Generally, we found that BOCES are reserving funds without clearly reporting to their component and participating districts, and to the taxpayers who ultimately fund BOCES operations. The six BOCES we audited had 30 reserve funds, totaling almost $110 million, as of June 30, 2009. We found that $30.5 million allocated to reserves during the audit period were not clearly reported to districts. If these BOCES reported allocations to reserves in prior years in the same manner they do currently, the entire balance of $110 million, as well as amounts already spent from the reserves, was also not reported clearly. Furthermore, we found that $79 million in 27 reserves, or 72 percent of these BOCES’ total reserves, were not supported with liability calculations or documented use plans, were not used in accordance with statute, or were not authorized by statute. BOCES - Transparency and Appropriateness of Reserve Funds [complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Capital Region BOCES [pdf], Erie 1 BOCES [pdf], Madison-Oneida BOCES [pdf], Nassau BOCES [pdf], Rockland BOCES [pdf], Western Suffolk BOCES [pdf]

Rochester Rhinos Soccer Stadium Civic Project
The Empire State Development Corporation (ESDC), the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York (DASNY) and the City’s Urban Renewal Agency (RURA) failed to perform due diligence activities to determine PAETEC Park’s business-worthiness and overall feasibility because they believed they had little control over a project funded by an appropriation from the New York State Legislature. For example, no agency assumed lead agency responsibility for the project to coordinate oversight. ESDC and DASNY did not believe a lead agency was necessary, and RURA believed the State was responsible for protecting State monies. Although a soccer team is playing at the stadium - thanks to $19 million in State monies and to the appearance of a new owner at the last minute - current City officials acknowledged that they view the project as "making the best of a bad situation." Spending State funds on projects that are not scrutinized for their feasibility is a risky way to pursue economic development. There is a significant risk that PAETEC Park will continue to need City funds to operate in the foreseeable future. Finally, we found that all grant funds were used for properly documented PAETEC Park project costs. City of Rochester, Empire State Development Corporation, and Dormitory Authority of the State of New York[complete audit - pdf]

The selected entities generally disposed of e-waste in an environmentally safe manner. During the period of our examination, the four entities collectively owned approximately 4,200 computer work stations and recycled 1,237 computer monitors and CPUs. Because this computer equipment was properly recycled, we estimate that the following hazardous materials did not enter the environment — approximately 1,406 pounds of lead and 37 pounds of mercury. In addition, we estimate that the recycling companies could have potentially recovered the following valuable materials — approximately 1,554 pounds of copper, 37 pounds of gold, and 3,146 pounds of aluminum. Computer Equipment Disposal[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Chatham Central School District [pdf], Kingston City School District [pdf], Schenectady County Community College [pdf], Ulster County [pdf]

We found that the local government entity officials are aware of the hazardous content in computer equipment and they have taken steps to dispose of the equipment in an environmentally safe manner. While each of the four entities recycles computer equipment, there are differences. For example, the Herkimer County Community College uses a local waste authority, which is a permitted household hazardous waste facility, for disposal of its computer equipment. Madison County operates its own solid waste department that collects both unneeded County-owned computer equipment as well as residential e-waste. Madison County, the OCM BOCES and Jamesville DeWitt Central School District dispose of unneeded computer equipment with a commercial recycler. We found the commercial recycler used by these entities was listed on the DEC web site as a “c7” notified recycler. Computer Equipment Disposal in Central New York[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Herkimer County Community College [pdf], Jamesville DeWitt Central School District [pdf], Madison County [pdf], Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Educational Services [pdf]

Voting Related Problems - September 2010 Primary Elections
We found that the Boards and the media reported that voters encountered numerous problems in voting districts throughout the State during the primary elections. For example, Board officials and the media reported that some voters complained of a lack of confidentiality during the voting or scanning process, were confused by the layout of the ballots, encountered machines that malfunctioned or stopped working altogether, and were delayed because polling stations opened late. Given the significant changes that have occurred in the election process – in the form of new ballots and new machines that neither voters nor all poll workers are familiar with – and the urgent need to ensure that voters can properly cast their ballots on Election Day in November 2010, Boards should take immediate steps to instruct poll workers to safeguard voters’ privacy throughout the voting process, to make ballot forms easier to understand and complete, to develop contingency plans to use when available machines malfunction, and to provide additional training to poll workers. County Boards of Election[complete audit - pdf]

We found that counties could achieve cost savings by using the DOCS Cook-Chill program to feed inmates instead of preparing meals in-house. Specifically, we found that two of the four counties (Albany and Allegany) could have saved about $913,500 in 2009 had they fully participated in the Cook-Chill Program. Further, there are other operational improvements that can be realized through Cook-Chill. Overall, we estimate that the other counties in New York State that use an in-house food service operation could save over $11 million annually by switching to the Cook-Chill program. County Correctional Facilities - Cost Savings Potential of the Department of Corrections Cook - Chill Program[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to the following County Sheriff's Office: Albany [pdf], Allegany [pdf], Oneida [pdf] and the Westchester County Department of Correction [pdf]

We found that Buffalo has a tracking system in place and successfully enforces compliance with the Code. While not in compliance, Elmira verifies that building owners provide for annual on-site inspections (the Code requires inspections every six months). However, we found that the remaining four cities (Binghamton, Poughkeepsie, Troy and Utica) are not ensuring that property owners have their elevators and related equipment properly inspected and/or tested in accordance with Code. In these four cities, only 63 of 213 (30 percent) of the elevators tested were QEI-inspected; none of the elevators in these cities’ municipal buildings were inspected. We attribute this significant rate of non-compliance to the fact that these cities do not have systems in place to inventory and track all elevators and related equipment subject to inspection, and to monitor compliance with the Code’s testing requirements. Consequently, these municipal officials do not know if the majority of the elevators and related equipment in their cities are safe to use. Enforcement of Elevator and Related Equipment Inspections[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: City of Binghamton [pdf], City of Buffalo [pdf], City of Elmira [pdf], City of Poughkeepsie [pdf], City of Troy [pdf], City of Utica [pdf]

From our review of 65 Environmental Protection Fund (EPF) projects, we found that municipalities frequently have not drawn down EPF award funds within the original estimated timelines. However, municipalities have filed project extensions with the oversight agencies and completion dates for specific projects have been extended. We found that environmental projects are often complex and involve careful coordination of funding and resources. In addition, various factors have affected the municipalities' ability to complete the projects within the original estimated timeline and to submit reimbursement vouchers. Environmental Protection Fund Projects: Are Local Governments Completing Them Timely?[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: City of Kingston [pdf], City of Peekskill [pdf], City of Rome [pdf], County of Tompkins [pdf], Town of Riverhead [pdf], Town of Rosendale [pdf], Town of Saugerties [pdf], Town of Smithtown [pdf], Town of Tonawanda [pdf], Village of Solvay [pdf]

We found that local officials are doing the bare minimum to comply with mandated ethics requirements, and that gaps exist in awareness of and compliance with the provisions of municipalities’ codes of ethics. For example, even though all 31 of the local governments we visited had adopted codes of ethics, 16 percent of these codes did not address even the minimum number of ethics elements required by GML. Moreover, 52 percent of the municipalities had not distributed their codes to all their officers and employees, as required by GML. Our survey responses from local government CEOs, officials and employees showed that the lack of adequate codes of ethics and inconsistent distribution of the codes is widespread. Unless each local government adopts a code of ethics – and ideally a code that covers more than what is minimally required by GML – and vigorously enforces the code’s provisions, taxpayers can have little assurance that local officials are serious about identifying conflicts of interest and protecting public assets from misuse. Ethics Oversight in New York State Municipalities[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Town of Barker [pdf], Village of Broadalbin [pdf], County of Chautauqua [pdf], Town of Cheektowaga [pdf], County of Chenango [pdf], Town of Clay [pdf], County of Clinton [pdf], County of Columbia [pdf], Town of Greece [pdf], Town of Greenburgh [pdf], Village of Kiryas Joel [pdf], County of Monroe [pdf], County of Montgomery [pdf], Town of Mt. Morris [pdf], County of Nassau [pdf], Town of New Baltimore [pdf], Town of New Scotland [pdf], Village of Perry [pdf], Village of Plandome Heights [pdf], City of Rochester [pdf], City of Schenectady [pdf], Village of Shoreham [pdf], Town of Smithtown [pdf], Town of South Valley [pdf], County of St. Lawrence [pdf], County of Tompkins [pdf], City of Troy [pdf], Town of Union [pdf], Village of Waterville [pdf], County of Westchester [pdf], City of White Plains [pdf]

Claims Processing in the Capital Region
We reviewed the claims processing procedures at 10 local governments with 12 ARRA funded highway projects to determine whether governments have employed sound claims processing procedures while making payments for the ARRA funded highway projects. We found that each local government had systems in place and followed adequate claims processing procedures. In addition, with limited exceptions, we found that ARRA payments were made according to contract and project bid specifications, and related expenditures were reasonable, accurate and supported. Federal Stimulus Program – Claims Processing in the Capital Region[complete audit - pdf]

Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Capital Region
We found that local governments followed sound procurement procedures when awarding contracts funded by ARRA funds. Specifically, 11 of the12 local governments audited adhered to bidding laws and appropriately awarded their ARRA highway projects to the lowest responsible bidders. One municipality failed to advertise its project in the official newspaper, as required by General Municipal Law (GML) Section 103. We also found that all local governments had taken responsible measures to ensure that only responsible vendors were awarded contracts. Federal Stimulus Program – Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Capital Region[complete audit - pdf]

Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Hudson Valley Region
We found that the eight local governments we audited in the Hudson Valley region followed sound procurement procedures when awarding contracts funded by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds. The report determined that these municipalities (Dutchess, Rockland and Ulster Counties; the City of Kingston; the Towns of Clarkstown and Poughkeepsie; and the Villages of Ellenville and Scarsdale) had competitively bid or used State contracts for work on the 11 projects we examined, and had taken reasonable measures to ensure that only responsible vendors were awarded contracts. We identified potential responsibility issues with the vendors used by two municipalities, and recommended that local officials monitor these vendors closely to ensure the adequacy and completeness of their performance on the project. Federal Stimulus Program – Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Hudson Valley Region[complete audit - pdf]

Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Rochester Region
We found that the local governments followed sound procurement procedures when awarding contracts funded by ARRA funds. Specifically, all 12 local governments audited adhered to bidding laws and appropriately awarded their ARRA highway projects to the lowest responsible bidders. In addition to bidding its first project, Wayne County established a formal relationship with a State contract vendor for its second project. We also found that the local governments had taken appropriate measures to ensure that responsible vendors were awarded contracts. Federal Stimulus Program – Procurement for Local Highway Projects in the Rochester Region[complete audit - pdf]

The financial condition of the State’s five regional Off-Track Betting Corporations has substantially deteriorated over the course of the last several years. Total handle (the total amount wagered on horse races) for the five Corporations declined by 10 percent in this five-year period; further, in the first five months of 2009, handle fell by 10 percent when compared to the same period in 2008. Various factors account for the significant and continuing downturn in handle, including a diminished interest in horseracing, competition from unregulated internet gambling sites, and restrictions on the siting of new remote wagering locations. After the Corporations pay bettors, they pay out a large portion (56 percent over the five-year period) of the remaining handle to the racing industry, the State, and local government. Operating revenues – what remains after Corporations make these payments - declined by an average of 13 percent at four of the five Corporations between 2004 and 2008. Although most of the Corporations have reduced their operating expenses, the Corporations’ net operating revenues - their collective bottom line – declined by 67 percent during this period. Given the significant amount of the "up front" payments the Corporations must make to the racing industry and government, and the extent to which these payments reduce operating revenues, we believe that Corporations will be unable to cut expenses fast enough to continue as financially viable entities if no action is taken to reduce these required payments. Financial Condition of New York State Off-Track Betting Corporations [complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Capital Off-Track Betting Corporation [pdf], Catskill Off-Track Betting Corporation [pdf], Nassau Off-Track Betting Corporation [pdf], Suffolk Off-Track Betting Corporation [pdf], Western Off-Track Betting Corporation [pdf]

Based on our examination of various records, reports and bank statements, we determined that over $14,000 was apparently misappropriated in three Justice Courts included in this report. The software used by the 10 Courts we audited permits deletion of information without authorization and it does not generate an audit log of activities in the system. In three of the 10 courts we audited we found the deletion of data associated with the payment of fines and bail. In the Town of Cortlandt $7,500, was apparently misappropriated and then was returned before we began our audit. In the Village of Cold Spring $1,830 was apparently misappropriated and then $1,730 was returned after we began our audit. However, in the Town of Wallkill at least $5,015 was still missing. In addition, Court personnel did not perform monthly reconciliations of bank to book balances and did not maintain accurate bail lists. As a result, cash shortages or inappropriate transactions would likely not be identified. Furthermore, Court personnel did not deposit approximately $132,000 in a timely manner. Internal Controls Over Selected Justice Courts’ Financial Activities[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Village of Buchanan [pdf], Village of Cold Spring [pdf], Town of Cortlandt [pdf], Village of Greenwood Lake [pdf], Village/Town of Harrison [pdf], Town of Haverstraw [pdf], Town of Philipstown [pdf], Village of Port Chester [pdf], Village of Spring Valley [pdf], Town of Wallkill [pdf]

Our audit of nine local governments and one school district determined that 21 percent ($27,224) of the approximately $132,000 in scrap material sale proceeds generated between January 2006 and December 2009 was not recorded in the municipalities’ cash receipts records or deposited in their bank accounts. The local government entities did not receive this revenue because the governing boards had not established any formal policies and procedures for controlling revenues related to scrap material sales. Without policies for handling sale revenues, vendors in eight of 10 municipalities paid sale proceeds to municipal employees in cash (all the unaccounted for revenues were cash payments), rather than by check made payable to the local government’s chief fiscal officer. It is also essential that scrap materials be properly secured. In three of the 10 municipalities, scrap was kept in unsecured areas, while in the remaining seven municipalities; it was kept in secured areas that were accessible to employees who handled scrap. Internal Controls Over Scrap Material[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Batavia, City of [pdf], Batavia City School District [pdf], Cheektowaga, Town of [pdf], Elba, Town of [pdf], Elba, Village of [pdf], Genesee, County of [pdf], Middlebury, Town of [pdf], Oakfield, Town of [pdf], Pembroke, Town of [pdf], Sloan, Village of [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]
See related letters to: Babylon Industrial Development Agency [pdf] | Dutchess County Water and Waste Water Authority [pdf] | Erie County Water Authority [pdf] | Greenburgh Housing Authority [pdf] | Greene County Industrial Development Agency [pdf] | Guilderland Industrial Development Agency [pdf] | Town of Hempstead Housing Authority [pdf] | Islip Resource Recovery Agency [pdf] | Monroe County Water Authority [pdf] | Onondaga County Water Authority [pdf] | Port Chester Housing Authority [pdf] | Rockland County Solid Waste Management Authority [pdf] | Rockville Centre Housing Authority [pdf] | Spring Valley Housing Authority [pdf] | Suffolk County Water Authority [pdf] | Ulster County Resource Recovery Agency [pdf] | Upper Mohawk Valley Regional Water Board [pdf] | Westchester County IDA [pdf] | Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Authority [pdf] | Municipal Housing Authority for the City of Yonkers [pdf] |

We found that eight out of nine Collecting Officers deposited tax collections on a timely basis; one Collector made numerous bank deposit errors and did not reconcile tax collection bank accounts. However, we found that only three of the nine Collecting Officers (from Chester, Queensbury and Warrensburg) remitted tax receipts properly. Of the remaining six Collecting Officers, only one remitted tax collections timely and/or in full to the Supervisors, and none of the six remitted tax collections timely and/or in full to the County. As a result, tax collections were not always available to Supervisors when they should have been. Delays in remitting collections to the County Treasurer also contributed to the County’s cash flow problems. In February 2009, the County had to issue $4.5 million in tax anticipation notes (TANs) so it could pay bills and other obligations through April 2009. Although the County repaid the TANs in April after receiving tax collections from Collecting Officers, issuing the short-term debt cost the County $2,200 in issuance fees and $31,100 in interest expense. Real Property Tax Collections and Remittances in Warren County[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Town of Bolton [pdf], Town of Chester [pdf], Town of Hague [pdf], Town of Horicon [pdf], Town of Johnsburg [pdf], Town of Lake George [pdf], Town of Lake Luzerne [pdf], Town of Queensbury [pdf], Town of Warrensburg [pdf]

We found that the nine districts we audited in Nassau, Onondaga, Rockland and Westchester Counties did not obtain special education professional services at the most economical cost. These nine districts failed to realize a total of $574,000 in potential cost savings in 2008-09 because they used requests for proposals (RFPs) but did not select providers with the lowest proposed rates, or did not use RFPs at all. Of the $3,777,000 these nine districts paid to 110 special education professional providers in 2008-09, $3,212,788 (85 percent) was paid to 84 providers who were not selected through a competitive process, or who did not propose the lowest rates. None of the districts documented the reasons for their selections. School Districts’ Procurement of Special Education Professional Services[complete audit - pdf]
See related letters to: Ardsley Union Free School District [pdf], East Ramapo Central School District [pdf], Farmingdale Union Free School District [pdf], Jericho Union Free School District [pdf], Oyster Bay - East Norwich Central School District [pdf], Skaneateles Central School District [pdf], Solvay Union Free School District [pdf], West Genesee Central School District [pdf], White Plains City School District [pdf]