YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri Claire McCaskill

March 30, 1999
Report No. 99-21

Some problems were discovered as a result of an audit conducted by our office in response to the request of petitioners from the Village of Rayville, Missouri.

NOTE: Recommendations, as well as responses from the village, which correspond with the findings below are included in the audit.

The village contracts with a trash hauler to collect trash from all the homes in Rayville. For a number of years, village residents paid for this trash service through a property tax levy. A ballot proposal to extend this levy was defeated in the April 1996 election. In October 1996, the village began billing each resident $10 a month for the cost of the service. The fees charged to residents were established without a public vote.

The village does not have a formal bidding policy for the procurement of goods and services. In addition, adequate documentation was not maintained to fully support over $5,700 paid to the Chairman in expense reimbursements during the past several years.

All village monies are deposited into a money market mutual fund. This type of investment account is neither insured nor guaranteed by the U.S. Government and does not appear to be an appropriate investment of local public funds. In addition, the village cannot deposit cash into the account, resulting in some village funds being deposited first into the personal accounts of village officials.

The property tax levy for fire protection purposes has generated tax revenues that have exceeded the expenditures for fire protection. In January 1998, the village transferred approximately $3,300 in surplus monies from the Fire Fund to the Trash Fund. We recommend the Board of Trustees ensure any restricted revenues (including those of the Fire Fund) are used only for the purposes intended.

The village does not prepare annual budgets and has not published or posted semiannual financial statements as required by state law. The annual financial reports submitted to the state auditor's office are not accurate.

The board has not held public hearings for proposed property tax rates, prepared an ordinance establishing the approved tax levies each year, or established adequate delinquent tax collection procedures.

Complete Audit Report