On
Click on the text
highlighted in color
to access both the summary and the complete audit report
Eaton No. 1 Fire District – Board Oversight (Madison County) District officials did not adequately monitor financial activities or keep appropriate records and reports. The board did not ensure basic accounting records were maintained or that it received written financial reports to manage operations or ensure bank reconciliations were performed. In addition, the board did not ensure that the district’s required annual financial reports were filed in a timely manner or conduct an annual audit of the secretary-treasurer’s accounting records for 2020 through 2022. The board also did not properly audit claims prior to payment. Of the 108 claims totaling $209,006 that auditors reviewed, 55 claims totaling $116,864 (56%) had one or more exceptions.
Neptune Hose Company No. 1 of Dryden, Inc. – Disbursements (Tompkins County) Company disbursements were not always supported or authorized prior to payment. Auditors reviewed 171 disbursements totaling $381,186 and determined that 34, totaling $30,126, were not processed in accordance with the company’s accounting manual. These disbursements had one or more issues, such as improperly authorized purchase orders or were unsupported. Twenty-three disbursements totaling $24,875 were improperly authorized, ten disbursements totaling $18,974 were approved after payment was made, six disbursements totaling $4,530 lacked a payment authorization date and seven disbursements totaling $1,371 were not adequately supported. In addition, sixteen disbursements totaling $6,564 lacked adequate support such as itemized receipts or invoices. Lastly, five company members received unsupported mileage reimbursements totaling $2,573. Because disbursements were not always authorized or supported, officials approved payments without having sufficient documentation.
City
of Amsterdam – Budget Review (Montgomery County) Based on the results of the review, the significant revenue
and expenditure projections in the city’s 2024-25 proposed budget are
reasonable. However, there were certain revenue and expenditure projections and
other matters that should be reviewed by the mayor and council. In addition,
city officials did not implement all of the recommendations in a previous
review letter when preparing the 2024-25 proposed budget. The mayor submitted
the 2024-25 proposed budget to the council on
###