YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2004-79
September 29, 2004
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Livingston, 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 Livingston County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials. The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
· The Enhanced 911 Fund is in poor financial condition. Disbursements exceeded receipts during 2003 and 2002 due, in part, to increased overtime costs. As of May 2004, the county loaned more than $25,000 from the General Revenue Fund to the Enhanced 911 Fund to cover 911 operating expenses. The County Commission should review disbursements to ensure available resources are used efficiently. The County Commission should also ensure receipts are maximized and, if necessary, consider alternative funding sources.
· The county's schedules of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA), which include health center programs, contained several errors and omissions. Expenditures for various programs were either overstated or understated, and two grants were omitted from the schedules.
· The county did not solicit bids for various purchases totaling $21,441, made culvert purchases of approximately $28,000 in 2003 based on bids received in 2002, and did not adequately document reasons for accepting bids other than the lowest bid for various purchases totaling $36,751. Additionally, the County Commission approved payments of approximately $26,000 without obtaining adequate supporting documentation, such as original invoices or credit card slips.
· In 1999, mid-term raises of approximately $4,000 annually were given to each of the Associate County Commissioners. On May 15, 2001, the Missouri Supreme Court handed down an opinion that challenged the validity of Section 50.333.13, RSMo, which allowed county salary commissions to provide the mid-term raises. The Supreme Court held that this statute violated Article VII, Section 13, of the Missouri Constitution, which prohibits an increase in compensation for state, county, and municipal officials during a term of office. Although the Prosecuting Attorney recommended that the Associate County Commissioners repay the raise amounts, no plan has been developed for obtaining repayment of the salary overpayments.
· In 1999, the salary commission authorized the Public Administrator to receive, in addition to fees, annual compensation from the county if the public administrator did not receive at least a certain amount of fees. In 2000, the statutes authorizing the compensation of the Public Administrator were amended, which required the Public Administrator to choose between receiving a salary or fees as her official compensation for her term beginning in 2001. While the Public Administrator chose fees, the county continued to pay her $10,000 annually in compensation. Neither the county nor the Public Administrator has obtained a legal opinion regarding this matter.
· The Sheriff does not always record and deposit receipts in a timely manner, does not adequately reconcile the inmate account balance to related liabilities, and has not adequately followed-up on old outstanding checks issued on the inmate account. In addition, the Sheriff's records indicate significant incarceration costs incurred for county prisoners during the past four years has not been collected. While county officials indicate that much of this will not be collected due to the prisoners' financial inability to pay for these costs, improvement is needed to ensure complete and accurate records are maintained of all costs incurred, billed, paid, and owed.
The audit also includes recommendations regarding payment of a commissioner's salary from the Special Road and Bridge Fund, establishment of a Sheriff Civil Fees Fund, inventory records and controls, and board of prisoner contracts. Additional concerns regarding accounting records and controls were noted for the Juvenile Officer, Ex Officio County Collector, and Prosecuting Attorney.