Town of Dannemora - osc.state.ny.us

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:

January 1, 2007 — May 31, 2013

2013M-230

Town of DannemoraTown Hall/Highway

Garage Capital Project

thomas p. Dinapoli

11Division of LocaL Government anD schooL accountabiLity

Page

AUTHORITY LETTER 2

INTRODUCTION 3 Background 3 Objective 4 Scope and Methodology 4 CommentsofLocalOfficialsandCorrectiveAction 4

TOWN HALL/HIGHWAY GARAGE CAPITAL PROJECT 5 Board Oversight 5 Capital Project Procurement 9 Recommendations 12

APPENDIX A ResponseFromLocalOfficials 13APPENDIX B AuditMethodologyandStandards 16APPENDIX C HowtoObtainAdditionalCopiesoftheReport 17APPENDIX D LocalRegionalOfficeListing 18

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 December 2013

DearTownOfficials:

A toppriorityof theOfficeof theStateComptroller is tohelp localgovernmentofficialsmanagegovernment resources efficiently and effectively and, by so doing, provide accountability for taxdollarsspenttosupportgovernmentoperations.TheComptrolleroverseesthefiscalaffairsoflocalgovernmentsstatewide,aswellascompliancewithrelevantstatutesandobservanceofgoodbusinesspractices.Thisfiscaloversightisaccomplished,inpart,throughouraudits,whichidentifyopportunitiesforimprovingoperationsandTownBoardgovernance.Auditsalsocanidentifystrategiestoreducecosts and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.

FollowingisareportofourauditoftheTownofDannemora,entitledTownHall/HighwayGarageCapitalProject.ThisauditwasconductedpursuanttoArticleV,Section1oftheStateConstitutionandtheStateComptroller’sauthorityassetforthinArticle3oftheGeneralMunicipalLaw.

This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for local government officials to use ineffectivelymanagingoperationsand inmeeting theexpectationsof their constituents. Ifyouhavequestionsaboutthisreport,pleasefeelfreetocontactthelocalregionalofficeforyourcounty,aslistedat the end of this report.

Respectfullysubmitted,

Office of the State ComptrollerDivision of Local Governmentand School Accountability

State of New YorkOffice of the State Comptroller


Background

Introduction

The Town of Dannemora (Town) is located in Clinton County. The Townhasapproximately5,100residentsandprovidesvariousservicesto its residents such as road maintenance, snow plowing, youthrecreation,waterandsewer.Theseservicesarefinancedmainlybyrealpropertytaxes,waterandsewerrentsandStateaid.TheTown’s2013budgetedappropriationswereapproximately$2million.

The Town is governed by an elected five-member Town Board(Board) comprising a Town Supervisor (Supervisor) and four Board members. The Board is responsible for general oversight of the Town’s fiscal activities and safeguarding its resources. The Supervisor,as chief fiscal officer, is responsible for maintaining accountingrecordsandreporting theTown’sfinancialactivity.TheSupervisorhas an appointed bookkeeper who is responsible for maintaining the accounting records, reconciling bank statements and preparingpayrollsandvariousfinancialreports. TheBoardestablishedaTownHallcapitalreservefundin1997forreconstructionand/orrepairsoftheTownHallandfundeditannuallyby an appropriation in the general fund budget. During 2008, theBoardapprovedafive-yearcapitalplantobuildastructureforanewTownHallandhighwaygarage(leftphoto).InMay2008,theTownused capital reserve funds to purchase an unassembled steel building that was stored until the spring of 2010 when construction started. The highway garage section was completed in September 2011 and construction on the Town Hall side (right photo)1 is planned to be completed in December 2013.

____________________1PhotostakenApril2013


Comments ofLocal Officials andCorrective Action

Scope andMethodology

Objective TheobjectiveofourauditwastoexaminetheTown’smanagementoftheTownHall/highwaygaragecapitalproject.Ourauditaddressedthefollowingrelatedquestion:

• Did the Board properly plan for and provide sufficientoversightandmanagementoftheTownHall/highwaygaragecapital project?

WeexaminedtheBoard’soversightoftheTownHall/highwaycapitalprojectfortheperiodJanuary1,2007throughMay31,2013.

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 includedinAppendixBofthisreport.

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed withTownofficialsandtheircomments,whichappearinAppendixA, have been considered in preparing this report. Town officialsgenerally agreed with our recommendations and indicated they have taken or planned to take corrective action.

The Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Awrittencorrectiveactionplan(CAP)thataddressesthefindingsandrecommendations in this report should be prepared and forwarded toourofficewithin90days,pursuanttoSection35oftheGeneralMunicipalLaw.FormoreinformationonpreparingandfilingyourCAP, please refer to our brochure, Responding to an OSC Audit Report,whichyoureceivedwiththedraftauditreport.Weencouragethe Town Board to make this plan available for public review in the TownClerk’soffice.


Town Hall/Highway Garage Capital Project

Capital projects are generally long-term and require large sumsofmoney to acquire, develop, improve ormaintain various facilities.The Board is responsible for oversight and management of the Town’s capital projects, including establishing effective internalcontrols to help ensure that capital projects are properly planned and managed,projectfundingisauthorizedandcostsarekeptwithintheapprovedbudget,minimizingthepossibilityofcostoverrunswhichcouldhaveanegativeimpactonTownfinances.In2008,theTownBoardapprovedafive-yearcapitalplantoconstructanewTownHall/highwaygarageatanestimatedcostof$602,620.Constructionbeganin the spring of 2010.

Between 2009 and 2013, the Board expanded the scope of thisproject2 and increased the project budget from the original estimate of $602,620 to $3,000,000.As ofMay 2013, project expenditurestotaled over $2.2 million. The remaining work is scheduled forcompletion inDecember 2013 and is expected to incur additionalcosts.BecauseTownofficialsdidnotdevelopacomprehensiveplanattheonsetoftheproject,detailinghowtheconstructionwouldbecompletedwithavailableTownresources,theydidnotdeterminetheextenttowhichtheywouldneedtousecontractservicesanddidnotproperly plan and budget for them. Further, they did notmonitorexpendituresagainstestimatedcosts.TheTownalsodidnotbudgetfor over $400,000 in architectural and engineering services andmay have incurred unnecessary costs by not complying with certain bidding requirements and not soliciting competitive proposals for architectural services.

The Board is ultimately responsible for the oversight and management of the Town’s capital projects. This responsibility includes establishing adequate controls to ensure that costs charged against projects are appropriate, projects are completed in timely manner, sufficientsupportingdocumentationisavailabletoverifyprojectcosts,andanyamendments to project plans are valid and subjected to Board review and approval. Additionally, the Board should regularly monitorthe project by reviewing periodic progress reports that include the amounts originally budgeted, any authorized amendments, actualrevenuesandexpenditurestodateandavailableappropriations.TheBoard is also responsible for ensuring that the Town complies with applicable State laws pertaining to competitive bidding.

____________________2 TheTowninitiallyintendedtobuildtheTownHall/highwaygaragewithinternalresourcesandthroughcooperativeagreementswithothertowns,butsubsequentlyexpandedtheprojectscopetocompetitivelybiddingtheconstruction.

Board Oversight


Planning and Budgeting — Proper planning of a capital improvement project requires a thorough understanding of the project’s overall scopeandcost.InitialestimatedcostsmustberealisticsotheTowncan properly planfinancing and keep the taxpayers informed.TheBoardshouldadoptresolutionsauthorizingthemaximumestimatedcost at project inception and prepare itemized budgets.TheBoardmayprovideadditionalappropriationsforacapitalproject,asneeded,by formally amending the budget.

We examined all available project documentation and accountingrecords, including Board resolutions, architectural estimates, biddocumentation, construction contracts, change orders and projectclaims. While Board members received periodic abstracts (lists of vendorclaimstobepaid)ofprojectexpendituresfromtheSupervisorand authorized adequate project financing, they did not request orreceive periodic budget-to-actual reports to ensure that estimatedcosts were not exceeded.As a result, the Board did not approveincreasesintheproject’stotalauthorizedbudgetamountinatimelymanner.

TheBoardapprovedafive-yearcapitalplan inSeptember2008 tospendapproximately$603,000for theconstructionofanewTownHall/highwaygarage.3 Since the Town did not plan on contracting outtheseservices,laborwasnotfactoredintotheseestimates,northecostofarchitecturalservices,projectbiddingandprojectmonitoring.

In May 2008, with concerns over increasing steel prices, theTownpurchased a 120- by 90-foot unassembled steel building for$143,620 without developing any formal architectural plans orreceivingprofessionalcostestimatesforengineering,siteworkandconstruction. (See findings under Capital Project Procurement.)WhileTown officials told us that the original cost estimateswerebased on constructing the project with internal Town resources and cooperativeagreementswithothertowns,theycouldnotprovideuswithanyformal,detailedplansonhowthiswastobeaccomplishedwithexistingTownresources.

TheTown’soldhighwaygaragehadafireonJanuary1,2010,whichdestroyed the building and several pieces of equipment. The Board thereforedecidedtocontractoutthesitepreparation.However,TownofficialshadnotpreparedacomprehensiveplanforbuildingtheTownHall/highway garage with existing Town resources, and thereforeexpandedthescopeoftheprojecttocompetitivelybiddingtheentire

____________________3 Comprising $367,620 for the purchase of the steel building, footers andengineering;$100,000forelectricalandplumbing;and$135,000forutilitiesandinsidefinishing


construction.Thischangecausedanultimate increaseofover$1.3million in estimated project costs, from $685,385 to $2,022,872.Accordingly,theBoardincreasedtheproject’sauthorizedbudgetto$2,000,000.

Table 1 shows the progress of the project from the purchase of the steel building in May 2008 through the end of our audit period.Project costs increased annually since the inception of the project in 2008. In2011and2012,project expenditures exceededauthorizedlevelsand,therefore,theBoardincreasedtheauthorizedbudgetfrom$2,000,000to$3,000,000.Theseincreasesresultedfromanongoingfailure to estimate project costs with reasonable accuracy – both at theonsetoftheprojectandduringconstruction–toreflectthetrueproject scope.

Table 1: Town Hall/Highway Garage Capital Project Budget and ExpendituresMay 2008-May 2013

Fiscal Year

Architectural Estimates (For Entire Project)

Board-Authorized Budget (For Entire Project)

Cumulative Expenditures at Year End

2008 - $602,000 $154,263

2009 $ 685,385 $777,000 $344,808

2010 $ 2,022,872 $2,000,000 $1,844,566

2011 $ 2,022,872 $2,000,000 $2,134,654

2012 $ 2,022,872 $2,000,000 $2,201,257a

2013 $ 2,976,541 $3,000,000b $2,209,260c

aDoesnotinclude$129,088inunpaidcontractorbillsbPerMay29,2013BoardresolutioncAsofMay31,2013,notincluding$129,088inunpaidcontractorbills

AsofMay31,2013,projectexpenditureshaveexceededtheoriginallybudgetedamountof$602,000by$1.6million(267percent). ThissignificantcostincreaseoccurredbecausetheBoarddidnotidentifyand properly plan for the necessary contract services and did not obtain comprehensive professional cost estimates at the onset of the project.Additionally,theBoarddidnottaketimelyactiontoincreasethebudgettokeeppacewithexpenditures.

DuringJuly2010,theBoardawardedconstructioncontractstotaling$1,363,722 for theproject. However,projectexpendituresalreadytotaled$658,135bytheendofJuly2010andtheBoarddidnottakeanyaction to increaseauthorizations,which totaled$2,000,000forthe entire project with over two years remaining to completion. Even thoughexpenditurescontinued togrowthroughout2011,2012and2013,theBoarddidnottakeactionuntilMay29,2013toincreasetheprojectauthorizationto$3,000,000.

Further, Town officials did not monitor the cost estimates incomparison to actual costs. Had the Board’s initial estimates included


allaspectsof theproject, theTowncouldhaveavoided thedrasticcostincreases.Failuretolimitexpenditurestoavailable,authorizedappropriations creates the risk that money may not be available when requiredfornecessaryexpenditures.

Project ClaimsApproval — Town Law requires the entire Board to audit all claims against theTown and, by resolution, direct theSupervisor to make payments for approved amounts.A thoroughclaims audit process verifies that all claims are properly itemizedandcontainsufficientdocumentationtodeterminethenatureofthepurchases,thattheamountsrepresentactualandnecessaryexpenses,and that purchases comply with statutory requirements. For capital project claims, the Board should also ensure that the architect orproject manager certifies that the construction work billed wascompleted and performed in accordance with the contract documents. Anarchitect’scertificationforpaymentshouldbeusedtoverifythatthe progress indicated and quality of the work billed is in accordance with the building contract.

We reviewed all 130 project claims paid during our audit period. While the Board reviewed and approved all project claims prior to payment,itdidnotensurethatthearchitectcertifiedallconstructionclaims prior to audit and payment or that claims submitted by the architectcontainedsufficientsupportingdocumentation.Specifically:

• Tenconstructionclaimstotaling$397,645werenotcertifiedby the architect prior toBoard audit andpayment.Further,whilethearchitectpreparedalistofoutstanding(unfinished)items forcontractors toaddress,hedidnotcertify thefinalclaims totaling $51,730 to pay the retained percentage4 for three construction contracts.

• Eighteenclaimstotaling$221,501submittedbythearchitectand engineer5 for additional services provided after the completion of the design and construction documents did not containsufficientdetailindicatingwhatthoseserviceswere.

Withoutacertificationbyanarchitectoradesignatedprojectmanager,the Board does not have assurance that construction work billed and paid for was actually completed and performed in accordance with the construction contract.

____________________4 Moneys held back from final payment to the contractor until the claims arecertifiedtoindicatetheworkwascompleted

5 The architect subcontracted for engineering work on the project and included thesecostswithhisclaimstotheTown.Onoccasion,theengineeralsobilledtheTown directly.


Theprimaryobjectiveofaprocurementprocessistoobtainthebest-quality goods and services at the lowest possible price in compliance with Town policies and legal requirements. This helps ensure that taxpayer dollars are expended in the most efficient manner. TheBoard is responsible for designing controls over the procurement processthathelpsafeguardtheTown’sassets,ensuretheprudentandeconomical use of its moneys when procuring goods and services and protectagainstfavoritism,extravaganceorfraud.

Competitive Bidding — General Municipal Law requires Townofficialstocompetitivelybidpurchasecontractsexceeding$20,000and public works contracts involving expenditures exceeding$35,000.6 Whenprocurements are expected to exceed thesedollarthresholds,theBoardmustpubliclyadvertiseforsealedcompetitivebids,openandreadthosebidsreceivedbythetimeanddateindicatedand award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder.7 The appropriate use of competition provides taxpayers with the greatest assurancethat the Town is procuring goods and services in the most prudent and economical manner.

AsofMay1,2013,theTownhadheldthreeseparatebidopenings,8resultinginsevenseparatecontractstotalingover$1.6million.Weexaminedallbidsolicitationdocumentation,formalbidsreceivedandrelated resolutions awarding the contracts. While the Board complied with the bidding requirements for general construction, it did notcomply with statutory bidding requirements for the purchase of the steelbuildingandsignificantscopechangestothefoundationcontract.The bidding for the steel building did not consider all construction options andmay not have encouraged sufficient competition. TheTownreceivedonlyonebid,whichappears tobeaquotereceivedpriortothepublicationofthebidannouncementonMay14,2008.9

Change Orders—Achangeorderisamodificationofaconstructioncontract,agreeduponbyboththeTownandcontractor,generallytoauthorizeachangeinthescopeofwork,thescheduleforcompletingthe work and/or the contract price. Where the change relates to

Capital ProjectProcurement

____________________6 In June 2010, the monetary threshold for purchase contracts increased from$10,000to$20,000.InNovember2009,thethresholdforpublicworkscontractsincreasedfrom$20,000to$35,000.

7 For purchase contractsmade on or after January 1, 2012, local governmentsmay elect to award purchase contracts based on the “best value” instead of the traditional “lowest responsible bidder.”

8 OnMay 14, 2008, the Town held the bid opening for the steel building; onNovember 9, 2009, the bid opening for the foundation construction; and onJune16,2010,thebidopeningforgeneralconstruction,plumbing,HVACandelectrical.

9 TheBoardminutesindicatethatonlyonebidwasreceived,datedApril24,2008,sent by email to the former Highway Superintendent and a Board member.


details or relatively minor particulars and is incidental to the original contract,achangeordermaybeissuedwithoutcompetitivebidding.However, no significant changemaybemadewithout competitivebidding when it so varies from the original plan or so alters the essential identity or main purpose of the contract as to constitute a new undertaking.Further,becausetheBoardauthorizestheconstructioncontracts,itshouldauthorizeallchangestothosecontractspriortothe commencement of the work.

According to the Town’s original project agreement with thecontractorwhowastoconstructthegaragefoundation,theexcavationandsiteclearingwastobehandledbytheTown.However,duetotheJanuary1,2010highwaygaragefire,thedumptrucksandafront-endloaderthatwouldhavebeenusedontheprojectweredestroyed,soTownofficialsdecidedtouseacontractortoperformtheseservices.WhiletheBoardapprovedthechangeorderfor$69,269toincludethe excavation and site clearingwork, thiswas a significant scopechangetotheoriginalcontracttoconstructafoundation,increasingthecontractfrom$103,900to$173,169,andthereforeshouldhavebeen competitively bid.10 Further, the contractor subcontracted theworktoanothercompanyandchargedtheTownanadditional$9,035mark-upoverthe$55,234chargedbytheexcavationsubcontractor.SincetheTowndidnotbreakgroundontheprojectuntilApril2010,sufficienttimewasavailabletoseekbidsfortheexcavationandsiteclearingworkratherthanexecutingachangeorderwiththecontractor.

In addition, while the architect and/or the Supervisor generallyapproved change orders, 23 proposed change orders, totaling$101,606,11 were not approved by the Board as required. The Supervisor said he was unaware that Board approval was necessary andbelievedhis approvalwas sufficient. The lackof competitivebiddingforsignificantprojectchangesandtheBoard’sapprovalofrelatedchangeordersgreatly increase the riskofpayingexcessiveamounts for the work provided under the terms of the contract. Therefore,itisessentialthattheBoardmaintainscontroloverchangeorder activity and monitor project progress.

Professional Service Contracts—Aneffectiveprocurementprocessincludesconfirmingthatvendors/consultantsareeligibletoprovidenecessaryservices,issuingrequestsforproposals(RFPs)orotherwiseseeking competition when selecting providers of professional services,andrequiringwrittencontractsdetailingcontracttermsanddeliverables (such as the contract period, services to be provided

____________________10The change order comprised $55,234 for the subcontractor, the contractor’smarkupof$9,035and$5,000forsurvey/layout.

11Theprojecthad25changeorderstotaling$175,597.


and the basis for compensation for these services) before services are provided. Written contracts also help to protect the Town in the eventthatcontractorsdefaultontheirobligationsormakeexcessiveclaims.Further,sincetheBoardauthorizestheprofessionalcontracts,itshouldalsoauthorizeallchangestothosecontracts.

The Town’s procurement policy does not address competitive biddingorrequireTownofficialstoseekcompetitionwhenprocuringprofessional services. The Town did not solicit competitive proposals or quotes prior to obtaining architectural and engineering services totaling$478,534,ofwhichonefirmwaspaidover$401,000.

OnOctober6,2008,theBoardapprovedanarchitecturalcontractfordesigndevelopmentandconstructiondocumentsforafeeof$99,150without soliciting or receiving any proposals from other architects. OnApril 13, 2009, the architect submitted a contract amendmentto increase the scope of his work on the design development and construction documents, for an additional $60,150. While thecontract amendment indicates that it was discussed with two Board members and the Board approved the subsequent claims containing theamendedcontractfee,wefoundnoindicationthattheamendedcontract was properly approved by the entire Board.

While the architect’s claims for preparing construction plans and documentsascontractedweresufficientlydocumented, subsequentclaims for bid processing and construction administration services were vague and not properly supported. For example, claims thatlisted dates12 and hours billed for bidding and negotiating services or construction administrative services did not show what services were specificallyprovidedandthepercentageof theircompletion.Sincetherewasnoupdated contract for these additional services, itwasdifficult for theBoard tomonitor andcontrol these charges.Townofficialstoldusitwasunclearwhatthesebillswerespecificallyfor,and theyfired the architect in July 2011.13 Because the Town did not renegotiate a contract with the architect for additional services atspecificfees,theBoarddidnotcontroltheultimatecostsoftheseservices,whichtotaled$401,334paidtothearchitect($300,000overthe original contract). Further, by awarding a professional servicecontractwithoutthebenefitofcompetitiveproposalsorquotes,theBoardcannotassuretaxpayersthattheTownisprocuringservicesatthelowestreasonablecostfromqualifiedserviceproviders.

____________________12 Some dates were for periods of time that should have been included in previous

billings. 13 In 2012, theTown contractedwith another architectural firm to complete thedesign plans. As with the prior architect, proposals and/or quotes were notsolicited.


MajorcapitalprojectsrequireTownofficialstoadequatelyplanandcontract as necessary, monitor progress and implement necessarychanges to ensure the project is completed in an adequate, timelyandcost-effectivemanner.TheTownofficials’failuretoadequatelyoverseetheprojectfortheconstructionofthenewTownHall/highwaygaragecontributed to theescalatingandexcessivecostsassociatedwith the project.

1. The Board should approve a detailed capital project budget including all anticipated costs and require periodic financialreportsthatshowactualexpenditurescomparedtotheapprovedbudget.

2. The Board should closely oversee the remaining project construction or designate a professional to oversee the project and report to the Board.

3. The Board should require an architect to certify that construction work is completed prior to audit and payment of claims.

4. The Board should ensure that bids are sought and contracts awarded in compliance with legal requirements.

5. The Board should approve all change orders prior to the commencement of work.

6. The Board should consider revising its procurement policy to address methods to be used to solicit competition for professional servicecontracts,suchasrequestsforproposals.

7. The Board should ensure that professional service providerssubmit proper itemization and support for claims, showing thespecificcontractedservicesprovided,priortoapprovingpayment.

Recommendations


APPENDIX A

RESPONSE FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS

Thelocalofficials’responsetothisauditcanbefoundonthefollowingpages.


APPENDIX B

AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

OuroverallgoalwastoassesstheadequacyoftheinternalcontrolsputinplacebyofficialstosafeguardTownassets.Toaccomplishthis,weperformedaninitialassessmentoftheinternalcontrolssothatwecould design our audit to focus on those areas most at risk. Our initial assessment included evaluations ofthefollowingareas:financialoversight,cashreceiptsanddisbursements,purchasing,payrollandpersonal services and information technology.

Duringtheinitialassessment,weinterviewedappropriateTownofficials,performedlimitedtestsoftransactionsandreviewedpertinentdocuments,suchasTownpoliciesandproceduresmanuals,Boardminutesandfinancialrecordsandreports.

After reviewing the information gathered during our initial assessment, we determined whereweaknesses existed and evaluated those weaknesses for the risk of potential fraud, theft and/orprofessional misconduct. We then decided on the reported objectives and scope by selecting for audit theareamostatrisk.WeselectedtheTown’smanagementoftheTownHall/highwaygaragecapitalproject (project) for further audit testing.

Toaccomplishtheobjectivesofthisaudit:

• WeinterviewedTownofficialsregardingpoliciesandproceduresrelatedtotheestablishmentof the project.

• WeinterviewedTownofficialstodeterminetheprocessbywhichtheymonitoredtheproject.

• Wereviewedprojectcostestimatesandbudgets.

• WereviewedmonthlyBoardmeetingminutesrelevanttotheproject.

• Wereviewedpaidprojectclaimsfor theperiodJanuary1,2008 throughMay31,2013forevidence of Board audit and approval for payment.

• WereviewedTownprocurementpoliciesandprocedures.

• Weexaminedrequestforproposalsandbiddocumentationtodeterminewhetherprocurementof professional services and public works contracts was in accordance with Town policy and legal requirements.

• Weexaminedvendorcontractsandchangeordersforservicesacquiredfortheproject.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards(GAGAS).Thosestandardsrequirethatweplanandperformtheaudittoobtainsufficient,appropriateevidencetoprovideareasonablebasisforourfindingsandconclusionsbasedonourauditobjectives.Webelieve that theevidenceobtainedprovidesa reasonablebasis forourfindingsandconclusions based on our audit objectives.


APPENDIX C

HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT

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

Toobtaincopiesofthisreport,writeorvisitourwebpage:


APPENDIX DOFFICE 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-Suite170244 Hawley StreetBinghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313Email:[email protected]

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

BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICERobertMeller,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 Building16 West Main Street – Suite 522Rochester,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-Suite170244 Hawley Street Binghamton,NewYork13901-4417(607)721-8306Fax(607)721-8313

Town of Dannemora - osc.state.ny.us

Documents

Transcript of Town of Dannemora - osc.state.ny.us