It is unclear whether all police officers work the correct number of hours as provided by the police collective bargaining agreement (CBA). Specifically, the CBA provides that “the standard work week shall consist of 40 hours,” which would be equivalent to patrol officers having to work 2,080 hours during a calendar year. The current work schedule used for patrol officers, however, results in these officers working eight days less per year. In that case, the City would have paid patrol officers approximately $157,000 for 675 days that they did not work in the 2012, 2013 and 2014 calendar years. Annual overtime costs may be reduced by as much as $85,000 if these officers were to work the eight additional days. It is also unclear from language in the CBA whether police officer's uniform allowance, longevity payment and education incentive payments are to be included in the calculation of the hourly rate of pay police officers receive for lump sum payments for certain unused leave time. The City could save approximately $6,800 annually if these items are not to be included in the hourly rate used to calculate payments for unused leave and eight-day pay. Finally, Fire Department time and attendance records were not always accurately maintained. We identified numerous errors due to the incorrect recording of work hours and leave usage. We also found that City officials do not ensure that firefighters work their required annual hours as they did not properly make up all of the hours that they owed to other firefighters due to shift trading.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the preliminary budget are reasonable. The District's preliminary budget complies with the property 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 appropriations for tuition fees for high school students, charter school tuition fees and social security and Medicare taxes. In addition, we believe revenues from tuition payments received from other districts may be overestimated and caution District officials about the appropriation of fund balance to finance the 2015-16 budget.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the preliminary budget are reasonable. However, the District's proposed budget is $274,899 higher than the NYS preliminary estimate. In addition, the District's proposed budget for health insurance is $164,625 higher than the District's supporting documentation for health insurance estimates. We also recommend that the Board and District officials make a provision for the repayment of the $200,000 of building aid and continue to monitor the use of unexpended fund balance. The District's preliminary budget complies with the property tax levy limit.

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

The Board needs to improve its oversight of District operations. The Board has not complied with provisions of the law related to presentation of proposed budgets and the establishment of reserves. The Board also did not update or enforce its procurement policy and did not properly audit claims. In addition, the Board did not receive budget status reports, and bank reconciliation reports were not properly prepared. Without adequate oversight, District resources are not properly safeguarded and are at greater risk of loss resulting from fraud and abuse.

Three of the District's five Fire Commissioners have not attended the mandatory training. One Commissioner was re-elected in 2012 while another Commissioner was re-elected in 2011, but neither completed the required training. The third Commissioner, re-elected in 2010, registered for the class but did not attend even though the District paid for the class. In addition, the District did not always use competitive methods to procure goods and services, as required by General Municipal Law and its procurement policy. The District paid 393 vendors a total of $3,789,711 during the audit period. We selected and reviewed payments to 20 vendors who were paid approximately $574,502 and found that the District did not use competitive methods when procuring goods and services from 12 vendors that were collectively paid $414,878. Additionally, the Board did not monitor payments made to four vendors that received a total of $36,247 more than the terms of their agreements with the District. The Board also did not consistently enter into written agreements with the District's vendors. Without a written agreement, District officials do not have a means of determining whether rates charged are accurate. Finally, the Board did not properly use standardization as a method of efficiently procuring goods and services.

The District was able to reduce net costs by approximately $452,000 by paying tuition and sending students in grades 7 through 12 to a neighboring school district. Due to the expected cost savings, the District decided to increase the in-house programming for students in kindergarten through sixth grade, costing approximately $264,000, reducing the net cost savings to approximately $188,000. In addition, the Board adopted a budget for 2013-14 that reflected the change in costs due to tuition. The 2013-14 budget also reflected that the District anticipated to have an operating deficit of $200,000 and would, therefore, use available fund balance to fund expenditures. However, the District experienced a $134,600 operating surplus thus further increasing its fund balance. As a result, as of June 30, 2014, the District's unrestricted fund balance exceeded the statutory limitation by $491,912 or 6 percent. Further, the District did not appropriate or use unemployment insurance reserve funds to pay for related expenditures or reevaluate its need to maintain such a substantial balance in the reserve, which totaled $600,515 at the end of 2013-14. Finally, as of August 28, 2014, the Board had not yet adopted a multiyear financial plan.

The Board should improve internal controls over cash receipts collected at the circulation desk to adequately safeguard Library assets. Although the Board adopted a circulation policy that contains procedures related to collecting cash receipts at the circulation desk, the procedures were insufficient because they were not comprehensive and did not provide adequate guidance and effective internal controls. For example, the procedures did not establish which employees were authorized to collect cash receipts, the processes for determining accountability over cash receipts recorded in the system or the cash register and stated that one employee was required to count the cash collected at the conclusion of the day. In addition, employees were not collecting cash receipts as directed by the policy, because Library officials did not effectively oversee collections.

We found the Board did not provide adequate oversight of the Company's financial activities. We found Board minutes to be incomplete because minutes from 14 meetings held during our audit period were missing. We also reviewed 30 disbursements totaling $6,950 and found 15 totaling $4,142 did not have supporting documentation, such as a bill or invoice, but appeared to be for Company purposes. Company members did not maintain records for each activity to show an itemized list of the receipts collected from each of their fund-raising events. Further, no records were maintained for the fund-raising start-up money. Finally, the Treasurer did not maintain appropriate records or provide the Board with monthly financial reports.

The Board did not adequately monitor the financial condition of the water and sewer funds. It did not adopt realistic budgets or establish sufficient user rates for the water and sewer fund operations. Additionally, both funds relied on interfund advances from the general fund to help finance operations. As a result, the water and sewer funds had deficit unrestricted fund balances of $153,000 and $37,000 as of May 31, 2014.

District officials' overreliance on the general fund's fund balance to finance planned operating deficits in the general and school lunch funds during the audit period has depleted available funds to precariously low levels. Although the District overrode the tax cap and shared services with another district in an effort to decrease the reliance on fund balance, fund balance has continued to decline. In addition, the District lacks a multiyear financial plan for its operations and capital needs, which their external auditor has recommended for the last three years.

The Board did not provide sufficient oversight of the Town's financial operations. The Board did not have a contractual agreement with the Firm performing financial services for the Town prior to 2013 and the Supervisor did not appropriately monitor the Firm's work. The Supervisor also did not adequately review monthly financial statements and reports that were prepared by the Firm to ensure that they were complete and accurate before providing them to the Board. Although the Town had a written contractual agreement with the Firm for accounting services for 2013 and 2014, these contracts lacked specific details of the services to be performed. In addition, the Supervisor contracted with the Firm for the 2014 accounting services without obtaining prior Board authorization as required by law. Further, the Town Clerk performed certain financial duties on the Supervisor's behalf, which was inappropriate due to the incompatible nature of their offices.

The Clerk did not always record, deposit, disburse and report all moneys collected in a timely and accurate manner. The Clerk recorded cash receipts received in the accounting system, but did not compare the collections to bank deposits, which would have identified more than $10,000 in tax moneys and $1,030 in Clerk fees that were deposited but not recorded. As a result of neglecting to record the $10,000 in tax collections, the Clerk incorrectly issued delinquent tax notices to six taxpayers and sent one of these taxpayers' accounts to the County for enforcement. In addition, the Clerk did not perform any bank reconciliations or monthly accountabilities. Consequently, the Clerk was unable to account for approximately $5,029 remaining in the tax collector bank account after the 2014 tax settlement. Although we were able to identify the source of $4,054 of these funds, the Clerk's cash exceeded known liabilities by $975 as of June 30, 2014. Also, the Clerk did not always deposit moneys in a timely manner or adequately secure cash collected prior to deposit.

We verified the relevant factors used to calculate the invoiced amounts to all eight school districts of residence and did not identify any discrepancies in the School's calculations. We also verified that those billed amounts were received and recorded. However, we found that $5,629 was not received from one school district for a student; this billing was in dispute. The student had three different addresses during the school year but the parent/guardian could not locate or obtain proof of address − such as a lease agreement from the landlord − for one school district. The school district refused to pay the bill without proof of residence. As such, the School did not collect $5,629 for the time period when the student purportedly resided in this school district. Had the School required proof of address when the student's address changed, this likely would not have happened.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if towns properly maintained their roads for the period January 1, 2013 through May 1, 2014.

District officials have taken appropriate action to ensure the accuracy of compensation and benefits provided to employees. They were proactive in establishing effective payroll-related policies and procedures. For example, timekeeping and payroll procedures require multiple levels of approval, and wage tables are input by employees outside of the payroll process. In addition, many duties within the payroll process have been segregated. For example, computer access levels to various payroll-related accounting functions have been limited to those employees who require access to perform their job duties. Timekeeping and supervisory functions are also segregated from payroll processing functions. Except for some minor discrepancies, the compensation and benefits provided to employees matched Board-approved contracts and collective bargaining agreement stipulations. We commend the District for effectively designing and implementing policies and procedures that ensure the accuracy of compensation and benefits provided to District employees.

The Board did not adopt adequate procedures for processing tenant rents collected to ensure payments were safeguarded and deposited in a timely manner. Authority officials need to improve internal controls to better safeguard these receipts. We found the duties within the Authority's office were not adequately segregated and the compensating controls put in place were insufficient. Additionally, receipts were not issued to apartment complex tenants for rent collected and rent money was not adequately secured in the Authority's office. Further, the assistant had full access rights within the Authority's computerized rental collection accounting program and was also responsible for reviewing audit trail reports. Finally, rent payments paid in cash totaling more than $4,400 were deposited five or more business days after they were collected. As a result of these weaknesses, errors may occur go undetected and remain uncorrected.

The District did not have any written procedures outlining how user access rights should be established or modified. District officials designated the Assistant Business Administrator as a financial system administrator even though she is not independent of the financial recordkeeping functions. Therefore, the Assistant Business Administrator has unrestricted access to all functions within the financial software package. She can add new users to the system, create and change user access rights and can make or delete evidence of payments without restriction. In addition, the purchasing agent has access to modules of the financial software package that are not consistent with her job duties. We also found that the purchasing agent has access to the payroll module of the financial software system.

The Town's accounting records were not adequately maintained. This precluded the current and former Comptroller from providing the Board with complete and accurate monthly financial reports and preparing and filing an accurate 2013 annual financial report (AUD) with the Office of the State Comptroller. As a result, the Board's ability to properly monitor Town financial operations and its overall financial condition is hindered. We also found the Town improperly budgeted and allocated its sales tax revenue. The Town and the Village receive separate sales tax distributions directly from the County. However, from at least 2009 through 2014, the Board did not allocate sales tax revenue to its part-town funds to eliminate property tax levies in those funds before allocating any remaining sales tax revenue to its town-wide funds. As a result, approximately $610,000 in taxpayer inequities occurred.