The Board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations, which allowed the former Town Supervisor (Supervisor) to misappropriate Town funds.

This audit contains similar findings and recommendations to our 2012 audit of the Village. The same Clerk-Treasurer was in office for both audits.

Golf course collections were not properly recorded in the form collected, remitted to the bookkeeper in a timely manner or deposited timely.

The Board did not provide adequate oversight, as it did not review, verify and approve County chargebacks prior to payment or actively oversee the procurement of professional services.

District officials did not ensure that the District's network user account controls were secure.

Town officials did not always seek competition when procuring goods and services.

Village officials did not establish adequate procedures to ensure all disbursements are for appropriate purposes, adequately supported or properly audited.

District officials did not ensure IT systems were adequately secured and protected against unauthorized use, access and/or loss.

The Board and officials did not develop and adopt realistic budgets, maintain reasonable levels of fund balance, or properly plan for equipment replacement.

The Justices did not always ensure money due to the Court were collected, deposited, recorded and reported in an accurate and timely manner.

The Board adopted structurally balanced budgets. However, it could improve budgeting practices and be more transparent with how it budgets for the general and highway funds.

The Supervisor did not properly appoint, and the Board and Supervisor did not properly monitor.

Officials did not adequately safeguard IT resources. Although the Town paid an IT service provider more than $98,000 in 2019, officials did not define the provider's responsibilities.

Village officials did not ensure IT assets were adequately protected from unauthorized access, use and loss.

District officials did not ensure that the District's network access controls were secure.

District officials did not adequately safeguard computerized data from unauthorized use, access and loss and although the District paid an IT vendor $106,460 for IT services, officials did not have clear contract language that identified the IT vendor's roles and responsibilities. As a result, gaps in IT security practices occurred.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the 2022 proposed budget are reasonable.

The City's use of approximately $7.3 million of fund balance to close gaps in the budget decreases the fund balance that is available to cover unforeseen circumstances. The City could potentially face shortfalls based on revenue estimates for parking violation fines, sanitation user fees, sewer usage and sale of metered water. Based on projections, the health insurance appropriation is likely underestimated by $442,000. Budgeted overtime funding for firefighters ($1.5 million) and police ($1.4 million) is likely underestimated by a total of at least $359,000. All four of the City's collective bargaining agreements are set to expire at the end of 2021. The City faces potential increased salary and wage costs when these agreements are settled. The proposed budget does not include a contingency appropriation in the general fund. The proposed budget does not include a tax overlay, which could potentially create a revenue shortfall in 2022.

Based on the results of our review, we found that the significant revenue and expenditure projections in the 2022 tentative budget are reasonable.

The CEDC Board did not properly manage or monitor the revolving loan fund program and was unaware inadequate accounting records were maintained.