Findings in the audit of the City of Raytown

CITIZENS SUMMARY 

Restricted Monies 

Disbursements 

Budgets and Receipting  Procedures 

Sunshine Law 

Police Department Volunteers

The city can improve its monitoring of the use of restricted city sales taxes  used to subsidize the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) debt associated with  the Raytown Live Redevelopment Area (Raytown Live). The city has not  determined and does not monitor the restricted portions of the TIF debt to  ensure the non-captured (city) portion of the restricted sales taxes  contributed by the city to pay the TIF debt are used only for allowable  purposes. The city is not monitoring the outstanding TIF debt related to  transportation or stormwater projects and has not determined the  outstanding portion of TIF debt related to capital improvements projects.  The city provides accounting services for the Highway 350 Transportation  Development District (TDD), but since the city is not tracking the balance  of the TIF debt, the TDD sales tax could be improperly collected after the  transportation portion of the TIF debt is retired. The contributions of the city  portion of the Economic Activity Taxes collected within the Raytown Live  TIF is not reported transparently in the budgets or financial statements. The  city is not properly tracking the expenditures and balance of state motor vehicle related monies. The city has no documentation to justify the  allocation of salaries and fringe benefits of several city employees.  

The city did not solicit bids or proposals for some goods and services  purchased in accordance with the city’s purchasing policy. The city made  severance payments totaling $70,161 to 9 Police department employees  during the year ended October 31, 2017, that were not necessary and  reasonable. One of these agreements was not formally approved by the  Board of Aldermen (Board). The city rehired 4 of these employees by  December 1, 2017. The city did not have affidavits from some vendors  certifying no conflicts of interest existed with any city officer or employee,  appointed or elected, as required by the city purchasing policy. 

City budgets do not include all statutorily required elements. City personnel  do not account for the numerical sequence of receipt slips issued from the  financial accounting system. 

The city did not ensure compliance with the Sunshine Law for closed  meetings held by the Board, the Park Board, or the BMX Advisory Board. The Board and Park Board did not maintain meeting minutes for all closed  meetings, and discussed some items in closed meeting that were either not  allowed by state law or were not cited as the reason for closing the meeting.  The Board cited the same reasons for closing many of its meeting, but either  did not discuss, or did not adequately document discussion related to some  topics cited as the reason for closing the meeting. Park Board minutes did  not contain all information required by state law. The BMX Advisory Board  does not hold Board meetings consistently.  

The city does not have a contract or formal agreement with a local not-for profit (NFP) organization that documents the duties and responsibilities of  each party. The Police department did not have a method to ensure all  expenses eligible for reimbursement from the NFP were requested as  applicable. The department did not follow, or did not properly document,  

Parks and Recreation  Department Policies and  Procedures 

the screening procedures for citizens applying to work in the department’s  Volunteer Corp as established by department policy. 

Receipt slips are not issued for any payments received or amounts  transmitted to the Parks and Recreation department and the composition  (cash, check, or credit card) of payments received is not compared to the  composition of deposits by an independent person. The Park Board has not  adopted specific policies and procedures to provide oversight of the BMX  Advisory Board. 

In the areas audited, the overall performance of this entity was Fair.*

*The rating(s) cover only audited areas and do not reflect an opinion on the overall operation of the entity. Within that context, the rating  scale indicates the following: 

Excellent: The audit results indicate this entity is very well managed. The report contains no findings. In addition, if applicable, prior  recommendations have been implemented. 

Good: The audit results indicate this entity is well managed. The report contains few findings, and the entity has indicated most or all  recommendations have already been, or will be, implemented. In addition, if applicable, many of the prior recommendations  have been implemented. 

Fair: The audit results indicate this entity needs to improve operations in several areas. The report contains several findings, or one or  more findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated several recommendations will not be implemented. In addition, if applicable, several prior recommendations have not been implemented. 

Poor: The audit results indicate this entity needs to significantly improve operations. The report contains numerous findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated most recommendations will not be implemented. In  addition, if applicable, most prior recommendations have not been implemented. 

The link below is the full document in PDF format.

CLICK HERE TO GET PDF OF AUDIT