JEFFERSON
CITY — A state
review of local taxing districts for transportation projects calls for more
transparency and better accounting.
The audit released Friday suggests that transportation development districts
use competitive bids for construction contracts and professional services. It
also identified problems with budgets and financial status reports.
State Auditor Susan Montee focused on nine of the special tax areas, called
transportation development districts. State
law allows creation of the districts for projects such as roads, bridges and
interchanges. The districts are governed by a board of directors of between
five and 15 members and are allowed to create sales taxes, tolls or special
property taxes.
The districts have been created with greater frequency since lawmakers allowed
the owners of property within a proposed transportation district to petition
for a special taxing area if no registered voters live there.
According to the audit, Missouri
had 122 transportation development districts through 2006, almost 70 percent of
them in the St.
Louis and Kansas City areas. But districts also are scattered across the
state, including in some relatively rural areas such as Butler, Marion and Pulaski counties. Supporters of using
transportation development districts say that those who frequent the areas and
benefit from the transportation projects pay for them without redirecting other
public funds.
Auditors found that five of the transportation districts studied did not use
competitive bidding to pick the construction contractor for a selected project
or there weren't enough records to verify that proper bidding procedures had
been used. Although state law doesn't require competitive bidding for
engineering and legal services, auditors recommended it and found that seven of
the districts had not been doing that."Formal bidding procedures for major purchases provide a framework
for economical management of the district's resources and help ensure the
district receives fair value by contracting with the lowest and best
bidders," the audit reported.
The audit also found several districts had not prepared budgets or approved
them in a timely manner or had overspent. And 23 percent of the state's 122
transportation districts in 2007 did not file required financial status reports
with the auditor's office.
