Tuesday, December 06, 2005


As we mentioned last month, some local gadflies are calling for a state audit of the City of Springfield. Today the city issued its indirect response via news release:
The Springfield City Council received its 2005 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report at its weekly lunch meeting today.

The Annual Financial Report included the Independent Auditor’s Report from the Kansas City accounting firm of KPMG LLP.

KPMG Independent Auditors’ Report said the Financial Report issued an “unqualified opinion” that the financial statements fairly represent the financial position of the city. Their opinion means that the firm found no discrepancies with internal controls, no reportable conditions and no disagreements with management on the City’s financial reporting.
POW! And here comes the three-bullet backhand:
• The City’s total net assets increased more than $34.7 million to $502 million for both government-type activities and business-type activities. Examples of the City’s net assets from government-type activities include: city-owned land; construction in progress; buildings; improvements; machinery and equipment; and infrastructure. Examples of business-type activities are the Enterprise Funds such as the Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, the sewer system and the Springfield-Greene County Municipal Golf Courses.

• The City’s General Fund Balance increased by about $163,000 to $9.2 million at the end of fiscal year 2005. The City’s budget policy calls for maintaining an operating reserve of 8 percent to 10 percent of expenditures and the current General Fund balance puts the operating reserve at 10 percent.

• The City of Springfield’s commitment to its financial accountability is exemplified by the Government Finance Officers Association honoring the City with a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the 26th year. Auditors for KPMG said very few cities have ever received the Certificate of Achievement that many times.

The Financial Report noted that Springfield’s economy is experiencing moderate growth of 2.2 percent and the city’s economic diversification is contributing to an average unemployment rate of 4.7 percent for 2005, which is below the state average of 5.7 percent.
Possible fallback position for the pro-audit pests: Lookey, the city's got plenty of money to pay for a state audit! Sure, but the $60,000 estimated cost seems like a waste of money, 'cause we don't see any Boss Tweeds at City Hall. Or in the Busch Building.


Anonymous said...

Great post! I just wonder how many readers will really "get it?"

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

interesting article in yesterday's paper about tax credits.
Now, is there a conflict of interest with our mayor selling tax credits and being the mayor?

How does he find all these properties?

Anonymous said...

If KPMG is calling their balancing of the books an audit, I'd be so bold as to call the MO auditors office audit, an investigation.

audit * official examination of accounts.

The city of Springfield has never had an independent "audit" that wasn't chosen, prepared, and paid for by the city.

If the city, and the locally owned City Utilities has nothing to hide, It should be a welcome investigation to relieve the obvious taxpayer concerns, so we'll gladly purchase the new power plant.

Anonymous said...

I have but one thing to say


the problem most people have with an audit is that they don't feel the $60G's are warranted for something that has already been done.

I audit my books at the end of every month and year end for my business. All the numbers add up it truly is amazing, until the wife wanders into get a look.
When she audits the companies books she wants to know why I spent $65 at Home Depot then the following day I spent $102 a Lowe's.
This is what the city audit is lacking, a clear cut dollar figure on what money is going where. How much money does the city spend on highway repairs, how much on paying the city employees??
Inquiring minds want to know