Audit committee debates FY26 audit priorities; staff to present two options in March

The Clarke County Audit Committee spent significant time discussing candidates for the FY26 audit work plan and how best to sequence large, resource‑intensive audits.

Audit staff told the committee they are staffed to complete roughly two large audits or one large audit plus smaller projects in a single year and recommended prioritizing audits by risk. Staff identified Central Services and Transportation/Public Works (TPW) as leading high‑risk targets because of their budgets and exposure.

Commissioners suggested alternatives if both large audits were not feasible: communications (to evaluate modern public‑engagement practices), municipal court (recent leadership transition), and the clerk’s office (recent personnel transition and undocumented procedures). Staff noted an animal services draft audit from 2018–19 exists but was never formally adopted and cautioned that a re‑audit would require fresh work.

To narrow options, staff proposed bringing two packages to the March meeting: Option A—Transportation/Public Works and Central Services; Option B—Central Services, Municipal Court and Clerk. "We could come forth essentially with two options at the next meeting," audit staff said, and commissioners agreed to review those packages before the March vote.

Committee members also discussed the distinction between questions that management can answer directly (for example, weekend code‑enforcement hours) and issues that warrant a formal audit (for example, equitable enforcement practices). Audit staff said some topics can be addressed by management responses while others are best resolved by audit work.

Staff reported a candidate had been offered the management analyst position and expected to start before the next meeting; the committee confirmed its next meeting date is March 5.

Audit staff will prepare option packages and return in March for the committee to select an FY26 audit plan.