YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

December 19, 2002

Report No. 2002-117

IMPORTANT:� The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Worth, which do not have a county auditor.� However, to assist such counties in meeting federal audit requirements, the State Auditor will also provide 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 it 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 Worth County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials.� The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:

• Worth County has faced financial difficulty within the General Revenue Fund for several years, making it difficult for the county to provide basic services to county residents.� Debt incurred in the General Revenue Fund has increased from $46,012 at December 31, 1995, to $132,742 at December 31, 2001.� Statutory salaries for elected officials and other required or essential operating expenses comprised at least 80 percent of total expenditures during 2001, making it difficult for the county to decrease expenditures.� Increases in taxes to generate additional revenues require voter approval.� These factors, along with a declining county population and tax base, will make it difficult to improve the financial condition of the General Revenue Fund.� The county should consider alternative ways of providing services, including the consolidation of certain services with adjoining counties or a merger of the counties current operations with one or more of the adjoining counties.

The county indicated it expects some improvement in the financial condition during 2003 because the voters approved a local use tax and a new retail store opened in the county.� The county also indicated it will consider presenting measures before the voters to raise additional revenues.

• The county has not sufficiently reduced its general property tax levy to reduce property tax revenues by 50 percent of sales tax revenues as provided in the ballot issue passed by county voters.� Procedural errors, combined with higher than estimated sales tax revenues, resulted in the county collecting excess property tax revenues totaling $12,190.� The county indicated it will make the additional rollbacks starting in 2003 over a period of three to four years.
  
• The county spent $7,125 from the Special Road and Bridge Fund during 2000 for the salary of a safety officer.� This employee was a certified law enforcement officer and this expenditure did not appear to be an allowable use of road and bridge funds.� The county should consider reimbursing the Special Road and Bridge Fund for the amount of salary related to law enforcement.
  
• The county made various purchases for road and bridge purposes without maintaining sufficient documentation that bids were obtained or advertised.� The county indicated bids were solicited for these purchases and that better bid documentation would be maintained for future purchases.

The audit also suggested improvements for approving and paying invoices, obtaining written contracts, use of the Victims of Domestic Violence Fund, and budgetary practices.� The audit also noted improvements needed in the accounting controls and procedures of the County Clerk, Prosecuting Attorney, Circuit Clerk, and Sheriff.� Some of these issues have been mentioned in prior audits.

Complete Audit Report