Audit Reports
To view a summary of any of the following audit reports, click on the report name.
- Assistance and Guidance Report on TPD Take-Home Vehicles (#1001)
- Inquiry Report - Blueprint 2000 & Beyond (#1002)
- Final Audit Follow-Up on Repayment of Local Communications Services Tax (#1003)
Assistance and Guidance Report on TPD Take-home Vehicles (#1001)
This report provides additional information as follow up to Audit Report #0809 issued May 18, 2008, Audit of Take-home Vehicles. That audit addressed the cost of vehicles taken home by City staff to include TPD (Tallahassee Police Department) officers. The cost of vehicles taken home by TPD officers has continued to be discussed in meetings of the Financial Viability of the Government Target Issue Committee, and in workshops and regularly scheduled meetings of the City Commission. In addition, there has been continuing discussion on the cost of TPD vehicles taken home between TPD, the City's Department of Management and Administration, and the Office of the City Auditor. Audit conclusions are as follows:
- The average cost to police officers should they be required to commute in their own personal vehicle to and from TPD headquarters is approximately $70 biweekly or $150 per month. This average cost does not consider approximately 48 officers living outside Leon County.
- If the City Commission decides TPD officers should now share in the cost of such vehicle use, the amount of $70 biweekly should be reduced because other factors need to be considered to arrive at a fair and equitable cost sharing amount. These additional factors benefit the City and the community.
- Should the City Commission decide to discontinue the take-home vehicle program and instead selects a quick rotation program or assigned pool program (where vehicles are housed at TPD headquarters or other locations when not in use), a methodology should be used that considers vehicle needs for the long-term. The methodology should address miles to be used each year for patrol (business) purposes, and the desired fleet size based on scheduled shifts and operational needs. Some of the economic and social benefits identified in this report with the current assigned vehicle take-home program would not be present in a quick rotation or assigned pool program.
Inquiry Report - Blueprint 2000 & Beyond (#1002)
On September 15, 2008, the Board of Directors for the Blueprint 2000 & Beyond (BP 2000) met in a regular meeting. During the Public Hearings portion of that meeting a citizen made assertions that BP 2000 was not complying with regulations and as a result was jeopardizing $50 million in state and federal funding.
The Board asked the Office of the City Auditor to inquire into the assertions made by the citizen and provide information as to the validity of those assertions.
To gain a better understanding of the assertions made, we met with the citizen and discussed their concerns relating to BP 2000. In that meeting we learned that the concerns were in three specific areas:
- The monetary incentives offered to property owners were often not correct based on Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) guidelines.
- BP 2000 primarily used "out of town" contractors (appraisers) resulting in local taxpayer money leaving the area and not being reinvested in the Tallahassee area.
- The appraisals (for right-of-way acquisitions) obtained by BP 2000 were incorrect and higher than could be justified which resulted in too much being paid for property acquisitions.
To address those assertions we reviewed relevant laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; selected a sample of right-of-way acquisitions for examination; and interviewed selected individuals.
Our inquiry into the assertions showed there were four out of twenty parcel acquisitions tested where we had concerns:
- For two purchases BP 2000 made errors in calculating the monetary incentive paid to property owners. The resulting underpayments occurred because BP 2000 erred in applying an incentive formula developed by FDOT for a pilot incentive program (subsequently incorporated into the FDOT Right-of-Way Manual).
- For two additional parcels the incentive was intentionally reduced because the property owner was the owner of the company that performed the road construction.
The amount offered for the 20 parcels tested totaled $13.4 million, of which $1.76 million was attributable to incentives. For the four parcels identified where exceptions were noted, the incentives were $127,000 less than the property owners would have received according to the FDOT incentive formula. This difference between the incentive amounts not paid and the total incentive paid for the 20 parcels equated to a seven percent underpayment ($127,000/ $1.76 million in incentives) or less than a one percent error of total payments for the 20 parcels tested ($127,000/ $13.4 million). For the four parcels only, the incentive underpayment ranged from 8.1 to 11.5 percent per parcel.
We also noted that in all instances the appraisals used as the basis for acquiring right-of-way were reviewed by a second independent appraiser, and in all instances the review appraiser concurred with the valuation of the property to be acquired.
Finally we noted that BP 2000 did, in most cases, use an appraiser from outside the local area, however that appraiser was selected through a competitive process.
Based on our review of the available information, the assertions do not merit further inquiry or investigation.
Final Audit Follow-Up on Repayment of Local Communications Services Tax (#1003)
This is the first and final follow-up on the action plan steps originating from the audit of the Repayment of Local Communications Services Tax (report #0911) issued on April 7, 2009. The Revenue management has completed all action plan steps identified in the audit as of September 30, 2009.
Our original audit was conducted to 1) verify the reasonableness and appropriateness of the information supporting the City of Tallahassee (City) Revenue Division's request to the City Commission to increase the local Communications Services Tax (CST) rate from 5.49% to 6.1%, effective February 1, 2009; 2) provide assurance that an FDOR audit finding requiring the City to repay $1.4 million is adequately supported; and 3) determine the accuracy of Leon County addresses and assigned jurisdictions in the Florida Department of Revenue (FDOR) CST address database.
We provided recommendations during the audit to the Revenue Division to address the identified issues. There were four action plan steps identified in the audit. The following two action plan steps were completed prior to the report being issued on April 7, 2009:
- Monitoring CST collections and adjusting the CST local tax rate to ensure that the expected tax collection levels are maintained. [The Revenue Division indicated that the collections from the revised rate are meeting the expected tax collection levels.]
- Working with City Information Systems Services and County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) staff to monitor the accuracy of the Leon County addresses in the FDOR address database. [Additional address updates have been submitted to FDOR.]
The two steps completed during this follow-up period were related to:
- Requesting documentation from FDOR to support current and future adjustments. Revenue Management reported that they received notice from the FDOR that the most recent FDOR adjustment was a $99,991 underpayment (i.e., the City will receive this amount).
- Requesting FDOR to a) waive the City's adjustment ($1.4 million to be repaid) and b) include the "qualifying discount" in the FDOR calculation of what jurisdictions owe back to the FDOR when adjustments are determined.
In March 2009, FDOR informed the City they do not have the statutory authority to "waive" the City's $1.4 million adjustment for the determined overpayment of the CST distributions. Therefore, the City will be repaying the $1.4 million overpayment over a three- year period ending March 2012. The Revenue Manager indicated that during the summer 2012, they will re-evaluate the sufficiency of the CST local tax rate to determine whether the rate should be adjusted to insure revenue neutrality compliance, as provided in Florida Statutes Section 202.20(2)(a).