YELLOW SHEET
Office of the State Auditor of Missouri
Claire McCaskill
|
YELLOW SHEET Office of the State Auditor of Missouri |
October 7, 1999
Report No. 99-94
IMPORTANT: The Missouri State Auditor is required by Missouri law to conduct audits only once every four years in counties, like Ray, which do not have a county auditor. However, to assist such counties in meeting federal audit requirements, the State Auditor will also perform 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 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 Ray County included additional areas of county operations, as well as elected county officials. The following concerns were noted as part of the audit:
During the two years ended December 31, 1998, the financial condition of the county's General Revenue Fund declined significantly from a cash balance of $253,964 at January 1, 1997, to $29,467 at December 31, 1998. The audit suggested the County Commission should continue to monitor the financial condition of the General Revenue Fund and consider how to increase revenues and/or reduce expenditures.
Problems were noted with the county's budgets during the audit period. Formal budgets were prepared for only a few funds in 1997, and those that were prepared were incomplete and lacked required information. The budgets prepared in 1998 were in better condition, but problems were still noted. In addition, the County Commission approved expenditures in excess of budgeted amounts.
The county did not prepare a complete and accurate schedule of expenditures of federal awards for each year of the audit period as required. Also, problems were noted regarding the county's handling of federal bridge funds. The county has not established procedures to ensure these federal monies are disbursed to contractors on a timely basis after being received. Payments totaling $261,789 were not made to the contractor on a timely basis. In addition, there was no documentation to indicate that the County Commission considered three engineering firms when procuring engineering services as required, nor did the county adequately monitor grant funds passed on to a special road district.
The county entered into several agreements with citizen groups and other governmental entities related to funding to be provided by those parties for road work performed by the county. No written contracts were entered into to formalize these agreements. Also, the county has not established adequate procedures to account for the related project costs and reimbursements nor has a written policy been established regarding the handling of those special road projects. As a result, monies due from a city were not received by the county on a timely basis and a citizens group did not pay its proper share of project costs.
The county did not solicit bids or maintain bid documentation related to various significant purchases. Contract work totaling $37,570 related to a federal flood project was not handled properly. Among various problems noted, only one bid proposal was obtained, a written contract was not entered into, and the work was not properly authorized or documented in the County Commission minutes.
Various problems were noted regarding the Circuit Clerk's child support records and procedures including; an inadequate segregation of duties, receipts not always being recorded or deposited intact in a timely manner, and no periodic reconciliation of cash receipts to the cash deposited. As a result of these control weaknesses, a $300 cash shortage was not detected in a timely manner. Because of these matters, we are planning to further review additional receipt and deposit records.
Also included in the audit are recommendations for the County Clerk related to the county fixed asset records. Additional recommendations were made to improve the records and/or procedures of the Prosecuting Attorney, Noxious Weed Board, and Senate Bill 40 Board.