County officials said changes have been made to prevent prolems mentioned in the audit

SANFORD - A lack of checks and balances in Seminole County's land acquisition division led to overpayments for land, an audit released Thursday shows.

Inexperienced employees, political pressure to get roads built and large amounts of money coming in from a one-cent sales tax created an indifferent attitude about paying big money for land, said Clerk of the Court Maryanne Morse, whose office performed the audit.

"We ran into a situation where they felt they had to buy property fast and that this was Monopoly money," she said.

County officials, who received the audit Thursday, said several policy and organizational changes already have been made to prevent similar problems in the future.

"We see something that we are already aware of," said acting County Manager Gary Kaiser, adding he will respond to the audit in writing.

The land acquisition division came under intense scrutiny last year after its coordinator, Joyce Suber, was fired for abusing her position. Since then, two audits and a criminal investigation have been started.

In Thursday's report, auditors looked at 50 parcels for which the county paid more than what its appraisers recommended. In 23 cases, land was bought for 50 percent to 300 percent more than county appraisals. In nine cases, the county paid more than $100,000 over appraisal.

A lack of documentation made it impossible to determine whether the county paid too much or simply got the best deal it could.

"However, based on our review, it is our opinion that the internal controls over the acquisition process are inadequate to provide…assurances that county funds are not being wasted or otherwise misspent," the audit concluded. "Although an amount cannot be quantified, we believe that the county likely paid substantially more than necessary for property acquired for widening (County Road) 427."

The audit found in part:

• Counter-offers from property owners were routinely accepted without further negotiations. In one instance, the county accepted a $510,000 counter-offer against the advice of a county consultant and despite the fact that the property was appraised at $386,000.
• Assertions by property owners that inflated their property values were not routinely checked. For example, one owner claimed he spent more than $90,000 in anticipation of building a gas station on his property. The supporting documentation was simply a list of items including $50,000 for steel purchased from a firm with the same name as the owner. The expenses were paid even though they were never verified and were incurred more than four years earlier.
• There was inadequate documentation in county files detailing what negotiations took place to establish selling prices.
• In some cases, purchase agreements were sent of approval by the County Commission with incorrect or insufficient information.

For example, commissioners were told the price for one parcel was $294,582. An attached sheet sated the price included the appraisal amount plus attorneys fees. However, the appraisal amount noted, $260,000 was the owner's appraisal. The county's appraisal was actually $165,000.

County officials said changes have been made to prevent prolems mentioned in the audit

SANFORD - A lack of checks and balances in Seminole County's land acquisition division led to overpayments for land, an audit released Thursday shows.

Inexperienced employees, political pressure to get roads built and large amounts of money coming in from a one-cent sales tax created an indifferent attitude about paying big money for land, said Clerk of the Court Maryanne Morse, whose office performed the audit.

"We ran into a situation where they felt they had to buy property fast and that this was Monopoly money," she said.

County officials, who received the audit Thursday, said several policy and organizational changes already have been made to prevent similar problems in the future.

"We see something that we are already aware of," said acting County Manager Gary Kaiser, adding he will respond to the audit in writing.

The land acquisition division came under intense scrutiny last year after its coordinator, Joyce Suber, was fired for abusing her position. Since then, two audits and a criminal investigation have been started.

In Thursday's report, auditors looked at 50 parcels for which the county paid more than what its appraisers recommended. In 23 cases, land was bought for 50 percent to 300 percent more than county appraisals. In nine cases, the county paid more than $100,000 over appraisal.

A lack of documentation made it impossible to determine whether the county paid too much or simply got the best deal it could.

"However, based on our review, it is our opinion that the internal controls over the acquisition process are inadequate to provide…assurances that county funds are not being wasted or otherwise misspent," the audit concluded. "Although an amount cannot be quantified, we believe that the county likely paid substantially more than necessary for property acquired for widening (County Road) 427."

The audit found in part:

• Counter-offers from property owners were routinely accepted without further negotiations. In one instance, the county accepted a $510,000 counter-offer against the advice of a county consultant and despite the fact that the property was appraised at $386,000.
• Assertions by property owners that inflated their property values were not routinely checked. For example, one owner claimed he spent more than $90,000 in anticipation of building a gas station on his property. The supporting documentation was simply a list of items including $50,000 for steel purchased from a firm with the same name as the owner. The expenses were paid even though they were never verified and were incurred more than four years earlier.
• There was inadequate documentation in county files detailing what negotiations took place to establish selling prices.
• In some cases, purchase agreements were sent of approval by the County Commission with incorrect or insufficient information.

For example, commissioners were told the price for one parcel was $294,582. An attached sheet sated the price included the appraisal amount plus attorneys fees. However, the appraisal amount noted, $260,000 was the owner's appraisal. The county's appraisal was actually $165,000.