The Comptroller of Puerto Rico issued a qualified opinion on the fiscal operations of the Municipality of Aguada. A qualified opinion is issued when the instances of noncompliance, individually or in the aggregate, are significant but not pervasive.
The report reveals deficiencies in the credit transfers between budget items. For example, some of the credit transfers were carried out without the proper certification of surpluses that the Finance director must issue. In addition, the secretaries of the Municipal Legislature, contrary to the regulations, did not submit a copy of the executive orders and resolutions to the Office of the Commissioner of Municipal Affairs (OCAM) for 131 credit transfers out of a total of 349 for the audited period. Other copies were sent to OCAM up to nine months later than the established date.
The four-finding audit points out that, contrary to the regulation for Municipal Administration, from January 2014 to December 2016 the Monthly Report of Revenues and Disbursements was not prepared. Nor did the Municipality correctly keep the register and the files of investments, since it did not include the monthly interest credited or the increase in the investment, and it lacked the documents on opening, cancellation and capitalized interest.
Our auditors identified that the Internal Audit Unit of Aguada did not perform periodic materiality and risk audits on collections, disbursements, payrolls, property and the operation of the mechanized uniform accounting system. This situation makes it impossible to maintain continuous and effective oversight of the Municipality's finances and operations.
The report comments that the Municipality formalized a contract and three amendments with the Administration for the Integral Care and Development of Children (ACUDEN) to participate in the funds of the federal Child Care and Development Fund program from 2012 to 2013 for $210,147. In February 2017, ACUDEN questioned the use of $57,539, because the information on the names of the suppliers with pending payments was not included, payments were made after the established time, and the Municipality did not return the surplus of funds.
Another comment in the audit indicates that OCAM questioned the use of $6,284 for housing rehabilitation whose participant did not meet the program's requirements.
The Report covers the period from January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017
See Audit Report M-19-19.
To see other published reports, visit our Audit Reports section.
Some documents on this page are saved in PDF format.
To view these documents, you must have the following free program installed.
