Bayer to buy part of Merck for $14.2B

Children’s Service Center hosting adoption event

First Posted: 9/19/2014 WILKES-BARRE &#8212; A new report by the Pennsylvania Auditor General reviewing Wilkes-Barre&#8217;s spending of state money from fuel taxes notes the office is &#8220;concerned in light of the city&#8217;s failure to correct a previously reported finding of non-permissible expenditures.&#8221;
The report also notes the city used some money improperly for retroactive expenditures and in one case failed to obtain state approval of a paving project paid for with state money.
In all three cases the city administration&#8217;s response, included in the report, acknowledges errors occurred and that corrective action has been taken.
The city did not lose state money, but did have to move money from its general fund into the separate &#8220;Municipal Liquid Fuels Fund&#8221; account, where the state money must be kept by law.
The Auditor General&#8217;s Office reviewed the city&#8217;s liquid fuels fund from Jan. 1, 2012, through Dec. 31, 2013. The report concluded:
&#8226; On June 6, 2013, the city spent $74,788 for a paving project done in 2012 with an invoice dated Sept. 5 of that year. &#8220;The expenditures incurred were not paid in a reasonable period of time,&#8221; the report noted, which failed to comply with state law regarding the money. The city acknowledge the error and reimbursed the money to its liquid fuels fund.
&#8226; The city spent $15,385 in 2012 and $36,924 in 2013 &#8220;for the lease payments for a garbage truck, which are non-permissible expenditures&#8221; of the money. The report notes similar non-permissible spending was found in a review of the fund for 2010 and 2011.
&#8220;We again recommend that, in the future, the city comply with the liquid fuels tax municipal allocation law and the Department of Transportation&#8217;s regulations regarding permissible expenditures,&#8221; the report said. The city&#8217;s response acknowledged &#8220;an error was made, recognized and reimbursed accordingly.&#8221;
&#8226; On Jan. 11, 2012, the city spent $9,426 for a paving project that put down more than one inch of new blacktop, and state law requires any project an inch or greater must be approved by the Department of Transportation. The report says the city did not obtain that approval.
The city&#8217;s response was that &#8220;we did not realize project approval was needed. We will comply in the future.&#8221;