HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - 2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit - 6/10/2026
FINAL REPORT
City of Glendale
2026 FIRE PREVENTION AND COMMUNITY RISK REDUCTION
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
June 10, 2026
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Table of Contents
I. Executive Summary 3
A. Statement of Compliance with Standards 3
B. Conclusions 3
C. Commendations 6
II. Introduction 10
A. Project Overview 10
B. Background 10
C. Objectives 11
D. Scope and Methodology 12
III. Findings and Recommendations 13
A. Fire Prevention Office 13
B. Community Risk Reduction 38
Appendix A: Definitions of Assessment Finding Rankings 46
Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking 47
IV. Appendix C: Sample Program Evaluation Template 49
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure
and are members of the global network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent
legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory
Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are not licensed CPA firms.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 3
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
I. Executive Summary
As part of its annual internal audit program, the City of Glendale (the City) engaged Baker Tilly Advisory
Group, LP (Baker Tilly) to conduct a performance audit to examine the effectiveness of the Fire
Prevention Office (the FPO, Division), specifically the Fire Marshal’s Office (FMO) and Community Risk
Reduction (CRR) division. The objectives of this performance audit are to:
• Evaluate the FPO’s fee structure, including comparability and collection coordination with
Development Services, and with peer cities.
• Assess the usability and effectiveness of current information systems (Hansen and ImageTrend) in
supporting inspections, permitting, and risk reduction activities, including the accuracy of data, system
workarounds, and reporting capabilities.
• Determine whether permitting and inspection processes are efficient and designed to ensure City-
wide coverage, timely inspections, and compliance with established policies for existing businesses,
new construction, and special events.
• Evaluate the CRR division’s operations, including outreach activities, data tracking, program
management, and use of staff, volunteers, and overtime, to determine whether objectives are met
efficiently and consistently.
• Evaluate the changes and process improvements implemented by the FPO and CRR division since
the last audit to determine whether they are achieving the intended outcomes and enhancing
operational efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery.
Baker Tilly performed this engagement between January and May 2026. To complete the engagement,
we conducted interviews, document and data analysis, peer benchmarking, and industry best practice
research. Based on the information gained during these activities, we formulated recommendations to
help support FPO with improvements relevant to the audit objectives.
A. Statement of Compliance with Standards
This engagement was performed in accordance with Standards for Consulting Services established by
the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Accordingly, we provide no opinion,
attestation, or other form of assurance with respect to our work or the information upon which our work is
based. This engagement was also performed consistent with the guidance issued by the Institute of
Internal Auditor’s (IIA’s) Global Internal Audit Standards (GIAS). This report was developed based on
information gained from our interviews and analysis of sample documentation.
B. Conclusions
The following findings assess the FPO’s operational and administrative challenges, including the lack of
updated fees, limitations in CRR program management, deficiencies in technology systems, and gaps in
policies and procedures. These findings highlight risks related to cost recovery, program effectiveness,
operational efficiency, and consistency in service delivery. Recommendations are intended to help the
Division improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations, strengthen program oversight,
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 4
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
enhance the use of technology, and support more consistent policy implementation. Most findings are
ranked as medium- or low-rated findings. Refer to Appendix A for definitions of finding rankings.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Fire Prevention Office
High Risk
1. Finding FPO fees have not been updated since 2003 and can only be modified as part of a
broader Development Services fee update process. As service demands have
expanded over time, current fees likely no longer capture the full level of effort
required, resulting in increased reliance on the General Fund.
Recommendations A. Adopt the comprehensive Citywide fee schedule once finalized by the City to
ensure fees are current, consistently applied, and aligned with the cost of
services provided.
B. Identify opportunities to update FPO fees through a more flexible process so
that fee types and minimum charge hours can be adjusted in response to future
changes in fire code requirements and service demands.
Medium Risk
2. Finding The Division relies on a mix of outdated legacy systems as well as newer systems
that are not fully integrated, limiting operational efficiencies and reducing the
Division’s ability to effectively use data to support operations.
Recommendations A. Replace Hansen as a permitting system.
B. Populate the ImageTrend database and improve integration between
ImageTrend, GIS, and other platforms.
C. As systems and data environments become more stable and reliable, develop
more robust reporting and performance monitoring capabilities to support
operations.
3. Finding Though the Division has redone the policies that were lost to the server failure, staff
report a lack of awareness and limited integration of policies into day-to-day
practices. Additionally, procedures related to the City’s fee waiver policy (noted in the
2019 audit) have not yet been developed.
Recommendations A. Ensure all personnel have access to Lexipol and reinforce policy updates, code
clarifications, and procedural changes through ongoing training and staff
communication.
B. Establish clear ownership of the fee waiver process and develop formal
procedures and documentation requirements for the Fire Department governing
fee waiver approval, tracking, reporting, and records retention to improve
consistency, transparency, and accountability.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 5
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Low Risk
4. Finding Training practices primarily focus on maintaining required certifications and lack a
comprehensive workforce development framework to support long-term professional
growth, succession planning, and career progression.
Recommendations A. Build out ImageTrend to track certifications, CEU requirements, renewal
timelines, training activities, and associated costs to enhance professional
development and budgeting.
B. Once the ImageTrend module is implemented, review the City’s training
program to optimize the balance of more costly, but high-impact training with
additional existing low- or no-cost resources that also support professional
development.
C. Collaborate with peer jurisdictions on joint training opportunities to expand
access to training resources and improve cost efficiency.
5. Finding The Division has made efforts to streamline and optimize the permitting review
process; however, efficiency is limited by technology constraints, inconsistent
communication of code updates, and limited access to fire protection engineering
support for complex reviews.
Recommendations A. Review system notification capabilities for the future Hansen replacement to
provide proactive notification of changes to codes that would impact the
permitting process.
B. Evaluate opportunities to restore some level of dedicated funding for third-party
fire protection engineering support to improve efficiency in complex plan
reviews and reduce review cycles.
6. Finding The Division’s inspection intake, scheduling, and reporting processes rely on multiple
systems, manual coordination, and limited integration between inspection-related
platforms and workflows, contributing to inefficiencies.
Recommendations A. Improve inspection scheduling by centralizing request intake, establishing clear
cut-off times, and strengthening scheduling coordination and support to reduce
reliance on same-day demand and improve overall efficiency.
B. Evaluate partnerships with local educational institutions to develop internship or
practicum programs that can support administrative and data entry functions
within FPO.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 6
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Community Risk Reduction
Medium Risk
7. Finding Current CRR staffing, reliance on firefighter support, and the absence of a volunteer
program present challenges in sustaining consistent outreach delivery and
expanding programming in a strategic manner.
Recommendation The City should strengthen the CRR program by evaluating options for additional
dedicated capacity, improving consistency in firefighter support, and implementing a
small volunteer program to supplement outreach and administrative functions in a
manageable and scalable way.
Low Risk
8. Finding CRR programming is informed by historical incidents and operational data, and the
Division has not yet developed a formal evaluative process to consistently assess
program effectiveness, measure outcomes, or determine whether CRR activities are
reducing identified community risks over time.
Recommendations Establish a program evaluation framework that uses outcome-based metrics to
measure the effectiveness of CRR activities and inform ongoing program
improvements.
Complete a Citywide comprehensive risk assessment and prioritize programs
based on the highest-risk populations, geographic areas, and incident types.
C. Commendations
We would like to extend our gratitude to City staff for their active engagement and participation during this
performance audit and note the areas of strength and existing good practices that can be leveraged for
continued improvement within the Division, including:
• Timely inspection response and commitment to service delivery: FMO staff reported that
inspections are consistently completed without significant backlog, often within the same day of
request. This reflects effective prioritization and a strong operational commitment to meeting City and
customer expectations.
• Significant effort to rebuild and modernize inspection data systems: The Division has
undertaken a substantial effort to rebuild its inspection database following prior system transitions that
resulted in data loss. Staff described a coordinated approach to re-entering business information and
re-establishing inspection baselines across the City, demonstrating a commitment to improving long-
term data quality and system reliability.
• Strong collaboration and knowledge sharing within the Fire Marshal’s Office: Inspectors and
plan reviewers described a highly collaborative working environment, with experienced staff actively
supporting newer team members and sharing knowledge across functional areas. This teamwork
supports consistency in operations and helps manage complex workloads across inspections, special
events, and plan review.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 7
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
• Development of CRR programming and community outreach efforts: CRR has established a
range of programs, including school-based education (FirePals), CPR training, water safety initiatives,
and support for vulnerable populations through programs like lockboxes. These efforts demonstrate a
growing and proactive approach to community risk reduction, even with limited staffing and
resources.
• Integration of operational experience into prevention and outreach activities: Staff leverage
field experience and operational knowledge to inform inspections and community engagement efforts.
This strengthens communication with the public and supports practical, experience-based delivery of
fire and life safety messaging.
• Demonstrated progress in addressing prior audit findings and strengthening operations: While
the objective of this audit was not to formally validate resolutions of findings identified in the 2019
FPP audit, the Division provided updates regarding actions taken since that review, and several of
those efforts were also observed during the course of the current audit. Although not all reported
actions were independently validated, the Division has taken meaningful steps to improve operations
and address prior gaps. Several areas also remain ongoing and are carried forward in this audit. The
following table summarizes prior audit findings, updates provided by the Division, and additional
context identified during the current audit.
SUMMARY OF 2019
FINDINGS
UPDATE
Testing identified FPO
permit, plan review, and
after-hours inspection fees
that were waived without
written authority or reference
to a valid agreement, or not
charged at all.
Progress Made – Carried Forward. Ordinance-level authority for fee
waivers exists, and staff indicated that waivers are generally handled
through City leadership; however, the current audit found that practices are
still not governed by a clear Division-level process for documentation,
tracking, and consistent application. This issue remains carried forward in
the current audit.
2026 Management Response. The Fire Department will develop an
internal fee waiver policy/guideline to align with the City of Glendale
municipal code Article 1 Sec. 2-3. The intent to align with this language has
already been articulated to department leadership, and the formal internal
document will be completed by October 2026.
FPO fees have not been
updated in over 10 years
and fire plan review fees are
not recovered if a project is
not permitted.
Progress Made – Carried Forward. Leadership reported that a Citywide
fee study is underway, reflecting progress toward reviewing and updating
fees. However, fees have not yet been updated, and the current audit
continues to identify gaps in the fee structure and cost recovery clarity.
This issue remains carried forward.
2026 Management Response. The Fire Department was part of a
citywide fee study that was adopted in April 2019 and effective May 2019.
City of Glendale is working through internal processes to overcome
software hurdles to implement. The newer fees are ready, but we are
holding off on council adoption until the software challenges are overcome.
The timeline is at the discretion of the City's internal processes. We will
continue to be a collaborative partner in solution identification.
Only 53% of City
occupancies that were
charged an annual fire
inspection fee in FY18
Significant Progress Made – Partially Completed. Inspection coverage
and response have become a clear operational priority. Staff reported that
current requests for inspections are met with no backlog. The Division is
actively rebuilding its business inventory as part of its adoption of
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 8
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
SUMMARY OF 2019 FINDINGS UPDATE
received an inspection.
Additionally, 44% of the
required re-inspections were
completed.
ImageTrend, its new inspection database. The Division is systematically
inspecting all businesses to establish the baseline for annual, biennial, and
triennial inspections. It is anticipated that this effort will be completed in
June 2026.
Usage of multiple systems to
track and bill for FPO activity
was noted with multiple
issues in each of the
systems and no interface
among the systems.
Progress Made – Carried Forward. The Division has transitioned from
legacy systems and implemented tools such as ImageTrend and Brycer;
however, the current audit found that multiple systems are still used with
limited integration. Data quality, interoperability, and reporting challenges
persist. The Division is actively working to identify an improved solution.
This issue remains carried forward.
2026 Management Response. ImageTrend is the primary daily use
software for the Prevention Division workload. Brycer is a private 3rd party
compliance software to assist with annual inspections and allows for data
to be integrated with ImageTrend and City of Glendale IT applications.
There does not appear to be a single enterprise solution, and we will
continue to leverage ImageTrend, Brycer, and City of Glendale IT
applications to provide data-informed decisions and practices. We will
continue to support our employees with contemporary and best practices in
technology use. No concerns from management.
Cellular data is not utilized to
enhance customer service
and safety while out in the
field.
Limited Progress – Carried Forward. Field access to systems remains a
challenge. Staff reported continued reliance on mobile hotspots and VPN-
based access, with unreliable connectivity affecting field reporting and
efficiency. Prior use of SIM-enabled devices was discontinued. This issue
remains carried forward.
2026 Management Response. Prevention Division workforce moved
away from Surface Pro tablets to iPads to align with the same technology
used by the other Fire Department divisions. The Prevention Division faces
the same/similar challenges any city employee faces when using
technology in forward-deployed and operational response. We will continue
to support our employees with contemporary and best practices in
technology use. No concerns from management.
Only half of fire inspectors
are assigned to perform new
construction inspections.
Completed. During interviews, we heard inspectors now provide broader
support across inspection functions, including new construction activities
as needed. This is no longer identified as a significant operational
limitation.
Opportunities to increase
efficient use of FPO vehicles
exist.
No concerns were indicated through interviews. Vehicle use was not
identified by interviewees as a current operational concern during this
audit. As the Division seeks to rebuild ImageTrend, efficiencies gained
through strategic dispatch of inspectors have been deprioritized. Once the
Division has completed its current inventory, it can build its work plan to
optimize fleet resources.
Approximately $60,000 is
owed to the City in past due
fire inspection fees with little
No concerns were indicated through interviews. Interviews indicated
that Finance manages fee collection processes, and no significant
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 9
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
SUMMARY OF 2019 FINDINGS UPDATE
effort to recover the amount
owed.
concerns were raised regarding aged receivables or recovery efforts during
this audit.
Inspection reports were not
always submitted on a timely
basis for billing.
Progress Made – Related Issue Carried Forward. Timeliness of
reporting has improved with a focus on completing inspections; however,
the current audit identified continued challenges with documentation
timeliness due to workflow, scheduling, and system constraints. This issue
remains carried forward in a modified form.
2026 Management Response. We are confident that the employees
assigned to the Prevention Division meet the internal and external timeline
expectations. We will continue to work with the key stakeholders to identify
efficiency in the process and encourage our employees to maximize the
technology provided. We will be working with the City’s Organizational
Performance Department to improve the scheduling framework and
associated processes for both the citizen and employee. Our goal is to
have an improved scheduling process by January 2027. No concerns from
management.
Some of FPO related
procurement cards were not
approved timely.
No concerns were indicated through interviews. This issue was out of
scope for this audit and was not raised as an issue during interviews as an
ongoing concern, and appears to have been addressed administratively.
FPO had not established
performance goals to
effectively manage its
performance.
Progress Made – Carried Forward. The Division has increased focus on
tracking inspection coverage and operational performance; however, the
current audit found that performance measurement and reporting remain
limited by data quality and system constraints. This issue remains carried
forward.
2026 Management Response. The Prevention Division is required to
report out for our department’s quarterly report in the following areas:
Inspections, New Construction Inspection, Plan Review, Fire
Investigations, and Brycer Inspections. In addition, the Prevention Division
has developed the process to provide data on the valuation of ‘total
property loss’ and ‘total property saved, which they will begin reporting out
in the quarterly report beginning in FY 27. No concerns from management.
Many of the FPO policies
that were accidentally
deleted due to a server
crash have not been re-
drafted.
Progress Made – Carried Forward. Policies have been redeveloped and
migrated to Lexipol, reflecting meaningful progress. However, the current
audit identified continued challenges with policy communication, access,
and consistent application. This issue remains carried forward in
implementation rather than document redevelopment.
2026 Management Response. The Prevention Division has done its work
to begin rebuilding its policy folder found on the department’s SharePoint.
The Deputy Chief of Administration is assigned, as part of work duties,
oversight of all policies and procedures within the department. The Division
will be more intentional with leveraging our learning management system,
TargetSolutions, to assign and track the review of policies as assigned, like
how we manage the majority of the department. No concerns from
management.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 10
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
II. Introduction
A. Project Overview
As part of its annual internal audit program, the City of Glendale (the City) engaged Baker Tilly Advisory
Group, LP (Baker Tilly) to conduct a performance audit to examine the effectiveness of the Fire
Prevention Office (the FPO, Division), specifically the Fire Marshals Office (FMO) and Community Risk
Reduction (CRR) division. To complete the engagement, we conducted interviews, document and data
analysis, peer benchmarking, and industry best practice research. Based on the information gained
during these activities, we formulated recommendations to help support FPO and CRR with
improvements relevant to the audit objectives.
B. Background
FPO serves as the City’s fire risk mitigation and safety oversight function. Its mission is to protect life and
property through fire code enforcement, inspections, plan reviews, public education, and community risk
reduction initiatives. The Division also oversees CRR activities, which identify and address risks that
contribute to fires, injuries, and other emergency incidents throughout the City. FPO and CRR
responsibilities are coordinated across several divisions and functions within the Division, including:
DIVISION/FUNCTION DESCRIPTION
Community Risk Reduction (CRR)
Program
● Develop and implement public education and outreach programs
● Coordinate community engagement and fire prevention campaigns
● Analyze incident trends and community risk data
● Support programs focused on reducing fires, injuries, and preventable
emergencies
● Coordinate smoke alarm, safety education, and vulnerable population outreach
initiatives
Fire Inspections and
Enforcement
● Perform annual and routine inspections of regulated occupancies
● Conduct follow-up inspections and compliance monitoring
● Manage inspection documentation and reporting
● Coordinate with business owners and property managers regarding corrective
actions
Plan Review and
Development
Coordination
● Review building and fire protection system plans for code compliance
● Coordinate with the Development Services Division and other City divisions
● Support construction permitting and certificate of occupancy processes
Administrative and
Records Management
● Maintain permits, inspection records, and fee schedules
● Process operational permits and invoices
● Support reporting, scheduling, and records retention activities
● Coordinate technology systems and data management functions
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 11
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
The Division is supported by approximately 15 employees across fire prevention and CRR functions and
operates with an annual budget of approximately $2 million. To coordinate FPO and CRR activities, the
Division relies on collaboration between Fire Prevention staff, operations personnel, Development
Services, and other City departments involved in permitting, code enforcement, and community outreach
efforts. These activities support the Division’s broader mission of protecting life, property, and the
community through prevention-focused strategies.
The FPO operates in an environment with evolving regulatory requirements, increasing development
activity, and growing demands for public education and community engagement services. Effective
management of these responsibilities requires updated fee structures, reliable technology systems, clear
policies and procedures, and coordinated program oversight.
While the Division has implemented many important fire prevention and community risk reduction
practices, challenges related to outdated fees, limitations in CRR program management, deficiencies in
technology systems, and gaps in policies and procedures have created operational inefficiencies and
limited the Division’s ability to consistently monitor performance and recover service costs.
C. Objectives
This performance audit is intended to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery of the
Division during inspections, permitting, and community risk reduction activities, specifically to:
• Evaluate FPO’s fee structure, including comparability and collection coordination with Development
Services, and with peer cities.
• Assess the usability and effectiveness of current information systems (Hansen and ImageTrend) in
supporting inspections, permitting, and risk reduction activities, including the accuracy of data, system
workarounds, and reporting capabilities.
• Determine whether permitting and inspection processes are efficient and designed to ensure Citywide
coverage, timely inspections, and compliance with established policies for existing businesses, new
construction, and special events.
• Evaluate the CRR division’s operations, including outreach activities, data tracking, program
management, and use of staff, volunteers, and overtime, to determine whether objectives are met
efficiently and consistently.
• Evaluate the changes and process improvements implemented by the FPO and CRR divisions since
the last audit to determine whether they are achieving the intended outcomes and enhancing
operational efficiency, effectiveness, and service delivery.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 12
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
D. Scope and Methodology
To complete this performance audit, we conducted the following procedures:
• Documentation Review: We gathered relevant documentation for review, including but not limited to
organizational charts, budgets, previous audit reports, performance measures, operating plans,
inspection logs and schedules, CRR program data, policies and procedures, and relevant City and
state laws and regulations.
• Interviews: We conducted interviews and focus groups with 18 individuals across leadership, fire
prevention, investigation, inspections, CRR, and IT.
• Peer Benchmarking: We collaborated with FPO leadership to select comparable peers based on
factors such as budget, number of staff, and service area. Peer benchmarking activities included data
and document collection as well as surveys conducted with each peer. Full peer benchmarking
results are included in Appendix B. The following cities participated in this analysis: Avondale,
Chandler, Gilbert, Goodyear, Peoria, and Surprise.
• Industry Best Practices: We conducted research using applicable laws, City policies and
procedures, and recognized industry standards and best practices. These include, but are not limited
to, Insurance Services Office (ISO) Fire Suppression Rating Schedule criteria, National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) standards, guidance from the International Fire Code (IFC), and
leading practices observed in comparable jurisdictions. Internal performance metrics, program
objectives, and prior audit recommendations were also be used as criteria to assess operational
effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance.
This performance audit was conducted between January and May 2026.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 13
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
III. Findings and Recommendations
A. Fire Prevention Office
FPO FEES- HIGH RISK
1. Finding FPO fees have not been updated since 2003 and can only be modified as part of a
broader Development Services fee update process. As service demands have
expanded over time, current fees likely no longer capture the full level of effort
required, resulting in increased reliance on the General Fund.
Recommendations A. Adopt the comprehensive Citywide fee schedule once finalized by the City to
ensure fees are current, consistently applied, and aligned with the cost of
services provided.
B. Identify opportunities to update FPO fees through a more flexible process so
that fee types and minimum charge hours can be adjusted in response to future
changes in fire code requirements and service demands.
Criteria
The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends establishing a defined review cycle,
where fees are evaluated at least every five years or more frequently in response to significant changes
in service delivery or costs.1 This guidance also emphasizes the importance of establishing a defined cost
recovery strategy, including clearly identifying the extent to which fees are intended to recover costs.
Additionally, governments should establish governance structures that allow for timely adjustments to
fees.2
Condition
The 2019 FPO audit found that aside from periodic inflationary adjustments, the City had not
comprehensively updated FPO fees since 2002. Additionally, the 2019 audit found that the Community
Development Fee Schedule included over 125 separate Fire fees. Some of these fees are duplicative or
no longer used. Based on current review procedures and available documentation, the conditions
identified in the 2019 audit continue to exist. The City has not comprehensively updated FPO fees since
the prior review, and several fee structures remain based on outdated assumptions that may not reflect
current staffing costs, service demands, or changes in fire code requirements.
In 2002, the City adopted a Community Development fee schedule (Ordinance 2260) intended to support
full cost recovery for development-related services and allow for annual consumer price index (CPI)-
1 Government Finance Officers Association, User Fee Policy, https://www.gfoa.org/materials/user-fee-policy
2 Government Finance Officers Association, Imposed Fees and Fines: Use by Local Governments,
https://www.gfoa.org/materials/imposed-fee-and-fine-use-by-local-governments
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 14
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
based fee adjustments. Although City Council directed staff to periodically review and update fees to
remain aligned with service costs and comparable Valley cities, the City has not comprehensively
updated these fees, aside from inflationary increases. An FPO fee study conducted in FY13 was never
brought forward for City Council consideration, and the City was unable to provide sufficient
documentation supporting how current FPO fees were established or whether they achieve cost recovery
objectives.
The City structures its FPO fees around the type of service being provided, with charges generally tied to
plan review, permitting, inspections, administrative processing, and specialized fire protection services.
The Division administers these fees as part of the City’s broader development and code compliance
process. The current fee framework is primarily organized into several categories, as described in the
following table:
TYPE DESCRIPTION
Plan Review These fees are charged for the review of construction and fire protection system plans
to verify compliance with the adopted fire code and related city ordinances. The City
states that plan review fees are generally calculated as a percentage of the associated
permit fee and are subject to minimum charges. Fees apply to reviews for systems
such as fire alarms, fire sprinklers, underground fire lines, and other fire and life safety
components. Additional charges may apply for revisions, phased submittals, or
repeated reviews.
Permit and
Inspection Fire permits issued by the City require inspections by the Fire Division. Inspection-
related fees are intended to cover the cost of field inspections and verification that
installations meet fire code requirements. Permit fees may be based on project
valuation, equipment type, or the amount of staff time required for review and
inspection activities.
Hourly and
Administrative
Charges
Certain Fire Prevention services are billed on an hourly basis rather than at a flat rate.
These may include additional plan reviews, re-inspections, after-hours inspections,
expedited services, revisions to approved plans, or optional inspections requested by
applicants. Administrative fees also exist for record changes, document reproduction,
permit renewals, and permit reinstatements.
Penalty and
Renewal fees The City assesses additional charges when work proceeds without a required permit or
when permits expire and must be renewed. Expired permit renewals may be charged at
a percentage of the original fee or at the full cost of a new permit, depending on the
timing of renewal. Work started prior to permit issuance may result in substantially
increased fees.
Miscellaneous
Fire Prevention
Services
The City also maintains a category for miscellaneous fire-related fees within its
Citywide fee schedule. These may include operational permits, inspections for
temporary events, food truck inspections, fire lane and access reviews, and other fire
code enforcement services administered through the FPO.
Fees are typically established based on the estimated cost of providing a service, including direct labor
costs, employee benefits, administrative overhead, technology and equipment expenses, and other
indirect support costs necessary to perform the work. Because the City does not maintain documentation
showing how existing fees were originally developed or what cost assumptions were used in establishing
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 15
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
them, the City is unable to accurately determine the extent to which current fees recover the actual cost of
providing services.
Since the City last comprehensively updated its FPO fees, several significant cost drivers associated with
providing Fire Prevention services have increased substantially. In addition to rising salaries and
benefits,3 municipalities have experienced increased costs related to technology systems, software
licensing, training requirements, fleet and equipment replacement, fuel, insurance, and administrative
support functions. Fire Prevention operations have also changed as a result of updates to fire code
requirements, documentation standards, permitting processes, and inspection expectations.
The 2019 audit also identified limitations within the City’s Hansen system related to tracking staff time
associated with FPO permit reviews, abandoned projects, and unapproved applications. At that time,
auditors noted that the City was unable to determine the full cost of performing plan review services or
estimate potential unrecovered revenue because staff time was not consistently tracked. The City
continues to use the Hansen system and remains unable to consistently track the actual amount of staff
time spent performing activities such as permit reviews and related review functions. Without accurate
time tracking data, the City’s ability to evaluate fee adequacy, measure cost recovery, and support future
fee adjustments remains limited (see Technology).
At the time of this performance audit, a Citywide fee study was underway, though staff indicated it
remains under review without a defined timeline for implementation.
Peer Analysis
Outlined in the following table, five of the six benchmarked peer cities update their fire prevention fees at
least every five years. Peers noted that fee updates are usually aligned with budget cycles or periodic
financial reviews. Across peer cities, formal cost recovery strategies were not consistently established;
however, peers reported regularly evaluating and adjusting fees, even in the absence of a defined cost
recovery target. These practices support more consistent alignment with service costs and market
conditions and reduce the risk of prolonged gaps between updates.
3 According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index data, overall inflation has increased significantly since the
early 2000s, while national wage indices published by the Social Security Administration show average wages increasing from
approximately 110% between 2002 and 2024.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 16
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
CITY FEE UPDATE FREQUENCY COST RECOVERY APPROACH
City of Glendale Fees last updated in 2003; no updates
since
City-wide fee study underway; no defined
cost recovery target
Avondale Every 3–5 years (coordinated with
Development Services and Finance)
Fees structured to remain competitive with
neighboring jurisdictions (market-based
approach)
Chandler Annually Not reported
Gilbert Every 2–4 years No formal cost recovery strategy
Goodyear Approximately every 5 years (City
Council approved)
No formal cost recovery strategy
Peoria Approximately every 12 years No formal cost recovery strategy
Surprise Annually (as part of the budget
process; includes periodic peer
benchmarking)
No formal cost recovery strategy; informed by
market comparisons
Review of Fire Prevention fee schedules for peer cities, including Avondale, Chandler, Goodyear, Gilbert,
Peoria, and Surprise, indicates that Glendale’s overall fee structure is generally consistent with regional
practices in that it uses a combination of flat fees, permit-based charges, and hourly billing components.
Similar to Glendale, peer cities commonly apply different fee methodologies depending on the type of
service being provided, including hourly billing rates, flat fees, permit valuation-based fees, or
construction type classifications.
Across the peer cities reviewed, permit and inspection fees are structured using a variety of approaches
tied to factors such as project valuation, square footage, construction type, occupancy classification, fire
protection system type, and estimated review effort. Several peer cities, including Gilbert and Goodyear,
rely on standardized fee schedules with fees based on permit valuation thresholds, square footage, or
system type. Other cities, including Chandler, Peoria, and Surprise, incorporate more extensive use of
hourly billing rates, minimum review times, and reinspection fees, where the amount of staff effort may
vary significantly between projects. Avondale utilizes a mixed approach that combines standardized
permit fees with targeted hourly charges for specialized reviews, reinspection, or additional services.
The review also identified that hybrid fee structures are standard practice among peer jurisdictions,
particularly for permit reviews and inspections. Routine inspections and permits are commonly assessed
using flat or tiered fees, while more complex reviews, deferred submittals, expedited reviews, after-hours
inspections, and additional plan review cycles are frequently billed on an hourly or actual-cost basis.
Cause
FPO fees are incorporated within the broader Development Services fee schedule, which is administered
through the Development Services Division and is subject to City Council approval. As a result, the Fire
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 17
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Division has limited authority to independently establish, modify, or implement new fees in response to
operational changes, increased service demands, or evolving fire code requirements. Staff indicated that
revisions to FPO fees are generally dependent on broader City-wide fee schedule updates, making the
process administratively burdensome and reducing the City’s ability to update fees on a timely or flexible
basis.
In addition, the City has not established a comprehensive cost recovery framework or documented
methodology to guide how FPO fees should be developed, evaluated, or periodically updated. Without a
formalized process for assessing direct labor costs, indirect overhead, staffing requirements, inspection
complexity, or time associated with specific services, the City has limited ability to determine whether
existing fees appropriately recover the cost of providing services.
The absence of consistent time-tracking data within the Hansen system further limits the City’s ability to
evaluate actual staff effort associated with permit reviews, inspections, and related activities, reducing the
availability of reliable data needed to support future fee adjustments or demonstrate cost recovery
objectives.
Effect
Without comprehensive and periodically updated FPO fees supported by a documented calculation and
cost recovery methodology, the City cannot reasonably ensure that fees charged for permits, plan
reviews, inspections, and related services are aligned with the actual cost of providing those services.
Additionally, as identified in the prior audit and observed during the current review, certain fees may be
duplicative, outdated, or no longer applicable, while other fees associated with newer fire code
requirements may not exist within the fee schedule. As a result, the City faces an increased risk of under
recovering service costs, which may require subsidization through other City funding sources, specifically
the General Fund. Over time, the absence of comprehensive fee updates creates increasing operational
and financial pressures on the FPO if revenues do not keep pace with staffing costs, technology needs,
and administrative overhead. As a result, the City lacks assurance that the overall fee structure
appropriately reflects the services being provided.
Additionally, extended periods between comprehensive fee updates can create challenges for residents,
developers, and other customers subject to the fees. When fee schedules are not updated regularly,
necessary future adjustments may become more substantial and more difficult to implement, increasing
the likelihood of customer concerns or resistance. Larger-scale updates may also require additional
administrative effort, stakeholder outreach, and public communication to explain significant fee changes,
new fee categories, revised methodologies, or changes in cost recovery practices.
Recommendations
The City should complete the current comprehensive fee study and use the results of that study to
update, adopt, and implement a revised FPO fee schedule. As part of this process, the City should
ensure that fee calculations are supported by robust and well-maintained documentation identifying the
methodology and assumptions used to establish fees, including the specific inputs used to calculate fully
burdened hourly rates, indirect cost allocations, and the cost recovery target. Establishing and
maintaining this documentation will improve transparency, support future fee evaluations, and provide the
City with a defensible basis for demonstrating how fees align with the cost of providing services.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 18
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
In addition, the City should identify and implement a mechanism that allows FPO fees to be updated on a
more routine basis, outside of comprehensive Community Development fee schedule revisions. This
process should provide the City with the flexibility to retire obsolete or duplicative fees, establish new fees
associated with changes in fire code requirements or service delivery models, and periodically adjust fee
structures and minimum charge thresholds to reflect current operational costs, staffing demands, and
service complexity. Establishing a more flexible update process would improve the City’s ability to
maintain an accurate and responsive fee schedule over time while supporting ongoing cost recovery
objectives.
FINDING 1 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – Chuck Jenkins
Target Completion Date New Fee Schedule – TBD
Action Plan We will continue to provide input and participate in the citywide MGT Fee Study.
Staffing costs and permit/service fees have been evaluated and provided to MGT
for inclusion in the overall assessment. Will work within the city's process for
adopting new fees and making changes to existing fees.
T ECHNOLOGY- MEDIUM RISK
2. Finding The Division relies on a mix of outdated legacy systems as well as newer systems
that are not fully integrated, limiting operational efficiencies and reducing the
Division’s ability to effectively use data to support operations.
Recommendations Replace Hansen as a permitting system.
Populate the ImageTrend database and improve integration between
ImageTrend, GIS, and other platforms.
As systems and data environments become more stable and reliable, develop
more robust reporting and performance monitoring capabilities to support
operations.
Criteria
Integrated systems environments support more efficient operations by allowing information to flow
consistently between systems and reducing the need for manual processes or duplicate data entry. Public
sector technology organizations such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and
the Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others, highlight that organizations should maintain
systems that can effectively communicate with one another and provide reliable, accessible data to
support operational management, planning, and decision-making.
Systems should be periodically evaluated to ensure they continue to support operational needs and
provide users with reliable and accessible information. When organizations rely on multiple systems,
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 19
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
those systems should be designed or integrated in a way that allows information to be consistently shared
and used across functions.4
Condition
The Division has experienced ongoing challenges maintaining a stable and effective technology
environment to support permitting, inspections, compliance tracking, and reporting activities. The Division
currently relies on a combination of legacy and newer systems that are not fully integrated, including
Hansen, ImageTrend, Brycer, GIS, Bluebeam, SmartGov, and other supplemental tracking tools. While
these systems collectively support core operational functions, staff reported that the lack of integration
between systems limits workflow coordination, creates duplicate data entry, and reduces visibility into
inspections, plan reviews, and operational workloads. Several systems also contain functional limitations
that affect operations. The following table summarizes the primary systems used by the Division and key
issues identified during the audit.
SYSTEM PRIMARY USE KEY ISSUES
Hansen Permitting, plan
review, and
inspection workflow
management (City-
wide)
The system is outdated and no longer supported by the vendor. It lacks
key functionality, including the ability to schedule inspections in advance,
requiring inspectors to receive assignments on the day of inspection.
Reporting capabilities are limited, often requiring manual compilation of
data from multiple systems. Previous Citywide efforts to replace Hansen
in 2016-2018 and 2023-2024 were unsuccessful due to vendor-related
challenges, resulting in continued reliance on the system.
These same issues with Hansen were also noted in the 2019 FPO audit.
Bluebeam Electronic plan
review and
document markup
The system is used to manage and review plan documents; however, it
does not provide full workflow management capabilities. Staff reported
that assignment tracking, review status, and deadlines are not
consistently visible across users, requiring manual coordination to
determine who is responsible for reviews and when they are due. This
contributes to inefficiencies, increased reliance on communication outside
the system, and risk of delays or overlooked reviews.
ImageTrend Inspection
management and
reporting
The system was implemented following multiple system transitions; but
historical data was not fully migrated, requiring the Division to rebuild its
inspection database. As of early 2026, approximately 5,000 businesses
had been entered, with a target completion date of June 2026. While staff
indicated that ImageTrend is intended to serve as a long-term solution, its
effectiveness is currently limited by incomplete data and ongoing
integration challenges.
GIS Mapping and
analysis of
inspection data
The system is used to support visualization of inspection data; however, it
is not fully integrated with ImageTrend. Data discrepancies between
systems affect reporting accuracy and inspection planning. While
integration efforts are underway, current limitations reduce the Division’s
ability to support data-driven decision-making.
4 Interoperability: Seamless Data Exchange for Government Transformation - Insights | Public Sector Network
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 20
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
SYSTEM PRIMARY USE KEY ISSUES
Brycer Third-party
compliance
platform used to
collect and track fire
protection system
inspection reports
submitted by
contractors (e.g.,
alarms, sprinklers,
extinguishers)
The system generates a high volume of contractor-submitted inspection
reports that must be reviewed to identify deficiencies and determine
whether follow-up inspections or enforcement actions are required. The
manual review process is time-intensive and has contributed to a backlog,
particularly in the absence of dedicated administrative support.
Leadership indicated that a dedicated role could improve efficiency and
coordination, and that the system generates revenue that may help
support this function.
Over time, the City has made multiple efforts to modernize and replace aging technology systems
supporting Fire Prevention operations; however, these efforts have been accompanied by significant
implementation challenges and operational disruptions. Additionally, the Division also identified
infrastructure-related technology gaps that affect field operations. Inspectors currently rely on mobile
hotspots and VPN connectivity to access systems remotely, and staff reported that connectivity in the
field is inconsistent and unreliable in certain areas.
Despite these challenges, the Division continues to actively pursue modernization efforts while
simultaneously managing the operational impacts of prior system transitions. At the time of the audit, staff
were engaged in a substantial effort to repopulate ImageTrend with business occupancy and inspection
data that was lost during prior system migrations. Additionally, staff were actively coordinating with peer
agencies, conducting site visits, and participating in system demonstrations to evaluate potential
replacements for Hansen.
Peer Analysis
Similar to Glendale, most jurisdictions use a network of systems to support permitting, inspections, and
compliance tracking. While peer cities also operate within multi-system environments, they reported
higher overall system effectiveness. Three peer cities (Gilbert, Peoria, and Surprise) characterized their
systems as highly effective, while three (Avondale, Chandler, and Goodyear) reported systems as
somewhat effective, summarized in the following table.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 21
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
CITY PRIMARY SYSTEMS USED SYSTEM EFFECTIVENESS
City of Glendale Hansen (permitting/workflow); ImageTrend
(inspections/reporting); Brycer (compliance
tracking); GIS (mapping/reporting); SmartGov
(business licensing); Bluebeam (plan review);
Serveris (document storage); Survey123/Excel
(CRR tracking)
Somewhat effective – Systems are
fragmented, not well integrated,
and create inefficiencies and data
challenges; currently in transition
and implementation phase
Avondale ImageTrend (existing building inspections); Accela
(new construction permitting and inspections)
Somewhat effective – system
capabilities are not fully utilized
Chandler ImageTrend Somewhat effective
Gilbert ImageTrend Highly effective
Goodyear ImageTrend (inspections); Accela (permitting);
ProjectDox (plan review)
Somewhat effective
Peoria ImageTrend Highly effective
Surprise Clarity Launch (permitting intake); LIS
(inspections); LaserFiche (document retention);
ImageTrend (inspections); The Compliance Engine
(compliance tracking)
Highly effective – with ongoing
efforts to improve system
integration (e.g., APIs)
Peer city responses indicated that system effectiveness is driven by the level of integration and
functionality across platforms. Several peer cities reported ongoing efforts to improve interoperability
between systems and reduce manual processes through integrations and application programming
interfaces (APIs). The experience of these peer cities is encouraging as Glendale continues efforts to
expand its use of ImageTrend and identify long-term alternatives to Hansen. This demonstrates that
similar multi-system environments can effectively support FPO operations when systems are properly
integrated, maintained, and supported through stable implementation processes.
Cause
As illustrated, FPO operations across jurisdictions typically require multiple specialized systems to
support functions such as permitting, inspections, plan review, compliance tracking, reporting, records
management, and GIS mapping. As there is not a single comprehensive platform that effectively
manages all aspects of these operations, jurisdictions often rely on a network of systems that must be
integrated in a way that allows data to be shared consistently while still remaining functional and user-
friendly for staff.
Developing and maintaining this type of integrated systems environment is inherently complex,
particularly when systems are implemented at different times, managed across departments, or supported
by different vendors. Though the City has taken proactive steps over time to modernize and replace aging
systems in an effort to improve operations and maintain current technology capabilities, multiple
implementation and transition efforts have experienced significant issues.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 22
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
As a result, the Division now operates within a technology environment that includes both newly
implemented systems still under development and legacy systems that are outdated or no longer
supported. The wide range between newly implemented and end-of-life systems has created an
increasingly fragile and difficult-to-manage technology environment.
Ongoing modernization efforts are complicated by incomplete historical data, inconsistent integration
between systems, and continued operational dependence on unsupported legacy platforms. This
dynamic has contributed to many of the operational inefficiencies reported by staff, including limited
workflow coordination between systems, duplicate data entry, inconsistent reporting, and reduced
visibility into inspections, plan reviews, and operational workloads. Because information is not
consistently shared across systems, staff often rely on manual workarounds and supplemental tracking
processes to manage core operational activities.
Effect
The Division’s current technology environment reduces operational efficiency and increases reliance on
manual processes and workarounds to complete core activities such as permitting, inspections, plan
review coordination, and reporting. Staff reported spending additional time navigating multiple systems,
manually transferring information between platforms, and reconciling inconsistent data across systems.
Limitations within Hansen and other systems also reduce visibility into workloads, inspection scheduling,
plan review assignments, and project status, contributing to coordination challenges and operational
inefficiencies. Field connectivity limitations further reduce efficiency by limiting consistent real-time access
to systems and requiring inspectors to rely on delayed data entry or manual documentation processes
while performing inspections in the field.
The Division’s systems environment also limits its ability to effectively use data to manage operations and
make decisions. Incomplete historical data, inconsistent reporting, and limited integration between
systems make it difficult to access reliable information needed to track inspection activity, identify trends,
prioritize work, and monitor overall workload and performance.
In addition, continued reliance on unsupported or aging systems increases operational risk and may
create future sustainability concerns if systems become increasingly difficult to maintain, support, or
integrate with newer technologies.
Recommendation
The City should continue its efforts to modernize and integrate the Division’s information systems to
improve operational efficiency, data reliability, and reporting capabilities. These efforts should focus on
establishing a coordinated systems environment that supports core functions and enables data-driven
decision-making.
The City should prioritize the selection and implementation of a replacement for the Hansen permitting
system that meets the operational needs of both Development Services and FPO. This system should
include functionality to support inspection scheduling, workflow management, plan review coordination,
and reporting, and should be selected with a focus on compatibility and integration with existing systems,
including ImageTrend.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 23
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
In parallel, the Division should continue to strengthen system integration, data management, and
reporting capabilities, including:
• Complete ImageTrend data population and validation: Continue efforts to fully populate and
validate the ImageTrend database to ensure all businesses and inspection records are accurately
captured.
• Improve system integration and data consistency: Prioritize integration between ImageTrend,
GIS, and other relevant systems to ensure consistent and accurate data across platforms. This may
include leveraging integration tools or APIs to reduce duplicate data entry and improve data
synchronization. Establish clear data governance practices, including defined roles and
responsibilities for data management and quality control.
• Enhance field system access and connectivity: Incorporate a standardized approach to field
system access by implementing reliable connectivity solutions and optimizing system access
methods to support real-time use of inspection and reporting tools.
Additional administrative and technical support dedicated to system management and data coordination
can help improve implementation outcomes and ongoing system effectiveness. Providing dedicated
oversight for activities such as Brycer administration, data quality management, system configuration, and
coordination between platforms could help reduce existing backlogs, improve data consistency, and
support more effective long-term management of the Division’s technology environment.
The Division may also benefit from continued collaboration with peer cities with similar systems,
particularly jurisdictions using ImageTrend and comparable inspection and compliance platforms. Peer
collaboration, including system demonstrations, site visits, configuration reviews, and knowledge sharing
related to integrations and workflows, is likely to help the Division identify practical approaches to
optimizing existing technology investments.
Once systems and data environments become more stable and reliable, the Division could further
improve operational effectiveness by developing more robust reporting and performance monitoring
capabilities. Enhanced reporting tools, dashboards, standardized metrics, and workload tracking
capabilities could improve operational planning, inspection scheduling, resource allocation, and
management oversight while supporting a more data-driven approach to Fire Prevention operations.
FINDING 2 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – Chuck Jenkins and William Figueroa
Target Completion Date Hansen Replacement -TBD | Image Trend Integration with current systems - Nov
2026
Action Plan We will continue to participate in the Hansen software replacement process.
Additionally, we will work with IT and GIS to integrate Image Trend with our training
platform program and plan to integrate with the Hansen replacement once the
software is selected and in development.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 24
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES- MEDIUM RISK
3. Finding Though the Division has redone the policies that were lost to the server failure, staff
report a lack of awareness and limited integration of policies into day-to-day
practices. Additionally, procedures related to the City’s fee waiver policy (noted in
the 2019 audit) have not yet been developed.
Recommendations A. Ensure all personnel have access to Lexipol and reinforce policy updates, code
clarifications, and procedural changes through ongoing training and staff
communication.
B. Establish clear ownership of the fee waiver process and develop formal
procedures and documentation requirements for the Fire Department governing
fee waiver approval, tracking, reporting, and records retention to improve
consistency, transparency, and accountability.
Criteria
Policies establish expectations, while Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) provide step-by-step
guidance for how tasks and operational activities are performed in practice to promote consistency across
staff and functions. Industry guidance indicates that policies and SOPs should be developed
collaboratively with input from operational staff, maintained through a defined review process, and
supported by systems that provide centralized access and version control. Additionally, organizations
should have processes in place to communicate updates, ensure staff awareness, and reinforce
consistent application through training and ongoing review.
Condition
The Division has rebuilt and updated its policies and procedures following a prior server failure that
resulted in the loss of several key documents. Current policies are maintained in Lexipol, and the Division
uses staff meetings, supervisory discussions, and code clarification memos to communicate policy
updates, address interpretation questions, and promote consistency in applying code requirements. While
policies have since been re-established, interviewees indicated that some staff are not aware of where
current policies are located or have not accessed the system recently. Leadership noted that efforts are
underway to ensure all staff have access to Lexipol, as some personnel have not logged in since policies
were initially shared, and newer staff may not yet have access.
The Division has not developed documented procedures to support the administration of fee waivers
under City Code Ordinance 3001. The 2019 FPO audit identified concerns with permit, plan review, and
after-hours inspection fees being waived without written authority, supporting documentation, or reference
to a valid agreement. During the current audit, staff indicated that fee waiver decisions continue to be
made on a case-by-case basis by various levels of leadership, including the Assistant Fire Chief, Fire
Chief, and City Manager’s Office. While staff reported that the ordinance is followed, the Division does not
have written procedures that define how waiver requests should be submitted, evaluated, approved,
documented, tracked, or retained.
Cause
The Division’s policy environment has changed over time, including the need to rebuild policies after
document loss and the transition of policy storage from SharePoint to Lexipol. While policies have been
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 25
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
updated, staff do not regularly access Lexipol, and the Division has not fully established a routine process
for reinforcing where policies are located, confirming staff review, or incorporating policy review into
ongoing operations.
The lack of formal fee waiver procedures appears to be driven by a combination of competing operational
priorities and unclear ownership over the administration of the fee waiver process. Fee waiver authority is
established within the Community Development section of City Code rather than within Fire Division-
specific policy or procedures. Because fee waivers intersect multiple departments and levels of
leadership, including Community Development, the Fire Division, and the City Manager’s Office,
responsibility for developing, implementing, and maintaining supporting operational procedures may not
be clearly assigned. In recent years, the Division has also focused significant time and resources on
higher-priority operational matters, and resolving the ambiguity of who should develop procedures, and
the development of the actual procedures has been deprioritized.
Effect
Policies and procedures may not be consistently applied across staff, leading to variations in code
interpretation, inspection practices, and plan review decisions. This can impact operational consistency,
increase the likelihood of rework, and create confusion for both staff and customers. Limited awareness
of policies also reduces the effectiveness of policy updates and may affect onboarding and training for
new staff. Without a consistent process for communication and reinforcement, the Division may not fully
realize the benefits of having updated policies and procedures in place.
Without documented fee waiver procedures, the Division has limited ability to demonstrate that waiver
decisions are applied consistently, supported by appropriate justification, and aligned with City authority.
This increases the risk that similar requests could be handled differently depending on who reviews them
or what information is available at the time.
The lack of documentation also limits transparency and accountability. If the City cannot show why a fee
was waived, who approved it, and what criteria were applied, fee waiver decisions may create concerns
about fairness or preferential treatment among customers, residents, or other stakeholders. In addition,
limited tracking reduces visibility into the financial impact of waived fees and makes it more difficult for
management to monitor trends or assess whether waiver practices are consistent with City objectives.
Recommendations
The Division should continue strengthening policy and procedure management practices by reinforcing
Lexipol as the centralized source for current policies and operational guidance. As part of these efforts,
the Division should ensure all personnel have appropriate system access and regularly utilize Lexipol as
part of daily operations, onboarding, and ongoing training activities. In addition to maintaining policies
within the system, the Division should continue improving how policies, code clarifications, and procedural
updates are socialized across staff through recurring staff meetings, brief refresher trainings, supervisor
discussions, and periodic policy review activities. The Division may also benefit from implementing simple
acknowledgment or tracking practices to help ensure staff have reviewed and understand significant
policy updates or procedural changes.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 26
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Given that fee waiver authority intersects multiple departments and levels of leadership, the City should
first establish clear ownership and responsibility for administration of the process, including which
department is responsible for maintaining procedures, documentation standards, and oversight activities.
The City should then take steps to develop and implement procedures guiding the fee waiver process.
Actual procedures should clearly define:
• The circumstances under which waivers may be considered
• Required supporting documentation
• Approval authority and escalation thresholds
• Records retention requirements, and expectations for tracking and reporting waived fees
Documentation practices should include written justification for each waiver decision, identification of the
approving authority, reference to the applicable ordinance or policy basis for the waiver, and retention of
supporting records in a centralized and accessible location. While the policy may be developed by the
Finance Department, Development Services, or another department, FPO should be included in the
process to ensure that procedures can be implemented without undue administrative burden, strengthen
enforcement, and provide context into potential impacts to FPO and its customers. Establishing
standardized procedures and documentation practices would improve consistency, transparency,
accountability, and the City’s ability to demonstrate that waiver decisions are appropriately supported and
applied equitably.
FINDING 3 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – Chuck Jenkins
Target Completion Date Access to Policies – Aug 2026 | Fee Waiver Policy – July 2026
Action Plan The Prevention Division has done its work to begin rebuilding its policy folder found
on the Fire Department’s SharePoint. The Deputy Chief of Administration is
assigned, as part of work duties, to oversee all policies and procedures within the
department. The Division will be more intentional with leveraging our learning
management system, TargetSolutions, to assign and track the review of policies as
assigned, like how we manage the majority of the department. No concerns from
management.
The Fire Department will develop an internal fee waiver policy/guideline to align with
the City of Glendale municipal code Article 1 Sec. 2-3. The intent to align with this
language has already been articulated to department leadership, and the formal
internal document will be completed by October 2026.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 27
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING- LOW RISK
4. Finding Training practices primarily focus on maintaining required certifications and lack a
comprehensive workforce development framework to support long-term professional
growth, succession planning, and career progression.
Recommendations A. Build out ImageTrend to track certifications, CEU requirements, renewal
timelines, training activities, and associated costs to enhance professional
development and budgeting.
B. Once the ImageTrend module is implemented, review the City’s training
program to optimize the balance of more costly, but high-impact training with
additional existing low- or no-cost resources that also support professional
development.
C. Collaborate with peer jurisdictions on joint training opportunities to expand
access to training resources and improve cost efficiency.
Criteria
Effective professional development frameworks include clearly defined training requirements, structured
development pathways, and sufficient resources to support ongoing education and certification
maintenance. Training programs should align with job responsibilities, certification requirements, and
organizational needs, while also providing opportunities for skill development and advancement.
Professional development programs should include defined career pathways that outline the
certifications, experience, and competencies required for progression. In addition, organizations should
maintain centralized processes for tracking training and certifications and provide access to training
opportunities that support both required qualifications and long-term development.
Condition
The Division maintains a training program to support required certifications; however, staff indicated that
recent increases in certification requirements, combined with current funding levels, have made it more
difficult to maintain qualifications and support broader professional development.
Personnel are required to maintain several professional certifications, including Fire Inspector I and II,
plan review, and fire investigation, all of which require continuing education units (CEUs) to remain valid.
Recent changes increased certification requirements from 40 CEUs over three years to 80 CEUs over five
years (a difference of 13 CEUs annually to 16 CEUs annually), increasing the time and cost associated
with maintaining certifications.
External training opportunities are available through organizations such as EduCode International, the
International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI), and the International Code Council (ICC);
however, these courses can be costly and are often difficult to fund within the current training budget.
Staff indicated that while required certification training is prioritized, requests to attend training are
occasionally denied when funding is not available, even when the training is relevant to job
responsibilities or skill development. In some cases, staff have pursued training independently, including
paying out of pocket or organizing training opportunities to advance their skills.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 28
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
In addition, while the Division tracks required certifications and associated CEUs, staff reported that
training efforts are generally reactive and tied to maintaining minimum certification requirements rather
than guided by a longer-term professional development strategy.
The Division does not currently maintain a comprehensive long-range training plan that documents
required training for each employee over applicable certification or CEU cycles, identifies future training
needs, or aligns training activities with organizational succession planning and workforce development
goals. Staff also indicated that training plans do not consistently incorporate opportunities for employees
to pursue additional certifications, specialized technical training, leadership development, or other
professional growth activities that would support advancement into higher-level positions within the
Division.
Peer Analysis
Training programs across peer jurisdictions vary significantly in terms of formality, tracking practices,
curriculum development, and dedicated funding, as outlined in the following table:
TOPIC ANALYSIS
Training
Tracking Training tracking practices varied considerably across peer cities, ranging from largely self-
managed approaches and basic spreadsheet or SharePoint tracking tools to more formal
technology-supported solutions such as Vector Solutions and administratively managed systems.
Glendale’s approach was among the less formalized tracking methods reported.
Training
Curriculum Formal curriculum development also varied significantly across peers. Glendale, Avondale, and
Chandler reported having no formalized curriculum structure. Gilbert uses checklist-based
training expectations, while Surprise reported the use of formal task books and syllabi to guide
training progression and competency development. Overall, peers with stronger training
programs tended to have more structured curricula and competency development processes.
Training
Funding Training funding approaches ranged from limited or constrained funding environments to more
structured funding mechanisms supported through dedicated budget line items or general fund
allocations. Glendale reported that training funding is limited or constrained, which was similar to
Avondale and partially consistent with Gilbert’s characterization of its program as functional but
constrained. In contrast, Goodyear and Surprise reported more dedicated funding approaches.
Program
Strength Overall program strength ratings suggest that Glendale’s training program is generally functional
but less mature than programs in some peer jurisdictions. Avondale and Gilbert characterized
their programs as “functional but constrained,” while Goodyear described its program as
functional, and Peoria and Surprise reported stronger overall training programs. Peer programs
rated as stronger generally demonstrated more formalized approaches to training planning,
curriculum development, tracking, and long-term workforce development.
Professional
Development Peer analysis suggests that most jurisdictions primarily focus training efforts on maintaining
certifications and operational readiness; however, peers with stronger programs also
demonstrated more structured approaches to long-term workforce development, competency
progression, and professional growth planning. Glendale currently does not maintain a long-range
training plan tied to career progression, future certifications, or succession planning.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 29
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Cause
As certification and CEU requirements have expanded over time, available training time and funding have
largely been directed toward maintaining minimum compliance requirements. At the same time,
operational demands and limited training resources have reduced the Division’s ability to focus on
broader professional development, specialized training, leadership preparation, or long-term workforce
planning.
As noted in Technology, the City’s ongoing technology challenges have also limited the Division’s ability
to establish a more structured and proactive training management environment. Current tracking
processes do not fully support centralized monitoring of certification requirements, CEU progress, training
histories, or future training needs across staff.
Effect
Without centralized tracking and long-range training planning, the Division has reduced visibility into
certification renewal timelines, CEU progress, completed training activities, and future development
needs across staff. This limits the Division’s ability to efficiently coordinate training opportunities, ensure
employees remain on pace to meet certification requirements, and strategically rotate staff through
available training programs based on operational and developmental needs. Without training plans
connected to future staffing and career development goals, the Division is limited in its ability to anticipate
the funding needed not only to maintain required certifications, but also to support continued employee
growth and prepare staff for future operational and leadership responsibilities.
In addition, the lack of clearly defined career development pathways and documented progression
expectations limits staff understanding of how to prepare for advancement into supervisory, specialized,
or leadership roles. While employees maintain certifications required for their current positions, training
efforts are less focused on broader professional growth, technical specialization, leadership development,
and succession planning. Over time, these conditions reduce the Division’s ability to consistently develop
internal talent, prepare staff for evolving operational responsibilities, and maintain a workforce with the
skills and competencies needed to support long-term organizational needs.
Recommendation
The Division identified an opportunity to expand the use of ImageTrend to support tracking of employee
certifications, CEU requirements, certification renewal timelines, training activities, and associated training
costs. Developing and implementing this functionality would provide the Division with a centralized
mechanism to proactively manage certification compliance, improve visibility into workforce development
needs, and better anticipate and budget for training activities across multiple years. When developing the
module, the Division should consider incorporating functionality that supports both compliance tracking
and long-term workforce planning. At a minimum, the module should track employee certifications, CEU
requirements, renewal dates, completed training activities, training providers, training costs, and
associated documentation (e.g., certificates or transcripts). Automated reminders for upcoming renewals,
expired certifications, and pending CEU requirements would help improve compliance management and
reduce administrative oversight burdens.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 30
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
The module should also support broader workforce development and budgeting efforts by allowing the
Division to categorize training by type (required, specialized, leadership, optional, etc.), priority level,
operational relevance, and funding source. Additional capabilities that may provide value include tracking
training hours by employee and discipline, identifying gaps in certifications or specialized expertise across
the Division, documenting succession planning or career development goals, and generating reports to
support budget development and long-range staffing analysis.
To maximize usability, the Division should also evaluate reporting and dashboard capabilities that provide
supervisors with visibility into upcoming training needs, total training expenditures, participation trends,
and organizational skill coverage. Consideration should also be given to integrating or linking available
low- or no-cost training resources, such as EduCode, City Human Resources offerings, regional
partnerships, or professional association training opportunities, to help staff identify accessible
development opportunities while balancing operational and budgetary constraints.
Once the ImageTrend module is implemented, the Division should conduct a comprehensive review of its
training and professional development program to optimize the balance between higher-cost, high-impact
training opportunities and existing low- or no-cost resources, such as peer training opportunities,
EduCode, and City Human Resources offerings. Regular evaluation of the program would help ensure
training investments remain aligned with operational needs, emerging industry practices, and long-term
workforce development goals while supporting technical specialization, leadership development, and
career progression. When optimizing its training and professional development program, the Division
should balance operational needs, workforce development goals, and budget constraints to ensure
training investments provide meaningful organizational value. Key considerations should include
prioritizing high-impact training that directly supports regulatory compliance and operational effectiveness
while recognizing that not all development opportunities require high-cost external training.
The Division should evaluate how training resources are allocated across employees to ensure equitable
access to professional development opportunities while maintaining adequate staffing levels and service
continuity. Consideration should also be given to identifying the most effective mix of training delivery
methods, including conferences, regional partnerships, online learning, peer-led instruction, vendor-
provided training, City Human Resources offerings, and low- or no-cost resources such as EduCode.
As part of ongoing program evaluation, the Division should periodically assess whether training
investments continue to align with organizational priorities, employee development needs, and industry
best practices. This review process should consider factors such as training outcomes, applicability to
Division operations, employee feedback, cost effectiveness, and whether alternative or emerging training
opportunities may provide comparable or greater value. Establishing a regularly reviewed training
strategy would help the Division maintain a skilled and adaptable workforce while improving long-term
planning and budget predictability.
The Division should also consider identifying opportunities to coordinate or share training resources with
peer jurisdictions where appropriate. Collaborative training efforts, including regional classes, shared
instructors, joint workshops, or participation in peer-led training programs, may help reduce training costs
while expanding access to specialized coursework and professional development opportunities that may
otherwise be difficult to provide independently. In addition to improving cost efficiency, increased
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 31
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
collaboration with peer agencies may also support consistency in practices, strengthen professional
networks, and provide staff with broader exposure to regional approaches and emerging industry
practices.
FINDING 4 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – William Figueroa
Target Completion Date Target Solution Update – Aug 2026 | Joint Training – Ongoing
Action Plan We will upload staff certification, CEUs, and training requirements into Target
Solutions. All training, certification, renewal requirements, and supervisor
assignments will be initiated and tracked in Target Solutions. We will continue to
host and participate in peer jurisdiction training.
PERMITTING PROCESSES- LOW RISK
5. Finding The Division has made efforts to streamline and optimize the permitting review
process; however, efficiency is limited by technology constraints, inconsistent
communication of code updates, and limited access to fire protection engineering
support for complex reviews.
Recommendations A. Review system notification capabilities for the future Hansen replacement to
provide proactive notification of changes to codes that would impact the
permitting process.
B. Evaluate options to restore some level of dedicated funding for third-party fire
protection engineering support to improve efficiency in complex plan reviews
and reduce review cycles.
Criteria
Effective permitting and plan review processes include clearly defined and coordinated workflows that
align code requirements, permit types, and system functionality. All required permit types should be
implemented in practice, supported by system workflows, and consistently applied. Plan review processes
should include clear assignment tracking, defined timelines, and integrated communication tools to
support coordination across departments. Processes should also ensure that code updates and
modifications are incorporated into workflows in a timely manner. Access to appropriate technical
expertise, including engineering support for complex projects, is important to support accurate and
efficient plan review.
Condition
While the Division generally meets established plan review timelines and staff make efforts to streamline
the permitting process, overall permitting efficiency is affected by minor operational challenges, including
inconsistent communication of code modifications and review expectations, limited access to fire
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 32
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
protection engineering expertise for complex projects, and technology limitations (discussed in the
Technology section).
Information related to code modifications or updated review requirements is maintained within Building
Safety’s network drive. Though plan review staff have access to that information, there is currently no
mechanism to proactively notify plan reviewers when new information is uploaded, code interpretations
are updated, or review requirements change. Rather, plan reviewers report that this information can come
in reactively, when they are notified that plans have failed a review.
Plan reviewers make efforts to work collaboratively with applicants and resolve issues early in the review
process in order to minimize repeated review cycles, reduce rework, and improve overall review
efficiency. However, interviewees indicated that these efforts could be further improved through more
direct access to fire protection engineering expertise to assist with complex system designs, alternative
methods, and specialized technical issues. Staff noted that the Division previously maintained funding for
third-party fire protection engineering support, which was eliminated during prior budget reductions.
Despite these operational hurdles, the Division generally meets plan review timelines. Staff reported that
reviews are completed within target timeframes approximately 75% of the time, with delays occurring
during peak workload periods or when coordinating with applicants to resolve issues. While review
timelines are defined in the City’s Project Review: Target Turnaround Time document, the Division has
limited ability to consistently monitor and validate performance against these established targets in
Hansen, a limitation also noted in the 2019 FPO audit.
Cause
Limitations related to workflow coordination, notifications, and information sharing between systems have
been longstanding issues and were identified both in the 2019 FPO audit report and in the Technology
section of this report.
Prior funding reductions eliminated the Division’s budget for third-party fire protection engineering
services, reducing available support for complex technical reviews. Additionally, while the City maintains
engineering expertise within other operational areas, access to dedicated fire protection engineering
support during the plan review process, the physical separation between FPO plan reviewers and
available engineering resources limits opportunities for ongoing collaboration and real-time consultation
during the review process.
Effect
Delayed communication of code modifications and limited technical resources contribute to rework and
additional review cycles, increasing workload and extending review timelines. These challenges reduce
overall efficiency in the review process and limit the Division’s ability to consistently apply code
requirements across projects.
Limited access to engineering expertise reduces the Division’s ability to efficiently resolve complex
technical issues during the initial review process. In instances where complex issues cannot be resolved
in the first round, plans undergo more rounds of revisions before approval. Over time, these additional
review cycles contribute to longer review timelines, rework for both staff and applicants, and reduce
overall efficiency within the permitting process.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 33
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Recommendation
The City is currently pursuing replacement of the Hansen system, which will help address several of the
workflow coordination, notification, tracking, scheduling, and reporting limitations currently affecting the
Division’s permitting and plan review processes. As part of the system replacement process, the City
should explore whether the new system has the built-in functionality to provide proactive and automated
notifications to reviewers when changes to code or the review process occur.
The Division should evaluate opportunities to restore some level of dedicated funding for third-party fire
protection engineering support to assist with complex plan reviews, specialized code interpretations, and
technically challenging projects that exceed internal capacity or expertise. While the Division currently has
access to external fire protection engineering resources, funding constraints have limited the ability to
consistently utilize these services. As development activity and project complexity fluctuate, the
availability of on-call technical expertise may help improve review efficiency, reduce review cycles,
support timely project delivery, and lessen the burden on internal staff.
Given ongoing budget constraints, the Division does not necessarily need to fully restore prior funding
levels or establish a permanent full-time arrangement. Instead, the City could consider more flexible or
scalable approaches, such as maintaining a limited annual allocation for high-priority or unusually
complex projects, selectively applying external support during peak workload periods. As part of this
evaluation, the Division should consider factors such as project review timelines, staff workload impacts,
frequency of highly technical reviews, permit volume trends, and the potential operational impacts
associated with delayed project approvals. Even modest access to specialized engineering support may
help support staff during complex development activity.
FINDING 5 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – Chuck Jenkins
Target Completion Date Plan Review Process – Dec 2026 | Third Party Engineering Service - Complete
Action Plan We will continue to participate in the Hansen replacement process and target
improvements in work assignment, communication sharing, and staff collaboration.
We currently have access to the Development Services’ third-party engineering
service and will propose budget supplements as needed. Additionally,
Development Services recently hired a licensed Fire Protection Engineer, who
provides direct access for our fire plan review staff.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 34
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
INSPECTION PROCESSES- LOW RISK
6. Finding The Division’s inspection intake, scheduling, and reporting processes rely on
multiple systems, manual coordination, and limited integration between inspection-
related platforms and workflows, contributing to inefficiencies.
Recommendations A. Improve inspection scheduling by centralizing request intake, establishing clear
cut-off times, and strengthening scheduling coordination and support to reduce
reliance on same-day demand and improve overall efficiency.
B. Evaluate partnerships with local educational institutions to develop internship or
practicum programs that can support administrative and data entry functions
within FPO.
Criteria
Effective inspection processes support proactive planning, efficient workload management, and reliable
operational reporting. Inspection systems should provide visibility into inspection cycles, upcoming
workloads, and scheduling needs. Inspection workflows should be structured to allow sufficient time for
documentation to be completed in a timely manner to maintain data accuracy and operational efficiency.
Condition
The Division has committed to maintaining a zero backlog for inspections, which represents a
considerable operational effort given the workload associated with rebuilding the ImageTrend system.
While systematically inspecting all businesses to repopulate ImageTrend, staff are also managing new
construction inspections, Brycer-related compliance activity, special event inspections, and ongoing data
restoration efforts tied to repopulating the Division’s inspection database.
The Division operates under a risk-based inspection model for routine fire prevention inspections of
existing buildings across the City. Occupancies are categorized by risk level and scheduled for inspection
at defined intervals, with high-risk occupancies inspected annually, medium-risk occupancies inspected
every two years, and low-risk occupancies inspected every three years. This model is designed to
support proactive inspection coverage, ensure all businesses are inspected on a regular cycle, and
prioritize higher-risk occupancies. Once the ImageTrend database is repopulated, the Division will be able
to schedule routine inspections and monitor compliance with the review schedule and performance (for
example, the percent of routine inspections completed according to plan, by type). Until then, the Division
is unable to monitor such metrics.
Staff noted that the inspection scheduling process for new inspection requests remains highly
burdensome and inefficient—dependent on multiple disconnected systems and intake methods, including
Hansen, Brycer, and email communications. Additionally, new construction inspections can be requested
through the City’s Interactive Voice Response (IVR) system, which is managed by the Development
Services. The IVR system allows inspection requests to be submitted as late as 4:00 a.m. for same-day
inspections. These requests are routed through the Development Services rather than directly to Fire
Inspection staff, limiting visibility into incoming requests, making it difficult to incorporate them into daily
schedules, and reducing access to contact information for requestors.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 35
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
The various systems and intake methods used to manage inspection requests do not currently
communicate or integrate with one another, requiring inspectors and staff to manually consolidate
information from Hansen, ImageTrend, Brycer, the IVR system, emails, and other tracking methods to
build daily inspection schedules. Staff reported that this process is highly time-consuming and can be
difficult to adjust throughout the day when inspections are added, cancelled, reprioritized, or otherwise
changed on short notice.
Inspection schedules are frequently structured with back-to-back appointments, limiting the time available
to complete documentation between inspections. In lieu of completing reporting in the field, inspectors will
take handwritten notes during inspections. Once back in the office, the inspector will then transfer notes
and complete the report.
Peer Analysis
Benchmarking with peer cities indicates that inspection scheduling approaches vary, but many
jurisdictions incorporate some level of advance planning or scheduling to balance workload and
inspection cycles. For example, some peer cities provide inspectors with monthly or quarterly lists of
properties due for inspection, allowing staff to schedule inspections in advance and align workloads with
geographic areas or risk levels. Others reported using set scheduling windows or next-day scheduling
practices for new construction inspections. Peer responses indicate that while multiple inputs and
inspection types are common across jurisdictions, more structured scheduling approaches support
advance planning and reduce instances of same-day coordination.
Cause
The Division’s inspection process challenges are driven by multiple competing scheduling inputs. The
reliance on the IVR system, which is not modifiable, and the lack of integration between Hansen,
ImageTrend, Brycer, and other operational systems requires inspectors to manually coordinate
scheduling and inspection activities across multiple platforms.
The Division’s ability to implement more proactive inspection scheduling and reporting practices has also
been limited by ongoing efforts to rebuild the ImageTrend database following prior technology transition
issues. Because occupancy and inspection data are still being restored and validated, the Division has
limited visibility into complete inspection cycles, workloads, and inspection history needed to support
systematic scheduling and reliable reporting.
The current inspection demand, combined with a commitment to no inspection backlog, is the cause of
back-to-back inspections where inspectors have decreasing amounts of time to complete reports in the
field. Also noted in Technology, field connectivity issues also contribute to challenges in completing
reports in the field.
Effect
Inspection scheduling and reporting activities require significant administrative coordination and manual
effort, reducing overall operational efficiency. Because inspectors and staff must manually gather
information from multiple systems and intake channels, scheduling processes are also more difficult to
adapt when inspections are added, cancelled, reprioritized, or requested on short notice.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 36
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
The reactive nature of the scheduling process also limits the Division’s ability to strategically group
inspections by geography, inspection type, or workload. Without the ability to proactively plan and batch
routine inspections, inspectors are required to travel across different areas of the City multiple times
throughout the day in response to same-day requests or late-arriving inspections. This increases vehicle
usage and fuel consumption, and limits opportunities to optimize fleet utilization and inspector time in the
field.
In addition, because the Division is still rebuilding and repopulating the ImageTrend database,
management currently has limited ability to monitor performance against the Division’s risk-based
inspection schedule. Until occupancy and inspection data are fully restored and inspection cycles are
stabilized, the Division cannot consistently measure or report on key operational metrics, including the
percentage of annual, biennial, and triennial inspections completed according to plan.
The current reporting process also increases the administrative burden placed on inspectors and may
affect the completeness and reliability of inspection documentation. Because inspectors often complete
inspections back-to-back and rely on handwritten notes taken in the field, inspection information must
later be manually transferred into reporting systems once inspectors return to the office. This process
increases the amount of time required to complete inspection reports and creates additional opportunities
for information to be omitted, entered inconsistently, or recorded inaccurately.
Recommendation
Replacement of the Hansen system will help to improve inspection requests and scheduling. When
considering new systems, the City should specifically investigate opportunities for the new systems to
integrate with other inspection request mechanisms. This would help to centralize requests and improve
visibility into scheduling needs across all inspection needs. The City should also consider revising its cut-
off times for inspection requests. This would reduce late-arriving requests through the IVR system and
provide inspectors with sufficient time to plan daily schedules.
Once the inspection database is completed, the Division should formalize and implement its planned
approach to inspection scheduling that aligns with risk-based inspection cycles, geographic distribution,
and workload balancing. Leadership indicated that this approach is already anticipated; formalizing and
operationalizing this strategy will support more consistent planning and improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of inspection operations.
The Division should also assess the feasibility of dedicated administrative support to assist with
scheduling and coordination of inspections. This role could support multiple operational needs, including
managing inspection scheduling and coordinating Brycer-related inspection activity, reducing the
administrative burden on inspectors, and improving overall efficiency. The City could explore partnerships
with local educational institutions to support administrative and data entry functions within FPO. While
essential administrative functions must remain the responsibility of trained personnel, students or interns
could assist with data entry, reviewing Brycer reports, and other duties under appropriate supervision.
The City should evaluate the feasibility of these partnerships and develop a structured approach, such as
internship or practicum programs, to ensure alignment with operational needs and supervision
requirements.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 37
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
The following table includes a list of local educational institutions to consider for this type of internship
opportunity.
INSTITUTION
RELEVANT
PROGRAMS WEBSITE
Glendale Community
College
Fire Science / Fire
Technology
https://www.gccaz.edu/degrees-certificates/fire-
science
Grand Canyon University Fire Science https://www.gcu.edu/degree-programs/bachelor-
science-fire-science
Phoenix College Fire Science https://www.phoenixcollege.edu/degrees-
certificates/fire-science
Mesa Community College Fire Science https://www.mesacc.edu/programs/fire-science
It is anticipated that once inspections of all businesses are complete, the overall demand will decrease
and also become more predictable. When schedules are being made in the future, consideration should
be given to accommodating time between appointments to complete reports in the field. If this is not
feasible due to connectivity issues, consideration should be given to dedicating time in the workday where
reporting can be completed to eliminate backlog.
FINDING 6 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement We Agree
Owner Fire Prevention – Chuck Jenkins
Target Completion Date IVR Replacement – TBD | Internship Program – November 2026
Action Plan The IVR system is slated to be replaced as part of the Hansen software
replacement process. We will continue to use the Cities IVR system until the new
software is in place. We will contact our partners with the Maricopa County
Community College and discuss the feasibility of an internship program.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 38
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
B. Community Risk Reduction
STAFFING- MEDIUM RISK
7. Finding Current CRR staffing, reliance on firefighter support, and the absence of a volunteer
program present challenges in sustaining consistent outreach delivery and
expanding programming in a strategic manner.
Recommendation The City should strengthen the CRR program by evaluating options for additional
dedicated capacity, improving consistency in firefighter support, and implementing a
small, structured volunteer program to supplement outreach and administrative
functions in a manageable and scalable way.
Criteria
CRR planning guidance emphasizes that program implementation requires coordination, adequate
personnel, and the ability to sustain outreach and risk reduction activities over time. When supplemental
resources such as firefighters or volunteers are used, they should be incorporated through defined roles
and coordination processes to support consistent program delivery.5
Condition
The CRR program supports a range of activities, including risk assessment, community education, and
community assistance. Staff reported that increasing workload demands, combined with current staffing
levels, are limiting the Division’s ability to expand outreach efforts and develop new initiatives. The
program is supported by one full-time dedicated staff member who serves as the program manager and is
responsible for day-to-day program coordination, outreach delivery, and administrative activities. The
program also receives leadership oversight from a CRR Captain and the CRR Deputy Chief. However,
the combinations of administrative responsibilities with operational demands limit the program’s ability to
transition toward a more strategic, data-driven approach.
In addition to traditional CRR programming responsibilities, the CRR Captain also oversees the
Department’s Crisis Intervention Specialist (CIS) program, which provides field-based support for
vulnerable populations and high-user community members encountered during emergency responses.
The CIS program works directly with fire crews in the field to assist individuals experiencing behavioral
health crises, substance abuse disorders, homelessness, repeat EMS utilization, and other social service
needs.
The CIS position conducts extensive case management activities, including post-incident follow-up,
resource coordination, referrals to behavioral health and treatment providers, navigation of housing
assistance, and coordination with community partners and healthcare systems. This work extends
beyond emergency scene response and includes long-term client engagement designed to reduce repeat
calls for service and improve community outcomes.
5 Strategic Fire, Community Risk Reduction Planning Guide, version 4.0 (2017), https://riskreduction.strategicfire.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/10/CRR-Planning-Guide-v4.0.pdf
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 39
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Staff reported that the volume of follow-up activities, ongoing case management responsibilities, and
increasing opioid-related incidents has significantly expanded the operational workload associated with
CRR and community assistance efforts. These responsibilities require substantial coordination,
documentation, interagency communication, and continuity of care beyond traditional public education
programming.
CRR activities are also supported by a cadre of approximately eight firefighters who participate on an as-
available basis. Staff reported that this support is valuable but inconsistent, as firefighter availability is
dependent on operational demands and emergency response needs. Interviewees noted that this can
result in gaps in coverage for outreach activities and limit the reliability of program delivery.
Leadership indicated that the program was historically supported by a larger group of firefighters, with up
to 40 personnel participating, which provided more consistent coverage. Currently, firefighter support is
often provided through off-duty overtime, which may contribute to increased costs and variability in
participation.
Additionally, staff expressed interest in developing a more structured volunteer program to support CRR
activities; however, no formal framework for volunteer recruitment, training, or management currently
exists. Interviewees indicated that development of a volunteer program has been limited by resource
constraints, competing priorities, and the absence of dedicated staff to coordinate volunteer efforts.
Peer Analysis
Benchmarking with peer cities indicates that CRR programs are typically supported by a combination of
dedicated staff and supplemental resources, including firefighters and volunteers. Peer responses show
that CRR staffing levels generally range from one to two full-time equivalent (FTE) positions dedicated to
CRR functions, with additional support provided through other personnel.
Three peer cities (Chandler, Gilbert, and Goodyear) use volunteers to support CRR activities, with some
maintaining formal volunteer programs supported by dedicated coordination roles. Firefighter involvement
in CRR activities is also common, with support provided through on-duty crews, light-duty personnel, or
overtime assignments. Peer responses indicate that while these supplemental resources are valuable,
availability can vary based on operational demands.
Cause
The current CRR staffing model reflects a combination of limited dedicated staffing, reliance on as-
available firefighter support, and the absence of a formal volunteer program. Resource constraints and
competing priorities have limited the Division’s ability to expand staffing or establish additional support
structures. Additionally, the lack of a dedicated role to coordinate volunteers and supplemental resources
has limited the development of a more structured program.
Effect
Staff reported that limited staffing reduces capacity to develop new initiatives and limits the ability to focus
on strategic, data-driven program planning. The program manager is required to balance both strategic
planning responsibilities and day-to-day program delivery, which limits the ability to focus on long-term,
data-driven initiatives and program development. As the primary provider of community education
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 40
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
programming, the Division’s outreach capacity is limited by the availability of a single staff member.
Interviewees indicated that only a portion of schools and community locations are currently being served
(e.g., approximately 13 of 43 schools), which limits the reach and impact of CRR programming across the
community.
Limited staffing also impacts the Division’s ability to expand proactive community intervention and
behavioral health support services associated with the CIS program, including field-based crisis
intervention, follow-up case management, and opioid-related outreach activities. As demand for these
services continues to increase, the Division is limited in its ability to provide consistent support, continuity
of care, and long-term interventions for high-risk populations.
Reliance on firefighter support that varies based on availability may result in inconsistent program delivery
and scheduling challenges. Firefighters supporting CRR activities remain subject to emergency response
demands, which can result in last-minute cancellations or reduced availability for outreach events. This
limits the Division’s ability to consistently plan and deliver programming and reduces the overall reliability
of supplemental support.
Additionally, the absence of a structured volunteer program limits opportunities to supplement staffing and
expand outreach efforts. Over time, these constraints may limit the Division’s ability to fully implement
CRR objectives and respond to community risk trends in a proactive and consistent manner.
Recommendation
On May 12, 2026, CRR and the Fire Division presented a plan to expand the CRR program to better
address behavioral health and opioid-related community risks.6 The plan includes the addition of two
temporary contract positions to support CRR’s response to the opioid risk within the City. One of the
additional positions will expand the CIS program to provide staffing coverage seven days per week,
significantly increasing the Department’s ability to respond to community members experiencing
behavioral health crises, substance abuse issues, homelessness, and other social service needs
encountered during emergency responses.
The expanded CIS program will enhance the Department’s ability to conduct proactive follow-up and case
management activities, including referrals to treatment services, housing assistance coordination,
overdose intervention support, and connections to community-based resources. This expansion is
intended to strengthen continuity of care, reduce repeat emergency service utilization, and improve long-
term community outcomes.
Additionally, the additional staff will allow CRR to dedicate more focused attention toward addressing the
opioid crisis within the City through targeted outreach, community partnerships, overdose prevention
initiatives, Leave Behind Narcan distribution efforts, and enhanced coordination with healthcare and
behavioral health providers.
6 13019_Item_1_-_Community_Risk_Reduction_Expansion.pdf
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 41
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
With the addition of these two temporary roles, CRR should take the opportunity to evaluate workloads
across existing staff and identify opportunities to separate strategic program management from day-to-
day operational responsibilities where feasible. This would allow manager-level staff to focus on long-term
planning, data analysis, and program development.
For long-term CRR support, the Division should explore partnerships with higher education institutions,
community organizations, and other local partners to support program delivery. These partnerships could
provide interns, practicum students, or volunteers to assist with community education, data collection, and
outreach activities, helping to expand program reach without requiring significant additional staffing
resources. This can also help support more consistent CRR service delivery by reducing reliance on the
existing firefighter cadre whose availability may fluctuate due to emergency response responsibilities and
other operational demands.
As the CRR program continues to grow and workloads shift with the addition of the two part-time staff,
CRR can take the opportunity to consider developing a small, structured volunteer program to support
CRR activities in a manageable and scalable way. As three peers have existing volunteer programs, the
City’s CRR program could reach out to gather additional information on the operational realities of starting
and maintaining a volunteer program.
If the CRR were to move forward with developing a structured volunteer support program, this effort
should begin with a limited scope focused on supporting existing programs rather than creating new
initiatives, and include the following considerations:
1. Define a small set of volunteer roles: The Division should begin by identifying a limited number of
tasks that volunteers can support without adding complexity. These may include assisting at
community events, preparing outreach materials, supporting data entry, or helping with logistics for
programs such as CPR training or safety campaigns.
2. Establish a simple onboarding process: The Division should implement a basic onboarding
process that includes a short application, a brief orientation, and clear expectations for volunteer
responsibilities. Existing City volunteer processes should be leveraged where possible to minimize
administrative burden.
3. Start with targeted, small-scale recruitment: Recruitment should focus on a small group of
volunteers from local partners such as community colleges, universities, or civic organizations.
Starting with a limited number of participants will allow the Division to test and refine the program
before expanding.
4. Pilot and adjust the program over time: The Division should treat the initial effort as a pilot,
evaluating what is working and where adjustments are needed. As capacity allows, the program can
be expanded gradually to include additional roles, training, or partnerships.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 42
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
FINDING 7 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree
Owner Deputy Chief Mike O’Neill
Target Completion Date 90 days
Action Plan ● The addition of two temporary contract positions
● Expanding CIS staffing to seven days per week will improve continuity of care
● The Division also supports collaborating with peer agencies
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT- LOW RISK
8. Finding CRR programming is informed by historical incidents and operational data, and the
Division has not yet developed a formal evaluative process to consistently assess
program effectiveness, measure outcomes, or determine whether CRR activities are
reducing identified community risks over time.
Recommendations Establish a structured program evaluation framework that uses outcome-based
metrics to measure the effectiveness of CRR activities and inform ongoing
program improvements.
Complete a Citywide comprehensive risk assessment and prioritize programs
based on the highest-risk populations, geographic areas, and incident types.
Criteria
An effective CRR program is designed and implemented as a structured, risk-driven process that includes
assessing community risks, developing targeted strategies, implementing programs, and evaluating
outcomes. To support this process, a program must have tools and systems to carry out these activities in
a consistent and sustained manner.
CRR planning guidance emphasizes that program implementation requires coordination, access to
reliable data, and the ability to track and evaluate program activities over time. A program should be
structured to align outreach efforts with identified risks and to support ongoing evaluation and adaptation
as community needs and risk conditions change (Strategic Fire CRR Planning Guide, 2017).
Condition
CRR programming is currently informed by a combination of community requests, legacy programming,
and incident data. Heat maps and call data are reviewed to identify areas with higher volumes of
incidents, including falls, fires, and drowning, which helps inform where outreach and education may be
most relevant. At the same time, the program also includes long-standing initiatives that continue due to
established community partnerships and demonstrated engagement. Additional programming decisions
are influenced by leadership experience, professional training, and participation in external professional
networks. For example, Leadership identified opioid-related incidents, behavioral health calls, repeat EMS
utilization, and vulnerable population response trends as growing areas of concern within the community.
While these inputs provide valuable context, the program has not yet completed a comprehensive
community risk analysis to systematically align programming with the highest-risk populations and
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 43
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
incident trends. For example, falls and lift assists represent the Division’s most frequent call type;
however, current programming includes limited fall prevention outreach rather than a structured strategy
designed to address this risk more broadly. Leadership indicated that completing a comprehensive
community risk analysis, including Threat Vulnerability Assessments and Pre-Emergency Plans, is a
priority for the Division, though progress is dependent on available time and staffing resources.
Several CRR programs are operating successfully but have limited reach due to limited staff available to
deliver community education events (see Staffing), as well as limited funding available for these
programs. For example, community education programs currently serve 13 of the City’s 43 elementary
schools, indicating opportunities to expand outreach as capacity allows. Leadership also noted that
alternative funding sources are being explored to support CRR programming, including one-time funding
opportunities that may require careful planning to ensure long-term sustainability.
CRR operates with limited technology infrastructure for program intake, tracking, and reporting. Program
requests are submitted through Survey123 forms that generate emails, which must be manually reviewed
and tracked. While the Division is transitioning from JotForm to Survey123, current processes still require
significant manual effort and do not function as a fully integrated system. Program activity and
participation data are primarily maintained in spreadsheets, which limits the ability to efficiently coordinate
programs, generate reports, or analyze trends across outreach activities. Interviewees expressed a need
for a more cohesive system to support program management functions, including intake, scheduling,
tracking, and reporting.
The CRR program does not currently have a formal evaluation process to measure the effectiveness of
outreach activities or connect program delivery to community safety outcomes. While a range of
education and outreach activities are delivered, there is limited structured analysis of how these efforts
influence incident trends or reduce community risk. As a result, the Division has limited ability to
determine which programs are most effective, prioritize initiatives, or demonstrate program impact.
Peer Analysis
Benchmarking with peer cities indicates that CRR programs are supported by a range of approaches for
identifying risks, managing programs, and evaluating outcomes. Peer responses show that incident data,
inspection data, GIS mapping, and accreditation frameworks are commonly used to inform CRR
programming.
Some peer cities rely on data sources, such as records management systems and GIS heat maps, to
identify high-frequency call types and target outreach efforts. Others indicated that program activities and
participation are tracked through systems such as ImageTrend, with varying levels of reporting and
analysis.
Peer responses also indicate that program evaluation practices vary. Some cities use reported data to
analyze trends over time, evaluate program effectiveness, and inform staffing or funding decisions. In
other cases, evaluation practices are more limited or still in development. Overall, peer approaches
demonstrate a range of maturity in linking CRR activities to measurable outcomes and using data to
guide program decisions.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 44
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Cause
Because CRR responsibilities are managed with limited dedicated staffing and operational support,
program planning and delivery have largely focused on maintaining existing community partnerships,
responding to incoming requests, and sustaining established outreach activities rather than developing a
more formalized, data-driven strategic framework.
Broader risk assessment activities, including Threat Vulnerability Assessments and Pre-Emergency
Plans, remain ongoing priorities but are also often cost-prohibitive. Until FPO fees are comprehensively
updated to better support cost recovery (see FPO Fees), the Division will likely continue to rely heavily on
General Fund resources, which are shared across City departments and may limit the funding available to
support expanded risk assessment activities.
The Division’s ability to manage, track, and evaluate CRR activities has also been limited by fragmented
and largely manual program management processes. Current intake, scheduling, and reporting activities
rely heavily on Survey123 forms, emails, and spreadsheet-based tracking rather than an integrated
program management system capable of supporting centralized data collection, reporting, and
performance analysis. As a result, the Division has limited operational visibility into program participation,
outreach trends, and measurable program outcomes needed to support more structured evaluation and
long-term CRR planning.
Effect
While existing outreach activities and community partnerships continue to provide value, the absence of a
comprehensive community risk analysis and formal program evaluation process limits CRR’s ability to
determine whether current programming is effectively reducing risk or whether resources are being
directed toward the areas of greatest need. In addition, limited visibility into participation data, outreach
outcomes, and program effectiveness reduces the Division’s ability to prioritize activities, optimize
resource allocation, and make data-informed decisions regarding future programming.
Limited staffing, funding, and technology support also constrain the CRR’s ability to efficiently manage
and expand activities. Because program intake, scheduling, tracking, and reporting processes rely heavily
on manual coordination and spreadsheets, staff time is consumed by administrative activities that could
otherwise be directed toward program planning, outreach, and evaluation.
Without stronger data analysis, evaluation practices, and operational tracking capabilities, the Division
may have difficulty identifying which programs provide the greatest community benefit, scaling successful
initiatives, or demonstrating measurable outcomes to support future funding requests, partnerships, or
resource allocation decisions.
Recommendation
CRR should develop and implement a formal CRR program evaluation process to periodically assess
program quality, outreach effectiveness, operational efficiency, and alignment with identified community
risks (Appendix C). As part of this effort, CRR should build on its established objectives and outcome
indicators for major CRR initiatives and routinely evaluate whether programming is contributing to desired
community safety outcomes over time. Existing CRR resources and frameworks, such as NFPA 1300,
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 45
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Vision 20/20 CRR evaluation guidance, and Community Risk Assessment and Outcome Measurement
tools developed through national CRR initiatives, may provide useful models for establishing structured
evaluation and performance measurement processes.7
The City should also continue progressing toward completion of a comprehensive community risk
assessment and broader Citywide risk analysis process to better align CRR programming, outreach
activities, and resource allocation with the community’s highest-priority risks and service demands. A
more formalized risk assessment process would improve the Division’s ability to strategically prioritize
programs, optimize limited staffing and funding resources, support long-term planning efforts, and better
demonstrate the value and impact of CRR activities across the community.
To support both program alignment and evaluation, the Division should continue building on its ongoing
efforts to improve how program data is tracked and organized. The transition to tools such as Survey123
reflects progress toward a more streamlined approach. The Division should continue prioritizing this effort
by enhancing the use of existing systems, including Survey123 and ImageTrend, to reduce reliance on
manual spreadsheets and establish a more consistent process for managing program requests,
scheduling, and participation data.
FINDING 8 MANAGEMENT RESPONSE
Management Agreement Agree
Owner Deputy Chief Mike O’Neill
Target Completion Date 90 days
Action Plan ● Develop and implement a formal Community Risk Reduction program evaluation
process
● Established CRR objectives and outcome indicators to better measure whether
programs and initiatives are achieving intended community safety outcomes
● Improve how CRR program data is tracked, organized, and analyzed to enhance
operational efficiency
● Enhancement and integration of existing systems, including Survey123 and
ImageTrend, to improve program request
7 CRR Connect | Vision 20/20
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 46
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Appendix A: Definitions of Assessment
Finding Rankings
We utilized the City’s IIAP risk rankings, presented below, and assigned rankings to our findings based on
our professional judgment. A qualitative assessment of high, medium, or low helps to prioritize
implementation of corrective action, as shown in the following table.
HIGH
Findings with a high likelihood of causing significant negative impact (i.e., pose a threat to
achieving organizational objectives) if not promptly addressed. Recommendations from
high-risk findings should be implemented (preferably within three months).
MEDIUM
Findings with a medium likelihood of causing negative impact if left unaddressed. These
should be prioritized for corrective action to improve performance. Recommendations arising
from medium-risk findings should be implemented in a timely manner (preferably within six
months), to address moderate risks and strengthen or enhance efficiency.
LOW
Findings with a low likelihood of causing significant negative impact (i.e., pose a threat to
achieving organizational objectives) if not promptly addressed. Recommendations arising
from low-risk findings should be implemented within 12 months.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 47
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Appendix B: Peer Benchmarking
The City of Glendale engaged Baker Tilly to conduct a performance audit of its Fire Prevention Division and Community Risk Reduction (CRR) program, with a focus on evaluating fee structures, information systems, permitting and
inspection processes, and CRR operations. As part of this work, we conducted peer benchmarking to gather information on staffing, operations, and practices across comparable fire departments. We reached out to 10 peer cities to collect
information related to fire prevention and CRR functions. Six peer cities, Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Goodyear, Peoria, and Surprise, provided responses through a structured survey. In addition, publicly available information from peer city
websites and materials was reviewed to supplement survey responses and provide additional context.
The following table provides an overview of key characteristics and practices across peer cities.
TOPIC QUESTION CITY OF GLENDALE AVONDALE CHANDLER GILBERT GOODYEAR PEORIA SURPRISE
Org Chart /
Staffing
Fire Prevention & CRR
Staffing
FMO: Fire Marshal,
Supervisor, 4 Inspectors, 4
Sr. Inspectors
(Investigators), 2 Plan
Reviewers.
CRR: Manager, Captain,
Deputy Chief oversight,
About 8 firefighter cadre
Fire Marshal, Plans
Examiner, 2
Inspector/Investigators,
Public Educator
Fire Marshal, Supervisor, 5
Sr. Inspectors, CRR
Manager (Managed by an
Assistant Chief), 3 shared
admin
Fire Marshal, 2
Investigators, K9, Lead
Inspector, 3 Inspectors,
Addressing & Preplan
Techs
Fire Marshal, 4 Inspectors,
2 Plan Reviewers, 2
Community Education, 1
Admin
Fire Marshal, Assistant Fire
Marshal, 6 Inspectors,
Public Educator
Fire Marshal, 3 Inspector III,
2 Inspector I, Community
Outreach Specialist
Budget* FY25 Fire Budget $79.3M $44.0M $53.7M $52.8M $41.0M $55.0M $48.8M
Budget* FY25 Fire Prevention
Budget $1.94M $918K $2.27M $1.07M $0.98M $1.54M Not reported
Staffing Total FTE (FMO + CRR) 15 5 12 11 10 9 7
Staffing Fire Prevention FTE 12 4 10 9 8 8 6
Staffing CRR FTE
3 (Program Manager,
Captain over CRR, and
CRR Deputy Chief)
1 2 2 2 1 1
Fees Funding Source General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund
Fees Fee Update Frequency Not updated since 2003 Every 3–5 years
(Dev/Finance led) Annually Every 2–4 years About every 5 years About every 12 years Annually (budget cycle;
includes benchmarking)
Fees Cost Recovery Approach Study underway; no defined
target Market-based / competitive Not reported No formal strategy No formal strategy No formal strategy No formal strategy (market-
based comparisons)
Systems Platforms Used
Hansen; ImageTrend;
Brycer; GIS; SmartGov;
Bluebeam; Serveris;
Survey123/Excel
ImageTrend (existing);
Accela (new construction)
ImageTrend + supporting
tools ImageTrend ImageTrend; Accela;
ProjectDox ImageTrend
Clariti Launch; LIS;
LaserFiche; ImageTrend;
Compliance Engine
Systems Effectiveness of Platforms Somewhat effective –
fragmented and in transition
Somewhat effective;
capacity not fully utilized Somewhat effective Highly effective Somewhat effective Highly effective
Highly effective (with
integration improvements
ongoing)
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 48
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
TOPIC QUESTION CITY OF GLENDALE AVONDALE CHANDLER GILBERT GOODYEAR PEORIA SURPRISE
Scheduling Scheduling Approach for
Inspections
Reactive, day-of
scheduling; multiple intake
channels
Accela-based for
construction; priority-based
scheduling for existing;
manual special events
Calendar + system-based
coordination
Next-day new construction;
area-based scheduling;
assigned events
Monthly inspection lists;
inspectors schedule within
timeframe
Not reported System-supported
scheduling across platforms
Scheduling SOPs Yes, mostly in place Yes Mostly in place Yes No Not reported Not currently
CRR Data Used for CRR Limited use; not fully data-
driven No formal CRR program RMS + GIS heat mapping Inspection & incident data Community-driven +
standards Not reported Accreditation-driven
analysis
CRR Firefighter Support about 8 firefighters
(inconsistent availability) N/A Limited Light-duty support 2 firefighters (as needed) Not reported On-duty + occasional
overtime
CRR Volunteers None N/A Small program (about 2 +
cadets) About 75 volunteers About 3 volunteers Not reported Limited participation
CRR Effectiveness of Support Ok (inconsistent) N/A Ok Great Ok N/A Poor–Ok
Training Tracking Informal Staff-managed; tracked by
Fire Marshal Excel / SharePoint Admin-managed system Vector Solutions Excel Self-tracked (ICC, NAFI,
IAAI)
Training Curriculum None None None Checklist-based Limited Not reported Formal task book &
syllabus
Training Funding Limited / constrained Annual training budget Not reported General Fund Budget line item General Fund Dedicated line items
Training Program Strength Functional but constrained Functional but constrained Not reported Functional but constrained Functional Strong Strong
Performance Metrics Tracked Limited; incomplete data Limited; fire loss tracking Not yet established Incident data Inspection & activity counts Not reported Accreditation metrics
Performance Data Use Partial; limited by systems Not currently used Planned Yes Yes (trend-based) Not reported Used for evaluation and
staffing decisions
* Based on publicly available organizational charts sourced from budgets and/or websites.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 49
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
IV. Appendix C: Sample Program Evaluation
Template
PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM MONITORING AND EVALUATION TEMPLATE
The Program Monitoring and Evaluation Template is designed to help CRR staff systematically track,
evaluate, and improve prevention and public education programs over time. The template provides a
framework for documenting program goals, activities, outputs, outcomes, and performance measures so
organizations can assess whether programs are achieving intended results and identify opportunities for
continuous improvement.
The template supports the “Monitor, Evaluate, and Modify the Plan” phase of the CRR process by helping
to:
• Measure program effectiveness
• Monitor implementation progress
• Track participation and community impact
• Identify trends and gaps in service delivery
• Support data-driven decision-making
• Demonstrate accountability to stakeholders and leadership
• Inform future program modifications and resource allocation
The overall intent is not only to collect data, but to use that data to guide program refinement and improve
community outcomes.
WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE TEMPLATE
The workbook contains multiple tabs representing different CRR and community safety programs. Each
tab is designed to support consistent monitoring and evaluation practices across programs. The
workbook currently includes templates for:
• CRR Programming
• Community Fire Safety
• Fire Pals – Fire Safety Education
• Water Safety
• Lock Box Program
• CPR and Emergency Preparedness
• Fall Prevention
Each program tab is intended to capture program-specific information while maintaining a consistent
evaluation structure.
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 50
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
COMMON SECTIONS AND DATA ELEMENTS
Although individual program sheets may vary slightly, the templates generally include the following
categories of information:
• Program Information. This section documents the foundational information about the program
• Activities and Outputs. This section tracks the work completed as part of the program.
• Performance measures and metrics. Performance measures are used to assess program success
against established targets.
GUIDANCE FOR SELECTING METRICS
Effective metrics should be:
• Specific
• Measurable
• Actionable
• Relevant to program goals
• Time-bound
Metrics should balance:
• Operational measures (what was done)
• Outcome measures (what changed)
RECOMMENDED DATA COLLECTION PRACTICES
To improve consistency and reliability of program evaluation data, agencies should:
• Establish standardized data collection procedures
• Clearly define reporting responsibilities
• Use consistent measurement periods
• Train staff on documentation expectations
• Validate data periodically for accuracy
• Maintain documentation supporting reported numbers
• Review trends regularly rather than only annually
Whenever possible, the Division should combine:
• Quantitative data (counts, percentages, incident trends)
• Qualitative data (participant feedback, observations, testimonials)
2026 Fire Prevention and Community Risk Reduction Performance Audit Report | 51
FOR INTERNAL USE OF CITY OF GLENDALE ONLY
Using both forms of information provides a more complete understanding of program effectiveness.
CONSIDERATIONS WHEN INTERPRETING DATA
Program evaluation data should be interpreted thoughtfully and within context. Interpretation should focus
on identifying trends, lessons learned, and opportunities for improvement rather than solely proving
success or failure. Important considerations include
• Correlation vs. Causation: Changes in community outcomes may not be attributable solely to a single
program.
• Small Sample Sizes: Programs with limited participation may produce unstable or highly variable
results.
• Time Lag: Some prevention outcomes may take months or years to become measurable.
• External Influences: Economic conditions, staffing changes, policy shifts, weather events, or
concurrent public safety initiatives may affect results.
• Data Quality: Incomplete or inconsistent data collection can limit the reliability of findings.
SUGGESTED USE OF THIS WORKBOOK
This workbook is best used as a living document that is updated regularly throughout the year rather than
completed only at the end of a reporting cycle. Recommended practices include:
• Regular leadership review
• Incorporation into strategic planning discussions
• Annual program evaluation summaries
• Use during budget and staffing planning
SOURCES AND GUIDANCE REFERENCES
These templates and evaluation concepts are based on guidance and best practices from Community
Risk Reduction planning resources, including:
Monitor, Evaluate, and Modify the Plan
Strategic Fire / Vision 20/20 CRR guidance discussing the importance of monitoring program
performance, evaluating effectiveness, and modifying CRR plans based on findings.
Source: https://riskreduction.strategicfire.org/monitor-evaluate-modify-the-plan/monitoring-the-plan/
CRR Model Performance Guidance Template
Vision 20/20 Community Risk Reduction guidance document providing examples of performance
measurement approaches, monitoring structures, and evaluation concepts for CRR programming.
Source: https://strategicfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Vision-2020-CRR-Model-Performance-
Guidance-Template.pdf