The Justices do not provide adequate oversight of Court operations to ensure that Court moneys are accounted for accurately. Court personnel did not complete monthly bank reconciliations and accountabilities. Additionally, an annual audit of the Justices' books and records was not performed for 2014. If these procedures had been performed, Town officials may have identified and corrected the overage in Justice Engel's accounts that totaled $4,370 and the shortage in Justice Donnelly's accounts that totaled $190 as of June 30, 2015. Contributing factors included errors related to credit card receipts, electronic payment receipts and withdrawals.

For the 2014-15 fiscal year, the Executive Director's compensation consisted of a base salary, a provision for longevity, a payment for unused leave and a monthly automobile allowance. Except for the automobile allowance, the Executive Director was compensated in accordance with the adopted policy. However, in late 2012 and 2015, the Authority asked the Council to approve annual percentage increases to Authority salaries, not specific compensation amounts, which were subsequently approved. While the Executive Director was generally compensated in accordance with adopted policy, the Board did not periodically compare the Executive Director's compensation with what it had authorized, or monitor the Executive Director's accrual and use of leave time. The Executive Director maintained his own leave time records and determined the payout amount for unused leave time. The Executive Director also prepares the minutes and has custody of the official record of the proceedings, including amendments to the personnel policy. For the 2014-15 fiscal year, the Executive Director's compensation consisted of a base salary, a provision for longevity, a payment for unused leave and a monthly automobile allowance. Except for the automobile allowance, the Executive Director was compensated in accordance with the adopted policy. However, in late 2012 and 2015, the Authority asked the Council to approve annual percentage increases to Authority salaries, not specific compensation amounts, which were subsequently approved. While the Executive Director was generally compensated in accordance with adopted policy, the Board did not periodically compare the Executive Director's compensation with what it had authorized, or monitor the Executive Director's accrual and use of leave time. The Executive Director maintained his own leave time records and determined the payout amount for unused leave time. The Executive Director also prepares the minutes and has custody of the official record of the proceedings, including amendments to the personnel policy.

The Supervisor did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records, present accurate financial reports to the Board or provide adequate oversight of the clerk to ensure the accounting records and financial reports she prepared were accurate. As a result, the Board was unable to effectively monitor the Town's financial operations. The 2014 accounting records were not in balance and did not support the 2014 AUD filed by the Supervisor. For example, the general, highway, sidewalk, refuse, lighting, water and capital funds' cash was combined in a single bank account and the reconciled bank balance did not always agree with the cash balances in the accounting records for each individual fund or with the amount of cash shown on the Supervisor's report provided to the Board. As a result, the Board did not receive accurate and complete monthly reports to assist in monitoring the Town's financial operations. In addition, the Board did not perform annual audits of the Supervisor's records.

Based on our limited procedures, it appears that the Village has made limited progress implementing corrective action. Of the two audit recommendations, one recommendation was partially implemented and one recommendation was not implemented.

The Board adopted a comprehensive procurement policy and BOCES officials established procedures that provide guidance as to when items must be competitively bid and when quotes should be obtained for purchases not required to be bid. We commend the Board for adopting a comprehensive procurement policy and BOCES officials for designing an effective system that ensures that goods and services were procured in accordance with the BOCES' adopted procurement policy and applicable laws.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if counties using public resources for the State’s Ignition Interlock Program were adequately monitoring the program to help ensure the safety of the public, for the period January 1, 2010 through May 29, 2015.

Our review of BOCES' records and financial statements showed that the total of individual accounts receivable balances agreed with the control account. However, some payments were late. The Board did not adopt a formal policy for effectively monitoring accounts receivable and ensuring that amounts due for cooperative services are settled in accordance with contractual provisions. The contracts gave the districts 30 days to settle the invoices. However, certain districts did not pay the invoiced amounts within the allotted time. Because of the business relationship with component districts, BOCES officials consider legal action as their last option and try to maintain contact with delinquent districts to collect outstanding amounts.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable. The Village's proposed budget complies with the tax levy limit.

The District procured goods and services in accordance with its policy and the statutory requirements. We reviewed a sample of 50 purchases totaling $965,768 and found only minor issues which were discussed with District officials. We commend District officials for complying with the statutory requirements and for designing a purchasing process that enables competitive methods for the procurement of goods and services.

The County paid $170,364 for vehicle insurance coverage in 2014. The inventory on the County's system showed 522 motor vehicles with a total cost of $42.9 million, while the insurance inventory showed 772 vehicles costing approximately $6.5 million, a difference of 250 vehicles and $36.4 million. We also selected and verified the existence of 30 of the 772 vehicles on the insurance list. We found that 10 of these vehicles were owned and being used by the County, but were not included on the County's inventory list. We determined that these discrepancies were primarily the result of poor recordkeeping. In addition, the County does not have a policy or written procedures that stipulate the proper actions for officials to take when vehicles are no longer suitable for County business and are deemed disposable. Because County officials have not adopted a policy for the disposal of motor vehicles and have not conducted a physical inventory in several years, the County does not have an accurate inventory of the vehicles it owns.

Although Board policies require portable devices to be inventoried and used only for educational purposes, the District's procedures used to implement those policies are not working effectively. District officials did not keep their inventory list up-to-date when computers were deployed to various locations or when they were disposed of. Also, they have not established effective procedures to monitor portable device use when taken offsite. Although we found minimal instances of unauthorized usage when we examined a sample of portable devices, the risk remains that the devices could be used for non-District purposes and, if so, introduce threats such as computer viruses to the portable devices.

The Board did not develop reasonable budgets. Over the last three fiscal years, the District spent almost $4.7 million (11 percent) less than budgeted. Because District budgets overestimated expenditures, the District did not need to make transfers to the general fund from the debt service fund as budgeted from 2012-13 through 2014-15. District officials were also unable to demonstrate why $1.8 million in fund balance (as of June 30, 2015) should be restricted in the debt service fund. By removing these excess funds from the general fund, the District in effect circumvented the statutory limit on unrestricted fund balance and reported reasonable levels. If these excess funds were added back to the general fund, the recalculated unrestricted fund balance would be 15.5 percent of the next year's appropriation, or almost four times the legal limit.

District officials provided special education services to its students in a cost-effective manner and saved the District a total of approximately $339,000 in program and related services costs during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 fiscal years. In addition, the District provided services to students in a neighboring district and received $60,000 in tuition revenue during this same time period. We commend District officials for providing cost-effective special education services to students.

The District's unrestricted fund balance as of June 30, 2015 was approximately $2.8 million, exceeding statutory limits by 5.9 percentage points. The Board has not developed a reserve policy to guide District officials on the funding and use of reserve funds. Although reserves have been properly established, the reserves have been funded by operating surplus rather than budgeted appropriations. It also appears that the tax certiorari reserve is overfunded by approximately $489,000.

District officials have not properly managed fund balance. As a result, unrestricted fund balance has consistently exceeded statutory limits. As of June 30, 2015, unrestricted fund balance was more than 10 percent of the ensuing year's budget, or approximately $3 million over the legal limit, and is projected to remain at nearly the same level at the end of 2015-16. Although District officials annually appropriated a portion of fund balance towards the subsequent year's budget, the full amount appropriated was not needed because the District's budgeting practices generally resulted in operating surpluses. When unneeded appropriated fund balance is included in unrestricted fund balance, the District actually exceeded the limit in all three years. Recalculated fund balance ranged from $8.6 million (16 percent) to $9.1 million (19 percent). The general trend to complete the year with an operating surplus is projected to continue in 2015-16. Although fund balance levels consistently exceeded statutory limits, District officials continued to raise the property tax levy every year with increases totaling more than $684,000 or 6 percent over the last four years. Had District officials levied the same taxes in 2014-15 as in 2012-13, District residents could have experienced a cumulative savings of over $1.5 million. Furthermore, although District officials maintained a debt reserve totaling $2.5 million, they did not properly use these funds to retire debt. Instead, the District routinely levied taxes for these expenditures. As a result, District officials may have missed opportunities to reduce the property tax levy.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget for the general, electric and parking funds are reasonable. The water and sewer funds' tentative budgets are not balanced and include a deficit of approximately $236,000 and $206,000, respectively. Village officials plan to raise water and sewer rates. The Village has adopted a local law to override the tax levy limit.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the tentative budget are reasonable, except for the following matters. Although District officials increased real property taxes within the amount allowed by law, District officials could have used amounts from their excessive reserves and/or appropriated additional fund balance to finance operations. Therefore, District officials are imposing a higher real property tax levy on District residents than is necessary to provide educational services. Furthermore, because District officials presented the tentative budget to OSC for review prior to the adoption of the State budget, District officials should make appropriate changes to their State aid estimates based on the information that has since been provided.

The Chenango Valley Central School District, located in Broome County, issued debt totaling $3.5 million to liquidate the accumulated deficit in the District's general fund and food service fund as of June 30, 2008. Local Finance Law requires all local governments that have been authorized to issue obligations to fund operating deficits to submit their proposed budget for the next fiscal year to the State Comptroller for review while the deficit obligations are outstanding. Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the proposed budget are reasonable. The District's proposed budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

BOCES officials established effective procedures that ensured purchases complied with GML and the BOCES' purchasing policy. We commend BOCES officials for complying with GML and their purchasing policy when making purchases that required competitive bidding and purchases not subject to competitive bidding that required written or verbal quotes.

Although the District has written procedures regarding the tuition reimbursements process, they were inadequate. Specifically, the Superintendent approves the courses that an employee has applied for and the Administrative Assistant tracks employees and the courses that have been approved for reimbursement. Once the employee completes the course and is eligible for tuition reimbursement, the Administrative Assistant submits a requisition form to the accounts payable clerk for payment. However, there is an inadequate segregation of duties because no other employee makes a final review of the tuition reimbursement before payment is made to the employee. Additionally, the District's written employment separation process procedures do not contain steps to verify that employees have fulfilled any post-reimbursement employment obligations. As a result, District officials made two payments totaling $4,932 that we confirmed to be overpayments because the employees failed to meet the credit hour or grade level requirements necessary for reimbursement.