Internal Audit Report. BOCC Community Development Code Enforcement

Transcription

1 Internal Audit Report BOCC Community Development Report Number: Date: October 17, 2018

2 To: The Honorable Linda Doggett, Lee County Clerk of the Circuit Court & Comptroller From: Tim Parks, Chief Internal Audit Officer/Inspector General Date: October 17, 2018 Re: Audit of BOCC Community Development- Dear Ms. Doggett, The Inspector General Department has completed an audit of BOCC Community Development -. David Rollman, CIA, Senior Internal Auditor conducted this review. This audit activity conforms to the Institute of Internal Auditor s (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Red Book) and the Association of Inspectors General (AIG) Principles and Standards for Offices of Inspector General (Green Book). The audit client s response is attached to this report. We wish to express our appreciation for the cooperation and assistance provided us by management and staff during this review. This report will be posted to the Clerk of Courts website, under Inspector General, Audit Reports. A link to this report has been sent to the Lee County Board of County Commissioners and appropriate parties. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tim Parks, Chief Internal Audit Officer/Inspector General Inspector General Department TJP/GK

3 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Background... 1 Objective, Scope, and Methodology... 2 Observations and Recommendations... 2

4 Executive Summary The Lee County Clerk of Circuit Court & Comptroller s (LCCC) 2018 Annual Audit Plan included an audit of the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Community Development Department Division (Division). The audit objective was to determine whether was performing their duties in an efficient and effective manner and if the Division is in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The Division s risk factors were identified in a risk assessment questionnaire that was completed by department management. An entrance conference was held with management to discuss the results, confirm the audit s objective and scope, and to solicit current information regarding risks. Our conclusion is that personnel are performing their duties in a professional manner. They materially complied with the applicable laws and regulations. We offer recommendations to add value and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Division s processes and controls. The average response time to complaints that were reviewed in our sample was 3.8 working days. The Division s stated goal is to respond to complaints within three days. goals and procedures, such as complaint response goals need to be documented in formal written policy/procedures. The administrative fee for nuisance violations needs to be formally approved and included in the External Fees Manual. Background Lee County is a division within the Community Development Department. The Division is responsible for enforcing the Lee County Land Development Code and other ordinances and regulations in the unincorporated areas of Lee County. The Division works to sustain safe, healthy living conditions for residents and businesses. In June 2018, the Division converted from the Tidemark computer system to the Accela computer system. Most of the major functions of the new system have been implemented. Division personnel are working with information technology personnel to implement the remaining functions. 1

5 expenditures for Fiscal Year 2017 were approximately $2,245,000. Personnel services accounted for approximately 67 percent of the total expenditures. In calendar year 2017, Division personnel handled approximately 21,500 cases. The Hearing Examiner's office is responsible for code enforcement related hearings. Cases involving building code and building maintenance, permits, zoning, signs and nuisance violations involving occupied property are referred to the Hearing Examiner. Objective, Scope, and Methodology The audit objective was to determine whether the Division was performing their duties in an efficient and effective manner and if the Division is in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. The scope of the audit included a review of a sample of violations and complaints, budget activity, office organization and procedures, liens, regulations, and written office procedures. Interviews were conducted with a sample of Division personnel. The audit methodology was comprised of the following steps: Preliminary Risk Assessment - a meeting was held with management to discuss the audit objectives and scope and to solicit information regarding risks. Planning - Audit procedures were developed based upon research, audit objectives, scope, and the preliminary meeting. Field Work - Managers and employees were interviewed for insight on the operations. Evaluations and tests were conducted on operations and procedures to address and complete the audit fieldwork. Wrap-up - An Exit conference was held with management to discuss the audit results. Observations and Recommendations Written Departmental Procedures does not have comprehensive written departmental operating procedures. For example, their stated goal is to respond to complaints within three days. However, this goal is not in any written documentation. Recommendation 2

6 It is recommended that formalize procedures for their major functions. This would include items such as: Complaint response goals Timing of inspections and follow-up inspections Inspections prior to Hearing Examiner hearings The use of citations versus violation notices Training Filing and releasing liens The amount of time that supervisors are required to spend in the field Complaints 's stated goal is to investigate complaints within three working days. This goal is not documented in any formal written policy or procedures. A sample of 30 complaints from June and July 2018 was reviewed to determine whether the goal was met. The average response time for the complaints in the sample was 3.8 working days. Thirteen of the 30 complaints were not investigated within three days. Recommendation It is recommended that the goal to investigate complaints be included in a formal written policy or procedure. Steps should be taken to monitor compliance with this goal. Administrative Fee A sample of 20 violations was selected for review. The activity and charges for each violation were reviewed. An Administrative Fee of $150 is charged for both lot mowing violations and nuisance violations. This administrative fee is authorized in the lot mowing ordinance (Ord 14-08) and is included in the External Fees Manual. This administrative fee is not authorized in the nuisance ordinance (Ord 93-39); nor is it included in the External Fees Manual. Recommendation It is recommended that the $150 administrative fee for nuisance violations be approved and included in the External Fees Manual. 3

7

8