2022 Management Letter - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-2- OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Deposit Sweep Account Minnesota Statutes § 118A.03 requires banks holding local government entity deposits to protect the deposits from custodial credit risk (the risk of loss in the event of a bank failure) by providing adequate insurance, bond, or pledged collateral to cover amounts “on deposit at the close of the financial institution’s banking day.” Some banks utilize arrangements under which governmental entities’ deposit balances in excess of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation limits are swept out of their depository accounts daily into other investments or to depository accounts at other banks. An issue has arisen with some sweep account arrangements, caused by a lag between the timi ng of when the primary bank’s records show the funds being swept out of its account and when the receiving bank’s records acknowledge receipt of the funds. If the receiving bank’s records do not show the transferred funds arriving the same business day as the primary bank shows them being swept out, the funds in transit would legally still be considered in the custody of the primary depository at the end of the banking day. This would potentially subject any excess deposits to custodial credit risk and not complying with statutory requirements. The Minnesota Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has added audit requirements to test such sweep arrangements in their Legal Compliance Audit Guide. In addition, recent bank failures have placed additional emphasis on the importance of protecting local government deposits from custodial credit risk. We recommend the City review the terms of any sweep arrangement it has in place or is considering and verify that the financial institutions on both sides of the sweep transaction are recognizing the transfer of funds the same banking day. Credit Card Transactions Minnesota cities have the authority to make purchases using credit cards issued on behalf of their city. Credit card purchases are becoming more commonplace, especially with the proliferation of e-commerce, and have consequently been garnering increased scrutiny from oversight agencies. The statutes authorizing credit card use by cities restrict their use to purchases made on behalf of a city, do not permit personal use of the credit card by the card user, and specify they should only be used by employees authorized to make purchases. Employees are personally liable for unauthorized credit card purchases. Purchases made with credit cards must comply with other applicable state laws, including the requirement that all claims presented for payment must be in writing and itemized. In its Statement of Position (SOP) on credit card use, the OSA has clarified that the statement from the credit card company lacks sufficient detail to comply with this requirement and, therefore, “public entities using credit cards must retain the invoices and receipts needed to support the items charged in the bill from the credit card company.” The SOP also states that the individual vendors providing the goods or services should be listed on the claims list provided to a city council for review and approval, rather than the credit card company. While the authorized use of a credit card to make small purchases offers advantages, such as convenience and expedited purchasing, the ability of the credit card users to make a city liable for purchases that are improper or not in compliance with statutory requirements is an added risk related to such transactions. The OSA recommends that a robust credit card policy be established by public entities allowing credit card purchases, which clearly delineates the requirements for use, supporting documentation required, and the review and approval process for credit card purchases. The OSA also recommends that cities obtain signed written acknowledgement of the policy from all authorized card users.