Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit

Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit

September 2021

City of Durham

Audit Services Department

101 City Hall Plaza

Durham, NC 27701

919-560-4213

Staff Germaine F. Brewington, Director

Sonal Patel, Assistant Director

Dredlin Rodriguez, Senior Auditor

Marcus Mundy, Internal Auditor

Robert Espinosa, Quality Control

Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit September 2021 Page 2

Date: September 27, 2021 To: Audit Services Oversight Committee From: Germaine Brewington, Director of Audit Services Subject: Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit

The Audit Services Department staff completed the report for the Community

Development Procurement Process Performance Audit dated September 2021. The

purpose of this audit was to review the procurement process of the Community

Development Department.

This report presents the observations and results of the Community Development

Procurement Process Performance Audit. Five recommendations were proposed. In

response to these audit recommendations, City Management concur with the

recommendations made. The detailed Management Response to the recommendations

is included with the attached report.

The Audit Services Department staff would like to acknowledge the contributions of

staff from the Community Development Department that provided information to

enable the audit process.

aud

it s

ervi

ces


Table of Contents

Highlights ...................................................................................................................................................... 4

Background ................................................................................................................................................... 7

Objective .................................................................................................................................................... 10

Scope, Methodology, and Compliance ....................................................................................................... 10

Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 10

Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 10

Compliance ............................................................................................................................................. 11

Results and Findings .................................................................................................................................... 12

Objective 1 Results Summary ................................................................................................................. 12

Finding 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 12

Finding 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 16

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 20

Recommendation 1 ............................................................................................................................. 20

Recommendation 2 ............................................................................................................................. 20

Recommendation 3 ............................................................................................................................. 20

Recommendation 4 ............................................................................................................................. 21

Recommendation 5 ............................................................................................................................. 21

Management Response .............................................................................................................................. 22

Distribution of Report ................................................................................................................................. 26


Audit Report Highlights Background The Community Development Department is responsible for coordinating the City’s community development and neighborhood stabilization and revitalization efforts including financial empowerment and home retention, affordable housing, and homelessness services programs. The City implements these services by working with developers and community housing development organizations. The Community Development Department uses different funding sources to meet this obligation. The procurement process is driven by the specific funding sources that are used to complete a project.

Objective The Objective of the audit was to:

Review the procurement process of the Community Development Department.

Why this audit is important

Proactively reviewing the procurement process at the

Community Development Department ensures that proper

controls are in place to appropriately manage the

approximately $146 million of funds that the Department is

set to receive. The Department has begun to administer

funding with higher amounts and increasingly more complex

requirements from four HUD entitlement programs, City

funds as well as Covid-19 response funding.

Highlights

Based on testing performed by Audit Services Department staff,

all applicable procurement guidelines were followed and non-

compliance with procurement guidelines was not noted for the

projects reviewed. In discussion with Community Development

Department staff and review of the procurement process, some

areas of concern were noted that would directly impact the

Department’s ability to ensure compliance with procurement

standards going forward. Factors such as: inadequate written

standard operating procedures, insufficient training, ineffective

internal communication and a lack of a project management

system contribute to a risk of non-compliance within the

procurement process. In addition, based on results from the

survey administered by the Audit Services staff, it appears that

an unhealthy departmental culture also exists. The culture of a

department drives how it conducts business and executes its

strategies. An unhealthy departmental culture can impact the

Community Development Department’s ability to effectively

administer the funding it receives.


T

This page left intentionally blank


Audit Services Department

Internal Audit

The Audit Services Department serves a three-fold role

at the City of Durham. Our number one goal is to

provide independent, objective assurance that City

processes are working effectively. Secondly, we serve as

internal fraud examiners when fraud, waste, or abuse is

alleged against a City employee or department. Finally,

to constantly foster high ethical standards, we provide

in-depth ethical training to all City employees on a

rolling basis. To learn more, visit our CODI site or our

page on the City of Durham’s website.

Audit Services Oversight Committee

To maintain its organizational independence, the Audit Services

Department reports to the Audit Services Oversight Committee

(ASOC) at meetings a minimum of four times a year. The ASOC

approves all proposed audit plans and completed audits prepared

by Audit Services staff.

The Audit Services Oversight Committee is made up of six members:

two City Council Members, three resident members, and one

alternate City Council Member. The current members include one

certified public accountant and persons with business experience.

The City Manager is an ex-officio, non-voting member of the ASOC.

Audit Services Oversight

Committee Members

Chair:

Nick Long

Resident Member

Vice-Chair:

Shanell Frazer

Resident Member

Committee Members:

Steve Schewel

Mayor

City Council Member

Jillian Johnson

Mayor Pro-Tempore

City Council Member

Matthew Ruterbories

Resident Member

Charlie Reece

Alternate

City Council Member

Non-Voting Member:

Wanda S. Page

City Manager

https://durhamnc.gov/150/Audit-Services


Background

The Community Development Department is responsible for coordinating the

City’s community development and neighborhood stabilization and

revitalization efforts including financial empowerment and home retention,

affordable housing, and homelessness services programs. The City

implements these services by working with developers and community

housing development organizations. The Community Development

Department uses different funding sources to meet this obligation. The

procurement process is driven by the specific funding sources that are used

to complete a project. It is important that the Community Development

Department (CDD) staff follow the correct procurement process to ensure the

City is in compliance with all funding source requirements.

The different types of funding received that drive the procurement process

include:

CDBG

CDBG-CV

ESG

ESG-CV

HOPWA } federally mandated requirements

HOPWA-CV

HOME

HOME-ARP

ERAP

COC

Dedicated Housing Funds

General Funds

Bond } City mandated requirements


Over the past ten years, Community Development's funding has grown from

just federal entitlement funds (CDBG, HOME Investment Partnership, and ESG

(Emergency Solutions Grants)) along with a small amount of bond program

income (loan repayments from previous bond referenda) to more funding

sources and significantly higher amounts. The Department now has all four

HUD entitlement programs (CDBG, HOME Investment Partnership, ESG, and

HOPWA (Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS)) and $7.8 million in

annual City funds. Over that period, the funding increased from under $6

million to over $17 million annually, with some years expending over $20

million. During that same time, the federal regulations have become more

complex to administer. The Department has begun to implement projects with

multiple funding sources and serve as administrators of Durham's homeless

housing system. Additionally, the Department now administers $95 million in

affordable housing bond funds and, since the COVID-19 Pandemic began 18

months ago, receives almost $25 million in COVID-19 response funding.

The following table shows the funding sources and the associated fiscal year

2022 allocations.


Table 1: Funding sources and allocated amounts for fiscal year 2022

FUNDING SOURCES F22 - ALLOCATION

CDBG $2,138,128

CDBG-CV $2,716,217

HOME $1,199,161

HOME-ARP $4,346,151

ESG $174,344

ESG-CV $2,662,668

HOPWA $542,712

HOPWA-CV $70,340

ERAP 1 $8,414,809

ERAP2 UN-ASSIGNED ON HAND (40%) $2,663,298

ERAP2 UN-ASSIGNED YET TO BE RECEIVED (60%) $3,994,947

COC $45,000

DEDICATED HOUSING FUNDS $7,569,149

GENERAL FUND $2,224,056

BOND (NEW) $95,000,000

TOTAL FUNDS/GRANTS $133,760,980

FUNDING SOURCES TOTAL AMT AVAILABLE

CDBG PI $153,774

HOME PI $2,270,496

BOND PI $9,551,777

TOTAL PROGRAM INCOME $11,976,047

GRAND TOTAL $145,737,027


Objective

The objective of the audit was to:

Review the procurement process at the Community

Development Department.

Scope, Methodology, and Compliance

Scope

The scope of the audit included examining all current practices as they

relate to procurement at the Community Development Department.

Methodology

Audit Services Department staff performed the following procedures to

accomplish the objectives of the audit:

1. reviewed the expenditures to date by funding source and

reviewed the contracts that were awarded for fiscal years 2020

and 2021;

2. interviewed Community Development Department (CDD) staff

involved in the procurement process;

3. reviewed CDD internal procurement guidelines;

4. reviewed funding stream specific guidelines;

5. reviewed controls over the procurement process;

6. selected a [judgmental] sample of contracts from different

funding sources to test for procurement compliance and

performed the following:

a) determined procurement requirements by type of funding

source; and


b) reviewed whether the procurement was in compliance with

the funding source requirements;

7. surveyed Community Development Department staff and

inquired about procurement practices and departmental

culture;

8. reviewed procurement specific training taken by Community

Development Department staff for fiscal years 2020 or 2021;

and

9. reviewed the communication process by which staff are kept

informed about changes to rules/requirements.

During the audit, the Audit Services Department staff also maintained

awareness for the potential existence of fraud.

Compliance Audit Services staff conducted this performance audit per generally

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that

the Audit Services staff plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient and

appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on the audit objectives. Audit Services staff believe that

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and

conclusions based on our audit objectives.


Results and Findings

Objective 1 Results Summary

REVIEW THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Based on testing performed by Audit Services Department staff, all

applicable procurement guidelines were followed and non-compliance

with procurement guidelines was not noted for the projects reviewed.

Audit Services Department staff selected a sample of 17 (39%) of the 43

contracts awarded during fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and verified that

applicable procurement guidelines were followed. No exceptions were

noted. There were instances when deviations occurred from the normal

procurement process when a request originated from City Council

members or the City Manager. However, all exceptions were approved by

City Council and an exception memo was also on file for the deviations

from protocol. These deviations, because City Council is the ultimate

approving authority, were not considered exceptions for our testing

purposes.

In discussion with Community Development Department staff and review

of the procurement process, some areas of concern were noted that

would directly impact the Department’s ability to ensure ongoing

compliance with procurement standards.

Finding 1

Audit Services staff found:

Factors exist within the Community Development Department that could potentially

contribute to the risk of non-compliance within the procurement process.

Based on a review of the procurement process, discussions with

Community Development Department staff and survey results, a risk exists

that the Community Development Department staff may not comply with

procurement guidelines. The following fish bone diagram captures the


factors that could contribute to the potential risk of non-compliance in the

procurement process. See Graph 1 results below.

Graph 1: Fishbone diagram of root causes for risk of non-compliance

Inadequate written guidance:

The Community Development Department does not have comprehensive

standard operating procedures over the procurement process. Staff currently

use a procurement checklist to help guide them through the procurement

process. The checklist only focuses on the request for proposal method of

procurement. The procurement process guidance should incorporate

appropriate requirements based on funding source, amount, project type etc.

The policy should also address allowed deviations from the process as well as

clearly defined roles and responsibilities. During the last year, Department


leadership contracted with an outside consultant to help improve the current

procurement process. The Department engaged Inspirus Consulting, Inc. to

assist with organizational development and procurement process

improvement. This process is still ongoing.

Insufficient training:

The Community Development Department staff could mitigate the risk of

potential non-compliance by increasing training opportunities. One of the

questions asked in the survey was, “Do you feel that you have received the

training necessary to perform procurement activities?” The results were as

follows: 12% of the staff stated that they strongly disagree, 53% stated that

they disagree, 18% neither agreed nor disagreed and 18% agreed. Graph 2

below shows the results.

Graph 2: Training necessary to perform procurement activities

In addition, Community Development Department staff do not understand why

some projects deviate from the expected procurement process. This

contributes to an environment of mistrust and confusion. It also contributes

to a perception of non-compliance with procurement requirements among

staff members. For example, in certain instances Dedicated Housing Funds are

11.76%

52.94%

17.65% 17.65%

0.00%

Stronglydisagree

Disagree Neitheragree nordisagree

Agree Stronglyagree

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

I feel that I have received the training necessary to perform procurement activities.

Responses


awarded at the discretion of City Council or by the City Manager with City

Council approval. City Council has the power

to override the procurement requirements for

certain funds and award a contract to a given

agency without competitive bidding.

Therefore, given that the authority exists, no

procurement regulations are violated. In other instances, given the pandemic,

the federal government relaxed some procurement requirements as spending

of funds needed to be expedited.

Cross functional training is also recommended. Training on requirements for all

funding streams across divisions will provide clarity for all staff, preclude

confusion resulting in part to operating in silos and enhance trust about the

application of requirements. The terminology used by staff is also not

consistent and can create unnecessary confusion among staff members.

Ineffective internal communication:

Communication within the department is ineffective as a formal process is not

in place to ensure that changes to the procurement process are communicated

to all staff in a timely manner. Ineffective communication relating to

procurement changes can increase the risk of non-compliance.

Lack of a project management system:

At present the Department does not use a project management system. The

Community Development Department staff highlighted this as an issue during

interviews with Audit Services Department staff. Without a project

management system, the current procurement process enables bottlenecks to

occur. Part of the internal procurement

process requires reviews at various levels;

however, the current process does not specify

the length of time each review phase should

take. According to Community Development

staff, sometimes documents stay with an individual for review for long periods

of time. In addition, project documentation may reside in several individuals’

email folders and therefore not be readily accessible. A project management

CDD leadership should increase training for staff specific to the procurement process.

Review delays and documents not residing in a central location create bottlenecks.


system can help ensure all documentation resides in a centralized location.

Using a project management software tool makes it a lot easier for the project

management team to be able to collaborate on large projects. Such a software

tool allows everyone to share documents, timelines, and status updates, so you

know where each team member is as it relates to a project completion

deadline, how much is completed, and how much remains to be completed.

Finding 2

Audit Services staff found:

An unhealthy departmental culture exists at the Community Development Department

which can impact the staff’s ability to effectively administer the funds it receives.

An organization’s culture consists of the values, beliefs, attitudes, and

behaviors that employees share and use on a daily basis in their work. The

culture is also a driver of decisions, actions, and ultimately the overall

performance of a given organization. The values adopted at the City of

Durham to drive a positive culture include leadership, teamwork, open

communication, integrity and fairness. A

healthy culture at the Community

Development Department would reflect the

following positive attributes: clear

communication of stated objectives, trust in

leadership’s understanding of the process,

high performing teams, and an environment

where everyone is held accountable.

The Audit Services Staff interviewed and surveyed employees within the

Community Development Department. Based on the survey results it

appears that an unhealthy departmental culture exists. In general, the

culture of a given organization drives how it conducts business and executes

its strategies. Tone-at-the-Top is one of four points of focus for the Control

Environment of the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway

Commission’s (COSO) Internal Control Framework. The COSO Framework is

deemed to be a best practice sanctioned by the Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC), which clarifies for all business entities, the requirements

An unhealthy departmental culture exists at the Community Development Department. Staff do not trust the Department’s upper management.


for determining what makes up an effective internal control system. Internal

controls are procedures, systems, applications and rules to ensure the

transparency and integrity of the accounting system of an organization. The

City of Durham adopted in 2002 some sections of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of

2002 and the COSO Framework of Internal Controls as standards to

undergird the accounting system and the City’s system of internal controls.

This Framework states, “In setting the Tone-at-the-Top the governing body

and management at all levels of the entity demonstrate through their

directives, actions and behaviors the importance of integrity and ethical

values to support the functioning of the system of internal controls. Tone-at-

the-Top refers to the ethical atmosphere that is

created in the workplace by the organization's

leadership. Tone-at-the-Top plays a role in how

the leadership of an organization creates or

changes the organizational culture, whether

intentionally created or not. Whatever tone

management sets will have a trickle-down effect

on employees of the organization. When the

tone set by managers upholds ethics and

integrity, employees will be more inclined to

uphold those same values”. An unhealthy departmental culture in

Community Development can impact the department’s ability to effectively

administer the funding it receives.

The following fish bone diagram captures the responses from 16 of the 21

employees who answered the survey. Responses identified negative

attributes which can undergird an unhealthy departmental culture. See Graph

3 results below.

COSO Framework of internal controls


Graph 3: Fishbone diagram- negative attributes which can undergird an

unhealthy culture

Based on survey comments, Community Development Department Staff

do not trust upper management and feel that the leadership team isn’t

cohesive in messaging or direction. Staff feel that department goals are

not communicated clearly. This lack of being a cohesive unit makes it

difficult to articulate a clear direction. Internal conflicts between the

Fiscal Division and Strategy Division management further perpetuate an

unhealthy departmental culture. In addition, ineffective communication

exists within the Department between the front line and mid-level

employees in the Divisions and upper management. This environment

directly impacts the tone from the top.


Conclusion

Based on testing performed by Audit Services Department staff, all

applicable procurement guidelines were followed and non-compliance

with procurement guidelines was not noted for the projects reviewed. In

discussion with Community Development Department staff and review of

the procurement process, some areas of concern were noted that would

directly impact the Department’s ability to ensure compliance with

procurement standards going forward. Factors such as: inadequate

written standard operating procedures, insufficient training, ineffective

internal communication and a lack of a project management system

contribute to a risk of non-compliance within the procurement process.

In addition, based on the survey results it appears that an unhealthy

departmental culture also exists. The culture of an organization drives

how it conducts business and executes its strategies. An unhealthy

departmental culture can impact the Department’s ability to effectively

administer any funding it receives.


Recommendations

Recommendation 1 The Community Development Department management should create written procurement standard operating procedures that are comprehensive and provide guidance to staff on what procurement requirements to follow to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement requirements. The standard operating procedures should also address allowed deviations from the process and the applicable documentation required to justify the deviation. The roles and responsibilities of all staff involved in the procurement process should also be clearly defined. Value Added: Risk Reduction; Compliance

Recommendation 2 The Community Development Department management should provide relevant ongoing training for all employees to introduce and reinforce policies, procedures, and applicable regulations pertaining to the procurement process. Value Added: Risk Reduction; Compliance

Recommendation 3 The Community Development Department should explore the feasibility of using an integrated

project management tool to manage projects. Using a project management software, will

enable the management team to collaborate on projects. The software should allow everyone

to share documents, timelines, and status updates, to ensure an effective and efficient

outcome.

Value Added: Risk Reduction; Efficiency


Recommendation 4 The Community Development Department senior leadership should develop and submit an action plan to City management to develop trust between senior leadership and staff. This action plan should also include steps to improve the tone at the top by working as a cohesive unit and providing consistent and clear guidance to staff. Senior leadership should address their internal issues and engage in activities that will build trust between upper management and staff. Value Added: Risk Reduction; Compliance

Recommendation 5 The Community Development Department management should establish communication channels to disseminate pertinent information to staff so that all staff are kept abreast of any changes to organization operations. Value Added: Risk Reduction; Compliance

To learn more, visit our website at durhamNC.gov/audit

http://durhamnc.gov/150/Audit-Services


Management Response

Memo

Date: September 22, 2021

To: Dr. Germaine F. Brewington Director, Audit Services

Through: Reginald J. Johnson Director, Community Development Subject: Management’s Response to Recommendations Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit Dated September 2021 The following is the management’s response to the Community Development Procurement

Process Audit dated September 2021.

Recommendation 1:

The Community Development Department management should create written procurement

standard operating procedures that are comprehensive and provide guidance to staff on what

procurement requirements to follow to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement

requirements. The standard operating procedures should also address allowed deviations

from the process and the applicable documentation required to justify the deviation. The roles

and responsibilities of all staff involved in the procurement process should also be clearly

defined.

Management’s Response:

We concur. Management is in full agreement with the recommendation.

The Department recognizes the need to develop better written procurement standard

operating procedures. The first step is to engage in process mapping to define the process,

the permutations and deviations, and the roles and responsibilities in completing task or

deliverables for the procurement process. Once that is done, then detailed standard operating

procedures will be written. This process is already underway in working with a consultant to

assist us with processing mapping. We have already begun to define the process. The

process mapping and role definition work should be completed within the next 45-60 days.

Community Development will designate a procurement process owner who will in


collaboration with the Compliance Team, Fiscal Team, and project managers, craft specific

procurement operating procedures that will be reviewed with the Director and staff, and

formally approved and made available for all Community Development staff.

Implementation Date: January 2022.

Community Development Staff: Terri Porter Holmes, Matt Schnars, Sarah Zinn

Recommendation 2:

The Community Development Department management should provide relevant ongoing

training for all employees to introduce and reinforce policies, procedures, and applicable

regulations pertaining to the procurement process.



While Community Development currently does provide educational/training opportunities for

staff, the Department will better formalize this effort by developing an assessment to identify a

multifaceted training approach to include training from resources external to the City, training

from other City departments, and training presented by Community Development staff

members. Community Development will establish a cross functional team comprised of

representatives of management and staff. The cross functional team will review and assess

the training and education needs of the Department at the following levels: a) all staff both

mandatory and voluntary; b) team or process specific training or education; c) lunch and learn

discussions (guest speakers both Community Development staff and other Departments; and

d) individual educational/training/development opportunities. The team will review

educational/training progression and status monthly. This will involve an ongoing process that

will begin in November 2021.

Implementation Date: November 2021

Community Development Staff: Karen Lado and Terri Porter Holmes

Recommendation 3:

The Community Development Department should explore the feasibility of using an integrated

project management tool to manage projects. Using a project management software will

enable the management team to collaborate on projects. The software should allow everyone

to share documents, timelines, and status updates, to ensure an effective and efficient

outcome.



Community Development recognizes the need for acquiring an integrated project

management tool or software and has begun to explore the feasibility of using an integrated


project management tool to manage projects. Last fiscal year, Community Development

submitted a request to the Technology Solutions (TS) Department to develop a project

management software for all staff members to use in tracking and collaborating on projects.

The proposal was approved by the IT (Information Technology) Solutions Committee and the

Department is now working with the TS Department’s IT software consultant to begin the

assessment process as TS is adding additional modules to the City’s Onbase System.

Furthermore, Community Development has submitted a request to the Technology Solutions

Department for the acquisition of Neighborly software which will support the Department with

the financial management, fiscal project management, and the grant application processes.

The acquisition has been approved by the City’s IT Governance Committee and is awaiting

funding and subsequent implementation.

Implementation Date: May 2022

Community Development Staff: Sarah Zinn and Reginald J. Johnson

Recommendation 4:

The Community Development Department senior leadership should develop and submit an

action plan to City management to develop trust between senior leadership and staff. This

action plan should also include steps to improve the tone at the top by working as a cohesive

unit and providing consistent and clear guidance to staff. Senior leadership should address

their internal issues and engage in activities that will build trust between upper management

and staff.



Community Development senior leadership has been working on this matter with training and

education at the individual and team levels. Senior Leadership agrees that this

recommendation needs to be addressed and mitigated. Senior Leadership will consult with

staff and middle management to determine root causes and develop an action plan based

upon the root causes. Senior Leadership will submit an action plan to City management in 60

days. In the meantime, Senior Leadership has begun through the following efforts:

Department Director will better define in writing the roles and responsibilities of the

assistant directors.

Department Director has already begun the implementation of skip level meetings

where the Director meets with middle managers without the presence of the assistant

directors to answer questions.

Reiterate open door policy and create alternative vehicles from staff to ask questions

and share ideas both directly and anonymously.

Implementation Date: December 2021

Community Development Staff: Reginald J. Johnson, Terri Porter Holmes, and Karen Lado


Recommendation 5:

The Community Development Department management should establish communication

channels to disseminate pertinent information to staff so that all staff are kept abreast of any

changes to organization operations.



Community Development projects and programs require the input and expertise of a variety of

staff members at different points in the procurement process and organizational operations.

The Department recognizes the need to keep staff members informed from the projects’

conception through programmatic and fiscal changes that occur. The Department will institute

a regular meeting schedule that is at least biweekly with agendas to include updates on

changes to organizational operations. The Department has previously discussed the need for

such meetings and will move forward with implementation

Implementation Date: October 2021.

Community Development Staff: Karen Lado and Elbert Avery


Distribution of Report

Nicolas Long

Chair, Resident Member

[email protected]

Shanell Frazer

Vice-Chair, Resident Member

[email protected] Steve Schewel, Mayor

City Council Member

[email protected]

Jillian Johnson, Mayor Pro-Tempore

City Council Member

[email protected]

Charlie Reece

Alternate

City Council Member

[email protected]

Matthew Ruterbories

Resident Member

[email protected]

Wanda S. Page, CPA, CIA

City Manager

[email protected]

Bo Ferguson

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

Keith Chadwell

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

Bertha T. Johnson

Deputy City Manager

[email protected]

Emily Desiderio

Interim Director, Finance

Department

[email protected]

Reginald Johnson

Director, Community

Development Department

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]










Date post:	08-Dec-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

Community Development Procurement Process Performance Audit

Documents