📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

Fresno County Grand Jury • 2000-2001

Recommendation #12 The City of Parlier should post transactions to proper accounts and subsequently classify

Published: July 05, 2001 117 pages Consolidated Report
View PDF View Full Original

Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F16, F17

Findings 5 findings

F13 Page 25
During a review of grant agreements for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00, it was determined that grant expenditures recorded in the general fund and reported in the financial statements were in compliance with grant provisions except for a 1998/99 expenditure of $582.50 for engineering expenses.
F14 Page 25
During a review of the general ledger it was determined that expenditures do not agree with reports submitted to the State. The general ledger for fiscal year 1999/00 reports grant revenues of $283,950.97 plus $10,216.73 interest revenue for a total of $294,167.70. The general ledger also indicates total expenditures of $81,966.58 for 1999/00. The audit report sent to the State, which was prepared by the subcontractor’s CPA, indicates costs of $1,094,953.00 and revenue received of $72,808.00 for 1999/00. It appears that this audit report was prepared to reflect revenues and expenditures of the subcontractor and not the City of Parlier’s Child Development revenues and expenditures.
F15 Page 26
During the review, it was noted that payments made by the State Controller’s Office (SCO) to Parlier, which were posted on the SCO’s website did not agree with totals recorded in Parlier’s accounting system for fiscal years 1998/99 and 1999/00. For fiscal year 1998/99, the SCO recorded payments of $197,403.36 and Parlier recorded revenues of $218,610.40 for a variance of $21,207.04. For fiscal year 1999/00, the SCO recorded payments of $200,512.18 and Parlier recorded revenues of $202,545.85 for a variance of $2,033.67. Based on our review and documentation provided we could not determine whether the variances were due to timing differences or other factors.
F18 Page 27
During a review of the audit report issued by an independent accounting firm for fiscal year 1998/99, it was noted that the report contained an unqualified opinion despite the insufficiently supported expenditures discussed in findings #1-3 and the understated revenues discussed above. The same firm is conducting an audit of the Local Transportation fund for fiscal year 1999/00 but has not yet issued their report. During a conversation on March 26, 2001 with a staff member of the independent firm, the staff member said that the firm is questioning the method that Parlier uses to apply administrative overhead costs to this fund. The staff member also stated that the 1999/00 report will contain findings and recommendations related to the overhead application process.
F19 Page 27
Parlier’s Finance Director said that the City uses LLEBG money to pay for overtime expenditures in the Police Department since the amount of the grant is not enough to hire an additional police officer. Although overtime used to increase or enhance police services is an appropriate expenditure for this grant; based on information reviewed, we could not determine that overtime expended was an inappropriate use of grant monies. One officer’s salary is charged to the fund as an equivalent to the law enforcement overtime costs incurred outside of the fund. The amount of the 1998 grant was $19,623 and overtime for that period was $92,705. The amount of the 1999 grant was $19,097 and overtime for that period was $65,135. The Finance Director stated that he spoke with personnel in the US Department of Justice (DOJ) who told him that he can account for the fund in this manner as long as he can support the amount of overtime claimed on the grant. We contacted the DOJ and were told that this practice is not appropriate. DOJ staff stated that the actual expenditures paid with LLEBG money must be recorded in the fund established to account for the grant. During our review, expenditures for equipment were tested. During fiscal year 1998/99, 4 of 5 (80%) equipment expenditures tested did not appear to be appropriate for fund purposes based on information provided. As confirmed with the DOJ, LLEBG money is to be used to increase or enhance law enforcement services. The expenditures questioned include chairs for $1,356.68, rug runners for $343.73, and office supplies for $161.61.

Recommendations 6