socialservices_final by chrstphr

VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 18

									OFFICE   OF THE   NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                  D IVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
                      & SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY




   Recovering Costs
   Related to Social
   Service Programs


                      2007-MS-3




              Thomas P. DiNapoli
                            Table of Contents



                                                                         Page



AUTHORITY LETTER                                                          3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                         5


INTRODUCTION                                                               7
           Background                                                      7
           Objective                                                       8
           Scope and Methodology                                           9
           Comments of Local Officials and Corrective Action                9


INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION                                                  10
            Recommendations                                               11


DIRECT BILLING OPTIMIZATION                                               12
             Inaccurate Billing                                           12
             Lack of Billing                                              13
             Recommendations                                              14


APPENDIX A     Responses From Local Officials                              15
APPENDIX B     Audit Methodology and Standards                            16
APPENDIX C     How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report              18
APPENDIX D     Local Regional Office Listing                               19




                DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY          1
                                         State of New York
                            Office of the State Comptroller
Division of Local Government
and School Accountability

December 2007

Dear County 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 their compliance with relevant statutes and observance of
good business practices. This fiscal oversight is accomplished through our audits, which identify
opportunities for improving operations and County governance. Audits can also identify strategies
to reduce costs and to strengthen controls intended to safeguard local government assets.

Following is a report of our audit of Sullivan, Madison, Rockland, Jefferson and Chautauqua
Counties, entitled Recovering Costs Related to Social Service Programs. This audit was conducted
pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article V, Section 1 of the State
Constitution and Article 3 of the General Municipal Law.

This audit’s results and recommendations are resources for local government officials 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




                    DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                      3
                                                              State of New York
                                                 Office of the State Comptroller
                                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

County Departments of Social Services administer multiple social service programs such as
temporary assistance in the form of day care, employment and training assistance, Medicaid,
health insurance for low-income families, protective services for children, foster care, adoption
programs, adult protective services and child support. Various New York State agencies supervise
the counties administering these programs.

The Federal government provides 50 percent reimbursement for costs incurred by county central
service departments for the benefit of the local social services departments. For those programs
eligible for State reimbursement, State funding levels are generally 50 percent of the non-Federal
share of expenditures. For local governments to receive reimbursement for these costs, an indirect
cost allocation plan (Plan) must be prepared annually. Counties may claim the direct and indirect
service costs eligible for Federal reimbursement using their Plans or through direct billings of the
Departments of Social Services by the central service departments.

Scope and Objective

We analyzed Federal and State reimbursements of various social services costs in five counties,
including Sullivan, Chautauqua, Jefferson, Madison, and Rockland (Counties). The objective
of our audit was to determine whether the Counties are optimizing the reimbursement of costs
related to the administration of social service programs. Our audit addressed the following related
questions for the period January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2006:

    •   Are Counties maximizing the reimbursement of costs related to the administration of social
        service programs?

    •   Are County operations analyzed annually to identify all services provided for social service
        programs that are eligible for Federal reimbursement?

    •   Have Counties established adequate systems to track total costs of social service
        administrative expenses and obtain the correct amount of reimbursement?

Audit Results

We found that Counties are not maximizing their claims of reimbursable indirect and direct social
service costs, which resulted in the five Counties foregoing about $1.3 million in additional revenue



                    DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                     5
during our audit period. Sullivan County did not periodically review operations and billings to
determine they had claimed reimbursements for all actual costs. In addition, none of the Counties
had established adequate systems to track interdepartmental service costs and submit associated
claims for them.

Sullivan County did not correctly submit claims for indirect costs based on their Plan, totaling about
$873,000. Sullivan did not compare the estimated claims submitted to their actual indirect costs
to ensure accuracy. In addition, all Counties had departments providing various direct services to
their respective Department of Social Services. We found that Counties did not have a standard
interdepartmental billing process, resulting in erroneous billings for reimbursable direct services
provided. The erroneous billings resulted in County Departments of Social Services under claiming
about $700,000 for Federal and State reimbursement for direct services. The Counties were using
averages or percentages to apply fringe benefits for direct billing. Instead, the Counties, in certain
cases, should have used actual fringe benefit amounts, to maximize potential reimbursements.

We also found that each County had a District Attorney’s Office that provides services for
investigations that are reimbursable, but none of the Counties were maintaining records of
the services provided. As a result, the District Attorneys were not billing the Departments of
Social Services appropriately. The Departments of Social Services were then unable to submit
reimbursement claims for these direct services.

Comments of Local Officials

The results of our audit and recommendations have been discussed with local officials and their
comments, which appear in Appendix A, have been considered in preparing this report. Local
officials generally agreed with our recommendations and indicated that they planned to initiate
corrective action.




  6                 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                             Introduction

Background               County Departments of Social Services administer multiple
                         social service programs such as temporary assistance in the form
                         of day care, employment and training assistance, Medicaid,
                         health insurance for low-income families, protective services
                         for children, foster care, adoption programs, adult protective
                         services and child support. Various New York State agencies
                         supervise the counties administering these programs.

                         The Federal government generally reimburses counties for 50
                         percent of the costs incurred to deliver federally-funded social
                         services programs. The State generally reimburses 50 percent
                         of the non-Federal share of expenditures. In addition to direct
                         program expenditures, counties typically incur indirect costs
                         to deliver social services programs. Most counties provide
                         central support services such as motor pools, computer centers,
                         purchasing, accounting, etc., to their operating departments.
                         Because local social services departments use these services
                         to deliver programs, counties must identify the costs related to
                         these services and allocate them to the benefited programs on
                         a reasonable and consistent basis. Other county departments
                         also incur costs that benefit the social services programs. These
                         indirect program costs can be substantial and are eligible for
                         Federal and State reimbursement.

                         To receive these reimbursements, each county is required to
                         prepare an indirect cost allocation plan (Plan). This Plan lists
                         each county department individually, together with information
                         that justifies the costs. The allocation basis used for each
                         cost center must be reasonable, consistent and equitable. For
                         example, an appropriate basis for the allocation of fringe
                         benefit costs might be as a percentage of total gross payrolls
                         and for the allocation of data processing costs, it might be as
                         a percentage of computer-processing time. Each county must
                         file reimbursement claims with the New York State Office of
                         Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), and prepare
                         their Plans annually, either internally or by contracting with a
                         vendor to complete them.

                         The Federal government issued Office of Management and
                         Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and
                         Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87) to establish


             DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                 7
                                uniform principles and standards for determining allowable
                                costs applicable to Federal grants, contracts, and other
                                Federal agreements with local governments. The circular
                                identifies the major types of costs normally incurred in grant
                                performance, classifies them as to allowability, and mandates
                                the development of a cost allocation plan to provide for the
                                pooling and distribution of central service indirect costs
                                among affected agencies and departments.

                                We reviewed the controls over submitting claims for
                                indirect and direct social service costs at Counties across the
                                State. Our audit included tests of the detailed procedures
                                and expenditures of five Counties in New York State. The
                                following table (Table 1) provides comparative information
                                about these Counties.

                  TABLE 1: COUNTY BACKGROUND INFORMATION
                   2006 Social              Method of preparing 2005 Indirect Cost
                                 Population
      County         Service                 the Indirect Cost   Allocation Plan
                                   Served
                  Expenditures                Allocation Plan        Amount
Sullivan             $45,000,000     76,000     Contractor                $970,570
Rockland            $136,000,000    293,000      Internally             $1,099,664
Madison              $28,000,000     70,000     Contractor                $381,486
Jefferson            $52,000,000    112,000     Contractor              $1,191,902
Chautauqua           $81,000,000    136,000      Internally               $929,874
         Totals     $342,000,000    687,000                             $4,573,496

Objective                       The objective of our audit was to determine whether Counties
                                are optimizing the reimbursement of costs related to the
                                administration of social service programs. Our audit addressed
                                the following related questions:

                                    •   Are Counties maximizing the reimbursement of
                                        costs related to the administration of social service
                                        programs?

                                    •   Are County operations analyzed annually to identify
                                        all services provided for social service programs that
                                        are eligible for Federal reimbursement?

                                    •   Have Counties established adequate systems to track
                                        total costs of social service administrative expenses
                                        and obtain the correct amount of reimbursement?


  8               OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
Scope and                    We examined the Counties’ Plans for 2005 and the billing
Methodology                  procedures of County departments furnishing both direct and
                             indirect services for the period of January 1, 2005 through
                             December 31, 2006.

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

                             County officials have the responsibility to initiate corrective
                             action. Pursuant to Section 35 of the General Municipal Law,
                             County officials should prepare a plan of action that addresses
                             the recommendations in this report and forward the plan to
                             our office within 90 days. For guidance in preparing the plan
                             of action, County officials may refer to applicable sections in
                             the publication issued by the Office of the State Comptroller
                             entitled Local Government Management Guide. We encourage
                             County officials to make this plan available for public review in
                             the office of the Clerk of the governing body.




                 DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                 9
                             Indirect Cost Allocation

                                 Claims submitted to OTDA for indirect cost reimbursements are
                                 based on current year expenditures; therefore, the total amount
                                 of these claims submitted for the year should equal the actual
                                 indirect costs incurred and allocated in the Plan for the same
                                 year. Counties file electronic claims with OTDA for indirect
                                 cost reimbursements monthly.

                                 We compared actual indirect costs per the annual Plans to the
                                 claims submitted by the Counties’ Social Service Departments
                                 for the 2005 fiscal year, and found a substantial difference for
                                 Sullivan County. For the other Counties (Chautauqua, Rockland,
                                 Jefferson and Madison), we compared the claims submitted for
                                 indirect cost reimbursement to the indirect costs per the approved
                                 Plans for the 2004 and 2005 fiscal years and found that the
                                 amounts submitted were accurate. These Counties submitted
                                 claims that included supplemental claims and adjusted claim
                                 amounts toward the end of the year to reflect actual costs.1

                                 Table 2 illustrates the differences between what was submitted
                                 for reimbursement and what should have been submitted in
                                 Sullivan County:

                              TABLE 2:
       COST ALLOCATION PLAN AMOUNT VS. AMOUNT SUBMITTED FOR
                          REIMBURSEMENT
                                         Sullivan County
                                                   A-87 Indirect Amount
                      Cost Allocation Plan
       Year                                        Claimed to OTDA For                Difference
                     Indirect Cost Amount
                                                      Reimbursement
2005                               $970,570                      $420,001                    $550,569
2004                               $747,867                      $425,668                    $322,199
           Totals                $1,718,437                      $845,669                    $872,768

       Estimated Additional Federal and State Reimbursement*                                 $654,576

*We used 50 percent and 25 percent to calculate additional reimbursement for Federal and State,
respectively.


                                 ____________________
                                 1
                                     Chautauqua County over-claimed about $67,000 for the two-year period.


  10                OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                                Because the Plan cannot be completed until after the close
                                of the fiscal year, claims are often based on outdated Plan
                                amounts. However, OTDA allows the Counties the opportunity
                                to submit supplemental claims for an additional 22 months,
                                giving them the opportunity to “catch up” to the actual
                                indirect costs for the year. We found that Sullivan County did
                                not submit supplemental claims for reimbursement, which
                                indicates that County officials did not monitor what was
                                submitted for reimbursement against the actual Plan totals.

                                Sullivan County officials indicated their process for submitting
                                claims was to take the Plan amounts, divide by 12, and submit
                                claims monthly. However, we found that they were not using
                                one-twelfth of the current Plan amount in their monthly
                                calculation of claims. Instead, in Sullivan County, the claims
                                are calculated and prepared by the principal account clerk using
                                outdated numbers. In addition, the claims are not reviewed
                                independently. County officials were unable to explain the
                                reason for under claiming their reimbursement. Subsequent
                                to fieldwork, County officials submitted supplemental claims
                                to OTDA totaling $462,261.

Recommendations                 1. The County Commissioner of Social Services should take
                                   the appropriate steps to monitor and review the indirect
                                   cost claims process to ensure the monthly claim amounts
                                   are correct and properly reflect the annual indirect costs.

                                2. The County Commissioner of Social Services should
                                   periodically monitor claims submitted against the cost
                                   allocation Plan to ensure they are maximizing their
                                   reimbursement, and submit supplemental claims when
                                   applicable.




                  DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                  11
                       Direct Billing Optimization

                             Federal and State regulations permit the reimbursement of
                             interdepartmental services directly billed to local Departments
                             of Social Services. Direct costs are those that can be identified
                             specifically with a particular final cost objective. Typical
                             reimbursable direct costs are compensation of employees for
                             the time devoted and costs of materials acquired, consumed, or
                             expended as they relate to the social services programs.

                             Local Departments of Social Services also receive services from
                             various County departments, such as Sheriff Departments for
                             security, County Attorneys for legal assistance, Youth Bureaus
                             for contract monitoring, Departments of Health, District
                             Attorneys and various other departments. These departments
                             should bill, and Counties should seek reimbursement for, all
                             actual and appropriate expenditures incurred on behalf of the
                             administration of social services. The Counties should have
                             guidelines and procedures for departments to follow when
                             directly billing the local Departments of Social Services for
                             reimbursable services.

                             We found that Counties have not provided formal, consistent
                             processes for the various departments to use for interdepartmental
                             billings. This resulted in billing errors or a lack of billing,
                             which directly affects the amounts the Counties are reimbursed
                             by the Federal government and New York State for local social
                             services costs.

Inaccurate Billing           Generally, Counties are not accurately capturing and billing
                             actual direct expenditures related to social services from
                             interdepartmental billings. For departments that directly bill for
                             services provided, our review of billing practices and rates in
                             effect during our audit period disclosed that, due to the inaccurate
                             interdepartmental billings, County Social Service Departments
                             are not recouping all of their costs, and reimbursements could
                             have been increased by about $700,000. Our review of billing
                             practices and rates also disclosed that some departments have
                             over billed County departments for social service related costs
                             estimated at $23,502.

                             We found that many departments did not fully capture the
                             Counties’ share of applicable FICA, disability, workers’


 12              OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                                 compensation, retirement, and/or health insurance costs as they
                                 relate to the direct services noted. For example, instead of billing
                                 for the actual costs incurred, some County departments utilized
                                 a percentage to calculate these related fringe benefits. Some
                                 departments utilized standard templates, while other departments
                                 were limited to certain amounts based on amounts negotiated in
                                 a memorandum of understanding between departments. The
                                 following table (Table 3) summarizes the inaccurate billing by
                                 County:

                    TABLE 3: COUNTY DIRECT BILLING ANALYSIS
                                    2005 AND 2006
                     Sullivan Madison Rockland Jefferson Chautauqua                        Total
Calculated
                  $560,428 $579,255          $748,842 $1,884,618          $2,006,479 $5,779,622
Actual Costs
Amounts Billed    $435,542 $483,780          $440,000 $1,768,229          $1,719,472 $4,847,023
Amounts
                  $124,886 $95,475           $308,842      $116,389         $287,007      $932,599
Under-Billed
Estimated
Additional
                   $93,665 $71,606           $231,632        $87,292        $215,255      $699,450
Federal and State
Reimbursements*

*We used 50 percent and 25 percent to calculate additional reimbursement for Federal and State,
respectively.

Lack of Billing                  Prosecution costs are generally unallowable for Federal
                                 reimbursement purposes unless they are treated as a direct
                                 cost to a specific program when authorized by program
                                 regulations. In addition, the United States Department of
                                 Agriculture (USDA) regulations specifically state that the cost
                                 of prosecuting intentional Food Stamp Program violations must
                                 be based on a formal agreement between the local district and
                                 provider agency. For example, the Federal government will pay
                                 50 percent of the fraud and abuse administrative costs of the
                                 Food Stamp Program.

                                 We found that each County had District Attorneys provide pre-
                                 prosecution and prosecution services for cases related to social
                                 services fraud. However, the District Attorney’s Offices did
                                 not bill the County Social Service Departments for any of the
                                 Food Stamp fraud prosecution costs and as a result, Federal
                                 reimbursement was neither sought nor obtained. Because
                                 records were not maintained in the District Attorney’s Offices


                   DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                      13
                            detailing Food Stamp prosecution costs, we were unable to
                            determine the potential revenue available. In addition, the
                            District Attorneys could not determine the amount of pre-
                            prosecution costs incurred for social service related issues in
                            each of the five Counties audited.

Recommendations             3. The County Commissioner of Social Services should
                               standardize the billing process from the various
                               departments to the Department of Social Services in an
                               effort to accurately capture and bill direct expenditures
                               related to social services.

                            4. County District Attorneys Offices should maintain a record
                               of staff time spent on prosecution activities related to those
                               social services programs for which costs are federally
                               reimbursed, such as intentional Food Stamp fraud. The
                               Counties should then calculate the costs of these services
                               and apply for Federal reimbursement.




 14           OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                                        APPENDIX A

                     RESPONSES FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS
We provided a draft copy of this global report to each of the Counties audited and requested
responses. The following comments were excerpted from the three responses received (Chautauqua,
Rockland and Sullivan Counties). Madison and Jefferson Counties were provided an opportunity
to respond, but they chose not to do so.



Chautauqua County responded: “…it is not clear if a percentage is the recommended basis for
determining fringe rates or actual fringe benefit amounts should be used.”

STATE COMPTROLLER’S NOTE: The report does not take a position regarding which method
is the optimal one. The report recommends maximizing the reimbursements, using whichever
method local officials determine to be the most effective for achieving this goal.

Chautauqua County responded: “…we feel that we have been claiming the correct Federal
Reimbursement for the following reasons…”

STATE COMPTROLLER’S NOTE: This concern has been addressed in OSC’s response on this
issue in the individual unit’s letter report.

Rockland County responded: “The audit and report are both informative and constructive, and
the findings will be utilized by Rockland County to maximize our Federal and State Aid on direct
billing of services provided to the Department of Social Services by the District Attorney’s Office
and the Sheriff’s Department.”

Sullivan County responded: “We concur with your findings and recommendations and have taken
steps to address the deficiencies contained in your report.”




                   DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                    15
                                         APPENDIX B

                   AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS

We examined the Counties’ central service Plans for 2005 and the operations of County departments
furnishing both direct and indirect services to the respective County Departments of Social
Services for the period of January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006. Specific areas addressed in our
audit include indirect cost claiming process, identification of reimbursable costs, and direct billing
optimization.

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed County officials, communicated with appropriate
third parties, reviewed central service Plans, annual financial reports and ledgers, County budgets,
payroll records, department direct billings for services, and other documents maintained by the
Counties that were relevant to our objectives.

To obtain valid audit evidence, our procedures included the following:

   •   We reviewed Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State,
       Local, and Indian Tribal Governments (OMB Circular A-87) which establishes uniform
       principles and standards for determining allowable costs applicable to Federal grants,
       contracts, and other Federal agreements with local governments; Cost Principles and
       Procedures for Establishing Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates for Agreements
       with the Federal Government (ASMB C-10), an implementation guide issued by the United
       States Department of Health and Human Services to assist state and local governments in
       applying OMB Circular A-87; the Fiscal Reference Manual (FRM), a publication issued
       by the State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), that interprets the
       Federal requirements and provides detailed guidance to local social services districts within
       the State for the financial administration of these programs; and relevant provisions of the
       State’s Local Finance Law.

   •   We compared the Counties’ financial records with their 2005 central service Plans to verify
       the identification and inclusion of all material services and costs chargeable to social
       services programs. We also verified that the amount of indirect costs claimed through the
       OTDA was consistent with the annual Plan amount.

   •   We reviewed the Counties’ 2005 Plans to assess the reasonableness of the allocation
       methods in use for the various County cost centers.

   •    For County departments that directly bill their respective County Departments of Social
       Services for their services, we calculated the cost to these departments of providing the
       services and compared it with the related billings to the Departments of Social Services.

Central service department costs allocable to a county social services department are generally
eligible for a 50 percent share of costs on federally participating programs. However, for some


  16               OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
programs the percentage of Federal reimbursement may differ from the 50 percent rate. So as not
to overly complicate matters, we applied a 50 percent Federal reimbursement rate when calculating
estimates of Federal reimbursement for revenue enhancements/accelerations of this nature.

Other revenue enhancements/accelerations addressed in this report are considered Department of
Social Services administrative costs and must be allocated to the various social services programs
administered by the Department of Social Services. Because these costs are generally reimbursed
at the 50 percent level by the Federal government and the 25 percent level by the State, we applied
these percentages when calculating estimates of Federal and State reimbursement for revenue
enhancements/accelerations of this nature.

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 objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.




                    DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                    17
                                         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/




  18               OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER
                                                    APPENDIX D
                          OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER
                           DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
                            AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY
                                          Steven J. Hancox, Deputy Comptroller
                                          John C. Traylor, Assistant Comptroller

                                  LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING
BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICE                                       GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE
Robert Meller, Chief Examiner                                 Karl Smoczynski, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller                                Office of the State Comptroller
295 Main Street, Room 1050                                    One Broad Street Plaza
Buffalo, New York 14203-2510                                  Glens Falls, New York 12801-4396
(716) 847-3647 Fax (716) 847-3643                             (518) 793-0057 Fax (518) 793-5797
Email: Muni-Buffalo@osc.state.ny.us                           Email: Muni-GlensFalls@osc.state.ny.us

Serving: Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie,             Serving: Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton,
Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming counties                   Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington
                                                              counties

ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE                                     ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICE
Edward V. Grant, Jr., Chief Examiner                          Kenneth Madej, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller                                Office of the State Comptroller
The Powers Building                                           22 Computer Drive West
16 West Main Street – Suite 522                               Albany, New York 12205-1695
Rochester, New York 14614-1608                                (518) 438-0093 Fax (518) 438-0367
(585) 454-2460 Fax (585) 454-3545                             Email: Muni-Albany@osc.state.ny.us
Email: Muni-Rochester@osc.state.ny.us
                                                              Serving: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene,
Serving: Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe,                 Schenectady, Ulster counties
Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates
counties
                                                              HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICE
SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICE                                      Richard J. Rennard, Chief Examiner
Eugene A. Camp, Chief Examiner                                Office of the State Comptroller
Office of the State Comptroller                                NYS Office Building, Room 3A10
State Office Building, Room 409                                Veterans Memorial Highway
333 E. Washington Street                                      Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533
Syracuse, New York 13202-1428                                 (631) 952-6534 Fax (631) 952-6530
(315) 428-4192 Fax (315) 426-2119                             Email: Muni-Hauppauge@osc.state.ny.us
Email: Muni-Syracuse@osc.state.ny.us
                                                              Serving: Nassau, Suffolk counties
Serving: Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison,
Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence counties

BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICE                                    NEWBURGH REGIONAL OFFICE
Patrick Carbone, Chief Examiner                               Christopher Ellis, Chief Examiner
Office of the State Comptroller                                Office of the State Comptroller
State Office Building, Room 1702                               33 Airport Center Drive, Suite 103
44 Hawley Street                                              New Windsor, NY 12553-4725
Binghamton, New York 13901-4417                               (845) 567-0858 Fax (845) 567-0080
(607) 721-8306 Fax (607) 721-8313                             Email: Muni-Newburgh@osc.state.ny.us
Email: Muni-Binghamton@osc.state.ny.us
                                                              Serving: Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Westchester
Serving: Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware,                counties
Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins
counties

                         DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND SCHOOL ACCOUNTABILITY                                      19

								
To top