HomeMy WebLinkAboutFCS-16-170 - 4th Quarter Audit Status Report_Staff Report
rR finance and Corporate Services Department www.kitchener.ca
REPORT TO: Audit Committee
DATE OF MEETING: December 12, 2016
SUBMITTED BY: Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519-741-2200 ext. 7361
PREPARED BY: Corina Tasker, Internal Auditor, 519-741-2200 ext. 7361
WARD(S) INVOLVED: All
DATE OF REPORT: December 5, 2016
REPORT NO.: FCS -16-170
SUBJECT: 4th Quarter Audit Status Report
RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation required. The following information is being provided as an
update and assurance on internal audit matters, in accordance with the Audit
Committee Terms of Reference.
BACKGROUND:
The following report provides a summary of the Internal Audit activities completed
during the period of October to December 2016. The chart below shows the audits
contained in this report.
The following items are currently in progress and will be brought forward at a future
audit committee meeting:
• Revenue Comprehensive Audit
*** This information is available in accessible formats upon request. ***
Please call 519-741-2345 or TTY 1-866-969-9994 for assistance.
3-1
REPORT:
1. Physical Inventory
Status: Complete, October 15, 2015
Audit Process and Findings
Internal Audit participated in the annual physical inventory counts at the Kitchener
Operations Facility (KOF) location. Standard floor-to-sheet and sheet-to-floor audits
were done to confirm the physical quantity of parts on hand compared to what staff had
counted. The audit covered 24% of the total value of inventory. The sheet-to-floor
audits covered the top 40 unit values and top 40total values. The floor-to-sheet audits
consisted of 30 random shelf locations. Five variances were found through this
verification process which resulted in a $6,199 write-down.
Total Adjustments
In 2016 the total adjustments for the year to date were $64,525 write-down which
represents 1.1% of the total inventory purchases for the year to date of $5.5 million.
This is a very low shrinkage rate. Industry standards indicate that up to 2.5% is an
acceptable rate. The ending inventory balance was $2,298,233.
Note that in previous years this report only reported on the inventory adjustments
conducted during the physical inventory event. This year the totals for the current year
to date and previous years include all adjustments made throughout the year.
Adjustments done throughout the year are triggered when staff notices the quantity on
hand does not match the quantity within the system.
The 2016 total adjustment is comparable to 2015, and less than 2014.
Year 2014 20152016
(up to Oct.15)
Total write-down $110,887 $73,188 $64,525
Controllable Stock Adjustments
Of the 2016 adjustments, only $4,641 write-up was from controllable stock (i.e. stock
which the stores staff have direct control over with regards to purchases and usage).
This is comparable to previous years and relates to either keying errors when in
entering in quantities received or over-shipments by vendors.
Year 2014 2015 2016
(up to Oct.15)
Controllable stock write-up ($5,680) ($9,512) ($4,641)
Uncontrollable Stock Adjustments
The remaining $69,167 of write-downs is related to stock which is located in unsecured
outside locations within the KOF yard which are not under direct supervision by the
3 - 2 3 - 2
stores division. Theft of this inventory by staff is unlikely given the nature of the items
but rather it is a case of other staff having unrestricted access to take the inventory for
use in their jobs without notifying stores staff to relieve inventory in the system. A fence
has been constructed around some of these items but there is still no process to keep
the gate locked.
Supply Services will be working with Facilities Management, Operations and Kitchener
Utilities divisions in 2017 and 2018 to improve controls around this stock. This includes
potentially changing the layout in the yard and securing and utilizing the weigh scale.
There is agreement from all areas with this approach.
The adjustments for uncontrollable stock included the following:
(Note that positive numbers represent write-downs and negative numbers represent
write-ups.)
MaterialGroup201420152016(Jan.1Oct.15)
MANHOLES&CATCHBASINSACCESSORIESANDPARTS(1,638.34)(5.09)3,541.30
PIPE&TUBING(INCLFITTINGS)GENERAL(902.49)2,095.2875.01
SIGNSHOPΑFINISHEDGOODS1,418.09(601.14)(783.09)
SIGNSHOPRAWMATERIALSANDEQUIPMENT1,186.577,384.688,402.03
ROADBUILDINGMATERIALS(ASPHALTIC)53,474.2724,062.46(2,400.01)
ROADBUILDINGMATERIALS(NONASPHALTIC)5,343.6432,265.3950,416.69
ROADMAINTENANCE&SUPPLIES(I.E.SALT,PAINT,ETC.)57,884.8517,506.899,955.01
OIL,GREASEANDLUBRICANTSFLEET(30.89)
OIL,GREASEANDLUBRICANTSGENERAL(199.86)(7.75)(9.23)
TotalUncontrollableInventory116,566.7382,700.7269,166.82
Overall, the physical inventory process is in control. Adjustments to controllable stock
are considered negligible. Adjustments to uncontrollable stock are to be expected given
a lack of process to effectively relieve inventory, and are considered very small
regardless.
2. Capital Balances Audit
Status: Complete, October 3, 2016
Overview
Historically capital balances have been discussed with Council through the budget
process. However, at Council’s request the Financial Planning division began a new
process in 2014 related to capital balances to provide more information and
transparency. Council was concerned about the balances they were seeing carried
forward and wanted some reassurance that there were work plans in place to either
spend the balances in the near term on approved work, or close them out.
The new process involved all business units reviewing their 2013 closing balances and
the May 31, 2014 balances and then submitting work plans with projected year end
balances or explanations for the balances as part of the 2015 budget process. The
3 - 3 3 - 3
intent was to hold business units accountable and also identify any accounts that could
be closed out. In 2015 Financial Planning staff then compared the actual year end
balance in 2014 to the forecast that had been provided. The process then repeated with
a request for new work plans and explanations from account owners during the 2016
budget cycle.
2016 marks the third year of this corporate-wide in-depth review of capital balances.
Financial Planning will continue to highlight issues to account owners and give them the
opportunity to address them in the subsequent year. If issues are not addressed in a
timely manner they will be highlighted as part of the Capital Administrative Review
process with senior management.
New this year Council has received comments which give a brief description of the
capital projects which will help them understand the nature of the projects and what the
funds will be used for.
Objective
The objective of this internal audit was to assess the accuracy of the 2015 forecasts
prepared by business units by comparing the December 31, 2015 balances to the
forecast provided last year. Note that this exercise was completed by Financial Planning
staff in the previous year but is being done by Internal Audit this year at the request of
Council.
Scope
This review covered all capital balance accounts.
Methodology
The 2015 ending capital balances were compared to the forecasted balances that were
submitted by business units. Each account was then placed in one of the following
seven categories:
1. The December 31 balance was less than $10K. These accounts do not require
further analysis as the amount is deemed immaterial.
2. The balance was within $10K of the forecast. These do not require further
analysis as it shows the forecast was relatively accurate.
3. The balance was less than the forecast by more than $10K. This indicates that
the balance is being drawn down even faster than expected. No further analysis
is required in this category unless there is concern by management that the
balances are not sufficient to cover future expenditures.
4. The balance was greater than the forecast by more than $10K but less than
$100K. This indicates that the balance is not being drawn down as indicated in
3 - 4 3 - 4
the work plan. There could be many reasons for this. Further analysis could be
done by Financial Planning to determine the root cause of the variance and
whether close-outs are possible.
5. The balance was greater than the forecast by more than $100K. Similar to
above, this indicates that the balance is not being drawn down as indicated in the
work plan. All items in this category should be investigated further by Financial
Planning to determine with the business unit the root cause and whether close-
outs are possible.
6. There was no forecast submitted (and the balance was more than $10K) and
therefore no analysis could be performed. Accounts in this category should likely
have a work plan for the balance and should be further investigated by Financial
Planning.
7. There was no forecast submitted, however, the nature of the account does not
require one. This would include accounts which are acting as a general provision
for unknown possible expenditures (e.g. general capital contingency), or projects
for which the amount is known but the timing is uncertain (e.g. replacement of
aquatic AED units).
Note that the balances were analyzed to determine forecast accuracy only. This audit
did not look at the contents of the work plans. It also did not look at the adequacy of the
balances to cover expected expenditures.
Findings
The percentage of accounts which fell into each of the preceding categories is shown
below:
Category Number of % of
AccountsAccounts
1 Balance <$10K 109 26%
2 Balance within $10K of forecast 399%
3 Balance less than forecast by more than $10K 14 3%
4 Balance more than forecast by between $10K - 57 14%
$100K
5 Balance more than forecast by more than $100K*16 4%
6 Did not have a forecast but should have 5313%
7 Did not require forecasts 12831%
Total 416 100%
*The 16 account balances which were more than the forecast by more than $100K have
been included in Appendix A of this report for Council’s reference.
3 - 5 3 - 5
It is a positive finding that only 13% of accounts did not have adequate work plans
submitted to Financial Planning. It is also a positive finding that only 4% of accounts
were off in their forecasts by more than $100K. This provides a high level of assurance
in the forecasted year end balances.
2016 Process
Financial Planning staff requested that divisions again submit work plans and estimated
year end balances for all capital accounts as part of the 2017 budget process. These
work plans were reviewed as part of this audit to determine if more accounts had work
plans this year compared to last year. This year only 3% of accounts did not provide
work plans, compared to 13% last year. This is a substantial improvement.
Conclusions and Recommendations
It is the auditor’s opinion that this process is under control and that Financial Planning
has established a sound process for holding account owners accountable. It ensures
they are aware of their capital balances, that they have a plan to spend the funds, and
that they close-out unneeded balances when appropriate. It also provides transparency
to Council in terms of what capital funds are being spent on or held for in future.
Given that this is the third year for this process, improvements can be seen already as
more account owners become familiar with the process of forecasting their balances. It
is expected that the forecast accuracy and the amount of accounts with work plans will
continue to improve over time.
It is recommended that Financial Planning continue with this process, including follow
up with business units where they have not provided a forecast or where the forecast is
perpetually inaccurate, and continued focus on closing out unneeded capital balances.
3. Welcome Centre Audit
Status: Complete, November 25, 2016
Objective
This review was requested by Council. The objective of this internal audit is to assess
the cost-benefit of maintaining a Welcome Centre within City Hall. Council asked to be
informed about transaction volumes and services provided. The pros and cons of the
current location are also assessed.
Methodology
The following activities were performed as part of this review:
Interviews with Welcome Centre staff and management
3 - 6 3 - 6
Interviews with internal stakeholders: Council, CAO, DCAO’s, Security, Facilities
Management, Economic Development
Review of various reports related to the creation and location of the Welcome
Centre
Review of call and walk-in statistics
Physical tour of the Welcome Centre
Review of financial data related to the cost to operate the Welcome Centre
Findings
History
In 1990 a working group was struck to provide input into the design of the first floor of
the new City Hall. This included what functions and services would operate on that
level and the physical design of the spaces. The objectives of the design were to
achieve the following:
o Superior level of personal customer service for patrons coming to city hall
o An efficient usage of city human resources
o The delivery of accurate and reliable information and service
To address these objectives, six key functions were envisioned for the ground floor:
o Directional inquiries
o General inquiries
o Cashier services
o Application forms, including employment applications
o Sale/distribution of city documents and city products
o Marketing, display and customer self-service
The ground floor was designed to accommodate a focus on public services. Four
spaces were created:
1) Information kiosk (Security counter)
2) Revenue counter for bill payment (Berlin Tower elevator lobby)
3) Area for marketing city goods and services (currently operating as Berlin Tower Art
Space)
4) Front service counter (currently operating as Welcome Centre)
At that time it was decided that Security would be located in the information kiosk area
at the front of the lobby facing King St. Security staff would be trained on providing
directions to citizens to locations within City Hall. It was envisioned they would be the
first point of contact for most visitors. The service counter on the College St. side of the
lobby would provide a high level of service to the public by providing certain functions
from all departments for simple inquiries. More complex inquiries and feedback would
3 - 7 3 - 7
be directed to the correct department within City Hall. It was felt this would provide
greater privacy and security in the tower by limiting the amount of public traffic to those
areas.
It was envisioned that the service counter would include the following and be staffed by
Human Resources personnel:
General inquiries and customer self-service
Brochure display area
HR job application area
Distribution of all other application forms for other divisions
Large wall map of the area with key points of interest
Self-service kiosk
The staff working group was not happy with the design of the long counter and wanted it
to be smaller with more room for interaction, a seating area, map, and touch panel
display screens for self-service. The architects disagreed and explained that the larger
counter was required for future expansion and to match the grand style of the rest of the
rotunda.
The original intent was for the ground floor to provide “one-stop shopping” which meant
being able to handle all types of basic transactions at the service counter. However this
was amended to be “quick-stop shopping”. It was decided that some functions can’t
and shouldn’t be removed from their departments due to confidentiality, required
resources, staff, expertise and storage problems.
There was much debate over whether to have a central complaint bureau (i.e. including
by-law complaints) at the service counter in order to avoid having to re-direct upset
citizens to other departments. However, Council decided against this. It was decided
that is was not the appropriate place for verbal confrontations and that the main floor
was not the place to deal with major concerns.
It was decided that the cashier function needed to be separate from all other functions
on the main floor. It was located in the service area by the elevators where it remains
today.
There was also debate over what to put in the municipal marketing space (across from
the Revenue counter in the Berlin Tower elevator lobby). There was confusion over
whether this was just a space for Kitchener Utilities to display and market their services
or whether all departments should be able to market their services. Initially Kitchener
Utilities used the space but eventually moved out. It was then taken over by Kitchener
3 - 8 3 - 8
Tourism and the Welcome Centre when it was first created. The space provided
tourism information, general information and the sale of Kitchener logo products. In
2010 as the need for in-person tourism information at City Hall declined both the staff
position and the sale of merchandise ceased. The Welcome Centre moved to the
current service counter location in front of the Small Business Centre. The marketing
space now houses the Berlin Tower Art Space.
Current Services
Until recently the Welcome Centre only provided in-person service. In May 2016 the
service delivery model was changed. The staff at the centre is now a fully functioning
Corporate Contact Centre (CCC) operator who is able to answer calls in the call centre
queue when they aren’t assisting walk-in customers. This provides more value for the
role and provides a business continuity plan for the CCC should it need to be evacuated
(i.e. the calls would still be answered seamlessly by the Welcome Centre staff).
The following is a list of services currently available at the Welcome Centre and tasks
performed by the staff:
In-Person Services (20% of role):
Tourist brochures and information including what’s happening / events
Directions to locations or people within City Hall
Directions to other government buildings (regional, provincial or federal services)
Guidance on how to receive various services – who to go to, which level of
government
General information on city services such as by-law, parking tickets, etc.
Any services / answers that could be provided over the phone via the CCC
Phone Services (50% of role):
Answers calls in the CCC queue; answers many questions on first contact and
transfers others as required (i.e. performs the same duties as the CCC staff)
Online Services (included in phone service total):
Responds to emails received through the general City of Kitchener inbox
Responds to service requests or questions submitted via Ping Street
Administrative Support to Manager of Customer Service (30%):
SAP transactions
Creation and updating of internal phone directory
General administrative support
3 - 9 3 - 9
Transaction Volumes
On average the Welcome Centre receives 430 walk-ins per month or 21 per day. 73%
of these walk-ins are related to inquiries about City services. Walk-in inquiries are
tracked in these four categories:
Category Description Percentage of
transactions
CityDirections within City Hall; questions related 73%
to City business or processes
Government Questions related to services provided by 7%
other levels of government
Tourism Questions related to tourism, events, places 7%
to see, things to do
Miscellaneous Anything else 13%
Total100%
In comparison, the Security counter provides directional assistance to between 50-100
citizens daily. Some of these are re-directed over to the Welcome Centre if information
other than directions within City Hall is required. This is consistent with the original
vision for the information kiosk staffed by Security.
In addition to the walk-in service transactions, the Welcome Centre staff person is able
to answer on average 52 calls per day from the Corporate Contact Centre. This is in
comparison to roughly 100 calls per day for operators not dealing with walk-in traffic.
The Welcome Centre staff also handles on average 23 Ping St inquiries per month and
20 emails per day from the general in-box.
Costs
The direct cost of staffing the Welcome Centre is approximately $73K per year. This
includes salary, benefits, computer, phone and miscellaneous costs.
The overhead cost of this space (for example, heat, light, hydro, etc.) has not been
included in this analysis because it is an open space which flows off of the main rotunda
and therefore costs could not be separated out. Nor could the City forego the costs if
the centre were shut down so they are irrelevant to this discussion.
The real cost is the opportunity cost of the space. Council and staff need to determine if
there are better uses for this prime location on the ground floor of City Hall.
3 - 10 3 - 10
Value of Services Provided
The majority of stakeholders indicated they felt there was value in having a customer
service presence on the ground floor of City Hall. They agreed that having the role also
answer Corporate Contact Centre calls added even more value.
The research in the Customer Service Strategy indicates that customers are demanding
multi-channel access to city services and information. Although there is a trend related
to online services and self-service options, there is still a segment of the population who
prefer face to face interactions. The Welcome Centre contributes to the goal of having
multi-channel access by providing the in-person option.
As mentioned previously, having one operator removed from the physical location of the
Corporate Contact Centre provides business continuity support for this critical function
as this service has been classified as a most-urgent business process in the event of an
emergency or business disruption. Being able to route the calls to City Hall will provide
seamless service in such an event.
In terms of services offered at the Welcome Centre, some stakeholders indicated a
need to re-evaluate the needs in light of the customer service strategy and determine if
more services are required such as becoming a one-stop shop for city business, adding
a self-service kiosk, or selling re-branded City merchandise.
Location
The location of the Welcome Centre has been an ongoing debate over the years. The
circular design of the rotunda and having an entrance on the second floor makes it
difficult for any one location to be seen from all entrances. The following pros and cons
of the current service counter location were gathered from the stakeholders and staff.
Pros Cons
Having a wall behind the desk provides It is not visible when people walk-in from
privacy when viewing confidential any entrance. It is tucked behind several
customer data on screen (no one can view pillars under the overhang.
over the shoulder)
Being off to the side of the rotunda Some of the space is being wasted. It is a
provides more privacy and quiet for large counter area with only one staff
dealing with sensitive calls or walk-in sitting there.
situations (compared to the noisier, more
public location of the security desk)
There is ample room to display pamphlets Some feel the lighting is not adequate and
and brochures with additional space for a it is dark and gloomy.
3 - 11 3 - 11
Pros Cons
possible future self-service kiosk
There is a natural queue area, i.e. it is There is confusion over the purpose of the
obvious where the line starts (compared to counter as it sits in front of the Small
the security desk which is circular in Business Centre so some people mistake
design with no apparent front of line it for the reception counter for the Small
location) Business Centre.
The unused space at the counter could be First point of contact for most visitors is to
used by other levels of government or by the Security desk. Some have questioned
other internal divisions if decisions were whether we really want our first impression
made to offer more services. to be one of uniformed Security personnel.
There have been discussions many times about moving the Welcome Centre to the
Security desk since it truly is the first point of contact that most visitors have when
entering City Hall on the ground floor. It was most recently explored in 2015 in
conjunction with a larger move involving the Revenue cashier area as well. The total
cost for the move was prohibitive so no further action was taken. The Class D
estimates provided at the time suggest that the cost of moving security out of their desk
would be approximately $60K. The high cost associated with this relates to relocating
the elevator controls. It is important for these controls to be located with Security to
provide immediate access to shut down the elevators in an emergency situation. The
cost to move the Welcome Centre to the Security desk was an additional $15K.
The pros and cons of swapping the Security desk and Welcome Centre include:
ProsCons
Citizens are greeted first by Welcome Security no longer has clear lines of sight
Centre staff rather than uniformed Security to all entrances and Carl Zehr Square.
staff.(although these angles can be monitored
on the screens)
Security has more privacy to view the It may be too noisy at times to effectively
cameras without people looking over their answer Corporate Contact Centre calls
shoulder.from this location.
Security can focus on security work rather The increased volume of directional
than spending time providing directions. inquiries (50-100 per day) may limit the
amount of calls that can be answered,
thereby negating the benefit of this service
delivery model.
Security wants to move out of that Lack of privacy to deal with sensitive
location. issues (either walk-ins or on the phone).
3 - 12 3 - 12
ProsCons
Confidential data may be seen by people
looking over their shoulder.
This is the best location for the Welcome No natural queue area. (This could be
Centre in terms of where most people look mitigated by installing signs indicating
for way-finding assistance. where to line up.)
No deterrent to bad behaviour if security
not visible.
Elevator controls would need to be moved
to new security location which is costly and
difficult to do.
No space for community service hub
expansion (see below).
One of the greatest future impacts on the City of Kitchener’s work within customer
service may be related to addressing pending legislation from the Province of Ontario
related to the concept of community service hubs. Community service hubs, as
described by the Province, are intended to bring citizen access to municipal, provincial
and federal services into ‘one-stop shops’ located within neighbourhoods.
Though no timing is currently set, the Province has included specific language about
these “public service facilities’ in its current Proposed Growth Plan for the Greater
Golden Horseshoe. Staff will monitor this issue and its potential resource requirements
and include this work on a future business plan, if directed, when more details about
expectations, timing and resources are known.
If and when community service hubs are mandated, there will likely be one located
within City Hall to service the downtown and surrounding neighbourhoods. The existing
Welcome Centre counter is an ideal space for this hub as there is space for multiple
staff behind the counter with additional office space behind the desk area for support
staff if needed by the provincial or federal government. There would be no space
available at the Security counter as it will fit two staff at most.
Alternate Uses
Although there was concurrence on the need for a Welcome Centre, there were some
ideas put forward for alternate uses of the current space. These have not been
evaluated as part of this review but are recorded here for information. They could be
considered further as part of larger City Hall space planning initiatives. Alternate uses
included:
Transportation planning
3 - 13 3 - 13
Parking – ability to sign up and pay for monthly parking
Public information centre space
Public engagement storefront
TDM marketing area
Bike repair station including a vending machine for parts
Neighbourhood Strategy public interface area
Services
Stakeholders felt that the primary purpose of having a Welcome Centre was to provide
way-finding and basic frontline customer service to citizens in City Hall. This includes
helping citizens determine which level of government to go to and the process involved
for several high frequency basic transactions.
It is still felt by most stakeholders that the Welcome Centre should not try to be a one-
stop shop for all city transactions but rather the first place to gain guidance, direction,
and advice on how to proceed. It is thought, however, that staff could explore the option
of providing some application forms for high frequency transactions such as building
permits, marriage licenses, etc. The forms would not be processed at the Welcome
Centre, just distributed.
Some stakeholders felt that the Welcome Center should sell City of Kitchener souvenirs.
History has shown that the majority of city merchandise that was sold in the past was
purchased by City staff and this was not a money making operation. It was decided to
move the merchandise to Stores so that staff could order it online and Stores staff could
manage the inventory. There has not been any public demand for this type of
merchandise since it was discontinued.
Some stakeholders mentioned that services could be further enhanced by having a self-
service kiosk for completing transactions such paying parking tickets, looking at a staff
directory, viewing process instructions for various transactions, and submission of
various applications. A variation on this theme is to have way-finding kiosks at the
entrances as mentioned above. There would be no ability on these kiosks to process
transactions.
Recommendations
Existence of Welcome Centre
There is a desire by most stakeholders to retain a Welcome Centre at City Hall to
provide in-person customer service. The auditor feels this is a good use of resources
provided that the centre maintains the current service delivery model and continues to
answer Corporate Contact Centre calls.
3 - 14 3 - 14
It is important in the short term to maintain an in-person channel. Over time the need
for this channel will likely diminish as more people are comfortable with online
technologies and self-service options. In the meantime there is still demand for in-
person service.
Location
It is the auditor’s opinion that in the absence of another use for the current service
counter, it is the best location for the Welcome Centre in terms of space, layout, and
privacy. It also provides expansion capabilities if other services are added. It is,
however, not visible enough. The following improvements should be made:
Improved lighting outside the Welcome Centre to improve the visibility of the sign
and make it feel less gloomy.
Improved signage at the Duke St entrance and the Security desk to more clearly
direct questions to the Welcome Centre.
As part of this recommendation staff should investigate the possibility of digital
way-finding boards similar to those found in malls.
Consider changing the name to simply “Information” with the symbol which
many people are familiar with.
Signage should be added outside of City Hall, at the ION station on Duke Street
and somewhere in Carl Zehr Square.
Way-finding information should continue to be provided by Security personnel at
the information kiosk.
Services
The Welcome Centre should continue to provide the in-person, online and phone
services that it currently provides. In addition, it is recommended that staff determine
which City services have application forms which could be distributed at the counter. All
transactions and detailed questions would still be done in the respective departments.
It is not recommended that the Welcome Centre sell merchandise directly. There is
currently no demand for it and it adds the responsibility of cash and inventory
management to the role. Instead, a brochure and order form could be made available
and visible at the counter. Staff could facilitate the order by sending the application
form to Stores. A payment process would need to be developed.
Conclusion
Having in-person customer service to give citizens directions and instructions on how to
navigate City Hall and City processes is an important part of the overall Customer
Service Strategy. The Welcome Centre fulfills this need while also providing business
3 - 15 3 - 15
continuity to the Corporate Contact Centre. It is a good use of resources which could
be optimized further with better signage and the use of technology.
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY OF KITCHENER STRATEGIC PLAN:
This report supports the achievement of the city’s strategic vision through the delivery of
core service.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no financial implications related to this report.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
INFORM – This report has been posted to the City’s website with the agenda in
advance of the council / committee meeting.
CONSULT – Staff, council, and internal stakeholders were consulted as part of these
reviews as noted in the methodology sections above.
ACKNOWLEDGED BY: Dan Chapman, Deputy CAO, Finance and Corporate Services
3 - 16 3 - 16
APPENDIX A: Capital Balances Greater Than $100K Variance to Forecast
3 - 17 3 - 17
STATUS
AUDIT
QUARTER
170
16
FCS 4THREPORT
3 - 18
money
audit
verification
for
ΑĭƚǒƓƷ
ΑǝğƌǒĻ
ΑĭƚƓƷƩƚƌƭ
Summary
Centre
ΑĭƚƒƦƩĻŷĻƓƭźǝĻ
Inventory
balances
progress:
PhysicalCapitalWelcomeRevenue
Complete:In
3 - 19
INVENTORY
PHYSICAL
3 - 20
by
captured
Process
value
and
counts
staff
audits:
audits:
values
values
inventory
locations
counts
floor
verify
sheet
totalunit
total
Objective
to
4040
to
random
of
TopTop30
–––
verification
SheetFloor24%
Objective:•••
3 - 21
YTD
write
Oct.15)
2016$64,525
of
rate
$6.2K
(as
audit:
downs
shrinkage
2015$73,188
years
2.5%
write
during
is
Results
date
purchases
found
previous
2014
to
standard
total
with
of
year
down$110,887
line
variances
Write
5downTotalin1.1%Industry
Year Total
••••
3 - 22
down
$50.4K
up
small
write
Downs
very
material
$10K
write
$8.4K
and
$69.2K
=
$4.6K
building
Write
supplies
=
of
stock
roadmaterials
expected
stock
raw
control
in
maintenance
Detail
asphaltic
shop
downs
NonRoadSign
–––
ControllableUncontrollableProcessWrite
••••
3 - 23
BALANCES
CAPITAL
3 - 24
out
for
closed
Financial
transparency
by
explanations
2014
or
in
provided
forecast
accountable,
to
Overview
plans
units
started
actual
balances,
work
balances
business
process
PlanningRequired
NewcapitalComparedHeldunneeded
••••
3 - 25
to
capital
to
accuracy
2015
compare
of
on
balances
and
Methodology
based
capital
accuracy
and
the
submissions
account
ending
assess
each2016
balances
2015
to
Objectives
CompareforecastedCategorizeCategorize2015
Objective:forecasts Methodology:•••
3 - 26
$100K
than
2015
in
more
by
balances
plans
end
work
Accuracy
forecasts
year
their
adequate
in
2016
in
off
forecasted
have
in
3%
were
not
to
Forecast
did
assurance
accounts
of
decreased
of
accounts
4%
level
This
of
2015
•
13%OnlyHigh
•••
3 - 27
or
including
time
units
already
unneeded
Council
has
over
out
to
provided
process
business
not
this
closing
improve
forecasts
of
holding
will
transparency
forecasts
for
Conclusions
continuing
and
inaccurate,
number
where
accuracy
up
process
and
SoundaccountableForecastDetailimprovedRecommendfollowperpetuallybalances
••••
3 - 28
CENTRE
WELCOME
3 - 29
maintaining
of
benefit
statistics
Methodology
in
Hall
cost
reports
data
City
walk
the
and
at
and
interviews
assess
historicalcallfinancial
Centre
to
tour
ofofof
Objective
StakeholderReviewReviewPhysicalReview
Welcome
Objective:a Methodology:•••••
3 - 30
support
channel
service
Contact
channel
online
information
access
continuity
face
to
and
information
to
Corporate
DirectionsTourismCityHow
––––
Phonefor
FaceBusinessCentre
Benefits•••
Benefit
ground
Cost
of
computer,
space
cost
miscellaneous
year
benefits,
per
counter
Salary,phone,
–
$73KOpportunity
floor
Costs••
3 - 31
100
per
Centre
Services
day
each
roughly
day
Contact
inquiries
per
day
Online
per
St
handle
per
and
callsPingemails
5223month20Corporatestaff
calls
Volumes
Phone••••
per
an
City
100
directions
to
questions
Hall
Transaction
50
or
handles
month
Services
day
City
related
per
per
4302173%processeswithinSecurityadditionaldirectionalday
person
In••••
3 - 32
is
Small
and
to
any
contact
counter
lighting
from
of
related
Centre
space
point
visible
NotentranceWastedInadequatesignageConfusionBusinessFirstSecurity
service
Cons•••••
hubs
for
area
expansion
ΑĭǒƩƩĻƓƷ
area
for
service
display
legislation
queue
services
PrivacyQuietBrochureOpportunityofPendingcommunity
Natural
Location
Pros••••••
3 - 33
for
behaviour
area
sight
bad
elevator
counter
of
to
calls
calls
expand
queue
for
to
for
move
lines
privacy
to
of
noisybusy
cleardeterrentnaturalspace
TooTooLackNoCostlycontrolsNo
NoSecurityNo
Security
Cons••••••••
to
on
privacy
ΑƒƚǝĻ
contact
focus
more
of
hascan
work
point
FirstSecurity
Securitysecurity
Location
Pros•••
3 - 34
and
kiosks
location
finding
model,
way
signage
ͻLƓŅƚƩƒğƷźƚƓͼ
forms
of
to
delivery
and
name
merchandise
feasibility
current
Recommendations
lighting
application
the
sell
not
MaintainservicesImproveResearchChangeProvideDo
••••••
3 - 35