Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
Record #: F2015-94   
Type: Report Status: Placed on File
Intro date: 6/17/2015 Current Controlling Legislative Body:
Final action: 6/17/2015
Title: Inspector General's report regarding Chicago Department of Transportation and Finance, Loading Zone and Residential Disabled Parking Sign Processes Audit
Sponsors: Dept./Agency
Topic: REPORTS - Miscellaneous
Attachments: 1. F2015-94.pdf

Office of Inspector General
City of Chicago

W'' -.
Report of the Office of Inspector General:


Chicago Departments of Transportation and Finance Loading Zone and Residential Disabled Parking Sign Processes A udit

•ret- „-.

June 2015


866-IG-TIPLINE (866-448-4754) www, chicagoinspectorgeneral. org

Joseph M. Ferguson Inspector General
City of Chicago

740 N Sedgwick Street Suite 200 Chicago, Illinois 60654 Telephone' (773)478-7799 Fax (773)478-3949

June 3,2015

To the Mayor, Members of the City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer, and residents ofthe City of Chicago:

The City of Chicago Office of Inspector General (OIG) has completed an audit of the City's loading zone and residential disabled parking sign application processes. In 2013, site surveys, billing, and installation of loading zones were carried out by the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT). For disabled parking signs, site surveys and billing were carried out by the Department of Finance (DOF) while installation was carried out by CDOT. Both types of sign requests are reviewed and approved by Aldermen via City Council ordinance.

While the processes at CDOT and DOF differed, the audit objectives were the same: to determine if the applicable fees were collected and to identify any delays in the installation processes.
Loading Zone Sign Process OIG found that the City,
failed to collect $3.9 million, or 59.9% of the recurring loading zone fees invoiced in 2013, including amounts due from previous years;
miscalculated the initial installation fees for 100% of a sample of 95 loading zones reviewed by OIG, resulting in overpayment of $10,550 in fees by sign requestors. Based on our analysis it is reasonable to assume that all such installation fees were similarly miscalculated;
does not have a standardized process to maintain loading zone applications and did not maintain complete data for 88.4% of installation...

Click here for full text