HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Code Compliance Department - Clean and Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis - 5/22/2025
City of Glendale
Code Compliance Department - Clean and Lien Program
Cost of Service Analysis
Final Report
Submitted By:
BerryDunn
2211 Congress Street
Portland, ME 04102-1955
207.541.2200
Kevin Price, Principal
kprice@berrydunn.com
Jesse Myott, Project Manager
jmyott@berrydunn.com
Submitted On:
May 22, 2025
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
i
Table of Contents
Section Page
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... i
1.0 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Abbreviations and Terms ................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Key Outcomes and Discoveries ......................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Key Outcomes .............................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Program Services Key CoS Discoveries ....................................................................... 3
1.4 Summary of Recommended Actions .................................................................................. 3
1.5 Commendations ................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Approach and Work Performed ......................................................................................... 6
2.1 Work Performed ................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 CoS Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Department Overview ........................................................................................................ 8
3.2 Program CoS Analysis ....................................................................................................... 9
3.3 Program Service Delivery Framework Analysis .................................................................11
3.3.1 Procurement of Abatement Services Analysis .............................................................12
3.4 Summary of Program CoS Analysis ..................................................................................13
4.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................15
4.1 Recommendations Based on Findings ..............................................................................15
Appendix A: CoS Model..........................................................................................................17
Appendix B: Peer Comparisons .............................................................................................18
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
1
1.0 Executive Summary
This section provides a high-level background of the project. Based on the analysis and
findings, the executive summary outlines suggested actions, strategies, or solutions to
address issues identified, as well as key terms and their definitions.
1.1 Abbreviations and Terms
Table 1.1: Project Abbreviations, Terms, and Definitions
Abbreviation/Term Definition
BerryDunn Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC
City City of Glendale
CoS Cost of Service
CPA Certified Public Accountant
Department Code Compliance Department
FY Fiscal Year
LoS Level of Service
MS Microsoft
Program Clean and Lien Program
SME Subject Matter Expert
State State of Arizona
1.2 Project Background 1
The City of Glendale (City) retained Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to prepare
a Code Compliance Department (Department) Cost of Service (CoS) Analysis. The focus of the
project is reviewing all revenue generated from the Clean and Lien Program (Program) fees and
charges environment, and the identified expenses associated with providing all Program
services. The project included a review of Program service delivery for fiscal year (FY) 2023 and
FY 2024 and projections for FY 2025 – FY 2029. The review of services included an
examination of revenue and expense projections and the Program service delivery framework.
Based on the expense assumptions and expected service offerings, BerryDunn prepared
expense projections and estimated annual Program revenue through FY 2029. These reviews
and analyses will allow the Department to make informed policy decisions at the aggregate
level, as well as on each Program service regarding fee levels and revenue generation in the
future.
The service review examined revenue and expense projections and expected service delivery
1 Attest services are provided by BDMP Assurance LLP, a licensed Certified Public Accountant (CPA) firm.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
2
offerings at estimated and/or historical levels (level of service [LoS]). The results offer a full cost
determination for Program services. Establishing a full cost baseline enables the development
of more detailed expenditure forecasts, which can serve as a foundation for assessing the level
of fees necessary to meet revenue requirements, sustain current levels of service, and fund
goals, initiatives, and enhanced service delivery in the future. The final project report includes
recommendations based on objective analytical findings, institutional knowledge, and
considerations related to best practices in policy, process, LoS, and funding. The analysis also
identifies possible barriers and challenges to implementing recommendations and
considerations, where applicable.
1.3 Key Outcomes and Discoveries
Until now, the Department had not undertaken a formal CoS analysis prepared by a third party
in recent years. Nonetheless, the Department reviews Program fees and charges annually,
making strategic adjustments where needed. Despite these efforts, the Department has become
increasingly aware that the cost of providing fee-applicable Program services might be
outpacing the revenue generated by providing those services in certain core service categories.
For these reasons, the Department is interested in understanding the full cost of providing
services and considering recommendations that might better align fee levels and service
delivery practices to reflect current and future costs as well as community demand for services.
The report outlines key insights regarding cost recovery levels across applicable Program core
service areas. These levels are based on the operational, personnel, supply, and professional
services costs, as well as the administrative support and indirect expense incurred to support
service delivery. The analysis also considers past performance metrics and historical cost
recovery levels, as well as the Department's service delivery framework and future, strategic
goals, and initiatives.
1.3.1 Key Outcomes
• Projections for Future Expenses: The analysis provides detailed projections of future
expenses for FY 2025 through FY 2029, which will assist in forward planning for the
Department’s budget.
• Projections for Program Service Fee Levels: BerryDunn's analysis led to the
development of estimates for costs incurred on a single Program case. These specific
estimates might help ensure that fees will cover the increasing costs of service delivery
over the next few years.
• Data-Driven Policy Decisions: This report provides Department leadership with data
that will inform their decision-making on adjusting fees, helping to ensure that any future
changes are based on the actual CoS delivery.
• Organizational Structure and Service Review: BerryDunn also examined the
Program’s organizational structure and how services are provided. This review helped it
identify any service delivery practices that might be operating outside of current State
statues or local adopted code. Additionally, BerryDunn also compared the Program’s
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
3
service delivery structure to comparable peers offering similar services to identify any
outliers in service delivery practices.
1.3.2 Program Services Key CoS Discoveries 2
BerryDunn evaluated the revenue generated from the existing Program fees and charges
structure and expenses incurred to provide services in FY 2023 and FY 2024 and developed
projections for FY 2025 – FY 2029.
• FY 2023: The Program’s full cost to provide services amounted to $26,410, while the
revenue generated by way of fees and charges was $31,845. This resulted in a cost
recovery of 120.6%, meaning the Program recovered slightly more than its cost to
provide services.
• FY 2024: Total expenses decreased to $21,674, while the revenue generated was
$26,191. The Program recovered 120.8% of its service costs.
• FY 2025 (estimated): Expenses for service delivery are expected to rise slightly to
$22,671, with revenue projected at $24,817. The cost recovery level is estimated to be
109.5%, a 11.3% decrease from the previous FY.
Additionally, revenue and expense forecasts were developed for FY 2026 – FY 2029 to reflect
projected cost increases expected as well as estimated levels of revenue generation to be
realized. These forecasts reflect the Program’s current revenue and expense environment and
historical and projected levels of service, while incorporating known assumptions for future FYs.
• By the close of FY 2029, the projected Program cost recovery level is expected to
decrease below 100.0%. This decrease is mainly attributed to:
• Increased non-personnel expenditures likely due to rising costs of professional
services, supplies, equipment, etc.
• Projected increase in LoS and service volume, possibly due to factors like
increased caseloads, inspections, and increased professional services vendors’
oversight.
1.4 Summary of Recommended Actions
To maintain or increase the LoS service, the Department might need to:
• Adjust Fees: Raise or modify fees for Program services to increase revenue to cover
increasing operational and service delivery costs.
• Adopt Fees: Adopt new fees and charges for applicable services.
• Prioritize Cost Management: Explore ways to reduce non-personnel expenditures and
make more efficient use of resources to help prevent overreliance on fee increases.
2 Total expenses incurred reflect abatement costs and State filing fee costs only and do not include estimated
personnel and applicable, additional non-personnel costs. See section 3.0 for detail and impact related to total cost
allocation, inclusive of personnel and applicable non-personnel costs incurred to provide services, per case
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
4
• Monitor Revenue Streams: Department staff should also take care to monitor local
indicators related to Program services demand and trends; this will help assure that
services continue at current levels, and increased service levels can be achieved to
accommodate increased service demand and the Program’s growth trajectory.
The increase in projected expenditures through FY 2029 indicates that the Program may be
facing growing challenges with funding its services through fees and charges alone. By aligning
fees and charges with the actual CoS and considering strategic adjustments, the Program can
work toward meeting its revenue requirements and helping to ensure financial sustainability and
service continuity in the future.
If leadership aims to leverage the developed cost forecast framework to establish clear revenue
guidance for fee increases related to Program services, additional revenue generation might be
realized. The alignment of cost expectations with the Program’s service delivery framework will
reflect both fiscal realities and the Department’s continued mission to serve the community
effectively.
By continuing this approach, staff will have a structured method for setting appropriate fee
levels, identifying additional revenue sources or other support as needed, and allocating
resources efficiently. Linking LoS with financial forecasting will also enable staff to calculate and
set fees that will support operational goals and strategic objectives. While cost assumptions are
not absolute in all situations, they are intended to guide fee level decisions and stimulate
important conversations about service delivery and cost. The framework serves as a tool for
making thoughtful fee adjustments to achieve an appropriate and sustainable funding model.
Though future code compliance service demands and trends throughout the City and region
cannot be predicted with certainty, the proposed fiscal scenarios are projected to allow for
enough revenue to be generated each FY based on known core expense assumptions and
current and future LoS to meet desired revenue requirements. Should demand for services
decrease or LoS provided change, additional fee and charges adjustments may be needed to
meet revenue requirements. Individual fee levels may need to be adjusted based on factors
such as the specific service type, demand, policy, strategic alignment, and the resources
required (personnel and non-personnel) in any given FY.
BerryDunn recommends that the Department prepare a periodic fundamental CoS analysis and
perform a third-party cost recovery and fee study, especially if there are significant changes in
service demand, organizational structure, key business processes, or budgetary considerations.
1.5 Commendations
The core scope of the CoS analysis performed primarily encompassed efforts to identify and
estimate revenue and expense associated with Program service delivery. Nonetheless,
BerryDunn did encounter and identify several practices and processes that the Department is
utilizing, which may be increasing Program service delivery efficiency and effectiveness; these
are outlined below.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
5
• Data Governance Efforts: the Department has demonstrated effective practices related
to financial a programmatic data recall and stewardship.
• Streamlined Workflows and Service Delivery: the Department’s proactive approach to
compliance has helped ensure the Program is operating within State and local
governance frameworks related to code compliance inspection and abatement
processes.
• Interdepartmental Collaboration: Department and City staff demonstrated a spirit of
collaboration and teamwork. Open communication, sharing of ideas, and expertise were
evident throughout the project and most likely continue to help ensure cross- functional
and interdepartmental success.
These general efforts and practices continue to help the Department operate and deliver
Program services based on data-driven decision-making and exemplify best practices in code
compliance service delivery.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
6
2.0 Approach and Work Performed
This section outlines how BerryDunn approached the project, summarizes major tasks
performed within each project phase, provides an overview of how the cost model was
developed, and offers a high-level synopsis of project deliverables.
2.1 Work Performed
BerryDunn’s approach to completing this study involved five phases:
• Phase 0 – Project Initial Planning and Management
• Phase 1 – CoS Analysis and Service Delivery Structure Review
• Phase 2 – Findings, Recommendations, and Peer Comparisons
• Phase 3 – Draft Report Findings and Recommendations
• Phase 4 – Final Report Findings and Recommendations
Central to the approach was the use of BerryDunn’s Microsoft (MS) Excel-based CoS model to
calculate the Program’s cost of providing services. These costs were identified in the Program’s
general fund operating budget and applicable operating budget development documents.
Applicable portions of administrative and capital costs were excluded from total cost calculation
and cost recovery calculations. Furthermore, BerryDunn used the cost model to perform
forecasting scenarios to assess the fiscal impact of Program services between FY 2025 – FY
2029, based on known assumptions and historical performance.
BerryDunn reviewed the Program’s current revenue and expense environment and guided staff
through discussions to consider adjustments in core service areas that might better reflect the
cost of services the Program commonly provides. These included discussions related to the
current fees environment and projected fees and charges environment related to revenue
generation and elevated levels of service in the future.
BerryDunn worked with City and Department staff to develop specific revenue and expense
forecasts related to the current fees and charges environment and what could reasonably be
expected from its future fees and charges environment, for which cost recovery ranges were
calculated and their subsequent fiscal impact projected. BerryDunn reviewed all services
provided through the Program, as well as services it is expected to provide in the future, which
were analyzed on a core service category basis by which known costs were assigned
accordingly. Other charges, such as penalties, fines, and State of Arizona (State)-mandated
fees, were excluded from the analysis.
BerryDunn employed an activity-based costing methodology that analyzes the major
components required to provide services (e.g., case administration and review,
contractor/vendor oversight, vehicles, inspections) and the personnel and non-personnel and
expense incurred to deliver services. This methodology relied on financial and program data
City subject matter experts (SMEs) provided, which was then validated through checkpoints
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
7
built into the CoS model developed.
Finally, where detailed and/or accurate data was nonexistent, BerryDunn used institutional
knowledge from City SMEs to develop cost assignment assumptions, and used proportional
assignment of expenses based on weighted averages and other standard analytical techniques.
BerryDunn prepared a CoS model reflecting the Program’s current and future fees and charges
environment for this project, based on the Department’s FY 2023 and FY 2024 (actual) and FY
2025 (budget/projected) revenue and expense, and future revenue and expense projections
related to service delivery, key staff input and institutional knowledge, Program financial
document reviews, and the data discussed and reviewed during project status meetings.
BerryDunn reviewed the study findings with the project team on multiple occasions, identifying
any needed revisions and allowing the City to give feedback and request additions and
deletions before approving final deliverables.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
8
3.0 CoS Analysis
This section provides a general overview of BerryDunn’s major technical findings, and
BerryDunn’s projections based on those findings.
3.1 Department Overview
The Department’s mission is to maintain established community standards that preserve and
promote the health, safety, and living environment of the community and its neighborhoods.
The Department’s primary responsibility is to help ensure compliance with applicable City
codes and ordinances related to vacant land and/or existing structures.
Some of the primary objectives of the Department’s efforts are enforcing codes, regulations,
and ordinances related to:
- Fire safety
- General nuisances
- Health and safety issues/concerns
- Unkempt property/property maintenance
- Rental property and zoning compliance
To meet these objectives, the Department works in partnership with various City
departments, residents, property owners, and commercial partners. Most notably, the
Department operates a "clean and lien" program (Program) to address substandard housing
conditions and ensure property maintenance standards are met. The Program involves a
combination of issuing notices for violations, offering assistance to homeowners,
coordinating abatement needs, and, in some cases, placing a lien on the property if
violations are not addressed.3
3 City of Glendale. n.d. “Code Compliance,” City of Glendale Code Compliance Services. Accessed: April 2025,
https://www.glendaleaz.com/live/city_services/property_maintenance_codes
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
9
3.2 Program CoS Analysis
BerryDunn identified the following service delivery metrics for FY 2024 at the Department level,
which can be used to assess potential Program expense impacts and fees and charges
adjustments in the future, if desired. The table below highlights the criteria and information
BerryDunn identified and utilized to estimate the full cost per case incurred.
Table 3.1: FY 2024 LoS and Cost Metrics per Case
Num. Service Metric
1 Average Inspector Loaded Hourly Rate $41.92
2 Average Vehicle Cost per Inspection Hour $2.58
3 Average Professional Services Expense per C&L Case $373.69
4 State Filing Fee per Case $14.00
5 Average Inspection Hours per C&L Case 2.6 Hours
BerryDunn evaluated the revenue generated from Program’s current fee structure for FY
2023 and FY 2024 and developed projections for FY 2025 – FY 2029 to reflect the projected
service level environment. These forecasts reflect the Department’s current revenue
structure and expense environment and historical and projected levels of service, while
incorporating known assumptions. Figure 3.1 outlines the Program’s current fee structure.
Figure 3.1: Current Fee Structure per Case
Utilizing the current fee structure and estimated FY 2024 average professional services
expense (vendor abatement expense) identified, BerryDunn estimated the average total
revenue generated per case.
Figure 3.2: FY 2024 Average Revenue Generated per Case
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
10
Utilizing the estimated FY 2024 LoS metrics, personnel and non-personnel expense, and
professional services expense (vendor abatement expense), outlined in Table 3.1 above,
BerryDunn estimated the total cost incurred per case.
Figure 3.3: FY 2024 Average Cost Incurred per Case
Figure 3.4: FY 2024 Average Cost Incurred per Case (from Table 3.1 above)
See Corresponding Number in Table for Calculation
In order to arrive at accurate and realistic fee level and revenue growth targets for the Program,
BerryDunn developed the forecast scenarios below for Program service delivery based on the
objective analysis performed and known assumptions. These scenarios provide an additional
framework to be considered when assessing how resources should be allocated, along with
other budgetary development efforts.
Table 3.2: Per Case Cost Recovery Summary FY 2026 – FY 2029
FY Fee Revenue Expense Net Cost Recovery
2025* $425.06 $503.40 ($78.34) 84.4%
2026* $429.29 $533.60 ($83.88) 84.3%
2027* $442.17 $570.96 ($90.73) 84.1%
2028* $455.43 $616.63 ($99.11) 83.9%
2029* $469.10 $665.96 ($108.16) 83.8%
*estimated
While overall expenditure increases are evident, they are not indicative of poor financial
management. The Program has experienced increased expenditures for services related to
non-personnel segments over the past few fiscal years—a trend likely to continue. This is the
main factor that should be considered when assessing the current expenditure levels and
estimated future expenditure levels.
The projected decrease in cost recovery rates suggests that the Program is facing increasing
challenges in funding its services through fees alone, should no adjustments be made. By
aligning fees with the true cost of service delivery and considering strategic adjustments, the
Program can work toward achieving cost recovery targets, helping to ensure long-term financial
sustainability.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
11
For these reasons, BerryDunn recommends that the Department consider adjusting fees, where
appropriate. By doing so, fees and charges for services will generate the revenue needed to
offset increased expenditures, helping to fund service delivery into the future. This is not
necessarily a negative outcome. Rather, this allows the Department to make policy decisions
regarding increased revenue generation by way of adjusting fees and charges for core Program
service segments in the future, if desired.
3.3 Program Service Delivery Framework Analysis
BerryDunn reviewed the Program’s current service delivery structure to help assess whether
services are being delivered in compliance with applicable State and local statutes and codes or
if discrepancies are evident. In general, the Program must operate and deliver services within
the adopted statutes and codes outlined below.
In Arizona, municipalities derive their zoning power from the State through the (A.R.S. 9-462),
allowing them to adopt ordinances and resolutions, including those related to code enforcement
for the Zoning Enabling Act enforcement, which can declare certain actions criminal or civil
offenses.
State-Granted Power:
Municipalities in Arizona have the authority to zone and regulate land use, derived from the
State's Zoning Enabling Act (A.R.S. 9-462).
Local Laws:
This zoning power allows municipalities to adopt ordinances and resolutions, which are local
laws that govern how the city or town operates.
Code Compliance and Enforcement:
These local laws can also declare certain actions as criminal or civil offenses, enabling code
enforcement.
BerryDunn reviewed the Program’s current service delivery framework and process related to
those processes that peer communities utilize to deliver similar code compliance and abatement
services. In general, it does not appear that the Program is operating with any material
differences when compared to the peer communities of:
- City of Chandler, AZ
- City of Mesa, AZ
- City of Tucson, AZ
- City of Phoenix, AZ
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
12
See Appendix B for detailed diagrams of code compliance processes and service delivery
frameworks.
Peer comparisons can provide useful insights into how the Program’s service delivery structure
compares with similar organizations providing similar services. Although the Program’s
operations are unique in many ways, the selection of peers for comparison attempts to reflect
these unique elements as closely as possible.
To that end, general peer-to-peer comparisons should not be the sole criteria considered when
assessing the appropriateness of service delivery practices, because there are too many
unknowns to make confident, absolute comparisons. Nonetheless, a simple peer-to-peer
comparison can provide useful insight, but should only be used to consider the “municipal
service delivery framework” for similar services and associated fees, and to assess the
“reasonableness” of the Program’s service delivery practices when compared to the peers
selected.
Information was derived from publicly facing documents and financial reports and are intended
to be a reference, not a true analysis of resources and service delivery practices. (Greater levels
of detail relating to individual service delivery comparisons can be found in Appendix B.)
3.3.1 Procurement of Abatement Services Analysis
In addition to the CoS and service delivery framework analysis performed, BerryDunn also
reviewed procurement policies and procedures related to the advertising, bidding, and awarding
of service contracts related to Program abatement needs. In doing so, BerryDunn identified
challenges related to current procurement policies and practices that may be limiting the
available pool of bidders willing/able to bid on abatement services, when needed. Additionally,
BerryDunn also identified potential opportunities to increase the available pool of bidders related
to Program service needs.
Municipal procurement processes can be particularly cumbersome for small businesses, often
creating unintentional barriers that limit their ability to compete for contracts/service awards.
Request for proposal (RFP) requirements can be daunting for small businesses that lack the
resources and know-how to accurately complete RFP packages in a timely manner. Common
RFP requirements such as the request for extensive documentation related to financial aspects
of the company, required completion of detailed bid sheets, proof of previous experience,
evidence of insurance coverage, and professional references can overwhelm smaller
businesses, which may lack the resources of larger businesses. Finally, as noted above in
Table 3.1, the average cost of an abatement service is $373.69. This lower dollar value is most
likely not very attractive to larger businesses with the resources to bid. These two core
elements—small businesses unable to bid and large businesses not willing to bid—are probably
core contributing factors creating a limited pool of bidders for Program services.
Some of these cumbersome processes and procedures were evident in the City’s current
procurement framework, when examined (BerryDunn is not offering the opinion that the
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
13
processes and procedures identified are not necessary or valid). To that end, BerryDunn
compiled the following recommendations, outlining practices that may warrant further
exploration in the future, should the City wish to increase the pool of available bidders for
Program services.
The following list is not necessarily in order of priority to consider.
• Waive select procurement/RFP requirements based on the job/service value.
• Streamline the internal review processes (e.g., expedited City attorney reviews) based
on job/service value.
• Create a pre-qualification list, whereby previously vetted companies are notified when
services are needed and able to directly submit a quote to the City.
• Allow special preferences/exemptions for certain business statuses (e.g., veteran-owned
business, minority-owned business, etc.)
• Provide training(s) throughout the year to the community to educate interested parties on
how to properly do business with the City.
• Expand the distribution of bid advertisements (marketing) to reach a greater number of
potential bidders.
3.4 Summary of Program CoS Analysis
CoS is an identification and calculation of what is required financially to produce or operate a
service. Cost recovery is a complex calculation, often inclusive of subjective elements; thus,
ranges are usually established based on perceived benefit received by the resident/customer in
addition to helping ensure fiscal requirements are met. Cost recovery philosophy represents a
decision to generate revenues by charging fees or other types of charges for programs and
services, relative to the total operational costs to provide them. Cost recovery does not imply
that the target is total recovery of the cost; however, a cost recovery range is established
according to a variety of considerations and may range from 0% to more than 100% of identified
costs. As cost recovery is defined differently in nearly every organization, this analysis outlines
approaches to revenue generation and cost recovery target setting specific to the Department’s
organizational goals and mission to deliver services to the community through the Program.
A sufficient level of revenue generation is critical to help ensure business and service delivery
continuity. However, service offerings and service levels fluctuate, and costs associated with
service delivery rise and fall continuously; therefore, fee levels may need to be periodically
adjusted not only to reflect philosophy but also to meet cost recovery targets and revenue
requirements.
To that end, several factors need to be considered when assessing projected fee levels and
projecting future expense targets:
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
14
1. Increased Expenditures: The Department has seen rising costs over the past two fiscal
years across both personnel and non-personnel categories. This trend is expected to
continue, which could place additional strain on Program cost recovery efforts in future
fiscal years.
2. Revenue Growth Challenge: Because of projected rising costs, revenue growth across
all core services will need to keep pace. Through the Program’s current fee structure,
additional revenue will need to be generated by increasing fees in a future FY, as
additional funding sources are not yet identified.
3. Specific Accounting Practices: Each organization may track and post revenue, as well
as account for service costs differently and to varying levels of detail. This variance can
impact how service costs are tracked, managed, and calculated.
4. Revenue Cyclicality and Macroeconomic Impact: Revenue generation levels can be
cyclical, fluctuating annually and influenced by broader macroeconomic conditions and
collectability. This makes forecasting revenue growth difficult in some instances, as
external factors can lead to significant variability.
This insight may help the Department to make informed decisions to improve the Program’s
financial sustainability and continue to deliver services in the future.
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
15
4.0 Recommendations
This section outlines BerryDunn’s findings and recommendations based on its CoS
analysis, current services environment analysis, and meetings with staff and stakeholders
to discuss Program, Department, and citywide priorities.
4.1 Recommendations Based on Findings
BerryDunn recommends that the Department consider the findings outlined in Section 3.0 above
and review the recommendations outlined below (Listed order does not reflect a priority of
consideration or suggested action).
Cost of Service – Medium:
• BerryDunn recommends that the Department continue to review and update Program
fees and charges periodically, as needed. This may help increase revenue generation
and meet cost recovery targets. Fee reviews should also be performed in conjunction
with the Department’s ongoing service delivery efficiency and cost reduction review
efforts, where applicable. In the near term, BerryDunn recommends that the City raise
the administrative fee assessed as outlined in the table below to offset projected
expenditure increases expected to be incurred over the next few FYs.
Table 4.1: Administrative Fee Increase Guidance FY 2026 – FY 2029
Fiscal Year
Current Cost
Recovery
Proposed Fee
Amount
Estimated
Revenue Gain
(per case)
Estimated Cost
Recovery
(per case)
Current 84.4% 10% - 84.4%
FY 2026 84.3% 12% - 15% $11.88 86.5%
FY 2027 84.1% 16% - 18% $29.67 89.3%
FY 2028 83.9% 20% - 22% $50.35 92.1%
FY 2029 83.8% 23% - 25% $69.21 94.2%
*Administrative Fee Amount is Assessed on the Total Cost of Professional Abatement Services Incurred, per case
• BerryDunn recommends setting targeted ranges of cost recovery related to Program
services in the future, especially to support the Program’s growth trajectory. BerryDunn
recommends that the Department continue to explore methodologies to identify and
allocate indirect costs and applicable administrative costs associated with Program
service development and delivery when assessing total cost and setting fee levels.
BerryDunn recommends that, in conjunction with periodic financial reviews, the
Department also monitor and review any applicable State and/or local legislative
changes to help assess the potential need to alter service delivery practices related to
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
16
code compliance and abatement efforts. BerryDunn recommends that the Department
use its financial and program data to the greatest extent possible to allow detailed
tracking and analysis of annual service volumes and expenses incurred. Capturing
this detail and incorporating it into fee-setting practices may allow for a more nuanced
and accurate analysis of cost recovery levels and will allow staff the foundation to
articulate how fee revenue is being utilized to provide services.
Management response:
Program Service Delivery Framework – High
• BerryDunn recommends that the City continue to develop marketing efforts to help
increase the pool of potential third-party bidders available to bid on abatement services
when needed. BerryDunn recommends that the City waive select procurement/RFP
requirements based on the job/service value. BerryDunn recommends that the City
streamline the internal review processes (e.g., expedited City attorney reviews)
based on job/service value. BerryDunn recommends that the City create a pre-
qualification list, whereby previously vetted companies are notified when services are
needed and are then able to directly submit a quote to the City. BerryDunn recommends
that the City allow special preferences/exemptions for certain business statuses
(e.g., veteran-owned business, minority-owned business, etc.). BerryDunn recommends
that the City provides training(s) throughout the year to the community to educate
interested parties on how to properly do business with the City.
Management response:
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
17
Appendix A: CoS Model
The CoS Model developed for Program Services is attached as a Microsoft Excel file.
Jesse Myott
BerryDunn - Manager - LGPG
Boston, MA
415-418-8187
jmyott@berrydunn.com
www.berrydunn.com
Last Updated:
May 22, 2025
City of Glendale
Fiscal Year 2023 - 2029
Clean & Lien Program
Cost of Service Analysis
Final Model
City of Glendale
Clean & Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis
Fiscal Year 2023-2029
C&L - Revenue 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total % Cost Recovery
1.0 Clean & Lien Services 31,845$ 26,191$ 24,817$ 25,057$ 25,809$ 26,583$ 27,380$ 100.0%0.0%
1.1 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
Total Revenue 31,845$ 26,191$ 24,817$ 25,057$ 25,809$ 26,583$ 27,380$ 100.0%0.0%
-5.2%1.0%3.0%3.0%3.0%
C&L - Expenditures 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total
Personnel (P&R - GF)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Non-Personnel (P&R -GF)$26,410 $21,674 $22,671 $24,031 $25,713 $27,771 $29,992 100.0%
Indirect Services (P&R - GF)$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total Expenditures 26,410$ 21,674$ 22,671$ 24,031$ 25,713$ 27,771$ 29,992$ 100.0%
$5,435 $4,517 $2,146 $1,026 $95 -$1,188 -$2,612
% Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery
120.6%120.8%109.5%104.3%100.4%95.7%91.3%
4.6%6.0%7.0%8.0%8.0%
C&L - Admin Revenue 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total % Cost Recovery
2.0 Administration -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
2.1 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
---$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
Total Admin Revenue -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
C&L - Admin Expenditures 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total
Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Non-Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Other $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total Admin Expenditures -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
% Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery
0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%
***Total non-personnel expenses incurred reflect abatement costs and State filing fee costs only and do not include estimated personnel and applicable, additional non-
personnel costs. See tab "LoS_Fee_Metrics" for detail and impact related to total cost allocation, inclusive of personnel and applicable non-personnel costs incurred to provide
services, per case.***
Clean & Lien Admin Cost Recovery Level
Clean & Lien Cost Recovery Level
Complete Core Service Category List CLEAN & LIEN PROGRAMS & SERVICES Fiscal Year 2023-2029
City of Glendale
Clean & Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis
Fiscal Year 2023-2029
RS - Revenue 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total % Cost Recovery
1.0 Clean & Lien Services 31,845$ 26,191$ 24,817$ 25,057$ 25,809$ 26,583$ 27,380$ 100.0%0.0%
1.1 --$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%0.0%
Total Revenue 31,845$ 26,191$ 24,817$ 25,057$ 25,809$ 26,583$ 27,380$ 100.0%0.0%
RS - Expenditures 2023 2024 2025 (est.)2026 (proj.)2027 (proj.)2028 (proj.)2029 (proj.)% of Total
Personnel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Non-Personnel $26,410 $21,674 $22,671 $24,031 $25,713 $27,771 $29,992 100.0%
Indirect Services $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0.0%
Total Expenditures 26,410$ 21,674$ 22,671$ 24,031$ 25,713$ 27,771$ 29,992$ 100.0%
% Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery % Cost Recovery
Cost Recovery Level 120.6%120.8%109.5%104.3%100.4%95.7%91.3%
Complete Core Service Category List CLEAN & LIEN PROGRAMS & SERVICES Fiscal Year 2023-2029
City of Glendale
Clean & Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis
Fiscal Year 2023-2029
0.0%0.0%3.0%6.0%3.0%7.0%3.0%8.0%3.0%8.0%
Category Description General
Fund Other Fund 2023 Revenue 2023 Expense 2024 Revenue 2024 Expense 2025 Revenue
(estimated)
2025 Expense
(estimated)2026 Revenue 2026 Expense 2027 Revenue 2027 Expense 2028 Revenue 2028 Expense 2029 Revenue 2029 Expense Total Revenue Total Expense
Clean & Lien Services
M.R.1.0 Lien Filing Fees X -802$ 786$ 490$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 2,078$
M.R.1.0 Code Compliance Service Charge X -31,043$ 25,405$ 24,327$ 25,057$ 25,809$ 26,583$ 27,380$ 185,603$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.R.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 Personnel Services - Salaries & Benefits ---$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 Personnel Services - PT ---$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 Overtime ---$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 Professional & Contractual Expense (Vendors)X -26,410$ 21,674$ 22,671$ 24,031$ 25,713$ 27,771$ 29,992$ 178,262$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
M.E.1.0 ----$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTAL Clean & Lien Services 31,845$ 26,410$ 26,191$ 21,674$ 24,817$ 22,671$ 25,057$ 24,031$ 25,809$ 25,713$ 26,583$ 27,771$ 27,380$ 29,992$ 187,681$ 178,262$
Cost Recovery
31,845$ 26,410$ 26,191$ 21,674$ 24,817$ 22,671$ 25,057$ 24,031$ 25,809$ 25,713$ 26,583$ 27,771$ 27,380$ 29,992$ 187,681$ 178,262$
Total Personnel -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Complete Core Service Category List CLEAN & LIEN PROGRAMS & SERVICES Fiscal Year 2023-2029
120.6%120.8%109.5%104.3%100.4%95.7%91.3%105.3%
City of Glendale
Clean & Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis
Fiscal Year 2023-2029
Additional Overhead Applied -$ -$
Service
Group Division / Service Group Service Type Revenue Expenses Net % Recovered
1 C&L Services - FY 2023 Fee 31,845$ 26,410$ (5,435)$ 120.6%
1 C&L Services - FY 2024 Fee 26,191$ 21,674$ (4,517)$ 120.8%
1 C&L Services - FY 2025 (projected)Fee 24,817$ 22,671$ (2,146)$ 109.5%
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 Fee 25,057$ 24,031$ (1,026)$ 104.3%
1 C&L Services - FY 2027 Fee 25,809$ 25,713$ (95)$ 100.4%
1 C&L Services - FY 2028 Fee 26,583$ 27,771$ 1,188$ 95.7%
1 C&L Services - FY 2029 Fee 27,380$ 29,992$ 2,612$ 91.3%
----$ -$ -$ 0.0%
Service
Group Division / Service Name Expected
Expenses
Current Cost
Recovery %
Target Cost
Recovery %
Current
Revenues
Addtl.
Revenue
Needed
Revenue
Generated
Revenue
Needed
Revenue %
Increase
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 22,671$ 109.5%0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 22,671$ 109.5%0.0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 22,671$ 109.5%0.0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 22,671$ 109.5%0.0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
1 C&L Services - FY 2026 22,671$ 109.5%0.0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
-22,671$ 109.5%0%24,817$ -$ -$ -$ 0.0%
Clean & Lien Program Cost Recovery Worksheet
Non-Fee Revenue
FY2023-2029 Summary by Core Service Area
FY2025 (proj.)Service Area Cost Recovery Analysis
City of Glendale
Clean & Lien Program Cost of Service Analysis
Fiscal Year 2023-2029
Level of Service:
Average Number of Inspections per Clean and Lien Case 2.6
Personnel:
Average Inspector Salary 87,201
Annual Hours Worked 2,080
Average Houry Cost per Inspection (Loaded Rate)41.92$
Non-Personnel:
Average, Estimated Vehicle Cost Per Inspection 2.58$
Professional Services:
Average Professional Services Expense per Case 373.69$
State Filing Fee per Case 14.00$
Total Cost per Case Incurred 503.40$
FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 25 FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29
10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%13.0%17.0%21.0%24.0%
Administrative Fee Assessment 37.37$ 39.61$ 42.38$ 45.77$ 49.44$ 37.37$ 51.49$ 72.05$ 96.13$ 118.65$
Abatement Cost 373.69$ 396.11$ 423.84$ 457.75$ 494.37$ 373.69$ 396.11$ 423.84$ 457.75$ 494.37$
State Filing Fee 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$ 14.00$
Total Revenue per Case 425.06$ 449.72$ 480.22$ 517.52$ 557.80$ 425.06$ 461.61$ 509.89$ 567.87$ 627.01$
Total Expense per Case 503.40$ 533.60$ 570.96$ 616.63$ 665.96$ 503.40$ 533.60$ 570.96$ 616.63$ 665.96$
Net (78.34)$ (83.88)$ (90.73)$ (99.11)$ (108.16)$ (78.34)$ (72.00)$ (61.06)$ (48.76)$ (38.95)$
CR 84.4%84.3%84.1%83.9%83.8%84.4%86.5%89.3%92.1%94.2%
Estimated Revenue Gain, per case -$ 11.88$ 29.67$ 50.35$ 69.21$
Current Fee Level Proposed Fee Level
Clean and Lien Program CoS Analysis – Final Report | May 22, 2025
18
Appendix B: Peer Comparisons
Peer comparison service delivery diagrams are attached as a PDF file.
City of Glendale: Code Compliance Lien ProcessClient Logo
City of Glendale
Business Process:
Project:
Contact property
owner and issue
notice
Request bids from
vendors via email
Receive complaint
from citizen
or inspector
Conduct
reinspection Receive bids
Conduct inspection
Vendors have
seven days to
submit bids
Approve bid
Violation?
Close case N
Y
Complete clean-up
and submit invoice
Conduct final
inspection and sign
off on invoice
Create billing forms Payment
received?
Place lien on
property and enter
information in
spreadsheet
Close case
Y
N Wait for payment
CC
V
Code Compliance
VendorCode Compliance Code Compliance
DG
Deborah GentryCode Compliance Code Compliance Code Compliance Deborah Gentry
Code Compliance Code Compliance
Lowest bid is
approved by
inspector and
supervisor
30-day notices
are usually
mailed to the
owner, statutory
agent, or
mortgage
company
Reinspections are
conducted after
the 30-day notice
Approved bid is
emailed to
vendor by DG
with 10 days to
clean
Vendor has five
days to submit
invoice and
before and after
photos for
payment
Property owner is
billed for the cost
of cleaning + 10%
of cleaning costs.
There is a 30-day
hold for receipt
of payment by
property owner
Recording
number is
entered into
Code
spreadsheet.
Budget and
Finance are also
included in the
case
Recorded lien is
filed on property
folder and will be
released once
paid
City of Chandler: Code Compliance ProcessClient Logo
City of Glendale
Business Process:
Project:
Conduct inspection Violation?
Issue notice of
violation to property
owner
Close case
N
Y
Violations
corrected?
Close case
YReceive complaint
Final notice of
violation is issued
N
Do not comply
File criminal
prosecution case
Notice of violation
is given to the
resident, allowing
time for
corrections
Conduct
reinspection
Make corrections
identified in the
notice of violation
Conduct
reinspection
Violations
corrected?
Close case
Y
Issue civil citationsN
NR
Neighborhood Resources
Neighborhood Resources
R
Resident Neighborhood Resources
Neighborhood Resources Neighborhood Resources
Neighborhood Resources Neighborhood Resources
City of Mesa: Code Compliance ProcessClient Logo
City of Glendale
Business Process:
Project:
Verify complaint Violation?
Issue notice of
violation
Close case
N
Y
Violations
corrected?
Close case
YReceive complaint via
online, by phone,
or in person
Issue civil citationN
Notice of violation
is given to the
responsible party
with compliance
deadline
Make corrections
identified in the
notice of violation
Review case
Includes verifying
location, legal
owner, and
specific code
violation
Conduct inspection
Optional: Property owner
may request a hearing to
contest the citation
Inspection must
be conducted
within 30 days of
receiving a
complaint
Violation
abated?
Pursue further
enforcement actions
Y Close case
N
CC
Code Compliance
R
Code Compliance
Code Compliance
Code Compliance
Resident
Code Compliance
CHO
Civil Hearing Office
Code compliance
officer may
reduce or dismiss
the civil sanction
at the compliance
hearing
Citation will
outline the
violation,
required
abatement
actions, and any
associated fees
Civil hearing
officer may
reduce or dismiss
citation if
evidence is
presented to
support the
property owner’s
position May include liens
on the property
for unpaid fees
and fines or the
City may take
abatement
actions and then
seek
reimbursement
from the property
owner
City of Tucson: Code Compliance ProcessClient Logo
City of Glendale
Business Process:
Project:
Violation?
Issue Opportunity to
Correct (OC) notice
Close case
N
Y
Violations
corrected?
Close case
YReceive complaint via
online or by phone
Pursue futher
enforcement actions
N
Make corrections
identified in the
notice of violation
Conduct inspection
PDS
Planning & Dev. Services
Planning & Dev. Services Resident
R
Planning & Dev. Services
May include legal
action, fines, or
abatement by the
City with the
owner
responsible for
the costs
OC notice is given
to the property
owner outlining
the violation,
violated code
section, and
compliance
deadline
City of Phoenix: Code Compliance ProcessClient Logo
City of Glendale
Business Process:
Project:
Log complaint and
generate case
number
Issue prenotification
letter to property
owner
Violations
corrected?
Close case
YReceive complaint
Pursue further
enforcement actions
N
Conduct
reinspection
Assign case to
inspector
Reinspection
happens at the
expiration of the
notice of violation
Conduct inspection Violation?
Issue notice of
violation
Close case
N
Y
NS
Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Services
Neighborhood Services Neighborhood Services
Neighborhood Services
Civil or criminal
court action may
be pursued and/
or a contractual
abatement may
be completed
If the property is
unoccupied, a
prenotification
letter is not
issued. An
inspection is
conducted
immediately
Inspections must
be conducted
within 10 days