Although three Project construction contracts totaling $4.8 million were properly procured, the Board may have made material alterations to bid specifications for two other contracts totaling $1.2 million, which brings into question whether they were properly awarded. Additionally, although not required by the Town’s procurement policy (Policy), the Board could have solicited some type of competition and documented the results to help provide assurance that one professional service contract totaling approximately $382,000 was obtained under the most favorable terms and conditions possible and without favoritism.

The Board did not have the necessary information it needed to help ensure that the Department’s financial operations were adequately accounted for and reported. Also, it did not enforce the limited financial provisions outlined in the Department’s bylaws and written purchasing policy related to disbursements. In addition, the Board did not adopt other financial policies and procedures or a required code of ethics, or provide guidance to the Treasurer for recording and reporting financial transactions. Furthermore, the Board generally did not review the Department’s bills before or after they were paid to help ensure that all 230 claims totaling $260,823 were properly supported and for appropriate Department purposes. Lastly, the Board did not ensure that the Treasurer maintained supporting documentation for all revenues and redeposited startup cash totaling $259,178 that were received and deposited from January 1, 2023 through December 31, 2024.

The purpose of our review was to assess the Town of Danby’s (Town’s) progress, as of May 2025, in implementing our recommendations in the audit report Town of Danby – Town Clerk (2022M-8), released in May 2022.

School officials did not appropriately track, inventory and safeguard IT assets acquired or in use during the audit period. Officials did not maintain complete, accurate and up-to-date inventory records to properly account for IT assets. The School’s written agreement with the Company did not explicitly state who was responsible for the inventory of IT assets. Although the Board adopted a policy that required Company employees and the managed service provider to maintain inventory records and an annual inventory for IT assets purchased with federal funds, the Board did not adopt a comprehensive written policy for managing all IT assets. While the Regional Superintendent, a Director of Operations and a special projects manager told us that the School follows the Company’s written policies and procedures neither the Board’s nor the Company’s policy provided detailed guidance for maintaining inventory records for other IT assets, such as those that the Directors of Operations or special project managers purchased directly with other funds. As a result, Company employees, the managed service provider, the Directors of Operations and special project managers maintained inventory records containing incomplete and inconsistent information.

According to a District official, the District has never filed claims for Medicaid reimbursement. Although the District provided 2,379 services to students with IEPs that were eligible for Medicaid reimbursement totaling $1.1 million throughout the two-year audit period, District officials did not submit any claims for reimbursement and as a result, forfeited the District’s share of reimbursement totaling approximately $566,000.

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 178 of the 665 (27 percent) water outlets we identified that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. This occurred because District officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption.

The Supervisor did not maintain complete and accurate accounting records and reports. As a result, the Board lacked reliable records and reports to effectively manage the Town’s financial operations.

The Board did not properly approve and monitor projects that were provided financial assistance. For example, the Board did not develop and adopt, by resolution, uniform criteria for the evaluation and selection for each category of projects to be provided financial assistance, including the preparation of a written cost-benefit analysis (CBA), as required by New York State General Municipal Law (GML). Of the nine approved projects we reviewed, a written CBA was not prepared for four of the projects, and the CBAs prepared for the other five projects did not include all the information required by GML. As a result, the Board could not properly assess these projects, before their approval, to ensure the benefit to the community would be a sufficient return for the financial assistance to be provided.

The Board did not properly plan for or manage the Department building capital project. Specifically, the Board did not develop and adopt a written multiyear capital plan. Create and follow a capital project budget.

The Supervisor did not maintain complete, accurate, and up-to-date accounting records and reports. As a result, the Board lacked reliable information necessary to manage the Town’s financial operations.

District officials did not properly record and account for all of the District’s capital assets. As a result, the District has an increased risk that its capital assets could be lost, stolen or misused.

While, the County’s investments were generally legal, safe and liquid, County officials did not develop and manage a comprehensive investment program. Officials also did not monitor investments, formally solicit interest rate quotes or consider other legally permissible investment options. In addition, County officials did not create a comprehensive investment program with written procedures for the investment of County funds and did not prepare monthly cash flow forecasts or otherwise monitor investments to estimate funds available for investment.

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. District officials were unable to determine which of the 176 water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were sampled for testing. Therefore, we determined 132 of the 176 (75 percent) water outlets we identified were not properly secured against use for Cycle Two.

Determine whether the Town of Pound Ridge (Town) Board (Board) procured goods and services in accordance with Board policy and applicable statutory requirements and properly audited claims prior to payment.

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 95 of the 264 (36 percent) water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 95 water outlets not sampled for testing, we were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it. This occurred because District officials did not have a complete sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 156 of the 310 (50 percent) water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. This occurred because District officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption.

We conducted an audit of the District’s financial management procedures and issued a report in February 2017 that identified certain conditions and opportunities for the Board’s review and consideration. We returned to the District in July 2024 to conduct an audit follow-up review. Our follow-up review was limited to interviews with Board members and the Treasurer and inspection of certain documents related to the issues identified in our report. Based on our limited procedures, the District made no progress in implementing corrective action. Of the three audit recommendations, two recommendations were not implemented, and one recommendation was not applicable for the period that we reviewed. During the course of our audit follow-up, we identified additional deficiencies in the District’s accounting records and procedures that resulted in a determination for a more comprehensive review. As such, we engaged the District in this separate audit.

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 24 of the 197 (12 percent) water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. This occurred because District officials did not have complete sampling and remedial action plans that identified all water outlets for sampling or which water outlets they specifically exempted from sampling.

District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 39 water outlets (including sinks and showers in bathrooms and a sink in a concession stand) of the 312 water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. These 39 unsampled and unexempted water outlets represent 13 percent of the 312 water outlets we identified. This occurred because District officials did not have a complete sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption.

District officials did not properly identify all potable water outlets for sampling or exemption as required by NYS Public Health Law and Department of Health (DOH) regulations. We determined 173 of the 310 (56 percent) water outlets we identified at select areas, that students, staff and the public may have access to and could consume water from, were not sampled or properly exempted by District officials for Cycle Two. This occurred because District officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption.