OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

D IVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT

& SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY

Town of Irondequoit
Financial Condition

Report of Examination
Period Covered:
January 1, 2006 — June 30, 2010
2010M-185

Thomas P. DiNapoli
 Table of Contents

Page

AUTHORITY LETTER 2

INTRODUCTION 3
Background 3
Objective 3
Scope and Methodology 3
Comments of Local Officials and Corrective Action 4

FINANCIAL CONDITION 5
Fund Balance Decline 5
Budget Estimates and Operating Deficits 6
Cash Flow and Interfund Advances 9
Recommendations 12

APPENDIX A Response From Local Officials 13

APPENDIX B Audit Methodology and Standards 16
APPENDIX C How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report 17
APPENDIX D Local Regional Office Listing 18

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 11

 State of New York
Office of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Government

and School Accountability

February 2011

Dear Town Officials:

A top priority of the Office of the State Comptroller is to help local government officials manage
government resources efficiently and effectively and, by so doing, provide accountability for tax
dollars spent to support government operations. The Comptroller oversees the fiscal affairs of local
governments statewide, as well as compliance with relevant statutes and observance of good business
practices. This fiscal oversight is accomplished, in part, through our audits, which identify opportunities
for improving operations and Town Board governance. Audits also can identify strategies to reduce
costs and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.

Following is a report of our audit of the Town of Irondequoit, entitled Financial Condition. This audit
was conducted pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the State Constitution and the State Comptroller’s
Authority as set forth in Article 3 of the General Municipal Law.

This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for local government officials to use in
effectively managing operations and in meeting the expectations of their constituents. If you have
questions about this report, please feel free to contact the local regional office for your county, as listed
at the end of this report.

Respectfully submitted,

Office of the State Comptroller

Division of Local Government
and School Accountability

2 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 Introduction

Background The Town of Irondequoit is located in Monroe County, is

approximately 17 square miles and has a population of 52,000. The
Town Board (Board), consisting of the Supervisor and four elected
members, is the legislative body responsible for managing Town
operations. The Town provides various services to its residents,
including law enforcement, street maintenance, parks and recreation
programs, sewer, lighting, drainage and general government support.
These services are financed mainly by real property taxes, sales tax,
departmental fees, and State aid.

The Supervisor serves as the Town’s chief executive officer

and chief fiscal officer. As chief fiscal officer, the Supervisor is
ultimately responsible for the receipt, disbursement and custody
of Town moneys. The Town Comptroller (Comptroller) is directly
responsible for daily financial operations, with assistance from the
Town Accountant and other staff. The Town Accountant is generally
responsible for maintaining the Town’s accounting records, including
posting accounting data to general ledger accounts, maintaining
expenditure and budgetary control accounts, and preparing budget
status reports. Although the Board is primarily responsible for the
effectiveness and proper functioning of the Town’s internal controls,
the Supervisor and department heads also share the responsibility for
ensuring that internal controls are adequate and working properly.

The Town’s reported 2010 budgeted operating expenditures totaled

$18.2 million for the general fund, $5.9 million for the highway fund,
$1.9 million for the library fund, and $3.5 million for the sewer fund.
The general fund’s unreserved fund balance has decreased from $1.5
million in 2006 to $297,000 in 2009 (80 percent).

Objective The objective of our audit was to review the Town’s financial
condition. Our audit addressed the following related question:

• Does the Board adopt realistic budgets, routinely monitor

financial operations, and take appropriate actions to maintain
the Town’s financial stability?

Scope and We interviewed appropriate Town officials, examined financial

Methodology statements, and reviewed Town procedures for the period January
1, 2006 to June 30, 2010. We also reviewed certain select financial
statement information for periods prior to January 1, 2006 to provide
historical perspective in the report.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 33

 We conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards (GAGAS). More information on such
standards and the methodology used in performing this audit are
included in Appendix B of this report.

Comments of The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed
Local Officials and with Town officials and their comments, which appear in Appendix
Corrective Action A, have been considered in preparing this report. Town officials
generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated they have
begun, and will continue to, initiate corrective action.

The Board has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. A

written corrective action plan (CAP) that addresses the findings and
recommendations in this report should be prepared and forwarded
to our office within 90 days, pursuant to Section 35 of the General
Municipal Law. For more information on preparing and filing your
CAP, please refer to our brochure, Responding to an OSC Audit
Report, which you received with the draft audit report. We encourage
the Board to make this plan available for public review in the Clerk’s
office.

4 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 Financial Condition

The Board and Town officials are responsible for performing the
financial planning and management activities necessary to help
maintain the Town’s sound financial condition. A local government’s
financial condition reflects its ability to provide and finance services
on a continuing basis. A local government is considered to be in a
sound financial condition when it can consistently generate sufficient
revenues to finance anticipated expenditures, maintain sufficient cash
flow to pay bills when due, provide necessary services, and plan and
finance capital acquisitions within the community’s ability to pay for
them.

Conversely, local governments in poor financial condition often

experience unplanned operating deficits, which occur when total
expenditures exceed total revenues. Although operating deficits can
be planned as a means of prudently using excess accumulated fund
balance to finance operations, persistent and recurring operating
deficits are usually indicative of structurally imbalanced budgets and
financial stress.

The Town has experienced significant signs of fiscal stress and a

deteriorating financial condition since its 2006 fiscal year. In the
2007 and 2008 fiscal years, the Board and Town officials did not
adequately control general fund expenditures within the adopted
budget. As a result, the general fund balance decreased from $1.5
million in 2006 to $297,000 in 2009. In addition, due to the reduced
fund balance and over-expenditures, the Town had to increase its use
of cash advances from other funds to pay general fund expenditures.
The Town’s reported interfund loan balances increased by nearly $2.5
million from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2009. However, we
found that the Town has taken positive steps in the past two budgets
to reverse these negative trends and improve its financial condition.

Fund Balance Decline Fund balance is the difference between revenues and expenditures
accumulated over a given period. The unreserved, unappropriated
amount is the available portion of fund balance that can be used to
manage unexpected occurrences such as emergency repairs, cost
and demand fluctuations in essential commodities such as utilities
and gasoline, and unanticipated shortfalls in estimated revenues.
Inadequate unreserved, unappropriated fund balance limits Town
officials’ ability to manage emergencies and other unanticipated
occurrences.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 55

 The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends
that a minimum of two months (approximately 17 percent) of regular
revenues or expenditures be retained. Furthermore, in October 2008,
following the recommendations of GFOA and the Town’s external
auditor, the Town Board adopted a policy that it will maintain an
unreserved fund balance ranging between a minimum of 5 percent
and a maximum of 20 percent of the annual operating budget of each
operating fund.

The Town’s financial condition has declined over the past three years,
with fund balances well below its policy requirement. The general
fund’s unreserved fund balance decreased from $1.5 million in the
2006 fiscal year to $297,000 in 2009, as illustrated in the following
table. This $1.2 million decline has impaired the Town’s financial
health and flexibility in operating this fund.

General Fund 2006 2007 2008 2009

Unreserved Fund Balance At Year End
(12/31) $1,458,169 $955,451 $271,394 $296,770
Appropriated for Ensuing Year’s Budget $194,640 $237,790 $150,000 $0
Unappropriated Fund Balance $1,263,529 $717,661 $121,394 $296,770
Total Expenditures $17,541,350 $18,284,137 $18,688,085 $17,773,154
Unappropriated Fund Balance as
Percentage of Expenditures 7% 4% 1% 2%

Drainage Fund — In addition, the Town reported deficit fund balances

in the drainage fund for the last two fiscal years. These fund balance
deficits were primarily due to a drainage improvement project which
cost significantly more than originally anticipated over the two years,
and an unplanned equipment purchase in 2008. As a result of the
Board’s lack of adequate planning to fund projects and equipment
purchases, the drainage fund had operating deficits of $214,000 and
$94,000, respectively, in 2008 and 2009, and its unreserved fund
balance declined from $81,666 at December 31, 2007 to a deficit
of $199,376 at December 31, 2009. This deficit was the equivalent
of approximately 25 percent of the fund’s 2009 expenditures. Town
officials recently implemented a plan to correct the drainage fund
deficit over a three year period, by increasing the per unit special
assessment, beginning in the 2011 budget.

Budget Estimates and It is important for the Board to adopt realistic budgets and closely monitor
Operating Deficits them against actual revenues and expenditures regularly throughout
the year. The annual budget is a plan that provides Town officials with
the information necessary to control its spending and ensure revenue
projections are being met during the year. Key components to budget
preparation require ensuring that contingencies are identified and

6 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 addressed, and fund balances are computed accurately. The budget
identifies the cost of services to be provided to citizens in the coming
year, the sources of financing for those services, and how the two
components are balanced. Effective budgetary controls ensure that
these objectives are met within established spending limits. The
prudent use of surplus fund balance as a funding source to reduce the
level of real property taxes needed to finance operations is a basic
component of local government budgeting. However, Town officials
should avoid relying on the availability of surplus fund balance as
a recurring revenue source to finance recurring expenditures, which
ultimately depletes fund balance below a reasonable level, leaving no
financial cushion if unforeseen expenses arise.

In 2007 and 2008, the Town did not effectively use its budget to control
its spending. The Town Board and officials did not closely monitor
expenditures during the year, or take adequate and timely action to
ensure that expenditures were kept within the adopted spending plan.
As a result, the general fund’s 2007 and 2008 expenditures exceeded
budgeted appropriations by more than $1 million and $790,000,
respectively. While favorable general fund revenue variances
reduced the impact of the overspent appropriations, the general fund
incurred unplanned operating deficits totaling more than $227,000
and $435,000. The following table shows the general fund budget
variances for revenues and expenditures, and calculated operating
deficits, for the last three completed fiscal years.

Revenues
2007 2008 2009
Budgeted $17,059,698 $17,659,198 $18,110,156
Actual $17,862,201 $18,015,172 $17,934,530
Revenue Variance $802,503 $355,974 ($175,626)
Appropriations/Expenditures
Budgeted $17,254,338 $17,896,988 $18,260,156
Actual $18,284,137 $18,688,085 $17,773,154
Expenditure Variance ($1,029,799) ($791,097) $487,002
Operating Results (Actual Revenues minus Expenditures)
Operating Surplus (Deficit) ($421,936) ($672,913) $161,376
Fund Balance Appropriated $194,641 $237,790 $150,000
Budgetary Surplus
(Unplanned Operating Deficit) ($227,296) ($435,123) $311,376

In adopting its annual budgets, the Board had made it a practice,

over many years, to appropriate fund balance as a revenue source,
to minimize the tax levy. However, because the Board did not

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 77

 effectively adjust and monitor its budgeted revenues and expenditures
in correlation with rising costs or declining revenues, it has gradually
exhausted fund balance. In 2007 and 2008, the Board overspent its
budget, resulting in unplanned operating deficits and reduced fund
balance by a total of $662,419 more than expected. The Board’s
inability to stay within the budget has placed the Town in fiscal stress.

Town officials assert that the Board has responsibly focused on

“minimizing the Town’s property tax rate”1 and has relied on fund
balance as a revenue source to do so, but that there is insufficient non-
property tax revenue to support the level of services that the Town
offers without increasing the property tax levy. While avoiding tax
increases is desirable, doing so requires keeping future expenditures
in line with available revenues. Keeping the tax rate low without
keeping expenditures under control has depleted almost all of the
Town’s fund balance.

During 2009, Town officials began to more aggressively address

the general fund’s budgetary and cash flow shortfalls, by requiring
all departments to curtail expenditures to the extent possible. As a
result, the departments reduced operating expenses; gross expenses
were $892,789 less than in 2008, and $487,000 less than budgeted.
The lower spending helped offset the negative revenue variance and
generated an operating surplus of $161,376.

The Board took some additional improvement steps when developing

its 2010 budget. The Board did not appropriate fund balance in the
2010 (or 2011) budget. The 2010 budget included a slight reduction
in spending from 2009 ($380,485 or 1.2 percent), and a slight increase
in the tax levy ($184,723 or 1.13 percent) to address decreasing
revenues. We reviewed year-to-date revenue and expenditure budget
status reports as of November 22, 2010, and found that the Town will
likely report another slight operating surplus.

The Board adopted its 2011 budget with no tax rate increase and
general fund appropriations of $17,569,876, or $642,189 less than
the 2010 budget. The Board also included an $80,000 contingency
appropriation in the 2011 budget to help cover unanticipated
expenditures. The Supervisor, in her budget message, indicated they
were able to achieve these reductions, and avoid a tax increase, by not
filling vacant staff positions, eliminating funding for special events,
and deferring equipment replacement.

____________________
1
The Town Comptroller made a statement to this effect in the Town’s Corrective
Action Plan to its 2008 Independent Audit Report, which cited the significant
decrease in fund balance during 2008, which resulted primarily from significant
overexpenditures of the general fund budget.

8 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 We commend the Board for its corrective measures in recent budgets.
Town officials should proceed with caution and monitor and control
2011 expenditures to remain within established budgetary constraints.
Town officials also must monitor revenues, and find ways to address
any shortfalls during the year.

Cash Flow and An essential component of financial condition is ensuring that sufficient
Interfund Advances cash resources are available to pay vendors in a timely manner and
to meet payroll obligations. At a minimum, the Town should have
enough residual cash at any one time to pay bills and meet payroll
over a 30 to 60 day period. To ensure that cash is available as needed,
Town officials should develop cash flow projections to help identify
potential cash deficiencies. When a fund does not have sufficient cash
to meet its current obligations, short-term options to provide needed
cash include obtaining loans (advances) from other funds that have
excess residual cash or issuing short-term debt. General Municipal
Law (GML) authorizes a town to temporarily advance moneys that
are not immediately needed in one town fund to any other town fund.
GML requires that such interfund advances be authorized in the same
manner as budgetary transfers, and that repayment be made by the
close of the fiscal year in which the advances were made.

The decline in fund balances (and cash levels) has resulted in the
Town’s need to advance moneys between funds and pay operating
expenses out of the capital fund. If these cash flow problems continue,
the Town’s ability to provide essential services to taxpayers may be
reduced.

Town officials did not use cash flow projections to help determine
whether adequate moneys would be available to meet required cash
outlays. Furthermore, they did not provide adequate information
to the Board to ensure that they were aware of the general fund’s
ongoing cash flow issues. The Town’s general fund has experienced
significant cash flow problems over the past several years. To address
periodic cash deficiencies, the Town used cash advances, unauthorized
by the Board, from other funds to provide sufficient cash for current
operating expenditures.

The Town’s interfund advances have increased from $112,000 in 2006

to more than $2.5 million in 2009. Town officials made a majority
of these advances to the general fund for continuing operations. The
following tables detail the significant increase in interfund advances
from 2007 through 2009. Due to these interfund advances, several
funds, including the highway, library, lighting and sewer funds, were
left with little or no cash reported at December 31, 2009. While these
funds reported healthy fund balances, the cash advances to the general
fund made up a significant portion of those fund balances. Given the

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 99

 general fund’s cash position at that time, it is unlikely that the general
fund will have sufficient funds to repay the other funds in the near
future. As a result, the Town cannot use the resources of those funds
to responsibly reduce or control tax and special assessment rates. In
addition, because the special district funds are supported by different
tax bases than the general fund, the affected taxpayers are paying
more than necessary to fund special district operations.

Interfund Advances as of December 31, 2007

Fund Receivable Payable Available Cash
General $160,797 $908,564 $132,805
Highway $84,985 $0 $114,987
Sewer $908,564 $84,985 $297,973
Capital $0 $160,797 $4,815,334
Total $1,154,346 $1,154,346 $5,361,099

Interfund Advances as of December 31, 2008

Fund Receivable Payable Available Cash
General $0 $1,642,886 $0
Miscellaneous $42,490 $0 $98,204
Highway $344,334 $0 $6,444
Library $127,329 $0 $0
Lighting $240,935 $0 $0
Sewer $1,003,449 $0 $42,413
Drainage $0 $115,651 $0
Total $1,758,537 $1,758,537 $147,061

Interfund Advances as of December 31, 2009

Fund Receivable Payable Available Cash
General $207,420 $2,213,617 $569,325
Miscellaneous $0 $68,114 $161,415
Highway $721,757 $6,700 $95,995
Library $186,716 $0 $0
Lighting $248,713 $0 $0
Sewer $1,210,055 $60,500 $283
Drainage $0 $215,310 $0
Private Purpose
Trust $0 $10,420 $87,053
Total $2,574,661 $2,574,661 $914,071

Of notable concern, these ongoing interfund advances are not

recorded and are not approved by the Board. Most of these advances

10 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 occurred because the Town used common bank accounts for all of its
operating2 and capital projects funds. The Town Accountant disbursed
funds from the commingled bank accounts throughout the year to pay
expenditures for funds that lacked sufficient cash without recording
these interfund advances. Instead, she recorded the expenditures as
she normally would, which resulted in negative cash balances in the
general ledger accounts.

For example, as of December 31, 2009, the general fund’s money

market bank balance in the computerized accounting records had
a negative balance of more than $2.2 million. Town officials did
not periodically share general ledger cash account or bank account
balance information with the Supervisor or Town Board to apprise
them of the general fund’s financial condition or other funds’ cash
flow status. At year-end, the Town’s external auditor calculated and
recorded interfund payables to eliminate individual funds’ negative
cash balances. However, the Town Accountant did not record the
related entries in the Town’s accounting system; instead, she continued
to carry negative cash balances and inaccurate interfund receivables
in the accounting records. Because these advances made throughout
each year were only recorded at year-end for reporting purposes, the
Town Board did not pre-approve them.

Ideally, Town officials should monitor individual cash balances and

prepare cash flow projections to identify cash advance needs in a
timely manner. Town officials should prepare and submit necessary
cash advances to the Board for approval before making them, and
record these advances in the accounting system when they make them.
As a result of the Town officials’ failure to monitor cash balances
and comply with statutory requirements for making cash advances
between operating funds, the Board and Town management were
unable to effectively monitor the Town’s current financial position
and make sound financial decisions.

Proceeds of Indebtedness — Local Finance Law provides that

proceeds of obligations may not be commingled with operating funds’
money3 and only can be expended for the purpose for which the
obligations were issued or, if they remain unspent at the completion
of the project, must be set aside to redeem the debt.

Town officials failed to segregate all debt proceeds as required by law,

and instead included debt proceeds in the Town’s common money
market bank accounts. The Town maintained three bank accounts
____________________
2
Common bank accounts held moneys from the general, highway, library, water,
sewer, lighting, drainage and capital projects funds.
3
The Board may, by resolution, deposit in a single special account the proceeds of
two or more debt issues, but may not commingle debt proceeds with other Town
funds.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 11

11
 which commingled capital funds from debt proceeds with other Town
moneys. As a result, the Town has used capital fund moneys from
debt proceeds to support other funds’ expenditures, without legal
authority to do so. At December 31, 2009, Town investment records
show that, in two bank accounts, the capital project fund moneys
totaling $3,336,000 were used to offset negative cash balances of
other funds totaling $2,367,000. In the third bank account, the capital
project fund had a negative cash balance of $1,177,000, which was
offset by positive cash balances totaling $2,601,000 of the other
funds. The use of proceeds of indebtedness for anything other than
the purpose for which the debt was issued is prohibited. It is a very
poor financial practice to use debt to finance ongoing operations.

Town officials’ failure to monitor cash balances and obtain Board

approval for interfund advances has limited the Board’s ability to
monitor the Town’s fiscal affairs. If Town officials continue to rely
on interfund advances or the unauthorized use of debt proceeds to
compensate for over-expenditures, the Town is at a significant risk of
incurring cash shortages that could jeopardize Town operations and
the services it provides to its residents.

Recommendations 1. The Board should develop a formal and comprehensive plan for
restoring fund balance and resolving the cash flow deficiencies in
the general fund.

2. The Board should better monitor Town funds’ financial activity

and compare actual revenues and expenditures to budgets
throughout the year to prevent over-expenditures and to address
any revenue shortfalls.

3. The Board should closely monitor its plan to resolve the deficit
fund balance in the drainage fund, and improve budgeting
procedures to ensure that unplanned expenditures are not allowed.

4. Town officials should prepare monthly cash flow projections and

provide them to the Board to aid in making informed financial
decisions.

5. The Board should review all outstanding interfund loan balances

and develop a plan to ensure that they are properly repaid.

6. The Board should adopt policies to ensure that interfund advances

are made and repaid in accordance with statute, and only with
prior Board approval.

7. Town officials should properly segregate, in a separate bank

account, all proceeds of indebtedness, and ensure that debt
proceeds are no longer used to fund operating expenses.

12 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 APPENDIX A

RESPONSE FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS

The local officials’ response to this audit can be found on the following pages.

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 13

13
14 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 15
15
 APPENDIX B

AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

Our overall goal was to assess the adequacy of the internal controls put in place by officials to safeguard
Town assets. To accomplish this, we performed an initial assessment of the internal controls so that
we could design our audit to focus on those areas most at risk. During the initial assessment, we
interviewed Town officials, performed limited tests of transactions, and reviewed pertinent documents
such as Town policies and procedures, Board minutes, financial records and reports. In addition, we
reviewed the Town’s internal controls and procedures over the computerized financial databases to
help ensure that the information produced by such systems was reliable.

After reviewing the information gathered during our initial assessment, we determined where
weaknesses exist, and evaluated those weaknesses for the risk of potential fraud, theft and/or
professional misconduct. We then decided upon the reported objective and scope by selecting for audit
the area most at risk. We selected financial condition for further testing. To achieve our audit objective
and obtain valid audit evidence, we performed the following audit procedures:

• We interviewed Town officials responsible for financial oversight and for maintaining
accounting records to gain an understanding of the Town’s policies and procedures.

• We reviewed audited financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2004 through
December 31, 2008 to analyze changes in fund balance and interfund borrowing.

• We reviewed adopted budgets for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2005 through December
31, 2010 to identify unrealistic revenue estimates included in the budget.

• We compared budgeted data to actual revenues and expenditures to determine significant

differences.

• We reviewed purchasing records, tested selected transactions and claims, and examined
pertinent documents to determine if purchases had been properly approved and if relevant
documentation supported the purchase.

We conducted our performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards (GAGAS). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objective.

16 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER

 APPENDIX C

HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT

To obtain copies of this report, write or visit our web page:

Office of the State Comptroller

Public Information Office
110 State Street, 15th Floor
Albany, New York 12236
(518) 474-4015
http://www.osc.state.ny.us/localgov/

DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY 17

17
 APPENDIX D
OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY
Steven J. Hancox, Deputy Comptroller
LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING
ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICE
Kenneth Madej, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
22 Computer Drive West
Albany, New York 12205-1695
(518) 438-0093 Fax (518) 438-0367
Email: Muni-Albany@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene,
Schenectady, Ulster counties
BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICE
Office of the State Comptroller
State Office Building, Room 1702
44 Hawley Street
Binghamton, New York 13901-4417
(607) 721-8306 Fax (607) 721-8313
Email: Muni-Binghamton@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware,
Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins counties
BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICE
Robert Meller, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
295 Main Street, Suite 1032
Buffalo, New York 14203-2510
(716) 847-3647 Fax (716) 847-3643
Email: Muni-Buffalo@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie,
Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming counties
GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE
Office of the State Comptroller
One Broad Street Plaza
Glens Falls, New York 12801-4396
(518) 793-0057 Fax (518) 793-5797
Email: Muni-GlensFalls@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton,
Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington
counties
18 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICE
Ira McCracken, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
NYS Office Building, Room 3A10
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533
(631) 952-6534 Fax (631) 952-6530
Email: Muni-Hauppauge@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Nassau, Suffolk counties
NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Christopher Ellis, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
33 Airport Center Drive, Suite 103
New Windsor, New York 12553-4725
(845) 567-0858 Fax (845) 567-0080
Email: Muni-Newburgh@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Orange, Putnam, Rockland,
Westchester counties
ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE
Edward V. Grant, Jr., Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
The Powers Building
16 West Main Street – Suite 522
Rochester, New York 14614-1608
(585) 454-2460 Fax (585) 454-3545
Email: Muni-Rochester@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe,
Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates counties
SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICE
Rebecca Wilcox, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller
State Office Building, Room 409
333 E. Washington Street
Syracuse, New York 13202-1428
(315) 428-4192 Fax (315) 426-2119
Email: Muni-Syracuse@osc.state.ny.us
Serving: Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison,
Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence counties