2011-01-AU Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Facilities Asset Management

Home

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 $257000 $0 $67000 $0 FY 2009-2010 $357000 $0 $67000 $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