During our audit period, the Committee and the Board approved one local business loan for $5,040, which was less than 1 percent of available loan funds. Instead of using the UDAG repayments as outlined in the Bolton Community Development Program (BCDP) manual, the Board authorized loaning approximately $4.5 million from the community development (CD) fund for six Town capital projects. Although the Board approved all six loans by resolution, these loans were not consistent with the adopted BCDP manual. The six loans to Town funds for capital projects ranged from $150,000 to $2 million and were authorized at an annual interest rate of 1.385 percent for terms ranging from 8 to 29 years. Further, while the loan to the local business was governed by the BCDP manual, the Board did not develop any formal plans or policies, as recommended by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), to guide officials in approving the use of the repayments for Town capital projects. The CD fund's loan activity is not adequately recorded in the accounting records and reported to Town officials and the public. We found that all six loans made from the CD fund to other Town funds during our audit period totaling $4.5 million were recorded in the accounting records as a one-time transfer of funds from the CD fund. These loans to Town fund balances are tracked off the books in separate amortization schedules and not included in the accounting records as a receivable in the CD fund and a liability in the borrowing fund.

Our review disclosed the following issues which should be reviewed by City officials for appropriate action. The Yonkers Public School District's budget request is $604.8 million for appropriations. The District has appropriated all of the $24.1 million projected unassigned fund balance at the end of the 2017-18 year; however, this appropriation must be approved by the Board of Education and City Council before it can be used. If the fund balance is not approved or available at year end, the District could have a $24.1 million budget gap. In addition, the District's budget request does not include an appropriation for textbooks, and underestimates the appropriations for personal services and unemployment reimbursements. The City also continues to rely on nonrecurring revenue, such as specialized State aid and fund balance, to balance its budget. Revenue estimates for metered water sales, sales tax and income tax surcharge may not be achievable. The City will incur additional debt and interest costs by bonding the cost of tax certiorari claims instead of financing them through the operating budget. The appropriations for overtime (firefighting and police) and workers' compensation insurance could be underestimated. Finally, the City's proposed budget does not include a contingency appropriation.

The Board did not adopt a financial plan for the maintenance of a reasonable level of fund balance or for the funding and use of reserves. As of December 31, 2017, unrestricted fund balance was 9 percent of 2018 budgeted appropriations. In addition, the District maintained two capital reserves: an equipment reserve and a building reserve. Both capital reserves have been in place for over 15 years. From January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017, the reserve balances increased by $470,000. The District funded the reserves from budgeted appropriations and added more funds near fiscal year end from the annual operating surplus. The District's 2018 adopted budget included funding of $150,000 for the equipment reserve and $20,000 for the building reserve. In total, these amounts represent 27 percent of 2018 budgeted appropriations. The District's real property tax levy has also increased by $35,500 from 2016 to 2018 (6 percent). The District also realized an operating surplus in 2016 ($112,755) and 2017 ($61,500). Although the capital reserves make up a significant amount of the total fund balance, the Board has not adopted a multiyear financial plan to address the District's operational and capital needs.

The Board did not adopt individual budgets and the Supervisor did not maintain separate accounting records for each water district. Instead, the Board adopted one operating budget that combined all water operations. In addition, the Board adopted two sewer district budgets, even though it established four sewer districts, and the Supervisor maintained one set of accounting records for all sewer operations. As a result, the Board and Town officials cannot monitor each district's financial condition to determine if each district is self-sufficient. The Supervisor did not account for revenues and expenditures associated with improvement areas in the general fund as required by New York State Town Law. Instead, the financial activity associated with improvements is incorrectly combined with the Town's special districts and the intermunicipal activity. Finally, the Supervisor did not separately account for the revenues and expenditures from the intermunicipal agreements with neighboring towns, to ensure that revenues cover operating costs.

The Department's bylaws establish the Treasurer's responsibility for maintaining the Department's accounting records. However, the bylaws do not provide clear guidance for how the Treasurer is to perform these duties. The Treasurer did not provide formal, detailed reports of cash receipts and disbursements or prepare and provide bank reconciliations. Instead, the Treasurer presented an oral report during the monthly membership meetings summarizing cash receipts and disbursements. She also prepared a report reflecting the bank statement activity. However, the reconciled cash balance is not reported because monthly bank reconciliations are not prepared. Because the members are not provided with bank reconciliations or cancelled check images, Department officials lack the detail necessary to adequately oversee the financial operations. Additionally, the Treasurer did not annually prepare or present all revenues and expenses to the membership as required by the bylaws. Finally, The Treasurer has not prepared and filed the Department's 2016 Form 990 with the IRS and annual report of foreign fire insurance tax receipts, expenditures and the remaining balance with OSC. Furthermore, Department officials were unable to provide documentation of their federal tax-exempt status.

We found that all disbursements were for appropriate purposes and properly supported and all fees received by the Court were remitted and reported in a timely manner. However, the Justices' cash balances exceeded known liabilities by a combined total of approximately $6,340 as of October 12, 2017, and Court officials were unable to determine the composition of these excess balances. In addition, the Justices' bail reports included bail for 18 individuals totaling $7,150 that could not be traced to any open or closed cases during our audit period. Finally, the Board did not conduct the required annual examination of Court records or contract with an independent public accountant for an audit.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the proposed budget are reasonable. However, our review identified several issues that require the City Council's attention. The refuse and garbage charges of $9.6 million include an increase of $20 per sanitation parcel which the City has not yet authorized. The proposed budget includes appropriations of $1.8 million in termination salary payments, yet expenditures have averaged $2.6 million over the last three years. In addition, City officials only partially implemented the Comptroller's recommendations in our May 2017 review of the 2017-18 proposed budget. For example, they did not modify the adopted budget to reflect existing refuse and garbage rates, in the absence of City approval of the proposed rate increase. They also did not modify overtime appropriations. As of March 31, 2018, overtime expenditures were $2.98 million, exceeding the adopted budget by $246,216. Finally, the City's proposed budget includes a tax levy of $41,358,266 is $3,712,839 above the limit established by law.

Authority officials did not develop comprehensive written procedures for managing system and network access. We were able to match all 241 accounts that access the Authority's administrative and business system to current Authority and third-party users. In addition, the Authority's network has 696 user accounts that have not been used in the last six months and of these, 75 user accounts were last used more than four years prior, while 377 have never been used. Although the Board adopted a computer use policy, it was last updated in January 2012. We tested 10 employees' web histories and determined that five employees visited social media, shopping websites and personal email. Finally, while the Authority provides brief IT training upon hire, there is no formal IT training on a regular basis.

The Board did not properly manage fund balance levels. The general fund's total fund balance increased by 56 percent from 2014-15 through 2016-17, resulting in an accumulation of $799,870, or 237 percent of general fund expenditures. Additionally, the water fund's fund balance increased by 43 percent for the same three fiscal years, resulting in an accumulation of $411,958, or 472 percent of water fund expenditures. While general fund and water fund revenue estimates were reasonable, the Board overestimated general fund expenditures by an aggregate of $111,583 (9 percent annual average) and overestimated water fund expenditures by an aggregate of $210,800 (44 percent annual average). The Board also did not provide proper oversight of the Clerk-Treasurer's cash receipts and disbursements responsibilities because the Mayor and Board did not segregate the Clerk-Treasurer's duties or implement compensating controls. Finally, the Board did not ensure water rents and penalties were properly billed. For example, one customer was never billed, the second had not been billed since 2005, the third since 2014 and the last since 2015. One year of estimated billings for these customers totaled $1,140. Furthermore, water penalties were not billed in accordance with the Village's policy.

The general fund's year-end total fund balance increased by 46 percent from 2014-15 through 2016-17. Budgeted general fund appropriations in 2015-16 and 2016-17 exceeded expenditures by an annual average of 30 percent while actual revenues exceeded budgeted revenues in 2014-15 and 2015-16 by an annual average of 18 percent. Village officials have not developed multiyear financial or capital plans or a fund balance policy. Finally, the Clerk-Treasurer did not provide the Board with adequate financial reports.

We found that case files were properly maintained with all supporting documentation including evidence of payment where applicable. Case files agreed to the Court's computerized case history report and were accurately reported to the Justice Court Fund. However, although collections were generally deposited intact, they were not deposited within 72 hours as required. They were deposited as late as 11 days after the date of receipt. In addition, while the clerks verified the deposits of collections using online banking, they did not perform bank reconciliations or accountability analyses and did not keep bank statements on file. Furthermore, Court personnel are unaware of the bail account balance. Finally, there were 26 checks signed using a signature stamp rather than signed by the Justice.

In 2005, the Town spent approximately $45,000 to install water meters in an effort to more efficiently and equitably charge customers for water. However, the Town has not used the meters as a basis for charging users. Instead, a water maintenance operator reads accessible meters twice per year to monitor meter reliability and provide usage data. More specifically, Town officials told us that some meters have not worked since their initial installation, some are difficult to access, and the batteries are approaching the end of their useful lives. According to information provided by the Town, approximately 80 percent of the meters provide reliable readings. Officials have been working to remedy the meter situation for the past 12 years. As a result of these ineffective meters, Town officials bill customers water rents based on a flat-rate schedule that assigns charging units based on the number of households or businesses being served instead of metered usage. Although this methodology can take into account certain factors such as the physical size of the house/business, this is not as equitable as consumption-based billing. Based on the established rate schedule, a one-family residential customer that uses 50,000 gallons per year and another that uses 150,000 gallons per year are charged equivalent amounts. In addition, businesses are charged the same rate ($180 annually for a single business) regardless of their usage, which could vary significantly, depending on the type or size of business. Finally, the Board did not ensure that water rents were properly billed to users.

The Town Clerk, who acts as the appointed Tax Collector, did not remit property tax collections to the Town Supervisor in a timely manner as required by law. We found that by the end of the third week of January 2017 the Clerk had collected almost $1.7 million in taxes. However, the Clerk did not remit any tax collections to the Supervisor until the fourth week of January. The Clerk did not maintain the postmarked envelopes for tax payments received. Because postmarked envelopes were not maintained, Town officials are unable to determine the dates these payments were received and therefore cannot determine whether the correct penalties had been collected. The Clerk also does not prepare daily cash reports to reconcile to the transaction reports. Finally, the Clerk does not prepare bank reconciliations.

We found that collections were accurately recorded and deposited but deposits were not always timely. The Justice did not deposit collections totaling $36,755 in a timely manner. The Justice prepared accurate monthly bank reconciliations and accountabilities and cash disbursements were accurate. However, the Justice did not follow up on pending tickets listed in the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) database. Finally, the Town Board did not perform an annual audit of the Justice's records and reports as required.

The purpose of our audit was to determine whether the six counties audited received and expended all emergency surcharge revenue from communication service suppliers (suppliers) and whether these counties used enhanced emergency communication (E911) surcharge revenues to improve their county’s 911 systems and operations, for the period January 1, 2014 through October 5, 2016.

The Town apparently has three sewer districts but the Supervisor recorded and reported all sewer operation revenues and expenditures as one special district. In addition, the Board does not adopt individual budgets for each sewer district. Capital costs are allocated to three sewer districts, but operating and maintenance costs are combined under one district. Town records, on a combined basis, show that as of December 31, 2016, the Town reported operating cash of $303,875, a capital reserve of $185,339 and unrestricted fund balance of $393,842 from sewer operations. The Town appears to be using Town Law provisions on sewer districts and sewer improvements as if they were interchangeable, which may have contributed to the confusion with respect to the accounting and reporting requirements for sewer districts and improvements.

The Board did not meet its oversight responsibilities. The Clerk-Treasurer performs all Village financial transactions with little Board oversight, including the billing and collection of water usage charges, the collection of real property taxes and the disbursement of Village funds. Although the Mayor dual-signs checks with the Clerk-Treasurer, no one reviews bank statements, canceled check images or monthly reports and reconciliations that the Clerk-Treasurer prepares. Furthermore, the Board did not perform or provide for the required annual audit of the Clerk-Treasurer's records. However, our reviews of the Clerk-Treasurer's operations did not disclose any material discrepancies.

Leave accrual records for five of the seven Business Office employees were overstated by a total of 272 hours. Vacation, sick and personal leave earned exceeded collective bargaining agreement (CBA) limits, and vacation and sick leave was accrued and/or used at rates other than specified in the CBAs. For example, the administrative assistant's vacation leave balance was overstated by 70.31 hours. The Library Director started 2016-17 with 84 hours of vacation leave and 14 hours of personal leave more than his CBA allowed. When Library officials do not adhere to CBA leave accrual requirements, employees could accrue and/or use more leave time than allowed, potentially increasing the Library's costs.

While the adopted general fund budgets included reasonable revenue estimates, appropriations significantly exceeded expenditures. The variance between appropriations and expenditures has increased from 5.9 percent in 2014-15 to 30.9 percent in 2016-17. Appropriations were overestimated by a total of $355,797 (20 percent) for the three-year period. In addition to the overestimated expenditure accounts, the Board included, but did not use, contingency appropriations of $10,000 in each of the three fiscal years. The Board also appropriated fund balance totaling approximately $297,000 to partially fund the 2014-15 through 2016-17 budgets. However, the Village did not use any of the annual appropriated fund balance amounts and instead realized operating surpluses (revenues exceeding expenditures) in each year due to the overestimation of appropriations. The Board's budgeting practices resulted in an unrestricted fund balance increase of $97,547 (25.7 percent) over the three-year period. As of May 31, 2017, the unrestricted general fund balance was 68.5 percent of the 2017-18 appropriations. When unused appropriated fund balance is added back, the Village's recalculated unrestricted fund balance in the 2016-17 budget was 82.8 percent of the next year's appropriations. Finally, Village officials have not developed a written multiyear financial or capital plan, which would help them address the use of fund balance and plan for future needs.

The Board did not provide adequate oversight of financial activities. Although the Department's bylaws do require its officers to annually inspect the Treasurer's records, the Board has not established written policies and procedures for cash disbursements or reviewed monthly bank reconciliations. Additionally, the Board did not annually audit the Treasurer's records. The Treasurer provides the Board with detailed monthly financial reports for revenues and expenses which include profit-and-loss statements for each fundraising event. However, receipt, deposit and disbursement dates were not recorded in the financial records. Finally, the Board did not establish written policies and procedures for debit card usage or review the bank statements and supporting documentation to ensure debit card transactions are for appropriate Department purposes.