t° NOL1EN9uD,f " : ---. ? - .10007[:5 FF 81GYClFS Df101411cf[D n ,�. 1 PAYNJON ON ON'+riLKwtr5 -�-___. VO MO # .: SO xi 1 ►.N. Photograph#17: Peeling and flaking paint at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym (yam! 1 r.r .. L t i Y iz ry 11 Photograph#18: Rusted roof at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center 32 1 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS I , ) I A. Photograph #19: Hole at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center I I I I I r I I I IPhotograph #20: Holes in leaky roof at Honomu Gym I I33 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS PIFF 4 4 . r° ji„' I Photograph#21: Sky visible through roof at Papa`ikou Gym R � Photograph#22: Rusting and leaking roof at Honoka°a Gym 34 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS PARKS AND RECREATION DOES NOT HAVE A SYSTEM OR PLAN TO ADDRESS ITS DEFERRED CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BACKLOG The Department of Parks and Recreation does not have a system in place to track its backlog of deferred critical maintenance and repair. In response to our request for a spreadsheet detailing deferred maintenance and repair by facility (including date of initial inspection, identification of problem, estimated repair cost, and related information), the Park Planner responded: "There is no current detailed assessment of deferred maintenance projects with specifically corresponding cost estimates to submit." As a result, the Auditors conclude that the Department does not have sufficient data to accurately assess and prioritize its inventory of recreational facility maintenance and repair needs—either current or deferred. DEFERRING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR LEADS TO INCREASED FUTURE COSTS Lack of preventative maintenance will significantly increase the tax dollars required to maintain a fully functioning facility for the public. Maintenance and repair backlogs lead to increased repair costs. Active termite infestation left untreated leads to more costly repairs when structural damage occurs, and a roof needing painting that deteriorates into a rusting and leaking roof will result in higher repair costs. The National Research Council specifically states: "Water infiltration of poorly maintained roof decks can lead to structural corrosion and failure." (op cit, p. 11) The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Best Practice states: "In addition, as the physical condition of the asset declines, deferring maintenance and/or replacement could increase long-term costs and liabilities." (op cit) 35 Chapter 3: OPERATIONS The following chart from the text Preventive Maintenance of Buildings graphically depicts how the costs to maintain a building will increase greatly if preventative maintenance is neglected. CHART #2 LACK OF PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE INCREASES BUILDING UPKEEP COSTS A Structural failures occur ) Structure not usable oStart of mayor failures Q�C / a - — — — — —/ Major repair c i Start of minor failures B A — — Minor repair Normal wear r Preventive maintenance , Time in years Total cost of major repair(C) 111 Total cost of minor repair(B) Total cost of preventive maintenance(A) Diagram from Preventive Maintenance of Buildings,Van Nostrand Reinhold,New York, 1991. 1 i 36 ' 1 IChapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT I CHAPTER 4 1 FACILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT ili PARKS AND RECREATION HAS NOT MET ITS FACILITIES GOALS I � • 1 ♦ a • f• �P. l- vim, . I w at �, ' . s++lb�4 �� • � . �it } 1 ►' Y, :orb _= .. . r Photograph#23: Rusting and leaking roof at Pahala Community Center b. Although it should be recognized that some Parks and Recreation facilities were in substantial I need of repair when acquired by the County and the current Administration inherited a significant backlog of deferred maintenance needs, it remains the current Administration's responsibility to gather accurate information regarding its facilities, use that information in order Ito develop a plan for returning the facilities to a condition that would meet the goals stated in the strategic plan, and initiate the steps outlined in the plan. I Key deficiencies hindering P&R in meeting the goals and objectives of its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan for facilities are: • Insufficient planning I • Insufficient budgeting • Insufficient systems and processes 1 • Insufficient monitoring and reporting I I37 1 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT ADEQUATE PLANNING, BUDGETING, OPERATIONS, AND MONITORING PROCESSES ARE NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR CHART #3 INTERRELATED PROCESSES NECESSARY FOR UPKEEP OF RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ,01111 Monitoring Planning Operations Budgeting The processes of planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring that are necessary for the upkeep of recreational facilities are interrelated. Reliable information, such as accurate building condition assessments, is needed to develop effective maintenance and repair [M&R] plans. Updated cost estimates are also needed to prioritize M&R projects and establish sufficient budgets to execute them. To be effective at the lowest long-term cost, M&R operations need to have adequate systems for carrying out, monitoring, and reporting on budgeted plans. Finally, monitoring performance of M&R operations, such as tracking of preventative or periodic maintenance activities as well as building conditions over time, provides essential information for updating and refining all of these plans. While there are several interrelated factors that result in deteriorating facilities, a key factor is the lack of an integrated process for planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring of M&R activities to provide decision-makers with the information necessary for proper resource allocation and cost-effective asset management. Procedures that fully integrate these key components — planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring — into a coherent process are also necessary to sustain a long-term, cost-effective asset management plan. Adoption by the Department of Parks and Recreation of industry best practices for an asset management plan would help reduce or prevent the continued deterioration of the County's recreational facilities. 38 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT CHART #4 KEY COMPONENTS NECESSARY FOR LONG-TERM, COST-EFFECTIVE FACILITY/ASSET MANAGEMENT Facility component inventory Strategic plan Condition assessment Project ranking Project evaluations Asset management plan Resource,cost,time,and current -Maintenance plan value estimates -Backlog plan Performance reports -Hazardous materials Customer needs analysis and ADA access plans 1 Customer survey results Planning Performance measures Proposed budgets 1 Monitoring Budgeting ni o to g udget g i s 1 1 Project implementations Operations Operating budget Maintenance and repairs Capital Improvement Inspections Programs(CIP)budget Work Order System Data collection 1 1 1 Critical to the success of an asset management system is the identification of what data must be 1 gathered in order to provide the information necessary for proper planning. What assets do we own? What is the condition of each asset? How long will each asset last? How much will it cost to maintain and repair? What key building components does each asset contain (metal ' 39 1 or Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT ito roof, NC, etc.)? How long are key building components anticipated to last with adequate periodic maintenance? What periodic maintenance is called for and at what timing? How 6V critical is its functionality? Establishing measurable objectives for facilities maintenance and repair would provide a target for reaching the Department's strategic goals for facilities. Establishing relevant performance measures would provide clear expectations for those charged with carrying out maintenance and repair plans as well as the ability to track and report on progress toward achieving the Department's facilities goals and objectives. An inventory of buildings and their key components is needed as a starting point for assessing asset condition, estimating useful life, and estimating costs. The inventory and condition assessment of all P&R facilities and their key components are also necessary to adequately plan and prioritize the execution of routine, periodic, and deferred maintenance and repair. The costs to perform current periodic maintenance, address the deferred maintenance backlog, and comply with hazardous materials and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility mandates have not been accurately estimated. This information is necessary in order to develop an effective plan and budget to prevent further deterioration of facilities, reduce the maintenance backlog, and address ADA and hazardous materials requirements. Without current replacement values and cost-analyses that include ADA rehabilitation and hazardous materials remediation costs, there is insufficient information for decision-makers to determine whether it is more cost-effective to rehabilitate an existing building or replace it with a new building. The Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan is not an integral part of actual departmental operations and planning. The Department does have a strategic plan, but has not fully implemented, monitored, or updated it. The 2004-2009 Strategic Plan does not include clear priorities, or set out requirements for planning, budgeting, monitoring, or reporting of the Department's asset management activities. For example, it does not establish a priority or hierarchy for allocation of resources based on industry best practices in asset y management, such as whether resources will first be allocated to preventative maintenance, then to rehabilitation projects, and lastly to new projects. The 2004-2009 Strategic Plan does not indicate what an acceptable level of service is in order to measure whether the Department has met its goal of providing well-maintained facilities. For example, how many community requests for facility use were denied, or how many community activities or events were shut down due to public safety issues related to deferral of a periodic maintenance activity. The 2004-2009 Strategic Plan does not require that such performance measures be adopted, or that maintenance activities be tracked in order to report actual performance against targeted performance goals and objectives. In addition, the facilities goals and performance measures of the Parks Maintenance Division largely deal with routine custodial and certain non-critical periodic maintenance activities (such as mildew removal and irk painting of walls), but not critical periodic maintenance (such as roof repair and termite , treatments). In addition, the Department has not developed and implemented policies and procedures to ensure success in attaining its stated goals for facilities management. It has not developed and implemented a process for ranking and prioritizing projects that is consistent with industry best practices for asset management. Observation of the current condition of various P&R facilities - combined with review of departmental records that document conditions of disrepair have been reported and left uncorrected for months or years - indicates that the Department's priorities and 40 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT ranking methodologies have not resulted in timely allocation of resources to perform preventative or corrective repair and maintenance procedures consistent with industry best practices for asset management, which recognize the necessity for and benefits of planned preventative and periodic maintenance. The Department has not developed an asset management plan to guide its maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of existing facilities and construction of new facilities. It has no written analysis or plan to address its backlog of deferred maintenance and repair. The County's long-standing policy of deferred maintenance has led to deteriorating structures, and for some communities decreased levels of service and disruption or cancellation of activities due to unsafe conditions. An asset management plan would facilitate leveling of budgets from year to year and permit analysis as to whether the combined costs of building rehabilitation, ADA accessibility upgrades, and hazardous materials remediation would be greater than the cost to completely replace a structure. Without current condition assessments and complete cost estimates for repair and rehabilitation, informed decisions as to whether to rehabilitate existing facilities or construct new ones cannot be made. To provide guidance to the Department, elected officials need to clearly communicate their funding priorities, such as maintaining existing recreational facilities before allocating taxpayer monies to building new ones. Clear communication of the County's priorities will assist the Department to ensure that its Strategic Plan supports County priorities, and develop policies and procedures, performance measures, schedules, budgets, and action plans to effectively carry out the goals and objectives set forth in its Strategic Plan. The Department of Parks and Recreation has not allocated sufficient resources to the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget. The Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget, including its Miscellaneous Contract Services account, is insufficient to fund the necessary periodic and preventative maintenance that the Division reports it does not have the in-house capacity or training to perform, such as termite treatment and roof painting. However, the Department's annual Capital Improvement Project (CIP) line item for Repairs/Improvements is substantial: $2,000,000 in FY2008-2009; $2,500,000 in FY2009- 2010; $4,000,000 in FY2010-2011; and $4,000,000 in FY2011-2012. If the amounts requested in this CIP line item were based on cost estimates to complete a list of prioritized deferred or preventative maintenance projects (such as termite treatment or roof painting), then the lack of funding for these projects in the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget may be reasonable. However, P&R's documentation of expenditure activities for this CIP line item for Repair/Improvements shows that its annual budget requests are not based on any plan or schedule of identified repair projects. Rather P&R charges the cost of projects not budgeted under a specific CIP line item, as well as the cost of Departmental maintenance and repair materials, to this account as they are incurred. Review of the Department's documentation for this account indicates that materials used by the Parks Maintenance Division for routine maintenance that should be included in the Department's Operating Budget are being inappropriately charged to this CIP account. (See, Chart #10) Further review of records for this CIP line item indicates that while the Park Planner estimated costs to remediate its deferred maintenance backlog at approximately $80 million, $1.3 million of appropriated and allocated funding is scheduled to lapse unused on June 30, 2011. 41 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT Without necessary planning and adequate funding for periodic maintenance and minor repairs in the P&R Operating Budget, facilities will continue to deteriorate, and in time, require costly major repairs, rehabilitation, or replacement that need to be funded in the P&R CIP Budget. Although the Park Planner said that he reported to the County Council in FY2010-2011 that the P&R backlog of deferred facilities maintenance was approximately $80 million, critical repairs (such as roof and gutter repair and termite treatment) appear to have been ranked a lower priority than contracting for new projects and improvements. See, Chart #7, P&R CIP Budget— Funds Budgeted for FY2006-2007 through FY2010-2011. Failure to timely administer periodic maintenance escalates facility deterioration. For example, deferred painting of metal roofs results in rust; a rusty roof will develop leaks; and a leaky roof, if not repaired or replaced, may result in damage to the structural and exterior/interior finish components of the building. Without current facility condition assessments, including estimated repair and rehabilitation costs, decisions to include major repair or replacement costs in future CIP Budgets are based on limited information. Additionally, cost estimates for maintenance of new facilities have not been sufficiently factored into the decision-making process and included in future Operating Budgets. The Department of Parks and Recreation has not adequately defined, nor has the Department adequately monitored, its performance related to its strategic plan goals for providing safe well-maintained facilities. Performance measures should be directly related to Departmental goals. Are facilities safe? Are facilities well-maintained? Is the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair being reduced? Performance measures should answer these questions. However, the Department's current performance measures do not, and the necessary information to answer these questions is not being tracked. Inadequate identification of appropriate preventative maintenance and frequency of application, combined with inadequate monitoring of facility conditions, have led to insufficient information for planning of periodic maintenance activities to provide safe well-maintained facilities. Tracking and reporting on maintenance operations and projects are essential to providing feedback to P&R administrators for timely adjustments to the Department's strategic plan, asset management plan, backlog reduction plan, hazardous materials remediation plan, ADA access plan, and facilities maintenance and repair plans (when developed). mt. RECOGNIZED BEST PRACTICES FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR NEED TO BE ADOPTED The Department of Parks and Recreation has not adopted important industry best practices for critical maintenance and repair. The State of Idaho's Best Practices Maintenance Plan for School Buildings (September 2006) states: Seven best practices are necessary for successful ROP preventative maintenance. Without these practices, a preventative maintenance program may not fulfill its goals. The seven best practices are: 4.1 Inventory building components and assess their condition. 4.2 Build capacity for ranking maintenance projects and evaluating their costs. 42 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT 4.3 Plan strategically for preventative maintenance in the long-and-short-term. 4.4 Structure a framework for operating a preventative maintenance program. 4.5 Use tools to optimize the preventative maintenance program. 4.6 Advance the competence of maintenance workers and managers. 4.7 Involve appropriate maintenance personnel in the decision-making and in communicating buildings' needs. INSUFFICIENT RECOGNITION OF THE IMPACT OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IS A ROOT CAUSE OF DETERIORATING FACILITIES The Department of Parks and Recreation lacks a commitment to prolonging the life of its facilities through timely application of appropriate periodic preventative maintenance. While the Parks Maintenance Division has good processes in place to address custodial maintenance activities (such as scrubbing walls, cleaning cob webs, pressure washing sidewalks), more complex and yet critical preventative maintenance activities (such as roof painting and termite tenting) have sometimes gone unaddressed for years until public access to and use of facilities are affected. While the deteriorating condition of public facilities due to inadequate periodic maintenance and repair is not unique to Hawai'i County, it is imperative that we recognize the long-term public safety, social, and financial impacts of continuing a policy of deferring maintenance and repair. A report by the Building Research Board and National Research Council suggests that a major element of the building maintenance and repair problem is the difficulty that public agencies face in trying to convince those responsible for public policy decisions that neglected maintenance can lead to public health and safety issues, reduced productivity of public employees, and long-term financial losses as buildings wear out prematurely and must be replaced. The committee believes that the underfunding and subsequent neglect of M & R [maintenance and repair] that prevails in many public agencies result in large measure from a failure of those who decide on funding levels to recognize fully the impact of their decisions on the public's capital assets, the investment in public buildings. (op cit, pp. 13-14) The National Research Council (NRC), Building Research Board's report also cites a number of factors contributing to the neglect of facility maintenance and repair, including: • failure to recognize that neglected maintenance can lead to public safety issues, reduced functionality, and financial losses; • insufficient focus on preventative maintenance; • failure to allocate adequate funds for maintenance and repairs; 43 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT wt • difficulty for facility managers to defend budget requests without firm performance criteria and statistical bases to describe maintenance and repair needs and consequences; • construction of new facilities attracting far greater attention than maintenance and repairs of existing ones; • serious conditions that develop without being visible; • inadequately assessing building condition; • underestimating maintenance and repair needs; • limited information for decision makers; and • poor design and use of short-lived, inferior materials. The NRC report further states: Adequate funding is not the only element of effective maintenance and repair, but it is so critical that no maintenance and repair program can be successful for long without it.... If an inventory of buildings receives an adequate level of M&R [maintenance and repair] funding, a steady-state situation should exist wherein the inventory would remain in a service condition that would neither decline nor improve and a backlog of deferred deficiencies would not develop. (op cit, p. 19) Public agency managers and elected officials, faced with the constant challenge of balancing competing public priorities and limited fiscal resources, often find it easy to neglect the maintenance and repair of public buildings, and not only because new construction or other activities have greater public interest. The cumulative effects of wear on a facility are slow to become apparent and only infrequently disrupt a facility's users. Managers of facilities seldom have adequate information to predict when problems will occur if maintenance efforts are deferred. These managers are often poorly equipped to argue persuasively the need for steady continuing commitment to maintenance. 000; Underfunding of maintenance and repair is such a prevalent practice in the public sector that it has become in many agencies a de facto policy that each year compounds the problem as the back-log of deficiencies grows. (op cit, p.2) The committee believes that the underfunding and subsequent neglect of M&R [maintenance and repair] that prevails in many public agencies result in large measure from a failure of those who decide on funding levels to recognize fully the impact of their decisions on the public's capital assets, the investment in public . buildings. These decision makers have limited information to help them evaluate the budgets submitted by their facilities managers and, thus, they must make relatively uninformed decisions. (op *_ cit, p. 14) 0 44 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT Again not unique to Hawai'i County, a root cause of deteriorating public facilities is the absence of a "Tone at the Top" relating to the budgeting and allocation of limited resources, which prioritizes the maintenance and repair of existing capital assets and infrastructure before the construction of new facilities and commits to a comprehensive maintenance and repair plan that is supported by internal control systems to track and report on facility conditions as well as maintenance and repair activities and costs. As a result, current County processes are ineffective for reliable planning, budgeting, conducting, and monitoring of operations related to the maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and eventual replacement of County recreational facilities. PARKS AND RECREATION'S FACILITIES INVENTORY LACKS KEY COMPONENTS An inventory of facilities that lists their key components is needed as a starting point for effective planning. In its Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy (2007 and 2010), the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends: "Developing a policy to require a complete inventory and periodic measurement of the physical condition of all existing capital assets." An inventory provides the base asset list for use in assessing conditions; estimating costs; developing routine, periodic and backlog remediation plans and schedules; establishing inspections schedules; and reporting on actual performance comparisons. The Department of Parks and Recreation does not maintain a comprehensive inventory of facilities and their key components. The Department maintains a list of recreational complexes, but it does not list each individual structure and its key components, such as roof, foundation, exterior/interior, electrical, plumbing, and cooling/heating systems. The GFOA states that: "This inventory should contain essential information, including: a. Engineering description b. Location c. Physical dimensions and condition d. "As-built" documents e. Warranties f. Maintenance history g. Replacement costs h. Operating cost information i. Usage statistics j. Book value k. Original Useful Life I. Remaining Useful Life" (Ibid.) Additionally, a best practice in facility management is to inventory and track key facility components in order to plan and schedule facility maintenance, repair, and replacement. An example of facility components for roof systems is shown below, and other examples of facility components are included in Appendix A. 45 OPP Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT Roof Systems Roofing Insulation PfR Expansion/seismic joints Drains and gutters Flashing and trim , Roof openings The Department of Parks and Recreation needs to determine which building components make sense to include in its facilities inventory to permit planning for and tracking of facility condition, maintenance, and costs. It does not make sense to track every component in each facility (given variable size and structure), but developing a current inventory of key building components is necessary for scheduling and tracking of periodic maintenance and planning for eventual replacement. RELIABLE ESTIMATES OF BUILDING REPLACEMENT VALUES WOULD ASSIST THE DEPARTMENT AND COUNTY IN MAKING FACILITIES RELATED DECISIONS The replacement value of a building is an estimate of what it would currently cost to construct or purchase the building. A reliable estimate of current replacement value is necessary to make informed decisions about whether to rehabilitate an existing facility or build a new one, and to serve as a guideline to adequately budget for maintenance and repair based on a percentage of replacement value. The Department of Parks and Recreation has not estimated the current replacement values of its recreational buildings. Lack of estimated replacement values may lead to less than objective planning decisions related to rehabilitation or replacement of a facility. For example, based on a site visit and interviews with Department personnel, the Auditors were made aware of the following conditions at Waiakea Recreational Center's main building: leaking roof, roof panels that contain arsenic, floor tiles that contain asbestos, lead paint, ADA accessibility issues, broken shower room plumbing, termite damage, interior water damage, wood rot, corrosion, and mold. At a minimum, an analysis to compare the total costs of remediation and rehabilitation versus replacement should be performed before any action is taken on this facility. Additionally, the current replacement value of buildings can be used as a guideline for the funding of future maintenance and repair. In its report Committing to the Cost of Ownership — Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, the National Research Council recommends for maintenance and repair, on average, between 2 to 4 percent of the replacement value of the total building inventory. "The specific percentage for any inventory will depend on such factors as the age of the buildings in the inventory, the type of construction (permanent vs. temporary), the level of use of the buildings, the structure of the maintenance organization, and the climate." (op cit, p. 18) 46 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP A CURRENT FACILITIES CONDITION ASSESSMENT The National Research Council (NRC) provides the following definition: "A condition assessment is an evaluation of the degree of accumulated damage inferred from diagnostic observations and tests." (op cit, p. 19) It recommends that formalized condition surveys be used to improve the effectiveness of maintenance and repair activities. Following the identification of key components in each facility and the development of a detailed inventory to quantify the building components, the NRC advises that the assessment of the current condition of each component is necessary to determine need and timing for preventative maintenance and replacement schedules. The NRC further advises that condition inspections be conducted by qualified professionals to determine the specific repair and maintenance requirements of the structural, mechanical, and electrical components of each building. The Department of Parks and Recreation does not have a formal condition assessment process or a current condition assessment of its facilities. The Department is aware that many of its facilities are in need of repair, but has not undertaken the necessary steps to develop a comprehensive report delineating required remediation and related costs. The lack of this data not only means decision makers do not have sufficient information for planning, budgeting, and allocating resources, it means that analysis and prioritization of projects based on service levels to the community and public safety risk cannot be accomplished. In its GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy (2007 and 2010), the Government Finance Officers Association recommends: This physical condition inventory and measures used should be kept current, with facility condition ratings updated every one to three years. The frequency of physical condition rating and asset inventory updates may vary depending on several factors, including the asset age and type, likelihood of degradation, and ease at which assessments can be conducted. The GFOA further advises that the condition assessment should be used to: • evaluate deferred maintenance and funding requirements, • plan for reducing the maintenance backlog, • establish a baseline for setting goals and tracking progress, • improve communication of building conditions, • develop cost estimates and priorities for major repair and replacement projects, and • provide accurate and supportable information for budgeting. 47 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT w wok ACCURATE COST ESTIMATES FOR PARKS AND RECREATION'S BACKLOG OF DEFERRED MAINTENANCE ARE NEEDED Based on a current facility condition assessment, costs need to be estimated to return facilities to the "safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing" condition —that is a stated facilities goal under the Department's 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. The Department of Parks and Recreation does not have current cost estimates based on condition assessments. As a result, P&R budgets cannot adequately reflect reliable current estimated costs for completing facility maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement. ^^ When the Auditors requested a listing of facility repairs and estimated costs used to estimate the $80 million rehabilitation figure presented to the County Council in FY2010-2011, the Park Planner's response was: "The number was provided as a spur of the moment response to a question posed to us by a sitting council member; it was not derived at by the compilation of specific maintenance efforts but merely an educated approximation based on the recollection of figures entertained in the past when similar questions were posed by various officials then projected forward to current material and labor costs. There is no current detailed assessment of deferred maintenance projects with specifically corresponding cost estimates to submit." PARKS AND RECREATION SHOULD FURTHER DEVELOP AND FULLY IMPLEMENT ITS STRATEGIC PLAN The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 enacted by the 1031d U.S. Congress stated: Strategic planning can be an opportunity to unify the management, employees, stakeholders and customers through a common understanding of where the organization is going, how everyone involved can work to that common purpose, and how we will measure our progress and levels of success. The process identifies the current status of the organization, including its mission, vision for the future, operating values, needs (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats), goals, prioritized actions and strategies, action plans, and monitoring plans. While the Department should be commended for developing its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan and distributing the plan to PSBR staff, the Department has not fully implemented its strategic goals for facilities. P&R has not sufficiently developed the framework for its asset or facilities management. It has not developed definitions or measures as to what constitutes adequate, safe, well maintained facilities and what is routine versus periodic maintenance; established criteria to ensure consistency in ranking projects and allocating resources; or provided condition assessments or plans necessary for P&R administrators and elected officials to make informed decisions. An asset management plan would include a current periodic maintenance plan, a deferred backlog plan, an ADA access plan, and a hazardous materials remediation plan. P&R has not developed adequate project schedules; budgeted and justified adequate funds for maintenance and repair; developed and tracked performance measures related to providing safe well-maintained facilities; or updated its facilities goals. 48 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT The Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan lacks measurable objectives for maintaining facility conditions, such as specific condition assessment ratings for facilities and their key components to permit comparison of conditions over time. The Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan did not call for or include certain necessary action plans for performance of building condition assessments by qualified personnel; establishment of an inventory of key building components and their remaining useful lives; and completion of detailed resource, cost, and time estimates for facility maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement. The Hawaii County Department of Parks and Recreation 2004-2009 Strategic Plan is outdated, and a process for updating it on a regular basis needs to be developed to serve as a foundation for P&R's annual Operating and CIP plans and budgets. During our entrance conference, the P&R Director advised the Auditors that the Department was in the process of updating its Strategic Plan. However, prior to completion of this report, the Auditors had not received the updated plan. PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT, TRACK, AND REPORT ON RELEVANT PERFORMANCE MEASURES RELATING TO FACILITY CONDITIONS In its GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy (2007 and 2010), the Government Finance Officers Association recommends: Establishing condition/functional performance standards to be maintained for each type of capital assets. The condition measures and related standards should be understandable and reliable. Such standards may be dictated by mandated safety requirements, federal, state, and provincial funding requirements, or applicable engineering and other professional standards, including available software models. The Department does not have any performance measures that sufficiently show how well a facility is being maintained and repaired. Conversely, though many facilities have deteriorated, the Department has no quantitative performance measures that show how much deterioration has occurred. Certain governmental and private organizations are using a Facility Condition Assessment and Facility Condition Index to track the conditions of their facilities. This provides a quantitative method for assessing and tracking building conditions. Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) is an industry term that describes the process in which a qualified group of industry professionals performs an analysis of the condition of a group of facilities that may vary in age, design, construction methods, and materials. The industry professionals are typically engineers of various disciplines and skilled trade technicians, with architects sometimes participating as well. Once the walk-through data has been collected, appropriate estimates to correct deficiencies is prepared. The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is used in Facilities Management to provide a benchmark to which to compare the relative condition of a group of facilities. Tracking FCI may be one method for Parks & Recreation to report on facility conditions over time. 49 OP Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT Facility Condition Index(FCI) = Maintenance, Repair, and Replacement Deficiencies of the Facility Current Replacement Value of the Facility .� Some governmental and private organizations are determining an appropriate FCI range for these ratings based upon their mission and strategic goals. Organizations may define condition ratings based on ranges of the FCI. In its Managing the Facilities Portfolio, the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) provides a set of ratings: good (under 0.05), fair (0.05 to 0.10), and poor (over 0.10). (Managing the Facilities Portfolio, National Association of College and University Business Officers, 1991) PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN, AND TRACK AND REPORT ON ACTIVITY RESULTS Part of the planning process for an organization with considerable assets (such as facilities) is the development of an Asset Management Plan. The American Public Works Association Asset Management Task Forces defines asset management as: "...a methodology needed by those who are responsible for efficiently allocating generally insufficient funds amongst valid and competing needs." (Asset Management for the Public Works Manager, Danylo and Lemer, 1998) The National Research Council believes that the safeguarding of buildings should include a commitment to provide the maintenance needed to prevent deterioration and ensure continued building use. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states: Asset management is maintaining the desired level of service for what you want your assets to provide at the lowest life cycle cost. Lowest life cycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is implemented through an asset management program and typically includes a written asset management plan. (Asset Management:A Best Practices Guide, United States Environmental Protection Agency, April 2008, p. 1) The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) states: A government's financial and capital improvement plans should address the continuing investment necessary to properly maintain capital assets. Such practices should include proactive steps to promote adequate investment in capital maintenance and replacement at necessary levels. (GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy(2007 and 2010), Government Finance Officers Association, 2010) The Department of Parks and Recreation has not developed an asset management plan to address maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing its recreational facilities as recommended in industry best practices. While the Department identified the need to develop a 5-year asset management plan in its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan, it has not done so. The Department has not developed plans to address its deferred maintenance backlog, 50 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT hazardous materials remediation, or required periodic maintenance, which are important components of an asset management plan. In response to an inquiry from the Auditors, the Park Planner stated: "The Department does not have an existing document that establishes a formal Asset management policy for `rehabilitation or capital maintenance'. Rather, the need to rehabilitate (defined as to restore to good condition, operation or capacity) a park facility, structure or amenity is typically one that is readily identifiable with sufficient advance notice to allow staff to prepare for (notify appropriate parties, prioritize, budget for, prepare plans/specs, bid, construction, etc.) and execute. Generally there is also the opportunity for in-house maintenance/repair staff to prosecute interim stop-gap measures that can temporarily prolong the effective life of the issue or condition requiring rehabilitation." The Auditors agree that if adequate inspections were performed on a routine basis, there should be ample time to budget, schedule, and perform preventative maintenance as well as rehabilitative repairs prior to a deficiency escalating to a point where more deficiencies develop that require additional repairs and costs. However, as documented by Maintenance Work Requests and Quarterly and Annual Recreational Facility Reports, even when maintenance and repair issues are timely identified by Parks Maintenance and Recreation Division personnel, critical repairs are not timely addressed in either scheduling or budgeting. As discussed above, the Department also lacks the information needed to develop an asset management plan, including an adequate inventory of facilities and their key components; a current facilities condition assessment; and an analysis of estimated remaining useful life as well as estimated resources, costs, and timeframes for facility maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement. The facilities inventory, condition assessment, and estimated costs and timeframes for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, or replacement are necessary information for prioritizing projects. An asset management plan will provide the necessary quantitative information for developing Operating and CIP Budgets, so P&R administrators and elected officials can make informed decisions regarding the Department's annual resource allocations. PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO ESTABLISH POLICIES AND IMPLEMENT PROCESSES TO PRIORITIZE ITS PROJECTS Prioritizing projects provides for completing the most critical work first. A prioritized list of projects supports decisions about which projects to fund and complete with limited resources. Industry best practices in asset management require that a high priority be placed on preventative maintenance to minimize repairs and, ultimately to minimize the life cycle costs of assets. The Department of Parks and Recreation's process for prioritizing projects is insufficient based on industry best practices in asset management. Projects to repair critical facility components, such as roof and exterior wall systems including painting and termite treatment, have been neglected for years, while contracts for design of new projects or improvements appear to have been completed first. See, Chart#7, P&R CIP Budget— Funds Budgeted for FY2006-2007 through FY2010-2011. 51 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT The Auditors requested policy documentation of the methodology, criteria, and data requirements for determining the priority and ranking of projects. However, the Park Planner indicated that no formal departmental policy or documentation exists. The lack of a formal or project prioritization policy that is supported by documented methodologies and processes, up coupled with the lack of relevant information to support decision making, have permitted what appears to be a subjective prioritization of projects and resource allocations that is inconsistent or with best practices in asset management. In response to an inquiry from the Auditors, the Park Planner stated: "There is no written policy in place for the Department that dictates priority for resource allocation for the management of existing assets. The Department acknowledges that its inventory of assets is aging, many key facilities stemming from the plantation era, and that historically and continually deferred maintenance thereat has only exacerbated the deterioration of those (worst of all) and all park facilities and amenities. Given that understanding, the Department's administration prioritizes its resource allocation on many different and often subjective factors (listed in no particular order)—such as the amount of use/demand at any given facility, safety concerns, likelihood of progressive/subsequent damage, type and amount of resources necessary to accomplish the needed task, impact on use, public feedback, etc. Generally, the facilities and amenities that support high-use, high-demand, active recreation receive the majority of the Department's resources, speaking in terms of staffing, maintenance activities, and CIP allocations." However, the Department could not provide any documentation to support the assertion that the data stated above are gathered and analyzed in order to prioritize its allocation of departmental resources. Our review of the current state of facility disrepair, together with our review of facility reports that document the existence of critical deficiencies over many years for certain facilities, indicate that the Department's current system or method of allocating resources has been ineffective. For example, by not setting a high priority for repairing leaking roofs, structural damage has occurred that now requires more costly repairs (See, Photograph #14). If the Department had an effective prioritization process for facilities maintenance, metal roofs would have been painted at scheduled intervals to extend their lives, and ultimately scheduled for replacement before major leaks and structural damage had occurred. Although Waiakea Recreation Center, Honoka'a Gym, and the Pahoa Neighborhood Facility had a relatively high total facility usage or attendance, the current prioritization process did not appear to have placed a high priority on unmet critical repair needs at these facilities. (See below, Chart#5, Facilities Attendance) 52 IChapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT I" CHART #5 FACILITY ATTENDANCE im ii .1 --...I--...I J . J J VIC J� /. /+ !` co /— F. ,. r 1- �U� U p U p U Q U L. N LL. N Lt. N 4i Andrews 217611 175870 209268 197270 142110 942129 r Carvalho 53743 82488 100523 80274 66412 383440 Hilo Armory 55668 48608 60110 62666 40457 267509 Keaukaha 79894 123334 268995 431116 323938 1227277 Panaewa 176875 80843 35484 53816 58184 405202 Puueo 12209 12658 11454 16065 14500 66886 0 Skeet Range 2680 2045 2369 2025 1737 10856 •Waiakea Rec 104303 87496 100098 71057 53247 416201 Waiakea Uka 30983 58271 49223 72233 50352 261062 Wainaku 6155 5679 13656 22045 13549 61084, TOTAL 740121 677292 851180 1008567 764486 4041646 f� /.� Is. 1� 1�� N ,5 �O © O /O y° i 2 .).- ›- >- a ?- - t. - A Q Q 4 ^ — cc ►` ao U of U o U Lt. 4� ry tLQ N 4� r4V LL's t4 41 N r Lt- Honokaa 396452 329439 177424 136975 19134 1059424 Honomu 3681 3524 8300 8939 5967 30411 Kulamano 13136 15445 9792 16633 5544 60550 Paauilo 13274 13842 18277 17160 7688 70241 Papaaloa 9261 10163 9385 8454 5481 42744 Papaikou 18494 27439 16655 42485 10728 115801 I illi TOTAL 454298 399852 239833 230646 54542 1379171 il J J J J J a J /C5 1-Q 1© /© /-. V 2 �. .N. o =/ 4 -= ? ---I d U U o . a U ccj C, o 0 a .a U "t Q N � S � N i Lt tN Q. 4ry UN 4 c ' HI Beaches 13704 11854 12500 11942 15595 65595 I ill Kahuku 18954 15176 9902 9550 7783 61365 Mt. View 52535 88130 126755 110044 65153 442617 Naalehu 24398 32938 22404 27707 17235 124682 Pahala 30477 26841 40985 38800 31418 168521 Pahoa 43821 38988 68354 187707 60055 398925 ll Shipman 114965 120455 147405 134095 189583 706503 TOTAL 298854 334382 428305_ 519845 386822 1968208 0 53 4 ... Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP A FORMAL PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR REDUCTION OF ITS MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR BACKLOG Part of asset management planning for organizations with a backlog of deferred maintenance and repair is developing a plan to reduce their backlog. Assessing the size of the backlog that develops when maintenance and repair are neglected requires a condition assessment. In its report Committing to the Cost of Ownership — Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, the National Research Council stated that: "Further deterioration will occur if the backlog is not reduced, and the ultimate cost of correcting the deficiencies will increase.". (op cit, p. 19) In addition to not having current condition assessments and a formal plan (including timing and costs) to reduce deferred maintenance and repair, the Department will likely see its backlog continue to grow as a result of current reductions in funding for critical periodic maintenance activities, such as roof repair, painting, and termite fumigation. See, Chart #6, Parks Maintenance OCE Miscellaneous Contract Services — Funds Budgeted and Expended for FY2006-2007 through FY2010-2011. PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP A PLAN AND SCHEDULE FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REMEDIATION One component of an asset management plan for facilities built with hazardous materials is planning and budgeting for safety mitigation measures and remediation of the hazardous materials. The plan should contain safety precautions, an inventory of hazardous materials, cost estimates for remediation, and timelines for resolving hazardous materials issues. While the Park Planner advises that the Department is taking steps to resolve hazardous materials issues, the Department has not developed a written plan outlining safety measures to mitigate potential dangers posed by hazardous materials identified at its facilities. In 2008, the Department contracted with three different consulting companies to identify and report on the existence of and location of hazardous materials at each P&R facility (if any). Each company was to report on hazardous materials identified at the facilities listed in its contract. The Department expended a total of $1,150,421.28 on the three separate consulting contracts. Two of the contracts ended in 2009, while the last contract supplement for the third contract ended in January 2011. However, the consultant reports did not generally include recommendations as to methods of remediation or their related costs, and the Department has not supplemented them with this information or developed a formal timetable and comprehensive plan to resolve hazardous materials issues identified in the reports. Additionally, the costs to remediate and ultimately dispose of potentially hazardous materials may not be factored into the life cycle costs for new construction, so inexpensive building materials containing potentially hazardous materials may be selected by decision makers, who are not provided the safety information and long-term costs to remediate and dispose of potentially hazardous materials. Even today, construction materials can be legally used that contain asbestos or other potentially hazardous materials. However, the Department's current specifications exclude the use of some hazardous materials, such as asbestos. The Department should further implement policies and processes to ensure that this list of excluded materials is updated and incorporated into the procurement process. 54 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT PARKS AND RECREATION HAS NOT INTEGRATED ITS ADA ACCESS PLAN INTO AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN Another component of an asset management plan should be the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) assessment and remediation plan for public facilities that do not currently meet ADA accessibility requirements. The Department of Parks and Recreation contracted for the development of an ADA accessibility assessment, and subsequently prepared an ADA Access Plan. However, this information needs to be integrated into an asset management plan that addresses future ADA planning at all P&R facilities, since ADA improvements involve significant costs and project timeframes, and decisions to rehabilitate or replace a facility weigh heavily on these projected costs and timeframes. PARKS AND RECREATION NEEDS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT A COMPREHENSIVE FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PLAN Part of the planning process for organizations with assets that require maintenance and repair is developing a comprehensive facilities maintenance plan. A comprehensive maintenance plan helps maintain the value of assets (such as recreational buildings) in the most cost-effective manner. Planning for routine and periodic maintenance, as well as future repairs and eventual replacement, is essential for the adequate upkeep of facilities. Periodic maintenance may include treating for termites, power washing, and painting buildings and metal roofs. The Parks Maintenance Division has a good custodial maintenance plan, but does not have a written facilities maintenance plan that includes sufficient periodic or preventative maintenance activities, such as roof maintenance and termite treatment. The Department's 2004-2009 Strategic Plan identified the following action plan: Develop a secondary set of tasks for periodic maintenance of each type of facility, i.e. once every 2 months, scrub walls, clean cob webs, pressure wash sidewalks, etc. By September 2005, this secondary set of tasks will be included in the random inspections by Parks Maintenance supervisors. However, while this set of tasks identified certain custodial maintenance activities and schedules, it did not include necessary periodic maintenance tasks such as painting metal roofs or treating for termites. The Parks Maintenance Division does not have an annual work plan and budget that flows from an asset management plan, which in turn supports the Department's strategic goals and objectives. It does not have an annual work plan that lists all expected maintenance projects for the year as well as ongoing remediation projects to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair. In any prescribed maintenance program, the list of tasks to be performed is described in detail. The frequency and nature of the work is clearly stated. The materials to be used are specified in considerable depth and the manner in which the work is to be accomplished is expressed in simple language. (Castaldi, Basil; Educational Facilities: Planning, Modernization, and Management; Allyn and Bacon, 1982, rev. 1994, p. 421) 55 Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT LAW An annual work plan and budget for the Parks Maintenance Division should flow from the 1h 4 Department's Asset Management Plan. The annual work plan should list all expected maintenance projects for the year broken down by category or area of functional responsibility, such as custodial operations and routine maintenance, periodic or preventative maintenance, backlog and rehabilitation, and improvements. Levels of maintenance should be established based on the useful life of each building component (i.e., metal roof — 30 years), and what maintenance activities are needed to ensure that this particular component meets or exceeds its life expectancy. The annual work plan should also include projects needed to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair. The annual work plan should provide the basis for development of the Department's yearly maintenance budgets, and the Department's annual budget should include funds for each project in the annual work plan, including projects to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair. A program of comprehensive facilities maintenance begins with an inventory of critical building components and an assessment of building component conditions. Collecting building condition information is necessary to help identify maintenance needs and quantify deferred maintenance. Building inventory and condition data also provide the information needed to plan maintenance projects, set priorities among them, and estimate their costs. However, the Department lacks the information necessary to develop a comprehensive facilities maintenance plan. It does not have an adequate inventory of critical building components and an assessment of component conditions as a starting point for a preventative maintenance program. It does not have a priority ranking process for maintenance tasks that includes routine and periodic maintenance for all critical facility components, such as roof systems. Estimations of costs, timeframes, and resources needed for maintenance and repair of critical building components have also not been completed. A comprehensive facilities maintenance plan, which includes an annual work plan, provides information for developing an Operating Budget as well as a CIP Budget (if a substantial backlog of repairs or building replacement needs to be funded). Without a comprehensive facilities maintenance plan, which includes routine and periodic annual maintenance activities as well specific activities to address the backlog of deferred work, P&R administrators and elected officials cannot make informed decisions regarding project priorities and resource ,W allocations in the Department's annual Operating and CIP Budgets. agAa Pre fW 56 Chapter 5: BUDGET CHAPTER 5 BUDGET The County's annual budget process serves several purposes: to provide elected officials the tools and information necessary to decide what services, functions, and facilities will be funded in the upcoming fiscal year, and to establish the priorities for funding of those services, functions, and facilities in light of existing revenue constraints and the needs expressed by the communities they serve. In order for elected officials to ensure that County government is providing the appropriate services, functions, and facilities at the appropriate times for the best cost, budgeting cannot be an isolated activity. Budgeting must be a continual process in which County departments set realistic expectations regarding the levels of services, functions, and facilities they are able to offer, and then provide accurate reports of program and activity outputs, outcomes, and expenditures to enable elected officials to make sound and objective funding appropriations and allocations for the upcoming fiscal year. Once approved by elected officials, annual Operating and CIP Budgets that are tied to realistic performance objectives and reliable performance measures can serve as operational plans for those departments, agencies, and programs funded each fiscal year. Relating this specifically to the Department of Parks and Recreation's annual Operating and CIP Budgets for maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of the County's recreational facilities, elected officials need to be provided a complete inventory of facilities under the Department's management; the current condition of each facility; the estimated cost to return each facility to an acceptable level of service or established standard; and the Department's strategies, priorities, and timelines for restoring facilities to acceptable levels of service and for conducting periodic maintenance and repair to reduce or prevent facility deterioration. Combined with a community needs analysis, this information can serve as the foundation for the Department of Parks and Recreation's facility management plan — what industry best practices refers to as an asset management plan — that can be reviewed and discussed with elected officials and the general public to determine whether specific facilities should be repaired, improved or replaced, and the ranking and schedule for facility repair or replacement. While elected officials are responsible for adequately funding any asset management plan, it is the Department's responsibility to provide elected officials with sufficient information to make sound and objective funding decisions, including current facilities condition; current deferred maintenance backlog; priorities and resources required for eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog and addressing hazardous materials and ADA issues; and performance reports detailing progress made under the Department's operational plans and schedules. The Department's budgets and tracking of activities and expenditures will also need to be sufficiently detailed and categorized to permit ease in gathering and reporting of the necessary information. As discussed above, the EPA in its Asset Management:A Best Practices Guide states: Asset management is maintaining the desired level of service for what you want your assets to provide at the lowest life cycle cost. Lowest life cycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is implemented through an asset management program and typically includes a written asset management plan. (op cit, p. 1) 57 owo Chapter 5: BUDGETS.. In developing an asset management plan, County administrators and elected officials need to determine: 'What is the best long-term funding strategy for the management of County assets?" Integral to that asset management plan are specific action plans and sufficient budgets for periodic maintenance and repair, reduction of the deferred maintenance and repair backlog, and financing of rehabilitation and replacement projects in order to maintain consistent levels of service and safety at County facilities. 11 As discussed above, the National Research Council states in its publication Committing to the Cost of Ownership— Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings: Underfunding is a widespread and persistent problem that undermines maintenance and repair (M&R) of public buildings. To overcome this problem, M&R budgets should be structured to A identify explicitly the expenditures associated with routine M&R requirements and activities to reduce the backlog of deferred deficiencies. An appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R for #� a substantial inventory of facilities will typically be in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement value of those facilities (excluding land and major associated infrastructure). In the absence of specific information upon which to base the M&R budget, this funding level should be used as an absolute minimum value. Where neglect of maintenance has caused a backlog of IN NO needed repairs to accumulate, spending must exceed this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated. (op cit, pp. 11-12) However, the relationship between M&R requirements and the current replacement value of single buildings may vary widely and for any one building may be outside the proposed range... Such jurisdictions may also find that past decisions to reduce construction expenditures now have, as a consequence, higher M&R costs... A reliable estimate of the current replacement value of a building or an inventory is a necessary element of this budgeting rule. Current replacement value can be determined in several ways. The simplest approach estimates what it would cost in any given year to construct or purchase each building in Not the inventory. Another approach applies escalation factors to the original acquisition cost of the buildings in the inventory. There may be substantial uncertainties in these estimates, particularly among the older stock of public buildings (some more than 100 years old). Each agency must evaluate its own inventory and develop the best approach for determining its replacement value. (op cit, pp. 18-19) 58 Chapter 5: BUDGET BUDGETED FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR HAVE NOT BEEN EXPENDED While the Parks Maintenance Division is appropriated the primary budget for general maintenance and repair of recreational facilities, the Parks Maintenance Superintendent reports that funds to perform periodic or preventative maintenance and repair are limited. For example, the Parks Maintenance Division operations budget shows Account Number 010.500.5505.02.115 — Parks Maintenance OCE Miscellaneous Contract Services — with several categories including Facility Lights, Roof and Gutters, Painting, Fumigation, Field Lights, Gym Lights, etc. Chart #6 below shows amounts budgeted for FY2006-2007 through FY2010- 2011, as well as actual expenditures for those fiscal years. Chart #6 indicates that while the Department had budgeted monies in 4 fiscal years for roof and gutters, it expended zero dollars in contract services for maintenance of roof and gutters during those 4 fiscal years. However, 11 of 16 facilities that the Auditors visited were experiencing issues related to leaking roofs. Review of departmental reports and interviews with facility staff revealed that these conditions existed for several years in a majority of the facilities. It is apparent that there is a breakdown or disconnect in the Department's process for linking its annual budget allocations to existing facility conditions as well as linking its approved budgets to actual departmental activities. If not based on a ranked list of facilities needing repair and the estimated costs to complete those repairs, the Department's budget requests do not provide a plan for the Department to follow in executing its facilities maintenance and repair work throughout the year. 59 sip fig rot ~ to M W v- a 0 3 O a L D 0 N v O CD- M +- m 0 N ,F, ' Q 00069 EA O O CD O Ef} 0 vi 0 a) 0 0 O 0 0 0 N N C) O O O O w U CO (A ta N En a) ca co to 0 pm O Cl) CO N N a) CO q— W r- 0 Z rn M rn , U O N v t- 0 1 4 O O O E)- E)- O 0 CD CD EA a) > N E3) 0 • O W p 0 ++ CD O CD O O 0 0 O L ia. Cl) N N 0) 0 CD 0 CD CD 0 O 0 O L H u. u_ (Y) LU o to to to O O COO 4- U -' N CO (0 — N N N N 0 Cl) PPIN Q .0 CO EA EA U)- EA EA Ef} U)- EH K-} Ef} N O 1- G co Z L. o) co 0o co c Q 0 - ) co- a 0` 4 00064 CO 69 o O o o CO ta ax) • N co Ta Q O W p 0 +• O CD 0 0 d O O CD 0 0 O O CD CD O U O N LO Z O '„ 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O -0 * 4 N LL 13 to to O O O O to to 1- c L wd wd J LL CO 664 � N N Ei4 H? E)- N �+ ser W L. 2 � `� CO N. N- N o a O 3 o o o E � U 2 a) O 4-• 0) - ca _c U c N 4 0 0 0 U CD 0 CD CD CO a) h N N O K O O 0 O O +r CD CD O O O CD O CD O O W W N a) CD O CD CD CD O CD CD CD o U 0) 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 o cy rn Z c LL la CO D o m to to CO o uS a) Z m N N N �,Ca W d c ear I— d 0) o 0O U — '• 0 o (0 O CD CO a) N +r ti Co to N a) c L) m 1 Q 0 0 U)- N O O CD (A- O p O O c 4 L N O O O O 0 El 0- L > d CO COO CD O C) O •- to to O 0 O LO to u- CO C0 CO-00 e- ' CO CO O 0)to L Y ft 63 to (A EA N 6N R(0 m E Ef} N 0_ L C U o2 oo w 0_ V) a) 0 7 - a) a) 0 0 (7 O 0 L L 'C U _ C� o CD CO OM O a Mm a, it a) > W = 0) J J L t O L W L L U) o • E = E >, o) a c Q s a3 °) L 0 d Li 'u. 0 a. CC O CC Y ce O H Z Chapter 5: BUDGET BUDGETED FUNDS FOR MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR WERE REDUCED OR ELIMINATED While the Department is aware of facilities with critical repair needs that have remained unaddressed for years, its FY2011-2012 Parks Maintenance Division operations budget includes no monies for certain critical maintenance categories. Chart #6 above indicates that funds for Miscellaneous Contract Services related to roof and gutters, painting, fumigation, playground resurfacing, and outdoor court repairs were removed from the Parks Maintenance Division FY2010-2011 operations budget. Review of the Department's FY2011-2012 Operating Budget indicates that funding for these critical maintenance categories has not been restored. Chart#6 above also indicates that budgets for a majority of line items in the Parks Maintenance Division's Miscellaneous Contract Services account were unchanged during 4 fiscal years. When the Auditors requested documentation to support what projects were planned in each of the fiscal years for each of the budgeted repair categories, the Department responded that there is no formal list or plan of projects. Annual budgeting based on dollars historically requested rather than on annual assessments of facility conditions and cost repair estimates signals a breakdown or disconnect between the Department's budget process and the reality of its facility conditions and operational needs. Leveling of the amounts budgeted under a particular line item may be possible if facilities have not deteriorated from year to year, and budgeted amounts reflect the costs of periodic maintenance for scheduled upkeep of facilities. However, by its own admission, P&R's inventory of facilities is aged and its backlog of deferred maintenance is substantial. If the Department were to prepare its annual Operating Budget requests based on current cost estimates to repair and maintain those facility components identified as highest priority, then elected officials could more clearly see the necessity for the funds requested, and thereafter, the funds allocated would provide a clear action or project plan for the Department for the fiscal year. Further, if the Department were to provide reports clearly showing the benefit and results of its maintenance and repair activities, such as utilizing the Facility Condition Index that provides a quantitative method for assessing and tracking building conditions over time (as discussed above in Facilities Asset Management), elected officials could better rely on the Department's ability to accurately and objectively assess and address its resource needs. However, interviews with P&R personnel confirm that the Department does not currently maintain a complete written inventory of its facilities and key facility components or conduct regular facility condition assessments and remaining life estimates. The Department also has not developed written facility maintenance and repair plans that include estimated timelines and costs for anticipated repairs and preventative maintenance for use in preparing annual budgets and planning long-term facility replacements. In our review of departmental reports submitted for FY2008-2009, we noted that at least 6 facilities had experienced long-term termite damage, which was corroborated during our site visits. However, while the Parks Maintenance Division operations budgets for FY2006-2007 through FY2009-2010 included monies for fumigation, the Division's approved FY2010-2011 budget and proposed FY2011-2012 budget do not include any monies for fumigation. Other contract maintenance categories for which no monies have been appropriated in the Division's proposed FY2011-2012 operations budget are: Tree Trimming, Cesspool Pumping, Facility Lights, and Water Hauling. 61 Mr Chapter 5: BUDGET Rw Yet, with many recreational facilities still in need of significant maintenance and repair, the ,. Department's approved CIP Budget for FY2010-2011 was $32,691,000, with $21,026,000 designated for new/replacement/improvement projects; and its proposed CIP Budget for •• FY2011-2012 is $26,864,000, with $16,485,000 designated for new/replacement/improvement projects. In an effort to present analysis of the Department's priorities in allocating CIP resources, the Auditors requested detailed information as to how the Department categorizes projects, such as periodic maintenance, deferred maintenance backlog, facilities improvements, rehabilitation, or new construction. The P&R Park Planner indicated that the Department does not categorize its CIP projects. The following chart was prepared by the Auditors to group CIP projects into broad categories using the information contained in the P&R C/P Budget and Financial Impact wo Statements for the fiscal years shown. "" CHART #7 NIP P&R CIP BUDGET Funds Budgeted for FY2006-2007 through FY2010-2011 This chart is presented for illustrative purposes to facilitate discussion about P&R C/P resource allocations and does not necessarily reflect the manner in which the Department might categorize its projects. BACKLOG/PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS FY FY FY FY FY FY Category 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Proposed B/P $9,000,000 $7,417,000 $9,150,000 $18,500,000 $11,600,000 $10,100,000 • B/P = Backlog/Preventative Maintenance or Repair Projects = Facilities in need of backlog/preventative repair or maintenance. IMPROVEMENTS, NEW/REPLACEMENT PROJECTS FY FY FY FY FY FY Category 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Proposed $3,515,000 $4,478,000 $3,590,000 $10,000,000 $11,600,000 $10,100,000 N/R $8,592,000 $16,900,000 $4,472,000 $11,865,000 $17,676,000 $9,135,000 PP Total $12,107,000 $21,378,000 $8,062,000 $21,865,000 $29,276,000 $19,235,000 I&NR • I = Improvement Projects = Enhancements which expand level of service. • N/R = New/Replacement Projects = New facility, or deteriorated facility in need of replacement. ",0' See, Appendix C for detailed P&R CIP Projects List for FY2006-2007 through FY2011-2012. 62 Chapter 5: BUDGET THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT DIRECT AN ADEQUATE PORTION OF ITS BUDGET REQUESTS TO PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE IN THE PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION'S OPERATING BUDGET As discussed above, the Parks Maintenance Division has insufficient funds budgeted for periodic or preventative maintenance activities, such as termite treatment and roof painting and repair. Chart#8, shows that each year the Department includes a non-project specific line item request in its CIP budget titled "Improvement and Repair". This account has $1.3 million dollars of not only appropriated but actually allotted funds scheduled to lapse June 30, 2011, while Chart#6 shows the Parks Maintenance Division's budget for critical repair items such as "roof& gutters", "fumigation", and "painting" was zero for the same period. This exemplifies the importance of having current condition information and a prioritization policy to be used in conjunction with the Department's asset management plan and performance data in developing the Department's CIP and Operating budget requests. Without sufficient prioritization and allocation of funding requests to the Department's Operating budget for periodic/preventative maintenance and repair, facilities will deteriorate more quickly, and over time, require major repair, rehabilitation, or replacement through the Department's CIP budget. LACK OF COMPREHENSIVE MAINTENANCE PLAN LEADS TO INADEQUATE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE BUDGETS While the Parks Maintenance Division requires a sufficient budget to carry out its maintenance and repair activities, the Department's CIP and Operating Budgets demonstrate that operational funding for facilities maintenance and repair has been a lower priority than CIP funding for new projects and improvements. Over time, this approach has resulted in a significant backlog of deferred maintenance, which if not addressed, research shows will ultimately result in increased rehabilitation costs and/or early failure of facilities that will require replacement. As discussed above, an essential component of an asset management plan is a comprehensive maintenance plan and an annual work plan that links facility maintenance and repair activities and costs to the Department's annual Operating Budget, as well as its annual CIP Budget if substantial facility repairs or replacement is required. A comprehensive maintenance plan, which includes routine and periodic annual maintenance activities and specific activities to address the backlog of deferred work, should guide project priorities and resource allocations under the Department's annual Operating and CIP Budgets. However, examination of the Department's annual budget allocations and expenditures over the last 5 fiscal years reveals that certain budgeted funds for critical maintenance and repair activities go unexpended, and further funding for other critical maintenance and repair activities is being eliminated from the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget. LACK OF A PROCESS TO INCORPORATE IDENTIFIED CRITICAL REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE ISSUES INTO BUDGETING PROCESS P&R facility personnel complete Quarterly and Annual Recreational Facility Reports that are routed to Department administrators in which they may report any problems or deficiencies in facility conditions and the impact of facility conditions on access and delivery of services to their respective communities. However, the Department has not implemented a process for incorporating this information regarding facilities conditions and maintenance and repair requirements into its annual planning, budgeting, or maintenance and repair work processes. In interviews with the Auditors, several facility personnel expressed frustration at having reported issues such as termite infestations and leaky roofs on a regular basis, but no corrective actions or expenditures were authorized by the Department. 63 up Chapter 5: BUDGET THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOCATING AN ADEQUATE PORTION OF THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET TO MAINTENANCE HAS NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED int The failure to recognize the importance of adequate budgeting for periodic facility maintenance and repair, its long-term cost savings, and the prevention of a deferred maintenance backlog is not unique to Hawai'i County. In her December 2010 report entitled "State of the State Recreational Places, A Four Step Plan to Restore State Parks, Harbors, Trails, and Forest Access", Laura Thielen, former Chairperson of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) states: two decades the State has rarely provided the funding to repair and replace dilapidated facilities as they aged, and essentially annually cut DLNR General Funds... Despite this obvious backlog, no dollars—zero —were allocated to fix any facilities in State Parks in 2011. In contrast, the City and County of Honolulu invested nearly $40 million in capital improvement for their parks in 2011. Likewise, Hawai'i County can no longer afford to neglect periodic or preventative maintenance and repair of its recreational facilities, and must recognize that proper asset management can only be accomplished through proper planning and adequate resource allocation that permit timely performance of appropriate maintenance activities. To reduce or eliminate budget +* allocations for maintenance activities which have been deferred for years will likely result in more costly structural damage. To allocate scarce resources to new facilities that will ultimately require the investment of additional resources to operate and maintain may not represent an effective or efficient use of public funds. As quoted earlier from Committing to the Cost of Ownership — Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, the National Research Council concluded that: The committee believes that the underfunding and subsequent neglect of M & R [maintenance and repair] that prevails in many public agencies result in large measure from a failure of those who decide on funding levels to recognize fully the impact of their decisions on the public's capital assets, the investment in public buildings. (op cit, pp.13-14) , REQUESTED FUNDS ALLOCATED TO MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR IN THE OPERATING BUDGET ARE INADEQUATE AND LEAD TO INCREASED FUTURE COSTS Inadequate allocation of requested budget dollars to maintenance and repair also results in increased future costs due to inflationary factors and the increased complexity of repairs that are required to return deteriorated facilities to acceptable levels of service. As discussed above, in its publication Committing to the Cost of Ownership — Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, the National Research Council advises that an appropriate budget allocation for facility maintenance and repair typically ranges from 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement value of the facility. "Adequate funding is not the only element of effective maintenance and repair, but it is so critical that no maintenance and repair program can be successful for long without it." (op cit, p 19) 64 Chapter 5: BUDGET However, when reviewing the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budgets for FY2006- 2007 through FY2010-2011, it is difficult to determine whether the Department's budget allocations are designated for current and periodic maintenance and repair, remediation of deferred maintenance, or facility improvements. The National Research Council also advises that budgets clearly delineate maintenance and repair activities to allow for proper review of resource allocations. The Department needs to plan, budget, and track its maintenance and repair activities at a sufficient level of detail to allow decision makers and stakeholders to determine what routine, periodic, preventative, and rehabilitative maintenance activities are planned; whether those plans have been carried out; and whether maintenance activities performed have been successful in meeting desired outcomes. As part of its asset management plan, the Department of Parks and Recreation needs to define its facility maintenance categories, and specifically define maintenance activities within those categories, to provide specificity in its annual planning and budget processes. The Department will also need to clearly designate who is responsible for developing, implementing, and monitoring action plans, schedules, and expenditures for each maintenance category and activity, and develop formal policies and procedures to ensure that relevant facility conditions and maintenance operations data are timely reported and incorporated into its annual planning and budgeting processes. REQUESTED FUNDS ALLOCATED TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE IN THE BUDGET ARE INADEQUATE AND LEAD TO INCREASED FUTURE COSTS Reduced budget allocations for deferred maintenance and repair activities have increased the backlog of facilities in need of maintenance and repair, making the problem cyclical. The P&R Employee Handbook includes the following statement: ... We thank everyone who has participated so far, recognizing that P&R has been through a long period of deferred maintenance and ever-increasing facility use as our Big Island population continues to grow... With that acknowledgment, the Department needs to make annual budget allocations that adequately meet routine, preventative, and deferred maintenance and repair requirements in order to better serve a growing island community and accommodate increased facility use. CLEAR BUDGET PRIORITIES FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES ARE NEEDED The County Administration and Department of Parks and Recreation need to adopt and communicate a clear budget policy that establishes clear priorities for allocation of County- generated funds. Chart #8 below depicts a possible budget priority policy. The policy could include exceptions for or give higher priority to facility improvements or new construction with an established minimum percentage of external funding (i.e.; 80% federal or private funding). 65 .ter. Chapter 5: BUDGET CHART #8 SAMPLE OF FACILITIES PRIORITIZATION PIP PRIORITIES CATEGORIES APPROPRIATE FUNDING Routine Priority One (i.e.; Custodial Activities) Operating Budget V Periodic Operating Budget, or possibly (i.e.; Termite Fumigation, Roof Repair) CIP Budget ow Emergency Operating Budget, or possibly (i.e.; Health and Public Safety Issues) CIP Budget Deferred Backlog, ADA, Hazardous woo Materials Operating Budget, or possibly Priority Two (i.e.; Health/Safety Issues, Government CIP Budget Mandates) Major Repairs Priority Three (i.e.; Rehabilitate Facility) CIP Budget ook Replacement CIP Budget (i.e.; Rebuild Facility) wok Improvements Priority Four (i.e.; Enhance Facility) CIP Budget New (i.e.; Construct New Facility) CIP Budget too As quoted earlier from Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy (2007 and 2010), the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practice states: A government's financial and capital improvement plans should ago, address the continuing investment necessary to properly maintain RP capital assets. Such practices should include proactive steps to promote adequate investment in capital maintenance and replacement at necessary levels. This GFOA best practice for asset management is also consistent with the EPA best practice quoted earlier from its Asset Management:A Best Practices Guide: Asset management is maintaining the desired level of service for what you want your assets to provide at the lowest life cycle cost. Lowest life cycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset. Asset management is implemented through an asset management program and typically includes a written asset management plan. m 66 Chapter 5: BUDGET THE COUNTY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION NEED TO CLEARLY DELINEATE PROJECTS AND ACTIVITIES TO BE FUNDED IN OPERATING VERSUS CIP BUDGETS As discussed earlier, our review of departmental records indicates that routine maintenance and repair operating expenses are being charged to the P&R CIP Budget line item Repairs/Improvements. It is a generally accepted accounting and business practice that routine maintenance and minor repairs are budgeted in the Operating budget and that major or rehabilitative repairs are budgeted in Capital budgets. Capital budgets are generally for "projects" with costs exceeding an established minimum threshold (i.e.; over $25,000), which will increase the asset's value or extend the useful life of the asset. It would be beneficial if the Department of Finance clarified for all departments what constitutes a project to be appropriately budgeted in the Capital Budget versus the Operating Budget. The P&R Administration needs to clearly delineate what activities and expenses are to be included in its Operating Budget versus its CIP Budget, and who is responsible for ensuring that the budgeted activities are carried out within the appropriate budget period. CHART #9 P&R CIP BUDGET LINE ITEM FOR REPAIRS/IMPROVEMENTS FY2008-2009 FY2009-2010 FY2010-2011 Proposed FY2011-2012 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Also discussed above, the Auditors requested a detailed listing of projects included in the P&R CIP Budget line item Repairs/Improvements, which totaled $2,000,000 for FY2008-2009; $2,500,000 for FY2009-2010; $4,000,000 for FY2010-2011; and $4,000,000 for FY2011-2012. The Department responded with a CIP spreadsheet entitled "Parks & Recreation — Capital Projects Status", which comprises a listing of Project Title, Ordinance and Account Number, Lapsing Date, and Appropriation Amount for FY2008-2009 through FY2010-2011. (See below, Chart #10) The information contained in this listing appropriately reflects contract payments processed for certain repair and maintenance projects. However, it also includes charges for material expenditures (such as mildew cleaner, paint, and paint thinner) that should be charged to the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget. (See below, Shaded Line Items) 67 Chapter 5: BUDGET Date 0 -2211 PROJECT TITLE' ORD 6 ACCT NO: LAPSING DATE: APPROPRIATION'. UNALLOTED BAL. FUNDING SOURCE' CHART #10 PARKS & RECREATION - CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS Repairs /Improvements to Facilities 08 -79 (110.599 - 5599.94.115) 6 -30 -11 $2,000,000.00 "" "APPROPRIATION IS FULLY ALLOTTED "" District Islandwide Legen0 Black = Reconciled Red = Encumbered Blue = Equation Repair ol, renovation to. replacement ol, and/or general improvements at parks and recaeahonat facilities - their amenities. RESTRICTIONS infrastructure. utilities and built environment necessary to facilitate and support public use DATE Posted Conti ad Encumbrance Description 6 -30 -09 10 -22 -09 10-19-09 11.18.09 68 Allotment 4146 (PR 0955) Transfer from unalloned acct 5599 Waimea Be.6eld Lght Enver Futures Removal (T8T Eleetnci 0111585263 x002068 Lincoln Park Tennis Courts Al (R Nagata) Supp No 1 C 002311 11.381MJ Naalenu Basketball 8 TC (Loeffier) COO S1 12-10-09 Parses a Form y Ce 1 Y r}g.l Ext Petit Becip012200)Hoirl Delia R013200 C 001574 8.3942 W H Vet Cam Irrigation Improv lBoltnn) CO 01 C 002638 B -3845 Hilo Mono GC Clubhouse Greasetrap (Loeffler) Contract Award C 002635 xeopu Cemetery Bona Investpason (Cueing Surreys I(aein Convect Awars road 00201i Panaewa Farnly CIt lea 4x6x10 HPM 0(1600786 Panaewa Famity Cu - Mildew CYtr 8 Bleach (HPM) 041604004 Panaewa F airily Cif -5gal In) Semi GI. Peel (Home Depo) 041605544 Peneeen Femay Ce Roof Mete/ HPM 8013001 AM Exp 0.1609395 Nonevent Fully Cli leaneOepol R013202 Credo pant not needed 0.1614212 Kailua Parkll2es Gay Sheet Melo (prop 00204)Royal Metals R013478 1 22.10 Allotrnen10371PR 10-005) 2008A Series Burin Funds Ord C6 154, 1-27-10 C 002691 Pana'eora Park New Covered Play Courts (Lou Chan) pup CA205 2-2 -10 PRPMt eloOedrPkn.FoemCwf,T 1625909 2 -5-10 Panaewa Frt y Cu7(4 pcs 2x12x12,1 pc 2x1202) HPM D11627207 2 -17.10 Happiness Gardens 2 ea Park Benches (pcip 00207) Belson R 013557 2.22-10 Coopw CW50 Pine Forest, 5gsl lfyhdelCl Di11ux Pant 001634663 2-24-10 C 002703 H ■slonc Structures - SHPD Facd tahon (Fung) 2-25-10 Cooper Center r 15 gal While Pant 1 ICl Who Paint D.1635672 3-3-10 Panaewa Fawley Carta (1x2 k16,1x4x16,1)(6x8)) HPM 001636638 3-9-10 C 002589 PR 3945 Aunty Sally s Reroofing (BeachseVe) CiO $1 3-15-10 C 001850 B -3625 Kamehameha Park CO ' 44 I S,te E ng) Panaewa Fw ly Clr (door kits, lambs, wits, hinges) 141841301640088 Panacea Fate Ctr fcpcs.pipottmedes igluson puked 0.167083', Faracea Furry Ce (dupiex rucpt 20A erre:A) Sexauer 0,168■263 Panaewa Family Center Doors (prop 00210) HPM R 014067 Panaewa F airily Ctr (Bean Supls) prop 00214 Alpha Elect R 0140/3 Panaewa Fmly Ctr (Electrical Supt.) prop 00214 Goitre 8.014074 Panaewa Family Ctr (EIe to Su $) prop 00214 JA Sexeuer 8014075 1 12.4 -09 12.11-09 12.4 -09 12.7 -09 12 -18 -09 12 -22 -09 12-28-09 1-19-10 1-28-10 3-17-10 4-5-10 4 -30 -10 5 -11•10 5-13-10 5.13.10 5 -13-10 All OT MF Nt $ 229.495 69 EXPENDITURE ENCUMBRANCE S 5.267 00 $ 10,360 00 $ 8,412 32 $ 1 091,139 86 3 85313 S $ 3,34068 80,000 00 11,374 95 BALANCE $ 229,495.69 $ 224.228.69 $ 213.868 69 $ 205.456 37 S 3 $ S S 20 21 25 76 10875 0 49 (365 63) 2,226 03 $ 204,603.24 S S 201 262 56 121 26256 109887 61 $ 222.200 00 S 63.16 91.00 $ $ S S 1,18000 472 31 10,377 65 478 88 333.74 109.867.40 109,841 64 109 732 89 109.732.40 110,098.03 107,872.00 $ 1.199.011 86 $ 976 811 86 S 9.800 86 5 20.282 31 S $ $ $ S S 736 39 337 88 125.20 1,527.24 2.72918 1.636 56 644 42 976,74870 976.657 70 975 477 70 975,005 39 964 627 74 964,148 86 963,815.12 S 954.01426 S 933,73195 S 932.995 56 $ 932,657.68 S 932,532.48 $ 931,005.24 $ 928.27606 $ 926,639 50 S 925.79508 Dale 6 -22.11 PROJECT TITLE' ORD & ACCT NO LAPSING DATE' APPROPRIATION UNALLOTED BAL FUNDING SOURCE RESTRICTIONS. Chapter 5: BUDGET District lalandwide PARKS & RECREATION - CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS 1,1 Black = Reconciled Repairsllmprovements to Facilities R� Encumbered 08-79 (110.599.5599.94.115) Blue = Equation 6 -30 -11 $2,000,000.00 "'APPROPRIATION IS FULLY ALLOTTED "' Repair of, renovation to, replacement of, and/or general improvements at parks and ecr eational facilities - their amenities. infrastructure, utilities and built environment necessary to facilitate and support public 5.13.10 Palaewa Fr* CU (Electrical Sups) prop 00214 Weise° 80140 5.11-10 Panrwa Family Ctt (Meters) prop 00215 Alpha Electric R 014063 5-11-10 Panacea Faintly CU (Mews) prop 00215 Gexpro R 014066 5-11-10 C 730?779 Pa'awl° Gymnasium Annex Restoration (BRK) Contract Award Panacea Family Clr (Lighting) prdp.00216 Alpha Daft R 014072 Panacea Family Center (1,000 8 112 EMT) Gatpro D11685700 Panacea Family Centr (118 Bends, chit Bend) Fergwtxt 0016685709 5-20-10 Panixee Freer CU (MUldlert,Drywe1,41c)prdp.00217 Loe4'$ R014138 Panacea Fmly -Ctr (2way Sw,12.2 MC Ceble)Alphe Sul D11688042 5.13.10 g 11.01995 S 881,741.03 5.26.10 C 001850 0 :1025 Kam Park Ai (Ste Eng i C'O ' $ 019 95 $ 681,747 03 6-4-10 Panacea Family Center (24 ea 1412416) HPM 041696949 S 73 81 $ 681 267 79 6-9-10 Panama Faintly Center (50 ea Elec Bxs) Alpha Electrik 011696102 S (5 11) S 881 223 79 6.7.10 Panacea Family Cm Alpha ElecgiC R 014073 011697166 A4 Eap $ 211 S 881,221 90 6-14-10 Panama Faintly Cli . JA Smatter R 014075 011698970 A4 Exp S (2.45) S 881. 221.45 6-22-10 Panacea fanely Ctr - Gexpro R014074 D11703953 A4 Exp $ (0.36) S 881.221.82 6-29-10 Panaeea Fan«ly CU - Gexpro R,014074 Dr11710672 A4 Exp 5 (0.36 5 881225.81 6.30.10 Panacea F amity Clr (3 ea Paint Thinner) Shefwin-Withans 0/171111/ S 10 �1 S 881,198.30 6.30.10 Panacea Furry CU (E1eC Sups)Wesco R 014076 041711768 A4 Exp $ (10 377 65) S 891.573 95 8-5-10 C 00210:1 Historic Structures - SHPD Fau6tauon ;Fungi • PO Canceilel $ 377 65 S 881 573 95 t a,paeoenoe Boar Ramp Removal d e.posea iexduorg steel 8 10 -10 RFO lsea Enema"' �,, ' oa 4 172x746 g 27 70 S 881 648 25 8.10.10 PanSewa Family Ctr (Lumber) HPM Doc 01724739 $ 227 70 S 881.446 25 Panama Family Ctr (Lumber & Saves) HPM Doc 0 17241M 8.1010 $ 154 16 $ 681.286 31 8-10-10 Panama Family Clr (Silica Sand) While Cap Doc 11724783 $ $8 34 $ 881,197 97 8 -11 -10 Panacea Family Ctr (Conn Bushings End) Gexpro Doc 11725376 $ (0 32) 5 881,197 97 8.11.10 Panacea Family CII • Gexpro R 014074 D11725379 A4 Exp ?66 92 5 880/9199 8 -13 -10 Higasnihara Park 15 22 any By Course tDeLut Tnlckongl D*1725188 $ 692 5 880,931 07 Panama F amity Ctr (Scx Cyr Wirewe y) Gexpro 011735544 8-24-10 $ 260 42 $ 880,652,29 8-25-10 Panacea For* CV - laves d Kona R 014138 Shlppng Charge $ 100 00 $ 880,552.29 9-2-10 Miele* Spec System Upgrade Filing Fee - State d HI 011737489 1063700 $ 86991529 5 '9esdadel Convect Awaa Dx 6 736646 $ 5-13-10 5-6-10 5-6-10 g 495.51 $ 529.00 $ 3,18431 S 925,299.57 S 924,770.57 $ 921,58626 15 873 60 I S 905 712 66 S $ $ $ S 9.700 42 197 92 132 42 237238 548 54 S 896 012 24 1 S 895 814 32 $ 895.681 90 S 893,309 52 $ 892.760 98 1 9 -9 -10 PR 3993 Er MP StaMa� Rout Rep w s ` 14 17894 $ 855.736 35 9 -9 -10 PR 3993 EK MP Slailiuiu Reel Repos (BeedtSidel Cr01t 011138846 $ 2 69 Chapter 5: BUDGET Date: 6-22-11 PROJECT TITLE: ORD & ACCT NO LAPSING DATE. APPROPRIATION' UNAL LOTED SAL: FUNDING SOURCE PARKS & RECREATION - CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS Repairs /Improvements to Facilities 08 -79 (110.599.5599.94.115) 6 -30 -11 $2,000,000.00 "'APPROPRIATION IS FULLY ALLOTTED •• District Islandwld� Legend Black = Reconuled Reo - Encumbered Blue _ Equation RESTRICTIONS Repair of, renovation to, replacement of, and/or general rnprovements at parks and recreational facilities - their amenities, infrastructure, utilities and built environment necessary to facilitate and support public use. DATE Posted Contract Encumbrance Description ALLOTMENT EXPENDITURE ENCUMBRANCE BALANCE 9 -27.10 C 002944 Paks Mont S 14b easerad New 3-Phase Pooer Svc Pict (prop 00711) $ 4,300 00 S 851,436.35 10-7-10 Allotment 133 (PR 11-004) Ordinance 09-154 Bonds 5 679,364 45 $ 1.530.800.80 10-7-10 Panaewa Ferrol), Center 2 pcs 01308 Lumber HPM D01750218 5 43 11 $ 1,530,757 69 10-7-10 Panaewa Firmly Center 3 Door 3100618 Mahog HPM 041750220 5 650 00 S 1,530,107 69 10 -25.10 C 002955 PR 4028 Isaac k Hale Beach Park New Playground 3 193.000 00 $ 1,337 107 69 1.24.11 Panama Family CLr copper Apes, els, eic Cenlrp Supply 081798668 $ 202 93 S 1,336,904.76 1 -24 -11 Panora Forth/Canter 1 sat door Irrlb HMI 041799562 S 45 82 $ 1.336.858.94 Lauparodge Bo* Ramp Rermva■ d exposed ranlacnq steel (Sea EJgneen e) Doc e 1724746. bp 4dlusarrer4 chorea to 5599 67 115 5 $ S f2er rpitulatron $ 2000,000 00 $ 653,923 32 70 Chapter 5: BUDGET Industry standards or best practices have indicated that CIP allocations should be listed by each project expenditure for each fiscal year until project completion, as shown below. CHART #11 SAMPLE DUPAGE FY2009 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET FY2009 Capital improvements Budget General Fund 5 Year Detailed Capital Project Listing FY2009 Account/Dept Project Approved FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 2030 Computer Equipment 01-730 Information Technology Data Center Renovation $ 50,000 S 150.000 $ 50,000 S - 5 - PC Replacements 300,000 315,000 330.750 347,268 364.652 Miscellaneous costa for hardware/software/eablea/pnnters 230,000 241.500 253,575 266,254 279.566 Corporate Fund Departments software/misc items 32,000 32,000 32,000 32.000 22.000 01-400 County Sheriff Miscelaneous costs for hardware/softwarelcables/pnnters 27,366 - - - - Sub-Total Account 2030 Data Processing Equipment-Small Value $ 639,366 $ 730,500 $ 666,326 S 645,542 $ 676,21e 415R Building Improvements-Reeppropnatlons 01-700 Facilities Management $ 1,000,000 $ - $ • $ - $ - Total 419R Building Improvements•Reappropriations $ 1,000,000 6 - $ - f - e - 4190 Building Improvements - 60,000 50.000 - - 509 Parking Garage elevator maintenance,repairs B replacement 01-700 Facilities Management equipment 01-700 Facilities Management Coroner elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equipment - - 58,135 - - 01.700 Facilities Management Jail elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equipment - 120.000 - - - 01-700 Facilities Management JOF elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equpment . 246.000 76,470 - 01-700 Facilities Management JTK elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equipment • 137,500 88,700 - - 01-700 Facilities Management Campus tuckpointing 225,000 100,000 100,000 100.000 130,000 01-700 Facilities Management. Recaulk Boor deed,$of two parking structures 480.000 50 000 50.000 50050 50.000 01..03 Faok6ee Management Campus parding Mt maintenance 50,000 50.000 501300 50.000 50.000 01-700 FaoihCies Management Veteran's memorial maintenance 10,000 10.0+0 10:000 10.000 10-000 01,700 FapiMlea Management Campus exterior 047x3$5 Hysteric r . .. 100.000 01.700 Fasaioes Management JTK Admr-r/eptace dock ramp drains 45,000 - 01.700 Faokbes Management Campus-ahowersrlacker rooms 20.000 - . - . 01-700 Faeiutres Management Campus-celled water modifications 25,000 25.000 25 000 25000 01.700 Facanties Management JOF handing retrofits&energy improvements(Siemens) 55:553 2.060 2122 2.18$ 2.251 01-700 Fatalities Management Campus Budding automation system upgrade - 125,000 125.500 125.000 125 050 01.700 Facilities Management Jail-B Building metasys controls - 75.000 75 000 75 000 75,000 01 700 Focilines Management Jai1B Budding new cooling coils - 20.000 20.000 20 00,0 30,000 01.700 Fauliues Management A JOF 2nd heat 000nanger tHVAC) 100,000 • - - • 01.700 Facilit ss Management JOF•Holding crews HVAC - . 50.000 01-700 Fatiattes Management Juvenile Deteneon•7krmrdilters - - 30.000 - 01.700 Facilities Management Power Plant Boiler 42 Controls(burners) 300.000 . . - 01.700 Facilities Management Power Plant HTW shutdown OS 4Meuarkne to Con Canter) - • 100.000 - 01.700 FauSlais Management Campus IMo,4.ng replacement 50.000 50.000 50,000 50.000 53 000 01.700 FaGn5es Management Campus ken*"replacement - 50,1303 50,000 3.0.030 `00,0,00 01.700 F'aukties Management Jar?Flooring replacement-A Budding 25.00] 25,001 75.000 25,000 25 000 01.700 Facetties Management .001 Courtroom S chambers seating replacement or reupho:stery 100,000 100 000 1407 0013 100,1117.E 01.700 Facilities Management JTK Matt room drop pealing . 75,000 01.700 Facilities Management SAO•Ergonomic seating,waiting room,attorney station* . 25,000 25.0x1 25.000 25.000 01.700 Faervties Management JTK Replace 5"spnnktar line at dock 20,000 , 01.700 14001105 Management JTK sound system replacement - - 225;030 , 01,700 Fagklie€Management Jan Greaser trap,rank/showe,drib temp 20,001 - - - - (It-700 Facilties Management .101 Instak 2nd Heal exchanger fpromWngl 70,000 - 200,000 01.700 Facilities Management JTK ADA washroom modifications - . _ 75.003 75.000 -,,. 01•7(10 Fac 51106 Management J01 Annett-Remodel Probation Department 75,000 - - 01.700 Fac,ices Management .101 Annex-Retn00el Stales Attoma$ 50,000 - . Historical Museum Roof replacement pat agreement with - 75,000 • - , 01.700 Facrslies Management Wheaton Perk District 01.700 Facu)bes Management JOF East Entrance 50,000 • . 01.700 Fs/addict Management SerWee Station rood replacement 30.000 01-700 Fao4ties Management Jail Double bunco g 20,000 20.000 20.000 20000 20.000 01.700 Fanakties Management Jail Primmer Cell Rework 25,000 50.000 50.000 50 000 50.010 01..700 Faranties Management JOF X-ray machine replacements 45.000 46.000 45.000 15,000 15.0x1 01 705 7'indite*Management Campus Security cameras&alenna 60.000 25.000 25.000 25.000 25 003 01•200 Fatakies.Management. Veaee•cewated cameras&;Wog for Cesany Board Room 50,000 -23-450 Canvstescent Center Are:hiteciural&Engineering services 60,0150 60.000 60.000 50.000 OF 400 23.450 Convalescent Center Annual IDPH survey remedial wore 75.000 100000 100.000 100 000 100.300 23-450 Convalescent Center Parking lot repairs&*teeing,sidewalks&Curb repair 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 300,00 23-450 Convalescent Ceruer Masonry tuclguari ing 20.000 20,000 20.000 20.000 20.000 23-450 Corlvatascertt Center Roof maintenance 20,000 20,000 20.000 20,000 105.000 23.450 Convalescent Center Caulking.windows&0011tr0110040 10.000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 23-450 Convalescent Center Flooring replacement common areas 10,000 10.000 10.00; 10.000 10000 23.450 Convalescent Center Painting contract 25,000 25,000 25.0011 25.000 20.000 73.450 Convalescent Center Mechanical equipment replacement 52,366 100.000 100,E 100.x50 100.000 53-450 Convalescent Center Kitchen equipment replacement 25,000 25,000 25.000 25,000 25.000 23-460 Convalescent Center Laundry equipment replacement 25.000 25,000 25000 25.000 25000 Sub-Total Account 4110 Building hnprevemants $ 2,223,016 2 1,900,540 $ 2,026,421 $ 1,147,166 $ 1,411,251 4230 Date Prde9seidg Equipment 01.400 Shetttrs Dreg* C1uPage Web Portal(190 work hosrsf4 weeas) $ 10,000 0 • 6 - 3 • $ 0-730 lnf rmtniot l echeo ogy Data Storage(ores network-enterprise cennagred storage) 500.000 - • 100,000 . Patient Clinical billing System.for Convalescent Center 125,000 . 0i5a61er Recovery-Carew redundant snstemsrvinuatisali0n - 250,000 437 71 Chapter 5: BUDGET CIP BUDGETS FOR FACILITY REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS aro ARE NOT PRIORITIZED When the Auditors asked, "Is there a policy or directive setting the priority for resource allocation for the management of existing assets?, the Park Planner responded: "There is no written policy in place for the Department that dictates priority for resource allocation for the management of existing 'e" assets. The Department acknowledges that its inventory of assets is aging, many key facilities stemming from the plantation era, and that historically and continually deferred maintenance thereat has only exacerbated the deterioration of those (worst of all) and all park facilities and amenities. Given that understanding, the Department's administration prioritizes its resource allocation on •� many different and often subjective factors (listed in no particular order) — such as the amount of use/demand at any given facility, safety concerns, likelihood of progressive/subsequent damage, type and amount of resources necessary to accomplish the needed task, impact on use, public feedback, etc. Generally, the facilities and amenities that support high-use, high-demand, active recreation receive the majority of the Department's resources, speaking in terms of staffing, maintenance activities, and CIP allocations." However, no documentation or specific details of the CIP resource allocation review and prioritization process were provided to the Auditors. CIP FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ARE INADEQUATE As currently completed, the Department's CIP Financial Impact Statements do not provide sufficient information to elected officials to make informed funding decisions, or adequate transparency to the general public about its CIP funding proposals. As currently completed, the Department's CIP Financial Impact Statements do not quantify ongoing maintenance costs or staffing requirements for a facility or disclose the estimated costs and timelines for anticipated periodic maintenance of major facility components (i.e.; roof, gym and field lighting, and ball field and court surfaces). See, Appendix D, CIP Financial Impact Statement Form. Inadequate planning and budgeting for facilities maintenance and repair for new CIP projects result in the continuation of inefficient and reactive operations. Without plans that delineate what maintenance and repair activities are to be conducted at what frequency, the Department cannot develop an annual operational plan and maintenance schedule for its facilities inventory to serve as a basis for analyzing staffing requirements and preparing Operating and CIP Budgets, which in turn permit a proactive approach to facilities maintenance. The lack of periodic maintenance policies and activities, facility condition assessments, and prioritized CIP plans results in a reactive approach to facilities management and prevents budget stabilization for both the Department's Operating and CIP Budgets. Continued deferral of maintenance and repair will result in severely deteriorated recreational facilities and impact access and levels of service to community members. Where there is no longer an option to rehabilitate a facility, it must be replaced. However, given current economic 72 �4� Chapter 5: BUDGET constraints, the County's ability to fund new construction cannot keep pace with the frequency at which the County's facilities are failing. 73 ymp CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CHAPTER 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . FINDING 1 : INSUFFICIENTLY INTEGRATED PLANNING, BUDGETING, OPERATIONS, AND MONITORING PROCESSES RESULT IN INADEQUATE CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR Recommendation 1.1: The P&R Department, County Administration, and County Council need to ensure that there is an integrated overall process to facilitate adequate critical maintenance and repair of the County's recreational facilities. This would include the more detailed recommendations that follow for improving the facilities planning, budgeting, operations, and monitoring processes. FINDING 2: P&R's PLANNING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES CRITICAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS IS INSUFFICIENT Lack of an Asset Management Plan for Facilities Recommendation 2.1: P&R should develop a comprehensive asset management plan, which should integrate plans to address the deferred maintenance and repair backlog, ADA rehabilitation, and hazardous materials remediation. The asset management plan should also include a timeline for returning all facilities to the conditions set forth in its Strategic Plan. Strategic Plan Outdated and Has Not Been Fully Implemented . Recommendation 2.2: P&R should complete updating its 2004-2009 Strategic Plan. An ongoing process for updating its strategic plan, and for reviewing and reporting progress toward achieving strategic goals should ,. also be developed. No Written Hazardous Materials Remediation Plan Recommendation 2.3: P&R should develop a plan to remediate hazardous materials issues at its facilities, and integrate it into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. The hazardous materials remediation plan should include any safety measures implemented at each facility as well as cost estimates to remediate each identified hazardous condition. 04R 74 NIP itaio Chapter 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • The Department should further implement policies and processes to ensure that the list of excluded materials is updated and incorporated into the procurement process. ADA Access Plan Not Integrated into Asset Management Plan Recommendation 2.4: P&R should integrate its ADA Access Plan into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. Insufficient Periodic Maintenance Plan Recommendation 2.5: The Parks Maintenance Division should develop a comprehensive periodic maintenance plan that includes schedules for critical maintenance of facility components, such as roof painting and termite treatment. Lack of Plan to Reduce Maintenance and Repair Backlog Recommendation 2.6: P&R should develop a plan to reduce its backlog of deferred maintenance and repairs based on a current facilities condition assessment, and integrate it into an overall asset management plan with a process to track and report on performance. Insufficient Prioritization of Projects Recommendation 2.7: P&R should develop a method for prioritizing its facilities maintenance projects that is based on asset management best practices. This would include placing a high priority on preventative maintenance and timely completion of minor repairs before major repairs are required. FINDING 3: P&R's BUDGETING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS IS INSUFFICIENT Budget Process Does Not Incorporate Facilities Data Recommendation 3.1: P&R needs to develop and implement a budget process that incorporates facilities condition information reported by its Parks Maintenance and Recreation Divisions in order to sufficiently plan, prioritize, and budget for its critical repair needs and corrective measures. Once budgeted, Operating funds should be expended for planned and prioritized periodic maintenance and repair activities to prevent the deterioration of facilities and the need for major repairs requiring CIP funds. Budget Process is Insufficient and Lacks Transparency Recommendation 3.2: P&R needs to develop and implement a budget process that incorporates assessing the condition of all of its facilities; prioritizing its maintenance and repair needs; planning its maintenance and repair activities and schedules; and tracking its activities, performance, and outcomes in order to adequately 75 CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MAYnt budget for its maintenance and repair operations and projects. In addition, P&R needs to clearly delineate appropriations and expenditures between its Operating and CIP budgets, separating operational funding for periodic or preventative maintenance and repair from CIP funding for major facility rehabilitation or replacement projects. P&R Does Not Have Reliable Estimates of Building Replacement Values Recommendation 3.3: P&R should calculate the current costs to replace each building and record this data in its facilities inventory. P&R Does Not Have Accurate Cost Estimates for Deferred Maintenance Backlog Recommendation 3.4: P&R should calculate current cost estimates to return each facility — to a "safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing" condition that is one of its strategic goals for facilities. A condition assessment and cost analysis for repairs, hazardous materials abatement, and ADA improvements should be completed for each facility in order to evaluate whether it would be more cost-effective to rehabilitate or replace the facility. FINDING 4: P&R OPERATIONAL PROCESSES FOR FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS ARE INSUFFICIENT Inventory of Facilities is Missing Key Components Recommendation 4.1: P&R should develop a complete facilities inventory that includes the essential inventory information recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and National Research Council (NRC), and sufficient detail to assess current condition of facilities and their major components (such as structural and mechanical systems). A list of facility components is included at Appendix A. Insufficient Periodic Maintenance and Repair Operations Recommendation 4.2: The Parks Maintenance Division should develop a list and schedule of critical maintenance and repair activities. All maintenance and repair activities should be tracked to completion in the Maintenance Work Request System maintained by the Division. The County Administration should also evaluate the possibility of supplementing Parks Maintenance Division manpower and equipment with any capacity from other departments, and clarify any resource-sharing responsibilities of the departments in written policies and procedures. For example, the Administration could review whether Department of Public Works' personnel and 76 J Chapter 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS equipment could be utilized to paint roofs and structures in County recreational facilities. Insufficient Recognition of the Impact of Deferred Maintenance and Repair is a Root Cause of Deteriorating Facilities Recommendation 4.3: The County Administration and Council could facilitate the success of P&R's asset management efforts by setting a "Tone at the Top" establishing the highest priority for performance of and accountability for maintenance of existing recreational assets and infrastructure by: • Establishing and communicating the priority for maintaining existing assets and infrastructure. • Requiring the development of CIP and Operating Budgets funded with County-generated revenues to be based on long- term plans that recognize the priority for routine and preventative maintenance and major rehabilitation or replacement. • Requiring all proposed CIP project data sheets (Financial Impact Statements) include analysis and disclosure of: o Ongoing maintenance costs, including full-time employee (FTE) requirements. o Life cycle cost estimates and plans to reduce life cycle costs through the use of alternative materials and construction methods. • Requiring the establishment of and reporting on relevant and quantifiable performance measures for long-term asset and infrastructure maintenance. • Requiring project plans and status reports for maintenance and repair, rehabilitation, replacement, and new construction projects that clearly show timelines and document progress. • Supporting adequate resource allocations and budgets for operations. Insufficient Process to Collect, Report, and Communicate Information Recommendation 4.4: In order to efficiently and effectively conduct its facilities maintenance and repair, P&R needs to develop and implement a process that adequately and timely coordinates the collection, reporting, and communication of relevant data for use by the public, County Council, County Administration, P&R Administration, and Park Planning and Parks Maintenance Divisions. This process entails a system in which data related to facilities condition are collected by Parks Maintenance and reported to Park Planning and P&R Administration for use in prioritizing and scheduling maintenance and repair; data related to maintenance and repair schedules and budgets are communicated back to Parks Maintenance for execution; and data 77 vim CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding completion of maintenance and repair projects are reported back to Park Planning and P&R Administration for analysis as to outputs and outcomes. Lack of Current Facilities Condition Assessment Recommendation 4.5: P&R should have a complete facilities condition assessment conducted by qualified professionals. Historically Reactive Maintenance and Repair, Recommendation 4.6: The Parks Maintenance Division should adopt proactive work schedules and practices that focus on preventative maintenance. Once the Division has established a comprehensive periodic maintenance plan, it should track preventative and periodic maintenance activities in the same system used to track its Maintenance Work Requests. P&R Does Not Have Performance Measures for Facility Conditions Recommendation 4.7: P&R should establish clear and reliable performance measures that will permit tracking the condition of facilities over time. For example, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) used in facilities management would provide a benchmark for comparing the relative condition of facilities. Insufficient Monitoring of and Reporting on Relevant Performance MVO Measures for Facilities Management Recommendation 4.8: P&R should implement a system to track progress toward achieving its strategic goals for facilities. In addition to tracking progress on its asset management plan as well as component plans, including maintenance and repair, ADA compliance, and hazardous materials abatement, P&R should develop relevant and quantifiable performance measures to monitor and report on improvement of facilities conditions. The Department also needs to implement a formal program for regular inspection of and reporting on all major facility components, such as roofs, mechanical systems, and wood components prone to termite infestation. See, Appendix A. This program should include GFOA recommendations for reporting on capital facilities. Not 78 Nip Chapter 7: CONCLUSION CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION The County has an opportunity to establish a new direction and "Tone at the Top"regarding its management of infrastructure and capital assets that stresses the need to take a long-term perspective and recognize that savings can be realized in the life cycle cost of assets through the implementation of best practices in asset management with a focus on preventative maintenance. The County's recreational facilities are public assets that have been acquired through the investment of public tax dollars. County officials are stewards of these public assets, and their decisions about how County facilities are used, operated, maintained, retired, or replaced can have far-reaching financial and social consequences. Without proper maintenance and repair, public facilities can prematurely fail. By implementing best practices in asset management, the useful lives of public facilities can be extended for the lowest life cycle cost of each asset. More specifically, the Department of Parks & Recreation's goal of providing safe, clean, enjoyable, accessible and aesthetically pleasing facilities can be more effectively achieved by adopting industry best practices for maintaining the functionality and value of public recreational facilities, and by developing and implementing policies and procedures that permit informed planning and resource allocation through tracking and reporting on facility conditions and expenditures in a manner that is transparent to the public. The timing for implementation of the recommendations included in this report will depend upon the priority placed by elected officials and the Department's administration on maintaining and rehabilitating the County's Parks and Recreation facilities. A dialog between the Department and elected officials to establish an acceptable implementation timeframe, which balances the immediate need for a comprehensive facilities asset management system and the reality of monetary and human resource constraints, should be initiated. It must be recognized, however, that implementation will, at a minimum, require the commitment of significant staff hours. The auditors suggest that the Department of Parks and Recreation immediately determine the order of and timing for implementation of the recommendations and communicate the same in writing to the County Administration, Council, and public, and provide regular reports on the Department's progress to stakeholders. 79 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Robert A.Fitzgerald William P.Kenoi :. .• Director Mayor m ; .'y Clayton S.Honma ''•°",� Deputy Director •(ountp of A)atuat't DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 101 Pauahi Street,Suite 6•Hilo,Hawai'i 96720 (808)961-8311•Fax(808)961-8411 July 18,2011 Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor '"" Office of the Legislative Auditor Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo,Hawaii 96720 "" Subject: Limited Scope Performance Audit—P&R Facilities Asset Management Dear Ms.Schrandt: "' Together with the key personnel in my department that worked in concert with your office during the investigative phase of this audit,we thank you for the time and effort expended in providing us this insightful and in-depth Limited Scope Performance Audit(hereinafter"LSPA") that focuses on our department's asset management policies and procedures. Also,we appreciate the diligence and sincerity with which your office addressed many of the issues we presented to your office prior to and discussed at the exit conference conducted July 6,2011. We concur that the scope and focus of the LSPA was appropriately directed at the department's management of its physical assets,after all,our department is responsible for managing the overwhelming majority of County sites and facilities provided for the public's usage,within the public inventory. It is also important to point out the tremendous diversity of sites,facilities and amenities that our department manages—from beach parks to cemeteries,from gymnasiums to walking trails,from sports courts and fields to landscaping and garden areas,from swimming pools to rodeo arenas,from community centers to a municipal golf course,and much,much « more.We are very proud of the diversity and array of programs,services,events and amenities that we provide at those sites and facilities and other venues for the benefit of all our residents and visitors island-wide. The following is our written response to the LSPA presented in four parts:General Discussion, Corrections and Clarifications,Responses to Findings and Recommendations,and Closing,for your consideration and appendage to the final LSPA. 80 .. too- RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 2 of 9 July 18,2011 GENERAL DISCUSSION First and foremost,we feel that it is crucial to the fair representation of the department and treatment of all involved to state that the focal area of the LSPA addresses situational matters whose genesis predate the existing administration's and key staff's(Park Planner,Superintendent of Parks Maintenance and Recreation Administrator)tenure and,furthermore,is not directly attributable to any policy decision or directive made in the past of which we are aware. We appreciate the revisions that were made following the exit conference that specifically call attention to conditions that were present prior to the current administration coming onboard, though we feel that additional emphasis is warranted. Furthermore,the LSPA presents discussion on the"crazy cycle"whereby deferred maintenance needs result in a ceaseless and expanding cascade of reactive maintenance needs that inevitably leads to a vicious cycle of increased deferred maintenance,inefficiencies and,ultimately,unsalvageable facilities. What we would like to expound upon in this discussion is that the department inherited many plantation- era facilities,predominantly gymnasiums with annexes and community centers that had inherent deferred maintenance issues along with code compliance deficiencies,safety concerns,and hazardous building materials that we are now having to deal with on a daily basis. Secondly,we are thankful that the LSPA does mention that the department has"taken significant steps towards achieving some of its strategic plan goals"and we want to take this opportunity to credit staff,past and present,that strive on a daily basis to provide our community a wide array of recreational services with excellence,integrity and aloha. While we concede that there are always opportunities for improvement,it is also important to recognize that the department has implemented positive changes and that those improvements have benefited the community as a whole even as the County experiences troubling financial times and undergoes budget and staff reductions while needing to address and accommodate a growing population,a greater diversity of recreational demands and an increasing inventory of parks and recreational facilities and amenities. Lastly,we appreciate the numerous citations and references to government agency and industry best practices and we will make efforts to review those source documents to determine how they may be integrated into our procedures in a practicable and effective manner going forward. CORRECTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS While we were provided the opportunity at the exit conference to discuss the contents of the LSPA,offer comments and ask questions of the Legislative Auditor and her staff regarding the contents of the draft LSPA,and though we thankfully acknowledge that many of the concerns presented at said exit conference were incorporated into the final version of the LSPA,the following are corrections and/or clarifications that we offer for your consideration and that of anyone that references the LSPA going forward: [PAGE 14,Paragraph 2] The LSPA states:"The Parks Maintenance Division reported that it does not have the County of Hawar i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. 81 fer RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 3 of 9 July 18,2011 elwq equipment or trained staff to perform major roof repairs or painting in-house,and yet,the Division's budget for contracting roof and gutter work had been reduced to zero in the current fiscal year." The department addresses major roof repairs and gutter work through its CIP funding by publicly bidding construction projects to those specialty contractors that are properly equipped and have trained staff to perform that type of work. Reduction of Parks Maintenance Division's budget for contracting roof and gutter work does not directly correlate to the presumption that no roof or gutter work will be performed by the Division. Such work can still be accomplished by in-house staff on an as-needed basis. However,the elimination of said funding in the budget is in direct response to the County's overall — financial situation and was a tough but measured decision that needed to be made–it should not be judged in a vacuum. [PAGES 12-13,Yano Hall&Honomu Gym] The LSPA states"Interviews and documentation show cases of repeated requests by P&R facility staff to repair leaking roofs that remain unaddressed years later. In addition to the lack of planned preventative roof maintenance,Maintenance Work Requests and Recreational Facility Reports submitted by P&R facility staff for repairs of leaking roofs have not resulted in repairs being completed in a timely manner." The LSPA suggests that in the case of Yano Hall and Honomu Gym,as well as other unnamed facilities,P&R completely ignored the requests made by its facility staff as to leaking roofs. This is simply untrue as the Parks Maintenance Division and the Park Planning Section have responded numerous times,often in jointly coordinated efforts,to Yano Hall,Honomu Gym and several other facilities island-wide to address reports of roof leaks. In some instances,Parks Maintenance Division is able to perform simple,short-term roof patches to address the sources of leaks or sometimes perform more permanent solutions –many times working with Park Planning staff on a solution. In the case of Honomu Gym, Parks Maintenance Division addressed the immediate electrical-related safety issue on a temporary basis so that the facility can continue to be occupied. In both cases,the Park Planning Section has already researched and prepared construction plans ready for public bidding that are currently pending funding. The Park Planning Section has several other re- roofing projects that have construction documents ready for bidding but are also pending funding. What the LSPA fails to recognize is that roofs can develop new leaks over time and there is no distinguishing between unaddressed roof leaks versus newly developed ones. [PAGE 27,Paragraph 1] The LSPA states"Various Recreation Directors also reported that games and community events needed to be cancelled or stopped midway due to roof leaks in gyms." However,a recent assessment of the department's Hilo gymnasiums by the Recreation Division offer that of the 12,819 games played at County gymnasiums over the past five years in the district, approximately 180(or 1.4%)were stopped due to adverse impacts from rain. However,this information does not directly support the presupposition that roof leaks were the culprits for County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. air 82 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 4 of 9 July 18,2011 such game stoppages. It is not uncommon,under extreme weather circumstances,for wind- driven precipitation to adversely impact the gym's court to where games must be stopped for safety considerations due to water droplet infiltration through existing windows,louvers,and screened openings and accumulating on the playing surface. The department is aware that this has happened at several facilities over the past including the Afook-Chinen Civic Auditorium,Honoka`a Gymnasium,etc. The LSPA states"Buildings or building sections have also been closed due to the presence of hazardous materials,leaving communities without adequate recreational facilities at which to meet and play." First,any buildings or portions thereof that were for any timeframe or still remain closed related to hazardous materials are the results of decisions made based on information available to the department and on the recommendation of expert consultants hired by the department. In all such situations,closures were not simply due to the presence of hazardous materials,but because of extenuating circumstances related thereto. For example,the mere presence of lead paint would not cause a facility's closure;rather,the lead content,condition,location,age of users,activities/uses of the room or structure,etc.all factor in to the decisions that were made. Closure of a facility,or any portion thereof,was a last option and only implemented when no other reasonable precaution was available. There were relatively few facilities that were affected by these decisions and to state that these closures left communities inadequate facilities is disingenuous as most of the communities were already deficient with respect to such amenities or the closure was so minimal that it was barely if even noticed. Prior to the event held in November 2010 at Edith Kanaka`ole Multi-Purpose Stadium,the department successfully completed two limited scope roof repair projects to address prior roof leak conditions and was in the process of preparing a construction project for public bidding that would re-roof the entire facility. It was a subsequent untimely"new"leak that developed in an area unaffected by prior projects'scopes that,unfortunately,adversely impacted the event. The department recently completed the comprehensive re-roofing project at the Edith Kanaka`ole Multi-Purpose Stadium prior to this year's Merrie Monarch Festival and the facility continues to be leak-free since. [PAGE 27,Paragraph 2] The LSPA states"Leaking roofs were observed or reported at 11 of the 16 recreational sites visited[by the auditors]and outstanding maintenance and repair work was observed or reported at 15 of the 16 sites visited[by the auditors]." Though not stated in the LSPA,the department is aware of the 16 sites that comprise the LSPA's judgmental sample. In the interest of clarifying the information provided,the department offers that the 16 recreational sites visited by the auditors actually contain over 60 separate facilities ranging in size from a baseball field dugout to a 50 meter pool and gymnasium. Without diminishing the seriousness of the existence of leaking roof conditions as noted,roof leaks are not as prevalent as would be conferred by the information represented in the LSPA's nor should those figures be extrapolated over the department's entire inventory of 130+sites and the 300+facilities and structures situated thereon. County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. 83 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 5 of 9 July 18,2011 [PAGE 41,Last Paragraph;Page 68,Last Paragraph]and[PAGES 69-71,Chart#10] The LSPA states on page 50 that"Review of the Department's documentation for this[CIP Repair/Improvements]account indicates that materials used by the Parks Maintenance Division for routine maintenance that should be included in the Department's Operating Budget are being inappropriately charged to this CIP account(See Chart#10)"and on page 68 that"...[the CIP Repair/Improvements account]also includes charges for material expenditures(such as mildew cleaner,paint,and paint thinner)that should be charged to the Parks Maintenance Division's operations budget." The conclusion represented that any materials that could be construed as maintenance-related should always be purchased through Parks Maintenance Division's budget are wholly incorrect. For instance,referencing the line items highlighted in Chart#10:the materials purchased for the Pana`ewa Family Center Project are for the restoration and expansion of the community building at Pana`ewa Park that is being undertaken by volunteers that would have otherwise been bid out as a full construction project. Likewise,the materials purchased for Cooper Center were in conjunction with the painting scope of a larger volunteer project to build a permanent roof covering over the exterior lanai of the facility that would otherwise have had to be bid out as a full construction project. Similarly,the fencing materials purchased for Ho`oko Park were to supply volunteers to construct a new fence at the park that would have otherwise had to have been bid out as a construction project. Lastly,the filing fee for the septic system at Kolekole Park is in conjunction with a project that will be bid out for construction for improvements to the existing IWS system that are currently out of commission. The department interprets these efforts as valid CIP project expenditures— had it not been for the volunteer aspect of the first three noted examples,these materials would have been included in the respective projects'construction bids and not paid for separately by Parks Maintenance Division;the fourth effort,Kolekole's IWS,is clearly a valid CIP expenditure. [Page 52,Paragraph 3] The LSPA states"Our repair of the current state of facility disrepair,together with our review of facility reports that document the existence of critical deficiencies over many years for certain facilities,indicate that the Department's current system or method of allocating resources has been ineffective." It seems apparent to the department that this conclusion drawn in the LSPA is based on the auditors'review of outstanding work requests only and does not include consideration for the numerous painting,repair and re-roofing projects,amongst others,that the department has accomplished within the time period corresponding to the LSPA's timeframe,as well as prior to such. The department defends its ability to prioritize and effect its repair and maintenance , needs given the resources available to it as just one component of the overall County. Other than the aforementioned general statement,the LSPA provides just one supporting example in the form of Photograph#14 which is of the Quonset hut at the Waiakea County of Howai i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. too env 84 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 6 of 9 July 18,2011 Recreation Center complex. While the department does not deny the roof structure is suffering from rust,it is not clear that the condition used to illustrate the point is due solely to roof leaks. The Quonset hut is a very old structure that predates the County's jurisdiction and the condition may be more readily attributable to exposure to moisture in the air rather than directly to leaks in the roof. [PAGES 52,last paragraph] The LSPA states"Although Waiakea Recreation Center,Honoka`a Gym and the Pahoa Neighborhood Facility had a[sic]relatively high total facility usage[s]or attendance[s],the current prioritization process did not appear to have placed a high priority on unmet critical repair needs at these facilities." The referenced statement also suggests that facility usage should be either the only or the primary factor that dictates the department's repair and maintenance resource allocation. While quantity of use is a recognized and important factor,it is not the department's adopted practice for such to be the only consideration;in fact,it is important to realize that the department not only considers a facility's usage in its decision to prioritize its funding allocations and expenditure of resources. The department also considers factors such as health and safety,legal mandates,regulatory compliance,economies of scale,project efficiencies,project timing,project timeframes,locations,availability of funding,project difficulty,permitting and regulatory processes,and numerous other objective and subjective issues that may apply. [PAGE 59]and[Page 61,Chart#6] The LSPA states"Chart#6 indicates that while the Department has budgeted monies in 4 fiscal years for roof and gutters,it expended zero dollars in contract services for maintenance of roof and gutters during those 4 fiscal years." This statement seems to imply that Parks Maintenance did not spend any monies on the repair of roofs and gutters;however,nothing could be further from the truth. In fact,Parks Maintenance has expended considerable resources on addressing roof leaks and gutter repairs using in-house staff where it is practicable for the Division to do so. It is the opinion of the department that purchasing roofing and gutter materials directly and utilizing in-house staff to effect the minor repairs is a far more cost effective and efficient solution to simply contracting out that same repair work. There is no mention in the LSPA of such efforts undertaken by the department and, while there are still many leaking roofs,we feel it is important to recognize that the department does prioritize its roof repair work in a reasonable manner based on the resources it has at hand and may be additionally provided. The LSPA continues"However, 11 of the 16 facilities that the Auditor visited were experiencing issues related to leaking roofs." In clarification of this statement,it is our understanding that the auditors visited"16 recreational sites"in a`judgmental sampling"of our recreational facilities island-wide. As noted in our above response to Page 27,Paragraph 2,it appears the LSPA should be rephrased to state"...11 of the more than 60 facilities at the 16 recreational sites..." County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. 85 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 8 of 9 July 18,2011 Recommendation 2.4:The department does currently track the progress of its compliance with the County's Transition Plan which it uses for CIP budgeting purposes and related grant applications. , Recommendation 3.3:The purpose of establishing the replacement cost for all department facilities is of questionable value and would be more appropriate to do on an as-needed basis. It is rare that a detailed and accurate replacement estimate is of use to the department in that - replacement buildings need to be designed to new codes and serve current and projected needs to be reasonably functional as opposed to being replaced on a one-to-one basis. CLOSING The audit process,as much as(if not more than)the LSPA document itself,was truly a beneficial learning experience for me and key members of my staff as we were obligated to scrutinize our own operations and processes in providing to the auditors a clear insight of our operations and preparing thorough responses on our repair and maintenance procedures,budgeting and planning systems and the condition of our assets and inventory. Working collectively we were able to foresee many of the findings that were eventually incorporated in the LSPA and we were able to formulate our own perspectives on steps necessary to improve our department's asset management program,which were reinforced by several of the recommendations included in the LSPA. It is important for all persons referencing this LSPA or otherwise assessing our repair and maintenance operations and asset management practices that implementation of any of the recommendations provided will require augmenting the resources available to our department. Likewise,full implementation will require considerable one-time investments in consulting services and new software and ongoing investments in additional staffing,software updates,staff training,etc. It will also require augmenting the department's staff to oversee what could become a time and data intensive program. Although we recognize that full implementation of the recommendations in the LSPA are not economically practicable at this point in time,we acknowledge that there are simpler steps that we can take to begin to improve our department's asset management practices with minimal impact to existing operations and resources. However,any such developments are predicated on the availability of existing resources and concurrent reprioritization of resource allocations— predominantly existing staffs time. Initially,we propose to develop a more detailed facility inventory listing that can then be used to track more commonplace preventative maintenance wir operations such as re-roofing,painting,fumigation,play court resurfacing,outdoor recreational lighting replacement,gym lighting replacement,etc. Secondly,we propose to develop a system to track work orders that are referred from Parks Maintenance to Park Planning to ensure that they are preserved in the conscious decisions for prioritization of maintenance and repair needs. Thirdly,we propose to implement a comprehensive plan for hazardous materials remediation through prioritization and corresponding budgeting requests. Finally,we propose to improve the collaborative planning and budgeting system our department's administrative staff(division and or County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. rot 86 RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ms.Colleen Schrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 9 of 9 July 18,2011 section heads)should be involved with to ensure all needed repairs and maintenance needs,both reactive and proactive in nature,are brought to the table for prioritization and budgeting. Lastly,I would like to thank my Deputy Director,Accountant IV,Parks Maintenance Superintendent,Recreation Administrator and Park Planner for the considerable time and effort expended to ensure the Legislative Auditor was provided with all requested information and their collective effort in preparation of this response letter. I believe the professionalism and dedication of those staff members,as well as that of our department as a whole,has allowed the department to continue to improve the quality of our services to our ever-expanding community and their ever-changing recreation needs in the face of such inherited adversity as discussed in the LSPA. We welcome an annual or biennial follow up to the Limited Scope Performance Audit so that we may prove our commitment to improving our department as a result of the LSPA and as we continue to improve all facets of the services,programs and facilities under our care and jurisdiction. Sincerely, c), Robert A.Fitzgeral Director 87 APPENDIX I: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR APPENDIX I ,,- — —. —N. CV r? r? C s.- ,---C 03 . ,_ 2 et 20,, u , th w c.0 E— E A c a, < 5 Q A co # _ Y. 2 a) 0 0 t V 0 at c,c, a)ao 0 vs.- a c c„ ;sea cif.-at) .-+I,- —V z.•fa 9.-a- ,tN<0 I,-CO 0 to 0 V 4.)1, .c'8 .8888 8 8 lg 1 A z < .0 _MI ef) 02 —CV C.... ... ....ot 9 LI ■ 02 ci t re or -=cc s2 C.13 m 0) CO . o .. v e . a) 0 V • c 4) to 0'C . U) o 10 c PA 4) 4, a) a)f? — 0..*— -- 0 0 0 CC al' ,- .... 0 5 5 4)ca La 0 0 Ca t t i. fa E 0 42 v-- 02 cs4 CO 12 -.` Q tk". ,hz. —co c ce el ro rt an CC co ry X**- 47 O C S co C) < I c o c)0 c''' ='` -C.0 Z" ?. E * cL =0 =0 co 90 mo < c c i 0 10 10 00 o > 15. _ — LA. 0 W iq c V — CL c° 2 e _ LL O) rr ce, as Z 15 0 0 vs ‘,- c i CC Ci CC VI ..".c—1"co •"; IS Nr Cr) .:4 .4.. , 0 ..... V to o 4? 3 0 0 f <0 cs > •,- = V 1 x V) c) •E•al la v> —ct) a) au <0 co 1 0 ci ra 0 0 c .- ."- ---. cs _ a a li .5 ix .cm 2 ti) 02 el e e ..., — I u _ _ =vt 00 ye 0 c v "0 z 04 c 1 F? o 9 •te to o 0 2 co t 1 — o to 0 O as CI 0 › 8 go , <0 al e 0 ,... 0. al 01• i5 a 2 89 ifo4 APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION APPENDIX II — 0103 0 ID u-, 01 0 0) C . C9 Uo ,-... .---- 9 EZ ( 0. to 0 0.0- 0 LL j 01 u.1.1' 9 C W X 2 ° 00 cc ,.... co o) -2. N t....1 CC 0 c c <Q 10 - o- _0 - 6'1' ii 44 2 32 6 9 = a 9 9 5 9 -5 c) 20 0 szoo 03) 0 03i00 -.I 0 efoti 0 0 •---* NW C.)0 u ... E 3 c 0 co 0 a 9 A ok _ Of a, 0 ,..., * ..> ..... a c> -c 0 sa D To. II., o .oc ro 1 45 0 V V X .1, 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 2.000000 :1,-; C 9 dal, do■ c 0 0 ...1000000 WM CC . s_,.. ,... ' 6 0 a)7 l' 2 °3 co oz oc6 n a E -- _III >.,...N E E - _P. TN- - 2-!;,-.- Zs 0, t"..,-6 9 c■Z g = a.eo a co - ' o 0 *4=0 - 8 0. ,0 9 E • ' 00 00 C e_ 0 „,. z o 0 0 c 2. a w cr co 0.)- .< 0.c 0 0 2 4.3 L.? -0 IA D. uj tO Z = int trt < COC "og I 41 Z 1.,2: - = § 0 0 0 .- a td 0 9 0 u.)ill c RI 1.1- 1/1< va 0 g _ to 40 0 /-4o - ta,,,,,....c.,,,,. .J z-'1' '0 t- 40 9 0.2 0 ,1,)0,r,tO(0)0 NI CO LIJ ...c ,y,t`g 8.§ .- 6 0, 0 =CID"3011T00 r., sv ..a. 011 N. 7 c ..-Q 0 NI OD CD C4 (13 CO s.--2 Ei 1.7 w 9 9 9 9 9 9 Z o 0 .., , i 3 il •ti '":7) a ...tq,...„ cra00000 D .....Ze SL o ..Y w 0 0 0 0 0 0 to eL 0 T, g, 0 0 iA- .. . ,...- ti, , ..3 U. .. 0 .,5 ° E 0° c 0- r- ix... reto & . aeo 0 Lit CD 1-- --a ,__, 01) w 2 To , 0 3 40 N4 a- ._ 9 Ct.< C> 0 itts E ,..'c.:114 6 r.. 1 0 0 co 0 a. ,os tc i CO i a 4)N N RI 0•1 m .c.8 9 .c T;0 9 c 9 0 C ID DIDD 2 1 -4)0 8-zoo 8o -I - 02 g 2 1 2. 0 200 20 tn. —.4 00 --- co a>0 0 ca o PP C „- ..-- ..-- ttt) 0 te . .1 ' th 0 " U. at ' 0 0 03 c a lc/ SD 03 .. C (0 (2 8 ' - 3 g ''' - 0 01 DI CD E Ma C0 ?N C.) 0■••• 0 C B 0 N NI 00 a m c 23 0 G 9 10 , Ato c 6 9 9 0 s E z 0 2 to 0 . C CD 200 -300 o?1 2 0 0 0 = --E -el S. 0 = 09 ii ei 41 3 0 o = - . . 0 co m fa) ' " — DS •-•— , ,cs4 0. C so 0 a 2 -6 2 9 ii Iii.fe 0 0 0 0 uj 0 0(.1 2 0 0 a.t....0 SO- OW *Mil PIP 90 .. ONNO APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION > 9 1-9 (..) <'.. ,.— 3 <6(0 0 t _-0 0 -. a 0, t 000 X d 0 0 -_, , ...v ,e c9 8 7.0 °0 6 0 0 r000 0 al 0 a. a000 I I a 4) tv =0 9 o 0 0 l'r, c '-' ■ 113 .11 2 0 0 9 co .9 0 Z kn F 0 ir 6 Q 2 0 „ >.. ... .> ,.. ... . — (. ,, ze,c2 EI-c ,-,-, ...... to., — —...4 ..., ,..,,.... E CO S- ,'"T ci)1,-OT a r.--<- ,0 r" C v r) 409 u ,...CO ,0 01 111 i',4•ilt art* b eN Fo i2 co E i'n RI 0 10 W in r-r,,--r-- -,c, c 5-o LiJ LI 2 o — t ' z 0 ,,,o LL ts a 0 o.--IN r")-4. -9",t. < 0 0 in fa c a r.FA 0 c) L-4-9 ..e ru 9 ..x 9 9 9 9 9 .1..-1 9 I rtt z Ar.) i.5. g 0 a -.. a ' 3•0 co'80 i'600000 g0 Q.'‘'fo's w0 a00 a.00000 00 u. th< Sot to a. ta :g 2 . -1 -I—41; - tn - >-•a_1.- tz E c4 to • i w 0• g2°' Z O E V)c o; e 8 8 8 o 9 4) — C2.< •—•-* 9 0 Oa 03 c CO 1'.?al (3 K4 0 0 C z E. in a- 9 0 ) ,.. a-, 0 0 0 _ _ a-al 3" f cr, z rr) 0.I- aim r.- 0.1 — W 10 ,.., >,0 W 0 ....... W 9'r. &., ■ . ...±-,... , 5 • e,)00 0 60 SZO cr0 1-00 1-0 00 Ca L0 W 0 ili W -----r- I I ra co O 0 a (', 9 9 U 0, ..e C =0 co a O 0 , _ ai 3 ca0 ro .w 2 _ o ;II I _• 'x 9 2 0 Ce CT C,) C 0 a ill 0 CD T.•O T.4 CV TO St CO I,.C•T i O ill l'...CS1■•••• 1+ IN 5 C ' 0•••CI in iN in mr.1.mr to ra 0 a 0 0,0 0 10 0 0 a '0 g ..,e 41111. 7 • A 0 }. 01 y. 0.0 hi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro oa t co , a.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 6 co W w s 0 x 8 co 0. ›... to CO• 0 ■a, 2 91 444 APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION p.A. cv 9 -0 43 co cr) x 1-52 14 cc .41*4 CO - c ,- m00000 2 u- 0.00000 — ti gli06 00 0.000 N. 9 -0 -- t co mos O x c — 1 8 r! mmm -- .... 0 z 8 0 c To, 000QNCNAN CV c43 x 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 cv c c, 0 u.) g z .t- kt000000 ' r al z (1) 74 le 0= le — tt) — 3 E . .... AV 2 g E ICO g 3: 2 2 7,4 z rat = Q..SO 0 ,0 MO Mstr.4 QM U.1.-An 41Z= 46 a g' * .."--"----". 4000 0"6 Z•E`-4 "- -a -0 .".1 a - 2 a x a 6- , 0 — F.- a) 11) ° X W " .....; 'tr.:Z '-' D Z l)......0 14' e go 0 1-o o -o 0 EØ0 - 2 S u- to c=. tO Ce 0 —x.,„ 0...,- .g.. 27., 0- -- . 999".' a a- Ta co, (-4 4 2 E Cs) 03 0 0 0 6 0 00 a.0 0 0 0 4,04•4 X -6 *, (.0 ..... O a.co 0 (NI g _ -9 t u it 6 — IV 1,..CV 00 V' 0.-NN tv - 0., 9 x 9 9 9 1 05 LL 0,000 .0 = a 0— --■ • 0 0 2 4 9 OW 4.,0 z O rfo a ca.0 ct.0 0 Mr V4, OP let 10, 92 No .... APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION E 2-a3 44 co (-) .35'8 2 2 r`e-P. 0- c D 0 0,.,-,cv (.J 0°) ' E 0 0 62,i 2-9 1,-:,o- 00 '_ 4e'-e 9 11 1 m ti g r.,0 0) )0 g•0 'ic 0 0 >0 111 0 Cl.0 0 ,0 ....• 2_> , ris Iii 0 0 "si, c(f.a) 2 ....1 < tv r...,-,-) 6 c m -8-to - • co 0 gr a 0 3-2c) .co WOO WOO _,,0 g =9 44 0 0 40 est * -.4 9 9 9 o .... 2 6000 o.0 0 2'ef> 3`,)} - 0 9 i 0 0 -" .7,,,c, ::(:;s1 1.- co•-• v t0 0-0 to co ;-7-t co 0 m .0c g 6° Qgi C — 0 0 O.,-CI en en,f, & $ [9,fi::, 9 o6o6oao * 4 1.), g go 0 0 . , c 0.0000000 .0, a-000 0 2 CO = — , OS MG 0/ 2 c 1 - - 9 <I'(..) C 0) Ili 0 ..• % 4) 2 Z csc c cc 0 0 i '3 Z.42 0_ to -- a,.., cL ..., 15 — - ,,, ..., 2 0- . >, — a.co 0 g .. , UJ 4)9 (,) co uj c 0 0 ; tu gra '''' 00 (T) -- D—< -- 8 158 ,,,,,ro 9‘79 9Q 90 9c 4 r,1 ..z 0. 0, 0, LI —= 0 0 10_ ittoocio00 - , x 00 . & i-0000000 6 T. 2 -6 tO fX , ,•-,co CD en en 0, 2 et.< 112 0 - 0 o o cs, 1-6 al) ,ro 0 -e 9 9 9 .c5. 0Q. o s ,6000 , -o 1::? ,0 0 0 f,0 _. ..,03 2 2 8 - 0 el - 0 0 0 si, 6.0,1 e-r---e-.en a M‘,- V tV V Ct) 4.) 0 61 00C,IN ..* -- w, 000 0 .0 0 z 9 , catu ?It" .6 . .be . . 0,4 *g 6 0 C)C) =.7 9 -.9 2 0 w 0 O 0 —, o_0 0 0 -co ti 0 D co t_.co O .. c 9 to to 02 , C (+5 111CN E 0 ttosc c- E Pc° g —"C- - B _ 42.a."-; ._,e 9 9 2 9 GU ■ 16 I- E c,... 6 0 6 0 `1 0 2 0 O E m-4, 0.co eL o 0 0 1-0 0 a c r4 at' I,,. 1...2 a F- 0 0 9 — --t— I cc -- 0 rti 0 0 ft;2 0 0 $ 6 9 6 6 0 0 C,..3 9 co 8 9) 0 >- ..1.1 >- 0 4 col cot:s co co to. to g a. CU..x :5 CI . ._, E g 2 1.1 1."1 -4, ' , 8 0 c,3 40 t Et78 Ef"; 1--- 0, r_ it -'n,0 o 0 6 fl 6 ,.1 t' o - 0- co 1-.utO 1-10 -O 93 APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION ev APPENDIX III 1010 i cL etP, >r 1730 cr) i D. ox (,)._ a r 8 c 0 0 2 .•,_ko -a . . .0 g 4 z Ow g 00 --, c4 0 0 ci co 9 2 0 ct I t op. 0 0 6 oto, 0 79 9 c <t)0 NW 6 00 C 0 = . & E?... 22 "0 0 CO VS so t t* 1 t go.... > — co b c C IC LLJ • V z no 0.2 Z <0 >, E O L.0•— V < E? 2 co z 6 LI.;0 vs 8 co _ i it D 4.•Ce 2).9 IN. O C 0 8 g 0 o •111 it 0 E Q0 CO w 8 • . I CO a a) 0 ork .... .c 4 S o a.r. a o r, — to go 2 t 2 0 ., 0 0 ele, t$ OM a.2 < "0:2 - C 0 Fa NW MI 40 -C t 0 0 v we z SP we IOW wre Mr we NAY 94 APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION = =„ 8 cc, 0'- ®S .,2(r) _ -...." 2 4" --* 8 4•8 — Q ,c, 2 r- e 0. 03 x 0 e 4 t 0 N 6 la o o 6% 7 a'c g 3 .-x to vi cn to ....... 2'Ea — 0 At NI 0 413 C 0, 0 0 .0 03 2',I; 03... 3 e 9 to'to to...., z g 3 t g 0 ca 0 cc 0 , , = c 6 00 e := to 1 -E I I irt7t --,......... 2 — -- ao001 <et 0 m -§e 415 0 ,c ec 0 < O.= CO fog Ci Q3 z"6 EP 0 0. i g th 3 .. 0 « o os eb E 6-0 o c 0 g w --" . r.,,.'5 0 .3;C4 0 Ty it k"*-C — 8 F.... f - OS = AI a)8 a Q I g 0 * cc 0 O t _ cs4 a 0., O u o co — O 2 5. f mg IC?: .. c co e ..,.... 0 r,4 z 0 Ili 0 2-6 cc 0 _ — (0 ii _to g,i to 17,, ti. -_, .41,T, 8 o 8 6 0 re 0 re 0 0 95 APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION PAW m V,-C4 1 :::fi, ,,c co Mt c e. m .-. =MO O tl C O C c .0 C} Oft H K c � Y a Z a °' A Q Q o — la 6— a .Y c , 'p 9 T ....M.... C A 0 3 rt0 re., 0Q'. w a7 i o: a 0 W _, t� 6 'S'v`a y• o cn `I pp- R... a' ct0 ffO 7i; cc0 D 0 R4'E a CI` A U Z O iQ i CPO o0ce p L ' iE11— Y _ c g ' . 4 I O 2' 0 a. ( .c c 6, c E c C grn w QN 4 WA CCIfN z � _ N N ,O T W p t g N j � o cot'0 1(�+0 w00 .,. N 0 Q'Q Q Ii lc) =� NomcrO w • oa o� `r C a. a v> c x c ti s -' c,r • .2 cl C13 mtt a 0 ll h .o iilar.,,,,,,,,,,,, '44.4 00 96 APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION • 0' r •-, ‘7, c:) . re > 0. cn a)- ocr.1 Q. 4-, ..E ,,,, ..... - 1---- z f.so, 3 „,,z, 1 g ll 14 z-,8 x S ti) , 0 o E Zall —0 . '4 . 1,7-.0 0 x S. ,T,9 co 1.• V'411 4t , fj 0 , 0 t ,s040(QC000 0 0 0...0 CO CO M CO CO ..t r..(4 o (3) uoac,c)099 — re* - - c • • • . o o ti 03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 ti T> s -el "<> .•,:, co- as 2 S 2 t,.ua 41' ..Z.CZ.-rq 0.-- I __ ar),1.., g. 3.,i5 9 O 5 o 0 g 0600 It 00000 03 0 u.0 o o o u.cn 0 0 0 0 0 . . 1 I C 0 ,. = ./. 411 e”. 7 0 E. .t - 0,11.".T- 0 =T- ■ .- .... ■-CO , 2 al SS 41) - u co < S 3 ,.,C 2 e x _, •.., g ,.. g z c' i-- d ... ›., u. 0 0 ri E ce 2 G S oc , 0 ..E,9 • a, a o 0 49 o zoeo . ii tr 0 ct 0 ix 0 -rt- 4 0 0 2 MI i 0 S e°f;) ° .-...—r...-■ ....0.1. 0 C n5 _...0:5 C4 - 1 =CO 0 E -,-- „._ f,. is) g 8& '4.-nL 1,5_ 6 ei ? 6 .2 15.. 41 2 i-,., "-^ ..... so 0 N 0,r) al r,, ta 8 , ;.....-(.4 C co TA csiNt C2c =,80 Tt, 0 0 ty 8 cl 8 0 5 9 U) w 0 CC 0 ...t[... ■ 7......3":,.C.Co'.."' ,.- =..-. .*•• 11 ' Ag c,(.6 (I) f...) C VG h.., C. lE e5 1-- 2o 0 , _ ■-- 1 i ç ., e _ .... ra iv 76 rsi st -U') 2 ca c 0 2 c.7; ....-,.., os 2 es' ,..,9 Ci. ill 0 8 0 8 0 '6;0 LI , CC 0 Ot 0 OC 0 1 CC 0 I 97 APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF INVENTORY COMPONENTS APPENDIX A EXAMPLE OF INVENTORY COMPONENTS Foundation and Substructure Footings Foundation walls Slab on grade Piling/Posts Connectors Waterproofing Under drains Superstructure Columns Beams Rigid frames Floor structure (joists, deck/sheathing, ramps) Roof structure (trusses, deck/sheathing) Monolithic bearing walls ,o, Stairs and railings Structural bracing &' Connectors Exterior Wall Systems Wall construction Cladding/sheathing "" ' Doors Glazing systems Railings Louvers and screens Insulation Protective coating Roof Systems Roofing Insulation Expansion/seismic joints Drains and gutters Flashing and trim Roof openings Interior Construction *' Fixed partitions Doors Interior finishes fiv Ceiling system Heating Systems Boilers Furnaces ook 98 . APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF INVENTORY COMPONENTS Fuel tanks and distribution Heat transfer equipment Heating accessories Air Handling Systems Air handling units Fans Inlets/outlets Ducting systems Dust collection systems Cooling Systems Condensing units Compressors Packaged air conditioning units Electrical Systems Main distribution panel Wiring Conduits Electrical receptacles Circuit breakers Plumbing Systems Cold water piping Water heater Hot water piping Pumps Valves and traps Waste venting Waste piping Septic tanks Fire Protection/Suppression Systems Sprinkler piping Sprinkler heads Fire hose system Fire extinguishers Lighting Systems Fixtures Wiring Emergency lighting Exterior lighting Signal Systems Computer data Telephone Fire alarms Security alarm devices 99 APPENDIX A: EXAMPLE OF INVENTORY COMPONENTS Landscaping systems Irrigation Tree/shrub plantings Turf Walks Vehicular Systems Parking lots Drives Curbs Fire lanes Playfields and Playground Systems Baseball/softball fields Hard surface courts Swings Climbing toys Safety mats Markings/painting Site Utilities Fuel tanks Distribution piping Storm drainage Fire hydrant systems Electrical power Pole mounted lighting Equipment Furnishings Special Construction RP Swimming pools r tot roe 100 ri„ APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES, ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES, MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICE APPENDIX B STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES BEST PRACTICE DO WE USE THIS BEST PRACTICE? The process owner for most The Director of Parks and Recreation said he is organizations was at the top level of leading the current process to update the strategic the organization. plan. Gather needed information for the Key information needed for the planning process is planning process. lacking, such as an inventory of facility components, facilities condition assessments with estimated repair costs, estimated costs for hazardous materials remediation, and estimated resources. Incorporation of customers and key The initial planning process appeared to incorporate stakeholders issues. customer and stakeholder issues. However, the plan did not resolve specific customer issues, such as leaking roofs, but this appears to be from insufficient actions and strategies, funds, implementation, and monitoring of progress. Establish a plan horizon. How far The strategic plan covered the years 2004-2009. into the future should we plan? Although a 5-year horizon was established for the repair and maintenance plan, it appeared that this may be insufficient for planning for asset components with a long estimated life, such as for scheduling painting metal roofs or replacing buildings. Create a list of actions to implement Some of the actions necessary to successfully the plan. implement the goals of the strategic plan are missing, such as developing a sufficiently-detailed inventory, facility condition assessments, remaining useful life estimates, cost estimates, and a plan to resolve backlog, ADA and hazardous materials issues. Clear responsibilities for who will It was specified who was to complete each action for implement specifics of the plan. the strategic plan. However, certain actions were too vague such as develop a 5-year plan. Development of this plan would require several other significant actions and the input of various individuals (i.e.; define the tasks included in the various maintenance categories) Develop a sufficiently detailed facility inventory and conduct a current condition assessment. Also various actions were not completed and there appeared to be insufficient follow-up. The planning process was top down, A currently updated strategic plan has not yet been led by the top level and pushed completed, which is necessary before distribution 101 ow APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES,ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES, MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICE down until it permeated the entire and implementation. Key features of the 2004-2009 organization, while implementation Strategic Plan were not implemented, such as, was bottom up. "maintaining a 5-year plan for repairs and maintenance". The implementation of other actions, such as, "develop a secondary set of tasks for periodic maintenance of each type of facility", did not include some important tasks, such as painting of metal roofs. , The process of planning drove the There appears to be little if any link between the .+ budget process and was linked with planning and budgeting processes. Resources were it, usually at the resource allocation not allocated for adequate periodic/preventative stage. maintenance or repairs of existing facilities. The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process does not have a plan or schedule for addressing the deferred maintenance backlog. Individuals responsible for developing the CIP Budget and administering projects did not provide any policies delineating priorities for resources allocation. low There is a process for monitoring Parks & Recreation monitored progress towards progress and updating the plan. reaching some of the goals in the plan, but did not track progress on maintaining the 5-year plan and maintenance standards, including developing tasks for periodic maintenance. The current performance measures do not show whether facility conditions are improving or deteriorating. They also lacked a process to update the strategic plan. Source: Compiled from The Federal Benchmarking Consortium Study Report and information supplied by Parks& Recreation msµ: rok, P ittt 102 APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES,ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES, MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICE ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES BEST PRACTICE DO WE USE THIS BEST PRACTICE? Preparing an asset inventory and Parks and Recreation has a listing of recreation asset map. facilities, but this listing does not include individual buildings and key components or subsystems of those buildings, to assist in developing an asset management and maintenance plans. Developing a condition assessment Parks and Recreation lacks an adequate condition and rating system. assessment and rating system that determines the condition of key facility components with associated costs to maintain, repair, or replace. Assessing remaining useful life by There is no written assessment of the useful life of consulting project-useful-life tables facilities and components. or decay curves. Determining asset values and There was not a current written estimate of actual replacement costs. asset values or replacement costs, such as the value of a facility in its current condition and how much it would cost to contract for a replacement facility. Analyzing current and anticipated Some analysis for facilities demand was completed. demand. Understanding current and Staff interviewed appeared to understand current anticipated regulatory requirements. regulatory requirements. However, we did not conduct in-depth interviews to determine the staffs' understanding of all pertinent regulatory requirements. Writing and communicating to the Specific levels of service for maintaining facilities in public a level of service fully-functional condition did not appear to have been "agreement" that describes developed or communicated to the public. performance targets. Using level of service standards to Level of service standards, such as maintaining a track performance over time. specified level of condition for facilities, has not been tracked or reported over time. Listing assets according to how There was no written process for prioritizing critical critical they are to operations. assets and asset components. Conducting a failure analysis (root There was no written analysis of what caused asset cause analysis). failures. Analyzing failure risk and There was no written analysis of failure risks and consequences. consequences. Moving from reactive to predictive The Superintendent of Parks Maintenance stated that they maybe do 10% preventative maintenance, 103 APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES,ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES, MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICE (preventative) maintenance. but that they would like to do more. Although analysis is not possible without better systems to track the necessary data, based on P&R staff interviews, the lack of written priority policies, review of historical funding and spending, the department is currently in a primarily reactive mode and lacks the data, systems and resources to move to a "° predictive/preventative mode. Knowing the costs and benefits of There was not an adequate cost/benefit analysis that rehabilitation versus replacement. included all costs for rehabilitating versus replacing a „x.. facility. Looking at life cycle costs. Some life cycle costs were considered. For example, Parks Maintenance talked about how they used higher quality restroom equipment that requires less maintenance and repair. Deploying resources based on asset A current written condition assessment was not condition. completed as a starting point. Analyzing the causes of asset failure Although lack of roof preventative maintenance and to develop specific response plans. repair was said to be a cause of roof leaks, specific response plans were not developed to address this cause. Establishing a sufficient The County's Operating Budget for maintenance and maintenance and repair budget to repair was insufficient to maintain assets in a maintain asset conditions at a "steady-state". Based on the observed condition of "steady-state". recreational buildings a large backlog exits. Budgeting for resolving the backlog Budgets did not reflect resolving the backlog. deferred maintenance. Source: Compiled from The Federal Benchmarking Consortium Study Report, National Research Council's report titled Committing to the Cost of Ownership—Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, United States Environmental Protection Agency's guide for Asset Management:A Best practices Guide, and information rot supplied by Parks&Recreation. ■r 104 APPENDIX B: STRATEGIC PLANNING BEST PRACTICES,ASSET MANAGEMENT BEST PRACTICES, MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICE MAINTENANCE BEST PRACTICES BEST PRACTICE DO WE USE THIS BEST PRACTICE? Inventory critical building components Parks & Recreation lacks an inventory of key and assess their conditions. building components or a current assessment of conditions with estimated repair costs. Build the capacity for ranking Parks Maintenance lacked a written ranking system maintenance projects and evaluating for maintenance projects that included all critical their costs. components and the costs. For example, maintaining roofs was not a top priority, even though lack of maintenance may lead to leaking roofs, water damage to interiors, and safety issues. Structure a framework for operating a Parks Maintenance primarily completes reactive preventive maintenance program. maintenance tasks on Maintenance Work Requests. They do not sufficiently track information needed to schedule preventative maintenance. The budget and resources for some preventative maintenance, such as painting metal roofs, was inadequate. The Superintendent of Parks Maintenance stated they would like to do more preventative maintenance. Use tools to optimize the preventive The department has developed a Microsoft Access maintenance program. database for recording and tracking Maintenance Work Requests. The department does not use an application to track the condition of facility components or to schedule all periodic maintenance. Advance the competence of Parks Maintenance appeared to have a good maintenance workers and managers. process for educating staff on safety issues and tracking education. However, we did not look in- depth at whether staff needed additional training in preventative maintenance practices. Parks Maintenance stated that they did not have staff trained to paint roofs. Involve appropriate personnel in Some of the appropriate personnel were involved, decision-making and in communicating although Recreational Directors could be better buildings' needs. incorporated into recreational building maintenance decisions. Recreational Directors communicated building needs, but many requests were not addressed, such as for repairing leaking roofs. Source: Compiled from the National Research Council's report titled Committing to the Cost of Ownership— Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, United States Environmental Protection Agency's guide for Asset Management:A Best Practices Guide, State of Idaho Department of Education's Best Practices Maintenance Plan for School Buildings, and information supplied by Parks&Recreation. 105 or APPENDIX C: P&R CIP PROJECT LIST FOR FY2006-2007 THROUGH FY2011-2012 slo mp APPENDIX C P&R CIP Project List for FY2006-2007 through FY2011-2012 .F $g €g6 1 Nil MI FA,a- n� €@@ ii ... 0..o6'J -..�^ hR MR 1 1119 11311 iii $=1f w. I !!!!1 R4 I P1R RI i l 1 ° — iii5 'AMMO!! or I !11!11 ----- 11ISIIIIIIIII 1 i ii .... . !!!!!!!! !I !FM!, jill 11 i I mw Am I SISS3S! 1IIIIII s'sf . Rs 1 !PI PI? §Ay! Sag/1!B0 8888888?8; 11 11 IIHi Ili/ !Mill 1111111111 1 N. op V.xRfiR .vRSfi" No !1131511 ---- II1111S l=l NIP j F u. 11 WIIII; iiiiiiil 1111111111JO 1111111111111illiti oii 1 -, vAm ....21m .^ _._..t:xA§Am1 -__:_r g,; gwiu t 1 !! IMS -------- ISS111S111111111 iiiiiiiii 1=I: MR 1 Ai ti,, I !!ii! 1111113111111 g-1z opt+ wr 106 iJ. Pe APPENDIX D: P&R PROJECT DATA/FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX D o H II E Illill 111111111 m >a o y w I g c, ` 114, a2. P z = II •V x g g It g 1111111i1 1111111111 ,. .... to Ii I,Tg" . .m c Zo I `$ S -s,I4 0 Ell 1 i lin.... ,....u. . nt `i.g a 6. err .5 m.?:.0 I. P '' 3 m ulIllIWIlIlIL . , 4 a 433 2 oDii .. a C q p R — a ;c E -- t- o D n v 7 .. ti •-, w m.1 rn UJ CC x d1iff1II 107 APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 SIB APPENDIX E BRENDA J.FORD Phone: (808)326-5684 Council Member • Fax: (808)329-4786 District 7-Central Kona E-Mail: bford@co.hawaii.hi.us '<*:•1... .......... HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawn,'I Kadna Trade Cemer 75-5706 Manama Place,.S'Iate 109 gadua-Kona.Hawaii 967411 ONO 0 r+, May 8,2008 r To: Pete Hoffmann And Members of the Hawaii County Council •eR From: Brenda J.Ford weir . Council Member ow Subject: Parks and Recreation's"List of Projects as of About 2004 and Expenses to Provide Repairs". I request that this list be distributed to all Council Members immediately.I request to have a apt presentation in Mr.Ikeda's committee,Public Safety and Parks and Recreation,as soon as possible due to the ongoing budget discussions.It is my understanding that the repairs listed are not in the current budget.As it affects all districts islandwide, I would like to have a discussion on this matter in committee. Mahalo, BJF/Iw Comm No, ':24 Ref, To Ref. Date Y 8 PIP Serving the Interests of the People of Our Island Ilawall County Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And Employer 108 APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 95/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 01 Patricia G.Engelhard . Harry Kim ;, �.:'P:; �•, Director Mayor \' "-'7. . I o..,:•y %yr';! Pamela N.Mi mo '`'�.'••'?'':: Dgatty Director QCountp of Riatuat'i DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATiON 101 Paaihi Strecl.8aite 6•Hilo,dative.':96120 (8010 961.8111 Fax(5o$)9614411 May 6,2008 MEMORANDUM TO; Council Member BrsG FROM: Pat Engelhard I ItPhYdfdeRepairStolfatilditit During our P&P Budget session last month we alluded to a list of repairs to facilities that showed millions in needed repairs to our teddies. After the session you asked some questions. This list may answer some of them. The caveats are: 1. We did notbulidin-theatost ofh ddrisultants to prepare the plans and specs for putting the projects out to bid. Because the repairs are to existing buildings,plans and specs are about?O to 20%of the construction estimate,depending on the scope of the project(kinds of permits, complexity of the work,etc). 2. Because the list was b fore art#fgi'rai on.Cict~aber 15;%/f 06pthose-ra are tint 3. It is strildkagilitamiteldtitidigddiellitrrepalrlidarlditnalabsioance;issues. It does not include any ne': facilities nor does tt include much in the way of enhancements or expansion of existing facilities, 4. Some of the sites are not County owned. But we use them for our programs. Also,some of ee` sites listed are not developed yet. 5. Construction prices have Increased somewhat since the estimates were made. However,sihr c. the construction boom Is slowing down somewhat,perhaps the figures presented are in tare bail park. I hope you find the information useful if slightly outdated. 109 MP APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 OP 05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 02 4" OP- .. _, ,7};} - F “ u w T w �Il"F w F) w yr '{{� I� xg I Coux1 j3� �., I # # r� I F 3 3 # i € I i $ # # =1: # !# i & r d,,l iwil I� o 1 I f 1IiJ91 ' Pi 1 , - [ i I I 1 ,i* ei ! I . _. 23 1.. .F. .I .- , ' tii ,I. }_ 1 [� tf if 1 I Ifilf I 1-1411 11 if i i N:..,,. - r 1 -1 1.. li I - i 11 I 1 , fi Ai 1 x :-. it q j . a 0 Lis! k t 4 ! , li Ii31 I 1 s y II'1 Isi ; i ' i ! v' $ t i i g i 1 , , ' lilt v 1 � , $< ( = $ E , I sa 2i a�t y ! `' i w' I oi OW ; iv , i I . ell i g ¢: � { 1 I N N M-N N N IM Ip+ N�Q+ M N� , w_ : i i i i 1 . T4 I i / , I I i IP i ° . i ' 1.1 ii 11 : ,4 1 .,.i.• , = 1 !.. • ! M". Aa 110 APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 PAGE 03 05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 PR ADMIN i..... cauAdo 1 - ' 1,, ..., .6, "r„-,,,, ,,...,104 04 43 M 1-0.r., ,51 k1.10 III./A.1.11....:0a 1.4>40 11; L0 ir 140 40 140 ...i.. m. i 0 ,, 0 0 1 0,0, °I It' It' °' It' ; °I PI t' °I 1 if f i" i ri ; i a i ri i • 1 , 1 :s is Cl [CR fril 4 •: 'It (i i I I 1 iltri 11 lir" il'ii ' ,t 1 i,r...lit -,I,, rE if if II ill ::It ;I 1 1 tili , i :I ! 7 .:,g 4 ii, .14 I 111411 21rf fill 5 .11 ii 1 11-: 1 ' :. '1U, I ii '" i. ..! tt it': .11 1 1 1111 I lit i i 1 I '-, --if i i f 7 i i i i - 1 tit i i 1 i F I? 1: 1 :t; 3' ' I v i 1 1 I . . , 1 Ii14 ig il , li i I „- I . Hi ,I ii 11111 iiii " . 11 , i : , : . Ili f•2 1 a -Is 1 1 f ri TriTrin cif 1 '7-. 1 1111 [ .:::. 1-, .- iiii-lif q n[111141 si ; % 1 7 i It i., 1 gila 1111 iF ! i . - . r.§:r ' . i I sl.'° ' • . °P 1 i 4.11 I :I 4 ' I 1 -41 t ! : I i.i7P II ''', l'fr • i : i 1 lilt ik Iv I. fl ' 11 I , II 11, 1 ' g;iiiii 19 - 1 1 1 iti 1 :fi i 1 1 ., .g 1 1 11-41iit" 1 IL- I `,,N ,It It I II I I I 41 • I 4' li a i 111 t .,S! i 'I ,.: itthir.lia ) .7 ) ; ;alit 15 ;3; 1 1 ) : 1 1 :gal i.41 4. al. i 1 1 !I i 18,1 i ! IIILI it l '. )4i111 ) 11111 g; 0 . , Iatil ` ) 41 ,t 1 - i , ' 4, :. 1. it lsi Ili 1 i . t , , , , , 11 , • 1 . . , , • i , , I , I . , i,,i . i ; ill 4.,„, R.W11 - It i S ! I , ! ' , : - 1-I illtili i 1 1.!* ' 111111 gij It • * Ifil ! 1 ia t l ' i . i , I 'I i 1 lit 1 11 11 HI; 1111 • 1 1 ii LI i I! ' 111 1 i 1 ; 11 ft;; 1 11 1 1 1 111 ! I 1 1 ; 111 i'l 11 11 [11 ;11111111 II i 1111 111 LH ! 41 111 1 i; ' , ' i ' 1.4 ;,4 1.7t;t4 i" 1 t14.--; 14. 14.-4;Y:.H; 1 111111 1 1 i I ri 1 ! I I [14 VOI .igg 01 '.Di(011ial ° 1 1 - i rtitiro i 1 1:1 H i 1 gig 'nil g g g g i 'ig i gr g gt , Li 1 111 or APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 l a* 05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 05 ° ow 4 w: ; Ql v.10 q 0 A Of Of'CO CO W O W OI 1CO CO CO CO m m Of m CO IN b P N N H IA .� A A OUnii 1Io o g a m m m p a q 1 . Ta r .a. m _....Ig ._. IMF$ QQ g @@ pp ye rr �c yy p �7 p gg I i ; 1` 111111 111111U1 ; illiflit 1 i '1 .i� I : I 11111 , 11 f 1 4. 1 I Is Pt I ,I { j t if it / 1 t 11 i if I,/ II/CI" f t . 't t[ [fit I iiirrioi 7-1 „ at. i 1. i li illi , rr, _ ..., 1. 21, 1 1 . . 1 11. 11 1 i ii , 1.:1:;1,,,-, 1; : , ircil I 1 1 I HILiIJI I I I ij1Jtj11iH i f S I I J 1 j I i } 1 1} I i E I I I = C 1� k Vie. 1 ' 1 ; � . 1111 1 ` i ` • tj i ; 1 1 g ff:- I 3 7 ; if E j 1 • ' 777 l ®i , I 6 1 ` i j 3 I 1 --- i 1 I—1 i 1 1 1 i : 1 .ice 1 ) } � t .-.-,-.7- M i N SN�N �i4'Ya Hi-1i i t .,. ii i I N S 6 1 1 III. mmt 112 . i APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 "05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 06 a a a = O 0 . V V ► Cj0 * m la W 17 7,::,., .1m ...7,I , 1 x =. s.�R Z r--n7---7 7 R 0 f i 7 M F a. ea ' � I' Milli ! ! i 111, ;ii ill i 1� , 11iiH11iJitnt I 11,i r if t . . ill Ill 11 . ::: i Li i 1 ;31111 ,i:1! I :. : i ill jj ? , A- ; ' ( 1 i B t i j ( 1r al 9 I II I •• 1 ! i , i ti I t 1 1 1 1,1171 lip f it 1[ 101 fliii. : fir I if lig !I „.f. 1 1 If1 Li I ' iHIJj ` ,18 1 1 a I i : I I i i i I:Iti1 ' i 1 I 'Mai °� I ; ) 1 , I 4. I: i I 1 1 £ ff i iii� e a . — j : 1 1 a. ! s I It { 1 3 E j ! C ; l I I I 1 4 a N j =. I I I I i ' i f ( ii s� 1 I iI 6 I f t g t { 1 y 1 1.,H I( ( ` TO ,x4 ; ; i (({(, v t , ''''.7-1- :c i ;«�« f a�w i I 1«1« ,t+ ,«.. i « « ,in t «I` 4 �1 j i l _ia III 1i i 1 ' L !. ,$ i 113 ow APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226 0 op '05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PACE 07 OW 10 01 0 CO 0 10 b CO Im 10 10 w m p 03100 m IW CO 07 IV CO 0 iGO!w •until i ° 1 Ir1� 1 J � 1 iI r I ! ; I 5 i I }jt um PRP I I if i fit 1 I L 11 ' 1, 1 , 1,' !Flirt f I 1 . • F ' 1: RIj ; f ! IHH ' to Q al ' I !I r { t 'i.' .1 I i' I I I l ° : ; I . 1 11111111:o l l I e,I $ { E ,- ii I 3 ' ' 1 , 1 I t 4 wa' 6 •il r a 3 € , rw _ j 1 ,,e _ d M' [ ♦S tw :N N N 1? NON i•wf �..` "°4—"` ....s t7f. C' e$1 I 1 0 3 1 $ S :tl r8 j } i 4 +gar j o 114 ,,,