County considers switch-up of audit process for special district

Every so often, something crops up that leads you to question the way things have always been done.

Such was the case last week for the county commissioners, when County Attorney Joe Baron and County Clerk Melissa Jones brought to their attention a quirk in how the county’s audit is set up.

Specifically, Crook County Weed & Pest is included as a “component part” of the county’s audit, along with the library and fair.

However, said Baron, the latter two entities are considered to be “component parts” because they share in the county’s 12 mills, and board members and employees are appointed by the commission. They deal with money, said Baron, “That’s in the county’s control”.

This is not the case for Weed & Pest, he said, which has taxing authority of its own, along with a tax base, and its board is elected. It is a special district, like the museum and medical services districts.

Other special districts are required to perform their own audit reviews if they have a certain amount of revenue.

Being considered a component part, said Baron, does not affect budgetary requirements and just means that, “It shows their assets and their liabilities under our audit.”

The Weed & Pest District’s status allows it to be included in the county audit and also allows for its employes to piggyback on the county’s insurance plan. While the district is still responsible for funding that insurance, it does benefit from the county’s rates.

Baron and Jones questioned whether the commission would like to make changes to the Weed & Pest’s status. These would not come into effect until next year, Baron noted, because a letter of intent has already been signed with the CPA for this year’s audit.

Removing Weed & Pest as a “component part” would not reduce the commission’s authority over the district, Baron said. The commissioners would still have line-item veto power over the district’s budget and statutes allow the board to require that special districts hold budget meetings with the commissioners.

“I think they need to have a budget session with us, I really do,” said Commissioner Kelly Dennis on this last point.

Baron suggested that the commission might want to investigate the potential cost changes associated with requiring the district to perform its own audit review. In other words, how much would it cost the district and how much less would it cost the county?

Jones commented that it might be something to think about that, considering that, “Maybe we’re holding them to a different standard than the rest of the special districts.”

“We can line item them no matter what, but do we need to list them in our budget message or should they start holding their own budget hearings, do their own advertisements?” Jones asked.

Baron suggested it may be beneficial to review the requirements for boards versus districts and publish this around January, so that everyone knows what is expected of them. With the commission’s approval, he will prepare more formal recommendations for the commission to review and discuss.