Full Text
\ l ousn (D3tS; Rpo’: f Exanratim Period Covercd 2002 Aug: 7 2G3 2004M-50 ALAN G. HEVESI OFFICE OF THE NEw YORK STATE CoMPTRoLLER I ---PAGE BREAK--- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Backiround Objectives Scope and Methodology Comments ofLocal Officials and Cogective Action INMATE HOUSING COSTS Facility Capacity Facility Cost Comparison Monitoring ofinmate Housing Costs FacilityPlanning Recommendations Page 15 18 19 20 ‘I -5 ) 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 12 14 APPENDIXA APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E Responses from Local Officials OSC Comments to the County ofCortlanths Response Audit Methodology and Standards Flow to Obtain Additional Copies ofthe Report Local Regional Office Listing D!vIsIoN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- State of New York Division of Local Government Services and Economic Development September2004 Dear County Officials: One ofthe Office ofthe State Comptroller’s top priorities is to identify areas where local governments can improve theiroperations and provide guidance and services thatwill assist local officials in makingthose improvements Further objecti es are to de elop and promote shortterm and longterm strategtes to enable and encourage local goverrnnent 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 fiscaHy related problems andprovide recommendations for improvement. The following is ourreport on Cortland County Inmate Housing Costs. This audit was conducted pursuant to the State Comptroller’s authority as set forth in Article § 1 ofthe State Constitution and Article 3 ofthe General Municipal Law. The report contains opportunities for improvement for consideration by the County Legislature. Ifwe can be ofassistance to you or ifyou have any questions concerning this report, please feel free to contact the local regional office frr your county listed at the back ofthis report. Respectfully submitted, Oi/Ice of the State Comptroller Division ofLocal Government SérvieCs and Economic Development f DivTsoN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERViCES AND ECONOMiC I ---PAGE BREAK--- f New Ycrk : EXECUT T E SUMMARY I vcr county in New York State is required by law to maintain ajail. Co:mt: jail. tenJ he complex operation’. that coistant ptpL1t ion Wrno er hecause the house mmaws semenLd to hoi Lrms enea Iv less dun one c Vhen the numl of u iatc’. espc-:cdl ihose ho must he set’este eLf ti-orn the eneral inmate populaLioni the jai capacity. aftemut’’es such as hoardin’ out inmates in other lails must be utilized. 1 hus. the sue and desin ofthe jail facility has an efIëct on the costs hn olved in rinic ( usiod ortland ( ountv current jal facdit (JaH ) was completed in 1990. lt has a rectangular design v ith ‘omdors !eiding to sells armnged at nghl angles to the con-ido 1 s which reijuires intermittent inmate supcrvisioii opposed Jo mao’ ovc— jail faslItRs ‘hch ;ia’ pdulur desiFn OF pods” h ifl2 elk ustei’ arounil SI common .‘risa) and dire.t innate super u.iofl. Generally, the podular design is more effic ient, and allo s fbr adequate supervision by fewerjail staff During 2002, an average of 59 inmates were housed daily in the jail and a total of3 inmates were boarded out. kfl(L{ A.eauJjteii this fiscal impct it .he Ja iciht mciwiriii to Inria- ho.rr-ne rsrs 1 he iii tI(1L)JJ -\rLus 7 ‘oc u-audi rIc i I h’ is ( ountv fieijls monitored inmate housing costs and taker steps ti address the nsuflicicncics ot the Jail rdt is 0 ! th. 1111.0 his! 0,01 eqti.’’\ i: rti’ I ‘ilNc’h ‘JO is - - I. 1. I. —i - - - : I ‘‘ii— - ‘ tt 0 s • , , -;i’ji’ 5 - . - - i — ,t •55 • ‘ ‘0 - - • N -.rc uer u. We also found that ‘ hen W :;‘pleJ 1 (‘iu stJl1t--llUUJtC ratro to ( ‘rtland ( ‘‘orJ I I isI1’aisiT inland (ouni c Jail • - 1’ Ic s , j’ I DivisioN OF LOCAL GOVERNMI.:.NT SERVICES AND EcoNoM cDLOPMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- ihe mximur’ capact ‘lC’rtlanJ (‘unt s Jail 5 inmates Variances have been granted h the New \it k State Conmissiun J( orrceti n annu I i f .he pa.s sex en c.rs H x’ houine 15 m:re inmates hringmg the J uI s total capacit to 74 inmatec because the Jail population has increaced beyond design capacity. Even with these variances. County ofuicials still needed to board out inmates to other counties. even at times v hen they had a ailahie cell space. due to the Jail s older rectangular design and insufficient space to accommodate frnale inmates. It :nporant thai ‘ou,ut ofUcLul bear in mind that ar;anLus are no granted amomaticti iv and that reoucst I r them can he deniJ ac x us recont Iv dnn’’ in a count There also should he some concern that space to house inmates out rna not always he aailah1e at neighboring facilities. Excessive tra ci to facilities further could also add to costs to house out inmates. Vhile se note that the County I egislature has taken some planning initiati’ es to address the the Counx does no have a fbmiaiized pl iii to address the insulThicncv ofthe mu facility. [he Countys cost to house hs inmates increased from about $2.4 to $2.7 million from 2002 to 2003, while the cost to board out inmates to other Counties’ facilities grew 1w more than 140 percent from 2001 through the end of2003. I.ased nit Uflu)LifltS mcluded in C ortland ‘ount s audited annual ilnancial reports. the unreserved general fund balance decreased fronu $5.8 Lillio[i at [)ecemher 1. 2000 to less than $1 .8 million at the end o12002. Additionally, the Count’ had exhausted almost 84 percent of its Constitutional taxing authority un 2003. Given this declining flnancial condition it is particularly important fur County oihcials and managers to be cognizant of the imp:wt nflriereacng Ja1 costs ar’d planning for adequate resourcec to address the insufficiency ni’the Jail. Comments of Local Officials I he results iour :u iclit incl reconunendati’ uis ha’ c bee’ discussed . th ‘nunt otliciats and then co 1 nnems, vhich appear 1a% bLLIi n preparing this report. County ofiiciaisgdneraiiy agreed with our recommendations and indicated they planned to initiate corrective action. floTHEKSOMPTROLRfl ---PAGE BREAK--- E=1 Background Cortland Count is located in central New York State and has a population of48,599. The County provides all the services common to New York State counties, including, among others, general governmental functions, road maintenance, social services, public health, mental health and public safety (including the operation ofa countyjail). For the fiscal year ended December31. 2002. the audited financial statements reported total revenues and expenditures for all funds to be $66,091,105 and $68,618,589, respectively. Every county in New York State is required by law to maintain ajail. Countyjails tend to be complex operations that experience constant population turnover because they house inmates sentenced to shortterms, generally less than one year. When the number ofinmates (especially those who must he sequestered from the general inmate population) exceeds the jail’s capacity, alternatives such as boarding out inmates iii otherjails must be utilized. Thus, the size and design ofthejail facility has an effect on the costs involved in inmate custody Cortland County’s currentjail facility (Jail) was completed in 1990. It has a rectangular design with corridors leading to cells arranged at right angles to the corridors which requires intermittent inmate supervision as opposed to many newerjail facilities which have podular designs (units or“pods” having cells clustered around a common area) and direct inmate supervision, Generally, the podulardesign is more efficient, and allows for adequate supervision by fewerjail staff During 2002, an average of 59 inmates were housed daily in the Jail and a total of32 inmates were boarded out. The County’s total cost to house its inmates increased from about $2.4 to $2.7 million from 2002 to 2003, while the cost to board out inmates to other counties’ facilities grew by more than 140 percent from 200! throueh the end of2003, Based on amounts included in Cortland County’s audited annual financial reports. the unreserved general fund balance decreased from S58 million at December31. 2000 to less than Si .8 million at the end ot 2002 Addibonallx the Counts hd exhau,sad a1ri.st 84 percent of its Constitutional taxing authority in 2003. Given this declinina financial condition it isparticularlv important for Count officials inc manacirs K izan i’ r’pwt ifr ea.r nr’.ite costsanddetetm 1 avfirtheCounts toprovidethisservic.e. DivisioN OF LOCAL. Govsimsrr vicss ivm E..coNouic DEvELoPMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- The objective ofour audit was to answer the following question: • Have County officials monitored inmate housing costs and taken steps to address the insufficiencies ofthe Jail facility? Scope and Methodology Comments of Local Officials and Corrective Action During our audit we examined the fiscal impact ofthe Cortlarid County Jail facilit relating to inmate boarding costs for the period of January 1.2002 through ugust 7. 2003. We conducted our audit in accordance with Generally Accepted GovernmentAuditing Standards. More infonnation on such standards and the methodology used in performing this audit are included in Appendix B ofthis report. The results ofour audit and recommendations have been discussed with County officials and their comments, which appear in AppendixA, have been considered inpreparing thisreport. County officials genemily agreed with our recommendations and indicated they planned to initiate corrective action. The County Legislature has the responsibility to initiate corrective action. Pursuant to Section 35 of the General Municipal Law, the County Legislature should prepare a plan of action that addresses the recommendations in this report and forward the plan to our office within ninety days. For guidance in preparing your plan ofaction, you may refer to applicable sections in the publication issued by the Office ofthe State Comptroller entitled Local Government Management Guide. We encourage the County Legislatuie to make this plan available for public review in the County Clerk’s office. ---PAGE BREAK--- The Cortland County Jail population has increased beyond the design capacity ofthe Jail facility. The New Ydrk State Commission ofCorrection (SCOC) has granted variances to the County annually for the past seven years that allow additional inmates to be housed in the facility. Despite these variances, it is still necessar for the County to board inmates at ‘mother count cjail faci I tt This overcrov ding and boarding out of inmates has been caused by the general increase in inmates being incarcerated, the inefficient rectangulardesignofthe Jail facilityand the fact that the County has not formalized a planto address the overcrowding despite the first variance being granted seven years ago The County has notperformed a cost analysis ofits current inmate housing approach in comparison to possible alternatives. Therefore, the County does not have the necessary information to determine the most economical means to address the Jail overcrowding. The County could potentially face a situation where the number ofincarcerations increase further, other counties’ facilities reach capacity and’or variances are not granted by SCOC. Because there is no plan in effect to address the overcrowding, the County may not have the most economical options available to address this situation. This could further negatively impact the declining financial condition ofthe County as a whole. Facility Capacity The SCOC oversees county jail facilities and operations. SCOC has promulgated rulesand regulations which setminimum standards for county jails. These standards include requirements for: approval ofall plans and specifications for construction or renovation ofcountyjails: inmate classification; limits on maximum inmate facility capacity; and minimum staffing requirements. The standards also require SCOC approval for varianceswhen compliance with a specific rule orregulation would create extreme practical difficulties or excessive hardships in jail operations due to unique circumstances or when compliance can be achieved by alternative means. in addition to complying vith SCOC requirements, counties should operate their jails at the lOWOSt possible costs The desigu capacity ofCortland f.c unty’s Jail is 59 inmates. Variances have., been granted by the SCOC a.nnually for the past seven. years dint allow housine l 5 more inmates in three muitiinmate sections and the recreation room in the Jail, brinng the Jail’s tvt.al authorized capacity to 74 inmates, The most rec.ent variances are due to exJ.i•re in April 2{.•05. E ON OF LoCAL G0WRNMENT SERs AND ECONOMIC ---PAGE BREAK--- Even with these variances. c’ount\ officials still n.ded to board out mrnates to other counties even at times hen the had aadjhie cell srae. due to the Jail’s older rectangular design and HNufhient space to acc mm ate tmaIc inmates. It is important that Count otliL:ais beai in mn that variances are never intended to he a long—term solution to ut a temporary measure to give County ol1icals to overcrowding issues. \‘ariJnees ar not grnte3 iii!oniau ah\ i iLl nuests tbr them can he dcii ‘i . r:l v Oonc in a neivhhojing counts. We caution (‘ounR ofliciaR th n 1 this erc to .‘‘nr ‘‘oc to board 01 the additionil nm,’c ‘ ‘Id r’1+ a SO0.000 annualR here als should he s me concern that space to House inmates urn m not aivavs he a’ ail:mlc at ne1ghh’rf!m tai1tncs. :Cessi.e tra cl to 1 ar’ itW further ar a ould also add to e sts to ioue out inmates \ ceording to the I . woai; ofJustice tUtStC\. ja]1 ’opnlauois ha hecn rising u er the pasi twenty years his has hecom. a Statew’d nioblem that is being addressed by other counties usual] throuoh the building ul nev crjai] facilities as their older titcilities become obsolete I he Lortland County Jail inmate population grev by 13 percent during 2002. which actuaflv exceeded national trends. In addhon to risinu population. other major constraints impacting full Jail capacity utilization at the Jail were State laws and SCOC minimum standards that required the physical separation ofspecific categories ofinmates minors, female adults. special needs. etc.). These factors have led to hoard in out inmates and heavy’ reliance on the County being granted variances. adlitv ‘ost Z’ompariso ibta] expenditures for the Jail remained consistent over the past five ears, and in 2002. crc $2.04 million or about three percent of the total general find expenditures of $5Q.25 million. Although jail expenditures in total were less than budgeted for the vear f 99$ through ‘)flt’ k: . ti I tII_ Lt .IcIil ‘I IILLLIh’.’ i’ua [loga ( ounty is 1 cm graph ia!l ‘;imi lar i. crtiand ( um’ but ha a oC\e p duLti diuct upr- sion au f.IL iijt that Lomputcd :md ha a maximum capac it\ of 102 inmates. \ e compared c ti-i!) iiflidt’” it eaci taLilit to ee hether Inc dlte.’n. L old p Lil1L11 II’ til:l’IL LLtl lillaIn fl.ti , . . nratc ‘Sllef::lL ,o:J .51 uH Hr h.siitt I ---PAGE BREAK--- average costs and compared Cortland Count jai’ data, where applicable, to the Tioga Countyjail data. Our findings are presented in the table below: Average Daily 1 Estimated Daily Inmate Cost For Inmate Year Jail Facility Ponulation Housino Cortiand County Jail 59 $ 113 200L jgçtyJai1[ 84 $83 a o 0 o 0 b ip thani un th o un b n 00 dd i p uth dtul tm taffi ci ta th an nJ hh ci 1’ 1 ii md ru ffp nm h o i tpod la/dir td i u h io o j i1 u p o inludinth )ol uti p in t Id h 1 I 1 1 t DMStoN or L.o•cALc 3 •ovE•RNiENy SERvicEs AND EcoNcMic DLorMEwr ---PAGE BREAK--- Monitoring of Inmate We asked County officials ifthey determined and monitored the actual Housing Costs costs ofhousing inmates both in their jail and hoarded outto other county jails. We found that although the SheritYhad frequently reported the number ofinmates and overcrowding issues at the Jail, to both the County Legislature and its public safet committee, no analyses determining the daily costs ofhousing inmates and the dynamics that create changes in the Jail’s occupancy levels had been routinely performed. When we started our audit, the Sherifftold us that the cost ofhousing inmates in other counties was a concern because they were higher than the costs of housing inmates in the Cortiand County Jail, However, our analysis found that the cost ofhousing inmates in the Jail was actually higher than boarding out inmates in other counties. We found that for 2002, the estimated cost ofhousing an inmate at the Jail was about $113 per day or 23 percent more than the estimated cost to board out an inmate of approximately $92. Facility Planning hi terms ofplanning to address inmate housing costs, the Cortland County Legislature had consideredthe following initiatives: Second FloorAddition: Cortland County officials had planned for the addition ofa second floor to the existing Jail. Architects presented a cost study for this proposed expansion ofthe Jail, with an estimated cost of$4.6 million, to the County Legislature’s judiciary and public safety committee in March2000. This study updated a previous one done in 1997, which had an estimated cost of$3.4 million. Neither plan was acted upon by the Count Legislature because ofthe projected financial impact to the County. Cooperative Facility: Count officials had considered a cooperativejail with Tompkins County Both County Legislatures approved funding forajoint study on the feasibility ofajointjail facility in 2000. However, officials ofboth Counties decided to discontinue the study in March, 2001 when they reached the point where ajoint i.acility cldn’t appearto be feasible fOr various reasons. Subsequently, officials ofTompkins Count: continued with their plans to build their own new jail facility. Far.iliy Study: County official.s engaged the NatIonal institute of Corrections in 2004 to study issues relatinu to Coriland (uI 1 t’ crinnaI usts sem nrludinguw U nty ,au tu’tt, • . FF CEOF THE NEw Y0RK S TA•TE COMP . ---PAGE BREAK--- ‘ • ( .::iLjl:J rocm: tN ; . [.ecnteure the I iternai e to EnLration erour to (riI,in. it’. ( rinin! .ustic (‘uIhii’ratin %(UflCII a str_ 1 wmn • fr thc ( I. ‘Sic”e”c p1annin sfiuId inc.tu’J. : rnoeesS thai ariiiies ;dditional jail ot!r bee use ‘t s too ‘kded nd poorly designed to efficiently meet current state uper Rion standards.” kiu.., of ju.i laciuu iii comhinaioi \lth . ItOL ‘I:l..’lLL)I_ J.I.’Iti C\ , jigaIi decid:ci’i’t d c)f1..ad A tihi\ shou’d nuh’ sna’ tnooc’ .\‘jiIjsI_. oii “When a newJaI fact liLy ts considered in the fifture. eonsder a combined citv 1 countv facilit.’ Alternatives to lncarceratic: We discussed alternatt es Lu ncarecratjun in tiw County fail includine ‘ ideo arrainnwm afld electronic’ detention, with (ounty ot1icls as ,i possible solution to vercrodiie. bile recugot/ing that ifl) al1eniatj e to mcn ceratinn may he implemented solely at the dRcretion of the udiciar OtltL as told us that the riuniher a d ofai t. OtCOLCS in ‘ed h the cc urt are the maw factors that determine the own her of inmates in the (oufltv iail and that they hcliee that at the nreent time the I’c ii JuJesJo not appear to thvor ‘c1eetron; •Jelenti in c’r ideo Jnuinniuit o’co when these ahcmatk es ma’s he at least a eort term ‘iuti.n fin’ ‘ hat Ic • ‘c p1 u’ I ‘ . :1 . . \t Je 1J. . a • .e’riaJ DivisioN OF LocA.QcvE.j.N•ENT SERvtCES AND EGONOtiC DEVELOPMENT ---PAGE BREAK--- Recommendations: Itan lt ‘rn. ot Jaia hoa and Iatuu ou: slould aii aa (md tim’‘1 a th ‘r s u a I tnori t the I e aare I he men th ‘ e I e I:ur s enJ,r uel ount t1ieials should formaItie and 1 sirt.iC plan to mJdr rh’ insnf1mc’tom’ rmf iho I’m 1 thIlmim. ‘s soon as possible I h ijn should : jsjeiTIi ,‘n:naovR lisT: llii itUtw pLiLitRmn Ii’.t 5 i’T llfT !1hil’i1 hm’im’Lii 1TT’’tI ‘ .‘i5l’ 1 ii Il t’ ri’.k of osini ‘S gi’a ned h’ the St t( ‘flt.tijsSjOTl t (ill L’..’IIOOS. I ftC , (iUin 5 ‘tiouk1 itt... Si, mace l’ \LitIOI1U 1 orre 1mhTs es[i:.Iaf\ tu,’—e It t’ tIC suoperatI is tsIlori:s ii .r.hfit ti is ,:iI .n ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A RESPONSES FROM LOCAL OFFICIALS The local officiaIs response to this audit can be found on the following pages _ ---PAGE BREAK--- LEE A. PRICE Sheriff JAMES FL WILLIS Undershenif TONI M. SEAMA NS CcnfideGla Secreta. County of Cortland Office of the SHERIFF Pubi:c Safety Building 54 Grenbush Stert Cortland, New York 13045 Phoue(60’)753331I Fax:(607)753-7815 / * EMERGENCY DIAL 911 Binghamton Regional Office Office ofthe State Comptroller Division of Local Government Services And Economic Development State Office Building, Room 1702 44 Hawley Street Binghamton, New York 139014417 Dear Sirs: August 24. 2004 Your office conducted an audit ofthe fiscal impact of the Cortiand County Jail relating to inmate boarding costs for the period January 1, 2002 through August 7, 2003. Your audit addressed the following question: ‘Have County officials monitored inmate housing costs and taken steps to address the insufficiencies of the Jail facility?” See Note 1 Page 18 Your audit result determined that Cortland County’s average cost per inmate per day was about 36 percent more than for Tioga County’s in 2002 and about 18 percent higher in 2003, This result was determined when you applied the Tioga County’s staff-to-inmate ratio to Cortland County’s Jail capacity and that Cortlanci County’s Jail staffing ratio was higher by more than six full time positions. You also believed that Tioga County’s related costs were less, at least partially, to its newer poduiar -designed jail facility. Although the New York State Deparrtrient of Corrections informed your auditor that Cordand County Jail has a linear design, we are actually classifed as a “remote podular.” We lisa find that because ofthe different structure design of the facility used for comparison, we believe that yoti are comparing apples to dranges in regards to the staffing requirement. We do agree that studies have sboi that new generation jails have a larger inmate to officer tatio, Another consideration that we feel may have been overlooked is the fhct that medical for Cortland County or any other county that boards their inmates at Tioga County are at the expense of the “home” county, so they would not be included in Tioga County’s facility expenses. We agree with your recommendation to have a consultant look into the feasibility of either an addition to the present building or building an entirely new facility. Overah, we fee that the audit report was a fair assessment of the Cortland Count Jail as it exists today. ---PAGE BREAK--- Pd like to thank the staff for their professionalism and the fine work they did in preparing this report. Sincerely Lee A. Price Sheriff Stev Chairman, Coa1 Legislature LAP:trns ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX C AUDIT METHODOLOGY AND STANDARDS We perfonned the following in order to achieve our audit objective: We analyzed rnuhiyear trends ofJail expendiwres. ‘We reviewed the County’s annual financial reports and various other pertinent reports and documents. We made observations and conducted inquiries of appropriate county officials and department heads. We gathered, reviewed and tested selected records and transactions obtained from county officials, as well as data obtained from outside sources. We selectively tested Tioga County’sjail data used forcomparativepurposes and calculating averages. In particular, we tested controls over annual average numberofinmates held and inmate population counts. We reviewed and testedjail invoices to determine the cost per day incurred to house an inmate, the cost per day to board out an inmate, as well as, the number ofinmates boarded out and the number ofdays they were boarded out. In addition, we reviewed minimum stalling requirements and maximumjail capacities to compare staffing levels. We conducted our audit in accordance with Generally Accepted GovernmentAuditing 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 municipality’s management controls and those laws, rules and regulations that are relevant to the municipality’s operations included in our scope. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting transactions recorded in accounting and operating records and applying such other auditing procedures, as we consider necessary in the circumstances, We believe that ow’ audit provides a reasonable basis for the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report. ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX D HOW TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THE REPORT To obtain copies ofthis report, write or visit our web page: Office ofthe State Comptroller Public Information Office 110 State Street, 15th Floor Albany, New York 12236 (518) 4744015 hitp://wwwoscstatenyusiocalgov/ ---PAGE BREAK--- 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,oscstateny.us Alleganv, Cattaraugus. Chautauqua. Erie, Genesee, Niagara, Orleans, Wyoming SYRACUSE RE(;IONAL 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-Syracuseosc.state.ny,us Herkimer, Jefferson, Lewis, Madison, Oneida, Onondaga, Oswego, St. Lawrence GLENS FALLS REGIONALOFFICE Karl Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller One Broad Street Plaza Glens Fails, New York 12801 (518) 793-0057 Fax (5 15) 7935797 E-Mail: Muni-GlensFaIls©oscstate.nyus Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Fulton, Hamilton, Montgomery. Rensselaer, Saratoga, Warren, Washington HAUPPAUGE REGIONAL OFFICE Alla S. Cohen, Chief Examiner Office of the State Comptroller MIS Office Building, Room 3A10 Veterans Memorial Hahwae Hauauce. New York Ii 7SS5553 ROCHESTER REGIONAL OFFICE Ed Grant, Principal Examiner Office of the State Comptroller The Powers Building 16 Vest Main Street - Suite 522 Rochester, New York 14614 (585) 454-2460 Fax (585) 454-3545 E-Mail: Muni-Rochesterrh.osc.statenyus Cayuga, Chemung. Livingston, Monroe. Ontario, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, W’ayne. Yates BINGHA1ITON 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-Binghamtonosc .stateny. us Broome, Chenango, Cortland, Delaware, Otsego, Schoharie, Sullivan, Tioga, Tompkins ALBANY REGIONAL OFFICE Thomas 3. 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: Albany, Columbia, Dutchess, Greene, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Schenectady. Ulster, Westehester I DvmioN OF LOCAL SERViCES tD ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -