We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

Procurement of Goods and Services
The Board has not adopted formal policies and procedures governing Authority procurements. Authority officials did not solicit sealed bids for one procurement totaling $17,332 that was subject to Public Authorities Law (PAL) requirements and did not solicit competition for three procurements totaling $223,915 that were not subject to PAL. In addition, Authority management did not have a procedure to determine why it received only two bids for an annual construction and maintenance contract for three out of four years. Onondaga County Water Authority[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

Internal Controls Over Billing and Collections
We identified significant weaknesses in internal controls over water billing and cash collections. District officials have not established and adopted written policies and procedures governing billed receivables. As a result, the billing clerk did not have adequate guidelines for preparing or adjusting bills, and for recording and depositing cash receipts. In addition, the billing clerk is directly responsible for most aspects of the billing and collection process. Finally, we also found that the billing clerk did not deposit moneys intact and made adjustments to customer accounts without management approval. Sea Breeze and Vicinity Water District[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]

We found that 75 percent of the authorities we examined compensated their board members appropriately. Ten of these authorities were not authorized to compensate their board members, and they did not. Of the five that could compensate their board members, three provided compensation within statutory limitations and two chose not to provide compensation. However, we found that the remaining 25 percent of local public authorities audited were providing compensation, including fringe benefits, which exceeded authorized amounts by $244,278. Three water authorities and one housing authority failed to consider the value of the board member’s fringe benefits, such as health insurance, in determining the total amount of compensation paid to each board member. Additionally, one housing authority failed to pay the compensation of its board members; these board members were inappropriately compensated by the town in which the authority is located. Not only did the town inappropriately compensate the authority’s board members, but it also provided them with compensation, including fringe benefits, that was well beyond statutory limitations. Public Authority Board Member Compensation[complete audit - pdf]