Orange County NC Website
y i ORANGE COUNTY <br /> BDARD OF C�CMIISSxONEPS ACtiCn Agenda <br /> ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Item NO.4---1 <br /> DEETING DATE February 15, 1983 <br /> Subject: Report on Findings of the November 19, 1982 Audit Appeal Hearing <br /> Impartment. Finance Public Hearing: yes X nC <br /> Attachnient(g) ; Information Contact; <br /> Yes Finance Director <br /> Phone Nunber: 732-8181 <br /> PURPOSE: To report to the Board the resolution of the audit findings in the <br /> June 30, 1981 DSS audit. <br /> NEED: The County responded to the 6/30/81 DSS audit findings and was able to <br /> resolve and receive allowances for disallowed costs in the amount of <br /> $18,873. This brought the disallowed costs down from $64,271 to $45,398. <br /> The majority of this disallowance was due to the move by Orange County's <br /> Social Services to new Department facilities in July, 1980. The County <br /> had claimed accelerated depreciation during the occupancy of the old <br /> building and is required to pay back the difference between accelerated <br /> and straight line depreciation. The County had not charged to DSS any <br /> cost of space in the new building for the 1980-81 fiscal year pending <br /> resolution of the above. Therefore, upon receipt of this finding the <br /> County requested that the $52,229 not charged in. 1989-81 be credited <br /> against the disallowed costs. We received a response to'this by- letter <br /> August 26, 1982, which stated that Orange County did not have the required <br /> prior approval for space costs in the new building until April, 1982, <br /> Therefore, we would not be allowed to offset any of the disallowed costs <br /> as we proposed. The County then requested and received an appeal hearing <br /> on November 19, 1982. Our plea was that even though we did not receive <br /> prior approval of space costs, we did provide the space and have documented <br /> the costs of that space and that Orange should not be penalized for this.. <br /> As stated in the attached letter, the appeal board ruled in our favor. <br /> IMPACT: Recovery of $52,229. <br />