Audit Objective
Did the Ashville Fire District (District) Board of Commissioners (Board) purchase equipment in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law (GML) and provide proper oversight of equipment purchases?
Audit Period
January 1, 2024 – May 28, 2025
We extended the audit period back to August 2021 to review the competitive process used by the District to purchase a custom pumper fire truck. We included this purchase because the final payment was paid during our audit period.
Understanding the Audit Area
A fire district’s board of commissioners must purchase equipment in accordance with State statute and the fire district’s purchasing policy and provide proper oversight to ensure fiscal responsibility, legal compliance, operational readiness and public trust. The board of commissioners is also responsible for the overall financial management and safeguarding of the fire district’s resources on behalf of taxpayers. This includes ensuring that equipment is acquired in a cost-effective manner by creating as much competition as possible. A well-planned solicitation effort is important to reach as many qualified vendors as possible.
From January 1, 2024 through March 14, 2025, the District paid $254,700 on two purchase contracts for fire trucks that were subject to competitive bidding requirements and with a combined total purchase cost of $796,200.
Audit Summary
The Board did not demonstrate that the purchase of equipment was done in accordance with GML, as well as provide proper oversight of equipment purchases. In addition, the Board should have periodically reviewed and updated the District’s purchasing policy in accordance with GML Section 104-b, but the Board has not updated the policy since 2014. As a result, the District’s purchasing policy is not consistent with GML, and the Board could have been more fiscally responsible by increasing competition and avoiding vendor overpayments that would have totaled $6,500 by ensuring vendor invoices agreed with contract terms.
The Board could not demonstrate that it complied with GML Section 103’s competitive bidding requirements when purchasing two fire trucks (a custom pumper and a mini-pumper), totaling $796,200. Although the Board advertised for bids for each truck, the bidding requirements were written in a manner that did not suggest honest and fair competition occurred. For example, District officials allowed the vendor who was awarded a $323,700 mini-pumper contract to write the bid specifications. The District’s legal notice required immediate delivery of a mini-pumper, which the vendor had on hand because another fire district did not take delivery of the pumper. While there is no absolute prohibition against a prospective bidder preparing specifications for a fire district, officials need to carefully scrutinize the bid specifications to ensure that the specifications do not confer a special advantage upon a particular bidder and to the detriment of the fire district. We determined that the District did not demonstrate that careful scrutiny of the specifications occurred before the award was made.
The Board could not demonstrate that the District purchased equipment in accordance with GML or provide proper oversight of equipment purchases, including demonstrating that the procurement of the fire trucks was made on a fair, equal and transparent basis. As such, District officials cannot assure the District taxpayers that they achieved the best cost savings when procuring the two fire trucks.
When bidding specifications are not properly written and detailed to provide a common standard, the Board cannot ensure that bidders compete on a fair and equal basis to provide potential cost savings for District taxpayers. For example, District officials approved 43 change orders totaling $63,500 to further customize a pumper truck. District officials did not include the modifications, which accounted for 16 percent of the pumper truck’s total cost, in the bid specifications. As a result, officials may not have acquired the fire truck at the best cost. Additionally, the Board approved 42 of these change orders totaling over $57,300 when the custom pumper was ready for delivery, instead of before the vendor made the modifications.
The Board also did not provide proper oversight of equipment purchases by verifying that payment amounts agreed with the contractual agreement and/or bid award, resulting in nearly $6,500 in overpayments for equipment. Had the Board conducted a proper claims audit before authorizing payments, these overpayments may have been avoided.
The report includes 11 recommendations that, if implemented, will improve the District’s purchasing operations. District officials generally agreed with our recommendations and their response is included in Appendix B.
We conducted this audit pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution and the Office of the New York State Comptroller’s (OSC) authority as set forth in Article 3 of GML. Our methodology and standards are included in Appendix C.
The Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Pursuant to Section 181-b of New York State Town Law (Town Law), a written corrective action plan (CAP) that addresses the findings and recommendations in this report must be prepared and forwarded to our office within 90 days. To the extent practicable, implementation of the CAP must begin by the end of the next fiscal year. For more information on preparing and filing your CAP, please refer to our brochure, Responding to an OSC Audit Report, which you received with the draft audit report. We encourage the Board to make the CAP available for public review.