Report No. 2007-83
December 2007

Complete Audit Report

IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by state law to conduct audits once every four years in counties, such as Pemiscot, that do not have a county auditor. In addition to a financial 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 the Missouri Constitution.

The financial condition of the General Revenue Fund has continued to deteriorate. The balance of the fund has decreased from $1,442 at December 31, 2003 to a negative $722,592 at December 31, 2006. In addition, the Special Road and Bridge Fund is also in poor financial condition with a negative balance of $82,455 at December 31, 2006. While receipts have increased, the county’s spending has also increased. Factors contributing to the decline are protested taxes from a major taxpayer, extensive damage from a tornado, and the failure to pass two sales tax initiatives. In addition, the county has failed to adequately reduce the General Revenue Fund property tax levy for sales tax collections.

The county’s budgetary practices are in need of improvement. The County Commission does not appear to be adequately monitoring and controlling county disbursements to ensure compliance with state budget laws. Several funds had budgeted deficit fund balances and several funds had actual disbursements exceed budgeted amounts. Budgets were not prepared for several funds and the budget documents contained misclassifications of interest earnings and transfers.

Pemiscot County is required by federal guidelines to prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) each year. The county does not have adequate procedures in place to track federal awards for the preparation of the schedule and the SEFA contained several errors.

The county’s procedures for cash management for the Highway Planning and Construction program and for suspension and debarment for the Public Assistance grants were not adequate to ensure compliance with federal requirements. Monies were not paid out on a timely basis and the county did not ensure vendors providing services complied with federal government requirements.

The County Clerk does not maintain an account book with the County Collector and controls over property tax additions are not adequate. In addition, the County Treasurer’s bond coverage was insufficient and she did not properly handle old outstanding checks. Published financial statements did not include all funds and were not published in a timely manner. Bonded debt was not included in the financial statement. County officials are not filing monthly reports of fees with the County Commission as required by law.

The Assessor did not solicit bids for a new appraisal system or secure a written agreement with the vendor. The county paid the total amount of $30,000 by May 2006 even though the system had not been installed. Milestones were not established that would have required certain conditions be met before the vendor was paid and there were no penalties for not providing the service on a timely basis. The county also did not enter into written agreements for various legal services.

The County Clerk does not maintain centralized leave records and timesheets for county employees. The county incurred a significant liability of $16,100 due to a former Road and Bridge employee not being properly compensated for all work performed. The employee requested and was paid for only 32 hours of work each week even though he recorded 40 hours on his timesheet. Upon his retirement, the county paid this and additional benefits to the employee.

Billing reports for the solid waste transfer station are not reconciled to collection reports and the accounts receivable balances. Adequate efforts have not been made to pursue the collection of delinquent accounts.

The Health Center’s actual expenditures exceeded budgeted amounts during the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2005. Accounting duties were not adequately segregated and improvements were needed in the handling of receipts. A purchase was made from a company owned by a board member for medical supplies costing $1,806. Competitive bids were not solicited as required by state law. In addition, the Health Center did not solicit bids or proposals or perform other price comparisons for some other purchases.

In December 2005, the Health Center paid some employees reimbursements for attending a training session in either Scott County or Cape Girardeau County. Twelve employees were reimbursed a total of $1,050. The Health Center could not provide documentation showing the employees actually attended the training or timesheets for these employees for this time period.

The audit also included recommendations to improve records and procedures for meeting minutes, capital assets, and computer access. Additional concerns regarding controls were noted for the Probate Division, the Sheriff’s Office, the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, the Associate Division, the Circuit Clerk’s Office, and the Recorder of Deeds' Office.

Complete Audit Report