HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Customer Service, Billing and Cashiering Internal Audit - 3/19/2025Audit | Tax | Advisory | Consulting
An independent member of UHY International
UHY Advisors Mid-Atlantic, Inc.
8601 Robert Fulton Drive, Suite 210
Columbia, MD 21046
uhy-us.com
March 19, 2025
City of Glendale Audit Committee:
We are pleased to present our internal audit report on the customer service, billing, and cashiering processes of
the Budget and Finance Department’s Customer Service Division as required by the City of Glendale’s (the City)
FY25 Audit Plan. The internal audit objective was to assess departmental processes for efficiency, effectiveness,
and potential for streamlining.
We have reviewed the results of our work with City management and appreciate the courtesy that was extended
to us by its staff.
Sincerely,
Jack Reagan
Managing Director
UHY Advisors Mid-Atlantic, Inc.
uhy-us.com
City of Glendale
Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering Internal Audit
March 19, 2025
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
3
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter .................................................................................................................................... 1
Cover Page .............................................................................................................................................. 2
Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................... 3
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 5
Scope of Work ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Audit Results ....................................................................................................................................... 5
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 7
Audit Report ............................................................................................................................................ 9
Background ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 9
Scope of Work ................................................................................................................................... 10
Audit Results & Observations ............................................................................................................. 10
Division Policies and Procedures .................................................................................................... 10
Policies and Procedures Recommendations ................................................................................... 11
Cash and Credit Card Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11
Cash Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 11
Credit Card Fee Analysis ............................................................................................................. 13
Cash and Credit Card Recommendations ........................................................................................ 14
Customer Service ........................................................................................................................... 14
Customer Service Training .......................................................................................................... 15
Customer Call Handling .............................................................................................................. 15
Customer Service Metrics .......................................................................................................... 16
Performance Reporting .............................................................................................................. 17
Performance Feedback............................................................................................................... 18
Customer Call Data .................................................................................................................... 18
Customer Email Requests ........................................................................................................... 19
Customer Service Recommendations ............................................................................................. 20
Utility Billing .................................................................................................................................. 21
Water Meter Readings and Skip Reads ....................................................................................... 21
Billing Process and Disconnections ............................................................................................. 21
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
4
Billing rate and fee tables ........................................................................................................... 22
Leak Adjustments & Sewer Appeals ........................................................................................... 23
Customer Account Deposits ....................................................................................................... 24
Billing Data Transfer ................................................................................................................... 25
Physical Records Retention ......................................................................................................... 26
Billing Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 26
Customer Account Collections ....................................................................................................... 27
Identification of Delinquent Accounts ........................................................................................ 28
3rd Party Collections ................................................................................................................... 28
Balance Transfers ....................................................................................................................... 29
Arizona Department of Revenue (AZDOR) .................................................................................. 29
Collections Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 30
Cashiering ...................................................................................................................................... 30
Remote Check Deposit ............................................................................................................... 30
Cashier Overage/Shortages ........................................................................................................ 31
Daily Reconciliation .................................................................................................................... 31
Voids .......................................................................................................................................... 32
External Department Deposits ................................................................................................... 32
Cashiering Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 32
System Access ................................................................................................................................ 33
System Access Recommendations .................................................................................................. 34
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................ 35
Appendix B – Management Responses .................................................................................................. 36
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
5
Executive Summary
As part of the City of Glendale’s (the City) FY25 Audit Plan, a performance audit was conducted over the
Budget and Finance Department’s Customer Service Division (Division). The objective of the audit was to
assess department processes for efficiency, effectiveness, and potential for streamlining.
Scope of Work
The scope of work consisted of the Division’s customer service, billing, collections, and cashiering
functions. The audit did not include a review of Tax and Licensing, Property Tax, and Sales Tax since those
functions are performed outside the Division. Interviews were conducted with management to
understand the roles and responsibilities of all Division staff, team objectives and management concerns.
Walkthroughs were performed with staff to identify operational, compliance, and financial risks and
controls, opportunities for streamlining, and root causes of redundancies and inefficiencies. The periods
reviewed for operational testing of controls ranged from January 2024 to December 2024.
Audit Results
Through a combination of interviews and control testing, we identified numerous opportunities for the
Division to improve its overall performance.
A. There are a healthy number of procedures for the four main functions of the Division to execute
routine tasks; however, there is a lack of robust documented policies to provide staff with guidelines
for decision-making.
1. Existing procedures and policies, such as the 2021 Cash and Credit Card Handling Policy, are
not reviewed periodically to reflect changes in operations and regulations. (Policies and
Procedures)
2. The City Code provides a general description of collection charges; however, no policy
supports the establishment of current collection fees, minimum balance requirements, and
delinquency thresholds. Furthermore, there is no indication of when these fees were
established or last updated to ensure they are sufficient. General fees, such as delinquent
account and disconnect notice fees, were last updated in the City’s Code on May 10, 2019.
(Customer Account Collections, Disconnections)
3. Staff is unclear whether a final customer balance should automatically be transferred to a
corresponding new account or whether they should request permission from the customer.
(Balance Transfers)
4. Staff is not turning over past-due accounts to the collection agency as soon as legally permitted
to increase the likelihood of recovery. (3rd Party Collections)
5. Guidelines for cash overages and shortages are unclear on escalation steps for exceeding
thresholds. (Cashier Overages/Shortages)
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
6
B. The Division is not leveraging system capabilities to reduce staff inefficiencies, alleviate manual
processes, obtain real-time, accurate performance reporting, and refine customer service quality.
1. Water meter skip reads are not syncing into the appropriate system data table, resulting in the
billing team having to perform a time-consuming manual process. (Water Meter Readings
and Skip Reads)
2. Staff is not utilizing appropriate system reporting to identify delinquent accounts for further
collection activity. As a result, accounts are being sent for further collection efforts, such as
debt setoff, prior to meeting the delinquency thresholds, and documentation of collection
efforts is not maintained. (Identification of Delinquent Accounts)
3. Performance reporting done manually is inaccurate due to manual errors , incomplete when
compared to direct reports from the system, and inconsistent with how CSR metrics should
be reported. (Performance Reporting)
4. Customer service representatives (CSR) can select which calls are handled and extend post-
call wrap time, which can lead to extended customer wait times. (Customer Call Handling)
5. Customer inquiries and requests received via the Custrel email are not adequately tracked,
resulting in multiple CSRs working on the same requests. (Customer Email Requests)
6. Leak adjustments and sewer appeals are inefficiently processed and retained. (Leak
Adjustments and Sewer Appeals)
7. Customer calls are not recorded to provide CSRs with continuous performance feedback.
(Performance Feedback)
8. Checks received are not processed through a Check 21 method; they are deposited with the
daily cash and scanned into the cashiering system for retention purposes. (Remote Check
Deposit)
9. Reasoning for management overrides in iNovah, the City’s cashiering system, is insufficiently
detailed. (Voids)
10. Paper documentation is being retained for longer than the required three-year document
retention period. (Physical Records Retention)
C. The City absorbs the full cost of credit card transaction fees incurred by customers. As a result, the
City is expected to surpass its annual credit card fee operating expense of $505,000 in FY2025 by at
least $21,517, which can result in an operating deficit. (Credit Card Analysis)
D. Physical and system access is not periodically reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for the user’s
role and responsibilities.
1. A terminated employee still had access to ShoreTel. (ShoreTel Access)
2. CSRs not involved in the day-to-day cashiering process have badge access to the vault door,
and the vault code is not changed periodically. (Vault Access)
3. iNovah users who are not involved in the day-to-day cashiering process have full cashiering
abilities, and some have override permissions. (iNovah Access)
4. Staff who are not Supervisors have Administrator roles within ShoreTel. (ShoreTel Access)
5. Access granted in NorthStar and Glendale One is inconsistent among the same staff positions.
(NorthStar Access, Glendale One Access)
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
7
E. CSR performance metrics are appropriate; however, the measurement of some does not align with
best practices or current operations. (Customer Service Metrics)
F. The Division’s kiosk vendor, AllKiosk, LLC, is not assisting the City in meeting its goal of converting 1/3
of its walk-in customers to payment kiosk users. (Cash Analysis)
G. Division management does not provide adequate onboarding, ongoing , and cash-handling training to
establish and reiterate expectations for policies and procedures. (Customer Service Training)
1. Checks received are not logged immediately and processed daily. (Remote Check Deposit)
2. Staff does not follow procedures when processing leak adjustment and sewer appeal requests.
As a result, appropriate support is not retained, calculations are incorrect, and required
reviews are not performed. (Leak Adjustments and Sewer Appeals)
3. CSRs are not meeting established metrics, and feedback is not documented to support its
delivery. (Performance Feedback)
4. Staff are not meeting the TPT Tax Minimum Work Standards , which require a minimum of four
phone collection attempts per month for each account referred by the Arizona Department of
Revenue (AZDOR). (Arizona Department of Revenue)
5. Although a policy exists for cash overages and shortages, variances greater than $50 are not
reported to upper management. (Cashier Overages/Shortages)
6. Daily cash and check deposits lack evidence of dual verification. (Daily Reconciliation)
7. Daily reconciliation for cash receipts is incomplete, resulting in multiple instances of missing
source documentation and failure to reconcile balancing reports. (Daily Reconciliation)
8. Supporting documentation (Treasurer Receipts) is not retained to validate that the recording
of daily transaction activity for other City departments is accurate. (External Department
Deposits)
H. An independent review does not take place to ensure that processes are completed accurately and
timely.
1. Water and sewer rates in NorthStar are not reviewed against city-approved rates. (Billing rate
and fee tables)
2. Utility accounts subject to disconnection are identified and processed only by the preparer.
(Billing Process and Disconnections)
3. Variances exist between our calculations and final customer bill amounts. (Billing rate and fee
tables)
4. New utility account deposits are not assessed, collected, or applied correctly to customer
accounts. (Customer Account Deposits)
5. Management does not review weekly pre-billing and billing procedures for completion.
(Billing Process and Disconnections)
6. Invoices from the third-party collection agency are not properly calculated and supported. (3rd
Party Collections)
Recommendations
The recommendations below are designed to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of business
operations and customer service, impacting critical elements of the Division’s people, processes, and
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
8
technology. Budget & Finance management has provided an action plan to address each findings, which
can be found at the end of the full report.Division management should:
A. Develop and document policies over the critical Customer Service, Billing, and Collections functions to
provide guidelines that ensure consistency, compliance, and effective decision-making. Once the
policies have been established, implement an annual review process to ensure that policies and
procedures are current and reflect updates to operations and local and state regulations.
B. Collaborate with the IT department to further evaluate and implement the various technological
opportunities such as automated performance reporting, elimination of inefficient manual processes,
limitations to selecting calls handled and extending wrap time , and options to implement customer
service performance feedback.
C. Consider adopting a credit card fee policy in which the customer incurs the entire card transaction fee
imposed by the vendor or shares the cost with the City. Consider encouraging customers to utilize a
free ACH option to minimize credit card usage costs. Review the current card processing service
provider contracts to negotiate the lowest possible fee to minimize the financial impact on the City
and/or citizens.
D. Execute an annual user access review of systems utilized by Division management and staff to ensure
proper access and that user roles align with position responsibilities. Any discrepancies should be
communicated to the IT department so user access can be updated accordingly and timely.
E. Reevaluate current metrics to better align with best practices and the Division’s call center operations.
Relevant, measurable, and specific metrics should be established for the Division’s billing and
collections operations. Each metric should indicate which specific staff must adhere to them.
F. Review the City’s Linking Agreement with AllKiosk, LLC to assess whether the vendor is meeting the
key terms and objectives outlined and requested by the City.
G. Implement a standardized training program for new staff and ongoing training for existing staff to
ensure that policies and procedures are consistently applied. Each individual should acknowledge
training, and attendance should be recorded by management.
H. Implement structured management reviews over processes that are initiated and completed by a
single individual to identify potential errors or irregularities and allow for corrective action to be taken
if necessary.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
9
Audit Report
Background
As part of the City’s Independent Internal Audit Program (IIAP) FY25 Audit Plan, UHY conducted a
performance audit of the Customer Service Division (Division) of the Budget and Finance Department. The
Division is responsible for operating a call center for customer inquiries and service requests, assisting
customers with their utility accounts, including billing and payment processing, and collecting delinquent
revenues owed to the City.
The objective of the performance audit was to assess department processes for efficiency, effectiveness,
and potential for streamlining, specifically the processes related to customer service, billing, collections,
and cashiering. This included:
Assessing paper and manual processes to identify possible automated solutions
Evaluating areas where the physical handling of cash and checks could be reduced
Identifying system and logistical obstacles
The Division uses the following information systems to perform daily processes:
• ShoreTel (Mitel) – The call center team uses the communications system to receive and handle
customer phone calls and obtain call performance data. In September 2017, Mitel acquired
ShoreTel and, as a result, was rebranded; however, staff still refer to it as ShoreTel.
• NorthStar – Software used to manage the City’s utility account services.
• iNovah Enterprise Revenue Management – City’s cashiering ERM system.
• Glendale One – Customer portal that allows Glendale residents to submit service requests and
access information about city services.
• Tyler Munis – Although Division staff do not directly access the City’s financial system, billing and
cashiering activity are recorded by the Finance department’s accounting personnel.
Methodology
We conducted our internal audit procedures in accordance with the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)
Global Internal Audit Standards (“Red Book”) and generally accepted government auditing standards
(GAGAS), commonly referred to as the “Yellow Book.” Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our audit results
and conclusions. We believe that the evidence obtained provides reasonable assurance of our audit results
and conclusions based on the audit objective.
We conducted our internal audit procedures through the lens of the comprehensive Committee of
Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework, its five components, and 17
internal control principles. The COSO framework also divides internal control objectives into three
categories: operations, reporting, and compliance. The COSO framework provides an applied risk
management approach to internal controls and aims to help organizations reduce fraud.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
10
Scope of Work
The scope of work consisted of the Division’s customer service, billing, collections, and cashiering
functions. The audit did not include a review of Tax and Licensing, Property Tax, and Sales Tax since those
functions are performed outside of the Division. Interviews were conducted with management to
understand the roles and responsibilities of all Division staff, as well as team objectives and management
concerns. Walkthroughs were performed with staff to identify operational, compliance, and financial risks
and controls, opportunities for streamlining, and root causes for redundancies and inefficiencies. Refer to
Appendix A for a list of persons interviewed.
For operational testing of controls, the time periods reviewed ranged from January 2024 – December
2024. We reviewed an assortment of documentation to include but not limited to:
• Operating procedures
• Call center performance reports
• Leak adjustments
• Sewer appeals
• Disconnection reports
• NorthStar customer account activity
• Daily reconciliation packets
• Physical water service application (TAP
cards)
• Aged receivables report
• Collection agency invoices
• Kiosk reports
We also assessed the uses, data, access, and capabilities of the ShoreTel, NorthStar, iNovah, Glendale One,
and Tyler Munis systems.
Audit Results & Observations
Through a combination of interviews and control testing, the performance audit identified numerous
opportunities for the Division to improve its overall performance. The Division’s critical components –
people, processes, and technology – are not functioning as effectively and efficiently as expected. Below
is an analysis of the Division’s main functions highlighting the critical areas management should further
evaluate.
Division Policies and Procedures
The Division has established and documented operating procedures but lacks comprehensively
documented policies for key customer service, billing, collections, and cashiering processes. Policies
should be written clearly to provide staff with guidelines for effective decision-making, reviewed and
updated regularly, and communicated to key stakeholders.
Below are the Division’s existing documented policies, which we found insufficient to encompass the
various processes performed by staff.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
11
Policy Implementation Date Last Updated
Procedure No. 503 Utility Fees
Adjustment/Waivers Procedure (billing)
1/1/2020 8/3/2020
Cash and Credit Card Handling Policy and
Procedure Manual (cashiering)
2021 12/20/2021
TPT Tax Minimum Work Standards (collections) No evidence No evidence
Debt Set Off Policy (collections) No evidence No evidence
Water Lien Guidelines (collections) No evidence No evidence
The billing policy became effective on January 1, 2020, and was last revised on August 3, 2020. The
cashiering policy was last updated in December 2021, and the collections policies had no evidence of an
effective or approval date. The lack of written and updated policies and procedures increases the risk of
financial loss and disruption of operations.
Policies and Procedures Recommendations
Develop and document policies over the critical customer service, billing, and collections functions to
provide guidelines that ensure consistency, compliance, and effective decision-making. Once the policies
have been established, implement an annual review process to ensure that policies and procedures are
current and reflect updates to operations and local and state regulations.
Cash and Credit Card Analysis
Cash Analysis
Division management requested guidance on reducing the volume of cash handled at the counter;
however, our analysis indicates that the cash volume is low in comparison to all money collected.
Tender Type Tender Definition Transaction
Quantity
Total Amount
Collected
AMEX American Express card charges 944 $1,317,455
DEPOSIT BAG Tender is used for deposit bags containing cash
and/or checks received from other departments.
1,248 $3,831,872
BULK –
CHARGES
Used when processing charges taken and settled
on credit card machines in other departments.
2,928 $61,883,139
CASH Cash 11,370 $1,015,144
CCEMV Used for charges taken in by Customer Service on
PayConex credit card machines.
12,095 $2,386,515
Check Checks 20,427 $56,794,944
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
12
DEBIT
CHARGES
Debit card charges 122 $38,055
DISCOVER
CHARGES
Discover card charges 36 $12,294
LOCKBOX
CHECK
Checks from lockbox payments 52,602 $17,860,475
MASTERCARD
CHARGES
Mastercard charges 1,345 $3,737,925
NON-CASH Used when processing ACH payment files. (Chase,
Checkfree, Metavante, Kiosk, Surepay)
1,161 $40,098,749
VISA CHARGES Visa card charges 4,001 $5,282,701
WIRE
TRANSFER
Used when processing single payments received
from an electronic funds transfer.
170 $15,470,403
Total 108,449 $ 209,729,670
Cash Only 0.48% $1,015,144
Cash and Deposit Bags 2.31% $4,847,016
Cash, Deposit Bags, and Checks 37.91% $79,502,434
We analyzed transactional activity from iNovah from January to November 2024, specifically by tender
type. We found that cash accounts for 2.31% of all money collected but increases drastically to 37.91%
when checks are included. Furthermore, we assessed cash received by the cashiers against cash received
by the kiosk outside of the Division building. The City collected $1,175,333 in total cash with the kiosk
accounting for 19% of that. Per the AllKiosk contract, the City's goal was to convert 1/3 of walk-in
customers to kiosk usage, and the actual usage rate of cash transactions processed at the kiosk is 10%.
Month Cash Quantity Cash Total
January 2024 Unavailable Unavailable
February 2024 125 $16,779
March 2024 128 $16,942
April 2024 104 $13,068
May 2024 112 $12,736
June 2024 130 $15,478
July 2024 114 $15,402
August 2024 115 $16,025
September 2024 114 $14,983
October 2024 138 $18,632
November 2024 145 $20,144
Kiosk Sub-Total 1,225 $160,189
In-Person Sub-Total 11,370 $1,015,144
Grand Total 12,595 $1,175,333
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
13
Credit Card Fee Analysis
In FY2024, the City was over budget on credit card fees by $4,910 and is expected to surpass the FY2025
budget by at least $21,517. Each time a customer uses a credit card as a payment method, the City absorbs
the complete cost of all credit card transaction fees. The City budgets $505,000 annually as an operating
cost to cover these fees.
Month FY2024 Actual
Fees Incurred
FY2025 Actual
Fees Incurred
Percent
Increase
July 38,528 $ 43,737 13.52%
August 42,621 $51,395 20.59%
September 42,794 $47,929 12.00%
October 43,287 $46,789 8.09%
November 45,261
December 41,318
January 40,917
February 42,866
March 38,980
April 38,216
May 43,353
June 51,769
Total $509,910 $189,850 13.55%
Budget $505,000 $168,333*
* Pro-rated budget amount for 4 months ($505,000/12)
We conducted an analysis of the fees incurred in FY2024 and year-to-date FY2025. We found that fees
incurred from July to October of FY25 are trending at an average of 13.55% higher for the same period in
FY2024. Furthermore, we assessed the credit card fee policy for other Arizona municipalities and found
that they transfer convenience fee costs to customers. Limiting or removing credit card fees as an
operating expense could free up $505,000 for other needs within the City.
Municipality Credit Card Fee Policy
Maricopa
County
Customers must pay a transaction fee of 2.25% for credit card payments, flat fee of
$1.49 for credit card payments under $66.22. Customers must pay a transaction
fee of 1.85% for debit card payments, flat fee of $1.49 for debit card payments
under $66.22. The county encourages e-check payments either via Bill Pay through
bank or through e-Check servicer (WorldPay).
City of Phoenix City stopped accepting credit card payments, only ACH. No charge for e-check
payments made online.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
14
City of Peoria As of Jan. 1, 2024, City charges 2.8% service fee with a minimum $1.95 charge for
all utility payments and business licenses paid with a credit or debit card. The city
encourages customers to avoid fees by paying electronically via ACH electronic
funds transfers or e-check payments.
City of Gilbert Transactions paid with a credit or debit card incur a maximum surcharge fee of 4%
for non-utility services and a maximum $4 convenience fee per transaction for
utility services.
City of Mesa A 2.37% service fee is charged when a credit or debit card is used for utility bill
payments. Self-service kiosk: $1.50 charge for cash payments, 2% fee for
credit/debit payments.
City of Tempe The city does not charge customers for credit card payments.
City of Chandler The city does not charge customers for credit card payments.
Cash and Credit Card Recommendations
Contract Review: Division management should review the terms of the Linking Agreement with
AllKiosk, LLC, to assess whether the vendor meets the requirements outlined in the Scope of Work.
Specifically, the goal to reduce the number of walk-in customers by converting approximately 1/3
of these walk-in customers to Payment Kiosk usage.
Reduce Operating Expense: Consider adopting a credit card fee policy in which the customer
incurs the entire card transaction fee imposed by the vendor or shares the cost with the City.
Consider encouraging customers to utilize a free ACH option to minimize credit card usage costs.
Review the current card processing service provider contracts to negotiate the lowest possible fee
to minimize the financial impact on the City and/or citizens.
Customer Service
The Division’s call center operations team consists of two Customer Service Supervisors, one Customer
Service Representative (CSR) Lead, two CSR Seniors, nine CSRs, two CSRs dedicated to cashiering functions,
and two vacant CSR positions. CSR responsibilities involve answering customer inquiries and requests via
phone, email, and Glendale One (G1). Customer inquiries include handling utility move-ins, move-outs,
reconnects, sanitation calls, business licensing, and Community Action Program (CAP) assistance.
The CSR Senior is designated for special assignments and acts as a resource for other CSRs. In contrast, the
CSR Lead provides backup to the Supervisor while sharing similar access rights but without direct reports.
Six of the CSRs are trained to assist with general CAP-related calls since they have limited access to case
notes.
At the start of this performance audit, the call center’s business hours were 7:00 a.m.–5:30 p.m.; however,
during this audit, business hours were changed to 8:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m. If customer calls come in after
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
15
business hours, an interactive voice response (IVR) system informs them that the service center is closed,
prompting the customer to call back during operational hours.
Customer Service Training
The Division does not have a comprehensive onboarding program to set expectations of the skills,
knowledge, and behaviors necessary to be an effective CSR. Additionally, annual refresher training is not
provided to help current CSRs further develop or improve their skills, abilities, and knowledge of Division
policies, procedures, and best practices.
When onboarding new CSRs, they are provided with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) on how to
complete specific job duties, such as “How to Create a Move-out ” and “How to Complete a Non–water
Move-in.” They are also paired with a CSR Senior whom they will shadow for approximately one week for
on-the-job training until the CSR is able to perform the standard procedures. Once new CSRs begin working
on their own, they are encouraged to use Microsoft Teams Chat to request help from the team or reach
out directly to a Supervisor.
A robust onboarding program is critical to introduce new CSRs to the City’s culture, the Division’s
objectives, and call center procedures and systems. A strong training program will provide CSRs with a
clear understanding of their role and responsibilities, performance metrics, and management
expectations.
Customer Call Handling
The call center management team is experiencing challenges with CSRs' ability to manipulate which calls
they answer and extend their wrap time after each call is completed.
When a customer contacts the City’s Customer Service Division, their call is automatically answered by an
Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, where they select a number option based on the reason for their
call. The call is automatically routed to the respective call queue and placed on hold until it is selected and
answered by a CSR . Management indicated that CSRs tend to select easier, quicker calls, such as accepting
a customer payment, over more difficult and time-consuming calls, such as a utility move-in. Additionally,
once a call is completed, the CSR enters wrap time where they update customer account records with
information gathered during the call. CSRs have the system capability to extend wrap time if additional
time is needed to complete tasks related to the interaction. However, management indicated that CSRs
are extending wrap time unnecessarily after calls and utilizing release codes that make them unavailable
to receive calls. As a result, customers may experience extended wait times.
We inquired with the City’s IT department on whether ShoreTel, the Division’s phone system, has the
capability to limit a CSR’s ability to select which calls are handled and limit the extension of wrap time. IT
was able to confirm with the vendor liaison, Sonoran Integrations, that limiting wrap time and eliminating
CSRs from hand-picking calls can be resolved with an out-of-the-box functionality and would not require
additional system configuration.
The wrap-up process is essential to maintaining accurate and detailed notes in customer accounts;
however, it can become excessive if documenting goes on for too long or is extended for no reason. A
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
16
strive for balance is needed, where wrap time is kept to a minimum while still providing CSRs with the
space to complete post-call tasks accurately.
Customer Service Metrics
The Division has defined and documented the 2024-2025 CSR Service Level Goals for the call center
operations team. However, management has not reviewed each goal’s metric to ensure they are aligned,
relevant and measurable. Additionally, call center management poorly communicates these metrics to
staff.
The performance measures for the call center operations team are to:
1. Maintain a call pick-up rate of 97% or higher (Individual metric)
2. Maintain an average handle time (talk time + wrap time) of 4 minutes or less (Individual metric)
3. Maintain a daily average of 1.5 hrs. in Off the Phone codes (Individual metric)
4. Maintain an average speed of answer time of 80% within 60 seconds (Departmental metric)
We analyzed ShoreTel CSR performance data from January to October 2024 (10 months) to identify when
the call center team did not meet metrics. Additionally, we evaluated the Division’s metrics against best
practices, such as The US Contact Center HR & Operational Benchmarking Report, for setting achievable
and appropriate CSR metrics.
Our review found that the Division’s metrics are appropriate for CSR key performance indicators; however,
the measurement of some do not align with best practices or current operations. Specifically,
Performance
Measure Performance Analysis Benchmarking Analysis
1. Maintain a
call pick-up
rate of 97% or
higher
For 6 of 10 months, at least one CSR
did not meet the metric for at least
one day. However, this only meant
that 7 days out of 208 did not meet
the metric and were below 97%.
This metric is consistent with industry best
practices and is consistently met; therefore,
it should remain as is.
2. Maintain an
average
handle time
(talk time +
wrap time) of
4 minutes or
less
For all 10 months, the metric was not
met on average by 6 CSRs.
This type of metric is consistent with
industry best practices; however, it should
be updated as it was not met for most days
tested. The current average handle time for
the City is 6.5 minutes, which is in line with
a 2021 US Contact Center HR & Operational
Benchmarking Report.
3. Maintain a
daily average
of 1.5 hrs. in
We reviewed one month, during which
there were 377 instances of off-the-
phone time exceeding 1.5 hours.
This type of metric is consistent with
industry best practices; however, it should
be reevaluated to determine if there are
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
17
Off the Phone
codes
Additionally, the number of times it
was exceeded for the month was
tallied for each CSR, and it ranged
from 10 to 22, where 22 times means
it exceeded every day of that month.
enough calls that correlate with the 1.50-
hour metric or whether it should be
increased.
4. Maintain an
average speed
of answer
time of 80%
within 60
seconds
For all 10 months, the metric was not
met for 2,643 of 3,458 calls, or 76%.
The way this metric is interpreted and
reported on does not align with best
practices. If the metric were to be assessed
on the average speed of answer time rather
than the hold time it would align with best
practices for tracking and measuring key
performance indicators.
Performance Reporting
Call center management does not periodically review manually computed CSR performance reporting to
ensure its accuracy and completeness and follow up on any discrepancies.
The Division’s Management Analyst (Analyst) is responsible for creating and providing various reports for
management to review; this includes daily and monthly reporting on CSR performance data to the
Customer Service Supervisors. The Analyst uses databases within the ShoreTel system to obtain in-depth,
real-time CSR call -handling data. The system-generated reports are exported into Excel, where the Analyst
will then manually compile data to provide adequate reporting to management. The Analyst cross-verifies
the manually computed information with two to three different reports to identify any discrepancies.
We reperformed the Analyst’s calculations for two daily CSR performance reports to validate that the
original data from ShoreTel is accurately reflected in the manual reports created for the Supervisors. We
also inquired with the City’s IT department on whether ShoreTel had the capability to generate these
reports automatically or provide dashboards.
We found that the Analyst’s reporting is inaccurate, incomplete, and inconsistent with the CSR goals that
are being measured. Specifically,
• Manually entered data does not align with all ShoreTel reports, nor does it align with the reports
utilized by the Analyst to complete the reporting.
• There were two manual errors found where the data entered by the Management Analyst was
incorrect.
• The Analyst is double and triple counting the number of calls answered within each grouping,
worsening CSR performance reporting. When discussed, the Analyst acknowledged the inaccuracy
of service level percentage reporting.
• The Analyst is reporting on data that is not being measured by an established metric.
Additionally, the IT department was able to provide sample reports generated by ShoreTel that reproduce
the reporting manually created by the Analyst. There is an opportunity to rely on automated reporting
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
18
over manual reporting, as it will reduce the large amount of time spent by the Analyst compiling the data,
minimize human error, and free up the Analyst to focus on other Division processes and initiatives.
Performance Feedback
Customer Service Supervisors are not documenting performance feedback given to CSRs in a centralized
and secure location. Additionally, the Division has been unable to record customer phone calls for quality
review due to a prior PCI compliance issue that has since been resolved. As a result, Supervisors provide
CSRs feedback on call quality only from live customer calls that occur at random.
We inquired with the Customer Service Supervisors on how the metrics previously mentioned are
communicated to staff. We were informed that Supervisors review the daily, weekly, and monthly
performance reports provided by the Analyst to determine whether CSRs are meeting individual and team
goals. The Supervisors will then hold monthly one-on-one meetings with CSRs to review performance
reporting and address any issues that the CSR may be experiencing in meeting performance expectations.
An office whiteboard was recently implemented to visibly communicate the daily status of metrics to all
CSRs.
We reviewed ShoreTel performance data to identify CSRs that are not meeting metrics and requested
documentation of feedback given to determine whether CSRs are being held accountable. We identified 8
CSRs that were not meeting metrics and noted the following:
• For 5 CSRs, Supervisors informed us that the metric was not applicable because they were either
leads, Cashiers, or Collectors.
• For 3 CSRs, feedback was given verbally, and as a result, there was no supporting documentation.
We also inquired with the City’s IT department on whether ShoreTel has the capability to route customers
to a confidential queue where card payment information can be processed, and if a customer survey
option could be implemented to take place after a customer call has been completed.
IT was able to confirm with the vendor liaison, Sonoran Integrations, that calls can be recorded but can
also be transferred to a queue where payment information is processed and then transferred back to the
CSR through a system built-in feature. The vendor can also implement a customer survey as part of their
Palitto Software; however, that would be an additional cost to the City.
An opportunity exists to implement the recording of customer calls or a customer survey to improve
employee performance and customer satisfaction. Both will provide management with insight into how
CSRs handle inquiries and requests, utilize systems, comply with policies and procedures, and identify
opportunities for operational efficiency.
Customer Call Data
Call data is not being analyzed by management to determine whether business hours and resources are
appropriately aligned with peak call times. Call center management currently only reviews data for
performance purposes, as mentioned in the prior section.
We obtained call volume data from ShoreTel for the period of 06/01/2024 – 12/10/2024 and performed
an analysis to identify peak call times and determine whether there are:
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
19
1. Sufficient staff coverage
2. Negative impact on CSR performance metrics
3. Alignment with work shifts (7:00 am – 3:30pm, 9:00 am – 5:30pm) and business hours (7:00 am
– 5:30pm)
Our analysis found that peak call times are 11:30-12:30, 3:00-3:30, and 3:30-4:00, with Tuesdays having
the most calls. Additionally,
1. Peak call times of 11:30-12:30 and 3:00-3:30 have sufficient coverage with 7 dedicated CSRs;
however, the peak call time of 3:30-4:00 only has 4 dedicated CSRs.
2. There appears to be no correlation between staff performance and peak call times.
3. Call volume is significantly less during the business hours of 7:00-8:00 and 5:00-5:30.
Periodically analyzing call data will allow management to identify trends and, in turn, help better staff the
call center team to be ready for the influx of calls, improve the overall customer experience, ensure the
team is operating at an optimal level of efficiency, and have evidence to support informed decision-
making.
At our end-of-planning phase discussion with Division management, we introduced the possibility of
updating the call center’s business hours to optimize resource utilization for peak call times. During the
audit, management changed the call center hours from 7am—5:30pm to 8am—5 pm, which is supported
by our analysis results.
Customer Email Requests
A proper tracking tool is not in place to adequately monitor customer service requests received via the
Custrel email inbox, resulting in multiple CSRs working on the same requests.
During our interviews, we determined that customers also submit inquiries and requests through the
central email inbox Custrel. Once a CSR handles an email inquiry, the CSR that answered the email moves
it into their designated CSR color-coded folder within Outlook. When customer replies are received from
previously handled inquiries/requests, they are received as new inquiries within Custrel. As a result, this
sometimes leads to multiple CSRs inadvertently working on the same inquiry, complicating tracking and
ensuring the customer inquiry is completed. Furthermore, it becomes difficult to identify duplicate emails
or determine which CSR resolved a specific inquiry.
We i nquired with the City’s Director of Organizational Performance about Glendale One's future plans and
its capabilities as a tracking tool for emailed customer service requests. The Director communicated that
Glendale One is not being eliminated; rather, the upcoming changes will only impact its use by the Code
Compliance Team. Glendale One is not being utilized to its full potential and is capable of serving as an
intake and tracking tool for customer service requests received via the Custrel email. Glendale One can
create a case ID for each customer request, assign cases directly to a CSR, log all cases, and provide an
audit trail for actions taken.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
20
Customer Service Recommendations
To remediate the findings identified and exploit the opportunities to improve call center operations, we
recommend the following:
Training: The Division should develop and implement a standardized onboarding program for new
CSRs and ongoing training for existing CSRs to ensure that relevant policies and procedures are
communicated and consistently applied. Training should be acknowledged by the CSR and
attendance recorded by management.
Wrap Time : To improve CSR efficiency and productivity levels, the Division should consider
implementing some of these best practices:
o Train CSRs to complete some of the wrap-up documentation during the call without
compromising the quality of their customer service.
o Reiterate and encourage the proper use of wrap time, along with communicating that
Supervisors will randomly monitor wrap time periodically.
o Provide coaching to CSRs on proper notetaking and the level of detail that should be included.
o Request CSR feedback on any deficiencies or insights for improving wrap-time procedures.
Performance Metrics: Division management should reevaluate metrics 2, 3, and 4 to better align
with best practices and the City’s current operations. Additionally, for each metric, indicate which
CSRs (Call Center, Billing, Collections) must adhere to them.
Performance Reporting: Division management should collaborate with IT to develop customized
system reports for CSR goals and metrics. Otherwise, the reporting created by the Analyst should
be modified only to include the necessary reporting that aligns with established metrics, with an
independent review of data prior to submitting to management.
Performance Feedback: All feedback given to staff should be in a written and consistent format to
support that feedback was provided to the CSR and when it was provided. This will reduce the risk
of any Human Resource issues if disciplinary action or termination must be taken due to poor
performance.
Automation Opportunities: Division management should work with the IT department and
vendor liaison to further evaluate the opportunities available within the ShoreTel system to
eliminate unnecessary manual reporting, improve employee performance, and access real-time
data.
Additionally, the Division should utilize Glendale One to create a Customer Service
queue/workflow for requests received via the Custrel email. The long-term goal should be to
eliminate the email option for customers and direct them to the existing Glendale One portal. This
will allow for customer requests to be centralized, formally captured and documented, assigned
to a specific CSR, tracked and managed appropriately, and eliminate the ineffective process that
currently exists using Microsoft Outlook folders and manual categorizing.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
21
Utility Billing
The Division operates on a four-cycle calendar for utility billing of water, sewer, and sanitation services.
Each cycle is divided by different geographical areas within the city and processed on a different week of
the month. The Water Services Department follows the same calendar as the Division when performing
their water meter reading process.
Water Meter Readings and Skip Reads
Due to a lack of communication and understanding between the Division and Water Services team, a
process inefficiency has resulted in processing water meter skip reads.
The process begins with Water representatives downloading data for the respective billing cycle from
NorthStar. The data downloaded includes customer name, address, account number, previous month's
reading and usage, and meter location. Each Water representative is assigned daily routes and is
responsible for obtaining each resident’s water meter reading. The meter read is manually entered into
an app on the representative’s smartphone and the data is synchronized into FCS, the City’s meter reading
software. The software automatically synchronizes the data collected at regular intervals throughout the
day, typically every 5 to 15 minutes. This synchronization ensures that all collected readings are transferred
back into NorthStar. Once the Water representatives have collected all the meter reads for that cycle, then
the billing team can begin the process of billing for water usage.
There are instances where a water meter cannot be read due to obstructions like pets, trash, or other
objects. In such cases, Water representatives document the reason for the skip read and generate a work
order to follow up on the reading. We found that because skip reads are processed as work orders, the
updated meter readings are not automatically syncing into NorthStar. As a result, CSR – Billers are having
to manually update meter readings in NorthStar for many customer accounts (average 120 per cycle).
Upon follow-up with Water Services and IT’s Senior Software Engineer, the issue can be resolved by
creating a procedure in NorthStar that would allow the updated meter readings from skip reads to sync
into the live meter reading table once the work order is completed. Such implementation would eliminate
the time-consuming manual workaround that the CSR—Billers have been performing.
Billing Process and Disconnections
An independent review is not performed over the weekly billing and disconnection processes to ensure
that all necessary tasks are completed and consistently performed by the different CSR – Billers. We
inquired with staff about the procedures to execute both processes. We found that the Division has a team
of four Senior Customer Service Representative – Billers (Biller) dedicated to the processing of utility
billing, with each CSR – Biller assigned one cycle. The billing team is also responsibilities for:
• Disconnections
• Leak Adjustments
• Sewer Appeals
• One-off cycles such as cycle 77 (high-
profile accounts)
• New Build account setup
• Hydrant meters
• Month-end reporting
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
22
Friday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday
Pre-Billing Tasks Billing Tasks
Review
accounts for
illegal usage or
delinquent
follow-up (DF)*
• Skip Reads
• Overreads
• New Accounts
• Final Billing
• Backdates
Delinquent
accounts are
identified for
service
disconnection
• High Usage
• Delinquency
notices are issued
and sent to
customers
• Review deposits
• Draft utility bills
are reviewed
• Invoices are sent
to customer by 3rd
party vendor
• Post journal
* Delinquent Follow-up refers to resident accounts whose meter had been disconnected, and residents
reconnected it on their own.
As illustrated above, each CSR – Biller must perform several tasks in preparation for the issuance of
customer utility bills every Thursday. We inquired with CSR – Billers on whether a checklist is utilized to
ensure that billing activities are consistently completed amongst the Billers. We observed that a formal
checklist is not used, reviewed, and signed off by the Customer Service Supervisor. A Supervisor’s review
is essential to ensure that billing processes are performed accurately, timely, and with no issues.
Additionally, we inquired with staff about the process of disconnecting customer water services and
understood that accounts are subject to disconnection once the balance is two months past due and
greater than $50. Notices are mailed for past-due bills that are subject to disconnection the week before
disconnects are performed. If payment is not received to resolve the outstanding account, the billing team
processes disconnections on utility water accounts on Tuesdays.
We reviewed a sample of 5 weekly disconnection cycles to determine whether all accounts subject to
disconnection were appropriately identified. For all five samples, we found no exceptions and validated
that all accounts were appropriately identified. Additionally, the accounts were accurately charged the
$1.28 ($1.17 * 9.2% Glendale Tax) disconnection notice fee and the $57.98 ($53.10 * 9.2% Glendale Tax)
disconnection fee per City Code, Appendix B – Community Development Fee Schedule effective May 10,
2019. Although no exceptions were identified, without a review in place, a risk exists that if the list of
disconnects is not verified, a wrongful disconnection may occur or result in an ongoing delinquent balance.
Billing rate and fee tables
Division management does not have a formal review process to ensure that billing fees and rate tables in
the NorthStar utility system comply with the City’s approved rates. It is the Division’s understanding that
an administrator in the Water Services department updates the rates in NorthStar annually; however, the
Division is unsure if and when this occurs.
We reviewed the NorthStar rate and fee tables to verify that they reflect the most recently approved City
rate and fee schedules. Testing found that all water rates in NorthStar reflect the city rates in Chapter 33
of the City Code. However, 1 of the 93 sewer rates found in NorthStar is not defined in the City Code.
To validate that the appropriate billing rates were utilized to calculate customer balances, we reviewed
and recalculated a sample of 61 customer bills. We based our recalculation on the customer’s water usage
and respective rates and found variances between our calculation and the bill calculation for 37 bills.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
23
Although the billing team reviews a sample of draft bills provided by the third-party printing company, the
control is not being executed appropriately to ensure that invoices are calculated accurately. Furthermore,
the Division is at risk of being non-compliant with the City Code if an annual review of approved billing
fees and rates to NorthStar is not performed.
Leak Adjustments & Sewer Appeals
The billing team does not comply with the Budget & Finance internal administrative policy No. 503 – Utility
Rate Adjustment/Waiver Procedure to ensure all requirements are met before processing a leak
adjustment.
The policy outlines that adjustments will be considered when all the following conditions are met:
• Proof that the leak has been repaired; and
• Water use by the customer has returned to normal levels, and
• The use in question was more than 3 times the normal use, and
• An adjustment has not been applied to the account within the past three years; and
• The water use in question occurred within the past six months.
Customers are to submit leak adjustment requests using the Water Leak Adjustment Request Form which
can either be mailed or emailed to the billing team. A CSR – Biller will review the information on the form
to begin research on the request, which includes checking for prior adjustments and reviewing usage
patterns. The CSR – Biller will complete the NorthStar Billing Adjustment Excel template using the data
gathered, which will calculate the total account adjustment amount using its built-in formulas.
Once complete, the CSR – Biller initials the spreadsheet and submits it to a Supervisor for review and
approval. The Approver’s review involves validating information on the spreadsheet against account
information in NorthStar and ensuring all calculations are accurate. The reviewer then initials the
spreadsheet as evidence of their review and approval. A secondary management approval is obtained for
adjustments greater than $200.
From January 2024 to December 2024, a total of 205 leak adjustment requests were submitted, and we
selected a sample of 20 requests for review. Testing identified the following:
Condition Condition Met
Not Met Result
Did the customer submit
a Request Form? Not Met The Division did not provide documentation for all 20
samples to support that customer submitted request.
Did the customer provide
proof of repair? Not Met For all 20 samples, there was no evidence that
customers provided proof of repair.
Was leak adjustment
calculated accurately? Not Met Using screenshots of NorthStar account activity, we
recalculated the adjustments and found variances
between our calculation and the CSR’s calculation for
7 adjustments.
Was there evidence of
review and signoff? Not Met 8 leak adjustments either did not have evidence of a 2nd
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
24
reviewer or manager approval or both.
Was the adjustment
processed accurately in
NorthStar?
Met No issues were found with the recording of leak
adjustments in NorthStar.
Had a prior leak
adjustment been granted? Met Verified that a prior leak adjustment had not been
granted to the 16 accounts where an adjustment was
approved and applied.
Sewer charges are recalculated each May based on the average water consumption during the months of
December through March. If a customer experiences a leak or fills their pool during this time, it can skew
their sewer average upwards, prompting them to appeal for a lower rate to reflect their actual usage.
Customers must submit a Sewer Appeal Form, which is due 90 days after the May billing, with specific
details regarding their situation.
Each appeal is evaluated case-by-case , considering factors like landscaping, pool ownership, and overall
water usage. The billing team analyzes each account thoroughly, sometimes requiring additional oversight
from a Supervisor to ensure fairness in their decisions. Sewer appeals are reviewed, verified, and approved
by a co -worker who is available. Unlike leak adjustments, customers can submit a sewer appeal every year,
there is no limit to how often a customer can receive an adjustment to their sewer rate.
From January 2024 to December 2024, a total of 624 sewer appeals were submitted, and we selected a
sample of 20 requests for review. Testing identified the following:
Condition Condition Met
Not Met Result
Did the customer submit
a Form? Met A form was submitted for all 20 requests.
Was adjustment
calculated accurately? Not Met Using screenshots of account activity in NorthStar, we
recalculated the adjustments and found variances
between our calculation and the CSR’s calculation for
1 adjustment.
Was there evidence of
review and signoff? Met All 20 requests had evidence of a review and signoff.
Was the adjustment
processed accurately in
NorthStar?
Not Met 2 adjustments were not recorded accurately in
NorthStar.
During testing, we observed that the preparer was not using the information provided by the customer
but alternate sources, such as Google Maps, to determine pool and landscaping dimensions.
Customer Account Deposits
The billing team does not comply with the Budget & Finance internal administrative procedure Utility
Deposit to ensure that a prepaid deposit on new utility accounts is assessed, collected, and refunded. The
policy outlines the following procedures:
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
25
• A deposit is required for all residential owner, tenant, and commercial utility accounts. The deposit
is to be paid in full before the services will be connected.
• A residential owner may request a refund of their deposit in writing 7 months after the deposit
was paid, provided the accountholder has no delinquencies for the preceding 6 months.
• If a request for a refund has not been made in writing, the deposited amount will remain on the
account until the account is voluntarily or involuntarily closed, at which time the deposit will be
applied to any balance on the account.
Currently, deposit payments are applied to new move-in accounts as soon as they are received. However,
we were informed that there are instances when a deposit is left in suspense until the new account can
be created once the old account is closed. During pre-billing tasks, CSR – Billers verify that any payment
fixes and pending deposits are applied to customer accounts.
We reviewed a sample of 12 utility accounts to determine whether deposit fees were assessed, and
payments were applied to a customer’s account. Testing identified the following:
• One account did not have a deposit assessed or collected during the customer’s move-in; however,
it was not refunded after the final billing was completed. As a result, there was no financial impact,
but the process was not performed as expected.
• One account did not have a deposit assessed or collected but a deposit was refunded and applied
at final billing. As a result, there was a final loss to the City.
• One account had a deposit assessed and collected during move-in, but the deposit refund was not
applied to the customer’s final billing. As a result, the City potentially owes the customer for the
deposit.
The current process is ineffective in ensuring that all new utility accounts are assessed a deposit and all
applicable accounts are refunded a deposit at final billing. Without a consistent and formal process to
identify accounts that require a deposit assessment or adjustment, the City risks being due or owing a
deposit.
Billing Data Transfer
Due to a lack of communication and understanding between the Division and Finance team, the
preparation of the daily reconciliation packet is inefficient. After daily transactional activity is complete,
the cashiers prepare a daily reconciliation packet that is reviewed by a Supervisor and uploaded to Finance
for recording and reconciliation in the Munis general ledger. Upon inquiry with Finance, we found that
Finance does not need or review all of the documentation provided by the cashiering team. All daily
payment activity from iNovah is downloaded nightly into a file, which Finance uploads into Munis for
recording into the general ledger.
Additionally, Finance downloads the daily billing activity from NorthStar weekly and uploads it into Munis
for recording into the general ledger. Outstanding receivables in NorthStar are reconciled to outstanding
receivables in Munis annually, which is reviewed during the annual financial audit.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
26
We selected a sample of 5 weeks to reconcile billing activity between Munis and NorthStar to verify the
completeness and accuracy between the two systems. We found no exception in the system data.
Physical Records Retention
The Division is retaining unnecessary paper documentation beyond the informal records retention period.
When a new utility service is established, field personnel create a TAP card, which is a hard copy of the
water services application used to capture meter installation information. When the TAP card is manually
given to a CSR – Biller, the meter details are entered into NorthStar to activate the account. This process
occurs daily, and the volume of TAP cards processed depends on the number of incoming requests. Once
the process is complete, the TAP cards are stored in filing cabinets for three years and then discarded.
To validate that the team is following the informal records retention period, we reviewed a sample of 20
TAP cards and found that 10 have been stored in the filing cabinet since 2013.
Billing Recommendations
Based on our audit findings and observations, we recommend the following to improve and streamline
billing operations:
Process Automation: Division management should collaborate with the IT department to
implement the following opportunities:
o Create an IT protocol in NorthStar that would allow skip reads updated by the Water Services
team to sync into the correct data table and eliminate the Division’s manual workaround.
o Use the Cognos reporting tool to develop a checklist that would track steps completed during
the weekly billing process and require a Supervisor review before completion. Cognos
Analytics is a web-based business intelligence tool utilized by IT that can extract data from
NorthStar to produce reports.
o Use the Cognos reporting tool to develop a leak adjustment and sewer appeal form that can
access customer account information, accurate pool and landscaping data, and automatically
calculate the adjustment amount. The form would then be electronically routed to the
Supervisor for review and approval. Once complete, it would be saved as a PDF and attached
to the customer’s account as an E-Doc file in NorthStar.
o Create a work order protocol in NorthStar that would allow field personnel to submit an
electronic version of a TAP card to the billing team. If that option is not viable, the billing team
should utilize the E-Doc option in NorthStar to scan the TAP card and attach it to the utility
account.
If the Division continues to retain paper documentation, a formal records retention policy
should be developed, and an annual process implemented that includes discarding
documentation according to the retention schedule.
Independent Reviews: The Billing Customer Service Supervisor should implement and perform
the following:
o A review of the weekly disconnections reports to ensure that all accounts subject to
disconnections are appropriately identified and relevant fees are accurately applied and
recorded.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
27
o An annual review of NorthStar's rate and fee tables to ensure alignment with city-approved
rate and fee schedules.
o A final review of the weekly customer bill samples produced by the 3rd party printing agency
to ensure that staff have thoroughly reviewed and validated billing calculations for different
types of customer accounts (residential, commercial, sanitation, sewer).
o A weekly review of deposit activity and clearing of the suspense account to ensure that new
utility accounts are assessed a deposit and refunded a deposit at final billing, if applicable.
Reconciliation efficiency: The cashiering team should collaborate with Finance to determine what
documentation must be retained for audit purposes. Otherwise, cashiering does not need to scan
daily reconciliation packets to the Finance shared drive.
Customer Account Collections
The Division’s revenue recovery team consists of a Supervisor, one Senior Collections Representative, one
Collections Representative, and a part-time employee. The team is responsible for the collection of
delinquent water, sewer, and sanitation accounts using the following state and city resources to collect on
those accounts:
• Balance Transfers – Consists of moving a customer’s delinquent final account to a current and
active account.
• 3rd Party Collection – The City has a contract with Valley Collection Service, LLC (VCS) to provide
debt collection services.
• Debt Setoff – A government program managed by the Arizona Department of Revenue (AZDOR)
to assist other agencies in collecting debts owed to them by state taxpayers expecting refunds.
• Filing Liens – At 120 days delinquent or at the discretion of the collections supervisor, final
accounts will be considered high-risk accounts, and liens will be filed against assets for unpaid
amounts.
The Division has two types of delinquent accounts: active and final. Active delinquent accounts currently
have an occupant at the address listed, but their account is past due and on the verge of being
disconnected. Final delinquent accounts have been closed, and the occupant has moved out. They are
sent a final bill if their deposit does not cover the remaining balance. Accounts must meet the following
criteria to proceed with further collection efforts.
Collection Process Fee Amount Minimum Balance # of Days Delinquent
Valley Collections $18.36 $50.00 60 days
Debt Setoff $9.00 $41.00 60 days
Liens $30.00 $150.00 120 days
Chapter 2, Section 2-4 of the City Code establishes collection charges as any direct costs incurred by the
city, including a third-party collection agency, in collecting delinquent account funds. Arizona Statute 42-
1122 outlines that a fee may be collected by the agency using the setoff procedure from the taxpayer. The
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
28
lien fee amount is referenced in a procedural document and followed by staff. However, there is no policy
that supports the establishment of these fees, minimum balance, and delinquency threshold.
Identification of Delinquent Accounts
The process of generating an aging report manually is inadequate to appropriately identify delinquent
accounts, resulting in incorrect accounts being placed in collections. Prior to January 2024, the collections
team would obtain a report directly from NorthStar that identified all accounts that met the 60-day
delinquency period. In January 2024, the IT department implemented a process in NorthStar that would
automatically generate a three-letter notification series for delinquent accounts. However, an error
occurred during the implementation that negatively impacted the NorthStar aging tables and subsequent
reporting. As a result, on the 15th of every month, the Collections Supervisor generates a Cognos report
using data from NorthStar to obtain a listing of final delinquent accounts. The list is evenly and randomly
divided among the collections team, with each collector tasked with resolving their assigned accounts'
balance. Upon exhausting internal efforts to work through the list, accounts are reviewed to determine
eligibility for further collection efforts.
We reviewed three monthly aging reports, which included 43 accounts, to determine whether they were
appropriately identified as delinquent and followed the proper collections process.
• Vall ey Collections (VCS)
o We found no exception with 31 of the accounts, which were appropriately referred to VCS.
o 12 accounts appeared on the aged receivables report, but their balances had been paid
in full.
• Debt Setoff
o We found no exception with 20 accounts, which were appropriately sent to Debt setoff.
o 9 of the accounts were sent too soon to debt setoff.
o 2 accounts had no notes to determine if they were sent to debt setoff.
o 12 accounts appeared on the aged receivables report, but their balances had been paid
in full. One of the paid accounts was sent to debt setoff.
Although an error occurred within the NorthStar system caused by the three-letter notification series
implementation that resulted in defective reporting, the revenue recovery team should thoroughly review
the identified accounts before sending them for further collection.
3rd Party Collections
A review does not exist to verify that invoices from the third-party collection agency are properly
calculated and supported. If accounts meet the established criteria, a tickler is placed on the customer
account in NorthStar, and an $18.36 collection fee is assessed. Although the contract with VCS does not
require Glendale to refer accounts each month, an effort is made to refer accounts before the last business
day of the month. VCS remits 100% of proceeds collected to the City and will then invoice the City monthly
for their 13% fee of the total amount collected for each account referred.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
29
The Senior Collections rep generates a NorthStar report to submit accounts to VCS, which the Supervisor
reviews to catch any errors prior to approval. VCS provides monthly reporting with details of payments
received so that the team can post payments to the customer’s NorthStar account.
We reconciled three monthly invoices received from VCS to the detailed report to verify that the monthly
invoice total was supported and that the appropriate collection fee was paid. Only one of the 16 accounts
on the three invoices had an incorrect calculation, where VCS was paid more than the 13% fee by $11.36.
Also, for one of the three months, the detailed activity report calculations were incorrect; however, it did
not impact the total of the invoice.
Additionally, we reviewed three referral reports sent to VCS to determine whether they were sent in a
timely manner. For two of three months, no accounts were sent due to the team being unable to run
standard reports; however, the report was sent in a timely manner for the third month. We found that
accounts are not being referred in a timely manner, with some accounts that were over 301 days past due
being sent to VCS for the first time.
Balance Transfers
Staff is unclear whether a final customer balance should automatically be transferred to a corresponding
new account or whether they should request permission from the customer first. When a customer
provides a forwarding address at the point of move-out, the remaining balance should be applied to the
new account if the address is within the city of Glendale.
Currently, the revenue recovery team will contact the customer to request permission to transfer an
outstanding balance from a prior account to a current account. However, management is under the
impression that outstanding balances are automatically transferred. We attempted to validate whether
efforts were made to transfer the outstanding balance; however, the Division was unable to provide
documentation of such efforts.
Arizona Department of Revenue (AZDOR)
The revenue recovery team is not complying with the TPT Tax Minimum Standards (Standards), which
require a specific number of collection contact attempts. The Standards require two phone attempts every
two weeks, with a minimum of four attempts per month for each account.
AZDOR leverages the City’s resources to expand State and Municipal Tax collection efforts. So, every month
the team receives detailed reports from AZDOR with delinquent tax account information that is divided
amongst the team for processing. The team contacts taxpayers through phone calls and email, informing
them of their obligations and potential collection actions.
The revenue recovery team worked on 228 accounts from January to December 2024. We selected a
sample size of 10% or 23 accounts for review to validate the appropriate number of contact attempts.
Contact was made for 12 of 23 accounts, but the number of attempts did not meet the minimum required
amount.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
30
Collections Recommendations
We recommend the following actions to improve the Division’s collections function:
Aged Receivables Efficiency: Division management should collaborate with the IT department to
develop a process and aged receivable report that appropriately identifies accounts eligible for
collection. At a minimum, a second review should be implemented to ensure that only eligible
delinquent accounts are referred for additional collection efforts.
Revenue Recovery Opportunity: Division management should clarify and formalize a process that
includes automatically transferring outstanding balances when a new account has been identified
for a delinquent customer. This method should be included in a collections policy as a form of
revenue recovery.
Invoice Review: The Revenue Recovery Supervisor should establish a review of third-party
collections invoicing to ensure that monthly invoices are appropriately supported and calculated.
Timely Account Referral: The Revenue Recovery Supervisor should ensure that past-due accounts
are turned over to the collection agency as soon as possible. The sooner the debt collection
process starts, the more likely the City will recover the amount due.
Training Refresher: The revenue recovery supervisor should conduct a refresher training session
for the team to reinforce the standards for accounts referred by AZDOR.
Cashiering
The Division has two CSRs who serve as dedicated cashiers to process payments received from walk-in
customers and other city departments. A third CSR assists with processing mail-in and lockbox payments.
The Division accepts cash, credit cards, money orders, or checks; all payments are processed in iNovah.
Through a nightly interface, payments processed in iNovah are applied to customer accounts in NorthStar.
Remote Check Deposit
Checks received are not processed through a Check 21 method; they are deposited with the daily cash and
scanned into the cashiering system for retention purposes. Additionally, cashiers do not maintain a chain
of custody or audit trail of checks received to ensure that all payments are accounted for and processed
timely.
Two employees retrieve Lockbox payments daily, which are processed only on Mondays, Thursdays, and
Fridays, along with checks received through the postal mail. The Division has one designated CSR to
process all checks; however, the two designated cashiers will also assist when possible. Processing consists
of scanning checks through iNovah to capture and retain the check image with a customer’s account. If all
checks cannot be processed on the day received, they are bundled together and stored in the vault until
the next scheduled processing day.
We attempted to contact individuals from the Police Department to assess how the Division could leverage
their current remote check deposit process ; however, we received no response from multiple individuals.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
31
Cashier Overage/Shortages
The Division is not compliant with Finance’s internal cash handling policy, and the policy’s guidelines
regarding correction actions for unacceptable levels are vague. A Supervisor reviews each cashier’s register
balancing at the beginning and end of their shift. Discrepancies that exceed the established thresholds are
investigated, and action is taken accordingly. Supervisors track overages/shortages in a password-
protected Excel spreadsheet.
The Cash Overages/Shortages section of the Cash and Credit Card Policy states that:
Employees must balance within 1% of their total cash intake or $25 whichever is less. If the employee’s
drawer is over/short more than that amount, it would be considered an incident. Any overages/shortages
greater than $50 must be reported to the City Auditor and the Finance Director.
Corrective action guidelines: Verbal counseling (1-2 incidents), Memo of Expectation (3-5 incidents), Memo
of Correction (6+ incidents)
We reviewed the Excel file documenting all overages and shortages from January 1, 2024, through
November 22, 2024, and identified discrepancies of +/- $3 (1% of the $300 initial drawer count), which
resulted in 7 instances. We further narrowed the population by determining if the variance exceeded the
allowable variance based on the total cash handled for the day, which resulted in 5 instances.
Of the 5 variances, 2 were over the $50 threshold and were not reported to the City Auditor or Finance
Director. Due to the lack of policy guidelines regarding corrective action when variances exceed a certain
threshold, it is unclear what correction action should have been taken for a $200 variance. The other 3
instances received verbal counseling from the Supervisor; however, it was unclear which incident the
cashier was on.
Daily Reconciliation
The reconciliation of daily activity and cash receipts is inadequately performed and supported. Designated
cashiers follow a procedural document to complete the daily reconciliation for payment activity.
Supervisors will then review the daily reconciliation and sign off as evidence that daily cash receipt activity
matched end-of-day iNovah reports and errors were resolved.
We selected a sample of 23 business dates (10%) from January 1, 2024, to November 22, 2024, to
reperform the daily reconciliation and verify that documented procedures are completed accurately and
consistently. Testing found that 16 of 23 samples had the following issues for one or multiple dates:
• A deposit slip or a bag seal was missing on more than one occasion.
• The daily cashier balancing totals did not match the respective iNovah report.
• Cash deposits were not always found in the corresponding reports.
• One instance where the cash deposit did not appear on the bank statement.
• Unable to confirm that deposits were prepared and verified by separate individuals due to a lack
of verification (initials) evidence.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
32
Voids
The reasoning for management overrides in iNovah is insufficiently detailed for others to understand why
a transaction was voided. In case of a refund or void, iNovah has an automated control that requires a
Supervisor to enter their password and document the reason for the override.
Using an iNovah report of all supervisor override transactions from January 1, 2024, through November
22, 2024, we reviewed 10% (7 samples) of the 71 overrides. We found that for all the samples, the audit
trail contained generic reasoning—“Void transactions from the current batch.” There was no further
elaboration, even though the system allows a freestyle form to document justifications.
External Department Deposits
Supporting documentation is not retained to validate the accuracy of the recording of daily transaction
activity for other City departments. Throughout the day, cashiers receive documentation from other city
departments to process batch payments in iNovah on their behalf. This includes Parks & Recreation,
Airport, Library, Civic Center, Court, and Police Department. Depending on the department, cashiers may
receive a Treasurer Receipt with payment information to record into iNovah while the cash and checks
have already been deposited at the bank. In other cases, the cashier receives a Treasurer Receipt and a
bag of checks for processing in iNovah and to be deposited to the bank.
Upon entry into iNovah, the cashier is to return a copy of the Treasurer Receipt or supporting
documentation to the originating department. However, each department is responsible for its own
verification for accuracy. We attempted to review a sample of Treasurer Receipts to verify that the
transactional activity was processed accurately and timely in iNovah. Upon request, the cashiering team
could not provide copies of the Treasurer Receipts since they are not retained, and the original is returned
to the external department.
Cashiering Recommendations
To remediate the findings identified and improve the cashiering function, we recommend the following:
Check Processing Efficiency: Division management should implement a Check 21 processing
method that will allow for a quicker, more efficient way to deposit checks and archive the check
image. The City’s financial institution would archive the check image and make it available upon
request if research must be conducted.
Additionally, a log should be implemented so that the details of every check are captured upon
receipt. By recording all check details, a check log helps ensure financial accountability and can
assist in tracking the timeliness of payment recording.
Cash Policy Update: Division management should update the cash handling policy so that the
corrective action guidelines are clearer regarding the escalation steps for variance thresholds and
not just the number of discrepancy incidents. In addition, the supervisors should maintain clearer
documentation to track and monitor incidents for each cashier appropriately. Management should
also conduct a quarterly review of overages and shortages to ensure that variances over $50 are
communicated to the City Auditor and Finance Director.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
33
Refresher Training: Division management should conduct annual refresher training for all
individuals involved in the daily cashiering reconciliation process to reiterate the expectations for
completing the reconciliation and the documentation to support it. This includes retaining
external department documentation, such as Treasurer Receipts, used to record their daily
transactional activity into iNovah.
Void Documentation: Division management authorized to override transactions in iNovah should
leverage the system’s ability to capture free-form text to detail why a transaction was voided
sufficiently.
System Access
Physical and system access is not periodically reviewed to ensure that it is appropriate for the user’s role
and responsibilities. A periodic system access review evaluates and verifies that users within systems only
have access to the information and functions necessary for their job role and that access for all terminated
employees has been removed. The Division Manager performs a quarterly review of physical access to the
vault door to ensure that only necessary staff have access.
We performed an access review of the vault door and the Division's systems to determine whether users
have authorized and appropriate access. Our testing identified the following:
System Was access
appropriate? Observations
Vault Door No • 2 CSRs and 2 CSR Billers not involved in the day-to-day cashiering
process have badge access to the vault door.
• The vault code was last changed in August 2023.
ShoreTel No • One terminated employee still had access to an Agent and
Supervisor Administrator role and permissions.
• The Management Analyst and Management Assistant have a
Supervisor Administrator role. Permissions include being able to
modify all system entities. The Entity Monitor role is more
appropriate for access only to reports.
NorthStar No • Access for recently separated Division employees had been
terminated.
• We reviewed the access of 28 Division users and found that two
employees with the same title, ‘CSR Senior,’ did not have the same
access – one had ‘CUST SVC CSR,’ and the other had ‘CUST SVC CSR
SENIOR.’
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
34
iNovah No • We reviewed the access of 52 users and found that :
- 11 users not involved in the cashiering process had full
cashiering abilities.
- 3 managers not involved in the day-to-day cashiering process
had cashiering & override permissions.
Glendale One No • Access for recently separated Division employees had been
terminated.
• We reviewed the access of 28 Division users and found that
access granted was inconsistent among employee positions for 13
users. For example, two CSR Billers were assigned different group
access.
System Access Recommendations
Division management should perform an annual user access review of systems utilized by the Division to
ensure proper access and that user roles align with position responsibilities. Any discrepancies should be
communicated to the IT department so user access can be updated accordingly and timely.
City of Glendale – Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering
35
Appendix A
Esmeralda Saldana, Business Operations Administrator
Paul Lopez, Customer Service Manager
Maribel Camacho, Customer Service Supervisor
Christina Barron-Cruz, Customer Service Supervisor
Rod Card, Customer Service Supervisor
Robert Birr, Revenue Recovery Supervisor
Richard Urias, Management Analyst
Angela Lara, Management Assistant
Kelsey Lehner, Customer Service Representative Lead
Regina Veatch, Customer Service Representative
Angela Hickman, Customer Service Representative
Josephine Lehner, Customer Service Representative Senior – Billing
Guadalupe Chavez, Customer Service Representative Senior – Billing
Tabitha Ellison, Customer Service Representative Senior – Billing
Stacy Sandoval, Customer Service Representative Senior – Billing
Tammy Joiner, Collections Representative Senior
Elizabeth Smith, Finance Accountant Senior
Michael Johnson, Finance Accountant
Frits Soumokil, Supervisor, Customer Service Field, Water Services
Mark Fortkamp, Water Services Operations Superintendent
Ronald Gouger, Lead Water Services Representative
Kirk Ressler, Lead Water Services
36
Appendix B – Budget and Finance Department
Customer Service Division Management Responses
03/10/2025
RE: Management’s Corrective Action Plan for Customer Service, Billing, and Cashiering Internal Audit
Recommendation(s)
# Description Audit
Report
Page
Accept/
Decline
Responsible Person’s Name/Title Completion
Date
A Develop and document
policies over the critical
Customer Service, Billing, and
Collections functions to
provide guidelines that ensure
consistency, compliance, and
effective decision-making.
Once the policies have been
established, implement an
annual review process to
ensure that policies and
procedures are current and
reflect updates to operations
and local and state
regulations.
10-11 Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
08/31/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will request that the Customer Service Manager and supervisors
compile existing policies and desk procedures to review to ensure that they are updated and relevant to operational
activities. Appropriate policies will be established and created as needed. In addition, a schedule will be established
detailing the standard timeframes to review/update these policies and procedures throughout the year.
B Collaborate with the IT
department to further
evaluate and implement the
various technological
opportunities such as
automated performance
reporting, elimination of
inefficient manual processes,
limitations to selecting calls
handled and extending wrap
time, and options to
implement customer service
performance feedback.
Throughout
report
Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
Plan completed
by 06/30/2025;
Bi-weekly
meetings
initiated on
07/01/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will establish a standing bi-monthly meeting with IT staff to
evaluate, develop, and implement technological improvements to operational processes related to reporting,
processes, and customer service performance to be held throughout the year, to include the tracking of results in a
spreadsheet report.
37
C Consider adopting a credit
card fee policy in which the
customer incurs the entire
card transaction fee imposed
by the vendor or shares the
cost with the City. Consider
encouraging Customers to
utilize a free ACH option to
minimize credit card usage
costs. Review the current card
processing service provider
contracts to negotiate the
lowest possible fee to
minimize the financial impact
on the City and/or citizens.
13-14 Accept Levi D. Gibson, Budget and
Finance Director and Esmeralda
P. Saldana, Business Operations
Administrator
10/31/2025
Action Plan: The Budget and Finance Team will evaluate the feasibility of adopting a convenience fee model to limit
credit card transaction fees imposed upon the city. The research will encompass all areas where credit cards are
accepted by the city along with comparisons to other valley cities. Additionally, customer service will continue to
encourage our customers to take advantage of the free ACH option for bill payments.
D Execute an annual user access
review of systems utilized by
Division management and
staff to ensure proper access
and that user roles align with
position responsibilities. Any
discrepancies should be
communicated to the IT
department so user access
can be updated accordingly
and timely.
33-34 Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
06/30/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will develop a business process and corresponding procedures in
collaboration with the Customer Service Manager, supervisors, and IT staff to be implemented by 06/30/2025.
E Reevaluate current metrics to
better align with best
practices and the Division’s
call center operations.
Relevant, measurable, and
specific metrics should be
established for the Division’s
billing and collections
operations. Each metric
should indicate which specific
staff must adhere to them.
16-17 Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
09/30/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will collaborate with the Customer Service Manager and
supervisors to re-evaluate the current metrics against best practices and implement revised improvements that better
align with operations and specific employee responsibilities. Those that best fit with division objectives will be
implemented.
38
F Review the City’s Linking
Agreement with AllKiosk, LLC
to assess whether the vendor
is meeting the key terms and
objectives outlined and
requested by the City.
11-12 Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
05/30/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will collaborate with the Customer Service Manager to review the
City’s Linking Agreement with AllKiosk, LLC to assess the contractual terms related to performance and City
objectives.
G Implement a standardized
training program for new staff
and ongoing training for
existing staff to ensure that
policies and procedures are
consistently applied. Each
individual should
acknowledge training, and
attendance should be
recorded by management.
15 Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
09/30/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will collaborate with the Customer Service Manager and
supervisors to develop a standardized onboarding training program for new staff and an ongoing training plan for
existing staff to ensure that policies and procedures are consistently applied.
H Implement structured
management reviews over
processes that are initiated
and completed by a single
individual to identify potential
errors or irregularities and
allow for corrective action to
be taken if necessary.
Throughout
report
Accept Esmeralda P. Saldana, Business
Operations Administrator
09/30/2025
Action Plan: The Business Operations Administrator will collaborate with the Customer Service Manager to develop a
structured plan pertaining to management review of processes and/or procedures to ensure that they are
consistently applied throughout the division and to allow for the application of corrective action.