A Review of Reports Submitted by Regional Planning Commissions
September 2009
Report Number 10-002
Overall Conclusion
Fifteen (62.50 percent) of the 24 regional planning commissions (RPCs) in Texas submitted all statutorily required financial, productivity, performance, audit, and salary information to the State Auditor's Office. That information was due to the State Auditor's Office between June 1, 2008, and May 31, 2009. This information is important because the annual financial reports that the RPCs submitted for this review period indicated they received $841,655,713 in local, state, and federal funds annually.
In addition, none of the RPCs submitted all of the information components required by the Texas Administrative Code (see Appendix 2 for Texas Administrative Code requirements). For example, 14 (58.33 percent) of the 24 RPCs submitted productivity and performance reports that did not include a comparison of planned to actual performance as required by the Texas Administrative Code. It is important to note that auditors compiled the information that RPCs provided to the State Auditor's Office. Auditors did not audit the financial information the RPCs provided.
Certified public accountants (CPA) issued unqualified opinions on the financial statements of all 24 RPCs. However, the CPAs identified material weaknesses in internal controls at 3 (12.50 percent) of the RPCs:
- The Alamo Area Council of Governments, see Chapter 1-A on page 5.
- The Permian Basin Regional Planning Commission, see Chapter 1-R on page 22.
- The Texoma Council of Governments, see Chapter 1-W on page 27.
According to performance information the RPCs submitted, RPCs have multiple programs and functions. According to the RPCs' audited financial statements, the two programs for which the RPCs spent the largest amounts of funds were aging and workforce development.
Nine special purpose sub-regional planning commissions were created between August 2007 and October 2008 to represent local citizens on issues related to the Trans-Texas Corridor. These sub-regional planning commissions were not included in this review.
Contact the SAO about this report.
Download the Acrobat version of this report. (.pdf)
If you prefer an HTML version, follow this link to an Adobe site which converts PDF files to HTML.