YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

Report No. 2000-64
July 31, 2000

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Shelby, which do not have a county auditor.  However, to assist such counties in meeting federal audit requirements, the State Auditor will also perform a financial and compliance audit of various county operating funds every two years.  This voluntary service to Missouri counties can only be provided when state auditing resources are available and does not interfere with the State Auditor’s constitutional responsibility of auditing state government.

Once every four years, the State Auditor’s statutory audit will cover additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials,  as required by Missouri=s Constitution.  

This audit of Shelby County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials.  The following concerns were noted as part of the audit: 

• The county imposed a sales tax under Section 67.547, RSMo 1994, (a general sales tax) for the purpose of establishing an enhanced 911 emergency telephone service; however, the county also has another one-half of one percent sales tax levy imposed under the same section of law.  With this additional sales tax, the county is levying one percent under this section of law, which is apparently above the statutory maximum allowed by state law.  The county could have submitted this issue to voters under a different section of state law. 

• The county does not have a procedure in place to adequately track federal assistance for preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards.  Without an accurate schedule, federal financial activity may not be audited and reported in accordance with federal audit requirements which could result in future reductions of federal funds.

• One case handled by the Public Administrator has a promissory note receivable.  Based upon information provided by the Public Administrator’s attorney and the terms of the note, the balance reported as due was considerably understated on the annual settlement prepared by the Public Administrator.

It was noted that the Public Administrator inconsistently charges fees on various types of transactions and does not provide calculations of his fees to the Probate Court.  There is no written policy identifying the types of monies received or transactions which should be considered as income. 

Also included in the audit are recommendations to improve the county’s federal cash management procedures, purchasing procedures and fixed asset records.  Additional recommendations were made to improve controls in the County Collector and Public Administrator records.

Complete Audit Report