YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

Report No. 2006-59

September 2006

IMPORTANT:  The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Andrew, that do not have a county auditor.  In addition to a financial 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.

• Accounting records for the 29 cemetery trusts maintained by the county are in need of improvement.  While improvements have been made since our last audit, the annual settlements for the various trusts still contain errors and are not always complete.  Procedures have not been developed by the county to verify the information reported in the settlements, which allowed the errors and omissions to go undetected.  Material differences existed between actual receipts and disbursements and the amounts reported in the annual settlements.

• Documentation was not maintained to support the selection of the investment firm to advise the county on their investment portfolio.  

• The county has not developed cash management procedures to ensure timely payment of contractors on projects funded by federal monies.  A reimbursement of over $75,000 was held approximately 80 days before being paid out to the contractor.

• County budget documents contained numerous incorrect amounts and various adjustments were required for the General Revenue Fund and Special Road and Bridge Fund.  Cash balances calculated by the County Clerk on the cash reconciliation in the budget for the General Revenue Fund and Special Road and Bridge Fund did not agree to the actual cash balances maintained by the County Treasurer.  Rather than identify the cause of the differences, the County Clerk used the County Treasurer's cash balances for the budgets of those two funds. 

• Budgets for some funds under the control of other elected officials were lacking required information and budgets for some other funds were not prepared.

• While the county bid numerous items during the audit period, some items were not bid and advertised.  In addition, adequate documentation is not always maintained to support efforts to compare prices or document sole source procurement situations.

• Receipt of goods was not indicated on several invoices, some invoices were not marked paid, and sufficient documentation was not available for some expenditures.  The Sheriff turned over $109,000 of unclaimed monies to the County Treasurer in 2002 rather than to the state Unclaimed Property Section as previously recommended. These monies were transferred to the General Revenue Fund after one year and should be distributed to the state.  In addition, at December 31, 2005, the Law Enforcement Training Fund had accumulated a balance of more than $29,000, which may exceed the amount authorized by state law. 

• Property tax procedures and controls are not sufficient.  The delinquent tax books are not prepared or verified by the County Clerk and aggregate abstracts of assessed valuations and taxes to be collected have not been prepared timely.  An independent comparison of additions and abatements to actual changes to property tax files is not performed.  While the Assessor posts additions and abatements, the Collector still has access to the information.  In addition, neither the County Commission nor the County Clerk provides a review of the activities of the County Collector.  An account book summarizing tax information is not maintained by the County Clerk and a review of the Collector's monthly or annual settlements is not performed by the County Clerk or County Commission.

• The Collector's cash balance at February 28, 2006 exceeded identified liabilities by approximately $2,900.  This difference has fluctuated throughout our audit period and the Collector has been unable to determine the cause of the differences or fluctuations.  In addition, cash refunds are made for overpayments and adequate records of partial payments are not maintained. 

• Procedures to account for capital assets are not sufficient and records are not complete.  While the County Clerk makes an effort to update the records, procedures have not been developed to track property purchases throughout the year and ensure items are tagged or added to the overall records. 

• Records of fuel usage are not adequately reviewed by the County Commission and Sheriff and gallons of fuel purchased are not reconciled to gallons dispensed.  The county spent approximately $280,000 on Road and Bridge fuel and approximately $50,000 on Sheriff's fuel during the two years ended December 31, 2005.

Also included in the audit were recommendations related to the Sheriff, Associate Circuit Division, Health Center, Senate Bill 40 Board, and Senior Citizens Service Board.

Complete Audit Report