LJWorld.com weblogs Town Talk

City auditor wonders why City Hall didn't act more quickly on reported billing, accounting concerns

Advertisement

Did you hear about the time that ...

The city of Lawrence once got a $1,000 check in the mail and didn’t know why? It sent the check back to the company. The company then turned around and sent the check back to the city again, this time with a copy of a 1997 agreement proving that it really did owe the city $1,000.

Or the time the city in 2004 was owed about $1.2 million by Douglas County for its share of construction costs for a new fire station? For reasons that still aren’t clear, it took eight years for the payment matter to get resolved.

Perhaps you have heard that the city has hired an auditor to investigate concerns that the city’s accounts receivables department has not properly been sending out thousands of dollars worth of invoices for several years.

The two examples above, though, don’t come from that recent report. Instead, those were discoveries made years ago by the city’s own in-house auditor. There were other findings as well about how the city staff handles billings, cash and other financial matters. But none of those findings sparked a broader review, and now the embattled city auditor — the city manager is recommending his position be cut in the 2018 budget — is expressing some disappointment about that.

“I’m very glad they are working on this,” City Auditor Michael Eglinski said of the city manager’s decision to hire an outside accountant to review the city’s accounts receivables operations. “I’m a little frustrated that they didn’t work on it earlier.”

As concerns have grown about the city’s accounts receivable practices — thus far it has been discovered that the city had forgotten to send bills to a variety of companies that lease property from the city — Eglinski has compiled a memo detailing several instances where he previously raised concerns about the city’s financial practices.

Among the findings from past Eglinski audits:

• A $75,000 contribution that developers were required to make to the city’s affordable housing trust fund was collected past its deadline in March 2016. An invoice for the amount was only sent after Englinski inquired about it, he said. Eglinski reported that incident to city commissioners in a July 2016 audit.

• In May 2014, the city was due to receive a $460,000 payment from Douglas County related to infrastructure at the East Hills Business Park. But by July 2016, the county had still not received the payment, Eglinski found. City officials contend that they had not lost track of that issue, but rather were trying to decide whether to forgive the county of the payment. However, it is unclear why that issue wasn’t addressed in 2014, at the due date of the payment. Eventually, after Eglinski’s audit came out in 2016, the city waived the payment requirement for the county.

• The city failed to collect a $1,000 application fee from a development group led by Thomas Fritzel as part of the Rock Chalk Park project. The fee had been due in February 2013, but the city did not seek to collect until July 2014, after Eglinski made his finding in an audit that was presented to city commissioners.

• In a 2013 audit, Eglinski noted that in 2004 the city was due a $1.26 million payment from Douglas County for its share of the construction of Fire Station No. 5. The county shares in fire station costs because the stations also house the ambulance service, which serves the entire county. In the audit, Eglinski found that “the city never received the original payment and may have never requested it.” In 2012, the issue was still outstanding, and the city ended up receiving a $1.26 million credit from Douglas County. That credit was applied to the city’s share of the construction cost related to work at the Emergency Communications Center, which serves both the city and the county. It is still unclear why there was an 8-year gap in resolving the payment issue. As far as I know, the city did not receive any interest on the more than $1 million for the eight years.

• As part of his work on a 2014 audit, while looking for something else, Eglinski inadvertently discovered a situation where the city received a check for $1,000 from a company in 2013. The staff couldn’t figure out the purpose of the payment. The city kept the check for eight months before returning it to the company. The company then sent the check to the city again, this time with a copy of a 1997 agreement showing that the $1,000 payment was due to the city. I know, you want to know the company and what the check was for. Eglinski didn’t have those details immediately available, but I’ve asked for them.

Eglinski doesn’t raise these issues in a vacuum. He raises them at a time when the future of the city auditor position is in question. For the second year in a row, City Manager Tom Markus has recommended eliminating the position from the city’s budget. City commissioners last year rejected that part of Markus’ budget. They’re set to start debating the 2018 budget next week.

Eglinski points to his past findings as evidence that that position can alert commissioners to significant problems. However, he also acknowledges that despite the past findings, he did not make a recommendation that the city undertake a full-scale audit of its accounts receivables department.

Markus also noted that, and said that is one of the shortcomings of the city auditor position. It often finds individual problems, but does not do as good of job of finding systemic problems.

“He can make the argument that we should have surmised there was a larger problem, but the way the process is set up, he lists specific recommendations, staff deals with them, moves on and waits for him to reveal some other shortcomings,” Markus said.

Markus said he’s comfortable eliminating the auditor position because he thinks there are other ways to evaluate the city’s performance. He also noted that residents shouldn’t be confused that eliminating the position would eliminate the city’s annual financial audit. Eglinski is a performance auditor, not a financial auditor or certified public accountant. The city contracts with a financial auditing firm to conduct its annual audit.

Markus, who has been Lawrence's city manager since March 2016, said he's committed to finding such problems and correcting them. He notes that the city's finance director uncovered the current billing issues, and the city immediately made public the concern.

Unlike other city employees, Eglinski does not report to the city manager, but rather reports directly to the City Commission, which gives the position a unique amount of independence in City Hall.

Eglinski contends that his audits can and have been used to make systemwide improvements. But he said the auditor position could be improved if the city commission would create an “audit committee.” That would be a group that involves up to two city commissioners and several community members who have some expertise in either finance, public administration or other such subject.

“That group would help with audit topic selection and follow-up,” he said. “They would have more time to spend looking in detail at the audit recommendations.”

Comments

Theodore Calvin 5 months, 1 week ago

I can't wait to hear the companies the city "forgot" to bill. I would imagine the name Compton will come up to join his buddy Fritzel, maybe some Simons in there. This is ridiculous. For fancying itself the most progressive town in Kansas, Lawrence is just as backwards, and small town/good-ol boyish as any of the other Kansas towns these same Lawrencians look down upon. Nothing will happen and the same clowns will r.u.n.n.o.f.t with more of our money down the road.

Brett McCabe 5 months, 1 week ago

The town may fancy itself as progressive but it really doesn't do anything progressive at all. Instead of opening up zoning to more density (like progressive cities), we are doing the opposite. Instead of pursuing a livable wage for workers, we are - doing nothing. Instead of partnering with investors who want to invest in the downtown district (like progressive cities), we're rolling backwards. Instead of embracing complete streets programs, we are cowering from a group of goofs on the east and a bunch of whiners along Kasold.

However, we do seem to like parking lots and parking committees and anything to do with parking. So maybe we'll become the world leader in empty, useless, non-revenue producing parking spaces? Call Guinness.

Rick Masters 5 months, 1 week ago

Where do we get our "McCabe for City Commission" signs? I want one for my yard.

Kevin Kelly 5 months, 1 week ago

Lyche & McCabe, put them together for more density.

Charles L. Bloss, Jr. 5 months, 1 week ago

If it had been their money, I bet they would take better care of it.

Deborah Snyder 5 months, 1 week ago

On this matter, I strongly disagree w/Mr. Markus. If, in fact these missing payments date back a number of years, the annual audit Mr. Markus cites as sufficient never found nor had the resources or wide-ranging independent authority the City Performance Auditor, Mr. Eglinski, had to investigate singular or (as is being discovered now) MULTIPLE billing and payments receivable matters.

Mr. Markus needs to bury his animus towards this auditor, and accept that Mr. Iglinski is to him, what the FBI is to the federal administration.

Not only that, but Mr. Markus and city commission members had better understand that any future city tax hikes will be met with a backlash from taxpayers if Mr. Iglinski's position is eliminated!

Carol Bowen 5 months, 1 week ago

If the city auditor's position is retained, the position description should be clarified. It doesn't sound like the position carried the authority we were expecting.

Clara Westphal 5 months, 1 week ago

Could this be the reason Mr. Markus wants to eliminate the auditor's position? We need a city auditor more than ever. He is the only one who seems to be doing his job. The City Commission had better start paying attention to the auditor's reports and stop sweeping them under the table.

Will White 5 months, 1 week ago

That makes no sense Clara. Markus wants to eliminate the auditor position because the CC and Mayor Soden want a budget that calls for no tax increases. To do that, you need to make cuts. They threw Markus under the bus, again.

Theodore Calvin 5 months, 1 week ago

As a taxpayer you can't tell me you need more of my money when you haven't even lifted a finger to collect previous monies owed. Still waiting to hear the businesses... Know a couple have been mentioned, but I'd like to see a full list.

Gene Douglas 5 months, 1 week ago

Lawrence...a city government to big to fail

Francis Hunt 5 months, 1 week ago

Interesting. One, "The city contracts with a financial auditing firm to conduct its annual audit." Uh, maybe the city should start looking for another firm! Two, "Unlike other city employees, Eglinski does not report to the city manager, but rather reports directly to the City Commission..." No wonder Markus wants to get rid of him, Eglinski isn't subservient to him!

David Holroyd 5 months, 1 week ago

The problem with the Town Talk blog...if you will, is that Mr. Lawhorn hasn't interviewed each commissioner who was made aware of Mr. Eglinski's findings.

What do the commisioners have to say about what action they took? Did they pass the buck to Mr. Corliss?

Chad, Mr. Lawhorn, with out interviewing each seated commissioner who had the findings of Mr. Eglinski......it appears that the Journal World is pumping up Mr. Markus, who thus far has done nothing to encourage the city commission to lower the city portion of taxes.

Instead, since Mr. Markus came, the water bills, the parking fines, the sewer rates and other fees unknown to the general public have gone up.

And most recently if Mr. Eglinski reported to the commission, what did Mr. Boley have to say? After all, he was reported to be a former IRS auditor. Was he not of the caliber of an auditor that Mr. Markus claims Mr. Egllnski is NOT.

Chad, why not detail Mr. Eglinski's credentials . They apparently were good enough to make him employable.

Chad, who at City Hall is responsible for billing? Is that so difficult to find out?

Place a call to Mr. Corliss in Colorado and see he cares to comment! :)

What about Ms. Stoddard, what if any was she responsible for billing if the commissioners referred issues to her?

This article lacks some very important facts and statements for others and not Mr. Markus and Mr. Eglinski.

As an aside, ask Mr. Markus who NOW is responsible for billing and collecting lease payments and does Ms. Wheeler have any idea either.

Maybe it is time to have: Corliss/Cooley testify

Mr. Francis Hunt,,,so correct you are about Mr. Eglinski being subservient...and apparently the commissioners past and present were not adept enough to have Eglinski subservient to them.

A pitiful collection of public servants all being paid at 6 E 6th.

Brandon Devlin 5 months, 1 week ago

David Holroyd, AKA, the Lawrence "National Enquirer"

Charles Jones 5 months, 1 week ago

You could point a lot of fingers in this situation. Fumbling by financial staff. City Commissions that have arguably been too casual in administrative oversight. Weak accounting/tracking systems. But none of those fingers would point at the City Auditor. Odd and somewhat unsettling that his position is in jeopardy. Appears that we need more double-checking. Not less.

Richard Heckler 5 months, 1 week ago

I ditto what Deborah Snyder and Charles Jones have put forward..

Did someone in city hall encourage employees to turn a blind eye?

I would rather keep Mr. Eglinski on the payroll and get rid of whomever no matter how many allowed such shoddy concrete construction at you know where... can we say Sports Pavilion Lawrence?

Wasn't that a $30,000,000 tax dollar project? Let's get our money back.

We taxpayers cannot afford city hall .....

Richard Quinlan 5 months, 1 week ago

You can send Horatio Hornblower Eglinski packing , he obviously would rather toot his own horn , and fire the director of finance and regroup. There is no excuse other than lack of experience and competence to perform the job.

David Holroyd 5 months, 1 week ago

Mr Quinlan I doubt Ehglinski is tooting his horn.it appears the Mr Lawhorn can only find one person from the horn section.......what about the commissioners ..have they had their instruments muted?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.