Discussions Continue on Payroll, Audit Report Presented

HUNTINGDON (May 6) — On Wednesday, the Carroll County Finance Ways and Means Committee and the Audit Committee met as the 2025-26 Fiscal Year draws to a close.

The payroll change voted on last month has now been revised. Instead of establishing a payroll system divided into 24 semi-monthly payments for days worked, it is being divided into 26 semi-monthly payments for days worked.

Also recommended was a one-time bonus to non-elected employees of $500 for full-time employees and $250 for part-time employees. The bonus comes at a cost of $100,000 to the county. The bonus would possibly be issued in the second week of July.

In other business, the Carroll County School budget was rejected by the Finance Ways and Means Committee as it had a deficit budget that would have to be force-balanced through budget reserves. For multiple years, the Carroll County School budget has had to dip into its budget balance. At their current rate of deficit spending, the reserves could be completely depleted in two years’ time.

Finance Ways and Means Committee meets Thursday, May 14, at 9 a.m. in regard to finalizing the 2026-27 Fiscal Year Budget.

Two sets of finds were flagged during the meeting. The first came from the Office of Circuit, General Sessions, and Juvenile Courts Clerk based on the courts allowing a private probation company to collect court fines and costs on behalf of the county without adequate controls resulting in a cash shortage of $16,787.

Judge Michael King’s response to the auditor’s report was as follows:

It is my understanding that the finding is related to a probation officer employed by a private entity,Supervisory Services, Inc. (SSI), who misappropriated funds. Those funds were court costs that the probation officer received from probationers that she then stole instead of paying those funds to the clerk.

SSI has been employed by Carroll County for more than 20 years. SSI’s practice of allowing probation officers to collect court costs was put in place prior to both my administration and that of Sarah Bradberry, Circuit Court Clerk. Both Mrs. Bradberry and I voiced our concerns to the management of SSI about the practice. The probation officer, who misappropriated the funds, was not an employee of the county. Neither the court nor the clerk supervised the employee or set the internal policies of SSI.

Additionally, there is no legal basis for the clerk to refuse payments delivered by a third party private probation officer on behalf of a probationer, absent a contract. The county has since entered into a written contract with SSI that prevents its probation officers from accepting payments for court costs.

The purpose of this response is to request that the finding be modified to more accurately reflect that the probation officer was an employee of SSI, not under the supervision of the courts or the clerk’s office. Additionally, the finding should reflect that Carroll County has entered into a contract with SSI that prevents the collection of court costs by its employees in the future.

The second finding was based on the Office of the Assessor of Property. The auditor stated the following:

(1) The assessor did not maintain an adequate program for the verification of real property sales. During a monitoring review by the Division of Property Assessments for the 2025 fiscal year, the review found a high error rate in sales questionnaires, data entry, and deeds for items tested. The assessor is required to maintain documentation of the reason for the rejection of any sale for use in analyzing appraisals. This deficiency is the result of management’s failure to properly comply with state statutes, and such errors on the sales verifications could result in the over or under assessment of property values. The auditor’s recommendation is that the assessor should institute a proper maintenance procedure and quality control within their office to ensure an adequate program of sales collection and verification within their office. Property Assessor Rita Jones’ response: We had sales listing and verification errors. We have corrected these. We have put into place some protocols to see that this does not happen again. We are trying hard to correct all issues. We have been minus one employee for about a year, which will be resolved shortly.

(2) The assessor did not adequately perform the visual inspections required to maintain accurate property records. In many cases, data found on the property records did not accurately represent the structures on the property. During a monitoring review by the Division of Property Assessments for the third quarter, two samples were selected. In the first sample, 45 of 208 parcels reviewed (22%) had errors affecting the property valuation, and in the second sample, 49 of 248 parcels reviewed (20%) had errors affecting the property valuation. Section 67-5-1601, Tennessee Code Annotated, requires the assessor to complete an on-site review of each parcel of real property over a four-year review period. This deficiency can be attributed to the failure of management to maintain an adequate system of internal controls to ensure accurate reporting of on-site reviews. The auditor’s recommendation is that the assessor should ensure that visual inspections are properly performed and accurately reflect the property.

Property Assessor Jones’ response: There were some visual inspection errors discovered in my audit. We have addressed these errors. Part of the problem was the field man not doing his work. He is no longer employed. We have corrected these issues and have them keyed.

(3) The Assessor did not properly maintain personal property information

A. The office did not produce their personal property tax roll correctly or in a timely manner. Section 67-5-903(a), Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA), requires the assessor to furnish each business by February 1 with a schedule requiring the business to list all personal property (furniture, fixtures, machinery and equipment, supplies, raw materials, etc.) The office did not run these schedules until July 24, 2024, and they were based on an incorrect tax year.

B. Back Assessment Reassessments (BARA) were not completed timely, and some (9 of 36) could not be completed due to the certification deadline passing for their completion. Section 67-1-1005(b), TCA, requires the assessor to audit the personal property tax roll and to issue a back assessment or reassessment for errors or omissions found.

C. The assessor’s office did not prepare the Tangible Personal Property schedules in a timely manner. Tennessee Division of Property Assessment (DPA) staff discovered on March 27, 2024, that the assessor’s office was not working on the data entry for Tangible Personal Property (TPP) schedules even though the data entry for both real and personal property were required to be completed by April 19, 2024. DPA staff were required to visit the county on three separate occasions to assist with the preparation of the TPP schedules in order to meet the April 19th deadline.

The auditor’s recommendation is that the assessor should ensure that the information and schedules related to personal property assessments are completed correctly and in a timely manner.

Property Assessor Jones’ response: There were Personal Property issues that we have new protocols in place to make sure never happens again. We have addressed all the issues.

At the conclusion of the Audit Committee meeting, Commissioner Barry Mac Murphy recommended that the Finance Ways and Means Committee look for a way to move the Carroll County School System under its domain to further comply with the Comptroller’s recommendation of full centralized finance.