![]() |
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
October 25, 2001
Report No. 2001-109
The following problems were discovered as a result of
an audit conducted by our office of the Village of Arrow Point, Missouri.
The village has not clearly established any of its
assessments as a tax or a user fee.� The
village has not established a statement of costs to adequately set rates for
providing water and trash services to the village customers and revenues
generated by the maintenance fee far exceed the village�s annual expenses.� The village also assesses a building permit
fee for all new construction although the village does not have a building
inspector or any other related costs.�
The village should request that its attorney review these fees to
determine whether they are or can be structured as user fees, or whether they
should be put to a public vote.�
The village does not separately account for the
activities related to its various assessments. All financial activity is
accounted for in one fund.� A General
Fund should be used to account for the general activities� and other operations should be accounted for
separately to ensure that charges do not exceed the costs of providing the
service.� In addition, late fees charged
by the village appear to be excessive and should be reviewed for
reasonableness.�
In 1995, the Village of Arrow Point brought suit against
former board chairman Bill Crouch for conflicts of interest noted in a prior
audit.� A counter suit was filed by Mr.
Crouch requesting $4,245 along with interest and legal fees.� In 1998, a different board than the one that
brought the suit dismissed it and made a $10,000 payment to Mr. Crouch.� The board did not obtain any written legal
opinion to support their actions nor did they document their reasons for
dismissing the suit.� The payment
represents a significant village expenditure considering total receipts for the
village in that year were approximately $11,400.
The village did not prepare a budget until 2001.� The 2001 budget was not properly prepared
and formally approved as required by state law.� Closed meetings were apparently not always conducted in
accordance with state law and board minutes have not always been adequately
maintained.�
Accounting duties are not adequately segregated, as only
one official handles the accounting records.�