HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-AU Limited Scope Performance Audit of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Facilities Asset Management Limited Scope
Performance Audit of the
Department of Parks and
Recreation's Facilities
Asset Management
A Report to the
Hawaii County Council
July 2011
9h5
oc +P s•
OFFICE OF THE LEGISLATIVE AUDITOR
COUNTY OF HAWAII
Table o on en s
CHAPTER11: AUDIT PLAN ................................................................................... 1 - 4
CHAPTER 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION.................0000.. 0 0 5 - 10
CHAPTER 3: P&R OPERATIONS .................................................................... 11 - 36
CHAPTER 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT......................................... 37 - 56
CHAPTER 5: BUDGET..............................................................................0000.... 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
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: Hawaii 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 Pa^hoa 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 Wai a^kea
Recreational Center ................................................................ 30
Photograph #15: Tarp diverting water from leaking roof at the W
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 P a^pa'ikou Gym............................. 34
Photograph #22: Rusting and leaking roof at Honoka'a Gym............................. 34
Photograph #23: Rusting and leaking roof at Pa^hala 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 (GALAS).
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 Departments
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 Departments 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
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-07-731G, 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
Hawaii 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 Hawaii.
5
Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
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$2,174,685:
Salaries and Wages: .............$ 9787888
Operations:............................$171927797
Equipment: ............................$ 37000 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$36,028.77]
See, Appendix l: 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: .............$474127553
Operations:............................$272187220
Equipment: ............................$ 57000 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$210,991.6
See, Appendix ll: 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: .............$175837597
Operations:............................$ 7117450
Equipment: ...................... 100 [FY2009-2010 Actual Budget was$12,932.07]
See, Appendix lll: Recreation Division— 2009 Organization Chart.
6
Chapter 2: DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
HAWAII COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
Hawaii 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 [Pa^pa'ikou 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
Kaman a^ 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
Malama 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
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 lonq-
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
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
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
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
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
CHART #1
THE "CRAZY CYCLE" OF REACTIVE MAINTENANCE
Standards Dr( I110 1. 0r'� 'o
MGM
Morale
eclirien Failure";
.I ,ad/Bud ����t,
take ti by
Reductions Bre.akdowcis
iid-a i d
More Ppn -I "; 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
Division's 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
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,
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
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
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
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
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 Departments 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
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
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.
x
2 iL F .m
'' x -
a
y ,. u.-. "^P ' ''#'Iw""�i t ,`'°.� w A'` ,_ da ry,,, r•.1 a r." ; r A
4 w r a k µ .,
uh 7f if
w
,VP• � �.$ b„ 'd4rc^,N d^*,fie L wy."m^,d
E-
a
a
w
Jam. •
Photograph#1: Building with lead paint at Na`alehu Community Center
22
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
FACILITY CONDITIONS THAT MAY POSE PUBLIC HEALTH AND
SAFETY RISKS SHOULD BE A PRIORITY
r �k 06 1.
do b q ;w a, %.o,
u ! IZ
Photograph#2: Sign indicating asbestos at Na`alehu Community Center
The Government Finance Officers Association in its GFOA Best Practice, Capital Asset
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
could threaten public health, safety and overall quality of life."
r
h y
E
`M
Photograph#3: Rusted-through handrail at Kailua Park
23
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
•
u
s
� P �
s
H
y
ry
a
w a
1.
T-
_.
ti
9 S tF'Vr.
i' e' ,i��. '.•� '�,..x -via' � „y ���� ,���
Photograph #4: A walkway torn-up for plumbing repairs may pose a safety and ADA access issue
at Kailua Park
�5 M
1'
b(
a
•
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.
W
m
x
of 7
art;
'I
s ,
r
V 7.,
9
P V
n
.v
r
a f
i
e
Photograph#6: Tarp used to divert rainwater from electrical panel box at Honomu Gym
4,111 A
f`
A
v <
Photograph#7: Fallen fencing around building with lead paint at Na`alehu Community Center
25
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
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
was 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 aCounty-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
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
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:
"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."
a
r
ran o' v
rc
pi.r`T
n
u}
I
„ vw
u
k!
s i
r
Photograph#8: Rusting and leaking roof at Yano Hall
27
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
Nou .
SKATESCAR'DIN
s
BICYCLING
IROI-qtr. i ATING
GC[OTC R RIDING
ALLOWED
NO DOGS
jf �" ALLOWED IN PARK
�e� y
w
Nb
w
44,
i
III
n
n d
Photograph#9: Termite damage at Yano Hall
g
Photograph#10: Leaking roof at Pahoa Neighborhood Facility
28
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
rAl
ff
Val
00
10
i li e`AI i Y'C
J
duu"w: 9C e
,w
z %'
a
s.
au 1
a
µ^r0
u
c
Photograph#11: Termite leavings at Hawaiian Beaches Park
zr a
mP'
Photograph#12: Peeling and leaking roof at Edith Kanaka'ole Multi-Purpose Stadium
Note: Auditors observed roof repairs being conducted in March 2011.
29
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
,
Al
IP
14
�w
ro
a
P
h,
iu
1(l�fA
Photograph#13: Ground termite damage at Hilo Municipal Golf Course
M li
r
�r Y 4491
d
yNp, w eh
tf
� w
Y
p��II
�.
Y�
m
e �
J
epY t� v
Photograph#14: Rusting supports within Quonset Hut at Waiakea Recreational Center
30
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
mum
�E
f,
I
l
a.
n
Y )
9
I IIy�
�yy
Photograph#15: Tarp diverting water from leaking roof at the Waiakea Recreational Center
11 lip
r>fir" jti
,s,
41'�r�' 1�£,}t£i�f
.`•�.:_ "'�' �f4x J� � � \+f�tti�Z ?�lksi�l��t,t�gggg#£l1 r 4� ,; 1S#1"}�1.;� !�£�{� ��j5 �'��i,
M1u,
y;
qµ `
fi' ryry
Photograph#16: Rusted and leaking roof at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym
31
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
B �
1
V
vT
d'
d 0' 4
Dt,
Ap
ACCESSIBLE
PPOSITE EMU 0�
M
9 r� g F
�CIF,+GF'yh�
M
a e
x. p,
4
I
o'
i
r
x
Photograph#17: Peeling and flaking paint at Gilbert Carvalho Park Gym
T
i
i
.y
Photograph#18: Rusted roof at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center
32
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
1
n�
x
v
4-
Photograph#19: Hole at Pana'ewa Equestrian Center
n
r�
w i
Photograph #20: Holes in leaky roof at Honomu Gym
33
Chapter 3: OPERATIONS
m
'!UI
e10
t'7
r
N-
aid, �.
Photograph#21: Sky visible through roof at Papa'ikou Gym
Pon
Kam
1111
«n..IL illlt P� �tliv,�,.,��u�yiavm `
Q
p
1
1
cy
tv�'Ik
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 Building 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
Structural failures occur _
Structure not usable
.�
Start of major failures
Major repair
Start of minor failures B
Normal wear A Mirror repair
Preventive maintenance
Time in years
Total cost of major repair
Total cost of minor repair
Total cost of preventive maintenance
Dj �qraro from Preventive Main tenan ce of Buj1djRqs,vary Nos trand Peinhold,New York, 199 1,
36
Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT
CHAPTER 4
FACILITIES ASSET MANAGEMENT
PARKS AND RECREATION HAS NOT MET ITS FACILITIES GOALS
I b, ib*
1
Photograph#23: Rusting and leaking roof at Pahala Community Center
Although it should be recognized that some Parks and Recreation facilities were in substantial
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
to 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.
Key deficiencies hindering P&R in meeting the goals and objectives of its 2004-2009
Strategic Plan for facilities are:
• Insufficient planning
• Insufficient budgeting
• Insufficient systems and processes
• Insufficient monitoring and reporting
37
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
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 along-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
/iiiii�����IIIIIII f�I llllll���uu�,f
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
Customer survey results Performance measures
Planning Proposed budgets
Monitoring Budgeting
Project implementations Operations Operating budget
Maintenance and repairs Capital Improvement
Inspections Programs(CIP)budget
Work Order System
Data collection
Critical to the success of an asset management system is the identification of what data must be
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
Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT
roof, A/C, 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
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
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
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).
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
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 Hawaii 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
• 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.
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)
44
Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT
Again not unique to Hawaii 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" (1 bid.)
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
Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT
Roof Systems
Roofing
Insulation
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
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 103rd 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 P&R 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
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 Departments 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
project prioritization policy that is supported by documented methodologies and processes,
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
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
Chapter 4: FACILITIES ASSET MANGEMENT
CHART #5
FACILITY ATTENDANCE ev
JL
CJ 4!51 LL V/Zrcz! - -14zeirz r%, /47�
°r3 co A
Andrews 217011 175870 209208 197270 142110 04212
arvalho 53743 82488 10+ 523 8 0274 66412 883440
Hilo Armco 15,5668 48608 60110 52606 40457 207509
-Feaukaha 70804 123334 208995 431116 323938 1227277
Panaewa 176875 80848 35484 53878 58184 405202
Puueo 12209 12658 11454 15005 14500 66886
Skeet Ilan e 2580 2045 2359 2025 1 737 10856
Waiakea Rec. 104303 87406 100098 71057 53247 416201
Waia.k a Uka 30983 58271 49223 72233 50352 261062
Wainaku 6155 5 13656 22045 13549 61084
TOTAL 740121 677292 851 180 -1008567 764486 41041 646
JL
JL
421 L
CV fv�p
�V5 ILijc.�erc-cv. A27 cv 4z ry
Honokaa 395452 329439 177424 135075 10134 1059424
Honomu 3681 3524 8300 8930 5987 30411
Kulaimano 13136 15445 0792 15633 5544 50550
Paautio 13274 13842 18277 17160 7688 70241
Papaaloa 9251 1 01 3 9385 5454 5481 42744
Papalkou 18494 27439 16655 42485 10728 115801
TOTAL 454298 399852 239833 2306461 545421_. 1379171
4 -_a --j -6
/4
A ry
;p P
1W 7
C33 CY
cc C6
LL cj�
ry
HI Beaches 18704 11 854 125001 11942 15505 55505
I~ ahuku 18954 15176 9902 9550 7733 61 365
Mt.VIL=W 52535 88130 125755 110044i 65153 442617
Naalehu 24808 32938 22404 27707 17235 124082
P2hal2 30477 26841 40985 38800 31418 168521
Pahon 43821 38988 68354 187707 60055 398025
Shipman 114905 120455 147405 134095! 189583 700 503
TOTAL 1 298854 3343821 4283051 519E1451 3E16EI221 1968208
53
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 Departments 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
An annual work plan and budget for the Parks Maintenance Division should flow from the
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
allocations in the Department's annual Operating and CIP Budgets.
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
Chapter 5: BUDGET
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.
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
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
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
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 Departments 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 Departments budget requests do not provide a plan for the Department to follow in
executing its facilities maintenance and repair work throughout the year.
59
LV r 00 � LO
0 r0 � O
N }' cD M
m I Q 0 0 0 {f} O O O O � O
O C:
0 ++ O O O O -a
N O O O O to
0) O O O O >,
s >- L
U LL N O O O N N O O O ti 0
m {f} 6% {f} 69, {f} 6% e% e% 69- 6% N
to
O LO U
O O N O -0
r t m CD M N N
LL! T-- O }' M o 4--
O N v LO v
V N a O O O 6% {f} O O O O {f} (1)
> o a) cn
w r o � O O a�
U) N N O O O O O O O O O
- O O C) O O O O O � 0
LL M LO - LO LO LO O O CD 4--U N M (D N N N N O
Z L 0o 00 00 C:
O s ° (3' M
}' O }' 00 0-
U N v ti M M x
Cl) O I a O O O {f} to O O O O 6% N
O
N p�
O �+ O O O O O O O O U
W O N O O O O O O O O O to
to Z N 0) 0 0 0 0 O O O O -a
Q LL U') U') O O O LO LO L
N N CD N N N O to
J LL m {f} {f} {f} {f} {f} {f} {f} {f} {f} {f}
OC J �
LL! L C
Q U ,0 _ � ti N o U
pp r� N 0
O O d') O E
U O � a� - m
N � co 00 -0 U
W
Q O 0 0 to ta O O O O 69- CD
U
O � o o �o
0 0 0 0 O O O O O o
W LU N O O O O O O O O O O �
U 0) 0 0 0 0 O O O O O N o
Z 00 O O CD Lid Lid M O Lid V- N -0
LL I-Z a N M N N N N N N N
Z �m
LL! E L u
O
Z o o }' O
U
a O O O COQ O N LO 00 q--
m N v ti d7 CD O V- L m
1 a {f} O O {f} N � O O O 6% > c
OC 00 O -0 •�
a N O O O O O O O O M m m
a LL a� O O 00 O O O O LO ti -
LL 00 00 c0 c0 LO o (3) �
cn
N N N N N N N N V- U L
m 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% {f} {f} 6% N
•C: 06
cn N L N cn cn O N
O � •O 0 L to LL N
J J L O L m L
_ O O to cn
— � � •— � � � � •t6 •to N tD
•U O •m � N �+ u N � N O N 0 O
LL 0 LL LL 0� 0 0� �e 0� O 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
Chapter 5: BUDGET
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 Departments 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 CIP Budget and Financial Impact
Statements for the fiscal years shown.
CHART #7
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 CIP 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 $990009000 $794179000 $991509000 $1895009000 $1196009000 $1091009000
• 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
$395159000 $494789000 $395909000 $1090009000 $11,600,000 $1091009000
N/R $895929000 $1699009000 $494729000 $1198659000 $1796769000 $991359000
Total $1291079000 $2193789000 $890629000 $2198659000 $2992769000 $1992359000
&NR
• I = Improvement Projects = Enhancements which expand level of service.
• N/R = New/Replacement Projects = New facility, or deteriorated facility in need of
replacement.
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 anon-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
Chapter 5: BUDGET
THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOCATING AN ADEQUATE PORTION OF
THE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET TO MAINTENANCE HAS
NOT BEEN RECOGNIZED
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 Hawaii 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:
...for 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, Hawaii 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
Chapter 5: BUDGET
CHART #8
SAMPLE OF FACILITIES PRIORITIZATION
PRIORITIES CATEGORIES APPROPRIATE FUNDING
Priority One Routine Operating Custodial Activities) Operating Budget
Periodic Operating Budget, or possibly
(i.e.; Termite Fumigation, Roof Repair) CIP Budget
Emergency Operating Budget, or possibly
(i.e.; Health and Public Safety Issues) CIP Budget
Deferred Backlog, ADA, Hazardous
Materials Operating Budget, or possibly
Priority Two (i.e.; Health/Safety Issues, Government CIP Budget
Mandates)
Priority Three Major Repairs(i.e.; Rehabilitate Facility) CIP Budget
Replacement
(i.e.; Rebuild Facility) CIP Budget
Priority Four Improvements CIP Budget
(i.e.; Enhance Facility)
New
(i.e.; Construct New Facility) CIP Budget
As quoted earlier from Capital Asset Assessment, Maintenance and Replacement Policy (2007
and 2010), the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practice states:
A governments 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.
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.
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 assets 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
$290009000 $295009000 $490009000 $490009000
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
CHART #10
Datw 6-22-11 [1sir ct Is la iii dw i de
PAWS& RECREATION-CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS
Lcfjorid
PROJECT TITLE: Rel-)mr,-,limprovements to Facilities Biaa 130::c.r o f
O &ACCT NO., 08-7q(110-599-5599,94.11!5) Red Erg cAjaii,)c-ed
LAPSING DATE, 6-30-11 Blue EquaUcin
APPROPRIATION, $2,000,000-00
UNALLOTED aAL- `APPROPRIATION is rULLY ALLOTTED'
FL)NDING SOURCE:
RESTRICTIONS, Rupair uf, r,(. improvemets at parks,and roue-aflonal 1`8611i lie s-th�
Infrastro'cture.ublit(s��n,i)d built et,v no-cc,,-ss -�to --ilitate and support public wi,-
a fa
DATE C c-r itract F FJ, II I m 0'D,.11'4 1 ALLO 1 ML N F BALANCE
6-30-09 Allcillmeni#146(PR 09,55)T 1 7 229,495.69 S 229,495.69
10-22-09 Wa MMW 11.0t Eriii.r F attires R t., 7 1:eOm)LC 1 v55" $ 5,267.00 S 224,228.69
10-19-09 x.002068 Lincdn,Park Tennitj C,ujjrts Al�R,Naga)Supp,No.1 1 10,360.00 $ 213.868.69
11-18-49 C.002341 B-3880 N N:-�F48sketball&TC(Loeffler)CIO#1 $ 8,41232 S 20.15.455.37
12-100 Pwaewa Far Ctr 7 ea 5-0 Ext PM,(pmJpDO200)Hwe DV&R013W2 $ 853,13 $ 204,603,24
12-4-09 C 0 57 B-3942 W.H,Vet Cc m I rr;lg ati on 1.mproy i,13011 cm.1 GA);T I 3,4j U tl 13 n
12.11-09 G,002638 B-3845 Hilo Muni GC Clubhouse Greawrap�We flier�Conftacl Awam S 81-1.000.00 S 121,262.56
12-4-09 C.002--r "Opu Genwmq Burial lnves4abon(Culturaisurve?s Fi-iwaiq
�:')"Con=Award f vaD 00201 11.374.95 S 1 Ob.68-1-'61
12-7-09 Pa 7.40
Fanifly Ctr lea 4x6xl 10 HPM 0#1600786 20-211 S 10�119,656
"an aewa F amily C tr-Mildew Qnr&Bbeaxh(HPPA)D-4 1604004 13
1 25 7�s 1 n.9,841.64
7
12722-0-9 Pan aewa Family tr.. In(Semi G15 Pain',I HQme Depct)D41 W5544 75) $ "J(ji
12-28-Q- J4 J R013001 AW[AP D91009�95 0-49 S 1090732.40
(36L5.63) $ 110
472anaewa Frnly C tfftmel t R01-1202 CTW it, nt not needm D#16 14 2,12 098,03
ua Par k1 Ze -W-v Molol(prr-Lip.00204 Poyal Vetals R&13478 2,226,03 S 10 872.00
1 1i m- 5 S 1 i �
z 1 1 .011� 6 - b 3�0j 86
veered P1,3y Coen (Lou Chan)prcip $ 2 2 2, 3 0 976.811;86
-`,1! ��tv Co
.00205 J
2-2-10 PRPM HoDko-DockPius.FGamCvrs.Toins'v"nBIndsHomoDepotD#1625989 $ 11 97 ,748,70
2-5-10 Para ewa Fm I y C 10(4 pi7,,,,2x12 12,1 pc 2x1 W)HPM D#16 7207 $ 91.130 976.657,70
2
..1 7-I G Park BencheF
j
2-22-10 Cooper Ctr6gA Pine Forest,,59al Wh00 C I Du lux Paint D#1634683 S 472,31 G
1 10.377 6,,
2-24-10 C-V U'�H Fac I!;ra!i:--1- rli,�I
2-25-10 Coop f Cent or 115 gat While Paint�V Dilul ux Paint 163,%72, 47&H 5 964,148.86'
3-3-10 Vapvwa Farr 4Y Center(1x 16 1),4x18,1 x64) HPM DO 163,6638 333'i4 '3 963,815,12
17,
4 9,800-86 S 954,014.26
3-9-10 C $
3-15-10 C.,OPT850 B-'11,625 1,&I dr,i'irr,,0 Park VO#4(Sits E nq) S 20,28231 $ 933,731.95
3-17-10 Panaewa Family it(door k,",iambs.srlls,hnq��f HIPM D#1640088 736.39 S 932.9 9 5.5 6
Panaewa Fmly rlir j. ,li?q pip hla,dp-r,,-gjr7 1FF!m,j!jcr1�X'rd D11670833 33766 $ 932,657 18
-30-10
paflaeyQ;r11 rc,�p,20A aA i;�F.,�xauer D-1604 263" 12510 S 932,532-48
4
5-11-10 Panaewa Family 0�ni er�s�pra p 02 10;1 HPM R Y,,jl 1z 1.52714" $ 931,00524
5-13-10 P8naewa Family Ctr(Eiccir',Sup-lr,,,uc p 00:,,914"Atphn FMS;R,01411'0 2,729.18 $ 928..276 06
5-13-10 Pan aewa Family CIr„I: f -2)j PI s)pf'�p,06214 Gig--, 1,636.56 $ 926,639.So
M 89.42 S 925,795.08
5-13-10 Pai-i aewa F an,ily qtr(Elecl n So pI 5)v`,( 1-1.1A r
68
Chapter 5: BUDGET
Dale: 6-22-11
PARKS &RECREATION-CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS
L o t 0
PROJECT TITLE-, Repairs/Improvements to Facilities Black Recari�-Iled
ORD&ACCT NO' 08-79(110,599.5599.94,.115) EnCLImbered
LAP,SING DATE-. 6_30-11 Blue=Equation
N.PROPRIATION-. $2,000,000.00
UNA1_t.07E!)B,";L- "'APPROPRIATION IS FULLY ALL OTTED**16
FUNDING SOURCE
Repair rid.rer,oval nn to,replar-pmenil ot.andlor generilviprov!nei it�Ar Wi,:reLci ej,(ji izil 1:ic,h5ev!1-11 wir
REST�`�,ICT IOM
3 i i i f ra sl rLjct4ire,tj ti I i ties and built'envoroomeol n ecos sa r y I o f,i(.i Iflate avid�Ll[J."'Or I[I U K:H-se
DATE- EXPENDITJRE
"E
Posted c_
u°�1r,7r;k Encumbr,--iwe Doscription ALLOTMEN I ENCUMBRAANCE
Panaewa Family C1 r(ElediJcal Supl )prop.00214 VVmr)8.014076 5 495.51 $ 925IR57
Panwwa Family C1 r(Meters)pro p.D0215 Alph F,I rc7-P1 1 ill f,�'3 $ 529-00 5 924.770-57
"11 11 Pert F !v f e I c r s,I p r C.i 0 re 0 215 G c. R C 11, S 3,184,31 $ 921,586.26
Yz 15.873,60 S '_`5-12 66
14
5-13-10 Panat-wa Famd y C Ir(L igNing.j pi,(;_p,("':2 M pha P_I 1'�, 9,700.42 S M012.24,
5-6-10 Pm,8 ra F:-�jndy Cejitef j1,000 It 1,2 EMT)G-expro D4,VM71m, S 1,97.92 S 895,814.32
132 42 S 895,681.90
5.6-10 �Ij-iaewa FamdyCefltar f 118 Bends. h.!I,L7 - Q,
5_20-1,0 P,,w,a rowa Fm4 Cir ti I nsiila bQn,E)rywaI[,p,!c�picip D02 17 L owe's RW 41, 2,372-38 S 893,309,52
5 13-, Ranaewa F m ly qtr f 2way Sw,12-2 M C Qible)Alpha Sueol D#1688042
$ 548.54 892,760.98
5-M-110 CD01B50 6.3625 Kam Paik Al E o g 1 0;0 7 $ 11 U19,95 $ 881.741.03
,15-4-10 Panaewa r arni ly Center(24 ea 1 x I 2x 16)H FU 04 1 S 473.81 S 881,26720
4 5
6-9-10 ��Hn ama Family Genter(50 ea Elec Bxsl Alpha E[edric Cj#lf;698 102 S Al S 881,221.79
6-7-10 Panaewa,Family Gtr-Alpha E leuric R 0114073 041697166 Adj Exp S (2,11 $ 881,2213 OG
6-14-10 Rana k wa Family Gtr-A Sexauer R.01 4075 D#16 8970 Adj E S 2.45 $ 281 221.45
6-22-10 Pan aewa F am,ily Gtr, xpro R,01 4074 D4 1700'w53 Adj Exp (0.01) $ 881,221.46
6-29-10 Pan aiwa Family Gtr-Gexpro R.0 1 4G74 D#1710872 Adj Exp (0,36) S 881.221 M
6_301-10 Pan i C!r 3 ea P,4'n 1,7"v e ner)Sherwin*01 lari 1;4 D41711114 25, 1 S 881"195.91
6-30-10 Panaewa F mly C1 r(flee Supls)Wesco 8,(114076 04-17 11 76o,)4(ij Fxp
8-5-l:1 (MRT65) $ 8 j 1.5 7 3.95
S PPD Fa�-
`.1k'0(',0 S 881,67195
11c j Lr �i i.; U��, `26;,',�
8-10.10 Planaawa Famly Cif(Lumber)HPM Doc#1724739 $ 27.70 $ 881,646)25
8-10-10 Pan ,a Fam 11 y Ctr(t-umber&Svews)HP Mc#t 724 744 S 2,0 5�8 S 881,440.4
Lq_,10_10 Panaewa Family Or(51 Ii Ga Sark I.-V-ti.C,,ap Dw#1724 783 S 1,54,16 S 8,8 1,286,11
Panaoewa Farml y Cir(Cono,Bush lligls,End)Gexpro Doc#1725376 S 88.34 S M 1,197.97
8-11-10 Panaewa Family LCIr GexproRG14074N1725379 Adj Exp $ (0,02) $ 881,197-99
8.24-10 Paoaewa Family Gtr Scr Cvr Wi reway)Gexpro U*1735 4 $ 18.36 $ 880. 12.7 1
8-25-10 Piwiaewa F l ly C tr-Low es i),f Kona R.0 14138 SNppinq Charge $ 260,.42 $ W,652,29
9-2-10 Kolelt-ole Se,01-6,1 S ystern Upgrade.F11i ng Fee-Siate of H I D#17374B9 $ 100.00 $ 880,552.29
9-9-10 rn RW R ('fic �t�, A J_1 7
S 10637.00 $ 869,915,29
9-9-10 "s-.E C.; 14.178,94 855,736.35
2
69
Chapter 5: BUDGET
District: tsiandwide
PARKS& RECREATION -CAPITAL PROJECTS STATUS
L,Kend
PROJECT TITLE. R spat irstimproverrents to Facilities Black=RecQndled
ORD i&ACCT NO 08-79(110,599,5599-94-115) RW Encumbered
LAPSING DATE- 6-30-11 Brue Equation
APPROPRIIATIC)N $2,000,000.00
UNALLOTED BAI '"APPROPRIATION IS FULLY ALLOTTEWilt
FUNDINGi SOUR(,F:
I a i r i r n r.r?i,:!:v.i 1,r i i'if).r P.I-,,I 71�r, f ,"inil,or janeral improvemenlis at park,s and r ecreational fabllifle,-, their amenifies,
RESTRICTION,9-
mfiasuucture,uiilirle,and budi,oivw.niwir.iii iiucessary to facilita(e and SLIP[NI T3111:11W.USP
DATE Encumbranec,.,Do%cripljoin ALLOTMENT EL XP;N11!11JRE 8ALANCE
Posted ENCUMBRANCE
9-27-10 r-o!.1.1.1 1 hl" ;1;,11:0.�-Phwe Pow Sv..
$ 4,300,00 $ 851,436.35
-, 64 5
1V110 Al Iolw,iLr i 1 -1 1 P9 11 00.1, C;,1 n�n�*()9-154 Bonc,� S
7!` 4 $
*7-10 'Pan uma Farnil Genler 2 pcs 4.88x8 Lu rnbcr H P M D91750218 S 43.11 $ 1,530,7 7,69
1(17-11 lw*, Caffler 3 Omrs 3ft&8 Ma hog H PM D#1 7 502 20 650.,00 S 1,530.10f-.69
9 1-1()fjl j 0 S 1
10-2 5,10 C 002965 PR A028 Isaac K Hale E�,eac,,h Pa r�New PlaygfounJ
1-24-11 Panaewa Family Gtr capper pipes,efl:s�etc,QpfflTal Supply D'411758 6B8 202,93 $ 1 p 336.9,04.7
1-24-11 Panaewa Family Center I 5et&K)r j�mb H PM D4171 95fi 4.582 $ 1.336.858,94
Ljupahmhoe Swt Ramp-R yai of e
(Se-3 Enq im"inq)Doc�-724746 (9,217,74)
$
...........
RecA.pltulation- $ 2.000.000-00 S 6.�3.973-32
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
AccounVDept Project Approved FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
2430 Computer Equipment
01-730 Information Technology Data Center Renovation $ 50,000 $ 150,000 $ 50,000 $ - S -
PC Replacements 300,000 315,000 330,750 347,268 364,652
Miscellaneous costs for hardware fsoftwarelcabiesfprinters 230,000 241,500 253,575 266,254 279,566
Corporate Fund Departments softwarelmisc items 32,000 32,000 32,000 32.000 32.000
01-400 County Sheriff Miscellaneous costs for hardware fsoftwarelcableslprinters 27,366 - - - -
Sub-Total Account 2030 Data Processing Equipment-Small Value $ 639,366 $ 738,500 $ 666,325 S 645,542 S 676,218
4198 Building Improvements-Reappropriations
01-700 Facilities Management $ 1,000,000 $ - S - $ - 3 -
Total 4198 Building Improvements-Reappropriations $ 1,400,000 $ - $ - $ _ $
4190 Building Improvements
50,000 50,000 -
509 Parking Garage elevator maintenance,repairs&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 JQF elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equipment - 246,000 76,470
01-700 Facilities Management JTK elevator maintenance,repairs&replacement equipment - 137,500 88,700 -
01-700 Facilities Management Campus tuckpointing 225,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
{)1-70Q Farilitie$Management Recaulk floor deck$of two parking structure* 4$Q,000 _50000 513.000 50 QQQ 54 444
01-700 FaDlities Management Carnpcs pa-king lot maintenarce 50,000 50.C)OU 50 WQ Y,JOG 50000
01`00 ira;Al icies M ar4 g en,em Veterans nemoei al m ainle.,).anoe 10,000 10,1710171 10:)00 10 000 10 000
01.700 Fa nil sties h1 ana gem&nL Campus exterior sig r aga sysiern - - 100 D00
Oi 70:1"iff'I iliiies mam9gement JTK Arian n Replace doa ramp ora,ns 45.001 -
01-7;i3 F a c to lies M aria ae{n eol. C ampus-showursrl0-i er rooms 20 000 -
01-7i3u FuulI l es Foiaeiage tenl modilli-cations 25.D00 25,000 25 ODD 25 000 -
01-700 Facalii es M anal gem ant JQF Ira hung reljoff its&energy improvements(8 ier-iens) �S 053 2,060 2 122 2 1a!:. 2.251
Ot-70D Fucr1,1•t u V an a gerner,l C arr,pus Bui 100 nq a ulornali on$ystgm upgrade 125.00 25 Zrr} 125 000 125 OCO
01-70D Facalit es Management ,Jail-9 8u,laing meta sps cor`trells - 75,000 75-200 251 000
01-7,ri?,}Para lit r-e r,t,ana gerneni� ,Jail 8 B i-ni d.rig new cooling cairs 2.3.00L'1 n.01010 21!000 2��."Q D0
01.700 FaoIiq-es Vanagermen JQF grid heal exchanger IHVA k 1120.0 - - -
01-700 Faoht,es JCW.Holo ng r„*t!s 4VAC 5:^,0 IL
U1.7W Faalitia&Mt,anagernent Juvenile Detention-H.iMidihitrS 30,000 -
01-700 F;acil,ti es Managernem. Power PI a n t Boiler 02 cor truss{burners) 3-30:ADO -
01-700'l'ad Lin es Marna gerr+ar t Power Pla'1t I i TVV shUtd own#5(Merzaniine to Cc nw C ern Cer) - 1 04.004 -
01-x00 Faalaies Ma @gamvr.t Campus flwrng reply meal 50 0DD 50 N. 50.000 50.1102 5�OC
U1,700 F a ci iti es M ana gemer-t Campus tumitu re repay me rt 50.0(]C 5 0.WO S-U.{ 3 !Tj OOc
01-701}l a ci itie:s M avAa gear er t Jai'Floonng replacA mer t•A Building 25 000 25 00:: 2'p.00O
01-700 F a ca'itie3 M ana ge rt�er t J F C ourTroom I,chamt)er$$eats ng repla cerr ens or remp`•ioistgr0 100.00 11:-0 1100 1 Go 1011.000
I,'),1-?00 F ar+lutie:s M ana gc mer t JTK Ww imom drop ce flir;g 7 5.000
01-100 Faa01i ies M isna gew-tr t S,4C-Ergonom Ic 5cOtrng,waiting r^rsrn.attorney staircn s 2 5 000 25.000 25,01214 25 000
t,+1-00 F3 u'Mies M arrFa gemert JTK Replace 0"sprinkler li r1e•a t dock 20 000 -
01-700 I-ao'i[ies wRibagern*r[ JTK spunu replacement - ? 5 On()
,91-700 F a r�',ties M ana gern ert Jai'G•eaS a trap.siin k howor,dish tt;'rip 20.000 _
01-700 Fari'inim Managerr'er[ JCF lristph 2rd Heal axc.li{anger;plumll3ingl 70 000 .000
31-700 F a ca'itiees M ana ge mert JTK AOA washrooM:=nodrrication a 1 75 JOCJ 75 DG0
01-7C 0 Fay ities M an.a ge meat JO F AsirtiC x-Rty w odel Rroba[ian aeparlmeni: F$00(i
0147t_�f)Fac.:at,e:5 M aria ge mer t 10 F Anne x-Rem oriel S tale r.Attorn e y 50,000 -
Hlsloncal M u slum R 6or replacem ent pe,r agreernent wish 7!5 I)Qq
01•U-u I°ar.ill e5 Management Vyheawn Park DastncA
01-7C4)Faclities Mana;remery JCIF Cast Enq-ance 56.0017
01-?DO Fai.•Irties Managenleal Seneiice Stag-on ract replacemrert - 30 000
01-700 Fat Id les M anage nieri l J a+l OhcKible Otua ki n g 70.Do[) 20,000 MOOD 20 000 20.0 013
01 7120 Far Irl yes M 3r iage merit J aei Pneon a r Cell Rewo* 25.000 50 000 50.0110 50 000 50 0 R4
01.7,D FCC 10 ies M image me ril J Dii'X-ray machine rep:.acern ertits 4 S.DOO 45000 45.100D 1 r.000 1S.000
01-7 CLl Fac.liiies Management CarnpuS Secur•ty C.amieras F.Mama 60,000 25.000 25.000 25 000 25-703
01-7X F ac,lii ies Manage me ril Vasco activated cameras&w°+rog'or Ce ,oly ar'd,R oorr` 54,12.00 -
2'J-4 5(;,Co•'ivalesce rit C ente r Ar•CtUteCt.L ral&Erg ineen rig services GO.C-00 6121,0(}0 60 001) 60 JCS W Q-•-J
23-45,C Cv•ivaluscrril.Ceriler Annual 10PH survey remedl;al wuki k 7ct.i;m i0 '01:0 1017l,r:4iD IW,000 1 CC 300
23-4 512 Convalesce nt Cente r Parki ng 14x r+epa.rs&stnpi n D.sA*wiWk s&&i rb"eoair 30,12 DO 3 ft.0C.O 30,0(0 3:3.300 30 0(10
23-450 C:4.-,vale!wft0.C er71e r M asoiiry tuckpr rn bn0 20.0 DO 20.On 7110 N30 2:.-)n0 20 040
23 4 S0 Ccrlvgle smru Center Roar'rr ai nterlanw 20,C X 20,01DO 20 COCr 2 v1,000 105 1300
73-450(:onvalesc:rrl Ceriler Caulking wmnr1cyw5&cvn1'ro Ioinls 10.COD 10.0 C-0 i(1 C-a: 1 D.0150 100,00
2 3-4 50 Convilla sc*n l Center FI ciorini;ttpl acemorti.rarrimn n A rrasas 10.0 00 1,3.0120 10 C0u 10.00 10 OQo
23-450 Con,raaeLc+eni Center Pain Ling cor•traW1 25.Cj)D 25.0Ci3 25 CO;, 25,Dc"o 25 07;0
W_t,4 5Q C omvam sren I Cemer All ech a ri IC all equi pm ent repl acernent 52 366 I GO 0303 100.000 100 000 12 C,300
23.450 Cvi,vale S,nl Cerr.,er Xilcr eri equ prr ent repl acernen', 2.5 000 1 55.Q:O 25 000 25,012'0 2�010
23.450 Coi,valesr;ent Center Lavrdry egwil ra$r!replycerien; 25 OW 25,000 25 ow 25.0;12 0 25.000
Sub-T$1at Account 4190 BuitdIno Im prove r+ri#nits S 2.223,41- i 1,900.$60 $ 211725.427 S 1,347,195 S 1,677,251
4230 D*%PrQC*%1FlnQi Equiprr+ent
C 1-400 Staerierzi Orrica IDu Page VVet)P or1a 1(160 yror k Il ovrsM YMeej�s i 113 170x7 S - - t -
.730 I nror-na*.,or Tec N ro:ogy (Data.Storage(area network-"1arp?i SA contraltred#,IC rape b 5,00000 00,000
Pa tier it Crirircar Billing Sgsw m fci Convalescent Center 125 COO -
Oi saster R ecow ry-off-5ate roc undant aysl ern slJIrt a all a lion ?5(lab b0
437
71
Chapter 5: BUDGET
CIP BUDGETS FOR FACILITY REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS
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
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 Departments 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
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
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.
74
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
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
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:
• Ongoing maintenance costs, including full-time employee
(FTE) requirements.
• 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
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
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.
78
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
wy OF
Robert A.Fitzgerald
William P.Kenoi :t Director
Mayor
.!04 if :.�.� Clayton S.Honma
Deputy Director
Countp of 'wa tuat 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
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 Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
81
RESPONSE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Ms.Colleen 5chrandt,Legislative Auditor Page 3 of 9
July 18,2011
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 Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
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 Hawai'i 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
RepairlImprovements]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 410)"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 but at the Waiakea
County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
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 but 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
21 it appears the LSPA should be rephrased to state"...1 I of the more than 64 facilities at the
16 recreational sites..."
County of Hawai'i 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 staff's time. Initially,we propose to develop a more detailed facility
inventory listing that can then be used to track more commonplace preventative maintenance
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
County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer.
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 innproving 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,
. q (3--
Robert A.Fitzgeral
Director
87
APPENDIX 1: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
APPENDIX I
";r _0 rl- N
C
U) U) co
2P
c�Q a c:
(n
L. (D
m Cam? w CD qT Ul) Cie) il-T- ED
CL fN 'p,C4 Lo'r-LD :3 t- qw M
CD
L
0 0 0 0 0 0 L)0 06
6-
CL 0 fL 0 0 0 0 0 C) 00
c:
W rj
(V
0 LU
U)
4) u u
� ID k- L-
o(o E n aj
a 0 0 0 Q-
co
M L) Ir l-.
0 co to v
W N m cc.cn C�4
U c:lqt a t-
(D o
w cu
Lli o .�f
E C? E
CL 0 0 7
2 9. T- -70 T-0 0 0 U)>
0 1 L
U- LLJ
6-
C
CL m
a.)
_0 IT c�
LLJ
CD
Iq %c
m
b cr)
C) CD Q� 0
U E I b L)
m CD Lo r-
UL .X I
m 0 C14
CL co
CL N
X000
0 0
E U
CD
>
w
V-)
CD
00
00 (M
LZ cli
CD
0 �6
Z.,
CD
CL
cn
m cD
U)
Q m 0 CD
cr) 0 T I w
Q�
C (9 CD
U)
L)o
Cl CL o
m CD
01, CL 0 71-
CD
LU w
>
0
6. 0
C
x L) CL >4
2 CL m
<
89
APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION
APPENDIX 11
0 "1
C —
c6
m 6 a- m n-a. 6 a-
o c: c co 2 2 m 2
co u 0 co w w
C� c r- 4-0 w w
LL a
CL
3 (m -I--
fn
r-
!Z4 N u
CD
C? D_ co .
CL a
T- Cd 0
M
C;� 0
co 3:0
C)0
w Q 0
m (h CL
:3 'j L- C �8
CL r-.— 4) E
.2 o m m
Ln CL rn
CD -q 0 co
r--
w W U M-m4 r14
> t
4ppp 00) 4-d
m rl)
C%j 0 L) u
CD
I (V 0) v 0 C 000000
0
.20 _5 w L—u 2:w 00 -(551000000
C) O to
C>
Q
U) cn
CD Ln
co r%j
E 7 6-CD
0
:3 -0 "a ul CD
0 z E C? o
CD 0 C
U) w [TOO CL
t: ro -i
> (o Q cm
< -V 6 U Q
%-- CD
0 LQ cj
m 10L CL
UJ a. uj
a C
Z I C)
LULU
z
0
LL (n<
0 Z CD m a 0 UD 0 1-Co Lo
Lo�6n
UJ C%4 Ln Lr)�o
(D'-W co(")0(n 0 r-.
�
Z CD o I , I i I I
z 0 6 (D C13 0 O CD(Z�
o b b 0 c)0
w cr
< 0 W000000
o cr) 3 ol CL
0. (13 V)q- co I m a CL
C) 0 ED ,��U- LL 0 M-
E
a .
D
Y) 00 N
.2 (
OD C-)
< r-
Q CL c:0 M N Nt N M
z 06
-c �6 C? I-- -c r_ to
L) o U v m w
a) (1) 0(D 4)Q 6-M
2 o o 2 o La G 0
CN V)
c as CD Ic LL.
!r
W m Q
L) CU m
C M CL (o
w 6- co kjr>f%j
dwp Ul,T---
2!
m
09 0 LU == a '°
I I
a- 6 'Fa 000
n m 0 mzB:00
L—m 2(o 0 -j u 0
CD
Lo (a
rz F-
c%j
IL C
CD CNJ
CL c�CD
MOO
m w 0 0
0
90
APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION
N
C�
w m m
< I> L C CL
OL
C. I.- I
T- J)L L Q C)
m 6. LU
6. Eli
0
M In 0 0 Lf)(D
6- P-
C) 0 a) ce) 2
C1- C�j go 00
CU 0) r- L �-Ij
!3 C' T- a; 0 =M 0
966
-7-
0 �00
3 - m
0
0 Q-00 0 0 0
T
C4
CD
6 0
4) Je
c .2 co (A CD
m
0 L)
w 4)M
m OL w 0
LL
> 0 -)e m
rl-
0)
7 cli M a M ro r-i'-—r-
0r)
LLJ a Cp E 0 LL L) qc:r -T
m [�f r-L C� CD C?c�C;3 CD CD
c:L) LA gu .5 1�e 0 . I I I I
< 6- cl 6 o 0 0 0 0 0
z m Z; cr m
LL Lo< m cd m :1 LU 0 auci a.000001 0 1
a_ -m -
C) Z.t� N-
rt LU cw 7 0
>-CL CL 0 %v
0 r
4--z Z
C7 a,
0 co
CD
�m 8
E U)0
m m m m
am
0 0
in -W 2
�E
rql) in C
Zi r- Ln co
co M CD cp C)
z 97 U
6 0
m 0
0 L 0 CL 0 co
a) Q)
4.
cv
CD
2e
m
0
0
Ul)QD r-_Ln N m- -1
C9 m"c%j U-)Irt w r-_0 Irr I_-CD
M P6,�I - (o r,CD r-j�Lo M V
CD
m o
U) CL 0 L-000000000 V)
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
m
CL 0
LU LU
0 >
0 6-
m CL
a_ m
91
APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION
N
0
<1 M CC)r--Q—CD
' w co —ro ro %r
CD u CD Q(D(D
c
m m'c 6 6 0' 0'
c: 00000
css
w
CC)
m Ln r
2. CD
0
�
0 q ro
L l In 0 6-LC)
—
0 co
6- C�C>4
0 0
0 0 0
cv
CD
CD N CD Lf)cp J--
v LL U')�D lqr Iq ql
0 U) c to m w Co
m 0 0"(N
0 0(D CD C)a C3
a X 1 0
q)
c 0
C)> CLOOOOOO
M
CL
a)
ui 6.co co 00
< c L) U)0
co -v
LL m !CL
C) Z 0 0 0
M LU CL o X00
0
CL m
F— 0 Lu
Z 0
&'6
O C cr) 00
m
Lo co to(N
0
m
Ln
cj cl,C?cl I 1=1
0 0 o
0 0 0 0
L.-
C4
CD
C3 Ln Q
M f-�"co ,CD
(-),CL%d m CD
-,v C?Q 0 m CL 0
-
m 666 0 0
m c: U- 0.000
m L-
cn
r p
M
to
z au
CD (D
m cr) 0�
(I-Lo 0
m
�
0 m
%6- a-0 0
0
92
APPENDIX II: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R PARKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION
00 CD
CD
OD co
a)C) CD
co cu E 0 U o U
CL
(D 9 9
cn
0 0
0 a.0 0
L Lu Q u (D
Im cv)
0 UL IV 06
to0) (D
to LL
a-�0 0
CL L
CL a 40 a) en cn
Lf) Lo
m UD
6� 6-
CL QL CZ) a C:)
m m 0
Jc LcL W 0 -3 (06
`7 OL 0
Lij 0 0 Lij 0.0
z- 00(D-? "�C3 LIP Iff)
6- Cn M-Z
a) c�CD C4
lic: D 47-)
m L 1 0
a Lo 'm 0 0 Q
)
"0) CL 0 0 0
E ta C4
(p C\J
? G 0
o
CA
6- 1
0 Ic
-Y- v ca
m m CF)
a).r-IR7 cn UD IN Lo 0 Lo
6-m Ln N Lo co IN v 6-CD C5 m
a 11T
N CIIj CD M C)co--r
C)
0 z
0 000 a 0-6 0
— w C LL C10000000 V)fN a_0 0 0 0
cn (13 "a
cu to I 'I
> c- c
6 q4r
co c_ 0m
C)
V)
LU
<
0 `° 0
m Z CL 6- ix ICL �6 IN
0 m
m 14.0 L--j IQL U)0 CD
C>
6. 1 Lij U,
z N4 CL Q u
Ird
LU U) m Q-N cri
0
- r-
> C)L 0 W a)N co
Z 6- 4) r-
z 4�
0 0 CD CD CD CD CN C? i�3)
Q CD Q CD CD CD N -000 CL
0 'ID C? 1)hoc
CL CL LI) -Nif
m
D 0 0 C)Q W��
-%
lo-
ry QD m Ite)m Co
0 Lin OTC
rl ()-V CD CL m 6-000
CN -Sff C?
C? 0 41
1 0 0 0
0
U� CD
m CL 0
i ff) 40 q")
CNP F-- —cr) CIL
to 11 00 w
CD
C)C-> Q(N N -N�(U CJ
c�<D CD c5
cn
m m 0 0 X000 0 c:
CL Q 0 Q
L
`- E
cn c� 4n cr)
LL 00
E a- - M] m 1711 6-
E
rte.L U— U C,4 r-j
CD CD CD
0 Ae CD ai I
E 6 00
S 0
E c: a_'0 a-0
c: m L— 0
a3 p
c: ,
-Fs 6
_0 m o CD 6-
c: C> a)CD 0
m 0
m 6 U U
L-M co In
0 6-
CL
E 0
ql�r E E
uJ D sc
Co
E�fD I.-
ci E 4:3)n E
0 U) E I
> CD
0
La
0
0- 6. 41) 0 a)0 C)
D CL Llj 0 a:0 0
93
APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION
APPENDIX III
N
>
r
>z CL
CN-j E
0
Fj V5 0
m cj v
2 CIO 6
L3
&
> z T)
c�
C)
0
-y Lo
L- 0.a c
-3 fo m
z 0 Ln c: fv r-
0 6-
P CD L)
L)
LLJ m 0 0 L)CD c: 0 JOL-M
I- <
> c u
0 <0 a)
LL 0 VD
0 X N
C)
. C <
>- CL m Q,
co
CD
Z W 0 M'ED m m
D
C) r v,2
u)
�
m
0
Z
.2
4-0
m
m
Q
z
94
APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION
co
< 0 co m
> 3
.;
.)
E 00 IH
u
0 0)
W CL
0 !� i--
0. P,
E di Lo
Lo
6 m
cr-
> 0
6-
6
6-. .2
c CD
0 0 00
z 0
Ix 0
16-
0 co
10
E
m
>%CL
fu
10
.2 03
m m
0: �O
(L
• Eb
(D 0
10)
CL co CO
co
m m 3 M
Z16m a) L-
o 0
cn
m 0
0
u aL
,
jv 0 m CD t 'Fa m W CD
CL a)
>
as
CL
dA t= W
m
m to
cc
0 ED M
m - :�-
u U)
Q 0
0�
�T-
L)
W
k-
x
M W V)
CL c%j
to c,,i
M 0 c�
W
N
aj
cz)
0 C�y
0 0
wo. 0 0
95
APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION
000*000,
CN
00
m
IV) CL
a! m
0 0 a)
I m
C) 0) C cr)
.0
-ra CN (U
c%j m 0r)
0 6.0 Q
u
C14 Q In
a;0 w 90 wo wo
L) �0 0 Of 0 �0
a)
ce)
M .9 m
c 16!�!
C?
-Z
80 9r--
td cp 0 1
0 4-d -6 m m m
c CL 10 00
CIO to U) 1 0 L-
cd 0 a 0
41 5 c: m jE c (D
0 0 a.
.2 c-i
CO
0
0
m
6.
0 (D
V) ► 0 0
LL m
N
0
m 0
OL
m 21 u
z 0
E cN
OL Q
co
m A� ac m ff)
cd
m 10
co
U) 3 0 u
r- (D CN Q
0
0 cu
CO CO E cn
0
m CO CO
m(N Fj
u uw 6 6 00 6
0 0 0
0
CO
E
6-
co
m L) cq
00
0
f o 0 0 M,
I � �Y) U)
m L) L)OL %-. _r_
a. a)u) CL a) w Q
m
0 cz is
C 2 1 a ce)
(YI) 0
.�p
CL M
0 04 m
a. 62 Q go
O 10L u
u 6 Q
au
cr.0 cc w
0,
L
96
APPENDIX III: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART: P&R RECREATION DIVISION
c
0
Q
0 CL
(/)
(CIL)
L) ICL Q)
> CO
CN Q
LO
<C�4 M 00
d) 0 C5 0 <
V) lu
r, cri
E UL 10 m
0 x Q Co co Irt";r"I Nr
U m 1 Lf)co
3 0 C13 Ci co 0 ce) m co 1-5 cl in
0)
u Qmc�0000
E r- c: I I I I I
CL m m 00000
00000
q)
c
M 6-.
Ln cr-�Nr CIA Iq Kz�n
Q 2 Iq
M 0
0 2 6-00 a) aj rl"�CO I;G Q)M M M 00 M
-- F- 0 c%j U C>0 V.- JU CN"c%q IN ro
x —000 C??CID cp 0
> I 1 1
4b U -00000
I-C 0 0 (t (V
In 0 LL U)0 0 0 U-0 0 0 0
0
ell.
0
lu
co
r
0
cm 0
16- u U)
(ld
L) �g
00
L.L cu a.
'20 .2
0 CO CD
CL X 0
6 ZLj U,
W 0
Z C)
D co 4" 0) T3
0 r- 0 0
L)
E
t
CL 9t-
m
5 CL
>
U 0 E 0
0
.0 0 Ln .2 cN Lo
iF- Jx (N co ti
CD M as M N
to to ID 0
2 C? C5
00 11 r- �3 1
cr)1 0 ow 6 Q)0
m C> 0 0 0�0 c�0
911-0 �4
:3 a)C::>
0
9r,-
(0
-20 U) 0
eg *6 U) m
QL CL
U 2
a) 0 m
10 = l�- 0 ?.
(n tn CO Lo 0 r- a) c
m
N V a -
QD
IM C"j co m Cu M(-q
(D
%- Q CL Qj
0 6 0
[k:0 W0 icr 0
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
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
Ceiling system
Heating Systems
Boilers
Furnaces
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
Tu rf
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
Swimming pools
100
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
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.
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
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
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.
of 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
supplied by Parks& Recreation.
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
APPENDIX C: P&R CIP PROJECT LIST FOR FY2006-2007 THROUGH FY2011-2012
APPENDIX C
P&R CIP Project List for FY2006-2007 through FY2011-2012
e 4 O O
N �-- 1- N.-I..&N N
N F fL
0 p p 16 T r a d L - 14'
U. Y m R N p t6Z W N 7M
g mYaa m 3 O w C yvi
tg .e eSai0 rA zU.
• - r4
C Yy i"W CY
CL
- � U,wt �
Lo
ell w r4 16
T �C
C
t {} s mow. 17 9-c 1 9 7E 1�'�.�- l ti��Z L � � +sY %u
C r r C r r r r
S
i
47
a
uU pq f k
CL CL
Nq a3� 5� d_
4 Stygi L .�q'fib' yt Y
S r� I� tlD tdJl
a,
Q � z L.E
JL
chg UL Pb
$ spas � � d06 c
CL
r�
"+ �rW � rW fa t'v� w r� r+l cv f v® -r r r r-
1 w
L dl w 4d L'
� ��F�����My n°�ti.J� �� '� � �Lt�7 3C Q'�'q�❑�� �a i
� x fa �� K z z2IIT r 8.ara� d X586 �5�o�ix CL 2: 'esa � �_�LL
r5* {,� C� cW r7 F-T ■W SD rv. e+u v'S rf�� �!
C R-cw ri r 9D en r r¢-+a N �r rW rW ni r'i ai i a - r' ry xY f'1 iV r•s r�r�i n
CL
��. E
r^vi f, s M � 6
it mp
M CL
C.7 x C_ a 4 7i 7i 7f
M
�` .1'1 I`4T' "�rt h1 rr7 00'7 qF o a t ��`1+���m 1'1 Fl
C r
c�
106
APPENDIX D: P&R PROJECT DATA/FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT
APPENDIX D
a a Q � <o- �f�o V) � a m
ti tt"
V-
o W E �s
CO p W j
1
t I
( I
r I
�. r .Z I
4
L 0 M CL I
ru 01
0
-� ra CL 0
! a in
x{ E
� � � � � eel �•.,,� ''�^"+ C�,i �
UL
i.. c kid! Q
_
r4 S
E LL
QJ .0
ZF
1 Yr N.
lzn D � � t
1.
_ V% Q Q '.a.
CD
CL
�4 'tea
:. s3,
CX
CID _ c 4*
a
�
`
°' � 4) '
�I I -
rz
in
I
W ea U.
bGp
� 3-
ZP
fu -La
r.L 131
Ln r rI
ai
-CL L E
Em
PC
{} r.•
�C
[6
.-n
+-f W t CL
.ra C I LU }{
O �
f! E �i
a y q3 a en L f* Er a
Cam! ,ti fu 0 C � Vr CID
x c:ICE CL
LU � as.. �. I q V)«I I b Qm
w. 4
r Q9� k
QL em LU d(4 4-1 > _ b LU `3 a�
a
LU
C ;. ka
107
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
APPENDIX E
BRENDA J.FORD Phone: (808)326-5684
Council Member Fax: (808)329-4786
District 7-Central Kona t E-Mail: bf6rd@co.hawaii.hi.us
lT DIF
14AWAVI COUNTY `OUNCIL
Coun�y qfflawai'l
Kaiha rrade Ccpaer
75-5706 Hanama Place,Sidle 109
Kadua-Kona,llaivaii 96740
C)
cc
May 8,200 9
C..3
To, Pete Hoffmann
And Members of the Hawai'i Count-y Council
w ,0
Froni: Brenda.). Ford N L
CoLincil Mernber VV
Subject- Parks and Recreation's-List of Projects as of About 2004 and Expenses to
Provide Repairs"'.
I requQst Ji-at this list be di�tributcd to all Council Members immediately.I reqtiest to have a
presentation in Mr. Ikeda's committee,Public Safety and Parks and Recreation.w,soon as
possible du to the ongoing budget discussions.It is my understanding that the repairs listed are
not in the current budget.As it affects all districts is land ride,I would like to have a discussion
on this matter in committee.
Mahalo,
BJF/1w
Ccmm No.
Ref. To.*
Ref. Date MAy g
Serving else Intere-sis of the People of Our Island
Hawaii Coun� v Is An Equal Opportunity Provider And E inp fqj-er
108
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN
Director
Harry Kim
Afgyor
Cut p of l . l I
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AN 0 RU.CREA T 10 N
101 P vnla drecI,Suite 6*ffi)o,Pjnvaili 967ZO
(909)%1• 11 0 F':Ix(gas)q,1- 11
May 6,2009
MEMORANDUM
TO, Council Member 13renda Ford '
F:ROM, Pat Engelhard,
i0f;,P ects
em ih lb dut,2,004'a'hd:IN0e6 'td`Pi6Vid4Repa1r&bD°Fad1rd&
SUBXCT� List Pmy�.'`�,"
During our P Budget session last month we alluded to a list of repairs to facilities that showed--violliotets
F.needed repairs to our facilities. After the sessfon you asked some quegHons. This list may an5vvw
sorn.-of the m-
T re coveats are:
1-1 We d 1 d riot bu lid in the cost of curisuka nts to p reps re tf te pia ris a nd specs fo r outlin g the
projects out to bid. Because the repairs are to existing buildings, plan5 and spy are. abcLr-10
to 20%of the construcdon estimate,depending Dn the scope of the project(kinds of penFmitS7
complexity of the work,reel Because the li,5t was prepai'�W!b0bre-the aarthqcake on October 15,2_006,Tho_;42,costn.area of
included,
3. it is str1cTJV a lllst-of,exisbng faalit "eepairs And_mai iatena rice Issues. It does not Include any rs-.:r:
facilities nor does It Include much in the way of enhanceme rits or expa inislon of w6stir g f,-�cfl 11-ce,a
4. Some of the sites are not Courity owned. But we use them for our programs. A11:5o,5orne of J?e-
sites listed are not devel'oped yet.
.5. constmcton prices have in-creased somewhat since the estimates were made. Howe-Lie,
the constrtic�Qn[�Qom is slowing down somewhatf perhaps the fi quires presented are n
f "rthe
park.
I hope you find the informatton useful it slightly outdated.
109
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
05/06/2006 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 02
7r
-7r
lu
17 tQ 0 -93 F,-
4D RL
C3 c C3 cd
ro P 5, w
v OC13
r3 m ZL
-4
c
cp
al
to
IV
do W
101 Z
0 q 4 Lo
m i
CA 01 1$ w
W9 o n- g
ft s
a Rl
OL
L
eL 19
17
0
IF C3
ij
cl
:QL
OL F 2,
N !'
CA w
CL !� ,�
r
CL
4-,3 45
SP-w ga
Im i
St -c
42 �M
yy
9L
2-t2 'm CL
10 a I a I m 7
rl
I�7 a I m I p k Al
Ed
QL ea s
cr
aLo
� �,
I I � r 1
T� CL
;3
;Lo
tv
OF w CL 9%
OF El 3 a
cr -m 9. R ;
S.1 K:1 9 1 :a I I
I . ! IaM
Q. 06 to
ZL
2r
vt 44 412 0 44 .5a in 61
m (A
ccpll
110
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 03
1& 4L Ab, A
j= �z
2�
t
Lit
Q.
Pi zo; OL
10 1:,3 P3
13
or EL IF
7 -0 &
L'i E
Friop
�4.w ,w.
r r
i r
I L
z �v 97 Fe
_q C3 is' sm Jr I T I
I jD P-' 1 06 ia
a m�— g to
cr ct w
la
A 06 7 — I f
In
3 F
pa cm,—
CL
L
cr
cc 97
jo
M, C3 pp
jp
FL
47
R K�
C3
41
tA
19 4
41
wr
W
1-2 m
cr V
cp
F r
!.-
4m 4n In
ch
Q� C>
Cp
C3 CO3 cp
L C2
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
05/06/2008 16:26 808-961-8411 P&R ADMIN P4 3E 3
m 0 Cob ch of im ul ;s.14�1 to to
?Ll
r.I _ G
7 F-
3 g 1- k . p
Z ZL
rP „o ,,
up
—a i IN Z
e r- K4
R6 :5 c; 5 r-
R ,
I f f 0
Ln rr. :3
r
L" Lmm R 9- 1, m
��L
P3
M
c
PR
z
,4C=50 �
p
:3 ris
1 4 At
q,q i 10
,43
;;p z
C6
cl 11611
=3
M. 11 AL
CL X
90 rF
6
4
93
II 1 CL
L
hp
F4
70 'm
112
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
'05/06/2008 16:26 808-951-8411 R&R ADMIN
w as w w 0 0 0 Go co co 105 as 1.4 -4 -.4 -.1 -,J 1-4 '*4 -4 11 -.4 Im m m 0 cz w m n
9; w
ill �if 4
T-1
jr-
iL s
w UD i7o Z3
ca r
w spa.
91.
i
4a
LV
.9
'44-
c7p, M T 10
ow -m 0
—9
CL
co w
n
f0l.
Q
PIN
4rin
er
Lk
I
19
GL
41 4ft
44
I IN 40
113
APPENDIX E: HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION NO. 1226
�05/06/2008 16:26 908-961-8411 P&R ADMIN PAGE 07
■ om a m pr 15 L g� P P,
Ems' P jw li
cxt
co
E.
qv PA 9
m Ila u
UL
8 21
K
oa
sc: IT c;;
V m
sk 0
GL
0 CL
SOL
C6 a rL
CL
fin
■1w 2
14A
Eqpl
z
gr
43
1F C
Jr
t I I
C I
rl
114