Roswell audit flags controls gaps, council presses for reforms

An internal city audit delivered to the Roswell City Council on March 12 identified four principal weaknesses in the city’s controls and procurement practices and set off a broad council discussion about enforcement and transparency.

The auditor presented findings that she described as: improper use of capital outlay funds and insufficient controls over grant submittal and reimbursement monitoring; premature contractor work on the Taxiway C extension before formal approvals; inadequate construction documentation and invoice detail on a multi‑million‑dollar taxiway project; and a pattern of out‑of‑state travel taken without prior council preapproval in several cases. The auditor said the city received $107,000 from the state Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) tied to a fencing purchase tied to a training facility and then identified additional invoiced services that appeared outside the grant’s intended scope.

City Manager Aciman told the council his office had already contacted DFA, which the manager said indicated the city did not have to return the $107,000, and that staff had declined to request the remainder of the original grant amount. Aciman also said he had issued administrative instructions to require purchase orders before work begins, warned of disciplinary measures for staff who start work before approvals and tasked HR with designing required procurement and management training.

Councilors pressed for three concrete changes: better line‑item and budget‑adjustment reporting to the council; faster, clearer reporting from the auditor and audit committee when findings arise; and stronger controls on starting construction without purchase orders. Several councilors said the findings largely reflected legacy problems inherited from earlier administrations but emphasized the need to fix them now.

The audit’s public presentation highlighted specific contract and invoice issues. The auditor said one project—identified in the report as a taxiway project with a total contract value she cited as $4,400,000—had invoices that lacked schedule‑of‑values detail and that one earlier procurement for fencing included temporary vendor fees for set‑up and take‑down that appeared to be outside the original capital spending intent. The auditor recommended adding grant language to council abstracts and tightening the notice‑of‑obligation process so DFA notifications and claims align with council approvals.

Council members and staff agreed on next steps: management will provide written follow‑ups to the audit committee and the full council, HR and procurement will develop required training for supervisors and procurement staff, and the city will draft clearer reporting mechanisms for budget adjustments. The council did not take a formal vote on audit actions at the meeting; rather, members instructed staff to return with proposed changes and timelines for committee review and public discussion.

What happens next: staff and the auditor said they will work together to produce the recommended policy changes and training materials for council review in the coming weeks. The auditor and several councilors asked for the audit committee to receive and review draft policy updates before they return to the full council.