YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
October 3, 2002
Report No. 2002-108
CORRECTED VERSION
State spent $2 billion over 24 years on conservation efforts; improvement needed in planning and management of these earmarked funds
Missouri spends more per capita on conservation efforts than its eight neighboring states and has the nation's third largest conservation budget. In the 24 years the state has collected sales tax earmarked for conservation, department officials have spent more than $2 billion acquiring land, starting programs and building infrastructure. Overall, the department owns 774,000 acres, with 473,000 acres acquired since the tax passed in 1978. This audit focused on how department officials spent this money and found improvement needed in: budget planning, oversight of private organization partnerships and strategic planning.
$10 million in state grants to conservation partnerships not monitored well
Auditors found inadequate oversight of the $10 million the department granted to its partnerships with non-profit, local, state and federal entities since fiscal year 1997. Auditors reviewed 29 grant projects and found multiple problems including: no requirement for a budget detailing state fund use, no department access to an organization's financial records and no requirement for an annual accomplishment report. (See page 11) The report details several results of inadequate oversight including the examples below.
Nature center still nonexistent after grant to organization run by ex-employees
The department donated $492,000 and 455 acres to an organization run by former department employees for a forest heritage center. But more than three years later, all that exists is the center's future site and a hiking trail. Most money meant for center development went for salaries or administrative costs. Due to a lack of documentation, it is unclear how the organization used some of this money. Department personnel acknowledge close ties to former employees may have affected decisions about this project. (See page 12)
$1.5 million to improve Canadian duck habitats for Missouri-bound fowl
The department has given Ducks Unlimited $1.5 million since 1997 to help improve Canadian duck habitats, because numerous ducks migrate from Canada through Missouri. The department has not formally assessed project benefits or if the project warrants continued funding. In addition, the grant agreement does not give the department access to the organization's financial records and the organization's accomplishment report does not detail how the project used Missouri funds. (See page 14)
Conservation goals are unspecific
Department officials have not always specified "how much is enough" to meet conservation goals. For example, the department set its original wetland acquisition goals in 1989 and met most goals by 1997. Since 1989, however, the department has continued acquiring and developing wetlands, spending $75 million on 43,400 acres. Current wetland acreage exceeds the original 1989 goal by 82 percent. The department also exceeded its 1989 goal of restoring duck population to 1970s levels. Yet the 2003 strategic plan calls for continued wetland acquisition with no updated or specified acreage goals. (See page 17)
Future expenditures may be underestimated
Current department spending patterns show operating costs could rise faster than department projections. Operating costs have steadily increased from 50 percent of total expenditures in fiscal year 1982, up to 83 percent by fiscal year 2002. Department projections show an average annual 3 percent increase through fiscal year 2010. But the 6 percent increase in fiscal year 2002 has already doubled this projection. At the 6 percent rate, operating costs will more than consume total revenues by fiscal year 2010. (See page 6)
Inaccurate cost estimates of multi-million dollar projects skews budgeting
Auditors reviewed seven completed construction projects and found three projects substantially exceeded initial cost estimates. In these cases, Commission members approved projects and the department paid design costs before staff developed reliable project cost estimates. For example, officials initially estimated $3.6 million for the Kansas City Discovery Center. Private donors and other departments donated money to expand the project, which totaled $8 million in the end ($4.7 million from Conservation, $1.1 million from the Department of Natural Resources and $2.2 million from private donors). Design and development division personnel said non-specific initial project plans caused initial lower estimates. In addition, department officials did not budget operating costs for new construction projects until fiscal year 2002, partly because the department often had funds to absorb operating cost increases. (See page 8)