Performance audit, Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division's revenue functions

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
DEPARTMENT
OF
TRANSPORTATION
MOTOR VEHICLE
DIVISION'S
REVENUE FUNCTIONS
February 1997
Report No. 97-4
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
February 14, 1997
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Mr. Larry S. Bonine, Director
Arizona Department of Transportation
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Division=s revenue function. This report is in
response to a May 30, 1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The
performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. ''41-2951
through 41-2957.
This is the first in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Transportation. This
report found that the Motor Vehicle Division needs to improve its collection and handling of
fees and taxes collected from the general public and the motor carrier industry. Hundreds of
millions of dollars handled by MVD offices issuing drivers= licenses and vehicle registrations
are not adequately safeguarded, creating the potential for loss or theft. Motor carriers= ability to
bypass the ports of entry is estimated to result in a potential revenue loss of from $24 million to
$45 million annually. Additional revenue is lost by MVD=s failure to ensure motor carriers file
tax returns and post bonds as required by law. Finally, MVD has lacked basic information
needed to manage the collection of millions of dollars in delinquent taxes.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on February 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Department
of Transportation pursuant to a May 30, 1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee. This audit focuses on the Motor Vehicle Division=s revenue functions. This
audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) ''41-2951 through 41-2957 and is the first of four audits of the Department.
The Arizona Department of Transportation is charged with collecting and allocating fee
and tax revenues for the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). The Fund has many
sources of revenue, including gasoline taxes, use (diesel) fuel taxes, motor carrier taxes,
vehicle license taxes, registration fees, and other fees. In fiscal year 1995-96, HURF=s total
revenues were nearly $860 million.
MVD Needs To Better
Protect Cash and Valuables
in Its Field Offices
(See pages 7 through 12)
In fiscal year 1995-96, MVD field offices processed over $400 million in various motor
vehicle taxes and fees, yet poor cash-handling and inventory procedures leave these
monies vulnerable to loss or theft. A review of 10 of 72 field offices across the State
revealed that, overall, cash controls are lacking from the time a clerk receives customer fees
to the time the day=s total revenue is deposited at the bank. Cash drawers were not locked,
excess cash was not secured, a large number of employees had unnecessary access to the
safe, and employees that had access to cash also performed the cash deposit function.
Similar control weaknesses were identified regarding the license plate and tab inventory.
For example, field office employees not responsible for issuing license plates or tabs had
unnecessary access to this inventory. Moreover, in some offices, clerks in charge of issuing
license plates and tabs were not assigned a specific set of these items. Therefore, if the
items are lost or stolen, they are not traceable back to the employee responsible for the
items.
The lack of adequate procedures to safeguard cash and inventory can result in loss or theft.
For example, a janitor was found attempting to sell tabs for $25 apiece after taking them
from an office he cleaned. Similarly, a cash deposit of over $4,000 was missing from a field
office because it had not been secured in the safe after being counted.
Several improvements to adequately safeguard cash and inventory are relatively simple
to implement. MVD needs to update its policies and procedures to cover such areas as cash
handling, inventory, and deposits. In addition, it needs to ensure that field office
employees are adequately trained and supervised. Currently, MVD provides minimal cash-handling
training, including a 10-minute video discussing the consequences of stealing
money. Finally, the Department=s internal audit unit can assist in ensuring the adequacy
of internal controls by conducting more field office audits.
MVD Should Strengthen Enforcement
of Taxes on Motor Carriers
(See pages 13 through 16)
Taxes imposed on commercial motor carriers account for approximately $200 million of the
revenues generated for the HURF. Motor carrier taxes are generally based on vehicle miles
traveled in Arizona, and MVD operates 22 ports of entry established along the State=s
borders to monitor motor carrier travel. Port officers check motor carriers to verify tax
credentials and that tax accounts are current. However, motor carriers can easily bypass
the ports by traveling on routes that do not have established ports, or traveling through the
State during hours when the ports are not open. Moreover, motor carriers traveling
primarily within the State are even more likely to go unchecked, since MVD places little
emphasis on intrastate enforcement. In 1995-96, MVD checked only 1,681 trucks traveling
through the State=s interior, as compared to over 5.4 million trucks traveling through the
ports.
With an enforcement system susceptible to avoidance, MVD risks losing substantial
revenue for the HURF. Although motor carrier tax evasion is difficult to identify, a recent
study by JHK & Associates estimated the potential revenue lost in calendar year 1994 to
be between $24 million and $45 million. To better enforce taxes on motor carriers, MVD
should increase the use of mobile enforcement crews along Arizona=s highways. These
crews would extend enforcement efforts to trucks that bypass the ports or travel only
within the State by establishing port operations at temporary roadside locations
throughout the State.
MVD Needs To Ensure
Taxpayers File Reports and
Post Adequate Tax Bonds
(See pages 17 through 20)
MVD should strengthen its oversight of taxpayer accounts to ensure the State recovers the
correct amount of tax revenue due. Although motor carrier companies are required to pay
taxes based on the reported amount of fuel used and miles traveled on Arizona roads, the
Division fails to ensure tax reports are filed. Subsequently, taxpayers can accumulate large
amounts of unpaid taxes before the Division becomes aware the carrier has not filed
returns.
MVD also needs to ensure taxpayers are adequately bonded to protect the State from lost
revenue due to taxpayer default. MVD cannot currently determine if bonds posted by
motor carriers are adequate because the computer program designed to monitor bonds
incorrectly calculates the bond requirement, and the records used to calculate the required
bond amount may be inaccurate.
MVD Should Continue Recent
Efforts To Enhance Its
Collection of Delinquent Taxes
(See pages 21 through 24)
Throughout our entire audit, MVD was unable to determine how successful it was in
collecting the $39 million in delinquent tax revenues due to the State or how effective the
collections methods it employed were. Specifically, the unit lacked basic management
information to answer such questions as:
n How much money did the unit collect?
n How much money did individual staff collect?
n How much of the delinquent revenue could still be collected?
n What actions have been taken to collect on delinquent accounts?
However, under the direction of a new supervisor, MVD has recently increased its
emphasis on the collection of delinquent revenue by starting to record basic management
information and revising a number of its collections procedures. For example, it has
prioritized its collections efforts by targeting high-dollar delinquent accounts and has
assigned collectors responsibility for specific accounts. Yet, MVD still needs to revise its
policies and procedures, establish performance measures and monitor the revenue
collection function on a regular basis.
Other Pertinent Information
(See pages 25 through 29)
During the audit, other pertinent information was also collected regarding the various
computer systems used in the revenue collection function and the status of the Enterprise
Project, which is intended to consolidate several of the existing computer information
systems. Despite MVD already spending most of the $28 million appropriated for the
project, it is still not operational. In addition, information was obtained regarding the use
of electronic transponders at the ports of entry and aboard motor carriers that could enable
the ports to process traffic more efficiently.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction and Background ........................................................ 1
Finding I: MVD Needs To Better Protect
Cash and Valuables in Its Field Offices .................................... 7
Background ......................................................................................................... 7
Poor Internal Controls Place Cash
and Valuables at Risk of Loss or Theft ............................................................. 7
MVD Should Take Several Steps
To Ensure Field Offices Implement
Proper Internal Controls .................................................................................... 10
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 12
Finding II: MVD Should
Strengthen Enforcement
of Taxes on Motor Carriers ........................................................ 13
Background ......................................................................................................... 13
Current Enforcement
Efforts Easily Avoided ....................................................................................... 14
Stronger Mobile
Enforcement
Efforts Are Needed ............................................................................................ 15
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 16
Finding III: MVD Needs To Ensure
Taxpayers File Reports and
Post Adequate Tax Bonds .......................................................... 17
Background ......................................................................................................... 17
Table of Contents (con=t)
Page
Finding III: (con=t)
Checks on Tax Reports
Should Be Implemented
To Reduce Tax Evasion Risk .............................................................................. 17
MVD Needs To Ensure
Adequate Tax Bonds Are Posted ...................................................................... 19
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 20
Finding IV: MVD Should Continue
Recent Efforts To Enhance Its
Collection of Delinquent Taxes .................................................. 21
Background ......................................................................................................... 21
Until Recently, Overall Performance
of MVD=s Collections Unit
Not Measurable .................................................................................................. 21
Recent Efforts Underway To
Enhance Collections Unit ................................................................................... 22
MVD Should Establish Procedures
and Performance Measures................................................................................ 23
Recommendations .............................................................................................. 24
Other Pertinent Information ........................................................... 25
Revenue Collection Systems
and the Enterprise Computer Project ............................................................... 25
Emerging Technologies
Could Impact Future
Port Operations .................................................................................................. 28
Agency Response
Appendix .......................................................................................... a-i
Table of Contents (concl=d)
Page
Figure
Figure 1: Arizona Department of Transportation
Highway User Revenue Fund
Amount and Percentage of Revenues by Source
Year Ended June 30, 1996 (Unaudited) ........................................... 2
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the Department
of Transportation pursuant to a May 30, 1995, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit
Committee. This audit focuses on the Motor Vehicle Division=s revenue functions. This
audit was conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes
(A.R.S.) ''41-2951 through 41-2957 and is the first of four audits of the Department.
The Department Collects
Highway User Revenues
The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) collects and allocates fee and tax
revenues due from highway users. Once collected, these monies are deposited with the
State Treasurer in the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). By statute, the Fund can be
used only for the costs associated with public highways or streets, such as right-of-way
acquisition, construction, repair, and maintenance. In fiscal year 1995-96, total revenues for
HURF totaled nearly $860 million. As illustrated in Figure 1 (see page 2), the Fund has
many sources of revenue, including:
n Gasoline taxC18 cents per-gallon tax placed on each gallon of gasoline sold in the
State.
n Use fuel taxesC18 cents per-gallon tax placed on diesel fuel used in the State. In
addition, an 8 cents per-gallon surcharge is levied on each gallon of diesel fuel used by
a vehicle weighing over 26,000 pounds.
n Motor carrier taxCplaced on each mile driven in the State by a commercial motor
carrier. The amount of the tax varies based on the number of miles traveled in Arizona
and vehicle weight.
n Vehicle license taxCbased on the vehicle=s assessed value and paid upon registration.
n Registration feeC$8 fee per registered passenger vehicle, collected at the time of
registration.
n Other feesC$4 fee to title a vehicle, driver=s license fees, and other fees.
More detailed information on these taxes is presented in the Appendix (see pages a-I
through a-iv.)
Figure 1
Arizona Department of Transportation
Highway User Revenue Fund
Amount and Percentage of Revenues by Source
Year Ended June 30, 1996
(Unaudited)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the Arizona Department of
Transportation Administrative Services Division.
Motor Vehicle Division Performs
the Department=s Primary Revenue
Collection Functions
The Department places most of the responsibility for collecting highway user revenues
with the Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). The following organizational units within MVD
assist in collecting revenues:
n Field officesCThe Division=s 72 field offices across the State employ almost 750 staff
who collect registration fees, vehicle license tax revenue, and driver=s license fees from
the public.
Gasoline tax
$359 million
42%
Use fuel tax
$89 million
10%
Other
$43 million
Motor carrier tax 5%
$85 million
10%
Use fuel surcharge
$26 million
3% Vehicle license tax
$160 million
19%
Registration fees
$98 million
11%
n Enforcement servicesCThis unit operates the port-of-entry system and carries out
special enforcement details. Approximately 170 port officers staff the 22 port-of-entry
offices near the state borders to ensure that commercial vehicles entering the State are
in compliance with Arizona tax laws and are carrying loads that are within the legal
weight.
n Motor carrier servicesCThis unit establishes tax accounts for approximately 22,000
motor carriers that travel in and through the State. These carriers are required to report
on a periodic basis the amount of taxes due, the amount of fuel used, and miles
traveled. The unit maintains records on taxpayers by recording tax reports and
updating taxpayer vehicle insurance information.
n Collections unitCThe collections unit collects past-due taxes from motor carriers. The
unit has seven collectors who inform taxpayers of their delinquent taxes, arrange
payment agreements when possible, and take more aggressive collection actions as
needed to recover monies due to the State.
Audit Scope
and Limitations
This audit focused on the Division=s various revenue-generating functions, specifically the
adequacy of internal controls used in MVD offices to safeguard cash and inventory, the
effectiveness of the Division=s tax enforcement program, the Division=s ability to monitor
taxpayer compliance with reporting and bonding requirements, and its ability to collect
delinquent tax revenue.
In two of the areas, our evaluation of the Division=s revenue functions was significantly
impaired by MVD=s lack of information, poor recordkeeping, and computer system
deficiencies. First, the collection unit=s effectiveness in recovering past-due amounts from
commercial taxpayers could not be evaluated because ADOT, until recently, did not track
the amount of monies received from collections efforts. As a result, collector productivity
also could not be determined or compared to other private or government collections
functions. The effectiveness of collection methods employed to collect on individual
accounts also could not be evaluated, since neither the computer records nor the physical
files contained complete, accurate information on the efforts made to recover monies owed
to the State.
Second, an evaluation of whether current bonding levels are sufficient to meet statutory
requirements could not be made. The accuracy of the information available on the tax and
revenue group automated tracking system (TARGATS) and the information in the physical
files needed to make these determinations could not be verified. Therefore, the extent to
which tax revenues are protected by bonds could not be determined.
Methodology
To evaluate whether cash and inventory are adequately safeguarded, 10 of the 72 customer
service offices were selected from around the State for review. These offices were chosen
to represent a cross section of offices, based on location and staff size. Each of the 10 offices
was visited during July 1996 to interview staff, observe office operations, and review office
records.
To evaluate tax enforcement efforts, we interviewed enforcement staff, visited 6 of the 22
ports of entry, reviewed data on recent enforcement efforts, studied several ADOT
consultants= reports, and surveyed other states.
Due to the scope limitations described earlier, the collection unit=s effectiveness could not
be evaluated. However, the current process by which collectors attempt to collect
delinquent tax revenues was reviewed. Collectors were observed to determine what tools
were used to collect amounts due. The unit=s procedures were then compared against those
considered effective by other state and private collection organizations.
This report presents findings and recommendations in four areas:
n The need to improve internal controls in customer service offices to ensure that cash,
and license plate and tab inventories, are adequately safeguarded.
n The need to strengthen enforcement efforts to ensure that motor carriers within the
State comply with tax laws.
n The need to ensure that taxpayers file tax reports and post sufficient tax bonds.
n The need to track information regarding delinquent revenues and to use several
valuable collection techniques.
This report covers two issues similar to those addressed in prior performance audit
reports:
# A 1986 audit of the MVD Revenue Group (Auditor General Report 86-7) found that the
Group could reduce the growth in the number of uncollectible tax accounts. The report
noted over $3 million in uncollectible accounts at that time and recommended that
MVD monitor accounts to identify uncollectible accounts as soon as possible. Our
current report notes that uncollectible accounts have grown to at least $16 million;
however, agency officials believe that the uncollectible amount is significantly higher.
While MVD has recently initiated efforts to enhance its collection of delinquent
revenues, it still needs to revise its policies and procedures and establish performance
measures for the collections unit (see Finding IV, pages 21 through 24).
# The 1986 report on MVD Weight Enforcement (Auditor General Report 86-9) found that
increased mobile enforcement was needed to monitor trucks that bypass the ports and
those that travel only within the State. Similarly, this current audit found that increased
mobile enforcement efforts are still needed to strengthen enforcement of taxes on motor
carriers (see Finding II, pages 13 through 16).
This report also presents other pertinent information regarding the status of the
Department=s automation project and the technological upgrades for the ports of entry the
Department is considering.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director and the staff of the
Department of Transportation and its Motor Vehicle Division for their cooperation and
assistance throughout the audit.
FINDING I
MVD NEEDS TO BETTER PROTECT
CASH AND VALUABLES
IN ITS FIELD OFFICES
MVD can help prevent loss and theft of cash, and license plates and tabs, by instituting and
enforcing an adequate system of internal controls in each office. Currently, poor cash-handling
and inventory procedures leave millions of dollars in revenues that are received
each year vulnerable to loss or theft. Office procedures that generally protect cash and
valuable inventory are compromised by a lack of sufficient internal control policies,
inadequate training, and computer system limitations. Therefore, MVD needs to develop
adequate policies and procedures, emphasize employee training and field office oversight,
and incorporate adequate control procedures into its computer systems. To ensure controls
are in place, ADOT internal auditors should conduct more field office audits.
Background
In fiscal year 1995-96, MVD=s 72 field offices processed over $400 million in motor vehicle
transactions. These transactions represent a significant source of revenue available to the
State for highway construction and improvement. In addition to large amounts of cash
collected from customers, offices maintain valuable license plate and vehicle tab
inventories that are ultimately sold to the public.
Due to the high volume of transactions involving cash and valuable inventory, it is
important that each office maintain adequate internal controls. Internal controls are field
office policies and procedures designed to protect state revenues or assets against loss or
theft. These policies set out specifically how cash transactions should be processed from
the time money is received to the time it is deposited. Additionally, internal controls
provide guidance regarding proper recording, distributing, and storing of assets. Without
such controls, the possibility of MVD losing cash or valuable inventory to carelessness or
fraud greatly increases.
Poor Internal Controls Place Cash
and Valuables at Risk of Loss or Theft
While the fees and taxes collected at field offices comprise a significant amount of state
highway revenue, weak internal controls leave these monies vulnerable to loss or theft. In
fact, poor cash-handling procedures have already resulted in losses of state monies.
Furthermore, inadequate controls over valuable office inventories, such as license plates
and vehicle tabs, increase the likelihood that these items could also be lost or stolen.
Poor controls over cash handling result in lossesCCurrent cash-handling procedures in
MVD field offices do not sufficiently guard against cash loss or theft. Cash controls are
lacking from the time that a clerk receives customer fees to the time that the day=s total
revenue is deposited at the bank. Visits to ten MVD field offices revealed the following
internal control weaknesses:
# Cash drawers not lockedCIn seven of the ten offices, cash drawers were unlocked
when cashiers were away from their stations.
# Excess cash not securedCNone of the offices had procedures limiting the amount of
cash held in the cash registers during a shift. During the day, several thousand dollars
can accumulate in a cash register. Such monies would be more secure in the office safe.
# Unnecessary access to safeCIn three of the larger offices, more employees had easy
access to the safe or safe combinations than was necessary. For example, in one office
with more than ten employees, the safe was left open during working hours. Limiting
access to cash would reduce the chances that someone not responsible for the money
has the ability to take it from the safe.
# Poor deposit proceduresCIn seven out of ten offices, the clerk who handled cash
transactions also prepared the bank deposit. In addition, in five of those offices, one
employee consistently took the money to the bank every day. A single employee with
consistent control over both the cash and the deposit increases the opportunity to alter
deposit forms and abscond with the difference between what was deposited and what
was actually received.
The types of internal control weaknesses observed in the field offices have, in fact, resulted
in cash losses. ADOT=s Office of Special Investigations, which handles theft or fraud cases,
has documented several losses due to poor internal controls. The following cases exemplify
the impact of poor cash-handling controls:
n Several times in 1993, two MVD employees collaborated to steal cash from daily
deposits. These employees took the deposits home, altered deposit figures on the bank
deposit slips, and stole the excess money. To cover up these thefts, the employees
would use monies collected the next day to replace the monies stolen from the deposit.
Since these same employees were frequently responsible for deposits, they could
continue this scheme undetected. This loss of $11,634 could possibly have been avoided
if the bank deposit function was rotated between all clerks in this office.
n On November 6, 1995, an MVD field office supervisor reported that the bag containing
the previous day=s cash deposit was missing. The deposit bag had been left on the
supervisor=s desk after an employee counted the money to be deposited. This loss of
$4,380 could have been prevented if the supervisor had ensured the bag was in the safe
before closing the office.
Poor controls over license plates and vehicle tabs also result in lossesCIn addition to
inadequate cash controls, poor inventory control procedures over license plates and tabs
increase the likelihood of loss or theft. Customers obtain vehicle tabs and license plates at
field offices as proof that vehicle registration taxes and fees have been paid. On newer cars,
registration and taxes can amount to several hundred dollars; therefore, stolen plates or
tabs that are placed on an unregistered vehicle represent significant revenue loss to MVD.
Despite the potential for revenue loss from the misuse of license plates and tabs, many
offices maintain limited or no controls over office inventory. Specifically, the following
weaknesses were identified:
n Number of license plates and tabs on hand at office not recordedCFive of the nine
offices that sell license plates and tabs do not maintain inventory records.1 When
physically counting this inventory, records listing the number of plates and tabs
currently on hand in the office should be compared to the quantities listed on the
original receiving reports to ensure that plates and tabs have not been lost, damaged,
or stolen subsequent to delivery.
n License plates and tabs not issued directly to clerksCIn five of the nine offices, plates
and tabs are not assigned in numerical order to the clerks responsible for selling the
items, and supervisors in six offices are not notified when items are obtained from the
storeroom. Recording plates and tabs issued to clerks accompanied with supervisory
oversight ensures that lost or missing items are traceable to the employee in control or
possession of those items.
n Unnecessary access to stored plates and tabsCIn five of the nine offices, employees
who do not distribute plates and tabs have access to the plate and tab storeroom.
Limiting access to unissued plates and tabs reduces the opportunity for someone not
responsible for the items to take them from the storeroom.
1 Of the ten offices visited, one office exclusively distributed driver=s licenses. Therefore, inventory controls
that apply to license plates and tabs were relevant in only nine of the ten offices visited by auditors.
n Tabs within reach of customersCIn two of the nine offices, tabs were within the reach
of customers at the counter, providing an opportunity for customers to take a tab
without paying the appropriate registration fees and taxes.
While inventory losses have been difficult to document, several incidences of theft have
occurred. For example, at one office, a janitor was attempting to sell tabs for $25 each after
taking them from the office he cleaned. Investigators noted that these tabs were taken from
a desk that is supposed to be locked. In another case, 27 license plate tabs were stolen and
sold to undercover police officers during a February 1996 Phoenix Police Department
investigation. Given that tabs are not assigned to individual clerks by number,
investigators were only able to trace the tabs to their originating department. They could
not determine which employees were accountable for the tab series or how the suspects
obtained the tabs.
MVD Should Take Several Steps
To Ensure Field Offices Implement
Proper Internal Controls
To ensure cash and inventory are adequately safeguarded, MVD needs to improve internal
controls in its field offices. First, it needs to ensure that effective internal control policies
and procedures are in place and updated manuals are distributed to all field offices.
Second, MVD needs to improve training and oversight to ensure procedures are
consistently followed. Third, MVD needs to strengthen current computer system controls
while also ensuring that it incorporates adequate safeguard mechanisms into future
computer systems. Finally, MVD can use the assistance of ADOT=s internal audit unit to
ensure compliance with policies and procedures.
MVD field offices need adequate policiesCIn order to implement adequate internal
controls, MVD needs to complete development of its policies and procedures. Currently,
policies and procedures do not address important controls, and field office supervisors are
generally unfamiliar with them. In fact, supervisors in six field offices stated they did not
have a copy of the current manual and were unaware of standard internal control policies.
MVD recently began updating its fiscal policy manual, intending to include improved
internal control procedures. While the manual=s completion date has not been determined,
MVD needs to ensure the following areas are addressed:
n Cash-handling procedures limiting safe combinations and keys to an essential number
of employees as well as procedures limiting the amount of cash that may accumulate
in a clerk=s drawer during the day. Loss is less likely to occur when large cash amounts
are secured in a safe until deposited.
n Inventory procedures ensuring employees are accountable for license plates and tabs
as well as procedures requiring MVD offices to retain inventory records. Lost items
would be traceable to the responsible employees, and a physical count of plates and
tabs could be completed on a periodic basis.
n Deposit procedures requiring that the daily deposit be prepared by someone with no
access to cash and that deposit duties are alternated between clerks. Segregation of
these duties between two individuals helps prevent theft of the cash being deposited.
Training and oversight needs to be increasedCOnce MVD has revised its policies and
procedures, it needs to ensure that all field office personnel are adequately trained in the
proper application of all procedures. Currently, MVD does not emphasize protecting cash
and inventory in its initial training classes. In four weeks of basic title and registration
training and eight days of basic driver=s license training, employees receive minimal cash-handling
training, including a 10-minute video discussing the consequences of stealing
money.
MVD also needs to ensure adequate field office oversight. Forty-nine of the 72 field offices
do not have a full-time supervisor. Lack of proper oversight can result in losses. For
example, ADOT=s Office of Special Investigation identified one office that continually
recorded cash shortages during a three-month period when the office was not supervised
on a regular basis. A trained supervisor has since been assigned to the office and problems
with missing money and cash shortages have decreased. Therefore, to ensure oversight is
maintained, schedules should be developed to allow supervisors to regularly visit field
offices for which they are responsible. During these visits, supervisors should monitor
cash-handling and inventory procedures to ensure policies are followed.
Computer system controls need to be improvedCEnhanced computer systems can also
provide an added check to ensure proper transaction recording. Currently, the title and
registration and driver=s license computer systems are not linked to the system used to
record and account for cash received. Because these systems do not communicate, a clerk
could potentially update customer records on the system and steal the money received
without entering the collected fees into the automated cash register. In fact, in one case, an
MVD employee on at least 78 occasions collected fees from customers but did not put the
money in the automated cash register, stealing over $1,800. Moreover, the driver=s license
computer system currently fails to account for the number and price of driver=s licenses
sold in field offices; consequently, a supervisor would not know if all driver=s license
revenues were accounted for.
While the current computer systems contain serious limitations, there are some measures
MVD can take to better account for revenues received from cash transactions. At a
minimum, MVD should provide transaction receipts to all customers to help ensure that
they are charged the proper amount. Furthermore, supervisors should monitor activity
reports produced by the automated cash register to ensure that transactions are performed
correctly and properly accounted for. To address inventory controls, MVD has begun
preliminary planning on an automated inventory tracking system that is intended to log
various inventory items, such as tabs and plates, and identify the clerks responsible for
their sale. This system should ensure tabs and plates can always be located by serial
number, that inventory in office storerooms is recorded, that item quantities can be verified
by physical counts, and that clerks are accountable for the items issued to them.
In the long term, MVD needs to link the driver=s license and title and registration computer
systems with the automated cash register function when developing a new automated
system. This will allow both title and registration and driver=s license fees to be properly
charged to the customer. Furthermore, the total number and types of licenses issued can
be recorded, thereby ensuring that license revenues are properly accounted for. MVD is
currently developing a new automated system intended to link the two systems as well as
perform the cash register function. While it had originally anticipated implementing this
system in fiscal year 1995-96, the project has yet to be completed (see Other Pertinent
Information, pages 25 through 29, for further information on the status of this project).
ADOT internal auditors should conduct more field office auditsCFinally, ADOT internal
auditors can also assist in ensuring the adequacy of internal controls by conducting more
field office audits. The Agency=s internal auditors, responsible for auditing all of ADOT=s
operational areas, have performed field office reviews in the past. In fact, in 1996, they
conducted eight field office reviews as of September and found many of the same internal
control problems we identified. However, only a limited number of these audits have been
performed. Therefore, in light of existing control weaknesses, more audits are needed.
Furthermore, internal auditors should conduct follow-up reviews to ensure that offices
address their initial findings and recommendations.
Recommendations
1. MVD should ensure that adequate policies and procedures are developed regarding all
aspects of internal controls, particularly those related to cash-handling, inventory, and
deposits.
2. MVD should emphasize internal control training of its employees and improve
oversight of its field offices to ensure that procedures are being consistently followed.
3. MVD should enhance current computer system controls by providing transaction
receipts, monitoring automated cash register activity reports, and continuing to
enhance the automated inventory system.
4. MVD should link the driver=s license and the title and registration systems with an
automated cash register function when developing a new automated system.
5. ADOT internal auditors should conduct more field office visits to ensure offices are
maintaining adequate levels of internal controls.
FINDING II
MVD SHOULD STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT
OF TAXES ON MOTOR CARRIERS
MVD needs to strengthen enforcement of taxes on motor carriers to protect the State from
tax evasion. Currently, MVD relies primarily on immobile ports of entry located on the
State=s perimeter to enforce tax laws. However, this method has proven to be susceptible
to avoidance by taxpayers. Therefore, MVD should take steps to develop a stronger
enforcement program within the State by increasing mobile enforcement efforts and
targeting these efforts using ADOT highway traffic information.
Background
Taxes imposed on motor carriers represent about 20 percent of the revenues generated to
fund highway construction, repair, and maintenance. In fiscal year 1995-96, these taxes
totaled over $200 million. Because motor carrier taxes are based on vehicle miles traveled
in Arizona, it is critical to monitor motor carriers= travel. MVD primarily performs the
monitoring function by stopping vehicles as they enter the State through the 22 ports of
entry established along its border. While port personnel enforce vehicle weight and safety
laws, they also aid in tax enforcement and collection efforts in several ways. First, port
officers verify tax credentials to confirm that carriers have valid Arizona tax accounts and
that taxes have been paid. If there is a delinquent amount outstanding on the carrier=s tax
account, port officers can prevent vehicles from entering the State. Second, port staff
directly collect revenue from carriers without valid tax accounts who purchase permits
allowing single trips into the State. In fact, the ports collected almost $18 million in
revenues in fiscal year 1995-96. Finally, as motor carriers pass through the ports, port
personnel record the number of miles the driver will travel in Arizona for future use in
auditing tax reports.
In addition to the ports, MVD occasionally places mobile enforcement crews at roadside
locations within the State. Operating similar to ports, these crews extend enforcement
efforts to trucks that do not cross the ports. The crews direct all truck traffic off the
highway, guide the truck over a set of portable scales to be weighed, then conduct a safety
inspection and check compliance with registration and tax laws. In fiscal year 1995-96,
MVD conducted 19 mobile enforcement efforts in Arizona. During these efforts, 1,681
vehicles were checked, 44 permits were sold, and 108 citations were written.
Current Enforcement
Efforts Easily Avoided
Despite the importance of enforcing tax laws on motor carriers, MVD currently uses a
method that is susceptible to avoidance and therefore can result in lost revenue for
highway funding. Although MVD relies on ports of entry as its primary enforcement
mechanism, the ports are unable to monitor all traffic into and out of the State and are
easily avoided. Moreover, while the ports emphasize enforcement of interstate traffic,
enforcement efforts within the State have been limited. As a result, motor carriers can
avoid payment of taxes, potentially reducing revenues needed for highway funding.
Ports system susceptible to avoidanceCCurrent enforcement of taxes on motor carriers is
primarily limited to a port-of-entry system that vehicle drivers can easily avoid. MVD
operates ports of entry on only 22 of the 33 paved roads that enter Arizona. Therefore, to
bypass a port, drivers can simply choose to drive on routes that do not have ports. In fact,
MVD staff at several ports visited pointed out there were nearby routes that truckers could
quickly and easily use to avoid a port. They believe that drivers who are aware that they
were violating weight, safety, or tax regulations can and do choose to bypass a port. A 1996
study, AAssessment of Arizona=s Motor Carrier Enforcement Efforts@ by JHK & Associates,
confirmed the staff=s observations, concluding that up to 20 percent of the trucks crossing
on routes without ports may be violating regulations.
Even if drivers do not use a bypass route, they can drive through ports unchecked when
the ports close, since only 9 of the 22 ports are open on a 24-hour basis. MVD officials
noted that some drivers even pull off the highway to wait until a port closes before
crossing the border. For example, drivers wanting to avoid the port of entry at Page were
able to pass through it unchecked as early as 5:00 p.m. Although 24-hour operations for
all its ports is not necessary, MVD officials indicated that they have identified at least two
ports that need extended hours. In fact, one of those identified ports is the one located in
Page.
Enforcement within the State limitedCWhile interstate carriers can fairly easily avoid
being checked for compliance with tax laws, motor carriers traveling primarily within the
State are even more likely to go unchecked. According to 1995 ADOT estimates, 25 to 40
percent of all heavy vehicles travel only within the State, never crossing a border.
However, MVD=s mobile enforcement crews checked only 1,681 vehicles in fiscal year 1995-
96 for tax and weight compliance. In contrast, port personnel checked over 5.4 million
vehicles during that same year.
Substantial revenue loss possibleCWith an enforcement system open to avoidance, MVD
risks losing substantial revenue for the Highway User Revenue Fund. Although difficult
to identify, two studies have attempted to estimate the evasion rate in Arizona. Most
recently, the JHK & Associates study estimated the potential revenue lost from motor
carrier tax evasion in calendar year 1994 was between $24 million and $45 million, or 29
to 55 percent of revenues generated from the tax in that year. This study is consistent with
the AHighway Cost Allocation Study@ for 1988-92, which suggested an evasion rate of as
much as 35 percent of total motor carrier tax revenue.
Stronger Mobile
Enforcement
Efforts Are Needed
MVD needs to strengthen tax enforcement to ensure taxpayers not currently checked by
the port system are adequately monitored. Specifically, it needs to enhance mobile
enforcement capabilities within the State. To better target these mobile details, MVD
should use highway traffic information from the Department=s Intermodal Transportation
Division.
Increased mobile enforcement efforts can monitor more carrier trafficCMVD should
increase the use of mobile operations to enforce tax compliance on more carriers. Mobile
enforcement crews would monitor carriers that are currently not checked at the ports,
particularly carriers operating only within the State that never cross a port, and interstate
carriers that avoid the ports. As mentioned earlier, MVD has made only limited efforts to
place mobile enforcement crews within the State. MVD officials indicate this is because the
Division does not have staff dedicated for these operations; thus, they can only be
scheduled when enough port personnel are available to staff them. Therefore, the Division
has operated only 24 crews in the last 3 years.
Recognizing the importance of enhanced enforcement, MVD has developed an
enforcement plan to improve mobile enforcement. Currently, the mobile enforcement
program consists of only two mobile ports. However, the scales and equipment staff use
are outdated and unreliable. The MVD plan proposes purchasing equipment for six mobile
units, which would include a truck and trailer containing computers, communications
equipment, and new scales. However, JHK & Associates recently reviewed this plan as part
of its 1996 study, and recommended that MVD begin with a prototype mobile unit as a
pilot project and evaluate its effectiveness before expanding the program. Consequently,
MVD was authorized $80,000 to purchase a trailer for one unit.
MVD hopes to eventually provide consistent staffing for the mobile ports by employing
technology upgrades for the ports of entry. These upgrades would potentially decrease
port staff=s workload and thus provide additional employees to conduct mobile
enforcement operations on a regular basis (see Other Pertinent Information, pages 25
through 29).
Mobile enforcement opportunities could be better targetedCMVD could further improve
mobile enforcement efforts by better targeting the placement of mobile details. When
planning mobile details, MVD could use highway traffic information collected by the
Intermodal Transportation Division. Specifically, the Intermodal Transportation Division
monitors vehicle traffic on state highways automatically through many traffic data
collection sites imbedded in the roadway. These electronic monitors count the number of
vehicles using the highway. Although this information is primarily used for highway
planning purposes, MVD could also use it to help identify routes used to avoid ports and
to assess travel inside the State=s borders. Moreover, while this information would be most
helpful for identifying potential mobile enforcement sites, MVD could also use it to
determine which ports of entry should be considered for extended hours of operation.
Recommendations
1. MVD should increase the use of mobile enforcement crews to better ensure motor
carriers comply with the tax laws.
2. MVD should work in conjunction with the Department=s Intermodal Transportation
Division to obtain essential traffic data that can be used to better plan and deploy
mobile enforcement units. In addition, this data can also be used to determine the need
for extended hours of operation for ports of entry that currently are not open on a 24-
hour basis.
FINDING III
MVD NEEDS TO ENSURE TAXPAYERS
FILE REPORTS AND POST
ADEQUATE TAX BONDS
By improving its oversight of taxpayer accounts, MVD can better ensure taxpayers
correctly file returns and post proper tax bonds. MVD can reduce the risk of tax evasion
by improving its ability to identify taxpayers who do not file tax returns. MVD can also
better ensure the State is adequately protected from taxpayers who fail to pay their taxes
by improving the way it monitors taxpayer bonds.
Background
Arizona law requires operators of motor vehicles over 26,000 pounds to pay taxes on fuel
they use on Arizona roads (use fuel tax) and an additional tax based on the vehicle=s
weight and the distance traveled on state roads (motor carrier tax). In fiscal year 1995-96,
these taxes brought in over $200 million for the Highway User Revenue Fund (HURF). To
pay these taxes, taxpayers must establish a tax account with MVD and post a bond as
collateral in case they default on taxes due. Taxpayers then report and submit tax payments
by filing a report monthly, quarterly, semiannually, or annually, depending on the amount
of their liability. Currently, MVD has approximately 22,000 of these taxpayer accounts on
record.
Checks on Tax Reports
Should Be Implemented
To Reduce Tax Evasion Risk
MVD can reduce the risk of tax evasion by monitoring taxpayer compliance with the
State=s tax reporting requirements. Although statutes require all taxpayers to file a return
periodically, MVD risks losing revenue through tax evasion by not adequately monitoring
who submits tax returns. To easily identify taxpayers who fail to file tax returns, MVD
should review its tax account data and reinstate a process to identify non-reporting
taxpayers.
MVD fails to ensure all taxpayers file a reportCWhile MVD receives approximately $200
million each year in motor carrier and use fuel taxes, there are additional tax revenues that
may be lost because MVD does not ensure all taxpayers file returns. Although it is difficult
to identify the extent to which companies do not file tax reports, studies have shown that
the rate of companies not paying taxes can potentially be quite high. For example, in a 1993
special project, ADOT revenue auditors reviewed records for 5,600 tax accounts and found
that 36 percent of the taxpayers reviewed had not filed tax returns. MVD verified that
many of those companies owed taxes to the State that had not been paid and mailed
reminder notices to them. This project demonstrated that identifying and contacting
taxpayers who fail to file reports can recover significant amounts of revenue, since it
successfully recovered over $2 million in unreported taxes that might not otherwise have
been detected.
However, without a regular system in place to identify non-filers such as those in the
project described above, taxpayers can accumulate large amounts of unpaid taxes before
MVD recognizes that returns have not been filed. For example:
n In 1994 and early 1995, a company failed to file a tax return for three consecutive
quarters. The company then declared bankruptcy in March 1995. It was not until seven
months later that a collector discovered the company had failed to file reports and
assessed over $27,000 in taxes and penalties. As of August 1996, this debt is still
outstanding.
n Another company operated nearly a year and a half before MVD detected that it had
failed to file tax reports. In all, the company failed to file three quarterly reports
between 1993 and 1994. After a request for these reports went unanswered, MVD
assessed the company over $5,000 in penalties and back taxes. As of August 1996, these
taxes had not been paid.
The only time MVD checks to determine whether a taxpayer has reported properly is when
it audits a taxpayer, reconciles an account balance, or a collector reviews the account.
MVD needs to review taxpayer files and identify non-filersCTo ensure it receives revenue
when due, MVD should take steps to identify non-reporting taxpayers. In order to do this,
MVD must first improve its computer records. Specifically, MVD needs to delete inactive
accounts (i.e., those taxpayers who have gone out of business or no longer operate in the
State) from its Tax and Revenue Group Automated Tracking System (TARGATS) records.
Currently, TARGATS maintains information on both active and inactive accounts. This
makes it difficult for MVD to identify only those taxpayers who are currently operating
and should be filing tax returns. Once the inactive accounts are removed from TARGATS,
MVD should regularly identify non-filers and automatically send notices reminding them
to file.
MVD Needs To
Ensure Adequate
Tax Bonds Are Posted
In addition to better tax report monitoring, MVD needs to ensure taxpayers are adequately
bonded to protect the State against non-payment. While state law requires taxpayers to
post a bond to guarantee payment of their taxes, MVD lacks an accurate system to review
these bonds to ensure they meet state requirements. MVD can enhance its protection of
state revenue by correcting inaccurate taxpayer information and computer programs.
MVD does not ensure the State is adequately protected against tax defaultCDespite the
statutory requirement for taxpayer bonding, MVD does not know if the bonds posted by
taxpayers adequately protect the State from lost revenue due to taxpayer default.
Specifically, statutes require that all taxpayers with use fuel or motor carrier tax licenses
post bonds based on their estimated tax liability and how frequently they file. For example,
MVD requires that taxpayers who file quarterly maintain a bond equal to five times their
average monthly tax liability. These bonds are similar to insurance policies; a taxpayer
pays a premium, approximately $50 to $75 for a $1,000 bond, each year. If taxpayers fail
to pay their taxes, MVD has the authority to seize as much of that bond as it needs to cover
the tax due to the State. This allows MVD to collect a significant amount of delinquent
taxes. For example, in fiscal year 1992-93, the collections unit recovered over $1 million
from taxpayer bonds. Further, because it is difficult to seize assets from taxpayers based
out of state, bonds are an efficient tool for recovering unpaid taxes from the approximately
18,000 motor carrier taxpayers based outside Arizona.
However, MVD does not regularly review these bonds to ensure they are adequate to cover
taxpayer debt. Initially, when taxpayers apply for a tax account, MVD=s rules require
taxpayers to post a bond based on their estimated tax liability. Yet, according to a study by
JHK & Associates, in practice, MVD allows new applicants to merely purchase the legal
minimum bond of $500. MVD does not update this initial bond unless it audits the
taxpayer (only 10 percent of all tax accounts are audited), or if the taxpayer is delinquent
in paying taxes. Further, MVD does not routinely examine all accounts to see if the initial
estimate was correct, or to identify taxpayers who have increased their tax liability and
require an increased bond amount.
MVD must correct inaccurate records and its computer program to improve bond
managementCIn order for MVD to determine if taxpayer bonds are sufficient, it must keep
accurate records of these bonds. However, MVD=s bond records may not be complete or
accurate. Specifically, when reviewing physical files, auditors did not always find the
original copies of the current bond sent in by taxpayers. In addition, errors in TARGATS=
computer records were identified, including several instances where the bond amount
listed in the computer record did not match the bond document in the physical files. These
inconsistencies make it extremely difficult for MVD to ensure taxpayer bonds meet the
legal requirements. Therefore, to ensure MVD=s bond records are accurate, MVD should
verify computer records of each taxpayer=s bond to the bond document maintained in the
physical file. In some instances, MVD may need to contact taxpayers to verify information.
Once MVD obtains accurate data, it should revise TARGATS to accurately calculate bond
amounts needed. Although MVD has a computer program that determines needed bond
amounts based on companies= estimated tax liability, the program uses a different formula
than the one specified by MVD=s rules, and MVD discontinued using this program after
operating it only once.
The needed corrections to the computer program are relatively simple. MVD programming
staff estimates it would take 45 hours of programming time to correct the formula. Once
the corrections are made, MVD can then regularly operate the computer program and
calculate the bond amount needed.
Recommendations
1. MVD should remove inactive accounts from the TARGATS computer system, thus
allowing MVD to focus on obtaining returns and tax payments from active taxpayers.
2. MVD should regularly identify taxpayers who have not filed returns and mail
reminder notices at the end of each reporting period.
3. To ensure the State is adequately protected from taxpayer default, MVD should:
n Compare bond information maintained in physical files and the TARGATS
computer files and correct any inconsistencies;
n Revise its computer program to calculate the minimum required bond amounts
according to the Division=s administrative rules; and
n Use the program regularly to calculate the required taxpayer bonds and inform
taxpayers of the new bond amount.
FINDING IV
MVD SHOULD CONTINUE RECENT
EFFORTS TO ENHANCE ITS COLLECTION
OF DELINQUENT TAXES
MVD recently implemented a number of collection procedures that should allow it to
assess the performance of its collections unit. Throughout much of our audit, MVD failed
to maintain basic management information for its collections unit, prohibiting our ability
to measure the unit=s overall performance. However, late in the audit, the collections unit
implemented a new database to record management information and implemented a
number of collection procedures to enhance its revenue collection function. MVD still
needs to revise its policies and procedures to incorporate these changes and needs to
establish performance measures for the unit.
Background
MVD=s collections unit collects past due motor carrier, use fuel, and other commercial
vehicle-related tax debts. As of January, 1997, delinquent tax debts of more than $39
million were due to the State. The collections unit employs five collectors and one support
staff who process delinquent notices, negotiate payment agreements, answer calls from
taxpayers, and file bond claims, bankruptcy claims, liens, and levies. The unit relies on
physical files and the Tax and Revenue Group Automated Tracking System (TARGATS)
to maintain and update taxpayer account information.
Until Recently, Overall
Performance of MVD=s
Collection Unit Not Measurable
Throughout most of the audit, MVD was unable to determine how successful it was in
collecting the substantial amount of delinquent tax revenues due to the State, or how
effective the collections methods it employed were. Specifically, MVD failed to maintain
basic management information or keep accurate records of its accounts. For example, while
MVD could report the total amount of revenues received in any given year, it could not
distinguish between revenue received from taxpayers in compliance with reporting
requirements and delinquent taxpayers referred to the collections unit. Moreover, MVD
could not evaluate its collections techniques because it did not retain complete, accurate
collections records. Collectors used their own coding systems to track collection actions,
which resulted in an inconsistent and confusing system to classify tax debt. Furthermore,
once taxpayers paid their debt, the TARGATS computer deleted information on actions
taken to resolve the debt. Without these records, MVD could not consider the effectiveness
of the methods used to pursue debt.
Lacking adequate records and consistent methods for tracking collections efforts, MVD
could not answer a number of questions regarding its collections unit, such as:
n How much money did the unit collect?
n How much money did individual staff collect?
n How much of the delinquent revenue could still be collected?
n What actions have been taken to collect on delinquent accounts?
n What actions have been taken to successfully resolve tax debts?
Recent Efforts Underway
To Enhance Collections Unit
Under the direction of a new collections supervisor, MVD recently increased its emphasis
on the collection of delinquent revenue. Specifically, the collections unit began recording
basic management information, such as the total amount of revenue collected by the unit
as a whole as well as by individual collector. In addition, the unit instituted a number of
collections procedures, including:
n Setting priorities for its collections effortsCWhile MVD previously did not regularly
target high-dollar delinquent accounts or accounts that have been delinquent for a long
period of time, it now has established a priority system for its collections efforts.
Specifically, collectors have begun to concentrate on delinquent accounts of $1,000 or
more.
n Assigning collectors responsibility for specific accountsCIn the past, MVD=s
collectors were assigned specific tasks, such as filing bond claims or making and
maintaining payment agreements with accountholders, rather than being responsible
for a set of accounts. Without full responsibility for specific accounts, collectors tended
to rely more on automated letters to remind taxpayers of their delinquent debt rather
than contacting them by telephone. Now, each collector has a specific list of accounts
for which they are responsible for resolving from the time the account is identified as
delinquent until the debt is resolved. Since collectors have full responsibility to resolve
delinquent accounts, they are making greater use of phone collections to set up
payment agreements and resolve debts in a timely manner.
n Addressing the timeliness of its bond claimsCHistorically, MVD had not focused on
filing bond claims against taxpayers that had an outstanding delinquent debt. The
collections unit has recently dedicated one of its employees to concentrate on initiating
tax bond filings in a more timely manner. In addition, the unit has compiled a list of
accounts that are eligible for bond recovery and is tracking the amount collected from
these efforts.
n Improving its resolution of old debtCThe collections unit is in the process of
establishing policies and procedures to initiate a process to resolve old debt. In 1992,
the Legislature granted MVD the authority to purge accounts from its records after
referring them to the Attorney General=s Office for possible civil action. To date, the
unit has identified nearly $16 million in outstanding debt that has been determined
uncollectible and thus, appropriate for referral to the Attorney General=s Office.
MVD Should Establish Procedures
and Performance Measures
MVD should continue its efforts by completing its planned revision to policies and
procedures, establishing performance measures, and subsequently monitoring the revenue
collection function on a regular basis.
n Policies and proceduresCTo help ensure that delinquent accounts are collected
effectively, MVD should update its written collections procedures and ensure that these
procedures are followed. As it has recently implemented several basic collections
techniques, such as prioritizing accounts and filing bond claims, the collections unit
should ensure its policy manual contains guidelines for its collectors in these areas.
Additionally, it should continue its development of a procedure to periodically identify
and refer all uncollectible accounts to the Attorney General.
n Performance measuresCNow that the collections unit is maintaining and recording
management information, it needs to develop and formalize performance measures to
ensure an adequate basis for evaluating all aspects of the collections function. Such
performance measures should describe the goals which the collections unit and its
collectors hope to achieve through its collection function. For example, it could set a
goal of increasing revenue collected by a certain percent every month or quarter.
Likewise, it could set a goal for its collectors to make a certain number of telephone
attempts each day.
n MonitoringCOnce it has established performance measures, MVD should begin
monitoring the collection unit=s performance on a regular basis to assess its
effectiveness in collecting delinquent revenue. Specifically, MVD should compile
revenue collection information for the unit overall as well as by individual collector
and compare it against its established performance measures. In addition, it should
review collectors= files to ensure appropriate and timely collections techniques are
employed.
Recommendations
1. MVD should establish a formal mechanism to guide collectors in the revenue collection
function by:
n Completing its revision of the collections unit=s policies and procedures manual, and
n Completing and formalizing performance measures
2. MVD should monitor the collection unit=s performance on a regular basis by:
n Ensuring that collectors follow the policies and procedures to collect delinquent
revenues,
n Compiling revenue collection information and comparing it against established
performance measures, and
n Reviewing collectors= files to ensure appropriate and timely use of collections
techniques.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit, other pertinent information was obtained regarding the various
computer systems used in the revenue collection function and the current status of the
Enterprise Project, which is intended to consolidate several of the existing computer
systems. In addition, we obtained information regarding new technologies that could
enhance port-of-entry operations in the future.
Revenue Collection Systems
and the Enterprise Computer Project
The computer systems currently used to process tax and fee revenues do not communicate
and cannot share information. In addition, the systems individually have weaknesses that
compromise MVD=s ability to efficiently process revenues. To address these issues, the
Department launched the Enterprise Project. However, this system is not operational,
despite MVD spending most of the $28 million appropriated for its development.
Multiple computer systems not connectedCCurrently, MVD uses three separate computer
systems to process vehicle tax and fee revenues. These systems, which were all
implemented 10 or more years ago, perform separate functions:
n The title and registration system was developed in 1971 to record customer vehicle
and registration information.
n The driver=s license system was developed in 1978 to record and track licensed drivers
in Arizona.
n The tax and revenue group automated tracking system (TARGATS) was developed
in 1986 to manage motor carrier tax account information including tax returns, audit
actions, and account reports, and to track the activities of trucks at ports of entry.
Because these driver=s license and title and registration systems are separate, information
about a customer or vehicle in one system may be missing or contradicted in the other
systems. For example, a driver=s address may be current in the title and registration
database, but incorrect in the driver=s license records.
In addition to these systems not sharing historical data, severe weaknesses exist in each
system that prevent each component from effectively collecting and recording revenue
information. For example, as described in Finding I (see pages 7 through 12), the driver=s
license database is incapable of recording the fees collected as a license is issued. This
impacts MVD=s ability to determine how many licenses are issued on a daily basis and
how much revenue should be collected. In addition, it is difficult for MVD to obtain
complete data or management reports from the TARGATS system because it is written in
an outdated and cumbersome programming language.
New system planned to consolidate existing systemsCRecognizing the existing systems=
limitations, ADOT sought to consolidate them in 1989, proposing to integrate the title and
registration and driver=s license databases into a single system. The linkage of these
systems promised several benefits, such as better enforcement of motor vehicle laws,
enhanced public service, and operational improvements. With better vehicle registration
enforcement, ADOT projected a possible $22 million increase in annual revenues when the
project was completed.
ADOT planned to complete the project using a combination of Department staff and
contractors, and had completed some initial research and planning in the projects=s early
stages. In July 1991, ADOT hired a consultant, CACI, to assist in developing the project.
To fund the project, ADOT received $28.2 million in appropriations over seven fiscal years.
In fiscal year 1989-90, the Legislature appropriated $8.8 million over 4 years to connect the
title and registration and driver=s license databases. In fiscal year 1993-94, the scope of the
project was expanded to redesign and integrate both of the databases and TARGATS. To
accomplish this, ADOT was appropriated an additional $19.4 million over 3 years.
Progress to dateCAlthough originally projected to be completed in fiscal year 1996, the
Enterprise Project is not yet finished. However, ADOT spent over $26 millionCalmost all
of the specific appropriations for the project. Most of the monies have been spent on
payments to contractors ($12.3 million), hardware purchases ($8.2 million), software
purchases ($1.2 million), and ADOT personnel working on the project ($4.5 million). In
addition to the appropriations specifically authorized for the project, ADOT spent over $6
million from other funding sources, mainly to upgrade the Department=s mainframe to
support Enterprise.1
To date, few of the project=s objectives have been successfully completed. As noted earlier,
the project objectives were to redesign and integrate the driver=s license and title and
registration systems and upgrade the TARGATS system. The status of work in these major
areas as of October 1996 is noted below:
1 Expenditure information was compiled by ADOT internal auditors and has not been audited.
n Title and registrationCCACI was scheduled to deliver the redesigned title and
registration system in September 1995. While CACI did not deliver a complete system,
it did some work that included design of the database and software applications.
However, the system CACI began designing will likely not be used. A consultant
ADOT hired in early 1996 to evaluate CACI=s work found that the database and
application design is seriously flawed and inadequate to meet ADOT=s needs. The
consultant noted that repairing this system would require Aextraordinary effort@ and
that the system would be unlikely to perform as planned.
n Driver=s licenseCLittle work has been done on the driver=s license system; however,
the planned conversion to a digital driver=s license system, including bar codes, was
completed in July 1995. The bar codes were intended to instantly access customer data
on the title and registration and driver=s license systems when scanned by a clerk.
However, the bar code system is currently not being used, although over $900,000 has
been spent to purchase bar code readers.
n Cash accounting functionsCA cash accounting function, similar to a cash register, was
completed in February 1995. This program was meant to work with the driver=s license
and title and registration systems to assist clerks in collecting and recording cash
revenue at MVD field offices. While MVD attempted to implement this function in
several offices, it has been discontinued because the program was slow and often made
accounting errors.
n TARGATSCThe redesign of this system was removed from the project with no work
having been performed.
Currently, work on the project has stalled. In September 1995, a contract dispute with CACI
occurred and ADOT attempted to negotiate with CACI to complete the project. However,
these negotiations reached a stalemate and CACI ceased work on the project in November
1995. At this point, both parties are pursuing legal action.
Future direction of EnterpriseCDue to the litigation between ADOT and CACI, ADOT has
been pursing other alternatives to enhance the existing systems with MVD. Specifically, in
an effort to increase revenue, improve MVD customer service and reduce workload, MVD
has continued to use available resources within the Department to implement AEnterprise-like
@ process improvements. There are currently 10 special projects already completed or
underway that have improved current systems. For example, MVD has implemented
biennial registration, which allows certain customers to register their vehicle for a two-year
period. According to MVD officials, this special project is anticipated to improve customer
service by reducing the number of interactions between the customer and MVD. Another
project currently underway is to provide alternate payment methods for customers such
as the use of credit and debit cards at MVD offices, which is expected to improve customer
service while at the same time reducing the problem with receiving Abad checks.@ As it
continues to implement these types of special projects, MVD officials indicate that they will
continue to search for and evaluate other AEnterprise-like@ systems in other states. It is not
known at this time, however, when ADOT will proceed with the next phase in its attempt
to consolidate existing systems or to what extent this effort will be similar to or different
from the original Enterprise system.
Emerging Technologies
Could Impact Future
Port Operations
MVD has been exploring the use of emerging technology to enhance its motor carrier
enforcement operations at the ports of entry. Specifically, MVD has become a member of
a multi-state organization that is developing technology capable of remotely exchanging
information between trucks and ports that would eliminate the need for trucks to stop at
ports. Basically, a transponder aboard trucks would signal the port transponder, thus
identifying the vehicle and the carrier. The port computer would then determine whether
or not to allow the vehicle to proceed and signal the driver accordingly. To be cleared,
carriers must meet several criteria, including having valid registration and a current tax
account. In addition, weigh-in-motion technology could be used to check that the truck is
carrying a legal weight load before clearing the port.
These types of technologies are designed to process traffic more efficiently by limiting the
number of trucks port staff process manually, which allows staff to focus on carriers with
problem accounts and vehicles. The system would also benefit the trucking industry by
eliminating delays truckers can experience when stopped at the ports.
Several other states have already committed to testing this electronic clearance technology
in an attempt to streamline the port-of-entry process. For example:
n Kentucky is leading the Advantage I-75 Project that will place electronic clearance
equipment along Interstate 75, which runs from Florida through five other states and
into Canada. Since the system has been operating on I-75 for less than one year, the
state is just now in the process of evaluating the success of the project and is
considering expanding the use of electronic clearance equipment in the state.
n Utah, Oregon, and Idaho have coordinated a combined electronic clearance pilot project
along Interstate 84. This project, scheduled for completion in 1997, is planned to clear
trucks to travel from Portland to Salt Lake City without being stopped at ports.
n Oregon has developed the Green Light Project, a plan to establish 21 electronic
clearance sites by 1997, eventually allowing the state to automatically clear 3 million
vehicles per year. The expected benefits of the project include reducing delays for
trucks at the ports, reducing paperwork, and reducing regulatory costs.
Arizona has previously been involved in testing such technology. The State was part of a
project that began in 1984 and included a 3-year demonstration project through 5 states,
including Arizona, California, New Mexico, Washington, and Texas. During the project
period, 33 electronic clearance sites were installed on 2 interstates. In Arizona, 6 sites were
developed using transponders and weigh-in-motion scales at the ports to electronically
clear trucks. Overall, the project was considered successful; however, little federal funding
was available to expand beyond the pilot. Moreover, the transponder technology used in
the pilot project is now outdated and the sites are not currently operational, but the weigh-in-
motion equipment installed as part of the project is still used by port staff to weigh
trucks entering the port. Updated transponder technology is planned for implementation
at 4 sites in Arizona, 2 on Interstate 10 and 2 on Interstate 40.
Agency Response