The City of Lake Worth's Sub-Regional System Audit

Comment Up

Last night, Finance Director, Steven Carr was given kudos for doing a wonderful job for Lake Worth.  Even one of the Friends of the Gulfstream, who loves to speak on all subjects great and small, laid compliments upon him.  I like Steve Carr. He was hired by Susan Stanton and it was brought to Stanton's attention that our sub-regional sewer customers owed us over $10 million bucks. We had audit after audit during that period. The City pursued the monies owed. Now there is a complete reversal. What gives?

The City of Lake Worth's Sub-Regional System audit--

What happened?  How did we go from cities owing us millions to us owing them thousands?

Notes to Fiscal Years:
1. City records did not include sufficient information to permit a calculation of over (under)-billings for the 2006-07 fiscal year.

2. Notes A, C, I, J, K, and L under the Types of Deficiencies in City Records, relate to the first half of the 2008-09 fiscal year. Notes A, B, D, F, G, I, J, K, and L relate to the second half of the 2008-09 fiscal year. Over (under)-billing amounts are for the first half of the 2008-09 fiscal year. City records did not include sufficient information to permit a calculation of over (under)-billings for the second half of the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Here is a list of all the "incompetence"--
Notes to Types of Deficiencies in City records:

A. Contracts between the City and System Customers were not sufficiently detailed as to the methodology for determining renewal and replacement costs to be billed to and paid by System Customers.
B. City records did not evidence how Sub-regional System renewal and replacement (R&R) costs were calculated.
C. City records did not evidence why the City used budgeted depreciation as the sole basis for calculating Sub-regional System R&R costs.
D. City records did not evidence what portion of the flow rate billed to System Customers was attributable to the East Central Regional Water Reclamation Facility
(ECRWRF).
E. City records did not evidence whether or not State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan costs were included in ECRWRF flow rate calculations
F. City records did not evidence what portion of the flow rate billed to System Customers was attributable to the Palm Beach County Joint Transmission Facility
(PBCJTF).
G. City records did not evidence how the flow rates stated in a consultant’s rate study were determined.
H. City records did not evidence how the flow rates stated in revenue sufficiency analyses were determined.
I. City records did not evidence the flow rate calculation for the Village of Palm Springs.
J. City records did not always sufficiently demonstrate that Regional Sewer Funds expenditures were recorded in the correct amount and were related to the Sub-regional System.
K. City records did not evidence the basis upon which allocation percentages, used to allocate budgeted salaries of Sub-regional System employees to the City’s local sewer system, were established.
L. City records did not evidence the methodology used to allocate any indirect costs to the Regional Sewer Fund and, as such, did not demonstrate that a systematic and reasonable approach was used to allocate such costs.