OFFICE OF THE N E W Y O R

OFFICE OF THE N E W Y O R K S TA T E C O M P T RO L L E R D IVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Effectiveness of Coordinated Assessment Programs 2004-MS-2 A LAN G. H EVESI TABLE OF CONTENTS Page AUTHORITY LETTER 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 INTRODUCTION Background Objectives Scope and Methodology Responses of Local Officials 7 7 7 7 8 MEASUREMENTS OF ASSESSMENT QUALITY Coefficient of Dispersion Price-Related Differential 2002 Quality Statistics Cost of Assessment Inequities Recommendations 9 9 10 10 11 12 NET COST OF ASSESSMENT SERVICES Recommendation 14 16 APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D Responses of Local Officials Audit Methodology and Standards How to Obtain Additional Copies of the Report Local Regional Office Listing 17 18 20 21 DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1 State of New York Office of the State Comptroller Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development September 2004 Dear Local Officials: One of the Office of the State Comptroller’s top priorities is to identify areas where local governments can improve their operations and to provide guidance and services that will assist local officials in making those improvements. Further objectives are to develop and promote short-term and long-term strategies to enable and encourage local government officials to reduce costs, improve service delivery and to account for and protect their governments’ assets. The reports issued by this Office are an important component in accomplishing these objectives. These reports are expected to be a resource and are designed to identify current and emerging fiscally related problems and provide recommendations for improvement. The following is our report on the Effectiveness of Coordinated Assessment Programs. This audit was conducted pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article V, §1 of the State Constitution and Article 3 of the General Municipal Law. The report contains opportunities for improvement for consideration by municipalities that are not currently involved in a coordinated assessment program. If we can be of assistance to you, or if you have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact the local regional office for your county listed at the back of this report. Respectfully submitted, Office of the State Comptroller Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 3 State of New York Office of the State Comptroller EXECUTIVE SUMMARY One objective of the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) is to encourage a reduction in the number of assessing jurisdictions in New York State in order to improve efficiency in the administration of the real property tax. The Coordinated Assessment Program was created as one means to accomplish this objective. Two or more towns and cities within the same county may establish a Coordinated Assessment Program (CAP) by jointly entering into an intermunicipal cooperative agreement which provides for a single assessor to be appointed to hold the office of assessor in all of the participating municipalities (Real Property Tax Law, §579). The agreement must also provide that the same uniform percentage of value will be used for all assessments throughout the CAP and the same assessment calendar will be used by all municipalities that participate in the CAP. It was envisioned that this program would provide a way for smaller municipalities to reduce the costs of reassessment, facilitate acquisition of new technology and obtain valuation expertise by consolidation. Consolidation allows smaller municipalities to hire full-time, professionally trained assessors who can improve assessment consistency and provide better services to taxpayers. There are currently 42 CAPs in existence throughout the State. ORPS treats each CAP as a unit. Thus, the equalization rate as well as the other quality statistics are calculated over the entire area of the CAP. Scope and Objectives Our audit covered the period from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2002. We reviewed the assessment operations of six CAPs throughout the State and compared the assessment costs and quality statistics of each CAP unit with a similar municipality that does not participate in a Coordinated Assessment Program (a non-CAP unit). In total, we examined the assessment departments of 19 municipalities. The objective of our audit was to determine the effectiveness of Coordinated Assessment Programs by answering the following questions: • Do Coordinated Assessment Programs result in higher quality assessment rolls? ES-1 • Do Coordinated Assessment Programs result in lower costs for the municipalities that participate in them? DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 5 Audit Results To measure the quality of the assessment function, we used criteria established by ORPS and the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). Their criteria evaluate how uniformly each unit has assessed its properties to a given percentage of market value. While every assessment roll contains some valuation errors, low quality rolls have more inequitable assessments than high quality rolls do. According to a 2002 market value survey conducted by ORPS, all six CAPs had higher quality assessment rolls than their comparable non-CAP units. We estimate that the average tax bills paid for median-priced homes in the non-CAP communities varied by $337 to $807, more or less, from the amounts that the municipalities should have levied using equitable assessments. The average tax bills for median-priced homes in the CAP units were $108 to $325 closer to the amounts that should have been levied. Consequently, taxpayers in the CAP units paid more equitable tax bills. Although we cannot determine the impact of all factors that influence the quality of assessments, we note that CAP units must appoint sole assessors who often receive more training than the elected three-member boards in some non-CAP units. In addition, because parcels are assessed for two or more municipalities, CAP units frequently have more property sales to review for comparative purposes when arriving at assessment values. We could not reasonably conclude whether CAPs result in lower per parcel assessment costs for the municipalities that participate in them. While five of the six CAPs had lower net costs per parcel at some point during the four-year audit period, only three CAP units’ costs were lower all four years and at December 31, 2002. Reaching a conclusion was not practical since assessment costs vary among municipalities for many reasons, including differences in staffing levels, compensation rates, employee benefits, legal fees and the amounts of State aid received. Responses of Local Officials We provided draft copies of this report to local officials. Their comments were considered in preparing this report and are included in Appendix A. Local officials generally agreed that our recommendations would improve the quality of assessments. However, concerns were noted relating to the costs of a CAP and the ability to join a CAP. 6 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER Introduction Background One objective of the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) is to encourage a reduction in the number of assessing jurisdictions in New York State in order to improve efficiency in the administration of the real property tax. The Coordinated Assessment Program was created as one means to accomplish this objective. Two or more towns and cities within the same county may establish a Coordinated Assessment Program (CAP) by jointly entering into an intermunicipal cooperative agreement which provides for a single assessor to be appointed to hold the office of assessor in all of the participating municipalities (Real Property Tax Law, §579). The agreement must also provide that the same uniform percentage of value be used for all assessments throughout the CAP and the same assessment calendar be used by all municipalities that participate in the CAP. It was envisioned that this program would provide a way for smaller municipalities to reduce the costs of reassessment, facilitate acquisition of new technology and obtain valuation expertise by consolidation. Consolidation allows smaller municipalities to hire full-time, professionally trained assessors who can improve fairness and provide better services to taxpayers. There are currently 42 CAPs in existence throughout the State. ORPS treats each CAP as a unit. Thus, the equalization rate as well as the other quality statistics are calculated over the entire area of the CAP. Objectives The objective of our audit was to determine the effectiveness of Coordinated Assessment Programs by answering the following questions: • • Do Coordinated Assessment Programs result in higher quality assessment rolls? Do Coordinated Assessment Programs result in lower costs for the municipalities that participate in them? Scope and Methodology We visited six CAP and six non-CAP units to review the quality and costs of assessment operations for the period January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2002. In total, we examined the assessment departments of 19 municipalities. We conducted our audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. More information on such standards and the methodology used in performing this audit are included in Appendix B of this report. DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 7 Responses of Local Officials We provided draft copies of this report to local officials. Their comments were considered in preparing this report and are included in Appendix A. Local officials generally agreed that our recommendations would improve the quality of assessments. However, concerns were noted relating to the costs of a CAP and the ability to join a CAP. 8 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER Measurements of Assessment Quality To measure the quality of the assessment function, we used criteria established by ORPS and the International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO). ORPS periodically evaluates the quality of assessments in the State by performing market value surveys to gather statistical information to determine whether localities are equitably assessing the parcels within their jurisdictions. The last market value survey was conducted in 2002. Two statistical measures of assessment uniformity (quality) are calculated as part of this survey process: the coefficient of dispersion and the price-related differential. Coefficient of Dispersion The primary means of measuring assessment uniformity is a widely used statistic known as the coefficient of dispersion (COD). Since all parcels in an assessing unit must be assessed at a uniform percentage of market value, there should be little variation among their assessment ratios (i.e., assessed value divided by market value). The COD measures the extent to which the assessment ratios from a given assessment roll exhibit dispersion around a midpoint, or median assessment ratio. While every roll contains some valuation errors, assessing units with good assessing practices have low CODs. High CODs indicate inconsistent assessments which result in more inequitable tax bills for properties of equal value. ORPS has established accepted standards for assessment uniformity based on population density. These standards are summarized in Table 1 below: Table 1 ORPS Standards for Assessment Uniformity Population Density Coefficient of Dispersion (per square mile) For All Property Types (COD) < 20% 100 or less < 17% 101 to 400 < 15% over 400 DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 9 Price-Related Differential A second statistical measure of assessment uniformity is the price-related differential (PRD). The PRD is used to determine if there is a systematic bias on an assessment roll that causes over-assessments of either higheror lower-value properties in comparison to the average property. A PRD of one (1.00) indicates no bias between higher- and lower-valued properties. This is referred to as “neutral” assessment practice. Assessments with a PRD greater than one means lower-value properties are being relatively over-assessed and higher-value properties are being relatively under-assessed. Assessments with a PRD less than one means higher-value properties are being over-assessed and lower-value properties are being under-assessed. For quality assessing, the PRD should fall within the acceptable range of 0.98 and 1.03, according to both the IAAO and ORPS. 2002 Quality Statistics Table 2 shows the results of the 2002 market value survey for each assessing unit included in our audit. The COD and PRD statistics are for all property types. Table 2 Results of 2002 Market Value Survey (All Property Types) COD PRD ORPS and/or IAAO Standard Assessing Unit Broome County CAP #1 Town of Colesville Chautauqua County CAP #3 Town of Arkwright Cortland County CAP #2 Town of Truxton Schoharie County CAP #1 Town of Jefferson Tioga County CAP #1 Town of Spencer Warren County CAP #2 City of Gloversville, Fulton County * < 20% 0.98-1.03 41.92% 53.18% 18.84% 25.20% 6.66% 15.73% 13.60% 19.04% 16.02% 31.75% *10.60% *21.44% 1.28 1.31 0.94 0.62 1.02 1.02 0.56 1.03 1.05 1.19 1.02 1.07 The City of Gloversville and the municipalities in the Warren County CAP #2 have a higher population density, so the accepted standard established by ORPS for the COD is less than or equal to 15%. 10 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER As shown in Table 2, each CAP unit achieved a better COD than its comparable non-CAP unit listed below it. With the exception of the Broome County CAP #1 (Broome CAP), all other CAP units were within the accepted quality standard. Only two of the non-CAP units (the Towns of Truxton and Jefferson) met the accepted standard for all property types. The CAP units also generally had better PRDs than their comparable non-CAP units. Since ORPS computes CODs for the various property types, we decided to also compare how consistently the units assessed residential properties to other property classes (e.g., agricultural). While the “all property” CODs typify how most assessing units valued their residential properties, we note that the Broome CAP and the Towns of Colesville and Spencer assessed residential properties much more equitably than other property types, (e.g., agricultural, industrial). Although we cannot determine the impact of all factors that influence the quality of assessments, we note that CAP units must appoint sole assessors who often receive more training than the elected three-member boards in some non-CAP units. Of the six non-CAP units audited, only the Towns of Truxton and Arkwright and the City of Gloversville had sole assessors. While both elected and appointed assessors are required to achieve basic certification as a State Certified Assessor within three years of taking office, only sole assessors must complete an average of 24 continuing education credits in approved courses per year. Members of elected boards are not required to obtain this additional training. Of the elected three-member boards audited, we found that only two assessors in the Town of Jefferson had obtained the additional training. This unit was one of only two non-CAP units that met ORPS’ quality standards. In addition, because parcels are assessed for two or more municipalities, another factor positively affecting quality is that CAP units frequently have more property sales to review for comparative purposes when arriving at assessment values. Cost of Assessment Inequities To illustrate how quality assessing impacts the values assigned to properties of equal market value, we estimated how each assessing unit’s COD would affect the real property taxes of a median-priced residence. We obtained the 2002 median sales price of homes in the counties where the assessing units are located. Then, using the county, town or city and school district tax rates in the 19 municipalities audited, we calculated the combined weighted average overlapping tax rate(s) per thousand for each CAP and its comparable non-CAP unit. Finally, using the appropriate CODs, we estimated how much the real property taxes paid by houses with equal market values might vary due to inequitable assessments. 11 DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The costs reflected in Table 3 represent a range of inequities in real property taxes due to both over-assessments and under-assessments. Since the City of Gloversville is located in Fulton County, the median sale price of homes in the City differs from the median sale price of homes in the Warren County CAP #2. While we included the cost of assessment inequity in Table 3, we should point out that in addition to the different CODs, the differences in the median sale price of homes and tax rates also impact the cost of inequitable taxes in these units. For all other assessing units, we held all factors constant except the COD in order to show the disparity in taxes as a result of the different CODs. Table 3 2002 Median Sale Price of Home in County $69,000 $59,000 $68,000 $77,000 $73,000 $116,000 $58,500 2002 Cost of Assessment Inequity (+ or -) Weighted Average Overlapping Tax Rate Per Thousand Assessing Unit $21.98 Broome County CAP #1 Town of Colesville $28.80 Chautauqua County CAP #3 Town of Arkwright $31.51 Cortland County CAP #2 Town of Truxton $28.21 Schoharie County CAP #1 Town of Jefferson $28.36 Tioga County CAP #1 Town of Spencer $19.70 Warren County CAP #2 $33.80 City of Gloversville County Broome Chautauqua Cortland Schoharie Tioga Warren Fulton 2002 COD 41.92% 53.18% 18.84% 25.20% 6.66% 15.73% 13.60% 19.04% 16.02% 31.75% 10.60% 21.44% Cost of Assessment Inequity in Taxes ± $636 ± $807 ± $320 ± $428 ± $143 ± $337 ± $295 ± $414 ± $332 ± $657 ± $242 ± $424 In each case, due to the higher quality assessment rolls, the real property taxes paid by homeowners in the CAP units were more consistent and accurate than in the non-CAP units. Recommendations 1. Municipal officials in municipalities that do not currently participate in a Coordinated Assessment Program should consider participating in a program with one or more other towns or cities in their county in order to improve the quality of assessing services. 12 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER 2. If municipal officials cannot participate in a CAP, they should consider providing their assessors with the same training currently required of sole assessors to obtain improvements in assessment quality. DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 13 Net Cost of Assessment Services To encourage efficient assessing in local governments, the State created a consolidation incentive aid program in 1994 that offered municipalities a one-time payment of up to $10 per parcel to merge their assessment functions. The one-time aid payment for new CAPs established since 1997 dropped to a maximum of $7 per parcel. However, if a municipality withdraws from the CAP and re-establishes its own assessing function within ten years, it must repay a prorated portion of the incentive aid to the State. The CAPs included in our audit received incentive aid payments totaling from $2,960 to $88,675 when their assessing functions were merged. To determine whether CAPs result in lower costs to the municipalities that participate in them, we reviewed data for the fiscal years ending from 1999 to 2002. We computed the units’ total costs per parcel. For the CAP units, we then factored in the incentive aid received, but we allocated it over ten years to smooth out the effect of the one-time payment. While Table 4 includes the incentive aid, we note that net costs presented in the table are not affected significantly by it. If we excluded the incentive aid, the assessment costs per parcel in the CAP units would increase slightly, but it would not change the determination of whether they had higher or lower costs than their respective non-CAP units. 14 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER Table 4 TOTAL NET COST OF ASSESSMENT PER PARCEL Assessing Unit 1999 2000 2001 2002 Broome County CAP #1 Town of Colesville Chautauqua County CAP #3 Town of Arkwright Cortland County CAP #2 Town of Truxton Schoharie County CAP #1 Town of Jefferson Tioga County CAP #1 Town of Spencer Warren County CAP #2 City of Gloversville $3.92 $10.44 $0.63 $6.09 $3.14 $6.34 $9.19 $6.47 $4.90 $7.59 $9.29 $15.82 $3.93 $11.53 $5.33 $9.12 $5.59 $8.29 $3.18 $6.92 $6.44 $7.78 $14.43 $10.24 $8.90 $8.64 $18.41 $8.71 ($0.42) $0.79 $8.19 $6.58 $3.93 $6.62 $9.51 $8.99 $7.38 $8.41 $13.10 $12.11 $5.46 $7.06 $14.12 $9.77 $7.63 $8.92 $17.30 $8.17 Notes: Bold amounts represent lower costs per parcel. Revenues (state aid) exceeded costs in the Chautauqua County CAP #3 in 2000. We could not reasonably conclude whether CAPs result in lower per parcel assessment costs for the municipalities that participate in them. While five of the six CAPs had lower net costs per parcel at some point during the four-year audit period, only three CAP units’ net costs were lower all four years and at December 31, 2002. Reaching a conclusion was not practical since assessment costs vary among municipalities for many reasons, including differences in staffing levels, compensation rates, employee benefits, legal fees and the amounts of state aid received. For example, net costs per parcel in the Tioga County CAP #1 (Tioga CAP) were lower than in the Town of Spencer from 1999 to 2001. However, the CAP’s net costs per parcel exceeded those of the Town in 2002, primarily because of increasing health insurance costs. The Town of Spencer does not provide health insurance coverage to its elected three-member Board of Assessors. In addition, the Warren and Schoharie DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 15 CAPs incurred more legal fees for Article 7 litigation and tax certioraris, respectively, than their comparable non-CAP units. Despite our inability to make an overall conclusion, we noted some practices employed by the CAPs that saved their municipalities money. For example, the assessor and his staff in the Chautauqua CAP worked in one shared office instead of having separate offices in each town. This practice lowered the resulting overhead costs per parcel within the CAP. In addition, the Chautauqua CAP and Cortland County CAP #2 (Cortland CAP) both received maintenance aid from the State, while their respective non-CAP units did not. To qualify for this additional aid program currently, assessing units must meet quality assessment administration standards as measured annually by ORPS and have applied for the aid in either 1999 or 2000. Assessing units can meet this requirement by implementing a State-approved reassessment that satisfies the uniformity standards in the year of the reassessment and the following two years; or by achieving a satisfactory assessment uniformity standard as measured by the COD. Recommendation 3. The governing boards of municipalities participating in a CAP should consider whether they could maintain customer service and reduce costs by consolidating the assessment function into one shared office. 16 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER APPENDIX A RESPONSES OF LOCAL OFFICIALS A draft copy of this report was sent to each of the nineteen municipalities we audited. The following comments were excerpted from the responses we received. “I agree that a three person Assessment Unit usually is not as well trained; however, the cost of the Assessment Unit is lower. An inequitable assessment could materialize… Most Assessing Units have a 100% equalization rate, but in 2002 the CODs in (our) County were too high. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, most townships are either doing a re-evaluation or updating. This should cause the CODs to go down… I can see the benefits of a CAP program in areas where assessments are inequitable, and there is no plan to improve the situation…we are in the process of making our County equitable.” “The town (which participates in a CAP) has found that having a full-time person at a full-time salary enables him (the assessor) to devote his time to do the work. We have also found it easier to defend our utility assessments and that the assessor’s hours are more accessible to the public.” “I feel that the results proved positive that Coordinated Assessment Programs are a more efficient way of assessing municipalities….A second point to make is that the assessment quality of governments involved in a CAP seems to produce better equity in assessments as compared to those not involved in a CAP…. The cost of inequity for the CAP municipalities being lower than the cost of inequity of the non-CAP municipality is further evidence that CAPs are cost effective.” “It would be difficult for our town to join a CAP, as the only similar town… [has] had a sole assessor for years and [has] been happy with the system.” “It is evident to me that we will see more small towns go to a CAP set-up as the amount of qualified assessors becomes smaller every year… The inducement to form a CAP by providing some sort of funding was a worthwhile program and would doubtless interest some of the smaller towns…” “I am certainly willing to study any assessment strategies that would enable the town to (a) reduce costs, (b) improve delivery (of) service and (c) account for and protect the assets of the town. I will suggest a comprehensive, objective study be conducted as to the advantages and disadvantages of the formation of a CAP in which (our town) is one of the participating municipalities. The information set forth … does not convince me that a CAP formed by (our town) would reduce costs, improve service delivery or better account for and protect (our) assets. I believe the assessments (in our town) are fair, equitable and in compliance with applicable provisions of law. However, I am prepared to look at data and options which might make the assessments fairer, more equitable, and more economical to complete.” DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 17 APPENDIX B AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS To accomplish our audit objectives, we reviewed the assessment operations of six Coordinated Assessment Programs throughout the State and compared the assessment costs and quality statistics of each CAP unit with a similar municipality that does not participate in a Coordinated Assessment Program. In total, we conducted on-site audits of the assessment departments of nineteen municipalities. Our audit covered the period from January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2002. The following table shows the CAP and non-CAP municipalities that we compared to each other as part of our audit. Comparable Assessing Units Municipalities Included in CAP Non-CAP Municipality Broome County CAP #1 Town of Colesville Town of Lisle Town of Nanticoke Chautauqua County CAP #3 Town of Arkwright Town of Harmony Town of Kiantone Cortland County CAP #2 Town of Truxton Town of Lapeer Town of Marathon Schoharie County CAP #1 Town of Esperance Town of Jefferson Town of Schoharie Town of Wright Tioga County CAP #1 Town of Spencer Town of Candor Town of Tioga Warren County CAP #2 City of Gloversville City of Glens Falls Town of Queensbury With the exception of the City of Gloversville, which is located in Fulton County, each non-CAP unit is located within the same county as its comparable CAP unit. We selected the non-CAP units for comparison purposes based on their similarity to the municipalities in the CAP units with respect to the average number of parcels and the ratio of residential and agricultural parcels to total parcels. There was no city in Warren 18 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER County comparable to the municipalities in the Warren County CAP #2, so we chose the City of Gloversville in nearby Fulton County due to similarities in the types of property. When selecting the non-CAP municipalities for our audit, we excluded municipalities that shared assessors with other municipalities but which had not formally established a CAP. Our audit included the following procedures that were necessary in order to obtain valid audit evidence concerning our stated objectives: • • • We interviewed municipal officers and employees about assessment operations and related internal controls and procedures. We reviewed annual financial reports, general and subsidiary ledgers and payroll records to quantify assessment-related revenues and expenditures. We reviewed relevant State laws, rules and regulations associated with the administration of the assessment function in local governments, including information developed and promulgated by the Office of Real Property Services (ORPS). However, we did not review ORPS operations or evaluate its control structure. We obtained parcel counts and quality statistics such as the coefficient of dispersion and price-related differential from ORPS and compared the statistics of each CAP with the similar non-CAP unit. We also compared the quality statistics of each assessing unit with the accepted standards established by ORPS and/or the International Association of Assessment Officers (IAAO). We calculated the cost of assessment inequities for each assessing unit based on the 2002 COD, the 2002 median sale prices of homes in the County and the weighted average overlapping tax rate. We consulted with representatives from ORPS on the calculation of assessment inequities as well as various other matters. • • • We conducted our audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards. Such standards require that we plan and conduct our audit to adequately assess those municipal operations within our audit scope. Further, those standards require that we understand the municipalities’ management controls and compliance with those laws, rules and regulations that are relevant to the municipalities’ operations included in our scope. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting transactions recorded in the accounting and operating records and applying such other auditing procedures as we consider necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 19 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/ 20 OFFICE OF THE NEW YORK STATE COMPTROLLER APPENDIX D OFFICE OF THE STATE COMPTROLLER DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mark P. Pattison, Deputy Comptroller Steven J. Hancox, Assistant Comptroller John Clarkson, Assistant Comptroller LOCAL REGIONAL OFFICE LISTING BUFFALO REGIONAL OFFICE Robert Meller, Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller 1050 Ellicott Square Building 295 Main Street Buffalo, New York 14203 (716) 847-3647 Fax (716) 847-3643 E-Mail: Muni-Buffalo@osc.state.ny.us Allegany, Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming SYRACUSE REGIONAL OFFICE Debora Wagner, Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller State Office Building, Room 409 333 East Washington Street Syracuse, New York 13202 (315) 428-4192 Fax (315)426-2119 E-Mail: Muni-Syracuse@osc.state.ny.us Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence GLENS FALLS REGIONAL OFFICE Karl Smoczynski, Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller One Broad Street Plaza Glens Falls, New York 12801 (518) 793-0057 Fax (518) 793-5797 E-Mail: Muni-GlensFalls@osc.state.ny.us Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICE Allan S. Cohen, Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller NYS Office Building, Room 3A10 Veteran’s Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788-5533 (631) 952-6534 Fax (631) 952-6530 E-Mail: Muni-Hauppauge@osc.state.ny.us Nassau, Suffolk ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE Ed Grant, Principal Examiner Office of the State Comptroller The Powers Building 16 West Main Street - Suite 522 Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 454-2460 Fax (585) 454-3545 E-Mail: Muni-Rochester@osc.state.ny.us Cayuga, Chemung, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates BINGHAMTON REGIONAL OFFICE Patrick Carbone, Chief Examiner 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 E-Mail: Muni-Binghamton@osc.state.ny.us Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICE Thomas J. Kelly, Jr., Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller 22 Computer Drive West Albany, New York 12205 (518) 438-0093 Fax (518) 438-0367 E-Mail: Muni-Albany@osc.state.ny.us Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Schenectady, Ulster, Westchester DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 21