On January 31, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the municipal audits listed below have been issued.
Click on the text highlighted in color to access the item posted on the Internet
Rensselaer
County Industrial Development Agency (RCIDA) – Payments in Lieu of Taxes
(2021M-74)
Officials did not ensure all PILOT agreements were properly billed, collected and distributed. Sixteen of the 62 bills reviewed were inaccurate because the county’s director of real property tax either used incorrect assessment values or tax rates and had an inconsistent payment calculation process that resulted in two projects being overbilled a total of $170,842 and two projects being underbilled a total of $184,474. Auditors also found that two taxing jurisdictions received $10,607 more than they should have while five others did not receive $24,239 that they should have.
Fairview
Fire District – Payroll and Leave Accruals (Dutchess County)
District officials did not ensure all employee payroll payments and leave accruals were accurate, monitored, properly approved and supported. This occurred because the board did not provide adequate oversight, segregate payroll duties or develop compensating controls or develop written policies and procedures for these duties. As a result, auditors determined that district officials made payroll calculation errors totaling $8,936 and potentially overpaid 11 employees by a total of $44,301 for leave accrual payments. Officials also paid five employees $55,407 in overtime payments that could have been avoided or reduced.
Town
of Chesterfield – Town Clerk (Essex County)
The clerk did not properly record, deposit, remit or report collections. As a result, officials do not have assurance that all collections are accounted for, and money could be lost or misappropriated. The clerk and deputy clerk did not record and issue receipts for collections totaling $18,289 received for 273 of 805 fees (34%). The clerk also did not prepare accurate monthly reports and remit collections to the supervisor and other agencies or prepare monthly bank reconciliations and accountability analyses which compare the amount of cash on hand and on deposit in the bank to detailed lists of amounts due to the supervisor and other agencies. Had the town board fulfilled its fiscal oversight responsibilities by conducting a thorough annual audit of the clerk’s records, the deficiencies identified may have been detected and addressed sooner.
Village
of Washingtonville – Budget Review (Orange County)
The scope of the review was significantly limited by the
lack of complete, accurate and current accounting records maintained by the
village. The village could face a shortfall of approximately $261,000 in sewer
rents and $123,000 in water rents if revenues are not realized. The 2025-26
tentative budget includes appropriations for personnel services of $3.3 million
for general, water and sewer funds combined, but it could have additional
expenditures when the village settles the police department’s expired
collective bargaining agreement. Auditors also project the village is
underestimating personnel services by approximately $21,000 for the water and
sewer funds. The budget includes appropriations of approximately $243,400 for
social security payments which are likely underestimated by approximately
$21,200. The village has also underestimated health insurance payments for at
least the last two fiscal years. The budget includes a $75,000 general fund
contingency, which is less than 1% of the village’s general fund budgeted
appropriations and a decrease of $25,000 from the 2024-25 adopted budget.
During the review of the village’s proposed budget, auditors were provided with
the village’s tentative budget 30 days before the scheduled vote, as required.
However, the village posted a conflicting budget to its website six days later.
As some of the differences between budgets were significant, such as a $32,471
difference in real property taxes, auditors chose to rely on the proposed
budget that was posted to the village's website, as that was the version
presented to the public. By not providing accurate budgeted figures timely for
the review, the village hinders auditors’ ability to examine the tentative
budget and make recommendations to help improve the village’s financial
condition. The budget includes a tax levy of $5.4 million. Similar to the
revenue and expenditure estimates, the lack of complete, accurate, and current
accounting and financial records precludes auditors from concluding on the
village’s tax cap compliance.
###