We found that Village officials appropriately sought competition for the two purchases exceeding the $10,000 bidding threshold as required by the procurement policy. In addition, we tested 19 purchases totaling $30,870 that required quotes to determine whether officials complied with the policy. Officials were unable to provide documentation showing that they sought competition for any of these purchases and told us that they were unaware of the policy requirement that documentation of quotes was required for purchases of $250 or more. We also identified 17 professional service providers who Village officials paid a total of $191,575 during our audit period. We reviewed the payments to all these providers and found that officials did not seek competition when selecting any of them. In addition, the Board did not review the procurement policy annually as legally required. Finally, the Board did not properly audit claims.

Online banking payments totaling $65,456 initiated by business office staff were not included on the warrants or audited by the Board. Also, of the 76 claims we reviewed that were paid in advance of audit, 26 totaling $59,691 were not of the type legally permitted to be paid in advance. In addition, the Treasurer did not maintain custody and control of her signature stamp and check signatory policies were not followed. Although we did not find any improper charges, the policies and procedures governing credit card use resulted in high credit limits, an unknown number of users – none authorized by the Board, unused reward program balances, recurring automatic charges and credit card account numbers saved in online accounts. We reviewed 16 credit card payments totaling $52,793. Although our review did not find any improper charges, we did identify instances where the credit card policy was not followed and areas where the policy and procedures could be improved.

The Board and District officials need to improve budgeting practices to ensure that budgets are realistic and avoid generating excessive surpluses. We compared appropriations and estimated revenues with actual operating results for 2015-16 through 2017-18. We found that overall District officials budgeted reasonably in most years for revenues; however, appropriations were overestimated by $9.3 million (8.9 percent) during this period resulting in operating surpluses. As a result of the operating surpluses, District officials made unbudgeted year-end transfers to reserves of $3.4 million and to the capital project fund of approximately $5.9 million to keep the unrestricted fund balance under the 4 percent statutory limit. Generally, District officials transferred surplus funds to reserves at the end of the fiscal year that were not originally budgeted to fund reserves to stay within the 4 percent fund balance limit. As a result, general fund reserves increased by $2.3 million over the last three completed fiscal years. As of June 30, 2018, the District reported a debt service reserve and 10 general fund reserves with balances totaling $20.4 million, or 51 percent of the District's annual budget. We found six reserves, with balances totaling $9.6 million (47 percent of total reserves) as of June 30, 2018, are potentially overfunded or unnecessary. Finally, the Board did not develop or adopt comprehensive, multiyear financial and capital plans.

Officials could not demonstrate that they complied with competitive bidding statutes when awarding two contracts totaling $549,000 and did not seek competition as required by the procurement policy for five professional service contracts totaling $2.8 million and nine purchases totaling $125,000. In addition, the Board has not sufficiently segregated cash disbursement duties and has not established adequate compensating controls such as an independent claims audit function. Finally, the President received approximately $142,000 in monetary benefits over six years that were not clearly stated by his employment contract.

During our audit period, the District did not provide formalized IT security awareness training to employees or students. We also found evidence that some employees did not comply with the acceptable use policy. We reviewed the web browsing history on 26 computers and found significant personal Internet use on four computers. This included personal shopping, banking and email use; social networking; web searches for non-District related subjects; and filing personal income tax returns. In addition, we found evidence of inappropriate and other questionable Internet use on one of the four computers that was assigned to a member of the District's administrative staff. Finally, the Board did not adopt a comprehensive written plan to describe how officials would respond to potential disasters.

We found the School did not obtain proof of residency for all students in order to bill the resident school districts for all students enrolled. We examined all 713 bills totaling $8.8 million submitted for the 2017-18 school year to the three largest resident school districts, based on revenue and enrollment, and determined that amounts billed for eight students totaling $68,940 were rejected by resident school districts due to the lack of current proof of residency. For seven students at Albany City School District, the School could not provide documentation showing contact made with parents to retrieve documentation and billed the resident district even though it did not maintain adequate proof of residency. One student's bill to Schenectady City School District was rejected for $3,754 because the School did not have proof of residency documentation. The student's parent was a School employee and School officials had assumed the parent would provide the documentation, but the parent never did. Also, the School failed to bill Schenectady City School District $1,252 for a student because of an oversight; the student was enrolled for one month between billing periods. In addition, the Finance Director does not provide the Board with a detailed statement of billing progress including the actual enrollment of students and the corresponding amounts billed, received or rejected to date. Finally, there is no record of amounts billed and received entered into the Board minutes.

The District has adopted an “Appointment and Duties of the Claims Auditor” policy. However, other than the directive to examine all claim forms with respect to the availability of funds within the appropriate codes and the adequacy of evidence to support the expenditure, the policy did not include specific procedures that explained the claims auditor's duties. The policy referred to requirements as may be established by Regulations of the Commissioner of Education and/or the State Comptroller, but it did not fully explain these responsibilities. In addition, the claims auditor is also the District's Athletic Director. In this capacity, he is involved in initiating purchases and approving invoices for the athletic department and then auditing those claims. Consequently, he cannot provide an independent review and approval of the claims for his department. We reviewed 127 claims totaling almost $752,500 and found that 59 claims totaling approximately $68,000 had at least one exception, such as a lack of purchasing agent approval prior to purchase, evidence of oral quotes, departmental approval, evidence of receipt of goods or services, or itemized receipts or invoices.

We found that the student treasurer and the faculty advisor did not prepare a profit or loss statement after each fundraising event or maintain supporting documentation for the amounts collected. We reviewed records for 41 deposits totaling $44,335 from 18 extra-classroom activity (ECA) clubs for three months during our audit period. We found that 25 of these deposits (61 percent) totaling $37,256 did not have supporting documentation detailing the payees and dates of collection. We also found that the central treasurer's ECA reports for all 12 months of 2016-17 were presented to the board for approval in April 18, 2018 after the current treasurer took office and that the central treasurer's records were not audited within the timeframes required by the policy. Finally, information technology (IT) assets valued at $11,397 were not included on the inventory list and could not be located.

District officials did not monitor and enforce the acceptable use policies. Although the policies require all users to sign an agreement of the computer use terms, officials enforced this directive for students but not employees. District officials told us they were unaware of this requirement for employees. The Board and District officials did not adopt adequate information technology (IT) security policies. District officials did not develop procedures for managing, limiting and monitoring user accounts and permissions and securing personal, private and sensitive information (PPSI). Finally, District officials did not provide IT security awareness training for District employees.

Fixed asset and disposal policies were not comprehensive or being followed. We found that out of 206 fixed assets reviewed, 64 were unable to be located, 39 were not recorded in the master inventory list, 12 did not have asset tags and four had the incorrect asset tag numbers. The Clerk told us these assets had not been entered yet, either in error or because she only enters purchased fixed assets on a periodic basis, and she had not yet input them into the master inventory list. In addition, out of 158 fixed assets listed as being disposed, 143 lacked detailed supporting documentation including either sale records or Board approval. These errors occurred due to a lack of oversight over the disposal process, including ensuring the Superintendent and Board received complete and timely information about pending disposals so the assets could be declared surplus and the subsequent disposals be reported to the Board as required by the policy.

Determine whether town assessors in Suffolk County are properly administering select real property tax exemptions.

During 2017 and 2018, Company officials made 717 disbursements totaling $378,805, of which 468 were credit card purchases totaling $48,985 (13 percent). Credit cards were issued to five Company officials with individual credit limits between $1,000 and $3,000. However, the Board did not adopt a credit card or procurement policy to provide guidance as to the use of credit cards. Therefore, these officials made purchases with no prior authorization and their spending was unchecked. As a result, Company officials were unable to pay off the monthly credit card balance from July 2017 through December 2017 because funds were limited and available funds were needed for a debt payment due in August 2017. During the six-month period, interest and late and over credit limit fees totaled $781. In addition, fundraising activities lacked adequate recording and reporting and cash was not safeguarded. Finally, the Board-required audit of the Treasurer's books was deficient.

District officials did not always seek competition for professional services in accordance with the adopted policy. We identified 75 professional service providers who were paid a total of $3.5 million during our audit period. We selected and reviewed the contracts of 12 professional service providers who were paid a total of $2.5 million. District officials did not seek competition for services from four of these 12 professional service providers who were paid a total of $740,600. Their services included engineering, occupational therapy, medical care for a student in transit and legal services.

We reviewed 57 purchases subject to competitive bidding requirements (totaling $5.63 million), and found three purchases (totaling $126,477) that were not competitively bid. Further, an additional three purchases reviewed (totaling $708,093) were related to water storage tank improvements and maintenance on two different towers within the Town. We were told that the Town procured these as a professional service because the procurement required a “specialized skill set.” However, Town officials were unable to provide us with any documentation or analysis indicating how they arrived at the determination that the procurements qualified as a professional service exception. We also reviewed payments to 35 vendors whose payments, if aggregated, would have exceeded the competitive bidding dollar thresholds set forth in the General Municipal Law. The Town made payments to three vendors (totaling $295,938) without soliciting bids. Finally, Town officials did not seek competition for eight professional service contracts totaling $384,400.

The Board has not appointed a claims auditor to audit claims before payment as required by the School's cash disbursement policy. Cash disbursements were not properly approved prior to payment, supported or accounted for in a timely manner. While we found that all disbursements were for a legitimate School purpose, 83 disbursements (78 percent) totaling $69,464 (69 percent) had no acknowledgement that goods or services were received in good condition. In addition, officials did not adequately segregate cash disbursement duties and debit cards are being used for cash disbursements. The bookkeeper does not record check disbursements in the accounting system until they are posted to the bank checking account. This practice causes some disbursements to be posted in a different month than they were made, resulting in an overstatement of cash balances and an understatement of expenses in the monthly reports to the Board.

The Lake Champlain–Lake George Regional Planning Board did not monitor its loan program. While loan procedures were prepared by the former Director and submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce for review and approval, the current Director could not provide any evidence that the Board reviewed and approved the policies and procedures. We reviewed the files for all 26 of the loans approved during our audit period, which totaled more than $2.3 million, and found that the Director did not maintain any summary or application checklist for any of the loan files to ensure all required documentation was submitted by the borrowers, prior to the submittal of the applications to the Committee. The Director and two Committee members told us that after the loan funds are disbursed, they do not follow-up with the borrowers on how the loan funds were used or whether any jobs were created. Delinquent loans were not properly enforced. Finally, the Board and Committee did not authorize the write off of uncollectable loans. During our audit period, two loans totaling $110,000 in principal, interest and late fees were written off. However, we found no documentation in the minutes of the Board or the Committee discussing or authorizing the write off of these loans.

The Board did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program to ensure interest earnings were maximized and bank fees were minimized. Consequently, we found that the Supervisor invested the Town's operating funds during the audit period in six money market savings accounts that received monthly interest rates of either .01 percent or .02 percent. As a result, the Town realized interest earnings of only $920 during the audit period. We found that the Town could have invested available operating funds averaging approximately $2.6 million during the audit period in a financial institution with higher available interest rates of between .40 percent and 2.12 percent or an average interest rate of 1.17 percent during the audit period. If the Supervisor had invested these funds in this financial institution, interest earnings could have been increased by $56,324 during the audit period. Finally, the Town incurred bank fees totaling $3,327 while receiving $920 in interest earnings during the audit period resulting in a net cost of $2,407 related to banking services.

Student treasurers did not maintain adequate accounting records. Extra-classroom activity clubs did not always have adequate supporting documentation for collections, including 23 of 48 deposits totaling $45,518. However, with the exception of four World of Difference club donations totaling $1,000 and one Spanish club donation for $338, all disbursements had appropriate supporting documentation. The central treasurer properly accounted for the collections in the treasurer's ledger and provided duplicate receipts to the clubs for all of the remittances. We also found that the disbursements were properly approved, recorded and generally supported in the central treasurer's ledger.

The Board and District officials could not demonstrate whether Board-approved payments of approximately $169,000 were a proper use of District money. In addition, travel and car rental costs of approximately $58,000 were not pre-approved and the Board did not authorize per diem payments of approximately $9,000 that may have been unnecessary and/or an improper use of District money. Finally, the District could have saved up to $17,000 had the Board required the use of lodging that accepted General Services Administration rates.

We found the Board approved 236 purchases totaling $24,416 (19 percent) that lacked adequate supporting documentation or an explanation to support the purchase as an appropriate expenditure. Town officials and department heads were generally able to provide a reasonable explanation for these purchases. However, without adequate policies and procedures, officials were unable to determine whether all these purchases were appropriate. We also identified 45 purchases totaling $4,305 (4 percent) that were shipped directly to an employee's personal residence. Further, we found 160 credit card purchases totaling $12,938 that were personal purchases made by the former assistant recreation director. In August 2017, the former assistant director signed a letter of resignation and restitution agreement of $14,253, which included interest.