YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2005-92
December 2005
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Maries, that do not have a county auditor. In addition to a financial and compliance audit of various county operating funds, the State Auditor's statutory audit covers additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials, as required by Missouri's Constitution.
This audit of Maries County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials. The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
Numerous findings in this report are repeated from the previous audit report performed for the two years ended December 31, 2000. Although various county officials indicated in that report that the recommendations would be implemented, very little improvement was made.
The long term liability of the county continues to increase yearly as the county continues to finance new road and bridge equipment. The ratio of the annual loan payments to total annual receipts continues to increase. In 2004, the ratio was approximately 16 percent and based on 2005 budgeted receipts, the ratio is expected to average 17 percent over the next three years. At December 31, 2004, the county has $818,659 in outstanding debt. In addition, while there are payment schedules for the nine loans held, the county does not follow these schedules to ensure payments are made on time and, as a result, two loan payments were made late resulting in additional interest payments of $3,560.
The county failed to include $200,000 invested in a savings account on the county�s published financial statements and the budget documents. Also, transactions between the savings and checking accounts were improperly recorded as disbursements and receipts to the General Fund and the county�s budgets contained several other misclassifications of receipts and disbursements.
The county did not solicit bids or retain bid documentation for various purchases totaling over $258,000 for the two years ended December 31, 2004. In addition, some invoices were not marked paid or cancelled to prevent duplicate payments, and the County Commission approved payments to vendors totaling approximately $35,000 based on inadequate supporting documentation. Federal Forms 1099 were not always issued and fuel tax reimbursements were not claimed on a timely basis.
Several problems were noted concerning the county officials� salaries and compensation including problems with cost of living adjustments, improper salary increases, and the use of the wrong salary schedule and incorrect assessed valuations. Similar problems were noted in our prior audit; however, the salary commission did not meet in 1999 or 2001. The salary commission did meet in 2003 and 2005 and appears to be working to correct some of these problems.
Several problems were noted concerning the county�s budget and financial statements including actual disbursements exceeded budgeted amounts in several funds and budget amendments were made after the budget was exceeded. The County Commission approved deficit budgets and formal budgets were not approved for some county funds. In addition, fund activities per the County Clerk�s ledgers were not reconciled to the Treasurer�s records to identify and correct variances on a timely basis.
In the Sheriff�s office, receipts are not deposited timely and old outstanding checks are not adequately followed up. In addition, monthly bank balances are not reconciled with listings of liabilities. Accounting duties in the Sheriff�s office are not adequately segregated and no documented independent review of the records is performed.
Other areas where concerns were noted included overtime paid to Sheriff�s deputies that was not in compliance with the county�s policy, the payment of the Treasurer�s and Collector�s bonds from an incorrect fund, property and vehicle records and procedures, and computer controls. In addition, the audit included recommendations to the ex officio Recorder of Deeds, the Circuit Clerk, the Associate and Probate Divisions, the County Clerk, the Prosecuting Attorney, and the Licensing Office regarding various accounting controls and procedures.