Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Internal Audit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City auditors issue clean opinion on 2024 accounting work but flag oversight gaps in jail contract
Summary
The city received a clean, unmodified opinion on selected 2024 audit areas, but an internal performance audit of the detention‑services agreement found outdated contract terms, inconsistent written documentation of changes, and billing practices staff say can overstate hours billed. Auditors recommended stronger oversight and improved data access.
A team from the city’s internal audit office told the council the 2024 accountability audit produced a clean, unmodified opinion for the areas reviewed, but a separate performance review of the city’s detention‑services agreement showed opportunities to strengthen oversight and financial transparency.
“We did issue a clean unmodified opinion,” audit supervisor Larissa Nalty told the committee during the presentation, summarizing the head‑line result for the packet. The auditors said selected operational areas complied “in all material respects” with laws, regulations and city policy for the parts of the government they examined.
The detention‑services performance review focused on the contract the city uses with county detention services, which auditors said dates to roughly 2011. Auditors reported that the county largely followed the contract but that the city frequently lacked formal, written approvals when operational deviations occurred. Auditors said the contract’s age and gaps in documented change processes reduce the city’s ability to exercise oversight and to evaluate costs.
Auditors highlighted the contract’s billed average daily population (ADP) methodology and the billing unit: ADP was calculated using 24‑hour increments, which effectively rounds short stays up to a full day. The report notes that practice can inflate billed time even though it conforms to the existing contract terms. Auditors recommended revising cost allocation language and negotiating clearer, modernized billing and data‑access provisions in future agreements.
Audit staff also asked the city to pursue read‑only access to the county’s population management tool, commonly called the “jail tracker,” so city staff can monitor trends in misdemeanor and other populations that drive costs. Management said it will formally request limited access and pursue membership on county evaluation and RFP committees so city representatives can better evaluate provider contracts.
Management’s written response said the city accepts the need for stronger procedural oversight and described three near‑term steps: forming an internal jail oversight committee to monitor contract execution, requesting read‑only access to the population management tool, and working with county partners to clarify cost‑allocation practices. City officials emphasized that auditors “did not identify any fraud, waste or abuse.”
The audit also included smaller technical items: the auditor noted a de minimis overpayment in a two‑month sample of fire overtime, recommended additional sampling to quantify any systemic issue, and reported no concerns with building permit fee calculations or police property‑forfeiture compliance for the areas examined.
The internal audit office encouraged council members to read the full report and noted the recommendations are intended to improve transparency and stewardship rather than to allege misconduct. City staff said they will return with implementation steps and an update when they have secured county access and formed the oversight committee.
