YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
September 30, 2003
Report No. 2003-104
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Madison, 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 Madison County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials. The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
Many of the findings noted in this audit report were noted in past audit reports; however, little or no improvement has been made.
· Problems with county budgetary practices have been noted in past audit reports and county officials indicated their intent to implement reported recommendations; however, little or no improvement has been made. The budget documents contained numerous inaccuracies and deficiencies. In addition, the budgets for several funds were overspent. Formal budgets were not prepared for several county funds and in 2001 the county failed to budget the required three percent for emergency situations. The published financial statements did not include all funds, did not agree to the actual numbers presented on the budget, and did not list disbursements by vendor.
· As noted in prior reports, bids were not always solicited or advertised by the county nor was bid documentation retained for various purchases including road repair work reimbursed with federal grants.
· Also as noted in our prior report, the county does not have adequate procedures in place to track federal financial assistance for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. The county's schedules for 2002 and 2001 contained several errors and omissions. Without an accurate schedule, federal financial activity may not be audited and reported in accordance with federal audit requirements, which could result in future reductions in federal funds.
· As noted in prior audit reports, the financial condition of the county remains weak. At December 31, 2002, the combined debt of the General Revenue, Special Road and Bridge, and Law Enforcement Sales Tax Funds was $426,069. While $150,000 of this was reimbursed by state reimbursements for storm damage, the remaining $276,069 represents monies borrowed to lease purchase land and equipment.
· The county has not taken action on mid-term salary increases given to the associate county commissioners in 1997. On May 15, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion that challenged the validity of Section 50.333.13, RSMo. This section of law allowed salary commissions in 1997 to provide mid-term salary increases for associate commissioners elected in 1996. As noted in our prior report, the 1997 salary commission voted to give the associate commissioners the mid-term increase.
· The County Treasurer's salary was increased $7,514 annually, effective with the start of a new term of office on January 1, 2003, based on approval given by the salary commission at a meeting held in July 2002. There was no legal documentation supporting whether that meeting complied with Section 50.333, RSMo 2000.
· Problems were noted regarding the Tax Increment Financing Project including the bonds not sold competitively, the county not competitively seeking proposals for various services, and some of the TIF monies not properly invested.
· Controls over the preparation of and additions to the property tax books were not adequate. Prior audit reports have also addressed this problem and conditions have not improved.
· Many similar conditions from previous reports were noted in the County Collector's procedures including inadequate reconciliations, the failure to properly compare collections to deposits, and incomplete and incorrect annual settlements. Although the County Collector indicated in prior reports he would implement these recommendations, conditions have not improved.
· Several problems were noted regarding the records and procedures for the Sheriff's Commissary Account including inadequate records to track profit and loss on the sale of items, lack of segregation of duties, lack of bank reconciliations, poor receipt and disbursement records, and questionable disbursements. Problems were also noted regarding the Sheriff's fee account controls and procedures including lack of segregation of duties, and untimely deposits and bank reconciliations.
· Several problems from prior audit reports are repeated for the Prosecuting Attorney including inadequate supervision and review, untimely deposits, no bank reconciliations being performed, and no monthly reports filed with the County Commission.
The audit also includes recommendations to improve contracts, disbursement procedures, various payroll procedures and policies, telephone policies, and vehicle records. In addition, the audit included recommendations to the Madison County Health Center regarding fixed assets, leave records, and disbursements.