OCR Text |
Show H ' -- I ON C8TY ACCOUifte H He Finds Several Small Errors in Totaling Figures Says Bog H Catcher Kills Too Many Dogs The Treasurer Lost 5 Dog Tax H Receipts Police Court Cleric Failed to Enter on Books $8 H Turned in hy Police Ogden Getting Too Big For Present H .System of Bookkeeping Engineers Made Four Mistakes, From H $1 to $5 Otherwise, the Expert Thinks, City Accounts Are in H Fine Shape Every Criticism Made Is Published Herewith. H Tho expert nccounlant, appointed H by the City Cominlsloncrs to audit the H books o Ogdcn City for tho years H '910 and 1S11, has mado a report J. H W. Evnus, who signs the initials C. H P. A. after his name, which stands H lor "Certified Public Acnuntant," Hj makes a- neat and. comprehensive re- H port. Ho roporte that tho floating Hj debt, or overdraft, on the general H fund, in round numbers amounted to 1 $M,00, on December Hist, 1911. This H name floating debt or over-draft, H vuen U'm. Glasmann took over the H office of mayor on Japuarj 1st, 1910. H -V7as a little oer $126,000. This shows H that the floating debt had been re- H ducod during tho two ears in the H sum of ?42,O00 This is an extraor- H oinary showing, when it Is remembcr- H cd that Mayor .Glasman had a City H (Jouncil that dill not approvo of Ills H every effort at economy. Hl The export accountant does ' not H make one single adverse comment or H criticism of any -action of tho Mavor. H nnd we are adviFied that Mavor Glas- H mann Is disappointed because he hlni- H selft admits that be stretched the H law to its utmost when ho requested Hj the Cit3 Council to Appropriate money H to excavate the reservoir slto in the H South Fork canyon on private prop- H erty; that while ttso ex-Mayor had HJ an option on the private property in H South Fork canyon for tho farmers Hl end city Jointly, he did not havo it in Hj "writing and It was not on record in H the City hail, and the expert account- Hj Ont should havo reported that fact. H The expert accountant reports that H the city is bonded for $1,000,045, of H 'which $G55. (33.50 is on account of tho H waterworks system The remaining H bonds are old sewer and city irn- H provcmenl bonds issued many rears H ago. He reports that in ndditlon to H the said bonded indebtedness, there H are outstanding $S'. 141.59 general H "warrants or floating debts, together H with other sums of money duo to var- H ious persons, making tho total dent m ttof Ogden City $1,150,202.8(5. But there H -was cash on hand on January 1st, H 1011 and duo from the county treas- Hl urer, $38,961.81, so that the city Is, in H round numbers, within $7,000 of its t debt limit. H city administration left claims tin- H paid amounting to $9,551, which tho H present citj government must pay. H This sum Is much less than the H Brewer administration left the Glas- H minn administration to pay and mucti H less than the Conroy administration H lett the Brewer go eminent to pay, H and hence it will be seen that no un- H 'air burden has been imposed on the H present 'it government. H Tho expert criticises tho watc- H works department for having kept the EL money at times in the office from ten K to fifteen daVs before depositing the H same and he recommends that the wa- H terworks department he wiped out as a H separate institution and be merged H with the city treasurer's office, tho H same as ex-Mayor Glasmann recom- M mended two years ago, and which has H been adopted by the present commls- H sioners. H The expert accountant also shows H that Ogden City Is the owner of joal H C3tatc and improvements valued at H $483,383. He also reports that the city H has carried as an asset an alleged wa- i ten right valued at $5,000 in Wlllard m . creek, but ho cannot understand why Hl said water right is of any value to j H Ogden City and ho does not see wny M It is carried as an asset. This asset , H was cieatcd in July, 1007, during ex- i H Mayor Conroy 'a administration. Hj The expert finds the treasurer's of- Hl fice in first-class shape, but the trcas- H urer had failed to account for five dog H lax receipts amounting to $15, but H which says has now been "corrected" H by the former treasurer While com- H plimenting the tieasurer In one end H of the report, the expert in anollicr H part of the report says that the sys- H tern in use In the treasurer's depnrt- B incut could be Improved so as to save M tlrao and trouble. H i ne expert la rather severe on the Hj auditor's department. He thinks the Hj system Is bad and that one should be H adopted with a "modern, self-halan- H olng, safe-guard system." lie reports H that much time and work could bo H saved In tho auditor's department, if H the proier- system were adopted, H He reports that the records In the m municipal clerk's department )r un- H necessarily complicated owing to the Hl books not agreeing with the police do- H partment records, and he finds that H the municipal clerk did not have 33 H in cash entered on his books, which H v.'as reported in the books of the po- M lice department. He, however, rc- H ports that, considering the lack of un- H iformity between the two forma of H records of tho municipal clerk and the H police department, tho records of. tho H jiollco department arc entirely satis- H factory. He fails, however, to Btatc m whetlier the $8 which tho polico do- m nartment's records show, was turned H oer to the municipal cleric was ac- m counted for. We presume, however. It Hi was properly turned over to tho city H treasury, as it was reported only as H i-n error The recorder's department is M i ecorded as checl;lng perfectly with H 'hr treasurer's department. H The dog catchor and the cremator's m srstem of checking Is condemned, and H il Is reported that the dog tax collector Hl has handed in hills for 230 dogs killed Hl , that he was not entitled to, but that Hj the ?S2 warrant held lip by ex-Mayor H Glasmann would reduce the amount Hl that had been over-paid to tho dog Hl tax collector to '$1-18, which he should M refund. This Is the sarao discrepancy H which was reported by ex-Mayor Glas."- H mann last year to the city council and M on which account he suspended the dog tax collector. The latter 5s un doi $1,000 bond.. The export reports that he found scvcial in.iucuiuv.ies In ctiecklng up the engineer's departmont, finding in one Instance a dltfercnco of as much as $1.40, and on another occasion as high as $5, but It is, reported that this ?,? was collected by A. F. ParlccV, the engineer prior to the date Mr. Bos-taph Bos-taph took offico, and the export sas h. n.is been uuaole to see Mr Parker in regard to this $5 All told, outsldo of this $5, tho expert reports that he found four errors in the engineering department amounting respectively to ?1.J0, $2.75. $2 50 and $1, total, $7 C5. This money scorns to havo been put Into the treasury, but was not Included Includ-ed In the records in the engineer's office. of-fice. Tho poll tax collector's receipts wervo found to bo correct. The cit sexton's report was found to he correct , The stroet department Is criticised for havlug-li.G'jG.SS worth of tools on hatul, which the expert sas is oxecs-slvp oxecs-slvp and Improbable. It Is probable, however, that tho auditor has charged tho street department for au tne tools that have been purchased tor a number num-ber of years and none of these have been charced on. As a whole tho report appears entire' en-tire' satislactory to the last city of- i flclals and must give the taxpayers of ut,aen a feeling of satisfaction that the servants of the olty of Ogden for tho last two years hao been faithful, honest and tiuo Tho small errors reported wore small differences in totaling to-taling accounts and not any acts of dishonesty whatever. I Ex-Mayor Ulasmann during his first t two terms of office insisted upon the citv's books being audited and again I during his last term. No other mayor of Ogden has requested, nor havo other oth-er officers interested made any effort to get the accounts audited. It will be remembered that ex-MRyor Glasmann, Glas-mann, when ho went into office, wanted want-ed the hooks nudltcd before he took hold of affairs, but the hold-oer citv councilmen denied this request. This is not to be construed that there -was an tiling wrong because others refused refus-ed to have their uccountB audited, but to the contrary is to be construed that ex-Muyor Glasmann courted tho closest scrutiny, either by himself or any of the officials under him Tho recommendations of tho expert can be easily and quickly adopted by the present city government, as tho three commissioners can come to a quick conclusion while formerly it required re-quired eleven men to handle tho matter, mat-ter, each with his own peculiar views. If only two of the present commissioners commis-sioners cn agree that will settle tho matter. Therefore, In tho future, the afctems of bookkeeping should be perfect |