YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
Report No. 2005-57
August 2005
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every 4 years in counties, like Moniteau, 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 Moniteau County included additional areas of county operations, as well as the elected county officials. The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
· Various federal program expenditures were not included on the 2004 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards resulting in an under statement of approximately $48,000.
· Bid documentation was not maintained for vehicles leased through two federal programs.
· Although it appears the County Commission and other county officials are working together to monitor and improve the county’s financial condition, the General Revenue Fund remains weak. At December 31, 2004, the General Revenue Fund had a cash balance of approximately $69,000. The 2005 General Revenue Fund budget reflects an estimated ending cash balance of ($17,575). The County Commission should continue to monitor and take the necessary steps to improve the financial condition of the General Revenue Fund.
· The budget does not clearly document plans for funding a jail project. To present a true and accurate picture to the taxpayers and to effectively use the budget as a management tool, anticipated expenditures should reflect only those amounts the county plans to spend during that budget year. Reserving funds for a future project would have been more appropriately disclosed in the budget message.
· The County Commission has not prepared a formal analysis of operating expenditures associated with the possible increased capacity of the planned jail project or the related funding sources.
· Procedures to account for county-owned property should be improved to ensure records are accurate and complete. Updates to general fixed asset listings are made only when, and if, officials notify the County Clerk of a purchase. In addition, annual inspections are not performed.
· Controls over the county’s computer systems are in need of improvement. Access to property tax data files is not adequately restricted, a security system is not in place to stop incorrect log-on attempts, and a formal contingency plan has not been developed. In addition, the County Clerk should perform a more comprehensive review of back tax books.
· The Senate Bill 40 (SB40) Board does not adequately monitor disbursements made to a not-for-profit corporation. In addition, the SB40 Fund has an excessive cash balance, the anticipated financial condition of the SB40 Fund was not adequately projected, and the prior two years’ actual receipts and disbursements were not included on the budget.
· The Prosecuting Attorney has not established an adequate system to account for bad check complaints, receipts are not always deposited timely, and accounting duties are not adequately segregated. The Prosecuting Attorney indicated that, unlike many other counties, criminal charges are filed for all bad check complaints.
The Emergency Dispatch Board has not established adequate general fixed asset records. In addition the Emergency Dispatch Fund budgets do not project the anticipated financial condition of the Fund.