County Auditor’s Proposed FY 2021 Work Plan

Again the County attorney and Manager should be working on this intensively now with the coming elections.

This should include serious cost/benefit analysis in the short and long run.

Funds from NCAC projects are being used to supplement funds that DES and other County Departments are using for their own mission, not necessarily for the local good. Example- Donaldson Run stream "restoration" got $300k in NCAC funds for what is primarily a storm water project. This infrastructure should come from and be justified in the identified storm water programs because the stream is a park that serves the entire County. I thought NCAC funds were for the good of the neighborhood.

This is the job of the DES management staff. The metrics included should be much broader and include citizen input on efficiency and effectiveness.

This should be done by the County attorney not the independent auditor.

With the current budget situation, this is untenable. Instead, the time should be used to do a sample cost/benefit analysis of what a selected large housing project will effect budgets now and over the next 5 years. What is the real payback time on our infrastructure investments and maintenance?

With rising assessments raising taxes, it is critically important to some property owners to have a fair assessment. Especially the lower income and elderly trying to remain in their homes. Controlling the assessments is an important compliment to tax breaks for the needy and controlling the tax rate.

With all the rapid development underway this is an important time to keep this or expand it.

Why focus on other jurisdictions problems? We need to focus on areas already identified by citizens as deserving review.

According to this document, the Board wants the County Auditor to focus on areas of high fiscal impact described as “significant budget impact, and potential that improvements will yield cost savings.” The plan is based on a Risk Assessment that includes input from County Board, County staff and one Fiscal Affairs Advisory Committee. No effort is made to bring citizen involvement into the assessment has been made despite numerous concerns expressed regarding the costs and efficiency of County operations. The Selection Criteria for the 2021 Audit Plan and the forward-looking Audit Horizon plan additionally include further goals of improving efficiency and effectiveness of County operations and the need to audit “different areas” of the government. Finally, the Plan promises “flexibility” to needs as they arise only in consultation with the Board, the Auditor, the Audit Committee and County management. If there is true “flexibility” to make needed revisions to this plan now and in the future, some general recommendations are in order: • Establish a permanent mechanism for citizens to request audits of specific areas of concern in addition to comments made during this absurdly brief comment period. These comments would not dictate audit activities but serve as an important source of relevant information to the Auditor and the Board. These comments should be formally reviewed and commented on by the Auditor to the Board every six months. • Some Audit Areas chosen as New Projects for 2021 include low priority programs with limited potential fiscal impact which was an important criteria now. These include Non-Profit Funding and a very vague Risk Management objective to which a great deal of time is devoted • While the list of potential Audit Areas in the Audit Horizon includes many noteworthy topics, they are listed alphabetically. The importance and suggested time frame need to be identified or this simply becomes a “wish list”. Notably, there is no significant cost/benefit analysis of key operations in the Department of Environmental Services which has the largest budget. Reviewing contracting, work orders, preventative maintenance, etc. is looking only at he fringes. A more complete audit of the full operations is required including operations and facilities planning priorities. Using established industry “best practices” is a poor substitute for researching and implementing the best new practices in light of major changes in technology and Arlington’s unique public needs.

One aspect not discussed here is the inequity that plagues NCAC projects. For example, playgrounds and other "park" NCAC projects may add facilities even when comparable existing facilities exist nearby, whereas other parts of the county may lack access to such "amenities." Part of the problem is the structure of NCAC, which rewards a handful of well-organized civic associations and allows them to dominate the process in earning points to bring projects to fruition — irrespective of whether or not they are actually needed.

Risk management isn't truly "County-wide" in this context. "Risk management" is narrowly defined here and applies only to the human resource aspect of county operations. It doesn't include the management of other, potentially larger risks. For example, Human Resources doesn't manage risk for sea-level rise (even though the Wastewater Treatment Plant is identified as being at risk of inundation from sea-level rise and storm surges). Likewise, there appears to be no HR management of overland flood risk (even though loss of life from such an event is becoming increasingly more likely). Arlington's Flood Frequency Analysis for Four Mile Run at USGS Gauging Station 1652500 has not been updated since 2004 (link). I'm not aware of any formal or coordinated risk management for cyber attacks or for the impacts of climate change. Far from being "black swan" events, these threats are becoming more commonplace with a high likelihood of tremendous financial and operational loss for the county. I would presume that nonpersonnel risks are not being reviewed in this proposal.

It is unclear what type of audit is being conducted for DTS. The Information Technology - Security Management is a very pressing matter. I would presume that the audit listed here is for something else? Clarifying its purpose in this work plan would be helpful.

I'm having trouble understanding where the additional 150 hours of audit time that would be "saved" by eliminating the economic development incentives and/or real estate assessment and appeals audits — no hours are assigned to those carryover tasks. There is a total of 175 hours attributed to carryover audits, both of which appear to still be on the table.

Query: What is the reason behind the proposal to close the economic development incentives audit from the carryover audit list? Is there another mechanism in place to insure that recipients of economic development grants or other financial incentives meet the agreed-upon terms?

Please correct the typo: "begin" should be "begun": "ongoing or not yet begun,"

The County Board’s charge for its independent auditor (as amended 6-20-17) states, “Funding: Sufficient funds shall be proposed by the County Manager, after consultation with the Audit Committee, for consideration by the County Board to carry out the County Auditor’s annual audit work plan.” As has been noted by others, there is only 1 FTE position, the auditor himself without any administrative or other support. The office's budget contains very limited funding for the hiring of contract audit support. Thus, it isn't surprising that only 3 audits have been completed to date. The Arlington County Civic Federation has asked the County Board and Manager "to identify additional funding and/or staffing resources (for example, adding a forensic accountant or a compliance officer) to support the County Board Auditor’s ability to complete audits and follow-up reviews within the established audit work plan’s time-frame and to increase overall audit capacity, in order to deliver timely, independent analysis to the County Board and assure Arlington County taxpayers that revenues and fees are being used in the most effective and efficient way possible."

The auditor should review performance measures currently include in the County Manager's proposed budget and determine if these are useful. Are these truly performance measures, or measures of output? The auditor could recommend a process for a more comprehensive review of performance measures and changes to them that could be more effective for accountability and budgeting.

These are all good. I would rank them by their overall effect on the community.

A better question to ask would be "What is the value of funding a non-profit program and is that non-profit program providing the expected results?"

Serving as an officer in ALGA is nice but what does it do to improve audit activity in Arlington? Better to allocate this time to Arlington audits.

It's nice to go after items that have fiscal impact but it would be better to identify programs that are not meeting goals and identify ways for those programs to meet goals. Instead of fiscal impact, concentrate on community impact, that is, find ways to help the community more rather than just cut budget.

This is classic low hanging fruit. Most of the effort would be from HR staff with guidance from the auditor.

It is "Comprehensive" not "Consolidated"

Is the auditor a actually working 40 hrs a week? What about sick or annual leave? Assuming the auditor is actually going to be working 40 hrs a week for the entire year seems unreasonable. Suggest that the actually hours of time available to the auditor be re-calculated.

Consideration should be given to the impact of the pandemic on voter registration and outreach. Was the County successful at informing people that they could vote by mail-in ballot and how to do so? The anticipated increase in absentee ballots will likely impact this audit work and may not be indicative of normal operations over a comparable time frame when there is no pandemic.

The auditor should include information regarding whether there were sufficient funds available for NCAC proposed projects.

The auditor should include consideration of changes made to federal law under the CARES Act, which provided paid leave for individuals in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We should ensure the County complied with state and federal laws in this regard.

The description notes that contract management is decentralized for parks and recreation. The auditor should examine whether opportunities exist to create efficiencies through a more centralized approach.

As part of this oversight, I would like a closer examination of the return on investment for BIDs. It is currently unclear how BIDs add value or fulfill a function that could not be otherwise provided by the government directly or by some other community organization such as a non-profit or civic association.

I'm interested in comparing the Sheriff and Police Overtime against activities done in other juristictions (via the MOU on mutual aid).

There is currently little if no oversight and accountability with most contracts. Example are Columbia Pike improvements in general and specifically the alignment of S. BuchananSt and S. Four Mile Run Minor at Columbia Pike. County project manager admitted there was no oversight, no meetings or coordination between various entities involved which resulted in years of delay and countless cost overruns. Why can't incentives be placed in contracts as well as penalties.

If doing this, should also expand beyond capital projects to our public engagement efforts generally.

This should be a priority.

I have read the first sentence of this several times and do not understand what it is saying. It seems to ask whether our Risk Management function can help with the mitigation of risk. If they can't, why do they exist? I assume this is trying to do something else. Need to clarify the purpose of this audit more clearly and explain why it is a priority.

Is this review better suited to be undertaken by our internal audit team?

Since the current auditor was appointed over 3.5 years ago, only 3 audits have been completed. I think the board, the audit committee, and the auditor need to fundamentally reevaluate whether the program is working in a reasonable and effective manner.

Assume this position will require an expenditure of "work" time -- yet no mention is made as to the impact on the normal work requirement. Also assume beyond Normal ALGA duties, travel/time will be required to manage/direct the conference. Major gap and definitely a financial impact upon budget and how these activities will affect getting the AC job done!!