|
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
Missouri State Auditor's Office
moaudit@auditor.mo.gov