While the Board and BOCES officials properly established reserve funds, they did not transparently fund the reserves or use or maintain reserve funds at reasonable levels.

The City of Poughkeepsie Industrial Development Agency (CPIDA) Board did not properly evaluate and approve projects and monitor the performance of businesses that received financial benefits.

The Board did not properly manage and monitor the revolving loan fund program. As a result, the Board cannot ensure the loan proceeds were used to further the Corporation's mission.

Town officials did not ensure IT systems were adequately secured and protected against unauthorized use, access and loss. In addition to sensitive IT control weaknesses that we communicated confidentially to Town officials.

District officials did not always seek competition to procure goods and services not subject to competitive bidding.

While the 198 BOCES purchase card charges we reviewed were adequately supported and for valid purposes, only one was properly approved.

The Board and District officials did not adopt realistic budgets and did not properly manage fund balance.

The Board appropriated fund balance that was not needed to fund operations and was not transparent when funding reserves.

The Board and officials did not properly approve and monitor projects. Therefore, the Board could not effectively evaluate projects or hold project owners accountable.

The Supervisor did not maintain accurate accounting records and reports, and the Board could improve its oversight of financial operations.

Claims we reviewed were supported and for appropriate BOCES purposes. However, all claims were not audited or approved prior to payment. As a result, BOCES has a higher risk of inaccurate or improper payments occurring.

The Board and District officials did not properly manage fund balance and reserve funds.

We issued a report in May 2019 identifying certain conditions and opportunities related to cash receipts and disbursements for the Department management's review and consideration. Our audit included recommendations for the following findings: rental payments, disbursements made by the Treasurer and collections from the clothing organization, ambulance corporation and fundraising activities. To further our policy of providing assistance to local governments, we revisited the Department on February 22, 2022 to review progress in implementing our recommendations. Our follow-up review was limited to interviews with Department personnel and inspection of certain documents related to the issues identified in our report. Based on our limited procedures, it appears that the Department has made limited progress implementing corrective action. Of the 10 audit recommendations, one recommendation was implemented, three recommendations were partially implemented, and six recommendations were not implemented.

The Board and District officials did not effectively manage the District's financial condition. As a result, the District levied more taxes than needed to fund operations.

Certain compensation paid to District administrators and business office personnel was inaccurate and/or did not have proper supporting documentation.

District officials did not comply with statutory requirements or the District's procurement policy when purchasing goods and services. Also, claims did not have adequate supporting documentation and were not properly audited before they were paid.

BOCES officials did not ensure network access and IT assets were properly safeguarded from unauthorized use, access and loss. In addition, sensitive IT control weaknesses were communicated confidentially to officials.

The Board did not provide adequate oversight of financial operations.

District officials accurately paid salaries and wages but did not accurately pay unused leave benefits, and leave accruals were not proper.

District officials did not ensure network user accounts were adequately managed. In addition to sensitive information technology (IT) control weaknesses which we communicated confidentially to officials.

The Board did not establish adequate controls over financial activities to safeguard assets.

The Trustee and Treasurer did not demonstrate effective financial management.

District officials did not always seek competition for the purchase of goods and services not subject to competitive bidding. As a result, goods and services may not have been procured economically and in the best interest of taxpayers. We reviewed 30 purchases totaling $200,012 and expenditures for five professional service vendors totaling $171,446.

The Board did not always ensure that competition was sought in accordance with the procurement policies and procedures and competitive purchasing requirements. We examined purchases totaling $2.1 million, more than $586,000 was not competitively procured.

The Board ensured disbursements were supported and approved.