Council questions audit firm retention, employee bonuses and council devices during budget workshop

Council members raised three distinct oversight issues during the budget workshop: whether to re‑solicit auditors, the design of employee Christmas bonuses and problems with council devices.

A member said the incumbent auditor has been used since about 2018 and asked whether the firm should be replaced; Parks responded that bringing in a new firm requires significant lead time and orientation, and recommended starting a solicitation a year or more in advance. “If you bring a new firm in, obviously, there's a lot of orientation that firm has to do,” Parks said. Council directed staff to compile a list of potential firms for future consideration.

Members also questioned a $60,000 Christmas‑bonus line placed in nondepartmental, asking how many employees and whether council members were among recipients. Parks confirmed the line funded last year’s bonus; one member said council should be removed from the council‑member bonus “to be on the safe side.” The group asked staff to confirm compliance and, if necessary, exclude council members from the upcoming bonus payout.

Separately, members reported persistent problems with county‑issued devices, saying some tablets and phones are nearly 10 years old and impede work. Parks noted the county has a SpyGlass monitoring contract (about $2,000 per year) and that staff recently canceled duplicate lines that were generating unnecessary bills. Several members asked staff to re‑evaluate devices, including proposing dedicated council devices and a standardized, county‑issued email for council business.

What’s next: staff will compile audit‑firm alternatives, check compliance and eligibility concerning the bonus line (and remove council members if needed), and return with options and cost estimates for replacing or standardizing council devices.