Audit finds parish in the black

St. Mary Parish government had expenditures of about $81.5 million as it operated with more than $98.7 million in revenue giving it $17.3 million excess in revenue over expenditures, according to an audit released by the legislative auditor this morning.
The 2013 audit and its unmodified opinion, performed by Pitts and Matte, revealed 13 individual funds needed budget amendments that were not made and another fund operated at a deficit, contrary to state statute.
“Failure to amend budgets to recognize anticipated shortfalls in funds prevents the governmental body from effectively curtailing projects and/or services in accordance with actual available resources,” the auditor stated in the report. The auditor recommended that the “Council should fine tune its ongoing budget monitoring program to periodically consider accruals for major revenues and expenditures.”
Henry “Bo” LaGrange, parish chief administrative officer, said while the funds deviated from what was projected in the original budget, the fund budget was amended in the final meeting of the fiscal year.
The management response to the two findings stated, “We continually monitor budgeted and actual amounts throughout the year and … we strive to project amounts as close as possible to anticipated year end results … It is sometimes difficult to anticipate revenues and expenditures through year end. Budget variances will continue to be monitored on a monthly basis and budget adjustments will be recommended to the Council when variances exceed the percentages as specified in the budget ordinance.”
St. Mary Parish’s fiscal year runs from Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.
Nine funds missed revenue projections by more than the 5 percent allowed by state law. The funds, along with the percentage of variance, were:
—General Fund, 14.6 percent.
—Road Construction and Maintenance Fund, 15.5 percent.
—DWI Court, 24.1 percent.
—Housing Program, 19.1 percent,
—Job Readiness Fund, 36.5 percent.
—Marcel Boat Landing Fund, 14.4 percent.
—Local Law Enforcement Block Grant U2, 18.1 percent.
—Claire House, 22.6 percent.
—OP Enhancement Grant Fund, 71.5 percent.
The general fund was off target largely because there was lower than anticipated assessed property values for the 2013 fiscal year, LaGrange said.
The audit stated that notification was not made and the following budgets were not amended although actual expenditures exceeded budgeted expenditures by 5 percent or more:
—Jail Operating and Maintenance Fund, 9.2 percent.
—Juror Compensation Fund, 83.3 percent.
—16th JDC-St. Mary Parish Drug Court Fund, 11.9 percent.
—Fairview Treatment Center, 8.6 percent.
Many of the parish funds are supported through grants from various sources and at times the full grants do not arrive when anticipated, LaGrange said.
The DWI Court Fund was in violation of a state statute in having a deficit fund balance at year-end of $27,674, according to another finding.
Management responded by stating that deficit will be covered either by future revenues or transfers from the DWI Patient Fee Fund. That is the same response given in the 2012 audit when there was a similar finding.
“This is a federal grant we get to run this program,” LaGrange said. “Some of the expenses are not reimbursed before the end of the year.”
There was a pair of findings regarding Hospital Service District No. 1. The district’s former chief executive officer was still listed as an authorized signer on several of the hospital’s bank accounts after no longer being employed there. Additionally, his electronic signature was used to disburse funds from accounts several months after his employment ended. The auditor warned this could leave the hospital vulnerable to unauthorized transactions.
Management responded that banks would be notified when a change in authorization occurs and electronic signatures will be discontinued immediately after an employee is no longer employed there.
In a repeat finding from 2012, audit adjustments were recommended that had material effects on the financial statements. A comprehensive review of financial statements, estimates and journal entries before closing the fiscal year was recommended. Management promised such a review in its response.