Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dpw Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget analyst flags project accounting and work-order weaknesses at Department of Public Works
Summary
The Budget Analyst Office presented an audit identifying inadequate project accounting, weak business processes in the Bureau of Building Repair, and concerns about interdepartmental work-order budgeting and overhead in DPW; DPW said many funds and projects are reactive and pledged to work with analysts on feasible reporting.
The Government Audits and Oversight Committee on Monday held a hearing on the Budget Analyst Office audit of the Department of Public Works that flagged shortcomings in project accounting, materials management and budget presentation for interdepartmental work orders.
Severin Campbell of the Budget Analyst Office summarized findings in sections 11 through 17 of the report. The audit identified inadequate performance measures for the Bureau of Building Repair, weak project-accounting controls that in some cases led to obligations exceeding budgeted amounts, and shortcomings in materials and inventory management. The report estimated the Bureau’s annual facility-maintenance budget at approximately $38 million and said the department carries forward annual project appropriations without adequate protocol.
The auditors recommended a comprehensive review of business processes before implementing new information systems and asked the city services auditor to examine similar management weaknesses across departments. “An asset-management system or any information system is not necessarily a panacea,” the budget analyst warned, urging formal process reengineering prior to automation.
DPW officials acknowledged the problems and described ongoing reengineering at the Bureau of Building Repair and a request for roughly $280,000 to procure a maintenance/management system. Douglas Legg, DPW’s manager of finance and budget, said the department manages hundreds of work orders across bureaus and needs staffing flexibility because many contracts, grants and work orders arrive during the year. He told the committee the Bureau of Building Repair has 228 active work orders and that committing to precise non-labor estimates at the start of the fiscal year is often impractical for reactive maintenance work.
The audit also raised questions about the department’s interdepartmental work-order budgets, which auditors described as placeholders that do not reliably match planned expenditures and revenues; the auditors recommended the department compile a summary-level interdepartmental budget. DPW disputed some of those conclusions, saying supervisors already review individual work orders and that the department can provide historical spending data and project-level details.
Supervisors pressed both sides for more accountability and asked the budget analyst and DPW to identify practical steps the committee and the budget process can take. Public commenters urged broader audits and transparent business plans for infrastructure priorities. Chair Sean Ellsburn asked the budget analyst to pass priority-1 recommendations to the budget committee, reserved the right to call follow-up hearings within three months, and adjourned the meeting.
