On June 30, 2025 New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli announced the following local government and school audits have been posted on the Internet.
Click on the text highlighted in color to access these audits
Livonia Central School District – Conflict of Interest (Livingston County)
A board member, who resigned on May 31, 2022, had prohibited interests in district contracts pursuant to New York State General Municipal Law. The board member’s physical therapy company entered into six contracts with the district while he was a board member that resulted in payments totaling $724,869 from Aug. 5, 2017 through Dec. 19, 2022. In addition, the former superintendent’s outside employment created an appearance of impropriety. The former superintendent resigned on July 15, 2022. The former superintendent informed district administrators and staff of products and services provided by vendors that were recruited by, and partnered with, a company he partially owned. District officials contracted with 18 of these vendors, for a total cost of $656,579, of which $146,825 related to unnecessary or unused services. The district lacked a formal procedure for identifying and reporting potential conflicts of interest until June 2021. As a result, district officials were not familiar with requirements of New York State General Municipal Law as they relate to conflicts of interest. District officials did not fully understand the steps necessary to disclose a conflict and what constituted a prohibited conflict of interest. Had such procedures been in place, the conflicts of interest may have been avoided.
Churchville-Chili Central School District – Procurement (Monroe County)
District officials did not ensure goods and services related to capital improvement projects’ (CIP) contracts were competitively procured in accordance with the district’s procurement policies or the law. As a result, officials cannot assure taxpayers the 12 CIP contracts entered – valued at approximately $36.6 million – were procured in the most prudent and economical manner and without favoritism. Specifically, officials responsible for purchasing did not advertise in the district’s official newspaper, as required by law, for nine CIP contracts totaling $32.6 million. Officials also did not demonstrate that prior to awarding three contracts, totaling approximately $4 million, through a group purchasing agency, they had reviewed the contracts to ensure the district was permitted to award the contracts pursuant to the “piggybacking” exception set forth in the law. Officials also did not competitively bid for moving and storage services totaling $35,535.
Moravia Central School District – Lead Testing and Reporting (Cayuga County)
District officials did not properly identify, report or implement needed remediation to reduce lead exposure in all potable water outlets as required by state law and Department of Health regulations. Auditors determined 98 of the 303 (32%) water outlets were not sampled or properly exempted by district officials during Cycle Two. This occurred because district officials did not have a sampling plan to identify all water outlets for sampling or exemption. District officials also did not have a remedial action plan that detailed which water outlets they exempted from sampling and how they would be secured against use, and what remedial actions were planned or enacted. Because there is no information on the lead levels of the 98 water outlets not sampled for testing, auditors were unable to determine whether officials identified and remediated all water outlets that would have required it.
North Amityville Fire Company, Inc. – Audit Follow-Up (Suffolk County)
The purpose of the review was to assess the North Amityville Fire Company’s progress, as of June 2024, in implementing our recommendations in an audit report released in April 2023. The audit determined that the board did not ensure that all cash disbursements were for appropriate company purposes or supported. The audit included 10 recommendations to help officials ensure cash disbursements are appropriate and supported. It appears that company officials have made significant progress in ensuring cash disbursements are supported and for company business activities. However, company officials can take further actions to strengthen the controls over the company’s disbursements processes. Of the 10 audit recommendations, four recommendations were fully implemented, and six recommendations were not implemented.
###