Inadequately Documented/Unauthorized Expenditures
(192) During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the BCC incurred $20,350 for
expenditures for coffee service for employees and the general public. The BCC had not, of
record, documented what specific County purpose was furthered through the providing of the
coffee services.
(193) The County uses two vendors to supply coffee at various County offices within
Walton County. These expenditures totaled $13,196 during the 1996-97 fiscal year and
totaled $7,154 for the period October 1997 through June 1998. According to the minutes for
the BCC’s January 13, 1998, meeting, one of the Commissioners asked each Commissioner
to " look at this expense to the taxpayer" and motioned to deny further payment
for coffee expense as of February 1, 1998. However, another Commissioner stated that the
coffee service " is not only for employees, but it is also provided for citizens when
they visit a county facility." The motion to discontinue the coffee expenses died for
a lack of a second. We observed one coffee location that is primarily used by County
employees and is not normally accessed by the general public. Further, the BCC did not, of
record, document what specific County purpose was furthered through the providing of
coffee services to employees or the general public. We recommend that the BCC either
discontinue the coffee service or document, of record, the public purpose served by
providing coffee service to employees and the general public.
(194) Three court reporters were overpaid a total of $262.50 during the period October
1996 through June 1998.
(195) The BCC employs one full-time court reporter and contracts with three other court
reporters to keep a record of all court proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 2.070(a) of the
Florida Judicial Administration the chief judge, after consultation with the circuit and
county court judges in the circuit, shall enter an administrative order developing and
implementing a circuitwide plan for court reporting. Rule 2.070(f) of the Florida Judicial
Administration provides that the chief judge shall have the discretion to adopt an
administrative order establishing maximum fees for court reporters. During the audit
period, contracted court reporters were required to be paid in accordance with
Administrative Order No. 91-18(a). Our audit disclosed that the three court reporters were
being paid $40 per hour for the first hour of service rather than the $35 per hour
specified by Administrative Order No. 91-18(a). As a result, the three court reporters
were overpaid a total of $262.50 during the period October 1996 through June 1998. We
recommend that the BCC and Clerk ensure that payments to court reporters are made in
accordance with Administrative Order No. 91-18(a) and take appropriate action to recover
amounts overpaid the court reporters.
Purchasing Practices
(196) The BCC’s purchasing practices are primarily addressed by the BCC’s Purchasing
Policies and Procedures effective January 1, 1998. The Clerk had not adopted written
purchasing policies and procedures. Pursuant to the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and
Procedures, the BCC’s Purchasing Department was responsible for coordinating the
solicitation of bids or quotes from prospective vendors when procuring goods or services.
Competitive Bids
(197) Contrary to good business practices and/or the BCC’s Purchasing Policies
and Procedures, purchases totaling $3,138,348 for goods or services were acquired
without benefit of competitive quotes or bids.
(198) As a matter of good business practice, procurement of goods or services should be
done using a competitive selection process to provide an effective means of equitably
procuring the best quality of goods or services at the lowest possible cost. Pages 8 and 9
of the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, effective January 1, 1998,
prescribe certain legal and administrative requirements for purchasing goods and services.
Purchases exceeding $3,000 require advertisement of an invitation to bid at least twice in
a local newspaper and a formal opening of sealed bids. Purchases exceeding $500 but not
exceeding $3,000 require solicitation of sealed written quotes for nonemergency purchases
and telephone quotes for emergency purchases. Page 9 of the BCC’s Purchasing
Policies and Procedures provides that bid procedures may be bypassed if the
goods/services are obtainable only from a sole source. Page 13 of the BCC’s Purchasing
Policies and Procedures provides that in the event of a declared emergency by the BCC,
purchasing procedures are waived during the period of emergency.
(199) Our review of the BCC’s official minutes disclosed the following instances,
totaling $2,561,358, in which the BCC, contrary to good business practices and/or the
BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, waived bid procedures without
documenting that an emergency situation existed or that the goods/services were only
obtainable from a sole source:
Description of Goods or Services for Which Bid Procedures Were Waived Amount of Number
of Purchases Times Bids
7/96 - 6/98 Waived
Heavy equipment such as dump trucks and motor graders 1,932,050 $ 3
Road construction and/or materials for road construction and/or maintenance 350,462 16
Beach improvements 105,366 3
Furniture, fixtures, and equipment 84,903 7
Motor vehicles (cars and light trucks) 57,625 3
Other miscellaneous goods/services 30,952 5
Total 2,561,358 $
(200) In addition, during the period October 1996 through June 1998, the BCC expended
$576,990 for motor fuels from a vendor. Although the motor fuel was purchased on a monthly
basis, presumably so that the BCC was not locked into a certain price per gallon for the
entire fiscal year, the BCC had not demonstrated, of record, that the purchase of motor
fuel on a monthly basis was more cost effective than the purchase of motor fuel through a
competitive acquisition process.
(201) Without the benefit of competitive quotes or bids for the purchases described
above, the BCC could not be assured that these purchases were obtained at the lowest cost
consistent with acceptable quality. We recommend that the BCC review its purchasing
practices and take the necessary action to ensure that purchases are made in accordance
with the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures.
(202) The former Chairman, in his written response to this finding, stated that many
of the instances in which the competitive pricing procedures were waived were
"piggy-backs" of previous competitive bids or similar to previous purchases made
at the best-quote price. The use of "piggy-backs" was suggested during the audit
as a possible explanation for some purchases; however, the BCC’s official minutes did
not indicate that the instances noted were "piggy-backs" and no documentation
evidencing that such instances were "piggy-backs" was provided for our
consideration.
Awarding of Contracts for Professional Services
(203) The BCC obtained various professional services pursuant to Section 125.012(15),
Florida Statutes, which authorizes the BCC to employ consulting engineers,
superintendents, managers, and such other engineering, construction, and accounting
experts, attorneys, employees, and agents as may be necessary in its judgment. Likewise,
the Clerk obtained various professional services deemed necessary to carry out the
Clerk’s prescribed duties. During the period October 1996 through August 1998, the
BCC and the Clerk reported expenditures totaling approximately $2,060,000 and $178,000,
respectively, for legal, auditing, engineering, and other professional services. The Clerk
and the BCC should establish internal controls that provide assurance that the process of
acquiring professional services is effectively and consistently administered. As discussed
below, our audit disclosed several deficiencies regarding the administration and payment
of professional services.
(204) In acquiring contracted professional services totaling $1,042,353 during the
period October 1996 through June 1998, the BCC and/or Clerk obtained such services without
benefit of competitive selection procedures and/or written agreements. Invoices submitted
by some contractors were not in sufficient detail to allow a determination as to whether
fees charged were appropriate and some fees charged appeared to be inconsistent with those
previously agreed upon.
(205) Section 11.45(3)(a), Florida Statutes, provides guidance regarding the selection
of an auditor and Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, provides guidance regarding the
acquisition of architectural, engineering, and surveying or mapping services. As a matter
of good business practice, the awarding of contracts for professional services should be
done using a competitive selection process to provide an effective means of equitably
procuring the best quality services at the lowest cost. As previously noted, pages 8 and 9
of the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures, effective January 1, 1998,
require quotes or bids for certain purchases of goods or services. The BCC’s Purchasing
Policies and Procedures do not exempt any particular type of professional services
from such requirements. In addition, every contractual arrangement for professional
services should be evidenced by a written agreement embodying all provisions and
conditions of the procurement of such services.
(206) Our audit disclosed that the BCC and/or Clerk acquired the following professional
services without benefit of competitive selection procedures and/or written agreements:
· Pursuant to Section 11.45(3)(a)6., Florida Statutes, the governing body of a
noncharter county (such as Walton County) is responsible for selecting an independent
certified public accountant to audit the county agencies of the county according to
procedures specified in Sections 11.45(3)(a)6.a. through 11.45(3)(a)6.j., Florida
Statutes, if the certified public accountant is other than the Auditor General. Such
procedures require the use of a competitive auditor selection process. The BCC used a
public accounting firm to provide auditing services. During the period October 1996
through June 1998, the firm was paid a total of $153,600 for auditing services rendered.
The same public accounting firm has been used since 1982. Since then, the BCC, on several
occasions, voted to continue using the services of the firm, most recently at its January
30, 1996, meeting at which it approved the continued use of the firm for fiscal years
ended September 30, 1997, through September 30, 2001. Contrary to Section 11.45(3)(a),
Florida Statutes, these contract extensions were made without benefit of the competitive
selection process prescribed in Section 11.45(3)(a)6., Florida Statutes. In response to
our inquiry regarding this matter, the BCC’s Administrative Supervisor provided a
copy of correspondence dated May 17, 1995, from the Florida State Board of Accountancy to
the public accounting firm. However, such correspondence did not provide any information
as to why the County did not comply with the competitive selection process prescribed by
Section 11.45(a)6., Florida Statutes.
The County’s annual audit required pursuant to Section 11.45, Florida Statutes,
was conducted by the firm for the fiscal years ended September 30, 1996, and September 30,
1997, pursuant to written agreements signed and executed by both parties involved.
According to the agreements, the firm, for an annual fee of $45,000 and $48,000 for the
fiscal years ended September 30, 1996, and September 30, 1997, respectively, was to
conduct a Federal Single Audit, which would include procedures necessary to enable the
firm to: (1) express an opinion as to the fairness in which the County’s financial
statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and
(2) to report on the schedule of Federal financial awards and on the County’s
compliance with laws and regulations and its internal controls as required for the Federal
Single Audit. The agreements further stated that the firm would assist in the preparation
of the County’s financial statements. The firm was paid $22,300 and $38,300 for the
fiscal years ended September 30, 1996, and September 30, 1997, respectively, in excess of
the amounts specified in the agreements for various auditing services not contemplated in
the agreements. Although these additional payments were supported by the invoices
submitted by the firm describing the nature of the auditing services, the invoices did not
specify the hourly rates and/or the number of hours associated with the services. Also,
the additional payments included $10,000 for drafting and preparing the 1996-97 fiscal
year general purpose financial statements, which appears to be a service that was already
covered by the $48,000 annual fee paid to the firm for conducting the 1996-97 fiscal year
audit.
· Both the BCC and the Clerk used the above-noted certified public accounting firm to
provide nonauditing services (see additional discussion in paragraphs 210 through 212).
During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the firm was paid a total of $85,055
for nonauditing related services rendered ($83,455 for the BCC and $1,600 for the Clerk).
There was no written agreement specifying the exact nature of the nonauditing services to
be provided or the hourly rates associated with such services. We further noted that the
invoices supporting these payments submitted by the firm for nonauditing services were not
in sufficient detail to allow a determination as to the exact nature of the services
provided, the hourly rates, and/or the number of hours.
· The BCC used the services of an engineering firm to provide various engineering
services which included, but were not limited to, surveying, soil investigation,
construction drawings and specifications, cost estimates, permitting, administering
advertising and bids of construction contracts, drainage analysis, and analyzing needed
road improvements and/or repairs. The firm was selected after the use of a competitive
selection process as prescribed by Section 287.055, Florida Statutes. However, during the
1996-97 fiscal year, the firm was paid a total of $294,002 for services rendered without
benefit of a written agreement. At its December 23, 1997, meeting, the BCC approved
acceptance of a contract proposal from the engineering firm regarding engineering services
for the 1997-98 fiscal year. According to the contract, fees for design services were to
be based on a specified percentage of the bid award for new construction projects or road
resurfacing projects, with only inspection services being billed on an hourly rate basis.
However, the proposal did not specify the hourly rates.
Payments to the firm totaled $282,075 during the period October 1997 through June 1998.
Our examination of several invoices submitted by the firm for the 1997-98 fiscal year
disclosed that they were not in sufficient detail to allow a determination of compliance
with the payment terms as defined in the written agreement. For example, in several
instances, the invoices showed only a lump-sum amount but did not show the percentage of
the construction completed applied against the applicable percentage as prescribed in the
contract proposal. In several other instances, the invoices showed fees based on hourly
rates but did not indicate whether the fees were for inspection services.
· As discussed further in paragraphs 213 through 219, the BCC retained an attorney to
provide legal services. During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the attorney was
paid a total of $160,294 for services rendered. The BCC has used the same attorney since
1969. During that time period, the BCC, on several occasions, voted to continue using the
services of the attorney, most recently at its November 26, 1996, meeting at which it
approved the continued use of the attorney for the next fiscal year. In response to our
inquiry regarding subsequent BCC approval for continued use of the attorney, the
BCC’s Administrative Supervisor provided a copy of the minutes for the BCC’s
October 14, 1997, meeting. According to those minutes, one Commissioner stated that "
after 29 years of service to the County that the Board should consider allowing someone
else the opportunity to serve" and motioned to send out RFPs (request for proposals)
for legal counsel. The motion was defeated by a three to two vote. The minutes did not
evidence the BCC’s specific approval to continue the services of the attorney during
the 1997-98 fiscal year). However, both parties have continued to act in the same
contractual arrangement. The continued use of the attorney was done without benefit of a
written agreement or extension of the previous agreement (i.e., the BCC’s vote at the
November 26, 1996, meeting, to continue using the attorney for another fiscal year.) Most
of the attorney’s invoices for services adequately described the services provided,
hourly rate charged, and number of hours billed; however, we noted one invoice dated
January 16, 1997, for $500 that did not specify an hourly rate or the number of hours. In
addition, we noted two invoices totaling $6,999.94 in which the attorney charged the BCC
an hourly rate in excess of his customary rate of $125 per hour (see paragraph 214). In
one instance, the BCC paid $166.67 per hour (invoice dated January 16, 1997) while in the
other the BCC paid $175 per hour (invoice dated March 11, 1997) for a net overcharge of
$1,895.
· The Clerk retained an attorney to represent him during legal proceedings between
himself and the BCC. During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the firm was paid a
total of $38,891 for services rendered. The compensation to the firm consisted of a
retainer fee of $100 per month in addition to an hourly rate of $200 per hour plus
reimbursement of direct expenses. The Clerk contracted for these services without benefit
of a written agreement.
· The BCC used a professional mechanical technician to provide mechanical maintenance
and operation services for the central air conditioning system at various facilities of
Walton County. During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the mechanical technician
was paid a total of $73,852 for services rendered. The BCC began using the mechanical
technician in March 1991, at which time it approved the use of such services for the
period March 1991 through February 1994. The BCC continued the use of such services from
the end of the contractual period into the present date without renewal of the agreement.
Since the time the agreement ended, the monthly rate for services rendered has increased
by 14 percent from $3,028 per month to $3,475 per month. These rate increases were
approved by the Maintenance Supervisor for Walton County but were not, of record, approved
by the BCC. The BCC contracted for these services without benefit of a competitive
selection process.
· The Clerk used a consulting firm to prepare documentation to facilitate the
personnel actions of the Clerk’s office. Such services included the preparation of
job descriptions, a performance appraisal handbook and evaluation forms, employee
performance logs, and a salary survey/analysis. During the period October 1996 through
June 1998, the firm was paid a total of $9,047 for services rendered. The Clerk contracted
for these services without benefit of a competitive selection process and no written
agreement was entered into between the Clerk and the consulting firm.
· The BCC and Clerk used a consulting firm to provide computer programming support
services for the Management Information System (MIS) Department of Walton County. During
the period October 1996 through June 1998, the firm was paid a total of $227,612,
including $2,208 from the BCC and $225,404 from the Clerk. Amounts paid for goods/services
provided to the Clerk included payments of $86,625 at an hourly rate of $900 per day for
computer programming services rendered, purchases of computer equipment in the total
amount of $134,546, repair and maintenance services for $2,715, and various office
supplies for $1,518. Services provided by the consulting firm were continued from the
administration of the former clerk. Once sufficient personnel staffing was established in
the MIS Department, the current Clerk no longer obtained services from the consulting firm
after February 1998. The Clerk contracted for these services and the purchases of computer
equipment without benefit of a competitive selection process and no written agreement was
entered into between the Clerk and the consulting firm.
(207) Without using a competitive selection process when acquiring professional
services, the BCC and Clerk cannot be assured that such services are being obtained at the
lowest cost consistent with acceptable quality and performance. Furthermore, in the
absence of a written contract specifying the nature of the services to be performed and
the amount of compensation to be provided, and/or detailed invoices describing the
services provided, hourly rate charged, and number of hours billed, the BCC and the Clerk
cannot be assured that payments made to contractors are in compliance with the intent of
the BCC and the Clerk and that the BCC and Clerk receive the services to which they are
entitled.
(208) We recommend that the BCC and the Clerk, as a matter of good business practice
and/or as required by State law or the BCC’s Purchasing Policies and Procedures,
award contracts for professional services only after using a competitive selection process
and enter into written agreements with selected contractors to document the nature of the
services to be performed and the amount of compensation to be provided. We also recommend
that the Clerk, for those instances identified in paragraph 206 in which invoices
submitted by contractors were not in sufficient detail or included fees that were
inconsistent with those previously agreed upon, obtain adequate invoices and/or
clarification. The BCC and Clerk should take appropriate action to recover any contractor
overpayments identified by the Clerk.
Accounting Services
(209) During the period October 1996 through June 1998, the BCC and the Clerk paid a
public accounting firm a total of $85,055 for nonauditing related services rendered,
including $52,000 for the 1996-97 fiscal year. Most of the nonauditing services being
provided by the firm were for accounting services that potentially could have been
provided by County staff at a lower cost.
(210) As discussed in paragraph 206, both the BCC and the Clerk used a public
accounting firm to provide nonauditing services. During the period October 1996 through
June 1998, the firm was paid a total of $85,055 for nonauditing related services rendered,
including $52,000 for the 1996-97 fiscal year. As noted in paragraph 206, there was no
written agreement specifying the exact nature of the nonauditing services to be provided
and many of the invoices submitted by the firm for nonauditing services were not in
sufficient detail to allow a determination as to the exact nature of the services
provided.
(211) Nonauditing services, as described on those invoices that did describe the types
of services provided, included a fee for monthly services, assistance with ambulance
billing, special inquiries associated with Housing Authority inquiries, preparation of a
Cafeteria Plan form, preparation of a Full Cost Accounting Solid Waste Management Public
Notice, assistance with office management and budget, preparation of the annual financial
report required to be filed with the Florida Department of Banking and Finance, and other
financial-related special projects. These services are accounting-related services that
potentially could have been provided by the Clerk’s staff at a lower cost. For
example, the Clerk’s former Director of MIS/Finance, whose job description
encompassed most, if not all, of the nonauditing services provided by the public
accounting firm, was being paid an annual salary of $55,000 for a full-time position prior
to his resignation in May 1998 (see further discussion in paragraph 163). In contrast, the
firm was paid a total of $52,000 for the 1996-97 fiscal year for nonauditing services
rendered on a part-time basis.
(212) Although there are other factors that require consideration, such as employee
benefit costs and the BCC and Clerk’s ability to obtain qualified staff, we recommend
that the BCC and the Clerk give consideration to whether the nonauditing services being
provided by the public accounting firm could be provided more economically and efficiently
through the use of County staff.
Employer/Employee Relationships
(213) The BCC has a contractual arrangement with an attorney to provide legal services;
however, the relationship between the attorney and the BCC includes many elements similar
to that of an employee/employer relationship. Accordingly, the BCC should seek a
determination from the Internal Revenue Service and the Florida Division of Retirement as
to the employment status of the attorney to ensure compliance with applicable Federal and
State laws.
(214) As previously noted, the BCC retained the services of an attorney to advise the
BCC on various legal matters. According to the County’s payroll/personnel system, the
attorney is shown as a full-time employee who received a total of $22,257.60 in salary
payments during the period October 1996 through June 1998. Although the BCC did not enter
into a written agreement with the attorney, we determined through examination of BCC
records and discussion with the BCC’s Administrative Supervisor that the attorney is
paid the salary primarily in exchange for attending, and preparing for, regular BCC
meetings. The attorney bills the BCC $125 per hour for other services provided. As noted
in paragraph 206, the attorney was paid a total of $160,294 for services rendered during
the period October 1996 through June 1998.
(215) The distinction between an independent contractor and an employee is important
because there are certain laws or principles (such as those relating to retirement, social
security, Federal income tax, ethics, group health insurance, unemployment compensation
insurance, and workers’ compensation) that apply when an individual serves in the
role of an employee rather than as an independent contractor. For example, the BCC is not
required to withhold employee payroll taxes or make matching social security and
retirement contributions for an independent contractor. Additionally, fringe benefits such
as group insurance and paid leave are available only to workers classified as employees.
(216) The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance in determining a worker’s
status as an employee. Although not applicable to the BCC, State Comptroller Memorandum
No. 7 (1988-89) illustrates several key factors that are useful in determining whether an
individual is an employee under common law rules. In addition, Department of Management
Services, Division of Retirement, Rule 60S-6.001(33), Florida Administrative Code,
includes several factors that are used to determine whether an employer/employee
relationship exists that would necessitate participation in the Florida Retirement System
(FRS). Some of these factors include the extent of control exerted by the employer,
including when, where, and how work is to be done; if the services must be rendered
personally by the worker; if the services are performed on a continuous basis; if the
worker’s business travel expenses are reimbursed by the employer; if the employer
hires, supervises, and pays the worker’s assistants; if the worker can incur a loss
as a result of his or her services; if the work is performed on the premises of the
employer; and if the employer has the right to discharge the worker.
(217) As indicated in a letter dated October 3, 1983, from the Florida Department of
Management Services (formerly the Florida Department of Administration), Division of
Retirement, the attorney was previously a participant in the FRS but the attorney’s
relationship with the BCC was not that of an employer/employee. As a result, the attorney
ceased participation in the FRS. However, based on our review of the attorney’s
current relationship to the BCC, the following elements of the relationship indicate the
attorney may serve more in the role of an employee rather than as an independent
contractor:
· The attorney has continuously performed services for the BCC since at least January
1969.
· According to the County’s payroll/personnel system, the attorney is a full-time
employee who receives biweekly salary payments.
· The attorney is provided health, life, and dental insurance coverage. The attorney,
through payroll deduction, pays part of the premiums for the health and life insurance and
all the premiums for the dental insurance. The BCC pays part of the premiums for the
health and life insurance.
· The BCC provides the attorney with a telephone line (located in his office which is
not located in a BCC facility), a cellular telephone, and a radio for County business.
· The BCC purchases the legal periodical, Florida Administrative Code, and an
environmental publication for the attorney.
· The BCC provides the attorney with a part-time 30-hour a week secretary to assist
him with County business. The secretary, who is currently an FRS participant, performs
other work for the attorney that is not County-related.
· The BCC also provides the attorney with a full-time summer intern to assist him with
County business. The intern, who is not currently a FRS participant, is primarily employed
to answer the telephone and update County files; however, according to the BCC’s
Administrative Supervisor, she may occasionally answer telephone calls that are not
County-related.
(218) Based on the Division of Retirement’s October 3, 1983, letter, it appears
that none of the above-noted elements regarding benefits, equipment, materials, or
staff provided by the BCC to the attorney were considered at the time of the Division of
Retirement’s ruling. In response to our inquiry regarding this matter, the BCC’s
Administrative Supervisor stated that the attorney is not considered an employee of Walton
County. However, given the above-noted elements, we believe some clarification is
needed as to the attorney’s employment status.
(219) We recommend that the BCC seek an updated ruling from the Florida Division of
Retirement, and a determination from the Internal Revenue Service, regarding the current
employment status of the attorney to ensure compliance with applicable laws and to avoid
possible future financial assessments for employee payroll taxes and benefit
contributions. We also recommend that the BCC, if it is the BCC’s intention that the
attorney not be considered an employee, take appropriate measures to ensure that the
attorney’s relationship with the BCC is clearly that of an independent contractor by
such actions as removing the attorney from the payroll system, discontinuing the
attorney’s insurance coverage, and clearly documenting the contractor relationship in
a written agreement.
Out-of-Pocket Expenses
(220) Reimbursements for travel and other out-of-pocket expenses totaling $4,574 for
contractors providing ecological, legal, and accounting services to the BCC and the Clerk
were not supported by adequate documentation and/or were contrary to State law.
(221) Our tests disclosed four instances totaling $4,574 ($3,546 for the BCC and $1,028
for the Clerk) of reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenses to contractors providing
ecological, legal, and accounting services during the period October 1996 through March
1998 that were not supported by adequate documentation (e.g., receipts, bills, invoices)
and/or were contrary to State law. These expenses were for items such as mileage, meals,
lodging, field supplies and equipment, report and map production, photocopies, postage,
telephone charges, and other miscellaneous costs. In two of these instances, the
contractor was reimbursed for travel based on a mileage rate that was in excess of that
allowed by Section 112.061, Florida Statutes. Neither the BCC nor the Clerk had entered
into written agreements with these contractors specifying that the contractors were
entitled to reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses. Absent adequate supporting
documentation, the BCC and the Clerk do not have reasonable assurances that out-of-pocket
expenses claimed and paid were actually incurred and related to County business. We
recommend the BCC and Clerk ensure that written agreements with contractors specifically
address whether contractors are to be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses. We also
recommend that all contractors be required to provide reasonable documentation supporting
expenses for which reimbursement is requested and that reimbursements for travel expenses
be made in accordance with Section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
Travel Expenses
(222) The BCC and the Clerk incurred $488,521 and $160,793, respectively, for travel
expenses during the period October 1994 through June 1998 (total of $649,314). These
expenses, which included reimbursements to officers/employees for travel expenses incurred
and travel-related credit card charges, do not include Tourist Development Council travel
and business expenditures which are addressed in paragraphs 287 through 296.
(223) BCC and Clerk travel expenses are subject to Section 112.061, Florida Statutes,
which governs per diem and travel expenses of public agencies, defined as any office,
department, agency, division, subdivision, political subdivision, board, bureau,
commission, authority, district, public body, body politic, county, city, town, village,
municipality, or any other separate unit of government created pursuant to law. This law
further states that the provisions of any special or local law, present or future, shall
prevail over any conflicting provisions in Section 112.061, Florida Statutes, but only to
the extent of the conflict; however, we are not aware of any such laws affecting Walton
County except for the provisions of Section 125.0104, Florida Statutes, regarding Tourist
Development Council expenditures. Among the requirements of Section 112.061, Florida
Statutes, are provisions establishing uniform rates (including the amounts of
reimbursement that travelers may claim) and specific documentation requirements for the
payment or reimbursement of travel expenses incurred by public officers, employees, and
authorized persons in connection with official agency business.
(224) The Clerk has not established written policies and procedures regarding travel.
Prior to the BCC’s adoption of its Personnel Policies effective April 22,
1997, the BCC had not established written policies and procedures regarding travel. BCC Personnel
Policies Section 5.50, Travel Reimbursement, addresses travel by Commissioners and BCC
employees and requires, among other things, that: (1) official state mileage maps be used
to determine point to point mileage for out-of-county travel; (2) employees’ actual
travel be documented on an itemized travel voucher and be limited to a maximum of 2,000
miles; (3) Commissioners’ in-county travel be limited to 2,000 miles per month
effective December 1, 1996; (4) Commissioners/employees required to use their privately
owned vehicles for travel be reimbursed at the rate of $.29 per mile; (5) overnight travel
and food costs be paid at the rate of $21 per day; (6) lodging expense reimbursement
claims be supported and paid by hotel/motel bills; (7) travel vouchers show all expenses
incurred during the trip and readily display as one document the entire cost of the travel
(including airline and hotel bills paid by credit card); and (8) travel vouchers be
approved by supervising personnel before they are submitted for payment.
(225) Our audit included a detailed examination of all BCC travel expenses incurred
during the period October 1994 through June 1998 by Commissioners or by the BCC’s
Administrative Supervisor, Director of Public Safety, and Director of Public Works, and
all credit card charges for travel expenses for the period October 1996 through March 1998
to determine whether such expenses were authorized in accordance with the above-noted
State law and BCC guidelines. The results of our examination of these expenses are
discussed under appropriate subheadings below.
