An inland Southern California city: three consecutive audits, cleaner every cycle
0% to 86%
Missing-ticket resolution across three audits
6 of 8
Prior findings resolved or improved
3
Consecutive audits, two operators, one standard
Asset
Municipal parking operation: garages, revenue control, and the operator's financial statements
Scope
Recurring audit reconciling operator reporting against system records, then testing whether the last cycle's findings were fixed
Duration
Six years, six deliverables, two successive operators
JDE role
Recurring outside check
01
The assignment
An inland Southern California city retains JDE as the recurring outside check on its parking operation: garages, revenue control, and the operator's financial statements. Each cycle reconciles what the operator reported against what the systems recorded, then tests whether the last cycle's findings were fixed. Six years, six deliverables, two successive operators.
02
The findings
The first audit set the baseline, and the baseline was not good.
Finding 01
Reported revenue did not reconcile
Observation
The operator's financial statements did not reconcile to system records. JDE traced the variance line by line rather than sampling around it.
Exposure
Financial-statement variance material at the baseline.
Finding 02
Missing-ticket resolution at 0 percent
Severity high
Observation
Missing tickets, the most common leak in a gated operation, were not being researched at all.
Recommendation
Research and resolve every missing-ticket exception. The operator built a missing-ticket command center in direct response.
Exposure
Every unresolved ticket is unpriced revenue.
03
What changed
The operator owned the fix, and it deserves the credit for how it responded. In direct response to JDE's findings, it built a missing-ticket command center to research and resolve every exception. Reconciliation practices tightened to match. The city kept the audit on a recurring cycle, which is the step most owners skip: the re-audit was on the calendar before the fixes were.
04
Verified
The next two audits measured the fix instead of taking anyone's word for it.
01
Audit one
Baseline. Financial statements did not reconcile to system records
0 percent missing-ticket resolution
02
Audit two
Variance near zero
83 percent missing-ticket resolution
03
Audit three
No material discrepancies
86 percent missing-ticket resolution
Financial-statement varianceMaterial at the baseline, near zero by the second audit, no material discrepancies by the third
Missing-ticket resolution0 percent, then 83 percent, then 86 percent
Prior-findings scorecard6 of 8 findings resolved or improved
Operator transitionThe engagement survived an operator transition. The standard belonged to the city, not to any one operator.
Bottom line
Across three consecutive audits, the city's financial statements went from unreconciled variance to no material discrepancies, and missing-ticket resolution rose from 0 percent to 86 percent. Six years, two operators, one standard, and a cleaner result every cycle.
Most parking audits happen once. This page is what happens when they recur. If your operator's financial statements have never been reconciled to the field, start there: contact JDE and one conversation will scope it.