We found that the Board did not monitor the Village's finances. The Board has not ensured that adequate policies and procedures required by law and sound business practice have been adopted, regularly reviewed and updated, monitored for compliance and distributed to officials/employees. It did not ensure that the Clerk-Treasurer maintained accurate accounting records. It also did not ensure that duties in the Clerk-Treasurer's office were properly segregated or provide mitigating controls, which created an environment that allowed for the possible misappropriation of Village funds. The lack of monitoring also led to the Village accumulating fund balance in excess of its current needs. We calculated an estimated fund balance level for the general, water and sewer funds at the 2012-13 year end, and estimate unexpended surplus funds to be excessive at $474,479 (82 percent) for the general fund and $131,095 (91 percent) for the sewer fund. The water fund, at $59,360 (23 percent), is more reasonable, but still high. Furthermore, there was no oversight of water/sewer account adjustments, which were made by the former Clerk-Treasurer without the Board's approval, and resulted in approximately $300,000 in reductions and $269,000 in added charges to customer accounts during our audit period. The Board also did not provide adequate oversight of payroll taxes, where Federal monthly and quarterly payroll-tax reports were filed late or incorrectly on numerous occasions and the Village incurred approximately $4,000 in penalties and interest during the audit period alone. Finally, the Board has not established policies and procedures related to acceptable use, computer security, breach notification or online banking, and the Board has not adopted a disaster recovery plan to address potential disasters.

The Board did not develop and adopt realistic, structurally balanced general fund budgets because Village officials used fund balance as a recurring revenue source. This resulted in the repeated adoption of budgets using fund balance to finance operations. During fiscal years ended 2012 and 2013, the Village used over $120,800 of fund balance. This continued use diminished the Village's general fund balance to a precarious position by the end of the 2013-14 fiscal year. From fiscal years 2011-12 to 2013-14, the use of fund balance kept the real property tax levy artificially low while at the same time revenues remained at the same level and expenditures were increasing by 6 percent. The Village's 2014-15 budget includes an appropriation of $100,000 of fund balance, which is $150,000 less than the previous year. In order to fill the budget gap, Village officials overrode the property tax cap limit and increased taxes by over 8 percent.

We reviewed 151 health insurance buyout payments totaling $85,250 and 14 separation payments totaling $121,014 and found they were accurate, in compliance with the terms of employee contracts and approved by the Board. We commend the District for designing and implementing an appropriate system of controls over health insurance buyouts and separation payments.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if Court officials properly collected, reported and remitted moneys on behalf of the Court for the period January 1, 2012 through February 28, 2014.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if Court officials properly collected, reported and remitted moneys on behalf of the Court for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if Court officials properly collected, reported and remitted moneys on behalf of the Court for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if Court officials properly collected, reported and remitted moneys on behalf of the Court for the period January 1, 2012 through December 31, 2013.

The purpose of our audit was to determine if Court officials properly collected, reported and remitted moneys on behalf of the Court for the period January 1, 2012 through November 30, 2013.

District officials appropriated $7.7 million more in unexpended surplus funds than was needed to fund District operations. Additionally, officials consistently overestimated budget appropriations from 2008-09 through 2012-13 by a combined total of nearly $5.4 million and the general fund generated combined operating surpluses totaling approximately $4.9 million, because reasonable budgets were not always developed. Officials also increased the real property tax levy by more than $800,000 or 5 percent over this five-year period. At the same time District officials transferred unexpended surplus funds to reserve funds to avoid exceeding the statutory limit. As a result, reserves as of June 30, 2013 totaled $6.9 million. By routinely using these practices, District officials withheld significant funds from productive use, may have levied unnecessary taxes and compromised the transparency of District finances to taxpayers.

County officials need to improve internal controls over employee time and attendance practices and payroll processing. We found that the County overpaid $18,724 to employees for time not worked, or for leave time taken and not charged to leave accruals. We also identified an additional $24,824 in leave taken and not charged to leave accruals that County officials corrected as a result of our audit. This occurred because none of the departments examined had an effective system for reporting and recording time and attendance. Some County employees are not required to document their hours worked, and others report and approve their own attendance and leave records without independent verification and oversight. Therefore, County officials do not have adequate assurance that employees have worked the hours for which they have been paid. In addition, department heads did not require employees to submit formal time off request forms when taking time off. Consequently, some employees used accrued leave time that was not properly documented, available or deducted from leave accrual balances.

The Board needs to improve its oversight, including establishing appropriate internal controls over District activities. The Board inappropriately paid $990 to the Board Chair for service rendered, did not adopt written policies and procedures for cash receipts and disbursements, and did not adopt a travel policy. The Board also did not properly monitor the life insurance benefits provided to members, resulting in the improper coverage of paid firefighters under the volunteer firefighters' policy; did not have District financial records audited for 2011 and 2012 as required by law; and improperly retained an independent contractor to perform the duties of the Treasurer without a surety bond or written contract.

Cash receipts were not properly accounted for in the Department because City officials did not establish adequate internal controls that properly segregated the former senior account clerk's duties, and they did not provide adequate oversight of her duties. As a result of the Department's weak control environment, more than $5,000 in cash receipts was misappropriated over a three-month period. Specifically, we identified weaknesses in collecting, recording and depositing gross utility receipts and the fees for code enforcement, parking permits, water and sewer services, parking ticket fines, tax searches and garbage bags. City officials did not implement adequate policies and procedures over the collection of all cash receipts, provide adequate reconciliations of receivables to collections, implement adequate inventory controls and adequately segregate the functions of collecting, recording and depositing cash receipts. In addition, there were significant information technology weaknesses due to the use of shared usernames and passwords at the window terminals as well as the ability to overwrite transactions within the financial accounting program.

County officials failed to properly manage the Golf Course Contract (Contract). County officials indicated that they were unfamiliar with certain Contract provisions and chose not to enforce numerous other provisions, without properly amending the Contract. For example, County officials did not require daily deposits of golf-fee revenues into County bank accounts and did not require and review timely interim and annual reports from the Operator, as specified in the Contract. In addition, the County did not ensure that the Operator made all contractually-required capital and maintenance expenditures annually or met all requirements related to staffing levels and the qualifications and training of the Operator's employees. As a result, the Operator did not perform or pay for a number of required contractual duties, as well as expenditures that the Operator implicitly expressed to County officials that it would make, and retained funds totaling over $246,000 that should have been spent on the golf courses. Further, the County failed to provide adequate oversight of the Operator's performance and operations to ensure that the County was receiving all revenues to which it was entitled based on the Operator's sales revenues. Given that cash receipts are highly susceptible to loss or theft, provisions such as daily deposits were especially important to safeguard the County's interests.

The Superintendent made inappropriate personal purchases totaling $68,501 without detection by the controls in place at the Town. He was able to accomplish this by attaching the invoices for these personal purchases to Department claim vouchers that often listed Department equipment as the recipient of the parts. However, these personal purchases included parts and oil for repairs to his personal farm equipment. This was further covered up by the Superintendent because he failed to maintain complete and up-to-date maintenance records for Department equipment and inventory records for consumables such as gasoline, oil and supplies. Additionally, the Town has no assurance that consumable inventory purchases totaling $25,044 were used for Town purposes. These acts occurred because the Board did not establish an adequate system of internal controls over Department purchases, including adopting a procurement policy or providing an adequate review of Department claims prior to approving them for payment.

It appears the former Treasurer was able to misappropriate approximately $22,000 from January 2009 through December 2013 without detection by Department officials. In addition, during this period, the former Treasurer was able to process and pay 188 claims totaling approximately $33,000 without maintaining adequate supporting documentation. While Department officials believe the majority of these payments were for Department expenditures, because proper supporting documentation was not maintained, they could not ensure the validity of these payments. These discrepancies occurred because the Department's governing body did not adequately safeguard Department funds. Specifically, it did not develop and implement adequate internal controls over the Department's cash receipts and disbursements functions and did not annually audit the Treasurer's records from 2009 through 2013. The former Treasurer did not maintain reports of Department financial activities, report to the governing body, or prepare monthly bank reconciliations.

The Board did not perform a proper audit of vouchers prior to payment or ensure that adequate supporting documentation was attached. Consequently, 18 vouchers totaling $23,605 were not approved by the Board prior to payment, six vouchers totaling $24,899 had no invoice attached, and 62 vouchers totaling $151,796 had no receiving or other supporting documentation attached. In addition, credit card purchases totaling $2,146 were not supported by documentation and credit card purchases, totaling $1,051, were not approved by the Board. Finally, 17 vouchers totaling $51,730 did not include verbal or written price quotes. As a result of these deficiencies, the Board did not have adequate assurance that goods and services were purchased at the lowest cost, were actually received, and were for proper District purposes.

Department officials did not always ensure compliance with the Department's by-laws. In addition, the by-laws assign all of the financial duties to the Secretary-Treasurer. The Department does not provide any oversight of the Secretary-Treasurer's duties, and compensating controls have not been established. The Secretary-Treasurer prepares reconciliations on an infrequent basis and the current Secretary-Treasurer does not maintain adequate accounting records for review, such as financial statements or accounting ledgers. The Department has no process in place for an independent review of bank reconciliations to help mitigate errors or irregularities. The Secretary-Treasurer did not have the books audited for fiscal year 2012. The President indicated that the Department plans to have an audit completed for 2013. However, as of June 3, 2014, the Department has not taken the steps to retain an auditor. While the Department adopted by-laws to dictate the manner in which it should conduct operations, Department officials do not provide adequate oversight to ensure the adherence to the procedures prescribed in the by-laws.

Town officials did not adopt realistic budgets based on historical or known trends for the Town's three sewer districts. In addition, the Board did not effectively monitor the budgets throughout the year and did not require the Town Comptroller to present accurate and reliable financial information on a regular basis. As a result, the sewer fund's financial condition has deteriorated in recent years. As of December 31, 2012, the sewer fund reported an accumulated deficit of $160,150 and its accumulated deficit for 2013 was approximately $249,000. As a result, the sewer fund has had to rely on the general fund to subsidize its operations, which causes a taxpayer inequity. As of December 31, 2013, the sewer fund owed the general fund $406,579.

Village officials have not adequately monitored the Village's financial operations to ensure fiscal stability. The Treasurer did not maintain accurate and timely accounting records, which caused the general ledger to be out of balance by nearly $7 million and the annual financial reports for May 31, 2009 through 2012 to be filed nine or more months late. Village officials consistently overestimated expenditures in the water and sewer budgets by an average of $80,860 and $108,555, respectively. The Board has not developed a multiyear financial plan or capital plan. As a result, there is an increased risk that more user fees or taxes may be assessed than necessary.

The Treasurer did not adequately fulfill his role as the Village's chief financial officer. The Treasurer did not provide Board members with financial information such as budget status reports or bank reconciliations; as a result, the Board is not adequately informed of the Village's fiscal affairs. The Treasurer did not propose budget modifications prior to overexpending budget lines. Additionally, the Treasurer signed only three of 454 checks that we reviewed for a six-month period. Although there is no Board authorization for a petty cash fund, the Treasurer issued six petty cash checks during our audit period totaling $1,814. None of the checks and supporting documentation were presented to the Board for audit. Further, the Treasurer failed to obtain adequate documentation to support the petty cash reimbursements. We also found that Board members and Village employees are using Village credit and purchase cards without Board authorization. In addition, the Treasurer has not required adherence to the credit card policy and credit and purchase-card bills have been routinely paid without adequate documentation to support the nature and validity of each purchase. We found that $48,585 of the $50,531 in purchases made with the credit and purchase cards had inadequate documentation. This increases the risk that the Village may pay for purchases that are not for valid Village expenses.

The Board has not adopted a disaster recovery plan or an acceptable use policy. While computer policies do not guarantee the safety of an entity's computer system or the electronic information entrusted to it by taxpayers, customers, employees and others, the lack of policies significantly increases the risk that data, hardware and software systems may be lost or damaged by inappropriate access and use.

We found that the District was not transparent in its use of Project funds and potentially could have spent less on the Project. The District has set aside over $6.6 million for general construction and site work contracts which was not part of the Project's original scope. Additionally, the Board President did not approve all change orders and allowance disbursement forms, as required by the New York State Education Department (NYSED). In addition, none of the allowance disbursement forms were approved by NYSED. Finally, we found a Project purchase for which competitive bids were not obtained.

The District had a fund balance deficit of $1.4 million at the end of the 2012-13 fiscal year due to operating deficits over multiple years. Over the past four fiscal years (2009-10 to 2012-13) and for the 2013-14 fiscal year, the Board has relied on fund balance to finance the budget, appropriating approximately $5 million each year. The Board and District officials overestimated expenditures and underestimated revenues, which allowed them to rollover unspent appropriated funds to fund the ensuing year's budget. However, these budgetary practices have reduced unexpended surplus funds from $2.5 million in the 2009-10 fiscal year to the point that the Board appropriated $1.4 million more than was available for the 2013-14 fiscal year. Because the Board has relied on fund balance over the past five years, the District had a recurring structural budget deficit. Although the Board reduced appropriations by over $2 million in the 2014-15 fiscal year budget, there is a risk that a significant structural gap remains that will need to be addressed. Finally, the Board has not developed a multiyear operational plan to provide a framework for future budgets and facilitate management of financial operations.

The Board planned operating deficits in its budgets for the 2009-10 through 2012-13 fiscal years and appropriated fund balance to help finance the ensuing year's operations. However, it underestimated revenues and overestimated expenditures when developing budgets, which caused the District to have operating surpluses totaling approximately $1.2 million for these four years rather than deficits. As a result, the District did not use the appropriated fund balance as intended and instead accumulated unexpended surplus funds at levels that were about 10 to 12 percent of the ensuing years' budgets, up to nearly three times greater than the amount allowed by law. We also found that the Board retained excessive amounts in the District's unemployment insurance reserve. These budgeting practices have resulted in taxpayers paying more than necessary to sustain District operations.

The Board did not adopt reasonable budgets. Budgeted appropriations were significantly higher than needed. As a result, the District's reported fund balance increased from approximately $8 million for the fiscal year ended 2009 to more than $14 million as of the fiscal year ended 2013. This significant increase in fund balance was caused by the District spending an aggregate of about $13.3 million less than budgeted. According to District officials, much of this operational surplus was planned to address the onset of large potential liabilities related to contract negotiations. Beginning in the 2008-09 fiscal year, the District was subject to very large claims to reduce the assessed value of properties within the District. In addition, one of the District's collective bargaining agreements expired twice, both times for more than a year. This left the District open to significant liabilities if the assessed values were reduced or if retroactive salaries needed to be paid upon the settlement of the collective bargaining agreements. While it was prudent for District officials to plan for potential liabilities, they did not develop a plan for the use of the surplus funds that may become available if the liabilities were not realized.