YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

August 1, 2001

Report No. 2001-57

IMPORTANT:� The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Harrison, 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 Harrison County was a financial and compliance audit of various county operating funds. 

• The county�s General Revenue Fund reflects a weakening financial trend.� The 2001 budget reflects an anticipated ending cash balance of $7,289.� 

The financial condition of the 911 Fund is declining because of increasing operating costs.� The cash balance at December 31, 2000 was $79,419 and the 2001 fiscal year budget expenditures projects an ending fund balance of $14,869.� The county provides dispatching services for a number of entities and does not recover the majority of the related costs; only two of nine entities pay the county for 911 services. 

• During the 1997 salary commission meeting, a motion was made and passed to �set salaries of all elected officials of Harrison county at 100 percent maximum allowance compensation per statutes to take effect prior to the new term�.��� As a result, all elected officials were given a salary increase mid-term.� Section 50.333.13, RSMo, enacted in 1997, allowed salary commissions meeting in 1997 to provide mid-term salary increases for associate county commissioners elected in 1996 due to the fact that their terms were increased from two years to four.� 

On May 15, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion that holds that all raises given pursuant to this statute section are unconstitutional.� While the action taken by the 1997 salary commission was not voted under Section 50.333.13 RSMo, due to the Supreme Court decision, the salary commission should reevaluate the decision to give mid-term salary increases to all officials.� The County Commission indicated they will ask the county�s legal counsel to review this matter and will discuss it at the 2001 salary commission meeting.

• The county does not have adequate procedures in place to track federal awards for the preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).� Expenditures on the schedule were overstated approximately $118,000 and $128,000 for 2000 and 1999, respectively.

• The county has not established cash management procedures to ensure the minimum time elapses between its receipt of federal project monies and the distribution of such monies to contractors.

• The county incurred engineering costs of $38,580 for the bridge project we reviewed.� There was no documentation that the County Commission considered other engineering firms when procuring these services.� 
  

• Special Road and Bridge Fund revenues were significantly underestimated and expenditures were significantly overestimated, reducing the effectiveness of the budget as a management tool.

The audit also includes some matters related to related to the large cash balance of the Special Road and Bridge Fund, monitoring of reimbursements for bridge projects, misclassification of Special Road and Bridge Fund expenditures, and County Commission minutes, upon which the county should consider and take appropriate corrective action.�

Complete Audit Report