monticello central school district - budgeting...following is a report of our audit of the...

of 17 /17
D IVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT & SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY O FFICE OF THE N EW Y ORK S TATE C OMPTROLLER Report of Examination Period Covered: July 1, 2012 — October 2, 2013 2014M-97 Monticello Central School District Budgeting Thomas P. DiNapoli

Author: others

Post on 11-Aug-2020

0 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • Division of LocaL Government & schooL accountabiLity

    o f f i c e o f t h e n e w y o r k s t a t e c o m p t r o L L e r

    report of ExaminationPeriod Covered:

    July 1, 2012 — October 2, 2013

    2014M-97

    Monticello Central School District

    Budgeting

    thomas p. Dinapoli

  • 11Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    Page

    AUTHORITY LETTER 2

    INTRODUCTION 3 Background 3 Objective 3 Scope and Methodology 3 CommentsofDistrictOfficialsandCorrectiveAction 3

    BUDGETING 5 Recommendations 8

    APPENDIX A Relevant Demographics 9 APPENDIX B ResponseFromDistrictOfficials 10APPENDIX C OSC Comments on the District’s Response 13APPENDIX D AuditMethodologyandStandards 14APPENDIX E HowtoObtainAdditionalCopiesoftheReport 15APPENDIX F LocalRegionalOfficeListing 16

    Table of Contents

  • 2 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller2

    State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller

    Division of Local Governmentand School Accountability September2014

    DearSchoolDistrictOfficials:

    AtoppriorityoftheOfficeoftheStateComptrolleristohelpschooldistrictofficialsmanagetheirdistrictsefficientlyandeffectivelyand,bysodoing,provideaccountabilityfor taxdollarsspent tosupportdistrictoperations.TheComptrolleroverseesthefiscalaffairsofdistrictsstatewide,aswellascompliancewithrelevantstatutesandobservanceofgoodbusinesspractices.Thisfiscaloversightisaccomplished,inpart,throughouraudits,whichidentifyopportunitiesforimprovingoperationsandBoardofEducationgovernance.Auditsalsocanidentifystrategiestoreducecostsandtostrengthencontrols intended to safeguard district assets.

    Following is a report of our audit of theMonticello Central School District, entitled Budgeting.This auditwas conducted pursuant toArticleV, Section 1 of theStateConstitution and theStateComptroller’sauthorityassetforthinArticle3oftheGeneralMunicipalLaw.

    This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for district officials to use in effectivelymanagingoperationsandinmeetingtheexpectationsoftheirconstituents.Ifyouhavequestionsaboutthisreport,pleasefeelfreetocontactthelocalregionalofficeforyourcounty,aslistedattheendofthis report.

    Respectfullysubmitted,

    Office of the State ComptrollerDivision of Local Governmentand School Accountability

    State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller

  • 33Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    Background

    Introduction

    Objective

    Scope andMethodology

    Comments ofDistrict Officials andCorrective Action

    The Monticello Central School District (District) is located in the Towns of Bethel, Fallsburgh, Forestburgh, Mamakating andThompson in Sullivan County. The District is governed by the Board of Education (Board) which comprises nine elected members. The Board is responsible for the general management and control of the District’sfinancial and educational affairs and adopting the annualbudget, which is prepared by various District officials, includingthe District BusinessAdministrator (BusinessAdministrator). TheSuperintendent of Schools (Superintendent) is the chief executiveofficeroftheDistrictandisresponsible,alongwithotheradministrativestaff,fortheday-to-daymanagementoftheDistrictunderthedirectionof the Board. The current Superintendent started with the District in August2011,andthecurrentBusinessAdministratorstartedwiththeDistrictinSeptember2011.

    The District’s general fund budgeted appropriations for the 2013-14 school year totaled $80,186,419, which were funded primarilywith real property taxes and State aid. The District operates fiveschools,withapproximately3,100studentsand600employees.TheDistrict’s employees are represented under nine collective bargaining agreements.TwoagreementsexpiredasofJune30,2011andremainedunsettleduntilJuly2012andNovember2013,respectively.

    The objective of our audit was to review the District’s financialcondition.Ourauditaddressedthefollowingrelatedquestion:

    • DidtheBoardandDistrictofficialsadoptreasonablebudgets?

    WeexaminedthefinancialconditionoftheDistrictfortheperiodJuly1,2012throughOctober2,2013.ToanalyzetheDistrict’shistoricalfinancialconditionandreserves,weextendedourauditscopeperiodbacktoJuly1,2009andprojectedforwardthroughJune30,2014.

    We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS). More information onsuch standards and the methodology used in performing this audit is includedinAppendixDofthisreport.

    The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed withDistrictofficialsandtheircomments,whichappearinAppendixB, have been considered in preparing this report. Except asspecifiedinAppendixB,Districtofficialsgenerallyagreedwithourrecommendations and indicated that they plan to initiate corrective

  • 4 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller4

    action.AppendixCincludesourcommentsontheissuesraisedintheDistrict’s response letter.

    The Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Pursuant toSection35of theGeneralMunicipalLaw,Section2116-a(3)(c)oftheEducationLawandSection170.12oftheRegulationsoftheCommissionerofEducation,awrittencorrectiveactionplan(CAP)that addresses the findings and recommendations in this reportmustbepreparedandforwardedtoourofficewithin90days,withacopyforwardedtotheCommissionerofEducation.Totheextentpracticable, implementation of theCAPmust begin by the end ofthe next fiscal year. Formore information on preparing and filingyourCAP,pleaserefertoourbrochure,Responding to an OSC Audit Report,whichyou receivedwith thedraft audit report.TheBoardshould make the CAP available for public review in the DistrictClerk’soffice.

  • 55Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    Budgeting

    TheBoardandDistrictofficialsareresponsibleforadoptingbudgetsthat contain realistic estimates of expenditures and the resourcesavailable to fund them and for ensuring that fund balance does not exceedtheamountallowedbylaw.Estimatesofexpenditures(i.e.,appropriations) should be based on known needs as well as historical trends. Similarly, revenue estimates should be based on knownsources of revenue reflective of any identified trends.The surplusaccumulated over time by District operations (i.e., unexpendedsurplus fund balance1) duetorevenuesexceedingexpendituresisnotallowed to exceed 4 percent of the ensuing year’s appropriations,whichisthelegallimitestablishedbyNewYorkStateRealPropertyTaxLaw.Excessunexpendedsurplusfundbalancemaybeusedtoreducetaxleviesorestablishvariouslegalreservestofinancecertainfutureexpenditures(asdefinedbyeachreserve).TheBoardshouldestablishpoliciesrelatingtoreserves,definingwhichreserveswouldbe established along with the reasonable funding amounts.

    TheBoardandDistrictofficialscouldhaveadoptedmorereasonablebudgets.Thebudget estimates for revenues and expenditures havenot been aligned with historical or actual needs of the District. This resultedinputtinganunnecessaryburdenontaxpayers.From2009-10to2012-13,theDistrictspentanaverageof$6millionlessthanbudgetedandreceived$2.3millionmoreinrevenuethanbudgeted.

    Table 1: Budget Variances2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13a Average

    Revenue Variance (Budget vs. Actual) $1,602,386 $2,140,887 $2,523,544 $2,919,864 $2,296,670

    Expenditure Variance (Budget vs. Actual) $7,550,837 $7,197,087 $5,935,161 $3,284,899 $5,991,996

    Total Variance $9,153,223 $9,337,974 $8,458,705 $6,204,763 $8,288,666 aThefirstbudgetpreparedbythecurrentSuperintendentandBusinessAdministratorwasforfiscalyear2012-13.

    ____________________1 The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) issued Statement54,whichreplacesthefundbalanceclassificationsofreservedandunreservedwithnewclassifications:nonspendable,restrictedandunrestricted(comprisingcommitted, assigned and unassigned funds). The requirements of Statement54 are effective for fiscal years ending June 30, 2011 and beyond. To easecomparabilitybetweenfiscalyearsendingbeforeandaftertheimplementationofStatement54,wewilluse the term“unexpendedsurplusfunds” torefer tothatportionof fundbalance thatwasclassifiedasunreserved,unappropriated(priortoStatement54)andisnowclassifiedasunrestricted,minusappropriatedfundbalance, amounts reserved for insurance recovery and tax reduction andencumbrancesincludedincommittedandassignedfundbalance(post-Statement54).

  • 6 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller6

    These revenue variances were primarily caused by consistently underestimatingBOCESrefunds(averageof$1.7millionvariance).Theexpenditurevarianceswerecausedbyoverestimatingexpendituresrelatedtoteaching-regularschool(averageof$1.4millionvariance),program for students with disabilities services (average of $1.4million variance), transportation services (average of $584,000variance)andplantoperation(averageof$497,000variance).

    WhileDistrictofficialsplannedforoperatingdeficitsfrom2009-10through2012-13averaging$6.4million,tobefundedbyunexpendedsurplusfunds,thebudgetshaveprovidedsurpluses.Therefore,thesefundswerenotneeded.AlthoughDistrictofficialshavetakenstepsandhavelessenedoperatingsurplusesfrom$3.4millionin2009-10tolessthan$615,000in2012-13,unexpendedsurplusfundbalancehas continued to grow.

    2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13Planned Results of Operations -

    Surplus/(Deficit) $(5,757,225) $(7,030,000) $(7,052,000) $(5,590,000)

    Actual Results of Operations -Surplus/(Deficit) $3,395,898 $2,307,481 $1,406,486 $614,763

    $(8)

    $(6)

    $(4)

    $(2)

    $-

    $2

    $4

    Mill

    ions

    Table 2: Results of Operations - Planned vs. Actual

    The2013-14budgethadaplannedoperatingdeficitof$5.5million,but the District will end the year with a projected operating surplus of$2.5million,furtherincreasingthesurplus.Currently,therearenoBoard policies relating to reserves and reasonable balances.

    ThoughDistrictofficialsreviewedandadjustedthefundinglevelsofsomeoftheDistrict’sreserves,othersremainedfundedatlevelsthatwerehigherthannecessary.Theadoptedbudgetssincethe2009-10fiscal year included appropriations relating to the purposes of twoofthosereserves:workers’compensationclaimsandunemploymentinsurance. For example, as of June 30, 2013, the workers’compensationreservehadabalanceofapproximately$2.6million,whichwouldbe enough to fund threeyears of expendituresbasedontheDistrict’sfour-yearaverageannualexpenditures.Inaddition,theunemploymentinsurancereservehadabalanceofapproximately$1.1millionasof June30,2013,whichwouldbe enough to fundsevenyearsofexpendituresbasedontheDistrict’sfour-yearaverageannualexpenditures.

  • 77Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    Our analysis comparing historical actual expenditures to adoptedbudgetsidentifiedthatpreviousbudgetswerenotpreparedbasedonprioryears’actualresults.Moreover,whilethebudgetforfiscalyear2012-13wasthefirstbudgetpreparedbythecurrentSuperintendentand BusinessAdministrator and budgeted amounts were closer toactualresults thaninprioryears, thebudgetedamountsstillvariedfromactualamountsbymorethan$6.2million.TheSuperintendentand Business Administrator stated that, while they identified thesignificance of the accumulated unexpended surplus fund balance,they intended to decrease the balance through gradual changes in ordertoavoidanynegativeeffectscausedbyover-adjustingbudgetedamounts,includingfuturerestrictionsrelatingtothetaxcap.2ABoardmember told us the Board was conservative in budgeting because of the perceived likelihood of a new local casino. She stated the Board anticipated future costs due to increased enrollment. Furthermore,accordingtotheBusinessAdministrator,theworkers’compensationreserve is being maintained in case there is a substantial employee injuryastheDistrict’sworkers’compensationexpendituresaredirectpaymentofclaimsfromtheresultofwork-relatedinjuries.However,she did state that she has not yet had the opportunity to review the funding of the unemployment insurance reserve.

    As a result of poor budgeting practices, unexpended surplus fundbalance as a percentage of the ensuing year’s budgeted appropriations hasgrownfrom8.4percentasofJune30,2010to17.6percentasofJune30,2013andislikelytocontinuetorise.Addingtheoverfundedamount of the reserve balances would further increase this percentage. Furthermore,duetoanotherunexpectedoperatingsurplusin2013-14,thispercentagewilllikelybeevengreater,andthe$5.5millionof appropriated fund balance in the 2013-14 budgetwould not beneeded.Ifthisappropriatedfundbalancehadbeenincludedintheunexpended surplus fund balance, the percentage would be 24.5percent. District officials indicated they plan to create additionalreserve funds, such as a capital reserve and an equipment reserve,whichwilldecreasetheamountofunexpendedsurplusfundbalance.

    WeconcludethattheincreasesintheDistrict’srealpropertytaxlevybetweenthefiscalyearsended2010through2013wereunnecessary.

    ____________________2 In 2011, the State Legislature enacted a law establishing a property tax levylimit,generally referred toas theproperty taxcap.Under this legislation, thepropertytaxleviedannuallygenerallycannotincreasemorethan2percent,ortherateofinflation,whicheverislower,withsomeexceptions.Schooldistrictsmayoverridethetaxlevylimitbypresentingthevotersabudgetthatrequiresataxlevythatexceedsthestatutorylimit.However,thatbudgetmustbeapprovedby60percentofthevotescast.

  • 8 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller8

    Recommendations

    Table 3: Change in Real Property Tax Levy vs. Surplus Results of Operations2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

    Change in Tax Levy (including STAR) $1,007,043 $705,747 $2,612,323 $859,349 $5,184,462

    Results of operations $3,395,898 $2,307,481 $1,406,486 $614,763 $7,724,628

    The aggregate operational surpluses were more than $2.5 millionovertheincreasesintherealpropertytaxleviesforthesameyears.Ifrealpropertytaxeswerereducedbyjust80percentoftheamountofappropriatedfundbalance,anaveragetaxpayerintheDistrictwouldhavesaved$558ontheirrealpropertytaxbill,assumingahomewithanassessedvalueof$179,000.3Theseunnecessaryrealpropertytaxlevies are particularly disconcerting given the District’s demographic profile,where30.5percentof children in theDistrict are living inpovertyascomparedtothestatewideaverageof21.3percent.4

    1. The Board and District officials should develop realisticbudgets that are consistent with the District’s actual revenues andexpenditurestoavoidraisingmorerealpropertytaxesthannecessary.

    2. The Board should ensure that the amount of the District’s unexpended surplus fund balance is in compliance with RealProperty Tax Law statutory limits and reduce the amount ofunexpended surplus fund balance in a manner that benefitsDistrict taxpayers.Suchusescould include,butarenot limitedto,usingsurplus fundsasafinancingsource, fundingone-timeexpendituresorfundingappropriatereserves.

    3. TheBoardshouldreviewallreservebalancesandtransferexcessfundstounrestrictedfundbalance,whereallowedbylaw,orotherreserves established and maintained in compliance with statutory directives.Also, theBoard should establishpolicies relating toreserves, defining which reserves would be established alongwith the reasonable funding amounts.

    ____________________3 Inordertodistributeschooldistricttaxesamongmultiplemunicipalities,thelevelofassessmentofeachmunicipalitymustbeequalizedtofullmarketvalue.Thisvaluereportedwouldbethefullassessedvalueafteradjustingforequalizationratesinthedifferenttownsandvillages.Therefore,actualsavingswouldvarydependingonwhichtownthetaxpayerlivedin.

    4 United States Census Bureau 2012 small area income and poverty estimates(SAIPE) Program – www.census.gov. For additional demographics relating to SullivanCounty,seeAppendixA.

  • 99Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    APPENDIX A

    RELEVANT DEMOGRAPHICS

    The following data has been included in this report to further detail the demographic and economic profileoftheDistrictandsurroundingarealocatedinSullivanCounty.5

    • Thetotalrateofpersonsbelowthepovertylevelwas17.2percent,comparedto14.9percentforNewYorkState.

    • 11.7percentofhouseholdsreceivedSupplementalNutritionAssistanceProgram/foodstampbenefitswithintheprior12months,comparedto13.5percentforNewYorkState.However,other indicators indicate a higher poverty level in the County than the rest of the State.

    • Themedianhouseholdincome(from2008-2012)was$48,050,comparedto$57,683forNewYorkState.

    • 51.7percentofhouseholdsearnlessthan$50,000ofannualincome,comparedto44percentforNewYorkState.

    • The homeownership ratewas 66.5 percent, compared to 54.5 percent forNewYorkState.However,themedianvalueislower.

    • Themedianvalueofowner-occupiedhousingunitswas$179,500,comparedto$295,300forNewYorkState.

    ____________________5 Sullivan County demographic information as per United States Census Bureau located at www.census.gov

  • 10 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller10

    APPENDIX B

    RESPONSE FROM DISTRICT OFFICIALS

    TheDistrictofficials’responsetothisauditcanbefoundonthefollowingpages.

  • 1111Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    See Note1 Page13

    SeeNote4 Page13

    SeeNote2 Page13

    SeeNote3 Page13

    SeeNote 2Patge13

  • 12 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller12

    See Note3Page13

  • 1313Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    APPENDIX C

    OSC COMMENTS ON THE DISTRICT’S RESPONSE

    Note1

    Asstatedinthereport,toanalyzetheDistrict’shistoricalfinancialconditionandreserves,weextendedourauditscopeperiodbacktoJuly1,2009andforwardthroughJune30,2014.

    Note2

    Ourauditreviewedfivefiscalyearsfrom2009-10through2013-14,andthefirstbudgetpreparedbythecurrentSuperintendentandBusinessAdministratorwasforfiscalyear2012-13.

    Note3

    From2009-10to2012-13,theDistrictspentanaverageof$6millionlessthanbudgetedandreceived$2.3millionmoreinrevenuethanbudgeted.Additionally,the2013-14budgethadaplannedoperatingdeficitof$5.5million,buttheDistrictendedtheyearwithanoperatingsurplusof$2.5million.Thesesignificantlylargebudgetingvariancesandresultingoperatingsurplusesdonotdemonstrateapatternof realistic budgeting practices.

    Note4

    Considering that the District did not need to use any appropriated fund balance during any of our scopeperiod,morerealisticbudgetestimatesmayhaveenabledabetteruseoffundbalancetofundoperationsinsteadofincreasingrealpropertytaxeseveryyear.

  • 14 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller14

    APPENDIX D

    AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

    Toaccomplishourauditobjective,weinterviewedappropriateDistrictofficialsandemployees,testedselectedrecordsandexaminedpertinentdocumentsfortheperiodJuly1,2012throughOctober2,2013.ToanalyzetheDistrict’shistoricalfinancialconditionandreserves,weextendedourauditscopeperiodbacktoJuly1,2009andprojectedforwardthroughJune30,2014.Ourexaminationincludedthefollowing:

    • Weidentifiedanddocumentedrelevantbackgroundanddemographicinformationrelatedtothe District and Sullivan County.

    • WereviewedandassessedtheeffectivenessoftheDistrict’sbudgetdevelopmentprocessfrom2009-10through2012-13.

    • We compared budgeted revenues and expenditures to actual results from 2009-10 through2012-13.

    • WeusedtheDistrict’s2013-14fundbalanceprojectionreporttodeterminetheprojectedresultsofoperationsfortheyearinordertoquantifytheexpectedoperatingsurplusordeficitasofJune30,2014.

    • WecalculatedtheDistrict’sresultsofoperationsfrom2009-10through2012-13andidentifiedall relevant trends.

    • Wedocumentedthereportedunexpendedsurplusfundbalancesfrom2009-10through2012-13andcalculatedthosebalancesasapercentageoftheensuingyears’appropriations.

    • Weassessed theappropriationanduseofunexpendedsurplus funds from2009-10 through2012-13.

    • WedeterminedandassessedthereasonablenessoffundinglevelsoftheDistrict’sreservesasofJune30,2013.

    • WeidentifiedtrendsintheDistrict’srealpropertytaxleviesfrom2009-10through2012-13andcalculatedthepotentialeffectofusingunexpendedsurplusfundstolowertaxlevyamounts.

    WeconductedthisperformanceauditinaccordancewithGAGAS.Thosestandardsrequirethatweplanandperform theaudit toobtainsufficient,appropriateevidence toprovidea reasonablebasisforourfindingsandconclusionsbasedonourauditobjective.Webelievethattheevidenceobtainedprovidesareasonablebasisforourfindingsandconclusionsbasedonourauditobjective.

  • 1515Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

    APPENDIX E

    HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT

    OfficeoftheStateComptrollerPublicInformationOffice110StateStreet,15thFloorAlbany,NewYork12236(518)474-4015http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/

    Toobtaincopiesofthisreport,writeorvisitourwebpage:

  • 16 Office Of the New YOrk State cOmptrOller16

    APPENDIX FOFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER

    DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTAND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITYAndrewA.SanFilippo,ExecutiveDeputyComptroller

    GabrielF.Deyo,DeputyComptrollerNathaalieN.Carey,AssistantComptroller

    LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING

    BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICEH.ToddEames,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerStateOfficeBuilding-Suite170244HawleyStreetBinghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Broome,Chenango,Cortland,Delaware,Otsego,Schoharie,Sullivan,Tioga,TompkinsCounties

    BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICEJeffreyD.Mazula,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptroller295MainStreet,Suite1032Buffalo,NewYork14203-2510(716)847-3647Fax(716)847-3643Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Allegany,Cattaraugus,Chautauqua,Erie,Genesee,Niagara,Orleans,WyomingCounties

    GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICEJeffreyP.Leonard,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerOneBroadStreetPlazaGlensFalls,NewYork12801-4396(518)793-0057Fax(518)793-5797Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Albany,Clinton,Essex,Franklin,Fulton,Hamilton,Montgomery,Rensselaer,Saratoga,Schenectady,Warren,WashingtonCounties

    HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICEIraMcCracken,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerNYSOfficeBuilding,Room3A10250VeteransMemorialHighwayHauppauge,NewYork11788-5533(631)952-6534Fax(631)952-6530Email:[email protected]

    Serving:NassauandSuffolkCounties

    NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICETennehBlamah,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptroller33AirportCenterDrive,Suite103NewWindsor,NewYork12553-4725(845)567-0858Fax(845)567-0080Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Columbia,Dutchess,Greene,Orange,Putnam,Rockland,Ulster,WestchesterCounties

    ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICEEdwardV.Grant,Jr.,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerThe Powers Building16WestMainStreet–Suite522Rochester,NewYork14614-1608(585)454-2460Fax(585)454-3545Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Cayuga,Chemung,Livingston,Monroe,Ontario,Schuyler,Seneca,Steuben,Wayne,YatesCounties

    SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICERebeccaWilcox,ChiefExaminerOfficeoftheStateComptrollerStateOfficeBuilding,Room409333 E. Washington StreetSyracuse,NewYork13202-1428(315)428-4192Fax(315)426-2119Email:[email protected]

    Serving:Herkimer,Jefferson,Lewis,Madison,Oneida,Onondaga,Oswego,St.LawrenceCounties

    STATEWIDE AUDITSAnnC.Singer,ChiefExaminerStateOfficeBuilding-Suite170244HawleyStreetBinghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313

    Table of ContentsAuthority LetterIntroductionBackgroundObjectiveScope and MethodologyComments of District Officials and Corrective Action

    BudgetingRecommendaitons

    AppendicesRelevant DemographicsResponse from District OfficialsOSC Comments on the District's ResponseAudit Methodology and StandardsHow to Obtain Additional Copies of the ReportOSC Local Regional Office Listing