| Ongoing budget deficits and uncertain financial future 
                  Operated with a structural deficit for many years.Developed inaccurate fund-balance projections for its general fund, distorting its financial outlook. | 
  
    | Inadequate budgeting practices 
                  Does not perform multiyear revenue and expenditure projections.Falls short of recommended general fund reserve. | 
  
    | Questionable salary increases 
                  Increased salaries of  40 position classifications
                    by an average of 27 percent.Unable to justify the methodology for determining the
                    amounts of the increases. | 
        
    | Violation of state law in the use of water and sewer funds 
                   Unable to justify its use of water and sewer revenue to fund some staff salaries.Water and sewer funds may be illegally subsidizing other city departments’ overhead costs.May have inappropriately used the water fund to help pay for a capital project. | 
  
    | Poor contract administration 
                  Approved a contract amendment that significantly changed the contract’s scope of services and  increased city expenditures.
Intentionally bypassed competitive bidding requirements for nearly 50 contracts through a provision in its municipal ordinance that provides city council with such discretion. | 
  
    | Inadequate controls over its financial operations 
                  Has not implemented nearly half of the recommendations made by its external auditor more than a year ago.
Has not developed a timetable for implementing the remaining fiscal year 2015–16 recommendations. | 
        
    | Lack of strategic plan 
                  Does not have a formal citywide plan for guiding its departments and personnel on its vision and mission.
Allows reporting on goals, objectives, and measures through its annual budget without a uniform approach. | 
  
    | Inability to effectively measure staffing needs 
                  Experienced reductions in its workforce during the past decade despite increases in city services.
Has not measured and quantified its workload need for some departments. | 
  
    | Significant turnover in key positions and no plan for identifying future leadership 
                  Experienced frequent turnover in the city manager position and among leaders of four key departments.
Has not developed a formal plan for ensuring continuity of operations and maintaining institutional knowledge. | 
        
	 | Appendix A—Scope and Methodology | 
 
	 | Appendix B—Lynwood’s Implementation Efforts to Address
                    Financial Audit Recommendations | 
 
	 | Appendix C—The State Auditor’s Local High-Risk Program |