The City of Yonkers is authorized to issue debt totaling $45 million to liquidate the current deficits in the City School District's general fund as of June 30, 2014. Chapter 55 of the Laws of 2014 requires the City to submit its proposed budgets for the next fiscal year to the State Comptroller and the Commissioner of Education for review while the deficit obligations are outstanding. The District's budget request did not include an appropriation for textbooks. The District has three unsettled union contracts that expired in June 2014 but has not budgeted for additional expenditures it could face if these contracts are settled. The City continues to rely on fund balance for recurring expenditures. The City must seek written assurance from the State of New York Mortgage Agency that the Agency will transfer $11 million to the Municipal Bond Bank Agency for distribution to the City in accordance with the 2015 legislation for this aid. This funding source will likely not be available in future years, which results in a potential funding gap for 2017-18. Revenue estimates for sales tax may not be achievable. The budget includes raises in the metered water rates, sewer rents and real estate transfer taxes. The appropriations for tax certiorari settlements may not be adequate, the reserve for uncollected taxes may be underestimated, and the appropriation for police overtime may be underestimated.

The Town has accumulated excessive funds in the general and highway funds; fund balance has grown by 24 percent since January 1, 2012. As a result of operating surpluses, the Town has not used appropriated fund balance as an actual financing source. When unused appropriated fund balance was added back, the Town's fund balance ranged between 74 and 84 percent of the ensuing year's appropriations in fiscal years 2012 and 2013. In addition, the Board has not adopted a multiyear financial plan for the use of the Town's excess fund balance. The Supervisor has not maintained accurate and up-to-date accounting records since December 2014. Further, the Board did not perform an effective audit of claims and has not performed an annual audit of the books and records of Town officials and employees who received or disbursed money in 2014. In addition, the Board and Superintendent have not provided adequate oversight to safeguard highway department assets. There have been two known thefts of gasoline since 2012. The Board told the Superintendent to replace the locks after the second theft in December 2014, but he did not do so. Further, he did not maintain a perpetual fuel inventory to detect any fuel variances. Finally, the Superintendent was solely responsible for maintaining the highway equipment inventory and did not maintain adequate inventory records. He also sold equipment at auction with his own personal items.

As of September 2015, BOCES had six significant lease agreements with annual costs from 2014-15 totaling about $1.29 million. Prior to entering into any of the six lease agreements, BOCES officials did not ascertain whether purchasing was an option and, if so, analyze whether purchasing, rather than leasing, was the more cost-effective option. Although the Board adopted resolutions approving each of the leases, none of the resolutions provided a basis for determining that the agreements are in the districts' best financial interests. BOCES officials told us that their analysis for leasing the properties included verifying that the rent cost per square foot for each lease was at or below market asking prices. However, they did not document this analysis for five of the six leased properties.

The Board implemented adequate procedures over cash disbursements and disbursements were adequately supported, properly authorized and for valid District purposes. Because the District does not have employees, it does not process any disbursements on a payroll. As a result, the District processes all disbursements on a warrant. The Deputy compiles invoices, bills or claims against the District and verifies that they are for legitimate purposes and contain adequate documentation. The Deputy then prepares the warrant and checks for the Board to review and approve. The Board approves the warrant and checks at its monthly meeting. The approved warrant is listed in the Board's meeting minutes along with the resolution to approve the disbursements for payment. Upon approval of the warrant, the Deputy signs and the Treasurer mails the checks to the vendors. We commend District officials for designing and implementing an effective set of controls over cash disbursements.

The City of Long Beach, located in Nassau County, has been authorized to issue debt totaling $12,000,000 to liquidate the accumulated deficit in the City's general, water, sewer and risk retention funds as of June 30, 2012. Local Finance Law requires all local governments that have been authorized to issue obligations to fund operating deficits to submit their proposed budgets for the next fiscal year to the State Comptroller for review while the deficit obligations are outstanding. The proposed budget includes estimated one-time revenue of $600,000 from the sale of City property and there is currently no contract for the sale of this real property. The proposed budget includes revenue estimates of $4.9 million for beach charges, $9.3 million for refuse and garbage charges, $4.4 million for metered water sales and $5.1 million for sewer rents. These estimates include amounts that are expected to be realized from increases to the beach charges, refuse and garbage charges, metered water sales and sewer rents, which the City Council has not yet authorized. Overtime salaries are budgeted at $2.3 million, despite costs averaging over $2.9 million for the last five completed fiscal years. City officials partially implemented recommendations included in our budget review letter issued in May 2015. The City's proposed budget exceeds the allowable tax levy limit.

The Board recognizes the importance of information technology (IT) and has sought to improve the IT environment. The Board increased the IT system administrator position to full-time in May 2015; obtained a grant to cover technology items such as smartboards, a new server and laptops; and adopted policies for acceptable use, confidentiality and prohibited conduct. However, the Board has not adopted policies and procedures for breach notification, access rights, user accounts, password management, back-up procedures, protection of PPSI, wireless technology and mobile devices. In addition, each user does not have his or her own unique user account for the financial software. Instead, they share one user account with administrative rights, which allows them to add, delete, change or modify data. We also found that audit trail reports are not generated and reviewed by School officials and that the School does not have a disaster recovery plan. As a result, there is an increased risk that the School's IT data and components will be lost or misused and that the School will not be able to resume critical operations in the event of a system failure.

Internal controls over the Department's cash receipts were not appropriately designed or operating effectively. The Director was involved in all phases of the cash receipt process – collecting cash, recording cash collections and remitting them to the finance department – with no oversight. County officials did not ensure that cash collected was reconciled with collections remitted for deposit. As a result of this weak control environment, $4,811 collected by the Department could not be accounted for. In addition, funds for two cash transactions totaling $1,000 were not deposited in a timely manner. On February 23, 2016, the Director entered a guilty plea to a class “A” misdemeanor charge of Petit Larceny and agreed to terminate her employment with the County and pay restitution.

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.