City of Camas Clark County

Transcription

1 Accountability Audit Report Report Date Report No Issue Date July 30, 2012

2 Washington State Auditor Brian Sonntag July 30, 2012 Mayor and City Council Camas, Washington Report on Accountability We appreciate the opportunity to work in cooperation with your City to promote accountability, integrity and openness in government. The State Auditor s Office takes seriously our role to advocate for government accountability and transparency and to promote positive change. Please find attached our report on the accountability and compliance with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures. Thank you for working with us to ensure the efficient and effective use of public resources. Sincerely, BRIAN SONNTAG, CGFM STATE AUDITOR Insurance Building, P.O. Box Olympia, Washington (360) TDD Relay (800) FAX (360)

3 Table of Contents Audit Summary... 1 Related Reports... 2 Description of the City... 3 Schedule of Audit Findings and Responses... 5

4 Audit Summary ABOUT THE AUDIT This report contains the results of our independent accountability audit of the City of Camas from January 1, 2011 through December 31, We evaluated internal controls and performed audit procedures on the activities of the City. We also determined whether the City complied with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures. In keeping with general auditing practices, we do not examine every transaction, activity or area. Instead, the areas examined were those representing the highest risk of noncompliance, misappropriation or misuse. The following areas were examined during this audit period: Open public meeting minutes Payroll/personnel Building department Payments/expenditures Indirect cost allocation RESULTS In most areas, the City complied with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures. However, we identified a condition significant enough to report as a finding: The does not have adequate support for its allocation of shared costs, resulting in a shift of general government costs to restricted funds. We also noted certain matters that we communicated to City management. We appreciate the City s commitment to resolving those matters. 1

5 Related Reports FINANCIAL Our opinion on the City s financial statements and compliance with federal grant program requirements is provided in a separate report, which includes the City s financial statements. FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS We evaluated internal controls and tested compliance with the federal program requirements, as applicable, for the City s major federal program, which is listed in the Federal Summary section of the financial statement and single audit report. 2

6 Description of the City ABOUT THE CITY The serves over 20,000 citizens in. It is administered by a mayor-council form of government. The City has seven elected Council Members and an independently elected Mayor. The Council appoints a City Administrator to manage the City s day-to-day operations as well as its approximately 165 employees. During 2011, the City operated on an annual budget of approximately $49.2 million. The City provides services including police, fire protection, ambulance, streets, sanitation, recycling, storm water, recreation, library, public improvements, planning and zoning, water supply treatment and distribution, sewage collection and treatment, and refuse collection. In addition, the City operates a cemetery. ELECTED OFFICIALS These officials served during the audit period: Mayor City Council: Paul Dennis (through May 31, 2011) Scott Higgins (effective June 27, 2011) Greg Anderson Don Cheney Linda Dietzman Tim Hazen Steve Hogan Melissa Smith Scott Higgins (through June 26, 2011) Shannon Turk (effective July 25, 2011) APPOINTED OFFICIALS City Administrator Lloyd Halverson 3

7 CITY CONTACT INFORMATION Address: 616 N.E. 4th Avenue Camas, WA Phone: (360) Website: AUDIT HISTORY We audit the City annually. Management has generally been very responsive to prior audit recommendations. Until the current audit, the City had not received an audit finding for over 30 years. 4

8 Schedule of Audit Findings and Responses 1. The does not have adequate support for its allocation of shared costs, resulting in a shift of general government costs to restricted funds. Background Cities often charge costs incurred by their central service functions, such as general administration, human resources, payroll and purchasing to the funds that benefit from the services. They should charge costs in proportion to the benefit received. The City has a responsibility to adopt a fair and equitable method of distributing shared costs among departments and funds. Additionally, state law prohibits resources restricted for specific uses, such as utilities that collect usage-based fees from citizens, to benefit or subsidize other functions of government. We have focused audit efforts around the state to ensure allocations are properly supported. Description of Condition We reviewed the allocation of shared costs at the City and noted: The City could not provide documentation to support the allocation of costs for central service functions to all departments or funds, including those with restricted resources. The City allocates costs based on budgeted amounts and does not compare actual expenditures to determine reasonableness of the initial allocations. We have communicated similar concerns in prior audits. Cause of Condition The City allocates the majority of the costs based on employee percentages that are not supported by actual time spent on their assigned duties. While we have communicated concerns in the past, the City has not prioritized nor dedicated the necessary resources to ensure charges for shared costs were appropriately allocated and supported. Effect of Condition As a result of the conditions identified above, we noted: The City allocated $863,334 in general administration costs to its utility funds without documenting that amount was fair and equitable. Increased costs to City utilities may result in higher utility rates. 5

9 The City is unable to show documentation that it complied with state laws that prohibit shifting restricted resources to other funds. Recommendation We recommend the City: Develop and follow a policy that governs how to calculate and charge shared services costs to all funds and departments. Costs should be charged in proportion to the level of service or benefit provided to each fund or department. To accomplish this, the policy should specifically require the City to: Develop and use a cost allocation plan for charging shared services across funds and departments. The plan should include a reconciliation of actual expenditures to budgeted amounts if budgeted amounts are used for costs allocations. Document the amounts charged and support for the charges. Periodically review and update the policy and cost allocation plan for charging shared services costs. City s Response We believe that the methods which have been used to allocate cost have a fair and rational basis. A key foundation has been the assessment by department managers of the assignments of departmental staff whose work benfits more than one fund. A reliance on the department managers in this matter is, we believe, supportable and proper. In the effect of the condition, the draft audit notes: The City is unable to show that it complied with state laws that prohibit shifting restricted resources to other funds. We are not aware of any affirmative evidence from the subject audit that such shifting restricted resources to other funds has occurred. We understand that the auditor s finding is focused the need to provide improved documentation of the basis of our allocation of costs for shared services. We acknowledge that these support and documentation records must be improved to meet the auditor s view. The need for an improved overall cost allocation plan is also recognized and acknowledged, and we will get this done. Auditor s Remarks We appreciate the City s commitment to resolve this finding and thank the City for its cooperation and assistance during the audit. We will review the corrective action taken during our next regular audit. 6

10 Applicable Laws and Regulations RCW states in part: Separate accounts shall be kept for each department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, and public service industry under the jurisdiction of every taxing body. All service rendered by, or property transferred from, one department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry to another, shall be paid for at its true and full value by the department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry receiving the same, and no department, public improvement, undertaking, institution, or public service industry shall benefit in any financial manner whatever by an appropriation or fund made for the support of another... RCW 35A states: Administration, oversight, or supervision of utility Reimbursement from utility budget authorized. Whenever any code city apportions a percentage of the city manager's, administrator's, or supervisor's time, or the time of other management or general government staff, for administration, oversight, or supervision of a utility operated by the city, or to provide services to the utility, the utility budget may identify such services and budget for reimbursement of the city's current expense fund for the value of such services. 7

11 ABOUT THE STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE The State Auditor's Office is established in the state's Constitution and is part of the executive branch of state government. The State Auditor is elected by the citizens of Washington and serves four-year terms. Our mission is to work with our audit clients and citizens as an advocate for government accountability. As an elected agency, the State Auditor's Office has the independence necessary to objectively perform audits and investigations. Our audits are designed to comply with professional standards as well as to satisfy the requirements of federal, state, and local laws. The State Auditor's Office employees are located around the state to deliver services effectively and efficiently. Our audits look at financial information and compliance with state, federal and local laws on the part of all local governments, including schools, and all state agencies, including institutions of higher education. In addition, we conduct performance audits of state agencies and local governments and fraud, whistleblower and citizen hotline investigations. The results of our work are widely distributed through a variety of reports, which are available on our Web site and through our free, electronic subscription service. We take our role as partners in accountability seriously. We provide training and technical assistance to governments and have an extensive quality assurance program. State Auditor Brian Sonntag, CGFM Chief of Staff Ted Rutt Deputy Chief of Staff Doug Cochran Chief Policy Advisor Jerry Pugnetti Director of Audit Chuck Pfeil, CPA Director of Performance Audit Larisa Benson Director of Special Investigations Jim Brittain, CPA Director for Legal Affairs Jan Jutte, CPA, CGFM Director of Quality Assurance Ivan Dansereau Local Government Liaison Mike Murphy Communications Director Mindy Chambers Public Records Officer Mary Leider Main number (360) Toll-free Citizen Hotline (866) Website Subscription Service (SAO FACTS.DOC - Rev. 09/11)