The Board did not provide adequate oversight of the Treasurer's financial operations.

District officials did not establish adequate controls over network user accounts and settings.

The Board did not ensure that non-payroll disbursements were appropriately procured, properly audited and approved, adequately supported and for valid District purposes.

District officials did not always use a competitive process to procure goods, services or professional services or ensure no conflicts of interest existed.

District officials did not establish adequate controls over the District's user accounts to prevent unauthorized use, access and/or loss.

The Board and officials did not properly approve and monitor projects or take action when goals were not met.

The Supervisor did not maintain complete, accurate and timely financial records and reports, and the Board did not ensure there were no prohibited conflicts of interest.

The Board did not provide appropriate oversight and management of budgets and fund balance, or ensure annual audits were completed. More real property taxes were assessed than necessary to fund operations each year.

The Board did not effectively manage the District's financial condition and presented budgets that gave taxpayers the impression that the District needed to both increase real property taxes and use appropriated fund balance to close projected budget gaps. As a result, more real property taxes were levied than needed to fund operations.

City officials properly planned and monitored the Project.

The Village's check signing process does not comply with Village policy. The Village Treasurer (Treasurer) did not maintain control of her electronic signature.

District officials did not implement adequate IT controls over the District Office's network to safeguard personal, private and sensitive information (PPSI).

District officials did not solicit competition for professional services.

The Board did not effectively manage fund balance.

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

The Board and District officials did not ensure the IT assets and data were safeguarded.

The Clerk properly recorded all the fees we reviewed and remitted all fees collected during the audit period in a timely manner. However, the Clerk did not always deposit fees within the required time frame.

The Office of the State Comptroller, as Fiscal Agent for the City of Yonkers (City), determined that the City's adopted budget for fiscal year 2021-22 and the related justification documents are in material compliance with the requirements of the Fiscal Agent Act (Chapter 488 of the Laws of 1976, as amended) (Act) and the City's bond covenants incorporating provisions of the Act. However, we wish to comment on the following issues which impact the City's financial condition in the current and future years.

District officials did not maintain complete, accurate and timely accounting records and reports to allow officials to effectively manage financial operations and capital projects, and Board oversight was lacking.

The Board did not effectively manage the Town's financial condition and was unaware of the Town's true financial position when it adopted budgets because it did not receive accurate financial information from the Town Supervisor.

Town officials did not adequately safeguard Town IT assets and failed to implement the recommendations we made in 2013 to adopt comprehensive IT security policies and monitor computer use.

The Council and City officials did not adopt structurally balanced budgets, properly monitor the City's financial operations or take appropriate actions to maintain the City's fiscal stability. As a result, the City has significant fiscal stress.

The Board generally developed realistic budgets. However, the budgets were not structurally balanced

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

The Board and District officials did not ensure IT systems were adequately secured and protected.