YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

September 30, 2003

Report No. 2003-103

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Pulaski, 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 Pulaski 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 financial condition of the county�s General Revenue Fund declined through 2001 due primarily to a large increase in disbursements in 2001.  In 2001, various lawsuits filed by county officials resulted in approximately $114,000 in legal fees and other costs incurred from the General Revenue Fund.  (The Sheriff incurred approximately $138,000 in attorney fees from the Civil Fees Fund.)

In addition, the cost of boarding prisoners increased significantly as the Sheriff made an effort to keep the county jail�s prisoner population at or below the maximum capacity.  As a result, the amount paid for prisoners housed in other jails increased by over $200,000 in 2001.  Based on the daily prisoner counts, it appears the county could have done a better job of maximizing the capacity of the county jail during 2001 and 2002, which could have decreased the amount spent for boarding prisoners at other jails.  In addition, due to a budget dispute between the Sheriff and other county officials, the jail was not utilized as a full-time facility for 18 days in February 2002.  As a result, the county incurred approximately $15,000 in additional prisoner boarding costs.

• Various concerns were noted regarding county officials salaries.  Salary increases of $11,193 annually given to the county treasurer in 2003 and $1,000 annually given to the sheriff in 2002 appear questionable.  In addition, salary increases given the former associate county commissioners for the period September 1, 1997 to December 31, 2000, were ruled unconstitutional; however, the County Commission has not sought repayment of these amounts, totaling approximately $19,000 for each of the two former associate commissioners.
   
• The county receives an administrative fee from the county�s tourism tax, which is deposited into the General Revenue Fund.  The fee ranged from one to ten percent of total taxes collected.  The county has not documented its administrative costs to justify the fees retained, and there appears to be no statutory authority to retain such an administrative fee.
   
• Minutes are not prepared for closed session meetings of the County Commission.  In addition, it is not evident that the final disposition of matters discussed in closed session is made to the public, as required by state law.
   
• The County Clerk�s account book of property tax charges and credits has not been properly maintained.  As a result, the County Clerk and County Collector are not reconciling their records of tax book charges, collections, additions, and abatements.  In addition, the County Collector has not filed an annual settlement of property tax transactions, as required by state law, since 1996.
   
• The County Clerk and County Treasurer maintain the majority of the county�s accounting records in both manual and computerized formats.  Maintaining records both manually and by computer increases the workload of these officials and appears to represent an unnecessary expense to the county.
   
• The county does not maintain vehicle usage or maintenance logs for its 27 county vehicles.  Usage and maintenance logs would allow the county to better monitor the costs of operating and maintaining the vehicles and provide assurance that vehicles are used only for official purposes.
   
• The county has established several neighborhood improvement districts (NID) to develop roads within these districts.  The county started charging an administrative fee on each lot within the districts in 2001 to cover the county�s administrative costs; however, the county has not documented its actual administrative costs.  In addition, the county has a significant balance in the H Highway NID Fund, and it appears the county could use a portion of this balance for early retirement of the bonds issued for applicable road improvements.

Also included in the audit are recommendations to improve the published financial statements, personnel policies and procedures, and accounting for county expenditures.  The audit also includes recommendations for improving controls and procedures for the Prosecuting Attorney, Public Administrator, County Collector, Sheriff, Circuit Clerk, 911 Emergency Services Board, and Senate Bill 40 Board. 

Several of these issues had been noted in prior reports.  While explanations were offered regarding some of the findings, the county officials indicated they agreed with and will implement most of the current recommendations.

Complete Audit Report