1 At Part We Supreme Court of the State hp 2 of New York, eld in and for the County of Ulster at the Court house thereof located at 285 Wall Street, Kingston, New York on the 215 JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT In The Matter of ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY JENNIFER FUENTES and - STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of - - ULSTER COUNTY . Index No. I 333% ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - against TEMPORARY RESTRAINTNG ORDER P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE - REC-EEVED - DEC 21 2016 For a Judgment Pursuant'to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and . - COURT OFFICE Article 63 of the CPLR Practice, Law and Rmes? - - ULSTER SUPREMEICOUNTY counts Upon the annexed Af?davit of Petitioner Elliott Auerbach, sworn to on the 20th day of December 2016, Petitioner Jennifer Fuentes, sworn to on the 20th day of December 2016, Petitioner Steven Green?eld, sworn to on the 20th day of December 2016, and all of the affidavits, af?rmations, and exhibits annexed hereto, and the Memorandum of Law dated the 20th day of December 2016, and upon all offthe proceedings heretofore had herein, .let the Respondents, or their attorneys show cause at Part fc?g held in and for the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of Ulster, located at 285 Wall Street, 1 Kingston, New York on the of 2916, at a 3Z3 o?clock in the 3' I forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard why an Order should not be made and entered granting the Plaintiff the following relief: l'l. An Order pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. and/or C.P.L.R 3001 and. Article 63 of the C.P.L.R. staying the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget; 2. A Declaration that the 2017 Ulster County Budget is Invalid under The Ulster County Charter and Section 23 (2) of the Home Rule Law of New York State, in that it abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of an Elective Officer, the Petitioner/Plamtiff Ulster County Comptroller, without the required. mandatory referendum; and that the budget as enacted was based on false and extremely ?awed premises; An Order requiring the Re3pondent(s) to modify said Budget within days correcting the Statutory inequity contained therein; 4. Awarding Attorney Fees and Court Costs to the Petitioner Ulster County Comptroller; 5. Together with such other and further relief as this Court'may deem just, proper - and equitable. TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER: SUFFICIENT-REASON. APPEARING THEREFORE, it is g0 preclud from taking any steps to implement same, and it 1 - ORDERED, that service of a copy of this order, arid the papers which it . . was granted upon 'Defendantsrespective Of?ces by personal service, on or before the 7224? day of December 2016, be deemed good and suf?cient and timely service. . . ENTER NO PERSONAL APPEARANCES ON THE RETURN DATE. ALL ORIGINAL PAPERS MUST. BE FILED IN THE COURT . ti E/fth OFFICE. us 0 . . - Christp JSHC WW :As Carat Wm SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY CONIPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index No. VERIFIED COMPLAINT - against MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. PREAMBLE The Plaintiff ELLIOTT AUERBACH, the ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, Citizen Voters of Ulster County, bring this request for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment because, in the exercise of their purely political functions, the executive and legislative branches of the Ulster County Government, MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and the ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, have arbitrarily stomped on the rules of law surrounding the Ulster County Charter and New York State Municipal Home Rule Law in enacting the 2017 ULSTER COUNTY have assaulted the independence and powers of an elective county of?ce, the county watchdog Comptroller; have caused a chilling effect on the core principles of the separation of powers doctrine; targeted the Ulster County Comptroller with improperly justi?ed and starkly inequitable cuts; de?ed the will of the citizen voters of the County; affected the enacted 2017 County Budget in a way that is inconsistent with the Rules of Law, State Law, and County Law; and undermined, changed, and transferred the powers and statutory authority of an Elected County Of?ce without seeking a mandatory referendum. The court is hereby called upon to rule on a statutorily-based dispute under the facts below, which even when taken in a light most favorable to the require an equitable enforcement. Each year, the ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE and the ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE are responsible for producing and enacting a budget for Ulster County?s Government, Departments, and Programs, including the Of?ces of the County?s elective of?cers, to wit: the County Executive, the County Comptroller, the County Clerk, the District Attorney, the Sheriff, and the Legislature. On or about December 14, 2017, the Ulster County Executive signed and enacted the 2017 County Budget that included inequitably targeted cuts solely to Ulster County Comptroller?s elective of?ce. Each of the other elective Of?ces in the County had their budgets increased and were left fully staffed as before, including the Executive, Clerk, Sheriff, District Attorney, and Legislature. However, the County Comptroller?s Budget was radically decreased, ultimately suffering a 10% budget cut nearly seven times the overall County budget cut of 1.67% and a cut that resulted in a 15% decrease in staff. The decrease to the Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce was so stark, so uniquely targeted, and the facts and circumstances that surround and led to this cut so out of line with the statutory purposes set down by referendum in the County Charter and in State Law, that they form the basis for this complaint over a violation of the governing statutes. 2" There are Eight (8) elective County Comptrollers Offices in New York State. All of these positions are elected in their respective counties including: Erie County, Onondaga County, Nassau County, Oneida County, Dutchess County, Albany County, and Ulster County. On average, across the State those offices receive thirty one-hundredths of a percent (.30) of their respective budgets. Besides Ulster County, the respective County Comptroller budgets range from one million one hundred ?fteen thousand two hundred eighty-eight dollars ($1,115,288) in Oneida County to nine million four hundred forty?nine thousand three hundred sixty-one dollars ($9,449,3 61) in Suffolk County. In 2016, the Ulster County Comptroller was allocated eight hundred seventy thousand twenty-six dollars which represented the smallest budget of any County Comptroller in New York State and included seven (7) staff members. In the enacted 2017 Budget, the Ulster County Comptroller?s staff was reduced by 15%. One (I) of the seven staffers (Con?dential Secretary) was eliminated, and three CSEA staffers (Auditors) had their hours reduced by ?ve (5) per pay period from eighty (80) hours every two weeks to seventy??ve (75) hours every two weeks. These cuts abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of the elective Comptroller without a referendum, as is required in the County Charter and Article 4 of the New York Municipal Home Rule Law. The Ulster County Comptroller is elected to be the Chief Auditing Of?cer of the County. In 2016, with a total staff of seven, the Ulster County Comptroller conducted 31 audits on County Departments and Programs, reconciled nearly 50 bank accounts, and conducted hundreds of reviews of county Spending, with every staff member of the O?ice ?lling a vital role and using the maximum time they had allotted for their work days to watch over the County?s spending and programs. The 2017 Budget out, which reduces those hours by 15% will severely curtail the audit power of this of?ce in 2017. The case for judicial intervention is hereby laid forth below: The plaintiffs, by their attorney MICHAEL R. SIEGEL, as and for their Veri?ed Complaint, respectfully set forth and allege: 1. At all time herein Petitioner/Plaintiff, ELLIOTT AUERBACH (henceforth COMPTROLLER), is the Ulster County Comptroller (henceforth also COMPTROLLER), duly elected under ARTICLE IX C-56 the Ulster County Charter (henceforth CHARTER), by the citizen voters of Ulster County (henceforth COUNTY), and granted powers under ARTICLE IX of the CHARTER to perform the duties of his position as Chief auditing of?cer of the County. 2. At all times herein JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD (henceforth CITIZENS) are citizen/residents of Ulster County who are registered to vote and who voted in the last election for COUNTY COMPTROLLER. 3. At all times herein, the Defendant, MICHAEL P. HEIN (henceforth EXECUTIVE), is the Ulster County Executive (henceforth also EXECUTIVE), duly elected by the residents of Ulster County to equitably perform the duties of his position as Chief Executive of the County. 4. At all times herein, the Defendant, ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE (henceforth LEGISLATURE), consists of the duly elected Legislators each by their district citizen/resident voters in the COUNTY as de?ned by the regulations that govern such districts in Ulster County Charter. 5. The COMPTROLLER and CITIZENS bring this request for injunctive relief and declaratory judgment because, in the purely political exercise of their functions, the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER and EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATURE now ?nd themselves in an unresolvable and statutorily de?ned dispute, over an inequitable appropriation, the effect of which would be inconsistent with, undermine, change, abolish and transfer the statutory powers of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER without a referendum. 6. Each year the LEGISLATURE and EXECUTIVE are responsible for producing and enacting a budget for Ulster County Government as well as all of the elective of?ces in the County, including the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE, the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER, the County District Attorney, the County Clerk, the County Sheriff, and the LEGISLATURE. 7. The Rule of Law allows that the Annual Budgetary Allocations to elective o?ices, both throughout the County and throughout the State are generally applied in an equitable manner, and particularly when there are statutorily mandated functions required of their respective of?ces. This only stands to reason as these Of?cials are selected and empowered to protect and enforce certain rights of the citizens. Some of them, as in the case of the County Comptroller, act as a legal and ?scal watchdog, whose job was de?ned by, and who was hired and can be ?red by vote of the CITIZENS, to care for ?duciary matters under their jurisdiction. 8. In Ulster County, each of the elective of?ces of the County generally receive an equitable share of County funding, as it is with each and every other such of?ce around the State of New York. (T 6" 9. During the process of this year?s Budget negotiations for the coming 2017 Fiscal Year, the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE proposed an overall County budget reduction of 1.67%. Within that budgetary plan, for each of the County?s Elected Of?cials, he proposed to: raise the Respondent/Defendant budget by two percent (his own of?ce); raise the budget of the County Clerk by one and a quarter percent; raise the budget of the County Sheriff by ?ve hundredths of a percent; I raise the budget of the County District Attorney by a quarter of a percent; raise the budget of the LEGISLATURE by sixty-six one-hundredths of a percent; and singularly and inequitably proposed lowering/cutting the budget of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER by more than twenty percent (see Exhibit C, page 3, herein Comptroller ?5 Budget compared to all Elected 10. In connection with this proposed cut, budget levels amounted to $174,805 less to the Petitioner/Planitiff $870,026 2016 budget on some of its calculations, and $200,000 less in the detailed breakdown of cuts (see Exhibit B, the Proposed 20] 7 Ulster County Comptroller Budget as Published by the EXECUTIVE, attached to and made part hereo?. 11. On and about the time of the release of the proposed 2017 Budget, the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE also reached out to discuss lateral moves to his of?ce or other departments with several of the auditors working for the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER. 12. The CHARTER charges that the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER, be a duly elected County Official, independent of the ReSpondent/Defendant of?ce, who: 13. 14. 15. ?shall be the chief auditing of?cer of the County,? and ?examine, audit, and verify all books, records, and accounts kept by the various administrative units, of?ces and of?cials paid ?om County funds, institutions and other agencies of the County, including bond and note registers and trust accounts, and the accrual and collection of all County revenues and receipts, and for this purpose have access to all such books, records, and accounts at any time? (see Exhibit A, page 27, ARTICLE IX 61-57358, attached to and made part hereof); and the COMPTROLLER is to: ?procure from the depositories with which the Commissioner of Finance shall have deposited the funds and monies coming into the Comptroller's possession statements, at least of all monies deposited by the Commissioner of Finance or paid out pursuant to the Comptroller's order, and reconcile such statements with the County accounts? (see Exhibit A, ibid); and the COMPTROLLER is to: ?maintain records of appr0priations, encumbrances and expenditures, and prescribe approved methods of accounting for all units of County government, unless otherwise required by the State Comptroller? (see Exhibit A, ibid); and the COMPTROLLER must also: ?certify the availability of funds for all requisitions, contracts, purchase orders and other documents by which the County incurs ?nancial obligations or for the expenditure of funds for which the County is responsible; Prescribe the form of receipts, vouchers, bills and claims, unless otherwise required by the State Comptroller; Audit and certify for payment all law?Jl claims or charges against the County, whether for payroll or otherwise, or against funds for which the County is responsible in whole or in part; as he or she determines necessary or apprOpriate, audit any department, program or function of County government to assess the degree to which its operation is economical, ef?cient and/or effective; for the purpose of carrying out his or her powers and duties, have the power to require the attendance of and take the testimony under oath of such persons as the Comptroller may deem necessary; Submit to the County Legislature and post on the County website as frequently as he or she deems necessary, but at least quarter-annually, reports on the ?nancial condition of the County and the economy, ef?ciency and/or effectiveness with which the County government or any of its departments, agencies or programs is managed? (see Exhibit A, ibid); 16. and the COMPTROLLER: ?shall have all the powers and perform all the duties conferred or imposed by law upon a county comptroller, and perform such other related duties required by the County Executive or County Legislature? (see Exhibit A, ibid). 17. There are currently eight (8) elected County Comptrollers in the State of New York. Each of those Comptroller?s Of?ces Operates independently of their respective County Executive; and each of those of?ces has an average budget from their resPective Counties of three-tenths of one percent of their County Budgets (see Exhibit C, page 3 an illustration of Elected Comptroller Budgets across New York State). 18. The Petitioner/Plaintiff Ulster County budget in 2016 was $870,026, or twenty-sixth one-hundredths of one percent of the COUNTY budget. This is and was the smallest Comptroller?s budget in the entire State of New York. The other County Comptroller?s Budgets ranged from Oneida County with a Comptroller?s budget of one million one hundred ?fteen thousand two hundred eighty-eight ($1,115,288) dollars, or twenty-eight one?hundredths of one percent of Oneida County?s total County Budget, to Suffolk County with a Comptroller?s budget of nine million four hundred forty?nine thousand ($9,449,361) dollars, or forty-six one-hundredths of a percent of the Suffolk County?s total County Budget (see Exhibit C, page 4). 19. The Respondent/Defendant proposed 2017 budget inequitably singled out and lowered the Comptroller?s budget from twenty?six one?hundredths of one percent of the entire County Budget, to twenty-one one-hundredths of one percent of the entire County budget, or to $695,221, and thus to a full one third lower percent of the County budget than that of the average County Comptroller?s budget in the entire state (see Exhibit C, I page 4for an illustration). 20. The Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER informed the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATORS of the inequities to his Of?ce found within the 2017 proposed budget and demanded a justi?cation for it. 21. His Of?ce also issued a report detailing these inequities, entitled BUDGETARY AND PROGRAMIVIATIC OVERVIEW OF THE OFFICE OF THE ULSTER COUNTY (henceforth see Exhibit C). 22. The Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER printed enough copies of the OVERVIEW report for, and caused it to be distributed to, the members of the Legislature. The Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER and his staff then: met individually with the Chairman and individual Legislators to discuss and inform them about the details of the inequity of the Respondent/Defendant proposed budget. 23. The Respondent/Defendant proposed 2017 budget narrowly focused on only one elective of?ce?s budget to out. It proposed to cut it substantially and inequitably, and provided new Audit Unit funding for the County Legislature. 24. The words of the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE, and the corresponding words of the LEGISLATURE, in this matter are irrelevant to the unprecedented actions they have taken to abolish, transfer and/or curtail the Petitioner/Plaintiff powers without a public referendum. 25. The net aim of the Respondent/Defendant 2017 Budget proposal was to change, abolish, transfer or curtail the powers of the Petitioner/Plaintiff CONIPTROLLER. 26. In connection with this chilling budget proposal, the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE made overtures to the Petitioner/Plaintiff staff interfering with the focus of the duties that the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER had been performing. 27. The Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE ?irther undermined the Petitioner/Plaintiff autonomy by causing discussions to take place with members of the Petitioner/Plaintiff staff, offering them positions in or alluding to transfers other County departments. 28. The Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER wrote and continued to ask the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE for justi?cations for this budget cut. 29. Legislators in the LEGISLATURE asked the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE for justi?cations for this budget cut. 30. More than ?ve weeks after releasing his Proposed 2017 BUDGET, the Respondent/Defendant of?ce released a paper entitled ?2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce? dated November 14, 2016 (attached to and made part hereof as Exhibit henceforth CE Report 31. This ACE Report, kind of like a football fan?s negative team review, contained numerous false premises about the Comptroller?s Office. 32. It falsi?ed the ?decreasing? workload and ?increasing costs? of the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce. 33. It recommended the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER correct a lack of attention and focus on third?party vendors, service providers, and programmatic reviews rather than intra?County audits. 10 Pa ?2 34. It repeatedly made contradictorily false statements (see ACE Report page 6: incorrectly stating that ?the Comptroller ?s O??ice has performed zero program audits [since 2009], when it has in fact per?rrmed 20 such program audits). 35. It criticized the data and charts behind a Comptroller?s Board of Elections report . that had been based on data, and relied on con?rmed input from, and review by, the Department Head reporting to the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE. 36. It falsi?ed data comparing spending trends pre and post-Charter, as well as falsely comparing the 2015 budgets of, and against, the 2016 responsibilities for each of the County Comptrollers? Of?ces and Duties across the State many of which had expanded duties and budgets in 2016 which was not re?ected in the data. 37. It falsely de?ned technical auditing terminology, providing a false definition of ?audit risk,? as well as making gratuitous and unsupported comments regarding noncompliance with professional auditing standards. 38. It falsely reported the taken by the Petitioner/Plaintiff Office to ensure that Charter responsibilities such as Bank Reconciliations and completion of required reports are being performed timely and without error. 39. It wrongfully recommended that the County return to its pre?charter reliance on the use of External Auditors instead of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER, a recommendation that the LEGISLATURE wrongfully embraced. 40. And it made gratuitous, and unsubstantiated, false assumptions and inaccuracies challenging the effectiveness of the Comptroller?s Of?ce. 41. When the Ways and Means Committee met on December embracing the ACE Report?s premises and rationales, an 11 alternative amendment cutting the of?ce and powers was offered by Legislators Gerentine and Ronk (see Exhibit N). 42. Gerentine and Ronk also offered another amendment on December 5th embracing the ACE Report?s premises and rationale?s increasing the ?mding for the Audit Unit (see Exhibit F). 43. The Exhibit Amendment sought to make cuts to the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce as follows: cut one position, the Comptroller?s Con?dential Secretary, and cut another position in half to become a six month position, the balance of which that ?might be restored? for the ?nal six months if the Auditor performed according to the satisfaction of the Legislature. 44. This was the tone of that hearing led by Gerentine, with the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER and staff members present, that the Legislators wanted to now hold the Petitioner/Plaintiff staff to a standard that was unde?ned at the hearing and referred to the Respondent/Defendant wishes. 45. Gerentine stated at the December 5'11 Ways Means hearing that the cuts to the Petitioner/Plaintiff of?ce were not the cuts. That they would ?try? to restore some of the cuts up to a certain point. He blamed the cuts on multiple occasions on the ReSpondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE, stating that the Legislatures hands were tied behind its back. 46. Yet the Ways Means committee nevertheless passed a ?nal amendment cutting the Petitioner/Plahttiff staff by ?fteen percent A cut the LEGISLATURE went on to approve and that the Executive then enacted. 12 47. Just before taking up the Exhibit amendment to the Petitioner/Plaintiff of?ce, Gerentine passed an amendment (Exhibit F) funding the Legislature?s own Audit budget by an amount close to the amount the LEGISLATURE ended up cutting from the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce. 48. The Ways and Means Committee passed an amendment that Reduce[d] the Comptroller staff to 37.5 hour weekly work schedules to match the standard hours of other county employees [and] defund[ed] [the position of Con?dential Secretary] (see Exhibit E). 49. Both of the Exhibits and Amendments were passed by the LEGISLATURE at their following session and sent to the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE for enactment. 50. The Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE signed the Exhibit amendments on December 14, 2016 and included them in the enacted County?s 2017 budget. 51. It is well settled law that an abuse of discretion occurs when a decision is not an acceptable alternative. The decision may be unacceptable because it is logically unsound, because it is arbitrary and clearly not supported by the facts at hand, or because it is explicitly prohibited by a statute or Rule of Law. 52. No written law may be enforced by the government unless it conforms to certain unwritten, universal principles of fairness, morality and justice. 53. In the facts at hand, we have an elective Comptroller?s Of?ce of the Petitioner/Plaintiff; duly elected by the voters of Ulster County to be the Chief Auditing Of?cer of the County. 13 54. The EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATURE have indicated both directly and indirectly to the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER that they are seeking control and change of the Petitioner/Plaintiff functions, and to place them under their purview. 55. The 2017 budget changed the Petitioner/Plaintiff powers where the using false premises, targeted the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce for staff reductions, and then transferred those monies to fund the Audit Unit of the LEGISLATURE. 56. The LEGISLATURE expressed that they were looking for ways to control the Petitioner/Plaintiff elective of?ce at the hearing when the Exhibit amendments were passed. 57. In order to effect the budget, the Respondent/Defendant EXECUTIVE deliberately came up with false premises and LEGISLATURE took steps to place themselves in the shoes of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER with regards to his staff, and hijack (transfer) a portion of his budget for their own Audit Unit. 5 8. This is contrary to the goals of the County Charter. 59. In this way, acted outside of their powers and purview, contrary to law and abused the discretion of Respondent(s)fDefendant(s) respective positions. 60. It is for these reasons that the COMTROLLER and CITIZENS are seeking judicial remedies to correct an inequitable injustice that has arisen from the arbitrary actions of the EXECUTIVE and LEGISLATURE. l4 f? AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 61. The repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through 60 of this complaint as if more ?rlly set herein at length. 62. have arbitrarily and capriciously violated County Law because they abolished, transferred or curtailed powers of an elective of?ce without a referendum. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 63. The repeat, reiterate and reuallege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?62? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 64. have violated New York State Law, speci?cally Article 4 section 23 (2) because they abolished, transferred or curtailed powers of an elective of?ce without a referendum. 15 6 AS AND FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 65. The repeat, reiterate, and re?allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?64? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 66. The wrongfully transferred power of Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER to the LEGISLATURE. AS AND FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 67. The repeat, reiterate, and re~allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?66? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 68. have stolen services from the Citizen Voters due to their arbitrary, capricious and inequitable treatment of the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce, and their enactment of the Petitioner/Plaintiff 2017 County Budget effectively and inequitably abolishing, transferring and/or curtailing powers of the COMPTROLLER without allowing them to vote on a referendum about it. 16 AS AND FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 69. The repeat, reiterate, and re?allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?68? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 70. have arbitrarily and capriciously intruded on the statutory function of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER, changing and damaging the Petitioner/Plaintiff statutory powers, and the Plaintiffs rights to having powers of the Petitioner/Plaintiff COMPTROLLER used on their behalf. AS AND FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE TS 71. The repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?70? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 72. have arbitrarily and capriciously cut the Petitioner/Plaintiff Budget inequitably. l7 AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 73. The repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?72? of this complaint as if more set herein at length. 74. The natural con?ict of interest created for the County Attorney in this matter, made it impossible for her of?ce to work for both the and the COMPTROLLER, placing an unfair burden upon the to defend his public of?ce. AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE 75. The repeat, reiterate, and re-allege each and every allegation contained Paragraphs numbered through ?74? of this complaint as if more fully set herein at length. 76. The Respondents/Defendants used false premises to enact the 2017 Ulster County budget. 18 WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Respondents/Defendants as follows: a. On the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action, that an injunction be ordered declaring the enactment the 2017 Ulster County Budget invalid, and sending it back to the LEGISLATURE and EXECUTIVE to eliminate the inequities against the Petitioner/Plaintiff Of?ce by modifying the 2017 County budget; - b. On the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Causes of Action, that baring an injunction that the Court Order that the Ulster County Budget for 2017 include enough funds in the Petitioner/Plaintiff budget to match the average of the County Comptroller?s Of?ce?s across the state, which was three-tenths of one percent in 2016, and thus would be three?tenths of one percent of the total 2017 Ulster County budget or $974,472.43, and include restoring the eliminated staff position(s) and hours of employment. c. On the Seventh Cause of Action that be awarded attorney fees due to the unfair burden of having to defend damages to an elective of?ce and the Citizen taxpayers. d. That be awarded the costs and disbursements of this action; and e. That be awarded such other and further relief as to this Honorable Court may seem just, ?tting and prOper. l9 Dated: December 20, 2016 Kingston, New York 20 Michael R. Siege], Esq. . Attorney for ELLIOTT AUERBACH, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD 80 Deer Run Lane Bx 373 Wawarsing, New York 12489 (845) 524-4508 "an Evan R. Gallo, Esq. Of Counsel Of?ce of the Ulster County Comptroller 244 Fair Street, 5th Floor Kingston, NY 12401 (845) 334-5721 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER Elliott Auerbach being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this proceeding, that I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and that as to those matters I believe them to be true. Etliott Auerbach SWO to before me on this day of December, 2016 Notary Public MICHAEL R. SIEGEL Notary Public, State of New York No. 02816036913 Qualified in Ulster County Commission Expires May 19, 20.5;8 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER Jennifer Fuentes being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this proceeding, that I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and that as to those matters I believe them to be true. Sworn to before me on this Q?Lday of December, 20 16 /N?otary Public MICHAEL R. Notary Public. State of New York No. 02516036913 Qualified In Ulster County 2? Commission Expires May 19. M3: VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER Steven Green?eld being duly sworn, deposes and says: That I am a petitioner in this proceeding, that I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; that the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and that as to those matters I believe them to be true. Steven Green?eld Sworn to before me on this f?clay of December, 2016 Notary Public MICHAELR SIEGEL York Notary Public. State of New iNo. 028160369?3 1, Quali?ed 1111 .Ulster oun y. -, (Oommission Expires May 1012. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER In The Matter of ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index No. AFFIRMATION OF - against MICHAEL R. SIEGEL IN SUPPORT OF TRO MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. I MICHAEL R. SIEGEL, an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the Courts of the State of New York; af?rms the following under penalties of perjury: l. I am the sole proprietor of the Law Of?ce of Michael R. Siegel, attorney for Petitioners, Elliott Auerbach, Jennifer Fuentes, and Steven Green?eld. I am fully familiar with all facts and circumstances pertaining to the within litigation following the review and analysis of the legal ?le maintained by this of?ce. 2. This af?rmation is submitted to satisfy the requirements of rule 202a). 3. On its face, the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget on December 15, 2016, abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of the elective Ulster County Comptroller without a mandatory referendum. 4. In addition, this budget was rationalized, and intentionally and knowingly enacted, for the purpose of abolishing, transferring, or curtailing an elective of?cial?s power by a majority of the Respondent(s) Ulster County Legislature and the County Executive, during the budget process, and up to and including the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget. 5. To the extent the Petitioner Ulster County Comptroller has been injured, it will present a signi?cant hardship to the Comptroller and the citizen electors of Ulster County, depriving them of an elective of?cials ?ill services, voted for both via referendum and election, and that they require, and should expect out of, the independent Watch Dog Of?ce of the Ulster County Comptroller in advance of this application seeking a temporary restraining order preventing the enactment of the said 2017 Ulster County Budget. Dated: December 20, 2016 Kingston, NY Michael R. Siege] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS OF ULSTER COUNTY Index No. AFFIDAVIT OF - against MICHAEL R. ESQ IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY FEES For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER SS: Michael R. Siegel, Esq, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed by the 2?d Department to practice law in the State of New York. 2. I reside and maintain an of?ce at 80 Deer Run Lane Bx 373, Wawarsing, NY 12489 3. I submit this af?davit on support of the Petitioners/Plaintiffs request for attorney?s fees for the above captioned action. 4. My impressions about this case, and why I took it on, are rooted in an exchange I had with the petitioner/plaintiff Elliott Auerbach in early September of this year. 5. . - -I- had- written to; and- sent him my resume atrthat- time, and- he interviewed-,- and- then-asked - me to submit a bid to provide his of?ce with legal services. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. r. During the ensuing back and forth that took place, I offered to come up to his of?ce to see if I could help him, and he indicated that he would like my input on a few matters. The ?rst day I visited, began with his weekly Monday morning staff meeting. At that meeting his staff went over a ?payroll prescription? that they were about to release. The gist of this prescription was that his staff had discovered, during a routine reconciliation, that a County employee had been issued two paychecks for the same pay period. After an investigation they learned that the county had issued a check shortchanging the employee some overtime pay. The employee had deposited this check, and instead of issuing a correction check in the amount that was still owed, the County Finance Department issued another check for the full pay period with the correct overtime pay. The Finance Department tried to retrieve the ?rst check but the employee had already spent the money, so the Finance Department arranged for him to pay them back over a period of weeks. The Finance Department head explained that this was the Department?s policy in these matters, and didn?t see anything wrong with this. The Comptroller?s audit staff determined that a policy allowing employees to receive two pay checks in the same pay period could be exploited in a manner detrimental to the County ?nances if unchallenged. 15learned that this opinion was an auditor?s ?prescription,? which looked like an audit to me, but it was a description of their ?ndings with recommendations on how the Department of Finance should change their policy. The audit staff was nervous about the release of this prescription, because, they knew it was not going to go over well with the Department head or the County Executive, and they had started second-guessing themselves. It is this nervous moment, auditors looking over their shoulders and second guessing themselves that is at the crux of the above capfioned matter which I am advocating to the court on the petitioners?lplaintiffs? behalf. I have discovered, in wrestling over this case, and Spending time in the petitioner/plaintiff Comptroller?s Office, that there is a built-in tension between a County Comptroller and the other branches of government. This same tension exists in the other Counties that have Charters in place empowering an independently elected County Executive, County Comptroller, and County Legislature. The reasons for the second-guessing, and the nervousness, I witnessed that morning then became more magni?ed, and put in more perspective, when I learned that the re5pondent/defendant Executive had recently proposed to cut the Comptroller?s budget by twenty percent The Comptroller?s Deputy, Evan R. Gallo, explained to me that he had called for advice about this budget cut to an advising law ?rm they had on a small retainer. Counsel had given him a cursory ?rst impression of this case, that courts don?t like to get main an sort ofthing.? 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. Gallo told me that Comptroller?s budget didn?t allow for much more than a cursory review by their counsel. He couldn?t turn to the County attorney for help, as it would be a con?ict of interest. Evan told me that he, the Comptroller, and the rest of the staff was reeling over the Executive?s proposed cut. He spent some time lamenting, and second-guessing, a recent audit the Comptroller had released taking a pet project of the Executive to task. It was an audit reviewing the re3pondent/defendant Executive?s project to install ?Green? charging stations all over Kingston for electric automobiles. Grant monies and matching county fund were Spent on this project, and the reSpondent/defendant Executive had advertised that county residents could charge their electric cars for free at these county built charging stations. The Comptroller?s Audit had found that giving away free electricity to a limited number of users like this was an illegal use of government resources. At the time of their Audit only ?ve (5) county residents were availing themselves of the use of these stations. I am a farmer and a green advocate my self. My wife and I have a solar powered electric plant on our fann. I have to admit that my ?rst impression was, why did the Comptroller?s Of?ce go after a project like this? But I have come to form a belief that the Comptroller?s Of?ce got this Audit right, and the end result was extremely-bene?cial, in that the Cbuntywas' easily able. to. get a private sponsor for these electric car charging stations. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Because of the Comptroller?s actions the County will not be burdened with the expense of maintaining and supplying electricity to electric cars needing charging services in Kingston. I have also formed an impression, both legally and philosophically, that the issue at hand, and before this court is a serious matter needing judicial intervention. A county Comptroller should not have to justify the machinations of his of?ce to an of?ce that tends to attract over-reaching individuals. A County Executive is granted extra-ordinary discretion over County operations. The only position in County Govermnent that doesn?t report to him/her is the County Comptroller. This is a good thing, especially in an era of crony politics. In New York we have recently witnessed just how serious crony'politics can become with the Governor?s disbandment of an Independent Commission looking at how Elected Of?cials raise campaign money. The Governor was convinced to disband this Commission, and it later turned out through the efforts of the independent US Attorney, that the leaders of the legislature, and key members of the governor?s staff had set themselves up to bene?t personally from their positions in government. This is what is at stake in this case. Who will watch for the wolves, that can become emboldened in a County that weakens the powers of their watchdog. This is' axial}; what ii happening-in Ulster county with the 2017 can); Budget. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. (H7 Using arbitrary standards of judgment, and false premises, the Respondent/Defendant County Executive has led the charge to weaken the powers of the County Comptroller. The Legislature has seized on the Respondent/Defendant Executive?s justi?cations, and not only cut the petitioner/plaintiff Comptroller?s staff but used the ?saved? money to justify funding to their own Legislative Audit Unit. This is a blatantly over-reaching enactment of county law, that both transfers and curtails powers of an elective of?ce without a referendum. I don?t know how much clearer this injustice can get. The County Charter can?t possibly have meant for this to happen. This is an injustice to the elective of?ce of Comptroller and to the Citizens of the County that voted via referendum to have an independent elective Comptroller be the Chief Auditing Of?cer of the County. It is a terribly unfair burden to cause the plaintiffs to bear the expense of a case'like this. This unfairness is consistent with the view of the court in Slomz'nskz? v. Rutkawski, 62 781 (1984), in which the Erie County Comptroller sued the County Executive for failing to sign off on eleven of her seventy personnel actions. In Slomz?nski the Court awarded Attorney fees to the petitioner/plainti?? Comptroller. The Slomz?nskz? Court was a divided Court, and that case was only narrowly decided in favor of a Executive?s right to perform ministerial tasks assigned to him, and the Court awarded the Comptroller who plead for relief ?om the Executive Attorney Fees. Attached hereto is an accounting of my time and work on this matter along with a copy of the original bid I submitted to the Comptroller for my services. 56. I pray that the Court will see it?s way clear to an awarding of these fees and any other additional fees that may accrue in advocating for this matter. Dated: December 20, 2016 Kingston, NY Mi?/hael R. Siegel, Esq STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER On 2016, before me personally came Michael R. Siegel, Esq, to me knorujm, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. an NOTAEY PUBLIC . STATE OF NEW YORK unm V3. #906; ?0 I 01WE61754 . QUALIFIED ULSTER COUNTY COMM. exp. 12/20/2019 .0. as 8. NEW nun?? I 7% ??"mnmm?t? I Vi; c..b CO 1.0 MICHAEL R. SIEGEL 80 Deer Run Lane, Box 373 Wawarsing, NY 12489 (845) 524-4508 michaelrsiegeldalmacnom Via email to eaue@co.ulster.ny.us September 12, 2016 Hon. Elliot Auerbach Ulster County Comptroller 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12428 Re: Fee Quotation for ?as needed? Professional Legal Services Dear Mr. Auerbach, Thank you for your request for a quote for my ?lm?s hourly rate. Please be advised that we are a solo practitioner licensed to practice law in the State of New York, the Eastern and Southern Districts in New York Federal Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States. We are hereby quoting an exclusive rate of seventy ?ve dollars $75 per hour to the County of Ulster. This rate does not include travel and out of pocket expenses. We would require any expenses we incur on behalf of the County to be reimbursed. Thank you for the Opportunity to give the County a rate quote, and I look forward to working with you should the need arise. Very truly yours, Michael R. Siege] This letter is being sent electronically and the sender authorizes the receipt thereof to be accepted by the intended recipient(s) as z'fit were Signed by the sender. 162, Michael R. Siegel, Esq 80 Deer Run Lane, Bx 373 Wawarsing, NY 12489 (84-5) 524-45 08 [tel] michaelrsiegelQmaccom [email] December 20, 2015 Elliott Auerbach Ulster County Comptroller 244 Fair Street Fifth Floor' Kingston, NY 12401 Re: Time and Work Statement Elliott Auerbach et al. v. Hein and Legislature October December 2016 The following is a summary of our time and billing in the above matter our billing rate is based on our September 12, 2016 bid to you of $75 /hour plus expenses: October 31 Initial Consultation, interviews with staff and Comptroller Review of Caputo, YPIRG Cases, Quarter Report 7 hours November 1 Drafting recommendations, legal research and case review 7 hours November 2 Drafting of ?rst Verified Complaint, legal research and Case review 7 hours November 3 2 Complaint redrafts, legal research and Case law review 7 hours November 4 4th Complaint redra?f with Preamble, legal and form research 7 hours November 7 Legal Research and case review 7 hours November 17. Drafting and Legal research, review of 59 page ACE report 7 hours November 18 Review and Dra?ing analysis report 7 Hours 16" November 21 Preparation of Lawsuit Time line and step memo, Legal research November 22 Presentation of Time [in e/steps memo additional ACE analysis, legal research November 3 0 Preparation of First Draft of Memorand am of Law Additional Legal research December 1 .Westlaw Legal research and Case review Preparation of Charter analysis, MOL revision 2 December 1 Westlaw Legal research and Case review Preparation of Charter analysis December 2 MOL redraft 3, legal research December 4? MOL redraft4, legal research December 5 0L redraft 5, I egal research December 6 0L redraft 5, legal research December 8 Revised Argument Organization Memo, discussions With Gallo and Drafting, review of condensed ACE note With Alisha, ?rst draft OTSC, 0L 7, Conformed Petition December 14 0L redraft, legal and structure (if org research Reformat Fuen tes December 16 Preparation ofAuerbach A??idavit, OTSC December 17 Auerbach A??idavit, redraft Memo of Law Local Rules research December 19 Final Redraft Memo of Law "El? 7 Hours 7 Hours 7 Hours 4 Hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours 7 hours - 7 hours 7 hours December 20 Preparation ofA?idavits OTSC, Final Complaint, Assembly Of Court ?ling 7 hours Total Time 165 hours Time Rate $7S/hour Time Cost $12,375.00 Bill Total $123 75.00 . . (- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS OF ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against ELLIOTT AUERBACH IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, PETITIONERQS) and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK . ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I duly hold elective of?ce as the elected Comptroller of Ulster County. 2. The address of my office is 244 Fair Street, Kingston, New York 12401. 3. I submit this af?davit in support of the instant special proceeding seeking an Order pursuant to CPLR 7803 (2) staying the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget; and a declaratory judgment determining that said budget as was enacted on December 15, 2016 violates New York State's Home Rule Law 23 (2) (hereinafter 23 4. Early in the 2017 budget process I submitted a budget request to the Ulster County Executive (see Exhibit attached to and made part hereof) as required 5. under the Charter, and received a letter in response about it back from the County Executive on October 3, 2016 (see ExhibitI attached to and made part hereof). This letter says in part: ?..the ?scal climate as well as a programmatic review of your O?ice?s responsibilities does not support an increase; and in fact, suggests a decrease. Additionally, a comparison between other elected Comptroller ?s O?ices in other counties across the State indicates the need to attain greater e??iciencies than currently exist. In deference to your position as an independently elected o??icial, I have not made specific line item adjustments to your budget; however, I have incorporated an overall savings target that a??ects your budget. As we begin working with the Ways and Means Committee and the Legislature to achieve a final budget, I also look forward to working with you to ensure the best possible budget[.] My of?ce went to work to analyze this budget pr0posal (see Exhibit C, Budgetary and Programmatic Overview of the O??ice of the Ulster County Comptroller) and found that the Executive?s letter was not truthful. Contrary to his claims, the Executive had made line item budget decreases (see Exhibit B, Executive ?s 2017 Comptroller?s Proposed Budget). He proposed: a decreased personnel line, or ?Payroll Reduction,? by one hundred twenty thousand dollars a personnel ?Bene?t Reduction? of sixty seven thousand dollars and a ?Contractual Expense Reduction? of thirteen thousand dollars The total reduction called for was two hundred thousand dollars which represented a twenty percent reduction to my. of?ce budget, or a reduction from twenty-six one? hundredths of a. percent of the total 2016 County Budget to twenty-one one-hundredths of a percent (.21 of the proposed 2017 County Budget. 10put that in perspective, the Ulster County Comptroller?s Adopted Budget for 2016 was $870,026 (eight hundred seventy thousand twenty six dollars), and the Executive?s 2017 proposal for the Ulster County Comptroller?s budget was $695,221 (six hundred ninety ?ve thousand two hundred twenty one dollars). A $120,000 (one hundred twenty thousand dollar) cut to staff represented the elimination of two of seven staff members, or a 29% (twenty?nine percent) staff cut. I immediately wrote back to the Executive asking him for a justi?cation for such a steep out (see Exhibit J), and caused my staff to complete an analysis of the County proposal as it relates to my of?ce, the other elective of?cers in the County and the other comparable elective Comptroller?s in New York State (see Exhibit attached to and made part hereo?. As things stood in 2016, the Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce had the lowest total dollar budget for an elective County Comptroller in New York State, and one of the three lowest ?gures when taken as a percentile of the total County Budget (see Exhibit C, page 4). The Executive had now proposed to gut my of?ce to be not only the lowest dollar budget for a County Comptroller in the State of New York, but place it by far as the County Comptroller?s Budget with the lowest budget percentile of their total County Budget in the State. This was not only a dramatic and devastating cut pr0posal, but a review of the other Ulster County elective of?ces? budgets showed that each and every one of them was proposed to receive a modest increase in their budgets. My of?ce was 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. the only elective of?ce in the County to receive a pr0posed out (see Exhibit C, page 3). I later learned that there were also a few Legislators that were also asking the Executive for a justi?cation for such a targeted cut. More than a month later, the members of the Legislature and my Of?ce received a document from the Executive?s of?ce entitled ?2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce? (see Exhibit attached to and made part hereof henceforth Report?). The 59 page ACE report contained an overwhelming abundance of false information and critiqued two of my of?ce?s total work products in detail (roughly 2% of our work products) (which I have contested the basis of). This report falsi?ed the' ?decreasing? workload and ?increasing costs? of the Comptroller?s Of?ce; and It recommended the Comptroller?s Of?ce correct a lack of and focus its attention on third?party vendors, service providers and programmatic reviews rather than intra?County audits, which was a false premise as my of?ce made 20 such reviews in the past three years; and Criticized the data and charts behind a Comptroller?s Board of Elections report my of?ce had made with con?rmed input ?om, and review by, the Administration e. the work papers and methodology behind the report were shared with and vetted by the Director of the Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency); and 20contained false data comparing spending trends pre and post-Charter, as well as comparing the 2015 budgets of County Comptrollers against the 2016 responsibilities for each of the County Comptrollers? Offices and duties across the State many of which. had expanded duties and budgets in 2016 not re?ected in the data g. selectively attributing bene?t allocations using outdated budgets to 2016 current duties); and Falsely used technical auditing terminology g. providing an inaccurate de?nition of ?audit ris as well as unsupported comments regarding noncompliance with professional auditing standards); alsi?ed the taken by my Of?ce to ensure that Charter responsibilities such as Bank Reconciliations and completion of required reports are being performed timely and without error; and Recommended that the County return from reliance on Comptroller?s in house Audits to the use of External Auditors; and Asserted false assumptions and inaccuracies about the effectiveness of the Comptroller?s Of?ce; and No where in this Analysis did the Executive analyze the impact a cut would have on my elective of?ce; and No where in this Analysis did the Executive analyze the functions of any member of my staff, what their output was, or what role they played in assisting me with exercising any of the Comptroller?s charter powers. The parts of this report that asserted errors in auditing or review covered roughly 2% of my of?ce?s output in 2016. 28The Ways and Means Committee established that this report and the Executive?s proposed budget justi?ed cuts to my of?ce. In their budget hearing to pass amendments to the Executive?s Preposed 2017 County Budget, they subjected my staff and I to punitive statements and then punitive staf?ng cuts even while restoring a portion of the Executive?s proposed and allocated additional monies to the Legislature for their own Auditing unit. Members of the Legislature indicated publically at the Ways and Means Committee hearing when passing the ?nal amendment to my budget that they sought to control my Of?ce?s activities. The Legislature, while cutting my budget, placed new budget allocations into their own Audit Unit, taking the Executive?s recommendation in the ACE report to rely less on my of?ce and more on external auditors. During the course of the Legislature?s multiple hearing process, two elected County Comptrollers from other New York Counties came down to speak and lend support to my office. Michael Connors, the Comptroller for Albany County, expressed a cautionary tale during all this, warning that if the Comptroller?s powers were in anyway diminished by the Executive?s proposal to target my of?ce for cuts, the chilling impact that would occur in the County as employees of the County might be emboldened or more inclined to give in to the temptation to misallocate County resources if the Comptroller?s powers were weakened. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. The ?nal amendment that the Legislature passed regarding my Of?ce?s 2017 budget was the amendment that came out of the Ways and Means Committee (see Exhibit attached to and made part hereo?. This amendment eliminated my Con?dential Secretary?s position and reduced the hours of three of my CSEA staff, who currently work 80 hours every two weeks, by ?ve hours per pay period to ?match the standard hours of other county employees.? There are no such standard hours. After my staff is cut to ?standard hours of other county employees,? there will still be dozens of County CSEA employees who still work 80 hour pay periods (see Exhibit for a list of current 80 hour employees in Ulster County attached to and made part hereof). Every other elective of?cer (and virtually every Department Head for that matter) in Ulster County has a Con?dential Secretary (see Exhibit G, elective o?ice sta?' budget lines taken ?cm County records). The Ways and Means Committee also passed an amendment to add additional resources to the Legislature?s Audit Unit, while cutting mine (see Exhibit Audit Unit Amendment attached to made part hereo?. The Ways and Means Committee?s Audit Unit Amendment was also the Legislature?s ?nal Amendment. The Executive signed both of these amendments enacting them on December 14, 2017. I believe the nature of these cuts is revenge for certain audits I conducted and published that were critical of the Executive. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. This is a blatant hatchet job that no one even bothered to cover under any form of reasonable rationalization. My elective power has been changed by these amendments to the County Budget without a referendum. The Legislature has, without asking the peeple for their permission, essentially transferred some of my powers to their jurisdiction, removing staff hours from my Of?ce and converting them to increased Audit dollars for their Audit unit. This maneuver has been done using false premises as justi?cation, false premises prepared by the Executive?s staff and endorsed by him, false premises carried by the Legislature, and false premises that exceed the color of discretion. The Legislature relied on these premises to make their ?nal budgetary reductions to my Office, and to transfer powers ?'om my of?ce to their purview. There is no question that the ?nal result of all this is that the lExecutive and Legislature caused an inequity in speci?cally targeting my Of?ce for onerous and devastating cuts. These cuts and the resulting reduction in staff abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of my elective Of?ce without a referendum. The Executive and Legislature should not be allowed to intimidate an independently elective of?ce this way. This weakening of my of?ce could have a chilling impact on County departments who, in the case of a corrupt individual, might be more inclined to try to get away with thefts of County assets with a Comptroller in diminished capacity. This outcome cannot be what the County Charter envisioned. 52. The County Charter envisioned an independent Comptroller?s Of?ce that could act as the County?s watchdog. 53. The County Charter, by referendum, uniquely protects the Comptroller with Article 4 of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. 54. The pain of Budget cuts, if they are required, needs to be applied equitably but especially in the case of elective of?ces. 55. Allowing such budget cuts to be selectively wielded as clubs to an elective of?ce?s power is an impermissible violation of Section 23 (2) of the New York State Home Rule. 56. I pray that the Court grant my requests for a temporary preliminary injunction of the enacted 2017 Ulster County Budget and provide for remedies that will rectify this injustice to me and the taxpayers and voters of Ulster Cbunty. Dated: December? f: 2016 Kingston, NY STATE OF NEW YORK 534.61, flfiott Auerbach COUNTY OF ULSTER On 2016, before me personally came Elliott Auerbach, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK MICHAEL R. SIEGEL Notary Public. State of New York No. 028160 913 Qualified in Ufst 1' County Commissior (Sir/rm ?g?zag SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against - SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, . MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND ORDER TO SHOW For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER i 35': JOHN R. PARETE, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of Ulster County, quali?ed to and registered to vote for the elective of?ces in Ulster County. 2. I reside at 3948 State Route 28, Boiceville, New York 12412. 3. I have also been duly elected as a Legislator in the Ulster County Legislature by the quali?ed citizen voters of District 22, Towns of Denning, Hardenburgh, Olive and Shandaken in Ulster County, and represent the interests of these duly quali?ed voters. 4. I currently serve as Chairman of the Legislature?s Government Ef?ciency and Review Committee. 10. I submit this af?davit in support of the Petitioners? Order to Show Cause for a temporary injunction of the 2017 Ulster County Budget and the Petitioners? Memorandum of Law. I have been a participant in the recent budget process and am thoroughly familiar with the events and actions leading up to the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget. The Ulster County Executive?s (henceforth ?Executive?) preposed 2017 Ulster County Budget contained a singularly Speci?c and retaliatory cut to the Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce (see Exhibit B) The Executive, embarrassed by audits and other documents that were issued by the Comptroller Usage at Electric Car Charging Stations; Correction of Employee Payroll Records Prescribed Accounting Method; and Small Equipment Inventory Control at the Department of Public Works), was bent on retribution against the Comptroller; all of us in County government knew this; he is a compulsive control freak; and he has consistently caused the focus of his ire to suffer the consequences. The Executive failed to rationalize his cuts in any fashion, and he speci?cally did not discuss or cause any analysis as to the impact of these cuts, nor did he analyze whether these cuts would advance any county goal advanced in the Charter. More than a month after the Executive had released the proposed budget, in re3ponse to several calls to explain the proposed singular cut to the Comptroller his of?ce circulated ?2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce? (henceforth ?Executive?s Report?) (see Exhibit K). 11. The Executive?s Report consisted of some complaints about a small number of the Comptroller?s work product; an argument that the county should start shifting its emphasis to external auditing services instead of the Comptroller?s Of?ce; a critique of the lack of audit attention on outside programs; and a bizarre review by using the 2015 budget to analyze the comparative 2016 duties of the eight elective County Comptrollers around the State. 12. There was no 2017 Budget analysis contained in the Executive?s Report whatsoever. 13. This report, with its transparent lack of meaningful analysis of the impact of the Comptroller?s proposed cuts, became the foundation of the Legislature?s amendments to the Comptroller?s 2017 budget amendments that modi?ed the Comptroller?s cuts with very poor rationale and that were sent back to the Executive for his approval. (see Exhibit E, ?Budget Amendment 14. It was Chairman Gerentine, with the Executive?s Report in his hand, who led the effort to add new ?mding to the Legislature?s Audit unit, and who held the Comptroller?s Staff to task and openly sought to send the message that they and he were being punished for some of their audits, and that if they improved their performance they would be rewarded. 15. Chairman Gerentine specifically explained in public that these were not the Legislature?s cuts they were the Executive?s cuts, and the Legislature could do nothing about them besides attempt to lessen their impact. 16. There is no question anywhere in the Legislature that the budget cuts were proposed to hurt the Comptroller?s Of?ce; there was no attempt to hide the Legislature?s amendment that transferred dollars that could have been used for the Comptroller to the Legislature for their own external auditing services; and there was also no question that the Executive?s wishes were being supported and carried out by his legislative cronies. They didn?t even pretend otherwise. 17. In fact, the Legislature failed to analyze these cuts independently. 18. of the County Charter requires the following: ?[t]he Legislature or a committee designated by it shall prepare a written analysis and review of the County Executive's proposed budget and make it publicly available, including posting it on the County government website, no later than the second Friday of November of each year.? 19. O?Connor Davies Accountants and Advisors (henceforth ?O?Connor Davies?) conducted an ?Analysis and Review of the 2017 Executive Budge There was an overall review of the Executive?s Budget in their report, but even though it used the word analysis, the O?Connor Daviews Analysis included absolutely no analysis of the Comptroller?s cuts (see 20. I am supporting this Order to Show Cause and Memorandum of Law because the Executive and a majority of the Legislature failed to use any standard espoused in the Charter to justify singular cuts to the Comptroller?s Budget instead using arbitrary rationale in cutting the Comptroller?s Budget. These cuts were intended to change the powers of the Comptroller without a referendum. 21. How can a review of a couple of reports, in any way represent the body of work over the course of years of the Comptroller?s Of?ce, when they produce over one hundred audits, reviews, reports, analyses, prescriptions, and other documents annually? 22. Using what amounted to false rationale, the Con?dential Secretary?s position of the Comptroller was eliminated; three auditors? work hours were reduced to ?match the standard hours of other county employees? (see Exhibit E, ?Budget Amendment?); these employees work 80 hours every two weeks and are reduced to 75 hours, but there are still many other workers in the County?s employment that work 80 hours. 23. There is no question that the Executive and Legislature illegally abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of the elective County Comptroller without a referendum. 24. The Executive and Legislature should not be allowed to intimidate an independently elective of?ce this way. This bullying behavior could have a chilling impact on County departments who, in the case of a corrupt individual, might be more inclined to try to get away with thefts of county assets with a Comptroller in diminished capacity. 25. This outcome is not what the County Charter envisioned. The County Charter envisioned an independent Comptroller?s Of?ce that could act as the County?s watchdog and protected the Comptroller with the Municipal Home Rule Law. 26. The Budget cuts need to be applied equitably in the case of elective officials and not selectively as in the case before the court. 27. I demand that the Court, on behalf of myself and the citizens I represent, grant the Petitioners? requests and provide for a remedy to this matter. Dated: December Q, 201 6 Kingston, NY STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER 10%, 2016, before me personally came John R. Pareto, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. 'gquARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK MICHAEL R. SIEGEL Notary Public. State of New York No. 028163036913 Quali?ed in Ulster County Commission Expires May 19, SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS OF - ULSTER COUNTY Index No. AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT - against - OF MEMORANDUM OF MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE LAW AND ORDER TO and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE SHOW CAUSE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER 3 SS: David Donaldson, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of Ulster County, quali?ed to and registered to vote for the elective of?ces in Ulster County. 2. I reside at 148 Henry Street, Kingston, New York 12401. 3. I have also been duly elected as a Legislator in the Ulster County Legislature by the quali?ed citizen voters of District 6, City of Kingston, and represent the interests of these duly quali?ed voters. 4. I currently serve as Deputy Chairman of the Laws and Rules, Governmental Services Committee. 5. 10. 11. 12. I submit this af?davit in support of the Petitioners? Order to Show Cause for a temporary injunction of the 2017 Ulster County Budget and the Petitioners? Memorandum of Law. I have been a participant in the recent budget process and am thoroughly familiar with the events and actions leading up to the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget. When the Ulster County Executive (henceforth ?Executive?) submitted the proposed 2017 Ulster County Budget to the Legislature, it contained a singular and drastic out to the Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce (see attached proposed 2017 Ulster County Comptroller ?5 Budget attached to and made part hereof as Exhibit B). The Executive had made statements in public about the need to cut the Comptroller?s Budget but had never satisfactorily explained his rationale for it or how such a cut would affect the ability of the Comptroller to exercise his powers. Accordingly, the Legislature asked the Executive to explain the basis for this out. More than a month after the Executive had released the pr0posed budget, his staff ?nally released a Budget Analysis of the Comptroller?s Of?ce entitled ?2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce? (see Exhibit K, henceforth ?Executive Report?). However, there was no 2017 Budget Analysis contained in the Executive Report. The Executive Report was: just a bunch of complaints about roughly 2% of the Comptroller?s'work product from the past three or more years; a call to have the County rely more on external auditors instead of the Charter mandated 13. 14. 15. 16. Comptroller because it was a better value for the County; a call to turn the Comptroller?s attention from Department audits to outside program audits; and a false analysis comparing the 2016 duties of the various County Comptrollers around the State to their unrelated 2015 budget. This report was shamefully, openly, wrongfully, and blatantly used to justify the Legislature?s ?nal budget amendment to the Comptroller?s 2017 budget that was sent back to the Executive for his approval (see Exhibit E, 2017 Ulster County Legislative Amendment to Comptroller ?3 Budget henceforth ?Budget Amendment?). This Amendment came directly out of the Ways and Means Committee, Where Chairman Gerentine supported the effort to pass an amendment to add even more monies to fund the Legislature?s external auditing services and openly struggled to ?nd ways to sanction actions of the Comptroller?s Staff, to both punish them for their past work product and reward them if they improved their performance during the 2017 budget year. Chairman Gerentine Specifically mentioned the Executive?s role in justifying the proposed cuts in this hearing and indicated that there was nothing they [the Legislature] could do to refute the Executive?s rationale - that the Ways and Means Committee was just partly amending it. The Executive was embarrassed by several reports and pieces of work product that were issued by the Comptroller this past year, including Usage at Electric Car Charging Stations; Correction 'of Employee Payroll Records; and Small Equipment Inventory Control at the Department of Public Works. He has clearly let all of us in County government know about this; he has notoriously thin skin; and he notoriously extracts a pound of ?esh in revenge for every slight. 17. There is no question that this budget cut was proposed in revenge and no question that his flunkies in the Legislature are carrying out his wishes here; they are not even pretending otherwise. 18. As an example as to the hasty rush to do the Executive?s bidding by a majority of the Legislature, of the County Charter requires: ?[t]he Legislature or a committee designated by it shall prepare a written analysis and review of the County Executive's proposed budget and make it publicly available, including posting it on the County govermnent website, no later than the second Friday of November of each year.? 19. This year, the Legislature hired O?Connor Davies Accountants and Advisors (henceforth ?O?Connor Davies?) to conduct their Analysis and Review of the 2017 Executive Budget (see There was a review of the Executive?s Budget in their report but zero analysis about the cuts to the Comptroller. 20. Instead, the Legislature relied on the Executive Report for their Analysis that was not posted on the Executive?s website, and members of the Legislature could be seen toting it around at the hearings on this matter. Chairman Gerentine and a majority of the Ways and Means Committee leaned heavily on __it for their rationalization of the Legislature?s Amendment. 21. The Executive and a majority of the Legislature used arbitrary rationale in cutting the Comptroller?s budget. Based on a work product review: they eliminated the Con?dential Secretary?s position of the Comptroller (and did no such elimination to any of the other Elective Of?ces in the County); they selectively took away hours of three speci?c auditors after publically admonishing the work products of their Of?ce, based on the Executive?s critique of roughly 2% of these work products, and this was done as a punitive measure without analyzing who, what, where, when, and what the impact of this would be on that office; they also gave false rationale for the hourly cuts within the amendment, stating it was to ?match the standard hours of other county employees? (see Exhibit these were employees who worked 80 hours every two weeks and are now allocated 75 hours, and there are many other workers in the County?s employment that still work 80 hours. 22. The Court must ?nd that the Executive and Legislature abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of the elective County Comptroller without a referendum and remedy this situation. I demand this as a citizen voter and on behalf of my constituents who are having their voice taken away ?om them. It is the voters that must decide whether the Comptroller?s work products are adequate and not the Executive or Legislature. 23. The Executive and Legislature in these instances must be made to evenly apply. their budget knife and not speci?cally target a single elective of?ce. 24.nTh-is is why?I ask the Court to grant the iPetitioners? requests and remedy violations to the Charter and ?23 (2) of the Municipal Home Rule Law. Dated: December Ll, 2016 Kingston, NY DavidDoL?aldson STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER On 2016, before me personally came David Donaldson, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. 1mm e1 We Norm PUBLIC ewe-{set A ?136,0 STATE or NEW YORK $3 A 5-: Lu o1west754071 7% 5 QUALIFIEDIN 5 ULSTEBCOUNTY 5 :3 COMM. EXP. 5 2 -. 12/20/2019 ?x a?n .- p? f" SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS OF ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against JENNIFER FUENTES IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. IIEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, PETITIONERS and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER JENNIFER FUENTES, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of Ulster County, quali?ed to and registered to vote for the elective of?ces in Ulster County. I reside at 40 Esopus Avenue, Ulster Park, New York 12487. I am a petitioner in the above matter, and I make this af?davit in support of the Order to Show Cause, the relief: requested, and the Memorandum of Law. As a citizen and voter of Ulster County, I have rights to have an elective Comptroller that is a fully functioning County Watchdog, overseeing the wolves in sheep?s clothing that are preying on the County?s resources. The 2017 Ulster County budget was tragically crafted and enacted, designed to punish the Comptroller. 10. 11. 12. 13. The 2017 Ulster County Budget was proposed, amended, and enacted based on a report issued by the Respondent County Executive, which relied on false facts and premises. The Legislature used those false facts and premises to base its ?nal budgetary amendments that were cuts or changes to the Petitioner elective Comptroller?s powers. The Legislature further used those false premises to amend and add powers to the Legislature?s own audit unit, transferring the Comptroller?s powers to their own purview. Members of the Legislature brazenly told the Comptroller and his staff that they were seeking to control their performance with the cuts to their budget and that they might be rewarded if they performed in a way that was not made clear but was suggestive of requiring that the Comptroller?s staff act according to the Legislature?s wishes. The 2017 Ulster County Budget on its face abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of the elective Ulster County Comptroller without giving me, as a taxpayer and voting resident, a say in the matter. The 2017 Ulster County Budget takes away my right to vote on a referendum on changing powers of the Ulster County Comptroller. I voted for the County Charter referendum and for referendums to amend it. The Charter speci?cally grants me the right to vote on whether the County Comptroller?s work products are satisfactory and does not place that discretion within the County Executive or the County Legislature. 14. of the County Charter says that the Comptroller shall ?[h]ave all the powers and perform all the duties conferred or imposed by law upon a county comptroller, and perform such other related duties required by the County Executive or County Legislature.? 15. Neither the County Executive nor the County Legislature is requiring the Comptroller to perform such other related duties within this budget. 16. Instead, they seek to limit how the Comptroller and his staff perform their duties. 17. The Legislature and Executive have sought this level of control and answerability with no other elective of?ce this year. 18. They have only selected one county elective of?ce for reductions, the County Comptroller. 19. It is apparent to me that this assault was done as punishment for reports the Comptroller produced that were critical of each of these branches of government and that they now seek to silence him. 20. I pray that you grant the petitioners the relief they are seeking in the interests of justice and fair and honest government. Dated: December/i: 2016 Kingston, NY Fuentetsj STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER On 29/2016, before me personally came Jennifer Fuentes, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, 1y acknowledged to me that he executed the same. STATE OF NEW YORK MICHAEL R. SIEGEL Notary Public, State of New York No. 02816036913 . Qualified in Ulster County Commission Expires May 19. 20% SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS OF ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against STEVEN GREENFIELD IN SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, PETITIONERS and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE For 3 Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK ss: COUNTY OF ULSTER STEVEN GREENFIELD, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am a resident of Ulster County, quali?ed to and registered to vote for the elective of?ces in Ulster County. 2. I reside at 6 Mountain View Place South, New Paltz, New York 12561. 3. I am a petitioner in the above matter, and I make this af?davit in support of the Order to Show Cause, the relief requested, and the Memorandum of Law. 4. As a citizen and voter of Ulster County I have the right to have a ?illy functioning County Watchdog, the County Comptroller, watching over the wolves in sheep?s clothing that are preying on the County?s resources. 5. The 2017 Ulster County budget targeted the Ulster County Comptroller for inequitable cuts, using false premises that were transmitted by the Executive?s 10. 11. 12. Cm." Of?ce to the Legislature in the form of a report they issued that contained many false facts and premises in a blatant attempt to distort a fair budgetary treatment of the Comptroller. The Ulster County Legislature relied on these premises to pass cuts to the Comptroller?s powers; and The Ulster County Legislature relied on these premises to amend and increase their own budget to fund their own audit unit. The 2017 Ulster County budget on its face abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of the elective Ulster County Comptroller without giving me a say in the matter. The 2017 Ulster County budget takes away my right to vote on a referendum on changing powers of the Ulster County Comptroller. I voted for the County Charter referendum and for referendums to amend it. The Charter speci?cally grants me the right to vote on whether the County Comptroller?s work products are satisfactory and does not put this authority within the County Executive or the County Legislature. C-57 of the County Charter says that the Comptroller shall ?[h]ave all the powers and perform all the duties conferred or imposed by law upon a county comptroller, and perform such other related duties required by the County Executive or County Legislature.? 13. Neither the County Executive nor the County Legislature is requiring the 14. Comptroller to perform such other related duties with this budget. Instead, they seek to limit and curtail how the Comptroller and his staff perform their duties. 15. They have not sought this level of control and/or oversight with any other elective of?ce this year. 16. They have only selected one county elective of?ce for reductions, the County Comptroller. 17. It is apparent to me that this was done as punishment for reports the Comptroller produced that were critical of each of these branches of government and that they now seek to silence him. 18. I pray that you grant the petitioners the relief they are seeking in the interests of justice and fair and honest government. Dated: December@_, 2016 Kingston, NY Mae/M Steven Green?eld STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER (7?6 [72016, before me personally came Steven Green?eld, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK MICHAEL R. SIEGEL Notary Pubiic, State of New York No. 028I6036913 Qualified in Ulster County Commission Expires May 19. 20 SUPREIVIE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index o. - against - AFFIDAVIT IN - SUPPORT OF MICHAEL P. ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, - and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, MEMORANDUIVI . OF LAW AND SAILSE For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER ROBERT E. ANTONACCI lI, CPA, ESQ, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the elected Comptroller for the County of Onondaga, having been ?rst elected to the position in 2007. 2. My of?ce, the Of?ce of the Onondaga County Comptroller, is located at the John H. Mulroy Civic Center, 14-th Floor, 421 Montgomery Street, Syracuse, NY 13202. 3. I am a lifelong resident of Central New York Where I started my career at a major accounting ?rm and went on to become a certi?ed public accountant. Therea?er, I became an attorney at law. I am now in my third term as Onondaga County Comptroller having been elected in 2007, 2011, and 2015. y? . I submit this af?davit in support of Petitioner?s order to ,show cause and memorandum of law seeking judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Laws and_Ru1es declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001, and a preliminary injunction pursuant to Article 63. . In advocacy of the independence of Ulster County Comptroller Elliott Auerbach and the seven other elected County Comptrollers across New York State, I spoke in ?'ont of the Ulster County Legislature at a public hearing on November 15, 2016, as it related to the inequitable and spiteful cuts made to the Ulster Comptroller?s Of?ce within the proposed 2017 Ulster County Budget. . During my tenure as Onondaga County Comptroller, I have bore the brunt of Executive and Legislative retribution for the diligent work performed by my of?ce. I believe in response to a lawsuit that I brought against Onondaga County for illegally allowing pay increases for county of?cials, the County Executive?s preposed budget for 2017 eliminated six positions from my payroll pre-audit staff in attempts to undercut our prudent oversight of county ?nances. I ?thher believe similar to what is happening in Ulster County the budget was used as vindictive and personal payback for challenging the supposed authority of certain policymakers, including the County Executive. . The Comptrollers across New York State are paying careful attention to this disagreement. Although the instant legal action may only affect the Ulster County Comptroller in the short-term, it will be the precedent set by this Court that determines the relationship among, and thus the independence of, the County Comptroller and other branches of government in the long run. The 10. effects of this case before the Court will resonate in perpetuity, thereby. in?uencing the role, Operation, and security of the independently elected position and Of?ce of Comptroller. The Comptroller is unlike any other position, elected or appointed, within county government. No other of?ce or department is charged with duties and responsibilities that are on par with those afforded to the chief ?nancial watchdog. As Comptroller, we can be critical, skeptical, and even antagonistic three qualities that do not necessarily endear themselves to Executive or Legislative leadership. For the thin?skinned Executive or Legislator, the budget presents an easy opportunity to attack the inquisitive or outspoken Comptroller under the pretext of ?belt??ghtening? or promotion of newfound ef?ciencies. However, ?b elt~tightening? cannot be substituted for punitive budget reductions that singularly affect the ?nances and independence of one county of?ce. For the Court to permit such a blatant attempt to steal power from an elective of?cer is to allow a violation of Section 23(2) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, in that this venge?il budgetary action abolishes, transfers, or curtails any power of an elective of?cer without a referendum. Therefore, as a matter of law, it is of quintessential importance that this Court rule to uphold the independence and integrity bestowed upon the Of?ce of the Comptroller by undoing the harmful budgetary allocations plaguing the Ulster Comptroller today. The loss of a Con?dential Secretary and hours by three Auditors will only diminish the work product of those who remain in the Office of the Ulster County Comptroller. Given the reduced capacity to produce audits and reports consistent with levels historically enjoyed by this Of?ce, it would be an astounding feat to say the least for the Ulster Comptroller to equal or exceed the body of work for which the Of?ce was responsible in 2016. Further, by inferring that the Office isnow deemed by the Executive and Legislature to be unworthy of the amount of ?mding that has formerly been allotted, the ?tone at the top? may suggest to the various departments and agencies across the county that the Comptroller?s Of?ce is overvalued and should therefore be taken less seriously. In that unfortunate scenario, the Of?ce will have suffered irreparable reputational harm, becoming a shill of its former self and incapable of issuing meaningful independent analysis to the detriment of the everyday taxpayer. 11. The 2017 Ulster County Budget, in its current form, stands for the belief that if an independently elected of?cial decides to challenge the authority of the Executive and/or Legislature through execution of his lawfully assigned duties then those policymakers can punish that individual?s office by way of unjusti?ably lopping off indiscriminate sums of money. Moreover, and perhaps most dangerously, it re?ects an attitude that the Comptroller is somehow answerable to the Executive and/or Legislature. These sentiments are offensive not only to the independence of the of?ce itself but to the voters who decided to elect the individual in the ?rst place. 12. Lastly, this matter is not one of mere discretion for it is clearly beyond the role of the Executive or Legislature to allot inequitable resources to those elected of?cials who decide not to ?play nice? or who take stances in opposition to those who control the county?s purse strings. Dated: December 2016 Syracuse, NY Robert E. Antonacci 11 STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY Onondaga On December 19, 2016, before me personally came Hon. Robert E. Antonacci II, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF NEW YORK Thomas Russell Schepp Notary Public State of New York No. 028C6218025 Quali?ed in Onondaga Coungv My Commission Expires: 07/12/ 013 r? SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY CONIPTROLLER, and JENIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against -- AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MEMORANDUM OF LAW MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER 58" MICHAEL F. CONNERS II, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am the elected Comptroller for the County of Albany, having been ?rst elected to the position in 1995. 2. My of?ce, the Of?ce of the Albany County Comptroller, Department of Audit Control, is located at the Harold L. Joyce Albany County Office Building, 112 State Street, Room 1030, Albany, NY 12207. 3. I was formerly an Albany County Legislator from 1992 through 1995, the City of Albany Public Works Commissioner in 1994, gubernatorial appointee and Treasurer of the Albany Municipal Finance Water Authority, and a member of the Governor?s Liberty Scholarship Board from 1989?1992. 4. I submit this af?davit in support of Petitioner?s order to show cause and memorandum of law seeking judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Laws and Rules declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001, and a preliminary injunction pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 63. 5. On November 15, 2016, I addressed the Ulster County Legislature at a public hearing regarding the 2017 Ulster County Budget and how it will adversely impact the powers and responsibilities of the Ulster County Of?ce of the Comptroller. I stressed the importance of maintaining a well-funded Of?ce of the Comptroller, as it relates to the productivity and capability of the Of?ce in serving as an independent ?scal watchdog and as a check and balance to the Legislative and Executive branches of county government. 10. 11. In my role as Albany County Comptroller, I have experienced ?rsthand the siege conducted upon my Of?ce by an overreaching County Executive and Legislature in attempting to diminish the power, capacity, and in?uence of the Comptroller?s position through use of punitive budgetary practices and other tactics. While this matter may have local origins, the resolution to this dispute will have statewide rami?cations upon the ?nancial, structural, and authoritative independence of all elected Comptroller positions across New York and even other elected of?cials who may be subject to the whims and consequences of a budget document that is designed to punish an independently elected of?cer for their work product. As opposed to other elected of?cials like the District Attorney and County Clerk, the Of?ce of the Comptroller is uniquely situated as an entity designed to critique, analyze, and suggest best practices pertaining to operational and ?scal inef?ciencies or de?cits of county programs and departments. The very nature of this position - being one of constant investigation and even confrontation at times underscores the potential for a venge?ii Executive or Legislature to use the budget as a weapon to limit the scope, effectiveness, and integrity of the Of?ce. However, any such encroachment upon the powers and independence of the Comptroller is not only detrimental, it is impermissible when budget reductions are punitive in nature and not performed equitably among other elected county of?ces and departments, and when they solely target the Of?ce of Comptroller, as is the case here in Ulster County. To allow such an inequity is to allow a violation of Section 23(2) of the Municipal Home Rule Law, in that this budgetary action literally abolishes, transfers, or curtails the powers of an elective of?cer without referendum. The Court must prevent attempts to limit the powers, and thus preserve the independence of an elected of?ce in this instance being the Comptroller of Ulster County and therefore ?nd the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget to be in violation of the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law. Taken in the light most favorable to the Respondents, on its face, the current budget cuts intentionally abolish, transfer, or curtail the powers of the Comptroller, which are expressiy enumerated within the Ulster County Charter. It is my overwhelming impression and belief that the audit, investigatory, claims approval, and day-to-day administrative functions of the Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce as well as any of?ce would signi?cantly suffer if hours of two Claims Auditors and one Senior Auditor were reduced and the position of Con?dential Secretary was eliminated from a small of?ce of seven. As remaining staff members are forced to ?pick up the slac of others, there will be a resulting impediment to work product and ef?ciency, as well as a chilling effect upon the compliance and cooperation of departments in reSponse to Comptroller?s requests and the sound practices of good government. r?m? 12. There is also the establishment by this Budget that if the work product of the independent Comptroller does not please the Executive or Legislature that they can take away resources and powers of that Of?ce to carry out its role in county government. This stance is a chilling reality that would have broad complications across the state. 'Just imagine the Comptroller criticizes the Legislature or Executive as he is supposed to do for budgetary waste or questionable use of county funds, and these of?ces subsequently reciprocate by taking retaliatory budget action against him. At that point, the Comptroller ceases to be an independent of?ce and will simply become an extension of the Legislature and/or Executive. Dated: December ?43016 Kingston, NY UM Michael F. Conners II STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: COUNTY OF ULSTER On ?3 2016, before me personally came Hon. Michael F. Conners II, to me known, and known to be the individual described in, and who executed the foregoing Af?davit, and duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same. PUBLIC MICHAEL R. SIEGEL STATE OF NEW YORK Notary Public, State of New York No. Qualified in Ulster County cg 29m? SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ULSTER ELLIOTT AUERBACH, ULSTER COUNTY COMPTROLLER, JENNIFER FUENTES and STEVEN GREENFIELD, CITIZEN VOTERS of ULSTER COUNTY Index No. - against - MICHAEL P. HEIN, ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE, and THE ULSTER COUNTY LEGISLATURE, For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78, and/or Section 3001 and Article 63 of the CPLR Practice Law and Rules. MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioners, Elliott Auerbach, as the Ulster County Comptroller (henceforth ?the Comptroller?), and Jennifer Fuentes and Steven Green?eld, both Citizens and registered Voters of Ulster County (henceforth ?Citizens) submit this Memorandum of Law in support of their Order to Show Cause against Respondents, Michael P. Hein, the Ulster County Executive (henceforth ?the Executive?) and the Ulster County Legislature (henceforth ?the Legislature?), seeking judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Procedure Law and Rules and/or declaratory relief pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001, and a preliminary injunction pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 63. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Petitioners seek an order pursuant to Article 78 of the C.P.L.R. and/or a declaratory judgment pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 temporarily enjoining enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget (henceforth ?the Budget?) pursuant to C.P.L.R. Article 63, in that it was enacted in violation of the Ulster County Charter (henceforth ?the Charter?) because it abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of an elective of?ce, the Comptroller, without a referendum, and because it was enacted based on false premises. Petitioners seek a judicial declaration that irreparable harm has been done to the elective Of?ce of Comptroller, the mandates of the Charter, and to the Citizen electors of the County who have already voted on referenda empowering the County Comptroller?s Of?ce. Petitioners also seek an order directing Respondents to immediately modify the Budget to correct the above harms and violations. Sections and of the County Charter all embrace Article 4 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York (see Exhibit A, pages 1, 2, and 10). Article 4 of the New York State Home Rule Law in ?23 (2) states that: ?[Echept as otherwise provided by or under authority of a state statute, a local law shall be subject to mandatory referendum if it: . Abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective o??icer. Sections C-56 through C-60 of the Charter provide for the elective officer, County Comptroller (see Exhibit A, pages 26-28). This case arises ?om, and seeks a declaration that: in reliance of false budgetary information and premises provided by the Executive and his staff to the Legislature about the elective Comptroller?s Of?ce. The Executive and Legislature enacted the 2017 County Budget without a referendum, changing powers of an elective of?ce, the petitioner/plaintiff Comptroller; while transferring powers of that elective of?ce to the Legislature?s Audit Unit; thus violating Article 4 ?23 (2) Petitioners seek: the provisional remedy of staying enactment of the 2017 County Budget; a declaration that this Budget violates the law; and an order directing the to equitably modify this Budget to correct the damage they have in?icted upon the Petitioners. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Ulster County Charter, passed via public referendum, provides for a County Executive, at County Comptroller, and a 23 member County Legislature. Article IX of the Ulster County Charter enumerates the quali?cations, staf?ng, powers and duties of the County Comptroller, the ?chief auditing of?cer of the County? (see Exhibit A, page 27). Elliott Auerbach was ?rst elected Ulster County?s Comptroller in the November 2008 general election, and is currently serving his second term as Comptroller. The Comptroller?s staff currently includes seven employees: a Deputy Comptroller, a Director of Internal Audit and Control, a Con?dential Secretary, two Senior Auditors, and two Claims Auditors. The Comptroller?s 2016 Adopted Office Budget was $870,026: $576,742 for Personnel, $8,500 for Supplies and Equipment, $6,000 for Professional Services, $6,000 for Conferences, $1,500 for Travel, $13,910 for Miscellaneous Contractual, and $257,374 for Employee Bene?ts. The Comptroller?s 2017 Enacted Budget is $795,979: $511,980 for Personnel, $3,750 for Longevity, $5,000 for Supplies and Equipment, $10,000 for Professional Services, $6,750 for Conferences, $1,000 for Travel, $13,233 for Miscellaneous Contractual, and $244,266 for Employee Bene?ts. It defunds the Comptroller?s Con?dential Secretary, and cuts ?ve hours per pay period for three CSEA Auditor positions on his staff, with corresponding decreases in employee bene?ts (see Exhibit E). As required by the Charter, the County Executive issued his proposed Budget on October It called for a general 2% reduction in County spending to re?ect the projected revenues for 2017. It also contained a modi?cation to the County Comptroller?s 2017 request that reduced personnel costs by $120,000 (equating to elimination of two positions), reduced miscellaneous contractual expenses by $13,000, and reduced associated employee bene?ts by $67,000 (see Exhibits and H). The Comptroller repeatedly requested justi?cations for these cuts. The Legislature requested a justi?cation as well. More than ?ve (5) weeks after his preposed budget was released, members of the Legislature received a report from the Executive?s Staff entitled ?2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce? dated November 16, 2016 (see Exhibit K, 2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s O?ice henceforth Report? attached to and made part hereof). The ACE report contained many false facts, and false factual premises, extensively critiqued two of the Comptroller?s Audits (critiques the Comptroller contested and that were among more than 100?s of reports, examinations and prescriptions conducted and produced over the same time period), and contained zero analysis about the impact on the Comptroller?s powers that the proposed cuts might cause. The ACE Report recommended that the County return to reliance and use of External Auditors instead of the Charter position of Comptroller; made false statements to challenge the effectiveness of the Comptroller?s Of?ce; falsi?ed several other data premises; recommended the Comptroller correct a lack of attention on third-party vendors and service providers by performing programmatic reviews rather than intra-County audits, which is patently false; erroneously compared the 2015 budgets of all New York State County Comptrollers against the 2016 responsibilities of each of these eight Comptrollers? Of?ces and duties (many had expanded duties and budgets in 2016 not re?ected in the data); and falsely de?ned and incorrectly described the term ?audit risk? to the Comptroller?s of?ce. The ACE report also critiqued a couple of Audits completed by the Comptroller, the basis of and conclusions of which are, at best, contested. At a meeting of the Legislature?s Ways Means Committee on December 5th and citing the Executive, while holding the ACE report in hand, as the reason for cuts to the Comptroller, cuts to his elective of?ce was passed by that: ?Reduce[d] the Comptroller staff to 37.5 hour weekly work schedules to match the standard hours of other county employees [and] defund[ed] [the position of Con?dential Secretary]? (see Exhibit E). The Legislature debated and openly sought to exert their control and in?uence over the Comptroller?s Of?ce before passing the Comptroller?s cuts. At the Ways and Means hearing, Gerentine demanded a signi?cant degree of answerability and oversight absent from powers and duties assigned by the Charter. There is no of?cial Legislative policy dictating standard hours per pay period written in the ?nal amendment (see Exhibit E). After this cut, there are still 175 County employees (157 CSEA and 18 management personnel) with 40?hour weekly work schedules (80 hour periods), including several E. . dozen positions in similar classi?cations as the three Comptroller positions affected. The elimination of the Comptroller?s Con?dential Secretary position is also quite unique. The of?ces of every single other elective of?cial in the County, and every County department head, has such a position funded. The full Legislature voted on December 7th to adopt the Exhibit amendment, and it was subsequently signed and enacted by the Executive. ARGUMENTS I. THERE IS PRECEDENT FOR THE COURT TO GRANT STANDING TO THE PETITIONERS TO ARGUE FOR A STAY OF THE ENACTED ULSTER COUNTY BUDGET. This Court has granted standing to elected of?ces, including County Comptrollers, as well as citizens to make Article 78 and/or C.P.L.R. 3001 petitions to reverse or declare invalid budgetary actions of a County Legislature, and/or a County Executive, and has awarded court and legal costs. This Court has held that a County Executive may not use imprOper budgetary premises in the budgetary process and ordered a provisional remedy on a Legislature?s enacted budget (see Matter of Korn 611101121, 72 363 (N held that an Executive may not interfere with an independent of?ce?s unfettered authority to ?x number of employees and establish their salaries, or their power to hire assistants as the county legislature may allow (see Mohr Greenan, 10 misc. 3d 610 (2005), 803 876, 2005 NY. Slip Op. 25458); granted a hearing on the merits for injunctive relief, but af?rmed the right of a County Executive to: place a countywide hiring freeze effecting the County Comptroller (see Caputo Halpin, 78 117 (1991); granted injunctive relief but af?rmed a County Executive?s ministerial delay in the execution of employment forms, and awarded costs to the petitioner Comptroller (see Slominsla' v. Rutkowski, 62 781 (1984)); granted injunctive relief but af?rmed a County?s right to transfer non?charter duties of a County Treasurer to another of?ce (see Beverly Shields County of Delaware, 35 AD. 3d 1001); and granted injunctive relief but af?rmed an Executive?s administrative delay of the hiring of some of a Comptroller?s Legislatively Authorized employees (see Matter of Henry v. Note, 50 816, 430 32, 407 1329). In the case at hand, the Petitioners ask the court for injunctive relief and a declaration that the Respondent(s) based their decision to pass their County Budget on false premises about the Comptroller and that they violated Article 4 Section 23 (2) of the Municipal Home Rule Law when they enacted it. Petitioners have been damaged by this Budget enactment. Their damage arises from the actions of the Respondent(s), and they ask for an equitable solution that the court is empowered to grant them. The Petitioners do not ask the Court to substitute their judgment or intervene in a budget process. Petitioners ask the Court to resolve a legal dispute concerning the scope of respondent?s authority. Petitioner(s) seek a determination that the enactment of the 2017 Ulster County Budget wrongfully relied on false premises; and that it abolishes, transfers, or curtails powers of the elective Comptroller without a mandatory referendum. II. THE ENACTED 2017 ULSTER COUNTY BUDGET VIOLATES ARTICLE 4 MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW. Subdivision 2 of Section 23 of the Municipal Home Rule Law requires that ?a local law shall be subject to a mandatory referendum if it abolishes, transfers or curtails any power of an elective o?icer.? Section (A) of the Ulster County likewise provides that, ?[Tjhe County Legislature may adopt, amend and repeal local laws by a majority vote of the total number of its members. Each local law shall embrace only one subject and may relate to property, a?az?rs or government of the County, or any other subject of County concern. In the exercise of such power, and within the limitations provided by Article 4 of the Munichml Home Rule Law, the County may change, supersede or amend any act of the State Legislature.? (emphasis added) There is no question that the Comptroller of Ulster County is an elective office; that the enacted 2017 Ulster County Budget singled out his office for more than a ?fteen percent staff and staff hour reduction without truth?il and relevant analysis about the impact; and that the Legislature amending the Budget to include additional funding for a Legislative Audit Unit. This Budget, in doing so, abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of the elective Comptroller without a referendum. Under both the commonly accepted meaning of the English Language and prior holdings of the Court, the Ulster County 2017 Budget, and its budgetary premises, by de?nition ?curtails? and ?transfers.? To the extent that it curtails, and/or transfers, it changes the Comptroller?s powers and is, therefore, invalid unless approved by referendum. Webster?s Third New International Dictionary defines ?change? as ?to make different in some particular but short of conversion to something else: and ?curtail? as ?to diminish ABRIDGE, The Executive and Legislative Branches of Ulster County have directly interfered, altered, and modi?ed powers of the Comptroller in that they are changed. The Budget punitively singles out and reduces the Comptroller?s staff like no other elective of?ce in the County in 2017 and establishes that the Legislature and Executive, and not the Comptroller, evaluate the performance of the Comptroller?s staff interfering with staff that serves at the pleasure of the Comptroller; and by punitively limiting his staffs hours, eliminating a staff position, and indicating that their funding is directly related to how the Legislature rates individual employees? performance instead of the Comptroller, changes and/or curtails the Comptroller?s power. It makes no difference what kind of change it is if it constitutes a change or curtailment, and has not been approved by the voters. Further, the Legislature transferred the Comptroller?s powers to their own purview by assertng their right to evaluate the Comptroller?s staff, and adding the equivalent of the cut from the Comptroller?s Of?ce to their own Audit Unit. This clearly abolished, transferred, and/or curtailed a powers of the Comptroller without a referendum. This type of ?change? is the teaching of both Morin v. Foster, 45 NY. 2d 287 and Matter of Fogarty v. Warden, 297 NY. 963. Although those cases concerned the permissive referendum requirements of subdivision 4 of section 34 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, the operative language (?abolishes, curtails or transfers any power of an elective county of?cer?) is, except for the order in which the words appear, identical. In Morin, the County Charter provided for appointment of a county manager to a four year term and thus empowered the Legislature to bind its successors. The Court held that a local law which abolished the four year term and made the manager subject to removal at the pleasure of the Legislature and regardless of cause curtailed the power of the Legislature to bind its successor and was, therefore, invalid absent a provision for permissive referendum, notwithstanding that the power to remove the manager at will could be viewed as enhancing the power of the legislators. ogarzy presented the reverse situation of a city manager who, under the Newburgh City Charter, held of?ce ?during the pleasure of the council? and a local law making the manager removable only after hearing and for cause. The Court held that the provision which limited the council?s power of removal, curtailed its powers. These holdings, while distinguishable on their facts, establish that any change, even one arguably an enhancement, and any diminishment of the powers of the Comptroller must be submitted for a referendum. To suggest that a budget that changes the power of the Comptroller and puts the Legislature in the shoes of the Comptroller?s Charter de?ned duties does not constitute a change or a curtailment because the power still exists even though the Legislature is now exercising it, is to render meaningless the referendum requirement of section 23 subdivision 2 part of the Municipal Home Rule Law. PETITIONERS ARGUE FOR A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT RESPONDENTS VIOLATED THE ULSTER COUNTY HOME RULE CLAUSE. Petitioners seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to C.P.L.R. 3001 that Respondents have violated the Ulster County Charter Home Rule clause in enacting the 2017 Ulster County Budget. They did this by purposefully using an inequitable, falsely premised budget cut that abolished, transferred, or curtailed powers of an elective of?cial, the Ulster County Comptroller without a referendum; and Respondents should be immediately ordered to modify this budget to restore the Comptroller?s powers. C.P.L.R. 3001 authorizes "courts to declare the rights and other legal relations of the parties to a justiciable controversy, providing a procedure for parties to resolve disputes over existing 10 rights and obligations." Lang v. Hanover Ins. Co., 3 350,355 (2004) (citations omitted). A justiciable controversy is "de?ned as a 'real dispute between adverse parties, involving substantial legal interests for which a declaration of right will have some practical effect."I Palm v. uckahoe Union Free Sch. Dist, 95 1087, 1089 (2d Dep?t 2012) (citations omitted). A declaratory judgment action requires that the parties have an actual controversy and a stake in the outcome. Long Is. Lighting Co. v. Allianz Underwriters Ins. Co, 35 253,253 (l5t Dep?t 2006). Declaratory judgments resolve disputes where a "plaintiff is 'unable to ?nd among the traditional kinds of action one that will enable her to bring it to court." Theme v. Alexander Lousz'a Calder Found, 70 88, 100 (lst Dep't 2009) (citations omitted). Here, a declaratory judgment would provide Petitioners with the necessary relief they seek a judgment that Respondents must comply with the Municipal Home Rule if they want to curtail the Comptroller?s elective power. To cease this violation of the Municipal Home Rule the court can direct Respondents to pass a budget modi?cation. A declaration that Respondents have violated the Municipal Home Rule with their 2017 Budget enactment, and an order directing them to restore their cuts, or resolve the budgetary inequities to the Comptroller, will have practical effect. It will ensure that powers of the Comptroller are not abolished, transferred, or curtailed. Petitioner Comptroller will be able to conduct himself and his staff in a manner as could be expected by Citizen Petitioners, and as required under the Charter, and thus Petitioners, Citizens of the County, can enjoy the bene?ts of the powers they voted for. Petitioners must ask the Court to involve itself because they cannot readily challenge Respondents? 2017 budget enactment through other sorts of actions, nor can 11 the damages to the Comptroller by such cuts be adequately addressed by seeking monetary damages. As such, Article 78 and C.P.L.R. 3001 provide the Petitioners with the ideal action to declare that the Respondents? actions violate the Home Rule Statute, and thus the Charter, and must be remedied immediately. IV. PETITIONERS SEEK A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT RESPONDENTS BASED THEIR VIOLATIVE BUDGET CUTS OF THE OFFICE 0N FALSE PREMISES AND RATIONALES. The Executive and the Legislature both relied on the ACE Report - the Executive?s Of?ce by causing it to be produced, printing it, and passing it out to the Legislature, and the Legislature by Wielding, citing it?s premises, and carrying out its core premises in hearings and votes. This report recommended that the County return to reliance and use of External Auditors instead of the Comptroller, and made false assumptions and used false data and analysis to challenge the ?effectiveness? and ?ef?ciency? of the Comptroller?s Of?ce: It falsely recommended the Comptroller correct a lack of attention toward programmatic reviews by focusing his attention on third-party vendors and service providers rather than intra?County audits, a curious notion deSpite the 20 such audits and reviews that the Comptroller has issued (see Exhibit K, page 6: incorrectly stating that ?the Comptroller?s O??ice has performed zero program audits [since 2009] this despite the page 26, lines G- and 1: showing that the Comptroller?s O?ice completed upwards of 20 such audits and reports); it falsi?ed the ?decreasing? workload and ?increasing costs? of the Comptroller?s Of?ce; misrepresented data 12 comparing Spending trends pre and post-Charter; it falsely compared the 2015 budgets against the 2016 responsibilities for each of County Comptrollers? Of?ces and duties across the State, many of which had expanded duties and budgets in 2016 not re?ected in the data; it falsely de?ned the ?audit risk? of the Comptroller?s Office, as well as made gratuitous unsupported comments regarding noncompliance with professional auditing standards; misreported the taken by the current Of?ce to ensure that Charter reSponsibilities such as Bank Reconciliations and completion of required reports are being performed timely and without error. This report also criticized two audits and reviews of the Comptroller, using criticism that the Comptroller contested. In Kern, the Court held that ?the County Executive failed to comply with the legal requirements of the County Charter? and that ?the Board of Supervisors relied upon a false premise.? In Kern, the Executive provided and the Legislature relied upon false ?nancial projections on which to base their budget. Here, the Executive provided and the Legislature relied on false premise in a false analysis of the Comptroller?s Office in order to make budget cuts to his elective of?ce. Neither the Executive nor the Legislature provided any analysis of the impact of any cuts on the Comptroller?s elective of?ce. The Legislature?s Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Gerentine stated at a hearing that the Legislature was relying on the Executive?s budgetary premises and that the Legislature ?couldn?t do anything about it,? and also stated that the Legislature was seeking to control the actions of the Comptroller?s staff through cuts and the vague promise of a reward down the road, even though the Comptroller?s staff serves at the pleasure of the Comptroller (see Exhibit N). The court needn?t even rely on what was 13 said, it was the deep ?aws and falsehoods espoused by the ACE report and the subsequent actions recommended therein that add up to a reliance on false presumptions. IV. PETITIONERS SEEK A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STAYING THE ENACTMENT OF THE 2017 ULSTER COUNTY BUDGET. Petitioners seek a preliminary injunction in order to prevent the harm caused to an elective of?ce with the violation of Municipal Home Rule Law 23 (2) until such time as the Court can establish that the Respondents have modi?ed the 2017 Ulster County Budget to restore any elective powers they have abolished, transferred, or curtailed without a referendum. In order to obtain a preliminary injunction, petitioners must Show that 1) they have a likelihood of prevailing in the proceeding; 2) they will suffer irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; and 3) the balance of equities favors injunctive relief. W. T. Grant Ca, V. Srogi, 52 496, 517 (1981). The decision to grant a preliminary injunction "rests in the sole discretion of the Supreme Court." Ruiz v. Meloney, 26 485, 486 (2d Dep?t 2006). In determining the likelihood of success on the merits, "the threshold inquiry is whether the proponent has tendered suf?cient evidence demonstrating ultimate success in the underlying action." 1234 Broadway LLC v. West Side SRO Law Project, 86 18, 23 (lst Dep't 2011). The party seeking preliminary injunction need not provide conclusive evidence, but must demonstrate a clear right to the desired relief (see Id at 39? 40). 14 Here, Petitioners have presented unambiguous evidence that Respondents used false premises, that they violated the Charter and the Municipal Home Rule Statute 23 (2) it embraces. Respondents have abolished, transferred, or curtailed the powers of an elective office justi?ed by false budgetary premises, chilling and unsupported standards; made dramatic and singular cuts to that Of?ce; and transferred the rough equivalent of these cuts to hand an Audit Unit reporting to and controlled by the Legislature. Petitioners can demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not granted. Without the restoration of their budget, the Comptroller and Comptroller?s staff? 3 ability to take independent actions and make unbiased independent reviews are already compromised. The Executive and Legislature have asserted with their enacted budget and the actions leading up to it that it is they who control the actions of the Comptroller?s staff with their subjective arbitrary standards, not the Comptroller. Petitioners are entitled to a preliminary injunction because the harm here is not calculable and damages could not be readily determined at the underlying hearing. OraSure Technologies, Inc. v. Prestige Brands Holdings, Inc, 42 348,348 (lst Dep't 2007); see also J.0.M Corp. v. Dep of Health of State ofNK, 173 153, 154 (lst Dep't 1991) ("monetary harm which can be compensated by damages does not constitute irreparable injury"). Finally, a balancing of the equities clearly favors the Petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction. Respondents have no readily identi?able basis for abolishing, transferring, and curtailing the power of an elective office Without a referendum. On the other hand, Petitioners need the assurance that the Comptroller?s powers will be restored. 15 ReSpondents will not be forced to take drastic actions or perform functions beyond the scope of their normal duties. Respondents must simply restore the Comptroller?s budget or make it equitable with an immediate budget modi?cation. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Petitioners' application and issue an Order 1) declaring that Respondents have violated the Municipal Home Rule 23 (2) and the Ulster County Charter, and must restore their budget cuts to the Comptroller?s Of?ce or make the Comptroller?s Budget equitable immediately; 2) granting a preliminary injunction enjoining enactment of Respondents? 2017 County Budget until such time as the Comptroller?s powers are treated equitably; 3) award the legal and court costs of this action; and 4) grant such further relief as is appropriate and warranted. Respectfully Submitted, f" Michael R. Siegel, Esq Law Of?ces of Michael R. Siegel 80 Deer Run Lane, Bx 373 Wawarsing, NY 12489 Attorney for Petitioners/Plaintiffs Elliott Auerbach, Jennifer Fuentes and Steven Green?eld Dated: December 20, 2016 Kingston, NY 16 EXHIBIT A The Ulster County Charter IH lVr?u' Ulster County, NY Friday, December 16, 2016 Chapter C. Charter Adopted by the Ulster County Legislature 8-23-2006 by LL. No. 2-2006, approved 11-7-2006. Amendments noted where applicable] Article I. Ulster County and. Its Government C-1. Title and purpose. A. This Charter, together with any and all amendments to it, to be known and cited as the ?Ulster County Charter,? constitutes the government of Ulster County and provides for its form and functioning. Among other purposes, this Charter seeks to secure County home rule to the greatest extent possible; assure fair elections for County of?ces and accountability of the County?s government to its people; separate the legislative and executive functions and responsibilities in Ulster County government; achieve increased efficiency, economy, equity, effectiveness and responsibility in the operation of the County government; increase fiscal accountability; ensure flexibility in the structure of County government to allow easy adaptability to change; and foster intermunicipal agreements and cooperation. 8. Except as otherwise provided, no function, facility, duty or power of any city, town, village, school district, or other district, or of any officer thereof, is or shall be transferred, altered, or impaired by this Charter. C-2. County status, powers and duties. Upon adoption of this Charter, Ulster County shall be and remain a municipal corporation under its same name and shall exercise all of the rights, privileges, functions and powers conferred upon it by this Charter, and any other applicable statute not inconsistent with such Charter. Ulster County shall be subject to all duties and obligations imposed upon it by existing or subsequent laws not inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter, including all powers necessarily incidental to or which may be fairly implied from the powers speci?cally conferred upon it. C-3. Charter effect on state laws. This Charter provides a form for and structure of County government in accordance with the provision of Article 4 of the Municipal Home Rule Law of the State of New York. All special laws relating to Ulster County and all general laws of the State of New York shall continue in full force and effect except to the extent that such laws have been repealed, amended, modified or superseded in their application to Ulster County by enactment and adoption of this Charter. Within the limits prescribed in Article 4 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, wherever and whenever any state law, general, special, or local in effect, conflicts or is inconsistent with this Charter, such law shall be deemed, to the extent of such conflict or inconsistency, to be superseded by this Charter insofar as the County of Ulster and its government are affected. C-4. Charter effect on local laws and resolutions. A. All local laws and resolutions, heretofore adopted, which are contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter are hereby repealed. 1I47 gummy, IV I B. All of the laws of the st; relating to the towns, cities, villages or its of the County of Ulster shall continue in full force and e. .cCt except to the extent that such laws have been repealed, amended, modified or superseded in their application to Ulster County by the enactment and adoption of this Charter. C-5. Amendment or revision of Charter. A. Amendment through the Legislature. The County Executive, any Legislator; the Legislature collectively or any (2) The Legislature shall provide such funds as are necessary for the Commission to conduct its business (3) The Commission shall call upon necessary expertise in the community and state, shall hold public hearings to gather citizen opinion on the and weaknesses of the Charter and proposed improvements, and shall maximally publicize its work through the print and electronic media and the County website. The Commission shall issue a written report to the County Legislature and County Executive at the conclusion of its deliberations, but no later than one year from the date of its first meeting, containing its findings and recommendations, if any, for amendments or revisions of the Ulster County Charter to be placed by the County Legislature before the people of Ulster County for their consideration at the next scheduled general election at least 60 days after the report is delivered to the Clerk of the Legislature. The Commission shall be dissolved on the day following its report or one year and one day from the date of its first meeting. (4) The Commission, by two-thirds vote of its members, may place directly before the voters for their approval at referendum proposals to amend or revise Charter provisions pertaining to the County in Article II or of this Charter. These amendments or revisions must be filed with the Ulster County Board of Elections timely so as to allow a vote upon them at the next scheduled general election after the Commission reports. No later than one month before the scheduled referendum at which its adoption will proposes a matter for direct ballot consideration, the Commission will continue to function until the day after election day of the year of consideration of its proposal on the ballot. C-6. De?nitions. 2/47 la lurgu Whenever used in this Charter, ?Ass otherwise expressly stated, or unless the context or subjeCt matter on mac requires, the following terms sha.. ..ave the meanings indicated: ADMINISTRATIVE CODE The Administrative Code, if any, which may be adopted by the County Legislature, and any amendments thereto. ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD The head of any administrative unit. ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT Any department, division, bureau, office, board or commission or other agency of County government, or any subordinate part of the foregoing. AUTHORIZED AGENCY Any agency authorized by this Charter, Administrative Code or applicable law, including, but not limited to, those authorized by the County Law, to receive and expend County funds for a County purpose. CAPITAL PROGRAM The plan of capital projects proposed to be undertaken during a five?year period, the estimated cost of such projects, and the proposed method of financing. It shall be arranged in such manner as to indicate the order of priority of each project, and to state for each project: A. A description of the proposed project and the estimated total cost; B. The proposed method of financing, indicating the amount proposed to be financed by direct budgetary appropriation of duly established reserve funds; the amount, if any, estimated to be received from the federai and/or state government; and the amount to be financed by the issuance of obligations, showing the proposed type or types of obligations, together with the period of probable usefulness for which they are proposed to be issued; and C. An estimate of the effect, if any, upon operating costs of the municipal corporation within each of the three fiscal years following completion of the project. CAPITAL PROJECT A. Any physical betterment or improvement, including furnishings, machinery, apparatus or equipment for such physical betterment or improvement when first constructed or acquired; or B. Any preliminary studies and surveys relating to any physical betterment or improvement; or C. Land or rights in land; or D. Any combination of Subsection A, or C. CHARTER This Ulster County Charter and all its amendments, if any. CLERK The Clerk of the County Legislature. COUNTY The County of Ulster. COUNTY EXECUTIVE The elective chief executive officer of the County, who shall govern according to those powers provided for in this Charter, or under any other provision of applicable law. COUNTY LAW The County Law of the State of New York. http'Jlecode360.comlprintIU 3147 .. LEGISLATURE i The elective legislativ.__ dipropriating and policy-determining body of the County of Ulster. Whenever the term ?County Board,? Board of Superwsors,? ?County Governing Board? or ?elective governing body of the County? is referred to in any law, it shall be deemed to mean and refer to the County Legislature. DEPARTMENT HEAD The administrative head of any department, and may also be referred to herein as a ?commissioner? or ?director.? DIVISION ELECTION LAW The Election Law of the State of New York. EXECUTIVE LAW The Executive Law of the State of New York. GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW The General Municipal Law of the State of New York. LOCAL LAW A legislative act of the County Legislature adopted pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule Law, but shall not mean or include a resolution, ordinance or similar act of the County Legislature. MUNICIPAL HOME RULE LAW The Municipal Home Rule of the State of New York. PUBLIC OFFICE Any of?ce of federal, state or local government whether elected or appointed. PUBLIC OFFICERS LAW The Public Officers Law of the State of New York. REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW The Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. SECRETARY OF STATE The Secretary of State of the State of New York. WHOLE NUMBER The total number of persons which the County Legislature or other group of persons would have were there no vacancies and none of the persons disquali?ed from acting. Article II. Legislative Branch (2-7. County Legislature. Upon the adoption of this Charter, the elective legislative body of Ulster County shall be the County Legislature of the County of Ulster. C-8. Members; term of o?ice; election. m? 12I16I2016 A. Effective at the general el [an of 2011, the County of Ulster shall be into 23 legislative districts, from each of which shall be elected one person to be a member of the Con. y" Legislature. Such persons while holding office shall be known as ?Legislators.? B. The term of of?ce of the members of the County Legislature shall be two years beginning on the first day of January next following their election at the general election held in every odd-numbered year. C-9. Quali?cations. A. Each member of the County Legislature shall, at the time of the Legislator?s nomination and election and throughout the Legislator?s term of office, be and remain a qualified elector and resident of the district from which the Legislator is elected, except that for an election immediately following the reapportionment of County legislative districts, the incumbent County Legislator representing a district redrawn in such reapportionment shall be eligible for nomination for election in either his or her district of residence or any newly drawn district which is contiguous to his or her district of residence, provided that the County Legislator shall become a resident of the district represented no later than one year after taking office. B. No County Legislator shall hold at the same time any other elective public office. {3 C-10. Commission on Reapportionment (Redistricting). [Amended 8-14-2012 by LL. Nag-201251] A. A Commission on Reapportionment shall be established pursuant to this section. it shall meet as soon as practicable after the availability of data from each decennial census to evaluate existing legislative districts pursuant to the process established herein and reapportion them as necessary to meet established standards in state and federal law for equal and fair representation of all people in Ulster County, keeping districts compact and contiguous while taking also into account existing town, city, village and election district boundaries, defining geographic features, and equal population within applicable law, but giving no consideration to providing advantage to one or another political party. This Commission shall consist of seven members who are County residents, are eligible to register to vote and are not currently, nor have been for the three years preceding the formation of the Commission, public officers, employees of New York State, Ulster County or any town, city or village in that County, or members or officers of any political committee. For the purposes of this statute, public of?cers shall not include notaries public. B. To establish a pool from which Commission members will be appointed, the County Executive shall, no later than June 1 of each year ending in commence the process for widely soliciting interest in serving on the Commission through such means as direct mail and email, contact with civic groups, public service announcements on radio and television and in daily and weekly newspapers, paid advertisement and announcement on the County website. The pool of candidates qualified to serve as members of the Commission shall be submitted to the County Legislature no later than September 1 of each year ending in C. initial appointments to the Commission on Reapportionment from the pool of interested parties gathered in this manner shall represent various geographic areas of the County and shall be made no later than October 1 of each year ending in with two members appointed by the Legislature?s majority leader and two members by the Legislature?s minority leader. (1) The four appointed Commissioners shall select the additional three Commission members from the pool previously established no later than October 15 of each year ending in In the event that all of the three additional Commission members are not appointed by the prescribed October 15 deadline, the appointment of the initial four members and additional members appointed by the four Commissioners will no longer have force and effect, and these members will no longer be eligible to serve on the Commission on Reapportionment. (2) The majority and minority leaders will then make new appointments, other than any previously selected who could not agree on the selection of the three additional members, in the manner prescribed in 5147 ity, Subsection aboywno later than November 1 of each year ei I in The four newly appointed members will appc. three additional members as set forth above'by November 15 of each year ending in (3) The majority and minority leaders will then make new appointments, other than any previously selected (4) in the event that these four Commission members fail to select all of the three additional members by December 15 of each year ending in then by January 1 of each year ending in the three additional members of the Commission shall be selected by a drawing of names from a receptacle containing the names of the remaining members of the pool of interested parties that the four Commissioners have agreed by majority vote meet the criteria set forth in of this Charter. The four newly appointed members shall verify that the receptacle contains the names of all remaining members of the pool of interested parties. The County Clerk shall draw three names from the receptacle containing the names of (1) Following each decennial census, the Commission shall prepare a plan to divide the County into 23 single member districts as set forth in C-8 of this Charter for the election'oic County Legislators. The plan shall (2) Each of the 23 single member legislative districts shall be created, taking into consideration 010 of this (3) The Commission shall hold one or more public hearings on or prior to May 20 of each year ending in (4) The Commission shall prepare and adopt, by majority vote, a final plan for reapportionment and submit its has not been supplied in a timely fashion and the Commission requests such extensmn. Such plan shall be able to be subjected to a permissive referendum, as if it were a local law, prowded the New York State Legislature shall have enacted legislation and the Governor shall have signed into law such legislation or. such legislation is otherwise caused to become law. (5) if the Commission on Reapportionment?s plan is not subjected to a permissive referendum or is approved referend 5?47 Ill IU enacted in such per hive referendum, such plan shall not take ?act, and a new Commission on Reapportionment shah Ce established, and such persons on the Con_._ .?sion shall meet all criteria as the prior Commission. The County Executive shall undertake the same or substantially similar procedures as were utilized in the formation of the Commission on Reapportionment in the prior year to solicit volunteers for the pool who will be considered for the Commission on Reapportionment. Such pool of candidates shall be established by December 15 of the year ending in The majority leader and minority leader in office as of January 10 in a year ending in shall pick two persons each from the pool of candidates to serve on the Commission by January 15 in a year ending in The four appointed Commissioners shall select the additional three Commission members from the pool previously established no later than February 1 of each year ending in in the event that all of the three additional Commission members are not appointed by the prescribed February 1st deadline, the appointment of the initial four members and any additional members appointed by the four Commissioners will no longer have force and effect, and these members will no longer be eligible to serve on the Commission on Reapportionment. (6) The majority and minority leaders will then make new appointments, other than any previously selected who could not agree on the selection of the three additional members, in the manner prescribed in Subsection above no later than February 10 of each year ending in The four newly appointed members will appoint three additional members as set forth above by February 20 of each year ending in ln the event that all of the three additional Commission members are not appointed by the prescribed February 20 deadline, the three additional members of the Commission shall be selected by a drawing of names from a receptacle containing the names of the remaining members of the pool of interested parties that the four Commissioners have agreed by majority vote meet the criteria set forth in of this Charter by February 25 of each year ending in (7) The four newly appointed members shall verify that the receptacle contains the names of all remaining members of the pool of interested parties. The County Clerk shall draw three names from the receptacle containing the names of all of the remaining interested parties. If the four newly appointed members determine that any one of the three additional members together with the four appointed members thus selected do not represent the criteria set forth in of this Charter, the process shall be repeated with respect to the number of additional members to be appointed. The rejected members shall not be placed back in the receptacle. This process shall be repeated until a majority of the four members determine that the three additional members together with the four appointed members represent the criteria set forth in of this Charter. The three names thus selected shall constitute the three additional members of the Commission on Reapportionment. G. The Commission shall meet no later than seven days after it is fully appointed. The Commission shall elect a Chairperson at its first meeting by a majority vote of the entire membership of the Commission. H. Powers and duties of the Commission; hearings; submissions and approval of the plan. (1) The Commission shall prepare a plan to divide the County into 23 single member districts as set forth in 08 of this Charter for the election of County Legislators. The plan shall be solely limited to the designation of creating district boundary lines delineating each of the 23 legislative districts. The Commission shall have no power or authority to increase or decrease the number of legislative districts as that power and authority shall vest solely with the power and authority granted to the Ulster County Legislature, Ulster County Executive and the electorate pursuant to the Ulster County Charter and 23 of Municipal Home Rule Law. In preparing the plan, the Commission shall be guided by the criteria set forth in of the County Charter. (2) Each of the 23 single member legislative districts shall be created, taking into consideration if: C-1o of this Charter based upon population. (3) The Commission shall hold one or more public hearings not less than 10 days before it submits its final plan to the Clerk of the Ulster County Legislature, in accordance with Subsection of this section. The Commission shall make its draft plan available to the public for inspection and comment not less than 10 days before the first such public hearing. http:llecode360.comlprinilU 7/47 Ulster County, NY (4) The Commission and adopt, by majority vote, a plan'l'r ,leapportionment and submit its plan to the Clerk of the ,sagisiature on or before May 1 of each year ending in Such plan shall divide the County into 23 single member districts for the election of the County Legislature. Such plan shall be able to be subjected to a permissive referendum, as if it were a local law, provided the New York State Legislature shall have enacted legislation and the Governor shall have signed into law such legislation or such legislation is otherwise caused to become law. (5) if the Commission on Reapportionment?s plan is not subjected to a permissive referendum or is approved at referendum, it shall have the force and effect of law and shall be deemed the reapportlonment plan of the County Legislature commencing with the general election in the year ending in if the Commission on Reapportionment?s plan is subjected to a permissive referendum and is defeated or otherwise not adopted plan or pursuant to any court order. A Reapportionment Commission shall be dissolved on the day following the general election in which it submits its plan to the Clerk of the County Legislature. A vacancy in any Reapportionment Commission shall be filled in the manner that the vacant position was originally filled. A vacancy shall be filled no later than 15 days from the date of the vacancy. is uding but not limited to the portion authorizing a permissive referendum, the Ulster County Charter Revision Commissmn shall be reconvened, as provided for in of the Ulster County Charter, not earlier than September 1, 2017, and not later than November 1, 2017, for the purpose of providing for a method of reapportionment 'of the 23 Ulster County legislative districts pursuant to of the Ulster County Charter. Editor?s Note.- This local law was approved at referendum bya majority of the duly quali?ed voters 116-2012. The County Legislature shall be the legislative, appropriating and policy-determining body of the County and, as such, shall have and exercise all powers and duties now or hereafter conferred upon it by applicable law and any and all powers necessarily implied or incidental thereto, including but not limited to the power: A. B. To exercise all powers of local legislation in relation to enacting, amending, or rescinding local laws, legalizing acts, local laws, or resolutions; amend or repeal an Administrative Code which shall set forth the details of County government consistent with the provisions of this Charter and which Administrative Code may contain revisions, simplifications, consolidations, modifications and restatements of special laws, local laws, resolutions, rules and regulations consistent with this Charter or amendments thereto; By local law to adopt, administration of the By local law to create, alter, combine or abolish County administrative units; To adopt by resolution all necessary rules and regulations for its own conduct and procedure; Old") 1211612015 F. I?d] f5? . . Subject to the Constitution" lgeneral laws of the State of New York, to ?l '53 number of hours constituting a legal days work for all classes of County employees and, upon recommendation of the County Executive, grant to the department head the power to stagger work hours; To grant by resolution to officers and employees of the County vacations, sick leaves, compensatory time and leaves of absence, with or without pay, and adopt rules and regulations in relation thereto; To fix the compensation of all officers and employees paid from County funds or, for employees not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, to establish salary ranges within which the appointing authority shall have discretion to set the actual salary within the range; To approve all labor contracts and amendments thereto; [Amended 8-14-2012 by LL. No. 94201293] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11-6-2012. To fix the amount of official bonds and undertakings of officers and employees; To conduct studies and investigations in furtherance of its legislative functions and, in connection therewith, to obtain and employ professional and technical advice, appoint citizens? committees, commissions and boards, subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, and require the production of books, papers and other evidence deemed necessary or material to such studies or investigations. A subpoena issued under this section shall be regulated by the Civil Practice Law and Rules together with any state or federal laws or rules that may be applicable. The subpoena shall not extend to disclose the identity or jeopardize the safety of victims, confidential informants, witnesses, and undercover officers or operatives; [Amended 8?14?2012 by LL. No. 9401233] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11-6-2012. To create and establish the office of deputy or deputies to the head of any department, agency, or administrative unit; To determine and make provision for any matter of government not otherwise provided for, including but not by way of limitation, any necessary matter involved in the transition to this Charter form of government; To determine and fix real property tax equalization rates among the various taxing districts of the County for County purposes consistent with standards prescribed by the Legislature of the State of New York and file the same in accordance with applicable law; To approve the execution of all contracts in excess of $50,000 entered into by the County; and To appropriate funds for the annual audit of the books and records of the County by independent auditors. [Amended 8?14-2012 by LL. No. 9401231] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11?6-2012. C-11.1. Audit Committee. [Added 8-14-2012 by LL. No. 9-20-1253] There shall be an Audit Committee consisting of seven members: The Chairman of the Legislature or his/her designee will serve on and chair the committee and will appoint two additional members, at least one of whom must be a County Legislator; the minority leader will appoint two members, at least one of whom must be a County Legislator; the County Executive or designee; the Comptroller or designee. The County Executive and the Comptroller shall be nonvoting members. it shall take the affirmative action of three out of the five voting members to act. A. The Audit Committee shall: (1) Select the independent auditor to perform the annual audit of the books and records of the County; (2) Select the independent auditor in a fashion consistent with the County?s existing procurement policy, and the Audit Committee shall consult with the Director of Purchasing in this respect; and 9/47 Ulster County, NY (3) Report the juditor?s findings to the Legislature, County; Eutive and County Comptroller. Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11-6-2012. 012. Submission of enactments for executive approval; veto and veto override. A. Except as otherwise provided by this Charter, every local law, legalizing act, or resolution adopted by the County Legislature, except legislative branch appointments not otherwise subject to County Executive approval If the County Executive approves the local law or resolution, he or she shall sign it and return it to the Clerk of the County Legislature; it shall then be deemed to have been adopted. if he or she disapproves the local law or resolution, he or she shall veto it by returning it within 10 days to the Clerk with his or her objections stated in writing, or 30 days in the case of a local law. Any resolution not returned within 10 days, or 30 days in the case County Executive?s objections to the County Legislature at its next regular meeting, and these objections shall be entered in the Legislature?s record, journal or minutes of proceedings. C. Within 30 days after such receipt and entry, the County Legislature may reconsider such vetoed enactment and pass the same over the objections thereto by a favorable vote of at least 2/3 of the whole number of its elected members on a roll-call vote. 013. Local laws. A. Adoption, amendment and repeal. The County Legislature may adopt, amend and repeal local laws by a majority vote of the total number of its members. Each local law shall embrace only one subject and may relate to property, affairs or government of the County, or any other subject of County concern. In the exercise of such power, and within the limitations provided by Article 4 of the Municipal Home Rule Law, the County may change, supersede or amend any act of the State Legislature. B. Procedure. Except as may otherwise be provided in this Charter, all procedural details relating to the adoption, amendment and repeal of local laws, including the conduct of referenda in connection therewith, shall be as provided in the Administrative Code or applicable law. C. Referenda. Local laws shall be subject to mandatory or permissive referenda when required by this Charter or applicable law. D. Effective date. Every local law shall become effective when filed in the office of the Secretary of State of the State of New York, or on such later date as may be provided in the local law. C-14. Resolutions. A. Adoption, amendment and repeal. The County Legislature may adopt, amend and repeal resolutions by a B. Procedure. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, all procedural details relating to the adoption, amendment and repeal of resolutions shall be as provided in the Administrative Code or applicable law. C-15. Con?rmation of appointments. 1 0/47 12? 612016 ureter bounty. [Amended 8?14?2012 by LL. No.( 312m] A proposed appointment or proposed appointments to County office by the County Executive that requires confirmation by the County Legislature under provisions of this Charter shall be presented by the County Executive to the Clerk of the Legislature in writing in sufficient time to allow the Clerk to inform the full Legislature of the proposed appointment or appointments at least 30 days prior to the Legislature?s next scheduled meeting. The Legislature shall vote on the confirmation of such individual at its next regular meeting at least 30 days after such nomination has been made by the County Executive. If the Legislature fails to vote upon the proposed appointment or appointments, the proposed appointment or appointments shall be deemed confirmed. When an appointment is not confirmed by the Legislature, but such appointment was considered at a regular meeting of the Legislature, the appointment of the same individual for the same position may not be resubmitted by the County Executive for12 months after the Legislature votes upon the proposed appointment. Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11?6-2012. Advisory committees, commissions and boards. Members of all citizens? committees, commissions and boards appointed pursuant to of this Charter shall serve at the pleasure of the County Legislature. They shall serve without compensation other than for actual and necessary expenses within appropriations made therefor, unless otherwise provided by resolution of the County Legislature. The Chairman of the County Legislature shall be a member ex officio of all such committees, commissions and boards. C-17. Organizational meeting. A. The organizational meeting of the County Legislature shall be conducted on or before the second Tuesday in January at the time and place designated in a written notice to be given each Legislator by the Clerk of the County Legislature not later than five days prior to such meeting. In the event of a vacancy in the office of the Clerk of the County Legislature, or his or her inability or failure to act in accordance with the provisions of this section, notice shall be given by the County Clerk. B. At this organizational meeting, the members of the Legislature shall select a Chairman at the call of the Clerk of the Legislature in each year. The Chairman shall appoint members of the County Legislature to serve on such committees as are provided by the rules of such Legislature. The Clerk of the County Legislature shall preside at all meetings of the Legislature until such time as a Chairman has been designated by election or appointment. The failure to elect a Chairman or appoint committee members shall not prevent the County Legislature from transacting its ordinary business. C. In the event of vacancy in the of?ce of Chairman, the County Legislature shall fill that office in the manner provided by its rules. Should the County Legislature fail to select a Chairman within 30 days after that of?ce shall become vacant for any reason, the County Executive shall appoint a member of the County Legislature to serve as Chairman for the balance of the calendar year. 018. and special meetings; notice. The County Legislature shall fix by rule the time and place of its regular meetings, which shall be conducted at least once each calendar month. No prior notice of such meetings shall be required. Special meetings may be conducted at such times and places and upon such conditions and notice to all members as the County Legislature by rule may provide. 019. Clerk of the County Legislature. [Amended 8?14-2012 by LL. No. 94012133] A Clerk of the County Legislature shall be elected by the County Legislature on an annual basis commencing upon the organizational meeting of the County Legislature which shall take place in January 2014. Until such time, the 11/47 Ulster County. NY Clerk shall be appointed by the; irman of the County Legislature. The Cleric .fl be and remain an elector of the County, and he or she shall serve at the pleasure of the Legislature until his or her successor shall be appointed and shall quali?i. A vacancy in the office of Clerk shall be filled by election of the County Legislature effective after the organizational meeting of the County Legislature in January 2014. The Clerk of the Legislature incumbent as of December 31, 2013, shall holdover and continue in his or her position as Clerk of the County Legislature until his or Legislature. Until January 1, 2014, such Deputy Clerks and employees shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Legislature. Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11-6-2012. 020. Counsel to the Legislature; Minority Counsel. A. Appointment. There shall be a Counsel to the Legislature who shall be appointed by the Chairman of the Legislature. At the time of his or her appointment, and throughout his or her term of office, the Counsel to the Legislature shall be and remain duly licensed and entitled to practice law in the State of New York. He or she shall be appointed on the basis of his or her legal experience and other qualifications for the responsibilities of this office. He or she shall be directly responsible to the Chairman of the Legislature and shall serve at the pleasure of the County Legislature. [Amended 8?14-2012 by LL. No. 9201251] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11?6-2012. D. To advise the Legislature, the Legislature may retain Special Counsel where it deems it necessary notwithstanding the provisions of G72 of this County Charter. [Added 8-14-2012 by LL. No. 9201293] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly qualified voters 11-6-2012. C-21. Filling membership vacancies. A vacancy in the County Legislature shall be filled by appointment by the County Legislature of a qualified elector residing within the district no later than 30 days from the time at which the vacancy occurs. If the appointment is not made within 30 days, a special election shall be conducted to fill the vacancy within 90 days after the vacancy occurs; provided, however, that if there is a scheduled general election within 120 days after said vacancy occurs, the vacancy shall be filled at that general election. A person who fills a vacancy, if appointed or elected at a special election, shall serve until commencement of the calendar year next succeeding the first general election after the happening of the vacancy at which a successor may be elected, and the vacancy shall be filled at such election for the unexpired term. A person elected at a general election to fill a vacancy shall serve out the remainder of the term for that seat. Article Executive Branch C-22. County Executive. 19"" 12l16l2016 The executive power of the Con/? Government shall be vested in a County Executive who, as chief executive, snail be responsible for the proper a I: of all County affairs placed in the 'ity Executive?s charge by any and all provisions of this Charter and/or by law. 0-23. Election and quali?cations. The County Executive shall be elected from the County at large, shall be a qualified elector of Ulster County at the time of his or her nomination and election and shall remain a qualified elector of Ulster County throughout his or her term of office. The County Executive shall hold no other elected public office or compensated employment and shall devote full time to the duties of the office. C-24. Term of office. The County Executive shall be elected for a three-year term at the regularly scheduled election in the first even- numbered year following the adoption of this Charter, and thereafter every fourth year for a four-year term. The County Executive?s term of office shall begin with the first day of January following his or her election. 0-25. Powers and duties of County Executive. The County Executive shall be the chief executive of the County. Except as may be otherwise provided in this Charter, he or she shall have and exercise all the executive powers and duties conferred by this Charter and/or in law upon a County executive officer or the executive branch of a County government, and all powers and duties necessarily implied or incidental thereto: A. Appoint department heads and other officers and employees as provided in this Charter. Should the County Executive fail to make such appointment in writing, signed and filed in the offices of the Clerk and the County Clerk within a period of 120 days from a vacancy in such department or administrative unit, except in the case of the departments of health and social services, in which case such appointment shall be made within 180 days, the County Legislature may appoint such department head or administrative unit head. in no event shall, unless a default occurs in the confirmation process by the County Legislature, any person appointed by the County Executive enter upon his or her of?ce unless confirmation by the County Legislature shall have been filed by the Clerk in the offices of both the County Clerk and the Clerk; [Amended 8-14?2012 by LL. No. 9?2o1zm] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 116?2012. B. Supervise, direct and control the administration of all departments; C. Appoint, without confirmation by the County Legislature, such assistants, officers, and employees of the County Executive?s office as may be authorized by the County Legislature; D. Conduct or supervise the conduct of collective bargaining negotiations with legally designated bargaining agents of County employees; E. Supervise and direct the internal structure and organization of every unit of the executive branch of the County government; F. Reorganize the duties of, create, combine, separate, or eliminate executive departments of the County with the confirmation of the Legislature; G. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter or applicable law, supervise the appointment and dismissal of employees; i-i. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, serve as an ex officio member of and appoint, supervise and terminate all executive committees, commissions and boards needed to assist him or her in the exercise of his or her executive functions and in the planning, formulation and administration of executive policies and programs; 1314': .. serve as the chief budgetary of?cer of the County, and as such, pr} and submit to the County Legislature the annual budget, all program, and accompanying message, all as provided for in Article of this Charter, and execute the County budget and capital program in accordance with the resolutions and appropriations made by the County Legislature; K. Himself or herself or through a designee require the submission of regular reports of all County-funded agencies, assuring that publicly provided funds are used by said funded agencies in accord with overall County plans and agreed annually speci?ed goals and objectives for said agencies; L. Approve or disapprove the sufficiency of sureties on official bonds and undertakings required to be posted of M. Execute all contracts under the sum of $50,000 and, with the approval of the County Legislature, all contracts in excess of $50,000; N. Approve or disapprove in writing every proposed local law and resolution and the County Budget by specified items, subject to the provisions of 012 of this Charter,- and and boards. [Added 8-14-2012 by LL. No. 9-20125'5] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly qualified voters 11-6-2012. C-26. Appointment of department heads. A. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, the County Executive shall appoint, to serve at his or her pleasure [Amended 8-14-2012 by LL. N0. 9-201253] Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 11-6-2012. Editor?s Note: This local law was approved at referendum by a majority of the duly quali?ed voters 116-2012. 1211612016 . G. The County Executive one person as head of two or more fsnartments or other administrative units or may serve himself c. herself as the head of one or more adminis .. .ive units or departments, subject to all requirements in this Charter and/or law as to qualifications. 027. Deputy County Executive(s). The County Executive may appoint or designate one or more Deputy County Executive(s), within the limits of appropriation set by the County Legislature, who shall serve at the pleasure of the County Executive. The Deputy County Executive(s) shall have the authority to act generally for and in place of the County Executive. Advisory committees, commissions and boards. Members of all committees, commissions and boards appointed pursuant to C-25H of this Charter shall serve at the pleasure of the County Executive without compensation other than for actual and necessary expenses within appropriations made therefor, unless otherwise provided by resolution of the County Legislature; provided, however, that in the case of individuals appointed hereunder for definite terms, no removal shall be made until the person to be removed has been served with notice of the reasons for such removal and given an opportunity to be heard publicly if he or she desires thereon by the County Executive. The decision of the County Executive shall be final. C-29. Acting County Executive. [Amended 8-14?2012 by LL. No. 9401291] A. The County Executive shall designate in writing, and in order of succession, the person or persons who shall serve as Acting County Executive in the event that he or she resigns, dies or certifies in writing and files with the County Clerk a statement that he or she is unable to perform and/or exercise the powers and duties of the office of County Executive, or in the event that, upon advice sought by a majority of the whole number of members elected to the Ulster County Legislature by formal action not subject to veto by the County Executive, his or her inability to serve is certified by qualified and competent medical authority. B. Only persons incumbent in County government may be designated to any list ofsuccession for possible service as Acting County Executive. C. if a vacancy occurs in the office of County Executive other than by regular expiration of the term, the person designated under C-29A as the first successor shall become Acting County Executive until the vacancy is filled in accordance with subsections D, and of this section. Should the person designated as the first successor be unable to perform and/or exercise the duties of the office, then the person next designated under C-29A shall become the Acting County Executive. D. if the vacancy in the office of the County Executive occurs more than 180 days before the next general election, it shall be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by a special election to be held no later than 90 days from the date the vacancy occurs. The person so elected shall serve for the balance of the unexpired term commencing 30 days from the date of the certification by the Board of Elections. The Acting County Executive shall continue to serve until such time as the person so elected takes office. Notice of a special election called hereunder shall be in a manner set forth in election law for notice of a general election. it shall be the duty of the Board of Elections to prepare ballots, voting machines and other matters so that such election may be properly held and conducted. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, the expenses of a special election conducted pursuant to this section shall be borne by the County, except where the special election will be held on the date of a primary election or the next general election. E. If said vacancy may be filled by a general election to be held no more than 180 days after the vacancy occurs, then no special election shall be held, and the vacancy shall be filled by a general election. The person so elected at the general election shall serve for the balance of the unexpired term and shall take office on the first day of January next succeeding the vacancy. 15/47 Ulster County, NY F. At any time during of the term for which a County Ex live was elected after he or she was found unable to exercise the duties of the office by competent medical authority, that authority may file a retraction in writing with the County Clerk, and thereafter the County Executive may immediately resume service in that office so long as he or she has not been replaced at a special or general election. modified from time to time, but shall not take effect until the expiration of 45 days the entire duration of which the County Executive who filed such list shall have had to remain in office, or such list shall not otherwise take effect. During such forty-five-day period, the prior list shall remain in effect. in the absence of such written designation of order of succession and in the event of the County Executive?s inability to perform and exercise the powers and duties of his or her office, the County Legislature shall appoint a person then serving in County government to serve as Acting County Executive. 030. Removal of County Executive. The County Executive may be removed from office only in accord with provisions and in the manner provided in the New York State Constitution and the Public Of?cers Law. Article IV. Financial Procedures C-31. Fiscal year. Departmental, agency, of?ce or unit estimates. agency, office or unit. A statement of actual expenses and actual revenues for the immediately preceding completed fiscal year, budgeted expenditures and revenues for the current fiscal year, and expenditures and revenues to date 12/16/2016 Ulbl?l for the current fiscal year shall 'icluded in departmental submission, prepar?T'xjn the same specified format for comparison purposes. Each departmental estimate of expenses and revenue by . Jgrarn shall be supported by such other detail and other supporting information concerning the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of departmental performance as the County Executive shall require. Departmental estimates shall be public records and shall at all reasonable times be open to public inspection. {3 C-34. Submission of County budget. A. On or before the first Friday of October in each year, the County Executive shall submit to the Clerk of the Legislature, for consideration by the County Legislature, a proposed operating and capital budget for the next ensuing fiscal year and a proposed capital program for the next ensuing six fiscal years or other period as may be authorized by law, together with a budget message as provided in 035. Upon their submission, the proposed expense and capital budgets, hereinafter called the ?County budget,? together with the budget message, shall be posted on the County website and become public records in the office of the Clerk for distribution. B. The proposed County budget shall be balanced, with projected revenues equaling or exceeding estimated expenses for the next ensuing fiscal year, and shall be presented in three sections, one of which shall set forth the estimated revenues and receipts, one of which shall set forth the estimated expenses, and one of which shall set forth the proposed capital authorizations and expenditures. A statement of actual expenses and actual revenues for the immediately preceding completed fiscal year, budgeted expenditures and revenues for the current fiscal year, and expenditures and revenues to date for the current fiscal year shall be included in the proposed County budget, prepared in a format that facilitates year-to-year comparison. The proposed County budget shall present the complete financial plan for the County and its agencies for the next ensuing fiscal year, including setting forth proposed borrowing, if any. An estimate of unencumbered balances at the end of each completed fiscal year, except when otherwise provided by law or appropriated for a capital improvement or other authorized continuing project, shall be treated as revenue for the County budget for the next ensuing fiscal year. C-35. Budget message. The County Executive shall submit with the County budget a budget message summarizing and explaining the main features of the County budget, including information identifying and analyzing new or changed programs, with such supporting schedules and explanatory materials as he or she may deem desirable or the Legislature may by resolution require. The County Executive?s proposed budget shall include a clear summary demonstration that there is a balanced relationship between the total estimated expenditures and the total estimated revenues for the next ensuing fiscal year and shall compare these figures with the actual receipts and expenditures for the last completed fiscal year and the year?to?date actual and year?to-date projected total expenditures and revenues for the current fiscal year. The County Executive?s budget message shall also outline the existing and any proposed financial policies of the County relating to the capital program, including a description of each capital improvement proposed to be undertaken in the preceding fiscal year and not yet completed. The budget message shall specify the manner in which the County Executive is overseeing management of departmental operations to assure economic, efficient, effective delivery of public services, and contain such additional information as the County Executive may deem appropriate, and shall be posted on the County/s website. 036. Review of County budget and message. The Legislature or a committee designated by it will review the County Executive?s proposed County budget and budget message and may require attendance of the heads of departments, agencies, offices or units or their representatives and/or their production of records and information in explanation of their departmental estimates as the Legislature shall deem appropriate. The Legislature or a committee designated by it shall prepare a written analysis and review of the County Executive?s proposed budget and make it publicly available, including posting it on the County government website, no later than the second Friday of November of each year. httpu?lecode360.comiprintlU 17/47 Ulster County, NY Public het""?t1gs on County budget. 5 Beginning no later than the third Friday of November of each year, the Legislature shall hold, in at least three geographically di5persed locations in the County, public hearings on the County Executive?s proposed County budget, the budget message submitted by the County Executive, the report resulting from the review and analysis of that budget and message by the Legislature or its designated committee. The Clerk of the Legislature shall cause to be posted on the County website published in the official newspaper of the County and such other newspapers as inspected or obtained by any interested person. At least 10 days shall elapse between the publication of a notice and the date specified for any budget hearing. At a budget hearing any person may be heard. insofar as necessary and practicable within the deadline for the timely final adoption of the County budget, a budget hearing may be adjourned to a date certain or from day to day. C-38. Adoption of County budget. A. After the conclusion of the public hearings, the Legislature may strike items of appropriation or anticipated revenue from the B. The balanced County budget as changed, altered or revised shall be adopted by resolution of the Legislature not later than the second Thursday of December: C. if the Legislature takes no action by the second Thursday of December; the budget submitted by the County Executive shall be deemed to be the adopted budget. D. if the County budget, as submitted by the County Executive, is adopted by resolution of the Legislature with no changes, it shall be adopted. E. if, however, the County budget as adopted by the Legislature contains any increases, additions, decreases or deletions, it shall be immediately presented by the Clerk of the Legislature to the County Executive for examination and reconsideration. G. if the County budget, with any increases, additions, decreases or deletions, is not returned by the County Executive to the Clerk of the Legislature with his or her objections within five working days after presentation by the Clerk to the County Executive, it shall be deemed adopted, as changed, altered or revised by the Legislature. 1211612016 Ulster CountyCounty Executive so long alance remains between proposed expendr 's and proposed revenues In that budget. i. If any limitation date mentioned in this article falls on a holiday, Saturday or Sunday, then any time limitations required herein shall be extended to the next business day of the County. J. Copies of the County budget as adopted shall be certified by the County Executive and by the Clerk of the Legislature and shall be filed in the offices of the County Executive and the Clerk of the Legislature. The budget so certified shall be posted on the County website and, at the discretion of the Legislature, printed or otherwise reproduced and copies made available to the public at such cost as the Legislature shall deem appropriate. Materials posted to the County website annualiy during the course of preparation of the County budget may not be removed from public access until the certified County budget for the year is posted in accord with the requirements of this section. 039. Levy of taxes; inclusion of reserve for uncoilected taxes. A. The net County tax requirement determined by subtracting the total estimated revenues from the total proposed expenditures as set forth in the adopted budget shall be levied in advance by the County Legislature on the taxable real property of the several tax districts of the County. The taxes so levied shall include an amount to be known as ?reserve for uncoilected taxes,? which shall be a County charge. The County Legislature shall fix the amount of such a sum as it may deem sufficient to produce in cash from the collection of taxes and other revenues during the year monies required to meet the estimated expenditures of such year; provided, however, that such reserve for uncoilected taxes shall not be less than the face amount of unpaid taxes for the preceding completed fiscal year. B. The amount of all taxes, special ad valorem levies and special assessments levied upon any parcel of real property by the County Legislature shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be and become a lien thereon as of the ?rst day of January of the fiscal year for which levied and shall remain a lien until paid. 0-40. Budget modi?cation after adoption. A. The County Executive shall manage the County?s resources to achieve maximum economy, ef?ciency and effectiveness in County government. Pursuant to this responsibility he or she may, during any fiscal year, transfer part or all of any revenue or expenditure within a program or purpose of any department, agency, office or unit to another program or purpose within that department, agency, office or unit, except that the effect of such a transfer may not be to reduce the rate of pay or annual salary of any County employee. Written notice of such a transfer shall be given to the Legislature. B. Upon written request of the County Executive, the Legislature may, during any ?scal year, transfer part or all of any revenue or expenditure from one department, agency, office or unit to another, or transfer part or all of any revenue or expenditure for the purpose of establishing or adding to a new program or programs within or between departments, agencies, offices or units, or transfer funds from a contingency account to a department, agency, office or unit, or change the terms and conditions under which expenditures may be made by a department, agency, of?ce or unit. Any action taken by the Legislature pursuant to this section shall be by resolution subject to the provisions of (2-12 and 014 of this Charter. C. If, during any fiscal year, there are available for appropriation revenues received from sources not anticipated in the budget for that year or revenues received from anticipated source but in excess of the budget estimated for it, before such funds may be expended the County Legislature must make supplemental appropriations for the year, not in excess, however, of such additional revenues, whatever their source. D. if, at any time during the fiscal year, it appears that the revenues available will be insuf?cient to meet amounts appropriated, the County Executive shall report to the County Legislature without delay the estimated amount of the deficit, remedial action already taken by him or her, and his or her recommendations as to further action. The County Legislature shail take the action or actions that it deems necessary and as authorized by this Charter or state law to prevent or minimize any deficit. For purposes of eliminating or minimizing a potential deficit, the Legislature may, by resolution, reduce one or more appropriations, but no appropriation may be 1 Ulster County, NY reduced by more than f??ynencumbered balance remaining for th? lirpose for the year, nor may any appropriation for debt wce be reduced. Article V. Department of Health Commissioner of Health or Public Health Director. term of years pursuant to a prowsron of state law, he or she may only be removed for cause after written notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard. B. Powers and duties. Except as otherwise provided in this Charter, the Commissioner of Health or Public Health Director shall have and exercise all the powers and duties conferred or imposed upon county or part-county health commissioners and upon county or part-county boards of health by the Public Health Law or any other law, except as otherwise provided by this Charter. He or she shall perform such other and related duties required by the County Executive. C-42. Board of Health. A. Appointment. There shall be a Board of Health consisting of seven members who shall be appointed by the 1211612016 Ulster County, NY Health Director. The Medical( Eminer shall be appointed by the Count/A l 0A- ]quQ iq Seo? 0? L31 $161991??- 07136 . PosiiN?a-?l? a? LgtsisAnK?z. ??fi?sze? ?1an GENERAL FUND Department 1 165 District Attorney Division 1031 DA DEPARTMENT POSITION SUMMARY Total T_itl_e of Positions ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 47,375 ADMINISTRATIVE AS TENO 1 51,779 ADMINISTRATIVE 1 47,375 ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY 26 1,660,624 CONF SECRETARY DIST ATTY 1 53,945 DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1 183,492 DISTRICT ATTORNEY INVESTIGATOR 1 53,053 LEGAL SEC TO THE DISTRICT ATTY 1 43,771 RECEPTIONIST 1 35,563 SR CONSUMER ADVOCATE 1 60,024 SR LEGAL STENO 1 48,922 Total Bene?ted Positions 36 2,285,923 GENERAL FUND Department 1230 Municipal Executive Division 1072 County Executive EXPENSES 2016 2016 2017 2014 2015 Adopted Amended Executive Actual Actual Budget Budget Recommendation 1300 Regular Pay 670,533 691,872 694,808 694,808 692,656 1420 - Contractual Pays 22,000 20,250 23,000 23,000 26,000 4000 - Supplies 2,475 1,162 2,500 2,500 2,500 4580 Conference Expenses 316 100 2,000 2,000 1,500 4590 - Travel 852 1,500 1,500 1,500 4600 Misc Contractual Expense 6,937 5,526 8,250 8,250 8,000 8000 - Retirement 132,498 123,142 120,212 120,212 115,105 8010 - Social Security/FICA 49,625 49,795 54,912 54,912 54,977 8020 - Health Insurance 121,420 141,978 99,987 99,987 123,242 Division Total 1,006,656 1,033,824 1,007,169 1,007,169 1,025,480 Department Expense Total 1,006,656 1,033,824 1,007,169 1,007,169 1,025,480 DEPARTMENT POSITION SUMMARY Total Title of Positions Salary AST DEP TO THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE 2 150,114 CONF SECRETARY COUNTY EXEC 1 53,089 COUNTY EXECUTIVE 1 133,570 DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE 3 355,884 Total Bene?ted Positions 7 692,657 25 GENERAL FUND Department 1410 County Clerk DEPARTMENT POSITION SUMMARY Total Iit_I_e_ of Positions 531w ACCOUNT CLERK 1 42,151 ACCOUNTANT 1 57,275 ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 50,068 ADMINISTRATRTE 2 99,954 ARCHIVAL PROCESSING TECHNICIAN 1 37,201 CONF SECRETARY COUNTY CLERK 1 55,929 COUNTY CLERK 1 101,707 DEPUTY COUNTY CLERK 3 205,478 2 7 1,327 HEAD CLERK 1 51,779 INDEX 9 336,853 MOTOR VEHICLE CASHIER 10 391,582 PRINCIPAL CLERK 1 43,771 PRINCIPAL RECORDS CLERK 1 51,779 PRINCIPAL RECORDS MGMT TECH 1 56,547 RECEIVING DELIVERY CLERK 1 30,222 RECORDS CLERK 4 152,062 SECURITY GUARD 1 49,629 SR ACCOUNT CLERK 1 42,279 SR INDEX CLERK 2 90,272 SR INDEX 2 83,064 SR MV CASHIER 3 136,464 50 2,237,393 Total Bene?ted Positions 38 GENERAL FUND Department 31 10 Sheriff DEPARTMENT POSITION SUMTMARY Total of Positions My ADMINISTRATIVE 1 63,419 CHIEF CIVIL ADMINISTRATOR 1 63,523 CONF SECRETARY TO SHERIFF 1 54,746 DATABASE I 33,862 DEP SHER DETECTIVE SERGEANT 1 84,914 DEP SHERIFF 34 2,103,839 DEP SHERIFF CAPTAIN 1 108,115 DEP SHERIFF - SERGEANT 8 646,628 DEP SHERIFF DETECTIVE 6 424,990 DEP SHERIFF SBRGEAN 1 84,989 DEP SHERIFF-LIEUTENANT 3 291,229 EMERGENCY SERVICES DISPATCI-IER 3 180,888 IT SPEC 1 58,094 PISTOL PERMIT EXAMINER 1 53,082 RECEPTIONIST WIT YPIN 1 47,258 SECURITY GUARD 6 279,400 SHERIFF 1 101,712 SHERIFF FISCAL ASSISTANT I 2 95,983 SHERIFF FISCAL ASSISTANT II 1 49,802 SHERIFF FISCAL ASSISTANT 1 60,753 SR SECURITY GUARD 1 55,973 UNDERSHERIFF 1 99,403 Total Bene?ted Positions 77 5,042,602 78 EXHIBIT Daily Freeman Report of Ulster County Executive?s Proposed 2017 Comptroller Budget Cuts 12/16/2016 Ulster County spending watchdog says exec's proposed budget ?impales independence of comptroller's of?ce The Daily Freeman eemancom) Ulster County Spending watchdog says exec?s proposed budget ?impales independence? of comptroller?s of?ce By id-Hudson News Network Friday, October 7, 2016 KINGSTON Ulster County Comptroller Elliott Auerbach says County Executive Michael Hein?s proposed 2017 county budget would ?decimate? the comptroller ?3 of?ce by cutting nearly 25 percent of its budget. Hein reSponded that the 25 percent cut to Auerbach?s of?ce is nothing more than belt tightening. His total proposed budget, however, would cut county spending by less than 2 percent. Auerbach, a Democrat like Hein, said the preposed budget out probably would eliminate two of the seven employees in his of?ce, which is a watchdog of county Spending and programs. The county comptroller is elected by voters. raid of this size on my of?ce would critically limit our ability to monitor county dollars and assess government practices,? Auerbach said. ?Our charge is to ensure that every dime and every dollar of the taxpayer ?3 money and the county?s money is well?spent. Creating this independent oversight, this check to every balance, so to speak, has been invaluable over the course of the past eight years.? Hein said no elected of?cial ?should be above tightening their belt? and that the sheriff, county clerk, Legislature and his own of?ce have done just that. The executive noted the county property tax levy for 2017 will be lower than it was in 2010. Hein said the executive branch has cut spending by more than $35 million over the past ?ve years and that $695,000 is ?a lot of taxpayer money for the comptroller to do his job.? County Legislature Minority Leader Hector Rodriguez, D-New Paltz, said the county is facing ?nancial issues that place the entire government in the same boat. ?Whether that?s Elliott (Auerbach) or the sheriff, we are cutting the sheriff?s department, too, and we are cutting some stuff out of Legislature, so we are all working collectively to try to have money, and I don?t think we should ever give in to hyperbole,? Rodriguez said. Related content . 1l2 EXHIBIT I October 3, 2017, Letter from Ulster County Executive to Ulster County Comptroller MICHAEL P. HEIN County Executive ADELE B. REITER Chief of Sta?' . . ULSTER COUNTY EXECUTIVE 244 Fair St, PO. Box 1800, Kingston, New York 12402 Telephone: 845-340-3800 Fax: 845-334-5724 October 3, 2016 Hon. Elliott Auerbach Ulster County Comptroller 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12402 Dear Comptroller Auerbach: Please find the 2017 Executive Budget at which will be ?led with the County Legislature. As you are aware, i have worked diligently over the past 8 years to design solutions that ensure the continuation of important services that our residents rely on, while simultaneously protecting Ulster County Property Taxpayers. The 2017 Executive Budget is no different and was developed in an environment that included an anticipated 20% increase in County healthcare costs, a reduction in revenues such as the boarding of out-of?county inmates at the Ulster County Jail, which has declined from $1.7 million in 2014 and is anticipated to be only $197,000 in 2017 and the continuation of Safety Net relief and the expansion of election cost relief to our towns and the City of Kingston that has totaled over $29.2 million over the last five years. were able to be met through innovation, streamlining government, an nagement plan that includes a targeted retirement incentive, strategic operational and programmatic reforms, and responsible prioritized spending. Accordingly, there is no County department that has not been impacted in some way and the overall size of County government has been reduced by 1/3 with respect to positions and tens of millions of dollars in spending. These challenges aggressive position me While I recognize that you sought additional funding in your 2017 budget request, the fiscal climate as Well as a programmatic review of your Office?s responsibilities does not support an increase; and in fact, suggests a decrease. Additionally, a comparison between other elected Comptroller's Of?ces in other counties across the State indicates the need to attain greater ef?ciencies than currently exist. Ulster County Website: ROBERT SUDLOW Deputy County Executive KENNETH CRANNELL Deputy County Executive in deference to your position as an independently elected official, I have not made specific line item adjustments to your budget; however, I have incorporated an overall savings target that affects your budget. As we begin working with the Ways and Means Committee and the Legislature to achieve a ?nal budget, 1 also look forward to working with you to ensure the best possible budget for the great the people of Ulster County. Yours truly Michael P. Hein County Executive EXHIBIT Ulster County Comptroller?s Letter of Demand for Justi?cation of 2017 Budget Cuts COUNTY OF ULSTER PO BOX 1800 NEW YORK 12402 Elliott Auerbach Comptroller Evan Gallo, Esq. Deputy Comptroller Alicia DeMarco, CPA Director of Internal A udit Control Of?ce of the Comptroller (845) 340?3525 (845) 340?3697 Fax MEMORANDUM TO: Michael P. Hein, County Executive DATE: October 6, 2016 RE: Follow?up In your October 3, 2016 letter you alluded to a ?programmatic review? that you based your budget position as it relates to the Of?ce of the Comptroller, as well as a ?comparison between other elected Comptroller?s Of?ces in other counties across the Please provide the review and comparison before the week is out. The mission of the Ulster County Comptroller 's O??ice is to serve as an independent agency of the people, to protect the public interest by monitoring County government and to assess and report on the degree to which its operation is economical, efficient and its ?nancial condition sound EXHIBIT County Executive?s 2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Of?ce November 14, 2016 2017 Budget Analysis: The Ulster County Comptroller?s Office November 14, 2016 TABLE or CONTENTS Page . Number Overview 3 Summary 11 Contents 1) Introduction 17 2) Background ?Audits in Ulster County . - 17 External Audits Internal Audit 3) The Charter Other Ulster County Comptroller Duties 18 Payroll Certification Bank Reconciliation Audits, Studies and Investigations Reports 4) Evaluation 21 Risk Comptrollers the Differences The Investment Return a) The Investment - Financial Costs of the Comptroller?s Operation Workload Spending Details b) The Return Fulfillment of the Duties Outlined in the Charter c) The Return ?the Comptroller?s Body of Work Available to the Public Auditing Reliable Reports Non?Audit Reports d) The Return - Meeting Overarching Objectives of the Comptroller?s Office including the Work Undone and its Cost Transparency and Accountability Promotion of Economy, Efficiency and Effectiveness 5) Conclusion 35 Page Number Attachments A. Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Financial Impact of the County Assuming 36 the Costs of Elections from Localities list Year Phase-In) Prepared by the Office of The Ulster County Comptroller dated December 15, 2015 B. List of Comptroller's Reports Publicly Available on the Website as of June 28, 2015 43 C. Recalculation of Eigures Presented in Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The 47' Financial impact of the County Assumina the Costs of Elections from Localities Year. Phase-In! Prepared by ACE Division D. Interdepartmental Memorandum from Thomas Jackson, Director of Real Property Tax 55 Service to Burton Gulnick Jr, Commissioner of Finance, dated July 15, 2016 Re: Analysis of ACE report on impacts of Ulster County assumption of election costs E. Selected Comptroller?s Reports with Serious Errors 56 OVERVIEW An analysis was requested to assist the County Legislature and the County Executive to objectively determine funding levels for the Office of the County Comptroller in the 2017 Ulster County Budget. The analysis concluded that the taxpayer funds spent on the Comptroller?s Office over the past seven years are excessive for the benefits received. Additionally, Ulster County is overstaffing and overfunding the Comptroller?s office when compared to its peer group of other elected county comptrollers in New York State. The Office of the Ulster County Comptroller was created by the adoption of the Ulster County Charter which originally established the Comptroller as the chief auditing and accounting officer of the County. For the seven years from 2009 through 2015, more than $5.25 million in taxpayer money has been spent funding the Comptroller?s Office or an average of $755,638 annually. The appropriateness of the current level of funding is the subject of the analysis. The Workload The Comptroller's funding contained in the 2009 adopted budget reflected the duties assigned to that office in accordance with the designation of the Comptroller as both the chief accounting officer as well as the chief auditing officer. As a result of the Charter Revision process of 2012, the Comptroller's role as the chief accounting officer was removed and the associated duties were reallocated to the Commissioner of Finance, reducing the Comptroller?s responsibilities. During the same seven year time frame, the size of the County workforce has been reduced 32% and the County budget has decreased; the single biggest reduction resulting from the sale of the $30 million annual nursing home operation. Due to efficiencies, such as restructuring county departments, the sale . of the county-owned nursing home in 2013, and the change from self-administering Workers? Compensation claims (7,500 payments per year) to a third party administrator (TPA), the responsibilities of the Comptroller?s Office decreased accordingly in proportion. Additionally in 2012, two employees who were deemed to be performing accounts payable duties were removed from the Comptroller's 'Office in response to his request to be relieved of accounts payable functions. Charter revision approved by the people of Ulster County in the 2012 election further reduced the Office of the Comptroller?s duties. The workload and responsibilities of the Comptroller's Office are tied to the overall size and complexity of county government. The amount of work associated with claims auditing, payroll certification and the number of county departments have all decreased since 2009. in summary, the Comptroller?s workload has decreased due to: .0 Reduction in the overall size of county government - budget and employees; - Sale of the Golden Hill nursing home operation, a complex audit responsibility; - Switch to a TPA in 2014 removed the requirement of auditing Workers? Compensation related claims; and 0 Removal of the designation as chief accounting officer which was assumed by the Commissioner of Finance in 2012 as a result of Charter Revision. In spite _of these reductions in workload, the staff of the Comptroller?s Office was increased with the addition of the Director of internal Audit and Control as well as other increases to the budget. Comparison of Comptrollers? Duties The analysis finds that at its current functionality, the Office of the Ulster County Comptroller is being overfunded and overstaffed. Unlike the City of Kingston Comptroller whose responsibilities include budgetpreparation and day to day financial management of the City, the County Comptroller is not tasked with either of those significant responsibilities. instead, the County?s Commissioner of Finance provides those functions. in contrast, as chief auditing officer, the County Comptroller is responsible for auditing claims, departments, programs, operations, and all books, records and accounts of the County, as well as issuing quarterly and annual reports, certifying the availability of funds, performing bank reconciliations, certifying payroll, and other related duties. There are 8 elected county comptrollers in New York State, with Ulster being the smallest county in regard to both population and budget size. However, Ulster County is firmly in the middle when comptroller expenditures are compared to total county expenditures as shown in the chart below prepared by PublicSignals LLC. NYSCountieswith Elected Comptrollers: Comptroller Expenditures per$1 Million oflptal Countyixpenditures, 2015 599': ?l?h ..- - - I ?s gut?4.1.?? .. v. 5?11 rim?T": .gww .125? . . . . ??sts! ?M-zdf 13" is 4" - . llnanclaga . Erie . . 1? 13.21. $0 5200 Still Sill} $1,000 $1,200 51.4% $1,603 $1.803 $2.903 $2,269 52,409 $st Additionally, when the number of comptroller positions is compared to total county expenditures by PublicSignals LLC, Ulster County is also in the middle as shown in the following chart: NYS Counties with Elected Comptrollers, Number of Budgeted Comptroller Positions, 2016 per $100 Million in County Expenditures, 2015 Kilt Goad; Su?c'?cresasnd?s'fcaeaerctae?seie. As illustrated by the two preceding charts, the Ulster County Comptroller?s Office is comparable to the other elected comptrollers? offices in terms of both staf?ng and funding. However, when the workload and responsibilities of the Ulster County Comptroller?s Office are compared to other counties by PublicSignals LLC, the results are glaringly different as the Ulster County Comptroller?s Office has notably fewer responsibilities than its counterparts as shown below. Elected NYS County Comptrollers Duties Miss Certify for Payment?! Lat-riot Claims, Whether for Payroll or Otherwise 53 CertifyAvailabilltyot Funds torRequislttens. Contracts. Purchaseowets Examineamrdte Books. Records.Accoentset Appropriations. Entumhrencess Expenditures Revenues a a Prescribe Accounting Methods El 7: En] =3 53 Reconcile . E1 E3 Cormack ?easement. Performance 8 Program Audits. Reviews. asmdles Prescrihe Formal Records, Receipts. Voudters?illsandumms Malnutn El a El F13 Debt nianagement?ssue Bandss Notes {?31 533 E3 E1 5! Indirect tostAttocetien Plan Issue CenlitcatesolResidenty Provides 33 Receive. lmuta?ave Custodyoml Review Revenue Protections Used in the Proposed Tentative Budget Examinegnd Audit Townsend Special 7 93:3 charters andotnerealien county documents. Note some :cunly compuoilers mystericrm duties that area: .Eesot tatin their respectne matters. In case at centric-ts cemeen county easements. the refevan: duty as nc: she-m: here. Fercetnpan son aunties. the tismf de?es strewn sea-,- ne: an exhaustive E3 Accounting Auditing in spite of the fact that the Ulster County Comptroller is staffed and funded at levels comparable to other of?ces across the state, its responsibilities and workload are substantially less. Additional Areas of Concern The Comptroller?s Of?ce routinely did not perform some of the essential duties as outlined in the Charter, including the issuance of quarterly and annual reports, certifying all County payments, performing bank reconciliations, ?performing risk assessments and, perhaps most alarming the lack of program audits that go to the core function of the Comptroller's Office. in addition, based on the Comptroller?s own website, an undetermined number of reports (at least 25) previously issued are no longer available on the website for undisclosed reasons. . Program Audits Program audits are an independent examination of a program of a governmental or non-pro?t operation that can assess the degree to which the program is achieving its goals in serving the citizens. Accordingly, they can be invaluable to decision makers in determining future actions. For example, the County pays a fee to an outside entity, often a not for pro?t, to provide a certain service. A program audit of this fee for service arrangement would evaluate the service being provided, analyze if the service could be provided in a better more ef?cient manner, and ultimately determine if the County and its taxpayers were getting their money's worth. Legislators would then have the ability to make changes by moving away from underperforming vendors or programs. Program audits are an important tool for the Legislature, County Executive, public, service recipients and the audited agency itself as they all experience a benefit from reviewing such audit reports. Since 2009 the Comptroller?s Office has performed zero program audits. During the same period, the County has spent over $150 million with just the top ten service providers. This is a curious statistic, e5pecially given the Comptroller?s statement ?Our charge is a simple one: to ensure that every dime and every dollar is being spent wisely, that there is an effective government that results in prudent spending, that there is a government operation that is economical, ef?cient and effective.? These service providers operate numerous programs that affect the lives of thousands of Ulster County residents. The lack of program audits does not allow the public, the County Executive or the County Legislature, to determine if any of the service goals are being met even though they have been paying substantial money for an audit operation. Top Ten Servrce Provrders .. zoos-2015 gsasbo'o can,? - I Sat), 0:10ng . . S25 poo, poo $20, one, one $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 Lack of Transparency Transparency and accountability in government are essential to ensuring the public trust and allowing the public a deeper understanding of the actions of their leaders and how their tax dollars are being spent. Fiscal reports and audits are integral tools that allow both the public and other officials to evaluate government operations. As of June 28, 2016 there were 80 reports available on the Comptroller?s website including some issued in 2009. However, it is not known how many reports the Comptroller has completed since 2009. At least 25 reports that were posted on the website previously have been removed. it appears that some of the reports no longer available were subsequently proved false or inaccurate and removed from the Comptroller's listing on his website, even though the report was paid for by the public. The public does not have access to those reports currently, or the corrected data if any. At a minimum the proper procedure would be to list all reports and note those removed and why. Ideally the error(s) would be identified, corrected and an explanation as to its occurrence provided. Without such complete information, a person who obtained a report when it was issued might not have any idea that it contained errors and may have relied on it to make decisions about government leaders or operations. Reliabilgy' of Reports The principle of integrity in audit work is extremely important. On average, 1 out of 3 reports issued by the Comptroller?s Of?ce over the past 7 years have included errors, many of them substantial. For example: - Variance of Over $1 Billion in Election Cost Takeover Report: In response to a legislative directive contained in Resolution No. 404 dated November 18, 2014, the County Comptroller issued a report entitled ?The Financial impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities,? in December 2015. The report provided inaccurate and misleading information. The Comptroller chose to highlight the Town of Wawarsing as an example to demonstrate the ?scal impacts associated with the County takeover of election costs from the towns and City of Kingston. Due to misinterpreting data, the Comptroller based his calculations on an incorrect equalized value of $16.8 million for the town, rather than the correct value of $1.04 billion, a variance of $1.02 billion. This was a billion dollar mistake. Relying on the flawed methodology, the report went on to state that a Town of Wawarsing taxpayer would save $24.38 per $100,000 of taxable value. In reality, a Town of Wawarsing taxpayer would save $0.04 per $100,000 of equalized taxable value. The Comptroller reported savings over 600 times above their actual amount. To further illustrate the magnitude of this error, in order for a Town of Wawarsing homeowner to experience the tax savings in the Comptroller?s example, the taxpayer?s subject property would have to be worth more than $5.6 million. To date, this report has not been corrected, remains on the Comptroller's website, and the Legislature, who asked for the report for policy evaluation purposes, is left with a highly inaccurate portrayal of the assumption of elections costs. - Incomplete Findings Resulting in Violation of Legislative Policy and incomplete Recommendations: In January 2013 the Comptroller issued a report entitled ?Confidential Funds Review? in which he examined cash on hand utilized by the URGENT division of the Sheriff's Office for con?dential investigations. However, the Comptroller?s review failed to account for a discrepancy of over $14,000 in cash on hand, more than double the amount authorized by the County Legislature. The report did not account for the variance and did not inform the Legislature of this violation of Legislative policy. This is a particularly alarming issue for an entity that was the victim of a $77,000 theft by a former Kingston Police Lieutenant. The Comptroller undertook another URGENT related report, Program: Report of Examination? in 2012 in response to a request in order to aid in the distribution of assets to the participating agencies. The examination was cursory and failed to answer the most basic question that was presented: What are the assets and expenses of The report did not take into account a multitude of County expenses including: vehicles and attendant maintenance, insurance and fuel, location overhead, personnel costs, weapons, law enforcement equipment, radios and other electronic equipment. The Comptroller offered four ways to make disbursements to the participating municipalities but failed to identify what was to be dispersed. Both reports remain uncorrected on the Comptroller?s website. Inaccurate Report Summarizing Legislative Attendance: In 2011, the Comptroller conducted an audit of the attendance of County Legislators. Out of the attendance records for legislators, there were numerous inaccurate ?ndings including a reported attendance rate of 10% for Lei-imam? Robert Parete, when the correct rate was over 95%. This report was removed from the Comptroller's website and a corrected version was not made available. This highly inaccurate report caused undue embarrassment, distraction and forced Legislators to divert their attention away from important issues facing the County and instead refute unfounded ?ndings. The report is not available to the public. - Inaccurate Hotel/Motel Tax Collection Report: In September 2010, the Comptroller issued a report entitled "Hotel - Motel Occupancy Tax? which endeavored to examine the revenue collected from the County?s imposition of a 2% tax on lodging. On page 7 of the report, the Comptroller declares the report to not be a performance audit and explicitly disavows performing the work according to generally accepted government auditing standards. The report claimed the County received only $964,000 of the $3.3 million in taxes collected by lodging establishments. However, due to faulty methodology and a lack of subject matter understanding, the report was shown to be grossly inaccurate; off by approximately $2.3 million. Included in the list of non-tax remitting businesses were exempt organizations such as the YMCA and religious groups not required to collect taxes, DBA's that were already registered and thereby being counted twice, and establishments that were not even located in Ulster County. The report was not corrected and is not available to the public on the website. Reports routinely contained critical factual errors that resulted in inaccurate, misleading and incomplete ?ndings. Accordingly, it is difficult to justify confidence by the Legislature, County Executive 'or most importantly, the general public, in the accuracy of Comptroller?s reports issued to date or future reports. It is apparent that had the Legislature relied on these erroneous reports or others, it could have made decisions that could have had severe detrimental effects on the County?s financial condition. Further, the County lacks appropriate audits and reviews that are critically necessary to conduct ?scal and programmatic evaluations and reforms. Due to the failure by the Comptroller's Office to conduct these reviews and issue reports in a consistently reliable manner, the County is better served to either go without the inaccurate reports or hire outside consulting firms to perform these reviews. External Audits Ulster County has a long tradition of professionally responding to audits and continually moving towards best practices. The County has had more than 250 audits and reviews that have been conducted by state and federal agencies in the last 7 years. Additionally, auditing services are readily available from independent certified public accounting ?rms with the expertise to provide detailed accurate analyses which would allow county decision-makers, such as Legislators, to make informed decisions regarding County finances and the resultant effect on taxpayers. In fact, the County already regularly employs such firms for the annual ?nancial statement audit, budget analysis, Medicare/Medicaid compliance and 9 r" 1 the mandated annual audit of federal expenditures. These ?rms have provided a valuable work product that County leaders and others have come to rely on and trust. Conclusion In conclusion, the County Comptroller?st?ce is being overfunded. The responsibilities and workload of the of?ce have signi?cantly decreased while county costs associated with the Of?ce have increased. The Comptroller's Office is tasked with signi?cantly less duties then its counterparts in the state but enjoys a comparable funding level. The select duties the County Charter does impose on the Of?ce of the Comptroller are minimally being met. Based on the full analysis, continued taxpayer funding of the Comptroller's Office at the current levels is excessive for the benefits received. 10 SUMMARY The elected County Comptroller assumed the duties of his office on January 1, 2009 as a result of the adoption of Ulster County Charter. The Comptroller is the chief auditing of?cer of the County. in addition to creating the Office of the Comptroller, the Charter established an elected County Executive and as a result, changed the duties and responsibilities of the County Legislature in administering the daily affairs of county government. Among other duties, the County Executive is charged with the annual submission of a tentative operating budget for the coming year to the Legislature for their consideration and ultimate adoption. This review has been prepared by the Accountability, Compliance and Ef?ciency Division of the Department of Finance in response to a request from the leaderships of the Legislature and Ways and Means Committee, and the County Executive to help inform the 2017 Ulster County budget preparation. An essential part of the budgeting process is examination of the responsibilities and an evaluation of the resources necessary to best meet those responsibilities. The provision of resources to meet the responsibilities of the Office of the Comptroller is of importance to the operations and governance of Ulster County. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the appropriate level of funding for this of?ce, created by the Charter, in terms of value added for the taxpayers, residents and those charged with the governance of Ulster County for funding purposes. The Comptroller's work should not only provide independent internal assessment, but also vital information for use by legislators, the County Executive and others for decision making affecting thousands of people's lives in terms of services and money. An essential part of the budgeting process is examination of the responsibilities of an operation and an evaluation of the resources necessary to best meet those responsibilities. The Of?ce of the Comptroller has been functioning for more than seven years with a 7 year cost of more than $5.25 million, which is about 2 it times what the County spent on claims auditing prior to the establishment of the Office. The Comptrollerhas had 7 years to establish the procedures and workings of his of?ce. An increase in spending was expected as the responsibility and authority were expanded with the establishment of the Comptroller?s Of?ce. The appropriateness of the current level of funding is under consideration. Ulster County has a long and proud tradition of embracing external audits and reviews as opportunities to improve operations and make any adjustments needed to further the service to taxpayers and residents. Contracting for annual ?nancial statement audits, rating agency reviews, and annual review of the tentative budget are just a few examples of the County inviting review. in addition, the County is audited by the NYS Comptroller and other MS and Federal agencies in their oversight roles. There have been more than 250 such audits and reviews since the Charter became effective in 2009. As far as internal audit activities, Ulster County employed a County Auditor prior to Charter implementation that was responsible for claims auditing in accordance with state law, and certain related accounts payable functions. The authority of the County Auditor was limited to claims and, due to appointment by the Legislature, was structurally subject to political pressures, potentially undermining the independent performance of the claims audit function. The Charter expanded the authority of the Comptroller to include payroll certi?cation and bank reconciliations. The Charter also removed the ability for either the executive or legislative branches of County government to control that office by ?lling the position of Comptroller with an individual elected by the people of Ulster County. The establishment of an independent elected of?ce creates an autonomous position, free from 11 . potential partisan in?uence. in addition to routine duties such as claims audit, payroll certification and bank reconciliation, the Comptroller is tasked with the chief auditing officer role for the County and given authority to exercise power to access records and people in ful?lling this audit role. By far the most signi?cant change for Ulster County governance and opportunity for value-added is found in the audit and reporting authority of the Comptroller as outlined in the Charter. The Comptroller is charged with examining, auditing and verifying all books, records and accounts kept by the County, its officials and agencies and, in addition, with auditing the records of appropriations, encumbrances and expenditures. The Comptroller is also explicitly given the authority in the Charter to audit any department, program or function to assess the degree to which its operation is economical, efficient and/or effective (performance audits); and to conduct studies and investigations as he or she deems necessary or appropriate in furthering the chief auditor role. This gives the Comptroller a great deal of discretion in how his or her resources will be deployed for conducting these performance-type audits, studies and investigations. In addition, the Comptroller may be tasked with performing other related duties as required by the County Executive or County Legislature. As part of the audit role, the Comptroller is required by the Charter to issue audit reports and make them publicly available. Auditing is critically important in the public sector due to the fact that government officials are acting on behalf of the public, in terms of both services and money. Auditors? independence, objectivity and reliability give audits and other reports their value. The US Government Accounting Office (GAO), who sets the government auditing standards known as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), states that ?Legislators, oversight bodies, those charged with governance, and the public need to know whether (1) management and of?cials manage government resources and use their authority properly and in compliance with laws and regulations; (2) government programs are achieving their objectives and desired outcomes; and (3) government services are provided effectively, efficiently, economically, ethimliy, and equitably?. The Charter provides for this in tasking the Comptroller. The core mission of the Comptroller is to audit, and the role has been described as one of traditional fiscal assessment and furthermore to act as a driver for efficient, effective performance of county government. There are several risks associated with the operation of the Of?ce of the Comptroller and the audit function. These include the risk that the auditors' will get it wrong, professionally known as ?audit risk? and the risk that the Comptroller will not use his/her discretion to cover audits of areas critical to governance decision making and public accountability. Pursuant to the Charter, the Office of the Ulster County Comptroller has a focus ?to audit, and to investigate and study in the furtherance of the chief auditing officer role. There may be misunderstanding over the role and authority of the Comptroller in Ulster County government. The Comptroller is neither the chief ?scal officer nor the chief accounting officer, and has no role in the financial management of the County or its budget process. The title of Comptroller is given to positions which vary greatly in terms of the duties and responsibilities across NYS. in some NYS counties and municipalities, Comptrollers are charged with the duties and responsibilities of the chief fisoal officer (here handled by Ulster County's Commissioner of Finance pursuant to the Charter) in addition to auditing. While the Ulster County Comptroller does not perform these other duties, competency with government ?nance and accounting are necessary in order to perform the audit function. The elected County Comptrollers in NYS also vary widely in their duties and responsibilities, with several serving as the chief fismi of?cer in addition to the audit role. The Ulster County Comptroller has the smallest number of duties of any Comptrollers based on information provided by PublicSignals LLC. 12 The duties ofthe Comptroller are detailed in of Article IX of the Ulster County Charter in paragraphs A. -J. Based on reports available on the Comptroller?s website on June 28, 2016, the following were noted when evaluating ful?llment of the Charter duties: annual reports are available for only 2 of the 7 years; risk assessment is addressed for 2 of 7 years; no evidence that all books and records have been examined, audited or veri?ed; no mention of bond and note registers in 7 years; no mention of trust accounts in 7 years; no mention of audit of accrual of revenue in 7 years; successful reconciliation of bank accounts for 2 of 7 years; no mention of audits of records of appropriations, ancumbrances and expenditures in 7 years; no evidence that all claims paid by the County have been audited and certified for payment including the tens of millions paid annually through the NYS Welfare Management System (WMS) and wire transfers which are a County expense; quarterly reports are available for 19 of 30 quarters and which range from an analysis of a single revenue source to annual reports of reports issued and other work completed; and reports previously issued that are no longer available on the website for undisclosed reasons (at least 25 reports). A number of the audits and other reports which remain on the Comptroller?s website suffer from unreliable data, with 1 in 3 containing errors, many of which are substantial, and about half containing unsupported ?ndings and conclusions. For instance, the report on Board of Elections costs taken over by the County prepared at the request of the Legislature in December of 2015 is an example of one with substantial errors and presents a risk to decision makers and the public if they rely upon it (see Attachment A). In addition, some of the reports which are no longer available on the website are known to have contained signi?cant errors such as the Legislative attendance report from 2011 and the hotel/motel occupancy report from 2010. Compliance with professional standards such as GAGAS should have reduced the likelihood of substantial errors to an acceptable level. Only 6 of 32 Audits Reports state that they were conducted in accordance with professional standards. Requirements for quality assurance are part of those standards in addition to guidance on how to handle reports subsequently found to contain errors. The guidance is not being followed. A reader of these reports has no way of knowing what level of work has been performed in their preparation and may be at risk if they rely upon them. Based on his available quarterly reports, the Comptroller acknowledges the standards and their importance. However, only a few of the Office?s reports state they are in compliance with these standards. Decision makers and the public are left questioning which part of professional standards has the Of?ce of the Comptroller ignored or failed to address and why.- Ulster County's expenditures for its internal audit function increased substantially with Charter implementation. For evaluation purposes, spending has been adjusted to provide a reasonable comparison between pre and post Charter expenses by eliminating the cost of the 2 staff deemed to be performing accounts payable functions from all years included; adding employee bene?ts for all years presented; and removal of the annual financial statement audit which was paid by the Comptroller for one year only (2010). 13 . TrendiPre?and - - est?Charter stagnant" . -. $800,000 I?nComptroller stamped . 20094915 $400300 $200,000. cs-et?ranClounty -. Auditor .. . 2992:2008. County operational costs have been reduced since 2009 with a 32% reduction in the benefited employee count, reductions in annual spending of about $30 million due to the sale of the nursing home (2013), and a reduction of in-house processing of 7,500 payments per yearfor workers? compensation related payments due to using a third party administrator for our self-insurance pool (2014). These reductions have the largest direct impact on the workload of the Office of the Comptroller. In 2014, the County Executive implemented a new financial management system. This implementation has significantly transformed county operations. Transaction approvals are accessible in real time, on-line as well as accessibility to all of the documents that support the claims, contract documents etc. County-wide financial reporting as well as minute detail drill-down are available" in a matter of clicks of a mouse. This new financial system provides better, more complete and accessible information more timely for use by the Office of the Comptroller and others. Efficiency and effectiveness of the County financial operations and reporting abilities have been markedly increased during the 7 years. The Comptroller's resources to review them'have continued to rise at the same time. Year 1 Year 2 Years Year 4 Year 5. Year'f6 Year 7 The first Office of the Comptroller?s budget as a result of the Charter increased the full time benefited employee count of the County by 3 positions. in 2011, the work hours for staff in the Office of the Comptroller were increased by the Comptroller to 40 hours per week from 35. in 2012, 2 employees who were deemed to be performing accounts payable duties were removed from the Comptroller's office, in response to the Comptroller?s request to be relieved of accounts payable duties, and transferred to the Finance Department along with the responsibility. Charter revision approved by the people of Ulster County in the 2012 election further reduced the Office of the Comptroller?s duties. in 2013, the position'of Director of Internal and Audit Control was created, bringing the total staff to today's 7 employees plus the Comptroller himself. The Office of the Comptroller?s current staffing consists of 8 positions; 4 are Civil Service/CSEA and 4 are management/con?dential including the Comptroller. During the past 7 years, the Comptroller has invested resources in sending staff, most of which are no longer employed by the County, around the US for training in contracted legal services 8L costs and in branding, website and letterhead design, college interns, and memberships not related to the responsibilities of the Office In addition, funds were spent on contracted services and expenses for accounting, auditing and other professional expenses related to auditing and/or government accounting and finance Spending on these contractual-type expenses (non-employee salary and bene?ts, non-equipment) was $357,248 . for the 7 year period. The Office of the Comptroller is not performing claims audit work on a significant amount of annual expenditures. The amount audited for 2015 differed by more than $100 million from the expenditures as reported on January 31, 2016. Apparently, payments through the state WMS system and wire transfers were not included in the claims audit. The Comptroller was aware of these payments since June 2009 based on correspondence he wrote to the then Commissioner of Finance. The Office of the Comptroller has not performed any audits on the many service providers for Ulster County. The County spent $150 million on just the top ten service providers since the Comptroller?s office was established. I'm i {sanctum Tl . ranted a? There have been no program or contract compliance audits in 7 years. Major spending areas of County government have also been excluded from any audits by the Comptroller including elected of?cials operations. The information and feedback that would be available from such independent audits is not accessible to county legislators and the County Executive for consideration in decision making about programs, service delivery, and contractors. As a result, funding decisions are also necessarily made without the benefit of reliable independent assessments. Thousands of citizens are affected by the delivery of services by the County each day. Funding for the internal audit function has more than doubled, ideally the investment would result in information that those charged with the governance of the County could use in decision making. County resources have been used by the Office of the Comptroller to issue general reports on topics such as clothing donation bins, property foreclosure, gas tax and not-for?profits as well as many others which do not include the level of research and documentation that an audit would. While these reports may be of interest, 15 they are being prepared at the expense of the core audit functions of the Office of the Comptroller as the chief auditing officer. The current funding and structure for the Office of the Comptroller do not deliver corresponding results for the additional investment of taxpayer money. While the workload of the Comptroller over the 7 years has decreased, the expenses of the Comptroller have increased. Based on comparisons with other elected NYS Comptrollers, Ulster County?s Comptroller has the fewest duties yet spends amounts equivalent to eiected Comptrollers with significantly more responsibility. The Comptroller has used his discretion to spend resources on items which do not accomplish or further the required duties of the Office of the Comptroller. The taxpayer funds being spent on the Comptroller?s Office are excessive for the benefits received. For these reasons, a spending reduction is recommended in an effort to provide the appropriate level of resources for accomplishing the responsibilities and objectives of the internal audit function for Ulster County and the duties in the Charter at a reasonable-cost. 16? CONTENTS 1) Introduction 2) This review of the effectiveness of the Office of the Comptroller has been prepared by the Accountability, Compliance and Efficiency Division of the Department of Finance in response to a request from the leaderships of the Legislature and Ways and Means Committee, and the County Executive to help inform the 2017 Ulster County budget preparation. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the appropriate'level of funding for this office, created by the Charter, in terms of value added for the taxpayers, residents and those charged with the governance 'of Ulster County. There is also an intention to evaluate whether the resources invested to date have produced corresponding results. Under the Charter, the Comptroller is the chief auditing officer of Ulster County and'charged with specific duties and responsibilities for the benefit of county taxpayers, residents and those charged with its governance. The Office of the Comptroller has been functioning for more than 7 years at a cost of more than $5.25 million. The Comptroller has had 'seven years to establish the procedures and workings of his office. Funding beyond that for the claims audit function was expected as there is an increase in audit authority and duties. The provision of resources to meet the responsibilities of the Office of the Comptroller is of importance to the operations and governance of Ulster County. The Comptroller?s work should provide not only independent internal assessment, but also vital information for use by legislators, the County Executive and others for decision making affecting thousands of people's lives in terms of services and money. An essential part of the budgeting process is examination of the responsibilities of an operation and an evaluation of the resources necessary to best meet those responsibilities. Background Audits in Ulster County External Audits Ulster County has a long and proud tradition of embracing external audits as opportunities to improve operations and make any adjustments needed to further the service to taxpayers and residents. For decades, the County has engaged independent certified public accountants to conduct audits of the annual financial statements. The purpose of these audits is to express an opinion on whether or not the financial statements fairly present the financial condition and results of operations in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). Advice and recommendations are received as a lay-product of this work which is considered for improving operations. While not technically audits, the County also engages independent ratings agencies which review financial and operational information in assessing credit worthiness. The County Legislature engages certified public accountants to review the County Executive?s proposed budget annually which includes a detailed review of the document and underlying assumptions. The New York State Office of the Comptroller keeps watch over the financial condition of the County through the use of its Fiscal Stress Monitoring System. 17 3) Ulster County has received positive evaluations from all of these independent professionals. In addition to these overall assessments, Ulster County has been and continues to be audited by the New York State Comptroller and various other NYS and federal agencies charged with oversight responsibilities which often include grant specific compliance and/or program/function specific focuses. Ulster County departments and offices have been the subject of more than 250 such audits and reviews since January of 2009 according to Ulster County Budget Office records. Ninety?five percent of these were performed by NYS oversight agencies with the remainder conducted by the federal government. Internal Audit From an internal audit standpoint, Ulster County engaged only in claims auditing prior to the adoption of the Charter. Prior to the Charter, the County historically appointed an internal County Auditor who, along with staff, performed the claims auditing function as required by NY County Law ?369, in addition to some accounts payable and related functions. The authority of the County Auditor was limited to claims and, due to appointment by the Legislature, was structurally subject to political pressures, potentially undermining the independent performance of the claims audit function. The Charter successfully expanded the authority of the Comptroller to include payroll certification and bank reconciliations. The Charter also removed the ability for either the executive or legislative branches of County government to control that office by filling the position of Comptroller with an individual elected by the people of Ulster County. The establishment of an independent elected office creates an autonomous position, free from potential partisan influence. In addition to routine duties such as claims audit, payroll certification and bank reconciliation, the Comptroller is tasked with the chief auditing officer role for the County and given authority to exercise power to access records and people in fulfilling this broad audit role. As part of that audit role, the Comptroller is required by the Charter to issue audit reports and make them publicly available in addition to performing other related duties as required by the County Executive or County Legislature. The goal for claims auditing is to evaluate the claim against the County prior to disbursement. The Charter duties and NYS guidance are designed to ensure disbursements of funds are proper prior to issuance, rather than attempting to recover improper disbursements after the fact, commonly known as the ?pay and chase? model. Claims auditing occurs on a daily basis as all disbursements of funds requested by departments and offices under the County's control are required to be audited individually. This is a detailed and thoughtful evaluation of the supporting documentation for each request that funds be disbursed and includes compliance with the contracts in effect. This is the activity that has always been performed in the County, previously by the County Auditor,? In accordance with NYS law. The Charter Other Ulster County Comptroller Duties The Charter articulates duties for the Compt?roller which exceed those of the predecessor County Auditor including payroll certification, bank reconciliations, audit, studies, investigations and reporting requirements. Payroll Certification The goal for payroll certification is also to evaluate the claim against the County prior to disbursement. Payroll certification is performed regularly because the County processes payrolls each week, and involves 18 checking calculations and supporting documentation. it is also intended to prevent ?pay and chase? situations by verification of amounts prior to payment. Bank Reconciliations Bank reconciliations were prepared by the Treasurer?s Office prior to the Charter as part of the chief fiscal officer's duties in keeping the books and records of the County. The Charter transferred the responsibility for bank reconciliation from the chief fiscal officer to the Comptroller. This transfer provides a much stronger internal control activity for the County by having someone not involved in keeping the books and records or'processing transactions check to see whether the County?s books agree with an outside party?s (the bank?s) records of the same cash receipt and disbursement transactions. it is one of the most basic and important internal control activities in any organization because it looks at cash; the most inherently risky asset any organization has. It also looks at the reporting of financial activity on the organization?s books and records. The point of an internal bank reconciliation process is to identify the differences, also known as reconciling items, to the penny so an adequate assessment of those differences can he made. Some differences are due to the timing of transactions. For example, a check is cut and recorded on the County's books as a disbursement but the payee waits two weeks before depositing it, resulting in the bank not recording that disbursement until at least two weeks later than the County. There is nothing wrong with either the County?s or the bank?s records, but you would need to specifically identify that check so you know exactly why the records differ. Outstanding checks and deposits in transit are the two most common types of timing differences. Other differences may be due to what are known as permanent differences where either the County's books reflect a transaction incorrectly or the bank?s records reflect a transaction incorrectly. For example, the bank may have paid a check for a wrong amount, paid a check against the County's account which was issued by another customer and not by the County, or incorrectly charged a bank fee. For all of these examples, the bank and/or the County would have to make some change on their books as a result of identifying these differences. The bank reconciliation can also expose frauds and other illegal acts. Bank accounts with many transactions such as the County?s payroll, pooled disbursement and pooled receipt accounts often have multiple reconciling items. it is critical that all bank accounts be reconciled to the penny and that those reconciliations are timely to ensure appropriate actions are taken. This bank reconciliation responsibility is and has been expressly the Office of the Comptroller?s from the time the Charter was adopted. The Office of the Comptroller is charged in the Charter with the responsibility of reconciling the County's bank accounts which is a critically important element of every organization?s internal control system as discussed previously. Hundreds of millions of doliars of taxpayer funds flow through the County?s bank accounts every year. The Comptroller has consistently attempted to transfer this responsibility to the Commissioner of Finance effectively undermining the internal controls created by the Charter. The banks? records must be reconciled to the county?s official books and records each month to the penny in order to identify any errors or irregularities in the records. Cash is the most inherently risky asset any organization has and is therefore subject to all sorts of fraud, theft, borrowing etc. The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) sets the standards for US state and focal governments that foilow GAAP. They set uniform standards so investors and other stakeholders can rely on the ability for comparability of local governments because they use the same methods and disclosures. Ulster County follows GAAP. Bank reconciliations have to do with internal controls and help provide for fairly presented financial statements. They are not directly related to accounting methods. This is a serious matter for Ulster County as evidenced by correspondence within the 19 past year from the NYS Department of Labor ?nancial oversight unit. The situation is straight forward; the? Office of the Comptroller must reconcile the accounts to the penny. if there are unidenti?ed variances, by de?nition they are not reconciled. The County is at risk in multiple ways by this failure on the part of the Comptroller to perform his duty of bank reconciliation. if there were errors or irregularities, the Comptroller's attempt at tasking the Commissioner of Finance with ?nding them is in direct conflict with having someone other than the keeper of the cash and records performing the reconciliations. Under the Charter, the Office of the Comptroller is solely responsible for reconciling bank accounts to the penny. The Comptroller does not have the authority to delegate the responsibility of reconciling the County's accounts with the bank records to the Commissioner of Finance or anyone else. The duty belongs to the Comptroller under the Charter. Audits, Studies and investigations The Comptroller is charged with examining, auditing and verifying all books, records and accounts kept by the County, its of?cials and agencies and, in addition, with auditing the records of appropriations, encumbrances and expenditures. The Comptroller is also explicitly given the authority in the Charter to audit any department, program or function to assess the degree to which its operation is economical, efficient and/or effective (performance audits); and to conduct studies and investigations' as he or she deem necessary or appropriate in furthering the chief auditor role. This gives the Comptroller a great deal of discretion in how his or her resources will be deployed for conducting these performance-type audits, studies and investigations. it provides the ability to look at use of resources to assess if they are accomplishing program responsibilities, for instance, using program-type performance audits. One focus for audit work is the ?nancial and intemai control system elements with an toward evaluating the legality of a claim by checking documents, math, procedures, accounting records etc. Another focus for audit work as authorized in the Charter is evaluating departments, programs or functions for their effectiveness, that is; whether a contract?s or program's performance measures have been met; (2) whether the people we intended to help by operating a program, whether run in-house or contracted out, have actually received the intended benefits; and (3) whether it occurred in the most economical and efficient manner. Each year the Legislature authorizes hundreds of contracts for a variety of services and programs representing tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. The County Executive and the other elected officials of the County operate hundreds of programs with the sole intention to serve the public. The Office of the Comptroller is uniquely positioned to provide benefit to these officials and the public by making objective, reliable, in?depth evaluations through the audit process and reporting those results. The work of the Of?ce of the Comptroller should inform the decision making process in addition to exposing areas of risk, fraud, waste and abuses in County government. Reports The Comptroller is required by the Charter to submit financial condition and economy, efficiency and effectiveness reports to the County Legislature and County Executive at least quarterly and post them on the County website as well as annual reporting. 20 4) Evaluation Risk Along with all of the benefit that is available with an Office of the County Comptroller, there are some areas of risk which must be considered. There is a concept known as ?audit risk". As we have seen on a national level over the past decade, sometimes auditors get it wrong. The US Government Accounting Office which issues the professional standards commonly referred to as GAGAS (generally accepted government auditing standards) defines audit risk as ?the possibility that the auditors? findings, conciusions, recommendations, or assurance may be improper or incomplete, as a result of factors such as evidence that is not sufficient and/or appropriate, an inadequate audit process, or intentional omissions or misleading information due to misrepresentation or fraud.? Mitigation of this risk is outlined in the professional standards. Comptrollers the Differences The County Comptroller has a focus to audit, and to investigate and study in the furtherance of the chief auditing officer role. There may be misunderstanding over the role and authority of the Comptroller in Ulster County government. The Comptroller is neither the chief fiscal officer nor the chief accounting officer, and has no role in the financial management of the County or its budget process. The public may be unaware of these facts because the?title of Comptroller in other governments can include widely different duties and authority. in the City of Kingston, for instance, the Comptroller serves as the chief ?scal officer, prepares and monitors the City budget, manages the City's debt and cash flow, collects taxes and enforces tax liens, maintains the City's books and records, handles payroll and purchasing, and generally manages the City?s day' to day financial operations. These duties are in stark contrast to those of the County Comptroller, as substantially all of those duties in Ulster County government are borne by the Commissioner of Finance. The Commissioner is charged in the Charter with the administration of all the financial affairs of the County. Similarly, the County Comptrollers around New York State also vary widely in their duties and responsibilities. The following chart, supplied by PublicSignals LLC, of elected NYS County Comptroller?s duties shows some of the variations: Elected NYS County Comptrollers Duties :milynvambiuty of Funds forkequisi?onsCommencement-munFimndamemeAm) E3 Administcharmlt El El El] lndi?recttasulimlinnl?lan El El Ruth-unveils Have custodyomn Public Funds El E3 . - Administer-Employeemalmame?ts - - .. .. .. titanium-mitts -I- Executing Rimming 21 Ulster County?s Comptroller has the smallest number of duties of any elected Comptroller in NYS based on this data. The investment 8: Return The purpose of this review is to evaluate the impact of the ?nancial taxpayer investments made through the budget allocation process. It includes an assessment of the investment - ?nancial cost of the Of?ce of the Comptroller's operation; and an assessment of the return - ful?llment of the duties outlined in the Charter, the Office of the Comptroller's body of work available to the public, and success in meeting overarching objectives of the Comptroller?s Office including the work undone and its cost. a) The investment? Financial Costs of the Comptroller's Operation There has been a substantial increase in cost for the internal audit function when we compare the money spent on the Comptroiler?s operation to the money spent on the pre?Charter County Auditor operation. The cost for the Of?ce of the Comptroller is about 2 it times the previous cost for the County Auditor. An increase was expected as the responsibility and authority were expanded. The spending on the Of?ce of the Comptroller?s operation was $5,289,468 for the seven year period 2009-2015, as adjusted to remove the annual ?nancial statement audit and the accounts payable staff and include employee bene?ts. Spending on the County Auditor?s operation for the seven year period immediately preceding, 2002-2008, spending was $2,110,554, as adjusted to remove the accounts payable staff and include employee bene?ts. Two employees who were deemed to be performing accounts payable duties were removed from the Comptroller?s of?ce in response to his request to be relieved of accounts payable functions. Charter revision approved by the people of Ulster County in the 2012 election further reduced the Of?ce of the Comptroller's duties. Both spending summaries re?ect figures that omit these 2 employees to provide for comparable data as they had always been part of the claims audit staff (the Audit Department). When these figures are adjusted to account for in?ation, the increase remains substantial with spending at more than 200%. A closer look at the changes in spending for the internal audit function is revealing for evaluating the additional investment which is 100% taxpayer funded. . - - - Spending Trend Pre- and Post-Charter $1,000,000 $900,000 $800,000 $700,000 $600,000 $500300 $400,000 2009-2015 $300,000 $200,000 .. Auditor $100,000 2002-2003 Year 1 Yam-2 Year3 Year4Year5Year6Year7 22 Workload . it should be noted the initial post Charter adopted budget, 2009, reflected funding for the duties as prescribed at that time including the ComptrolleI?s designation as the chief accounting officer and the chief auditing officer. Funding was considered adequate for the discharge of these duties at the time, and subsequent years? funding levels were not reduced when the chief accounting officer role was removed from the Comptroller in 2012 by Charter revision. The work hours were increased from 35 hours per week to 40 hours per week for audit staff in 2011 and most remain at that level. An additional position was added to the Comptroller's office in 2013. Duties have decreased but the time and money have increased over the 7 years. Direct relationships, rather than inverse relationships, were expected. Also noteworthy is the sale of the County nursing home that was consummated in 2013 which reduced annual spending by approximately $30 million dollars. The County?s benefited employee count was reduced by 32% during 7 year period. The County transitioned to a 3rd party administrator for handling the Worker's Compensation Self-insurance Pool claims in 2014. Prior to 2014, at least 7,500 benefit related payments were subject to the claims audit process each year. The workload for claims audit, payroll certification, and major county operations/departments have decreased significantly during the 7 years but the funding and resources have increased for the Office of the Comptroller. Direct relationships, rather than Inverse relationships, were expected In this comparison as well. Another important aspect in evaluating the resources necessary for the Office of the Comptroller to perform the duties of the office is the tools available. When the Charter was implemented and the Comptroller took office, the County used a financial management system implemented in 1997. The County Executive?s initiative to implement a new financial management system, employing the use of a document management system in conjunction with it, went live on April 1, 2014. This implementation has significantly transformed county operations. Transaction approvals are accessible in real time, on-line as well as on-line accessibility to all of the documents that support the claims, contract documents etc. County-wide financial reporting as well as minute detail drill~down are available in a matter of clicks of a mouse. This new financial system provides better, more complete and accessible information more timely for use by the Comptroller and others. Efficiency and effectiveness of the County?s financial operations and reporting abilities have been markedly increased, yet the Office of the Comptrolle?s resources to review them continued to rise. Inverse relationships, rather than 'direct relationships, were expected particularly because the Comptroller had expressed dissatisfaction with the old system one number of occasions. When the resources used by the Ulster County Comptroller are compared to other elected NYS Comptrollers, Ulster?s spending and staffing in relation to overall county expenditures is in the middle as shown below in charts prepared by PublicSignals LLC. NYS Counties with Elected Comptrollers: Comptroller Expenditures per $1 Million ofTotal County Expenditures, 2015 . . . . SZCO $300 SE00 5:60 51.053 51, 203 $1.403 $1.633 $1.233 52.03 512:0 51-105 SEEM ?rm-m arr-w unannouncemsosc 23 'i NYS Counties with Elected Comptrollers, Number of Budgeted Comptroller Positions, 2016 per $100 Million in County Expenditures, 2015 .m 2 -- ,u - - :g2.4 32331.11!? emu-p am . u- .42.: 3.3 3.5 Dodsoanisu?olkdazamzavailule. Due to the Ulster County Comptroller having the fewest duties in the state, the expected relationship was that Ulster would spend a smaller portion of the budget on this function and use less staff. Based on the charts above, Ulster County is overstaffing and overfunding the Comptroller?s office when compared to its peer group. Spending Details The first Comptroller's budget as a result of the Charter increased the full time benefited employee count of the County by 3 positions. In 2011, the work hours for staff in the Office of the Comptroller were increased by the Comptrollerto 40 hours per week from 35. In 2012, 2 employees who were deemed to be performing accounts payable duties were removed from the Comptroller's office, in response to the Comptroller's request to be relieved of accounts payable duties, and transferred to the Finance Department along with the - responsibility. Charter revision approved by the people of Ulster County in the 2012 election further reduced the Comptroller?s duties. In 2013, the position of Director of internal and Audit Control was created, bringing the total staff to today?s 7 employees plus the Comptroller himself. The Office of the Comptrollel?s current staffing consists of 8 positions; 4 are Civil Service/CSEA and 4 are management/confidential including the Comptroller. The contractual expenses (non-employee salary and benefits, non-equipment) totaled $357,248 for the 7 year period 2009?2015 for the Comptroller?s operation. A detailed review of the expenses paid from the Comptroller's budget shows that more than $77,000 has been spent attending conferences around the US during the 7 years, most of which was spent training staff that are no longer employed by the Office of the Comptroller. As a result, there is no return for most of this investment. More than $96,000 has been spent by the Comptroller for contracted legal services and costs related to legal'type work. About $46,000 has been spent on branding, website and letterhead design, 26 paid college intern positions, subscriptions, and memberships in organizations not related to the responsibilities of the Office. About $105,000 has been spent on accounting, auditing and other professional services, professional memberships and publications related to auditing and/or government accounting and finance. Approximately $89,000 was spent on outside CPA firms and research institutes. It is not clear what work product might have been produced as a result of these contracts, as none of the reports are currently available to the public. Note that the $105,000 discussed here does not include the annual financial statement audits paid for out of the Comptroller?s budget in 2010 which totaled $89,400. They are an ongoing expense for the County as previously mentioned, and therefore excluded from the evaluation of the Office of the Comptroller?s spending. 24 b) The Return Ful?llment of the Duties Outlined in the Charter The Comptroller's powers and duties are listed in of Article of the County Charter where the Comptroller is designated as the chief auditing officer. For purposes of evaluating fulfillment of these duties, the primary source of documentation used was the body of work available on the Comptroller?s website on June 28, 2016 (see Attachment B). There were 33 Audits Reports, 28 Snapshot Reports, 19 Quarterly Reports and 1 County Expenditures Report listed. One of the 33 listed was linked to a duplicate of another one of the 33 leaving 32 for review. First, an evaluation of whether or not there is documentation of attempts at fulfillment of the duties are assessed; the quantity. Next, an evaluation of whether or not the duties have been reliably and credibly ful?lled for the work produced as documented by the reports; the quality. The duties outlined are as listed below: 'J?r sh; A: w?i?k .. 19, ,a c. Bf" gang-9.1- 1 -e i=1; 1? 1" g; attrim)" 'ul required by the State Comptroller Examine, audit and verify all books, records, and accounts kept by the administrative units, office, and officials paid from County 16 3 n/a 1 funds, institutions and other agencies of the County; A. includes bond and note registers; none none none "one A. includes trust accounts; ?one ?One ?me ?me A. Includes accrual and collection of all County . 6 none none revenues and receipts; A. Preparation of an annual audit report and submit to County Legislature and County none none 20f? years Executive by April 15: of each year; A. Includes risk assessment of the accounting none none 2 of7years methods used by the CountyProcure from the depositories [banks] none 3 1 ultiple statements, at least B. Reconcile such statements with the County Mum!"e accounts. 1 4 reconciled C. Audit records of . appropriations, none none none non encumbrances and expenditures; C. Prescribe generally accepted government Multiple accounting methods unless otherwise correspondence 25 .991,-. . . . . .- I I a I L. . tin-em i ?i?a?w ,e ,g 5 .: 3E .55 arse. Certify availability of funds for all requisitions, contracts, purchase orders and other documents by which the County incurs financial obligations or expands funds for none none none Contracts only which the County is responsible. Prescribe the form for records of appropriations, encumbrances, and expenditures of receipts, vouchers, bills and claims unless otherwise required by the Multiple correspondence State Comptroller. Audit-and certify for payment all lawful claims or charges against the County including payroll for which the County is Weekly but not all claims responsible. Audit any department, program or function to assess the degree to which its operation is 16 n/a economical, efficient andf or effective. .. Cond uct studies and investigation in none none furtherance of the Comptroller's function. Prepare reports at least quarterly on the financial condition of the County; n/a n/a 16*of3o required Prepare reports at least quarterly on the economy, efficiency and/or effectiveness with which the County government or any of its departments, agencies or programs is managed; 16 Submit these quarterly reports to the County Legislature and the County Executive; Undetermined from review of website Post these quarterly reports on the County n/a n/a 16* of 30 required website. All powers and duties by law on a county comptroller; n/a n/a Perform such other duties as required by the County Executive; none none Perform such other duties as required by the County Legislature. none 26 Although the website lists 19 quarterly reports, 2 are annual reports and 1 did not cover ?nancial condition. The reports and other documents available demonstrate a lack of performance of these duties by the Of?ce of the Comptroller in the Charter as outlined below: 0 Annual reports are available for only 2 of the 7 years; 0 Risk assessment is addressed for 2 of7 years; 0 No evidence that all books and records have been examined, audited or verified; - No mention of bond and note registers in 7 years; No mention of trust accounts in 7 years; 0 No mention of audit of accrual of revenue in 7 years; 0 Successful reconciliation of bank accounts for 2 of 7 years; 0 No mention of audits of records of appropriations, encumbrances and expenditures in 7 years; 0 Quarterly reports are available for 19 of 30 quarters and which range from an analysis of a single revenue source to annual reports of reports issued and other work completed; and ii Reports previously issued that are no longer available on the website for undisclosed reasons. The financial management system contains the official books and records of the County and is used for substantially all budgeting, recording and reporting of the County's financial activity. In order to properly audit and report on the financial condition of the County, the financial management system and the information contained in those records must be accessed. Except for the two claims auditors, in 2016 the Comptroller?s staff use of the official books and records has been infrequent based on the login history. The Charter is clear that all lawful claims or charges for which the County is responsible are to be audited and certified for payment by the Office of the Comptroller. The Comptroller was aware of payments made thru WMS, utilized by the Department of Social Services, and wire transfers which were not being audited in the claims audit process by his office as noted in a June 17, 2009 letter to the then Commissioner of Finance. The WMS payments and wire transfers alone total many tens of millions of dollars annually. County expenses excluding payroll and liability payments totaled roughly $258 million for 2015; the Comptroller reported on January 31, 2016 in the 2015 County Spending Tracker that he had approved approximately $146 million in claims submitted in 2015. This is a large delta. Social Services is the County's largest annual expense and WMS payments are required for much of this expense. In that spending report, Social Services was shown as the 3'd largest departmental expense area, with the totals being run from an invoice report in the accounting system. This suggests that WMS payments may not have been audited in 2015 contributing to the delta. May 2016 correspondence from the Comptroller?s office requested information on wire transfers that had been provided in June of 2009 which may indicate that wire transfers also make up part of the delta. This suggests the Office of the Comptroller is not auditing all of the claims paid by Ulster County. The January 31, 2016 report made no mention of claims not audited. 27 c) The Return -the Comptroller?s Body of Work Available to the Public The Comptroller as chief auditing officer is charged with auditing the books, records and programs of the County, and producing reports of the results for the County Legislature, County Executive, the public and others to use in making decisions. It is critical that these reports have integrity, and are accurate and credible. The audit work should be consistent with professional standards to demonstrate that reliable results are produced and reported. Many of the reports published by the Office of the Comptroller have included gross inaccuracies and/or unfounded results which may have led to inappropriate conclusions on the part of decision makers-in the County. Audit activities and reports in accordance with professional standards have been problematic although several of the reports have stated they were in compliance with such standards. In addition, there have been conspicuous omissions in the topics covered by the audit work of the Office of the Comptroller. A number of the Office of the Comptroller?s reports had been available publicly but are not now according to the website on June 28, 2016 including those on overtime, vehicle accidents, hotel/motel tax and legislative attendance as well as some quarterly reports. Reports issued by the Comptroller?s office were regularly numbered for at_least the first 3 years of the Office?s existence which gave-the public an understanding of the reports issued. At least one report issued during this time frame on Legislative Attendance was reported by a local newspaper on February 2, 2011 to have "contained numerous errors that have resulted in changes in staff assignments at the Comptroller?s Office and contributed to the firing of an employee, according to the Comptroller". In addition, the hotel/motel tax report from 2010 included incorrect information and grossly inaccurate calculations. At least 25 reports previously issued and referenced by the Comptroller are no longer available and accessible to the public on the website. There appears to be more than 20 missing forthe first three years based on the numbering. 17 reports from that time period are still available which suggests that . the reason for their inaccessibility is not archive related. In more recent years, they are not numbered making it more difficult to make sense of what was issued and is not available, and why. From time to time, reports may be issued and subsequently it is discovered that the evidence was not sufficient and appropriate to support the findings and/or conclusions, in other words, the auditor got it wrong. GAGAS states that "If the report was previously posted to the auditors? publicly accessible website, the auditors should remove the report and post a public notification that the report was removed". The Office of the Comptroller is not in compliance with this standard, nor with the more generalized practice of transparency and accountability. The Institute of Internal Auditors (HA) includes a summation of accountability stating ?In effect, accountability is the obligation to answer for the responsibility conferred? and transparency ?relates to the openness of a public sector entity to its constituents? in their publication titled Supplemental Guidance: The Role otAuditing in Public Sector Governance. Evaluation of the performance of the Office of the Comptroller in terms of accountability and transparency requires that we look at the Comptroller's office itself in delivering these, as well as any role in providing accountability and transparency for the operations of county government to the public. The Comptroller has issued many public reports as well as making related public statements using various media about County finances and operations. As previously stated, many of these reports are no longer available to the public. Reports still available cover the full span of the 7 years suggesting that archiving is not the reason for these absences. At least some of these reports are known to have included substantial errors. A commitment to transparency in the operation of the Office of the Comptroller would 28 demand a full accounting of all reports issued be available to the public and those charged with governance. People may have relied upon those reports in making important decisions and would have no update on say, corrected information, with regard to those reports. Auditing Auditing is very important in government. "The public sector represents a principal-agent relationship? where the principal is the public and the government officials are the agents acting on their behalf according to the HA. The agents ?must periodically account to the principal for their use and stewardship of resources and the extent to which the public?s objectives have been accomplished". Audits provide accountability. Various types of audits provide independent reviews of various aspects of the operations. They represent detailed review and analysis of records with measurement against specific objectives. Some reports provide opinions about certain assertions. The auditor?s independence, objectivity and reliability give audits and other reports their value. The information can be used to improve operations, identify areas of weakness in the operations including lack of effectiveness of programs, correct failures of internal control systems where fraud or theft may have occurred, and make funding decisions based on assessments and reported results. Audits may also reveal financial reporting that is inaccurate. Inaccurate financial reporting can lead to bad financial decision making. The HA states he public sector auditor's role supports the governance responsibilities of oversight, insight, and foresight. Oversight addresses whether public sector entities are doing what they are supposed to do and serves to detect and deter public corruption. insight assists decision?makers by providing an independent assessment of public sector programs, policies, operations, and results. Foresight identifies trends and emerging challenges. Auditors use tools such as financial audits, performance audits, investigations, and advisory services to fulfill each of these roles.? The Comptroller General of the United States states that ?Government auditing provides objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future" in the introductory letter of the US Government Accounting Office (GAOYS Government Auditing Standards 2011 Revision. GAO goes on to say "Legislators, oversight bodies, those charged with governance, and the public need to know whether (1) management and officials manage government resources and use their authority properly and in compliance with laws and regulations; (2) government programs are achieving their. objectives and desired outcomes; and (3) government services are provided effectively, efficiently, economically, ethically, and equitably?. The has articulated elements which are necessary to ensure that audits are conducted with integrity and produce reliable results. They say auditors must have the following: 0 Organization independence 0 A formal mandate Unrestricted access - Sufficient funding - Competent leadership 0 Objective staff Competent staff 0 Stakeholder support 0 Professional audit standards 29 The Comptroller has discussed the importance of complying with professional standards in reports issued and available, most notably in the available quarterly reports. The GAO states that he professional standards ?commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide a framework for concluding high quality audits with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence?. it goes on to say ?Audits performed in accordance with GAGAS provide information used for oversight, accountability, transparency, and improvements of government programs and operations. GAGAS contains requirements and guidance to assist auditors In objectively acquiring and evaluating sufficient, appropriate evidence and reporting the results. When auditors perform their work in this manner and comply with In reporting the results, their work can lead to improved govemment management, better decision making and oversight, effective and ef?cient operations, and accountability and transparency for resources and results.? The Office of the County Comptroller reported compliance with professional standards in 6 of the 32 reports available; averaging less than 1 per year to date. in the 2013 4'11 Quarter in Review, the Comptroller self- reported that as January 1, 2014 he was in full compliance with GAGAS. Since that date the Of?ce of the Comptroller has issued 21 Audits 8: Reports and 13 Snapshot Reports, and stated only 5 of those were in compliance with professional standards. No reason is given for not complying with these standards in the other 29 reports. 24 of the reports available were identi?ed as audits or examinations or included the elements of them. Audi: "manna rum mm? armaments Hm . nuns: mm- Tom! Stall} Total 51an Total 51MB I stated In accordance with GAGAS 53mm will: (d with 1 within) A reader of these reports has no way of knowing what level of work has been performed in their preparation and may be at risk ifthey rely upon them. Based on his available quarterly reports, the Comptroller is aware of the standards and their importance. However, only a few of the Office?s reports state they are in compliance with these standards. Generally, the audits by the Office of the County Comptroller are considered performance audits as opposed to ?nancial audits like the annual audit by the CPA firm. Performance audits cover topics such as economy, efficiency and compliance as well as program audits which focus on effectiveness. The general professional standards required by GAGAS are: i) independence, ii) professionaljudgment, competence, iv) technical knowledge, v) continuing professional education (CPE), and vi) quality control and assurance, including a peer review at least every 3 years beginning no later than 3 years from the date the audit organization [Comptroller] began its ?rst audit in accordance with GAGAS. 30 There are some additional standards for performance audits for field work as follows as well as specific reporting requirements: i) planning, ii) supervising staff, obtaining sufficient appropriate evidence, and iv) preparing audit documentation. The 2013 Quarter in Review also discussed peer review of the Comptroller's Office and the benefits of it. The Comptroller said the Association of- Local Government Auditors (ALGA) had been joined in 2012 to begin to provide for this. Ulster County Comptroller?s staff has been trained to peer review other government entities and is required to do so according to that report. This was at least partially provided for by the $77,000 spent on training staff, but most of them are no longer with the Comptroller's office. That 2013 report stated "that as of January 1, 2014, the Ulster County Comptroller?s Office will be fully compliant with generally accepted auditing standards The first report which stated it was in compliance with GAGAS was issued in May of 2010. A peer review would be required within 3 years according to these standards. 'As of September 2, 2016, the list of 112 peer reviewed local government agencies (including 30 counties) published on the ALGA website did not include Ulster County. No reference to a peer review of Ulster County could be found on the Comptroller's website or elsewhere in the public domain. By contrast, the NYS Comptroller's External Peer Review Opinion Report is easily accessible on the NYS OSC website. This is an issue of accountability and transparency. Audit reports have the potential to be very valuable to decision makers such as legislators and other stakeholders, but only if they are reliable and relevant; and free from errors and unfounded conclusions. Reliable Reports The principle of integrity in audit work is extremely important. The HA states that there is ?The erosion of public trust if public information and actions are not credible and reliable undermines the public sector's legitimacy and ability to consequences of violating the expectation of the highest integrity can be swift and shattering when the people's trust in the public sector, its institutions, and leadership is undermined.? On average, 1 out of 3 reports issued by the Of?ce of the Comptroller over the 7 years have included errors in facts, many of them substantial. Findings and/or conclusions were wrong or unsupported in about half of the available reports. In addition, the lack of familiarity with the subject matter under audit or review appeared to be evident in a number of the reports issued. If professional standards had been followed, these reports would have been reviewed as part of internal monitoring (within the Comptroller's office itself) as required by a system of internal control and quality control standards. The lack of credible reliable reporting from the Comptroller, who is relied upon to be an independent assessor of financial and other data, does a disservice to the County Legislature, County Executive and the public in presenting misinformation which they may unknowingly rely upon to make decisions. The concept of reliability considers whether results can be reproducedbased on evidence. When there are numerous occurrences of reports which include incorrect factual information and/or wrong or unsubstantiated conclusions, the results are not reliable. This undermines the credibility of the Office of the 31 Comptroller and Ulster County. if rating agencies, investors or funding agencies rely on the information, Ulster County?s finances and operations could be negatively impacted by increased borrowing costs or loss of funding. ln addition, decision makers such as legislators and the County Executive cannot rely on the Office of the Comptroller?s work product which puts them at a significant risk for making decisions about service delivery and funding. The public may also be victims of this unreliable reporting. As recently as August 8, 2016, the Comptroller reported that Ulster County went without the additional 1% of sales tax revenue for most of 2014. While this was originally erroneously reported by the NYS Comptroller, Ulster County?s Comptroller certainly knew or should have known that this was not true. If it had been true, the County would have experienced a devastating loss of revenue in 2011iL estimated at between $13.5 and $26 million. While many of the county departments and officials have some basis for evaluating the factual information presented by the Office of the Comptroller and therefore may be able to question conclusions drawn, the public is particularly at risk. The regularity of unreliable reports being issued by the Office of the I Comptroller over the 7 years calls into question their valueand the expenditure of taxpayer money to produce them. There are two reports which were issued which by the Office of the Comptroller upon request for evaluating significant matters which not only had implications for County government but also had direct implications for the County?s municipal governments and its taxpayers. [n the case of the report issued in response to Legislative resolution 404 of November 18, 2014 titled ?Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Financial Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (1St Year Phase-In)? the report (Attachment A) is grossly incorrect and, therefore, a risk to decision makers who requested it and may rely upon it. Financial information on billing amounts is in conflict with the official books and records of the County. The assessment data is inaccurately reflected and incorrectly used in tax extension calculations. The conclusions about the impact on municipalities, individual taxpayers and future effects are wrong. The calculations have been redone and presented in Attachment C. This recalculation has been reviewed and confirmed by the Director of Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency and is also attached (Attachment D). The Legislative resolution calls for such reports to be made by the Comptroller each year of the 3 year phase?in period. In another case the County Attorney asked the Comptroller to audit URGENT specifically because she had no financial records to determine monetary and other assets as well as the expenses of URGENT. This information was needed by her because the City of Kingston was terminating its participation in the Ulster Regional Gang Enforcement Narcotics Team (URGENT) and had requested a meeting with the County Attorney to discuss division of assets and expenses. A report titled Program: Report of Examination - March 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012? was issued in response. Attached to the Comptroller?s report are letters from the County Attorney, the City of Kingston Corporation Counsel, the County Sheriff and the County?s District Attorney. As documented, the Comptroller failed to meet the objective of appropriately responding to the County Attorney?s request. The letters indicate that the audit failed to uncover assets and expenses related to URGENT, including those which are solely found in County books and records, in addition to misrepresentations and/or misunderstanding of the situation. The audit work appeared to be cursory and incomplete, and conducted without adequate knowledge of the subject matter. Most substantially, the Comptroller failed to understand the basic question what are the assets and expenses of The Comptroller is the only County official who has the authority to access and assess all of the financial records with regard to this operation. The Comptroller, instead, erroneously chose to comment on the legal 32 questions, policies and procedures and to present 4 different models for distributions. This examination failed to meet the objectives of the work and, therefore, is of questionable value. It did not meet the needs of the requester. The above described reports are by no means the only ones issued over the 7 years with problems. There are a number of reports which contained serious errors, some of which are listed in Attachment E. Non-Audit Reports if the Office of the Comptroller issues reports Which are not audits he does not need to follow GAGAS but the standards do say that that ?When performing non?audit services for an entity for which the audit organization [Ulster County Office of the Comptroller] performs a GAGAS audit, audit organizations should communicate with requestors and those charged with governance to clarify that the work performed does not constitute an audit conducted in accordance with None of the non-audit reports currently available issued by the Office of the Comptroller state this. The standards do not provide for intermittent compliance with GAGAS. A report reader should be able to understand what they are looking at and the level of assurance provided by the work if any. That said, any report that is not credible and reliable has no value, or worse it results in wrong conclusions and decisions by those charged with governance. d) The Return - Meeting Overarching Objectives of the Comptroller?s Office, including the Work Undone and its Cost Transparency and Accountability The Comptroller is charged with being the chief auditing of?cer of the County and has proclaimed his role as the independent ?people?s watchdog?. There have been no program audits; no ?nancial audits of elected officials operations which have estimated net costs for 2016 of over $35 million to the local taxpayers, with the exception of off-book accounts such as the Sheriff?s inmate and commissary accounts having no effect on the $35 million net cost; and an absence of audits of other substantial operations of County government that have a direct impact on the taxes and services delivered to the peopie. Promotion of Economy, Ef?ciency and Effectiveness The economy and efficiency of operations has not been covered in any of the available audits or other reports in a meaningful way. Topics such as county-wide real property assessment, county-wide tax collection, and assigned counsel have been covered but none of these were identified by the Office of the Comptroller as audits. A detailed review of these reports reveals that they are not based on actual research and evidence. In fact, some of the topics had been the subject of recent experts? reports and other studies which appear to have been ignored in the work of the Comptroller?s office. The complexity of and unfamiliarity with the subject matter appears to have led to incorrect claims that cost savings would be enjoyed if the Office of the Comptroller?s recommendations were implemented. Unfortunately, some decision makers and the public may have taken these reports as reliable and credible reflections of the situation, and options available to increase the economy and efficiency of the operations. They are not, and any actions based on the information presented would be risky as they would not be informed by facts, complete information and reasonable assumptions. The Office of the Comptroller has given credit for efficiencies in implementing programs like the gas cards, but it is after the fact. More value could be received if the Office of the 33 Comptroller effectively and reliably identified operations that are inefficient and in of need improvement through well researched audit work. The County adopts hundreds of contracts each year representing tens of millions of dollars. The performance goals and compliance under these contracts have never been audited by the Office of the Comptroller in 7 years. The Office of the Comptroller revieWs contracts to ascertain the availability of funds on a daily basis as part of the County's internal control activities. in addition, any invoices presented for payment against those contracts are audited by the Office of the Comptroller and approved prior to payment. One report issued by the Office of the Comptroller during the 7 years was titled ?Review of Contract Compliance? but it did not cover any evaluation ?of actual compliance with the service delivery requirements of the contracts, it instead focused on how well-defined contract terms were and pointed out whether reports were filed. Achievement of program goals was ?not evaluated, Le. service to citizens. issues were also raised with some of the invoices paid, which should have been addressed in the claims audit process and corrected before the invoices were approved for payment by the Comptroller?s office. The objective of the Office of the Comptroller?s daily review is to correct any issues on the front end of the transaction, and not wait until it has been finalized and then criticize it. This calls into question the thoroughness of the claims audit function and serves to undermine the goal of efficient government functioning. in performing the work for the ?Review of Contract Compliance?, the Comptroller appeared to miss the underlying goal of contracting with vendors; that is to provide service to citizens or support the functioning of the government in serving the public. The 5 contracts covered by the review, representing about $120,000 in total, included summer recreation programs for City of Kingston youth (City of Kingston), support services for teen parents (YWCA), supervision of visits with non-custodial parents (Family of Woodstock), reviews and investigations of public assistance claims to reduce fraud (Bonadio), and training and other services to aid people who receive assistance through Social Services in gainful employment (Gateway). The point of contracting with these vendors is not to see whether or not they can file a report on time. Report filing is generally required as a tool in evaluating the performance under a contract, not the point of the contract. The title of the report would have given the general impression that actual performance compliance had been evaluated. All but one of these contracts had specifically articulated expected outcomes. People?s lives, including children?s, are affected by delivery of the services under these contracts, and that is of great interest and importance to the people who make decisions. The review failed to evaluate achievement of 'the goals outlined in the contracts. The County Legislature and other decision makers have an opportunity with the Office of the Comptroller to have the performance evaluated by the Office as an independent party. The vendor and the department contracting with them certainly are responsible for contract compliance in the first instance, but are not in a position to providean independent audit. I Program audits would be a key resource for decision making, but the Office of the Comptroller has performed zero in -7 years. The County has spent over $150 million with just the top 10 service providers during this time with annual spending in excess of $20 million each of the 7 years. 34 5) . 515000000 ?h h- Elli; - . 2 {$ng . - ti.- These providers run many programs operating under various contracts with the County, and affect many thousands of peoples? lives, yet the Comptroller has audited none of them. Choices are instead made to review policies and procedures, and spend resources looking at things like clothing donation bins having no current relation to County government. Rather than audit the not-for-profit services providers, the Comptroller has chosen instead to provide general overview information. At the same time, decision makers have no feedback on whether funds are being spent wisely and effectively in providing service to the citizenry. The Comptroller's work has not included most of the County?s revenue sources. Tens of millions of dollars are received each year in state and federal aid alone, yet the Comptroller has audited none of it in 7 years. Conciusion The current funding and structure for the Office of the Comptroller does not deliver corresponding results for the additional investment of taxpayer money. While the workioad of the Comptroller over the 7 years has decreased, the expenses of the Comptroller have increased. Based on comparisons with other elected NYS Comptrollers, Ulster County's Comptroller has the fewest duties yet spends amounts equivalent to elected Comptroller's with significantly more responsibility. The Comptroller has used his discretion to spend resources on items which do not accomplish or further the required duties of- the Office of the Comptroller. The taxpayer funds being spent on the Comptroller?s Office are excessive for the benefits received. For these reasons, a spending reduction is recommended in an effort to provide the appropriate level of resources for accomplishing the responsibilities and objectives of the internal audit function for Ulster County and the duties in the Charter at a reasonable cost. 35 ,f Attachment A Elliott Auerbach, Comptroller 244 Fair Street Kingston, NY 12401 845-340-3529 Of?ce of The Ulster County Comptroller Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report The Financial Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (1?t Year P12 use?In) December 15, 2015 I. Applicable New York State Election Law Under New York State Election Law, ?the expenses of providing polling places, voting booths, supplies therefor, ballot boxes and other furniture for the polling place for any election, including the storage, transportation and maintenance of voting machines, appliances and equipment or ballot counting devices, and the compensation of the election of?cers in each election district, shall be a charge upon the county in which such election district is situated[.] . . All expenses incurred under this chapter by the board of elections of a county outside of the city of New York shall be a charge against the county[.] . . . The expenses incurred by the board of elections of a county outside the city of New York may, pursuant to section 3?226 of this chapter, be apportioned among the cities and towns therein, or in the case of a village election held other than at the time of the fall primary or general election, apportioned to such villages therein.?1 In practice, this meant that municipalities in Ulster County were charged for incurred expenses new machines, poll watchers and inspectors, storage, etc.) from primary, general, and special elections from 2006 to 2014. Thereafter, Ulster County authorized a three?year phase-in agreement to absorb the costs from its localities, to be discussed in greater detail below. II. A Brief History of Resolutions by the Ulster County Legislature Regarding Local Election Costs Pursuant to Resolution No. 410 of December 6, 2006, the Ulster County Legislature ?authorize[d] charging back the towns and the City- of Kingston for the expenses incurred by the Board of' Elections based on the number of registered voters on the last day to register for the general election in any given year [to be billed on a pro rata basis to each municipality following a full accounting of all election expenses in any given year]? effectively putting the fiscal onus on local governments to pay for their own elections. Town Supervisors and other locally elected of?cials routinely cited the ?nancial struggles they faced when having to account for these added, un-funded mandates - compounded by additional requirements levied by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) in their yearly budgets. A multi-year effort to pass the monetary costs back to the County culminated in the passage and adeption of Resolution No. 404 on November 18, 2014, which ?authoriz[ed] the County of Ulster to assume the cost of elections support from the Towns and City of Kingston pursuant to a three-year phased-in plan.? See New York State Election Law, Article 4, Section 4-36. 36 AttachmentjA' The schedule of implementation was designed as follows, where the County assume: ?3?3 percent Of the total cost of the chargebacks to the Towns and City of Kingston in 2015, 66 percent - - - in 2016? and 100 percent . . . in 2017 [and beyond.]? Moreover, Resolution No. 404 instructed the Ulster County Comptroller ?to perform and present an annual report to the County Executive and the County Legislature on or before December 31St of each year during the period of this three?year phased?in plan, detailing the actual bene?ts and/or impacts that the plan has had upon the taxpayers and budgets of each of the respective Towns in Ulster County and the City of This report was completed pursuant to that directive. - 111. Total Savings to Town and Gig Budgets The ?rst notable effect of the new legislation is the direct monetary bene?t assumed by each respective municipality. In the past, each locality was responsible for the cost of elections for their resPective districts. In 2015, one?third of these costs will be assumed by the County, providing direct savings at the Town and City budgetary level. The bene?t enjoyed by each municipality is tied to the costs for each district; therefore, the total dollar bene?t will vary among different governments. As the proportion of costs assumed by the County increases in ?iture years, the corresponding bene?t to the Towns and the City of Kingston will also increase. 2015 Total Savings to Town and City Budgets municipality Total Budget Savings Denning $1,670.25 Esopus . $7,967.02 Gardiner $4,050.57 Hardenburgh $818.51 Hurley $5,571.95 Kingston Town $882.05 Kingston City $20,097.95 Lloyd $5,355.10 Marbletown $8,545.37 Marlborough $3,775.72 New Paltz - $7,275.68 Olive $4,496.39 Plattekill $6,733.40 Rochester $4,403.25 Rosendale $3,089.91 Saugerties . $12,134.29 Shandaken $3,700.95 Shawangunk $6,171.94 Ulster $12,524.90 Wawarsing $8,640.31 Woodstock $8,524.22 _37 IV. Attachment A Direct Dollar Impact on Individual Taxpayers The second portion of our analysis considers the impact on the individual taxpayer, which required us to determine the effect of the County and Town/City tax calculations on the movement of these costs from the Town/City budgets to the County level. a. Understanding the Tax Rate The tax rates are determined for each municipality by taking the sum of the General Charges for the Year and dividing that ?gure by the Total Taxable Value the value of all properties within that municipality). The tax rates are alvVays expressed per $1,000 in taxable value. For Towns and Cities, the tax rate is calculated by taking the Total General Charges for the municipality in a given year and dividing by the total taxable value. Town/City Total General Charges Town Taxable Value 1,000 Town/City Tax Rate For the County, the tax calculation is more complex. To calculate the County tax rate applicable to a given municipality, the County ?rst apportions the total County charges to each municipality based on the equalized taxable value. The equalized taxable value takes into consideration additional factors, including statutory equalization rates that accommodate for market value differences in property value assessments, as well as clergy and veteran exemptions that apply only to the Town Rate. Total County General I 1' ii ll 1 3 Share of County Charges Total County Equalized Value Charges The dollar share -of County charges assigned to each municipality is then divided by the Town/City equalized taxable value to determine the County tax rate applicable to properties within that Town/City. Share 0f COW Char es County Tax Rate (a licable to that . 1,000 PP Town Equalized Value municipality) The tax calculation for any municipality is complex and involves a number of factors not relevant to our analysis here. For more information regarding tax rates, see generally the Ulster County Real Property Data Report (available at For the purposes of our assessment, we used the same general tax equations but only applied the Board of Elections (EOE) costs to determine the effect of the legislation on each municipality. Next, we applied the total election cost for each municipality to both the County and the Town/City tax calculation to determine the effect on the individual per $100, 000 1n taxable value. 38 1. Attachmerjt'A 2015 Individual Tax Effect Municipality Individual Tax Increase (Decrease) per $100,000 Denning (1.60) Esopus (0.17) Gardiner 0.32 Hardenburgh 0.54 Hurley 0.14 Kingston Town (0.31) Kingston City (0.63) Lloyd 0.29 Marbletown (0.11) Marlborough 0.30 New Paltz 0.44 Olive 0.44 Plattekill (0.22) Rochester 0.24 Rosendale 0.17 Saugerties 0.43 Shandaken 0'99 if Example:.4 Wmvarsing Shawangunk 0-38 resident with $100, 000 in i Ulster (0.23) taxable value will have a tax 3 Wawarsing 5 (24.38) i. bill that is about $24 lower Woodstock 5 0.16 i as a result of the change. As illustrated in the chart above, the assumption of costs by the County has differing effects amongst the municipalities. While each municipality?s budget is clearly assisted by the direct cost savings, individual taxpayers may exPerience either an increase or decrease based on the movement of these costs from the Town/ City to the County budget. Municipalities are affected by the legislation differently clue to differences in BOB costs in relation to the individual municipality?s taxable value. For information regarding the Board of Election costs associated with each municipality and taxable and equalized values, please see Exhibit A. For example, in the Town of Wawarsing prior to the new legislation, the entire cost of elections in 2015 would be allocated among the taxable property values in Wawarsing as follows: 2015 Election Costs: $25 920.92 $100 000 $75 38 {For every 310015112 taxable value, ii Wawarsing Taxable Value: $34,3 85,323.00 the Wawarsingproperty owner i would pay $75 to cover election $75.38 per $10 0,000 in taxable value costs usmg the prevzous model. i In 2015, the election costs will be applied to the individual taxpayer in two components: (1) the Town portion representing two-thirds of the Wawarsing election costs, and (2) the County portion representing the total of election costs assumed by the County. 39 Attachment A The portion of election costs still being paid by Wawarsing will be applied at the Wawarsing Town taxable value, while the portion assumed by the County will be applied to all County residents, using the equalized taxable value for Wawarsing. Town Portion of Election Costs: 2015 (Year 1) Election Costs Paid by Wawarsing $17,280.61 $100 000 $50.26 Wawarsing Taxable Value: $34,385,323 $50.26 per $100,000 in taxable value Count! Portion of Election Costs: Dollar Share of County Assumed BOE Costs*: $135.91 $100 000 $031 Wawarsing Equalized Taxable Value: $1 6,787,7 85 .5 1 a $0.81 per $100,000 in taxable value *The Dollar Share of BOB costs apportioned to Wawarsing is determined by taking the total BOE costs assumed by the County in 2015 and multiplying it by the proportion'ofWawarsing?s equalized value in relation to the total County equalized value . ii For evety $100k1'n taxable value, the Total 2015 Election Costs: 5} Wmvarsingproperg: owner will now pay sl i $51 to cover election costs as a result of ii the new legislation. Town/City County Total l' o\ ?0 $50.26 $0.81 $51.07 in BOE costs per $100,000 in taxable value With this legislation, a resident from Wawarsing will be subject to only $51 in BOB costs per $100,000 in taxable value as opposed to $75, resulting in a $24 savings per $100,000 in taxable value for Wawarsing residents. V. Estimating Future Effects In an effort to estimate the future ?nancial impacts resulting from this policy, we completed our analysis for 2016 and 2017 using base year ?gures to illustrate the effect of the increasing absorption of costs by the County. With the arching consideration 'that election expenses are affected by a number of different factors, including significant annual variance due to the magnitude and frequency of certain elections being held in a given year that may affect voter turnout, our estimates on the future impacts of this legislation are subject to change. The data contained herein has been provided to us by the Ulster County Board of Elections and the Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency. NOTE: This report has been amended based on actual numbers provided by Board of Elections 40 i Attachment A 2016 Estimate based on Actual 2015 Expenditures lndividuai Tax lnc'rease Municipality Total Budget Savings Denni New Pa Olive Plattekill Rochester Rosendale - ndaken Ulster . .. . . 7-. .- . 2017 Estimate based on Actual 2015 Expenditures Municipality Total Budget Savings Individual Tax Increase 75 71 Marbletown New Paltz Olive Plattekill 41 f? 5. Attachment A Exhibit A 2015 Board of Election Cost and Taxable Value 2015 BOE Costs and Taxable Value . Town/City Taxable County Taxable Equalized Value 2015 BOE Actual Value Value Costs 27 406.00 27 00 75 469.00 Gardiner 727 71 Harde .42 Hurl Municipality 467 702.00 927 .00 43.00 670.00 677 .00 748.00 767 691.00 153.00 677.00 - 714.61 787 785.51 454.00 42 . . 5,5333.atList of Comptroller's Reports Publicly Available on the Website as of June 28, 2016 Attachment - . 'e?'df?Ng?m?'I'I?rFMeTI' Rep art Baselrne Report March 2009 _Internal Controls Baseline Report Asurvey of Ulster County Government's Compliance with the New York State Standards of Internal Control Egg?: UCAT Casir Collection Report May 2009 Ulster Courity'Area Transit (UCAT) 11110842131108 Audit--: 2009-006 511412009 . Report . - :?di?f DSS Report August 2009 Ulster County Department of Sacral Services Medical Assistance 2009-005 812812009 0? (Medicaid) Spend- Down Program Audit Report Ill/0742131108 Lil-lif- Meals on Whefe1ls Report October 2009 Ulster County SeniorNutrition Programs Congregate Meals 2009-008 1013012009 . HomeDelivere'd MealsAudit Report 1/1108-7131109 - - "4 - 5 {$311 DSS Services Report May 2010 Ulster CountyDepartment ofSocial Services Medical Assistance 2010-009 51712010 (Medicaid) Spend-Down Program 11111094131110 Audit Follow- up Report {guilt-?85! CountyHealtiI Insurance Benefit Report - October 2010- Ulster CountyHealterene?t Dependent Eligibility A'udit 61612014 ?ia Membership Audit March 2011 Membership Audit 20105201 1 311/201 1 URGENT Law Enforcement Program Report September 2012 URGENT Program Report ofExa'mination 912812012 Community College Chargebacks Report November 2012 Community College Chargebaclr Payments Report of 1111512012 =90 Examination - College Year 2011-2012: 91111158131112 Payout ofEmployee Accrued Time Report . Separation Payouts Repair of Examination 121312012 Procurement Credit Cards Report April 2013 Review oftlre Ulster County Procurement Card Procedures 411112013 1545:? Child Care and Development Block Grants Report j- . - 'v - May;2013 Ulster CourityDepa'ronent of Sacral Services Review of the - - 51112013 an 5. - Child Careand DevelopmentBlock Grant - - Hotel Bed Tax Credit April 2014 Ulster Countys Hotel/Motel Room Occupancy Tax Review 312112014 gif- Salary Comparison .'JI_Ir're 2014 County Salary Comparison. 612312014- - - Health Bene?t Report June 2014 Ulster County Health Bene?t Dependent Eligibility Audit: 61612014 Procurement Audit Report .- June 2014 Ulster CountyPurehasing DepartmentAudit of Procurement-17" 61312014 wt. .. . . 5:2: IDA Practices Report October 2014 A Study of the Impact and Best Practices forIndustn'al 101712014 a0 Development Agencies .3 County Fuel Management Repoit March 2015- Wriglrt Express Gas Card Program Revlonr . 313112015 . it? Tax Lien Foreclosure Report June 2015 Ulster County 2015 Tax Lien Foreclosure Report undated :?szkg' .Comput?rf?quipm'erit IriveoronAudit - -: $11329}? . Review of Internal Controls 'dverlT Equipment . . 11282015 ., ?if: O'Connor Davies Independent Accountant Report July 2015 O?Connor Davies Independent Accountant Report on Applying 61512015. 3? Agreed Upon Procedures to Comptroller's Of?ce :13? - PEARApplication Aildlt?j "l "5 :2 September2015 Department ofSociall Servrces REAP Program Application 912112015 .. Review Follow Up on 2014 Audit Findings October 2015 Follow Up on 2014 Audit Findings undated Fig?- 3?54? EOE Election gpgenepb?n 7, 3'7: ?f December-2915 Ulster of Electrons Annual Report 7.71.9 Fig c101 1211512015 - -i - .- - {nigger ridge CoungIAsmmIng the Car]; of Elections fro -- .. :7 Lac-aim (151.. rater") [01.5. dIrecled by an. 33510-1391 . .. . 11/18/14]: Contract Compliance December2015 Review of Contract Compliance 1212812015 -- 5 Understandmg theUlster Countyde Tax If: . _February 2016 Understanding the Ulster. County Sales Tax j, 5. February 2016 32? Cash Receipts Audit March 2016 Audit of Internal Controls Over Cash Receipts 311512016 fog-st? Colleen Chareebacks A .Couhty's Snake forits Commumty -'Apn'12016 - College Chargebaclts A County's Share for Its Communlty 4113/2915 1 31:: Sales Tax Revenue and Disbursement Audit April 2016 Sales Tax Revenue and Disbursement Audit 411812016 Electric Car Stations Usage Report May2016 3 .7 Electric _Car Chargers: The Who, What, and Where of Usage 51412016 i" dim! Probation Department Audit of Internal Controls over ReceIpt May 2016 I Prdbation Department Audit of Internal Controls over Receipt A 512012016 Pa? and Disbursement ofRestitution and Disbursement ofRestitution the Ulster County Sales Tax Agreement 'jMay2016: .5 . unfurled; - undated PublicProperty Auction Outconie' June2016 Public Property Auction Outcome 61112016- po 43 Attachment 8 Total Debt Senate Report May 2010 '1?otal Public Debt Outstanding' rn Ulster County's 75 Municipal May 2010 Taxing Districts 1:335 Future ofthe UCRRA Report February201_1 The Fpture of the Ulster Qounty Resource Recovery Agency - 2011-002 21241201 1 Planning for Success or Failure? . -.2 12:1? Elemmc'r'me and Attendance Praiecrnevrew March 2011 Time and Attendance Project Review? Planning and 2011-1101 317/2011 Procurement 3:33? Bank Reconciliation 391105 "July20111 . - - Bank Reconciliation Status Report July 20]] mt" Assisted Counsel Report August 2011 [Hater CountyAssigned Counsel Report 2011-009 August2011 _Bank Account Report December 2011-2 Restricted Donation Funds; DSS Commissioner?s Bank Account 2011310 Decernb er_2011 - -. --Report - 333:? Bank ConlIr]rmairon Report 2012 Report on Bank Accounts Held undated - gig?? County Wide Property Tax Assessment Report . June 2012- Assessment _Rep_or_t- Consistency,- Con?dence and Cost-Sawogs . June2012 2. . . . . - 'nrroirglr County-WideAssessing A a F5931 311655 '1'est August 2012 Fiscal Stress Monitoring- A Report on Ulster County's Fiscal 111212012 . - Condition Under the Of?ce oftlre New York State Comptroller?s Proposedr Fiscal Stress Monitoring System :35??ng Tax Collection Report :August 2012 2- _Tax Collection Report - - Aug?? 2012 lag?? Con?dential Funds Report November2012 Con?dential Funds Review January 1, 2012 through November 10212013 30, 2012 15mg? TOWNS Property Tax - :s - - a February 2013- Relevy Report for Selected Tomrs? Towns of Hardenburglr, New . 212512013 - Palt?r, Olive, and Saugertiestr sales during 2011 and 2012; RelevyAn'rbunt t'o the 2013 Town arid County'I?ax Bills.- mil?? Property Tax Foreclosure Report April 2013 Ulster County 2013 Tax Lien Foreclosure Report 41112013 33:? School Tax Collection: 2012-2013 Apnl 2013 - 2012-2013 School Property 'i?ax_ Collections . 419R013 - Emir? Wholly Exenipt Property Report December 2013 Wholly- -Exernpt Properties- What Do They Cost Ulsler County 12/31/2013 i Tax Payers? . Eggtf'k. E. Property?l?ax - Apn12014 Ulsler C6uhty2014 Tax Lien ForeclosureReport - Mild?!? County Salary Comparison Report June 2014 County Salary Comparison 512312014 2:38 . qml?b' S_Pending Tracker duly 2014- July 2014 County Spending Tracker 8/20/2014 3:33? County Spending Tracker August 2014? August 2014 County Spending Tracker 911012014 32:11:? Caunty Spending Tracker I. September2014 Septemb-er2014 County . . 1011412014 3. $353? County Spending Triicker October2014 October 2014 County Spending Tracker 1112512914 art-169:8 Clothing Donation'Bin snap SliotRepoitj' - ?4 December2015 Snap Shot ofLocal Clothing Donation Bins 'f .'5"1211412015 County Spending Tracker January2016 Claims Auditor?s Year on Review- 2015 County Spending 113112016 - Tracker {511335. Ga's'i?ari Report 3: Mar'clr 2016 GasTax 1 313012016 5mm? Not For Pro?t Snapshot Report April 2016' 2016 Not-for?Proiit Snapshot Review 412512016 . Auchon Slated for April 2001 .3 418R016 Food Violation Report May2016 Food Violation Snap Sirot May 2015 Not-Foi-Pro? ?Gateway snapsnorzc - .1 ?*"513115 . j: 3rd Quarter Annual Report. . 553-35 3 . 2011-00? "31.2312311- 4th Quarter Annual Report 2010 Quarterly Report: Fourth Quarter-2010 2011-003 31291201] $51.31! j;__ls_tQuanerAnnua1Repon _20_1_r_ QuarterlyReport First Quarter2011 zorr-ous 335151911031 _7 lg?b 3rd QuarterAnnual Report I 2011 Quarterly Report: Third Quarter 2011 2011-00X 1111712011 my QuarterAnnual Report . 201,3}. . '_I_he QuaItErin Revrew' _Ist Quarter2013 i a? Ext? 2nd Quarter Annual Report 2013 The Quarter' tn Review: 2nd Quarter2013 811912013 may: are '3 3. - 44 ram? List of Comptroller?s Reports Publicly Available on the Website as oflune 28, 2016 Quarter Annual Report 2013 Quarter Annual Report - 2014 Quarter Annual Report I 2014 Quarter?nnual Report . a 2014 Quarter Annual Report . 2014 lst-QuarterAnnuaI Report 2015 Quarter Annual Report (Ulster CountyFiscal Stress 2015 QuarterAnnual Report (Fund Balance) . 2015 Quarter Annual Report 2015 quarter-Annual Report - 2016 Quarter Annual Report - 2016 fauna Home Vehicles Report 2013 xpendanm Quarter in Review: 4th Quarter 2013 30, 2014 - 1st Quarterin Review 2014 I?June 30, 2014 -2nd Quarter 2014 . l?Septenrher 30, 2014 3rd Quarter2014 401 Quarter Annual Report Audit Quarter2015 January 31, Ulster County Fiscal Stress Assessment: 2nd Quarter 2015 - July 2015 Balance: 3rd Quarter 2015 - October 30, 2015 and Expenditures: 4th Quarter 2015 - January 29, 2016 Audit Report: 1st Quarter2016 January 1CountyFiscal Stress Assessment: 2nd Quarter 2016 June 2016 . Use ofTalre-Home Vehicles: January I. 2012 through 31, 2012 The report available from this link is the same as the June 2014 report titled "Ulster Cormeeafllr Bang?! Dependcn! Eligibiliov Audit". No report from October 2010 was available. 45 Attachment 8 1213152013 . 4/30/2014 6.3012014 9130f2014 3.8110015 73112015 1013012015 ?292016 3131/2016 6BDI2016 4140013 2? In.? all-.n Emma? mama mans?mag? .5 22% am . Recalculatlon of Figures Presented In Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Financial Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (lstYear Phase-tn) The report prepared for the County Legislature and County Executive in compliance with Resolution 404 oi'November 18, 2014 reg the County is grossly inaccurate in its calculations, and is therefor misleading for any reader oftlie report. There are errors in many of the numbers presented, the identi?cation ofthc data presented, and the manner in which they are used in calculations. They are detailed below. It should be noted that the calculations for the example town, Wawersing, were the most egregiously wrong and lead to incorrect conclusions as a result. arding actual bene?ts and/or impacts oftlie three year phasc~in plan for the assumption ot?election costs by . . . - mph-nui?szpresente ,LGoirecte Diligence 7,967.02 (0.00) 4,050.57 818.51 5,571.95 882.05 20,097.95 5,355.10 0,545.37 3,775.72 7,275.68 4,496.39 6,733.40 4,403.25 3,089.91 12,134.29 3,700.95 6,171.94 12,524.90 8,6 40.3 I 8,524.22 . 0.00 Hardenburg Hurley Kingston Town Kingston City Lloyd Marbletown Marlborough New Paltz Olive Plettelcill Rochester ?igertics Slia?ngunlc Ulster Woodstock 3 3 5,571.95 .5 - 882.05 (0.00} 20,764.61 3 (666.66} 3 .ii? 8 3 5? 5,355.10 8,545.37 3,775.72 7,275.68 4,496.39 6,733.40 4,403.25 3 0.00 3,089.91 3 - 12,134.29 5 0.00 3,700.95 3 (0.00) 6,171.94 (0.00) 12.524.90 - 8,640.31 8 0.00 8,524.22 8 (0.00) 137.096.40 5 (666.66) (0.00) 0.00 . ?identi?ed on invoices as ?County Assumes 1/3 Election Costs (Rose. No. 404)?. Attachment . Recalculatlon of Figures Presented in Ulster County Board of Electlons Annual Report: The Financial Impact of the the Costs of Elections from Localltles list Year Phase-tn) Attachment IV. Direct Dollar an Individual Taxpayers a. Understanding the Tax Rate For the Connor. lpresente .. Term/City Equalized Total County General at Taxable Value 3 Share ofConnty Charges Total County Equalized Value Charges "rug. l. Kin. Town/City Equalized Apporlionment Taxable Total County General Value . Charges Share ot?County Charges Total County Equalized Apportionment Value 5; Share eofCeunty Charges 2: mm County Tax Rate (applicable to that municipality) Town Equalized Value {aorre?ct?' 3 Share ot?County Charges L000 County Tax Rate (applicable Town Taxable Value . 10 1h?! municipality) (unequallzed) 49 11E. ?4 Hr: .?frl-xxtiz?tee?z Recalculatlon of Flgures Presented in Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Flnanctal Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Electlons from Localltles (lst Year PhasEnln) Attachment 9351' ?1 810.4000 .- 0 Denning' (1.60} lem'uce . 0'24 Esopus (0.17) 0.04 Gardiner 0.32 0.04 Hardenburg 0.54 0.07 Hurley 0.14 0.03 Kingston Town (0.31) 0.03 Kingston City (0.63) 0.09 Lloyd 0.29 0.04 MorbietoWn (0.11) 0.04 Marlborough 0.30 0.04 New Fall: 0.44 0.30 Olive 0.44 0.40 0.04 Pieuekill (0.22) (0.26) 0.04 Rochester 0.24 0.20 0.04 Rosendule 0.17 In 0.13 0.04 Saugerlle: 0.43 0. 05 0.38 Shenanlten 0.99 0.70 02.9. 0.33 0.19 0.19 Ulster (0.23) (0.29) 0.06 Wmenrsing (24.38) (2. 3 4) (22. 04) Woodstock 0.16 . 0.12 0.04 . Witt-T? l2?As Aspt?ls?nteii.? i A resident $100,000 in taxable I value will have a tax bill that is about $24 lower as :1 result of the change. hush L. 'n'Jo Bold Rates below 30% Italic I: Town will: Village Correct: Shaman-4 Dg?ewnce (1.27} 0.04 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.30 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.18 0.81 0.04 0.34 (0.25) 0.02 (0. 04} (24. 34) 0.12 0.04 Example: A Wewnrsing resident with $100,000 in market value will have a tax bill that is about 4 cents lower as a result of the change. Example: A annrsing resident with $5,681,818 in market value ($100,000 in taxable value) will how: :1 tax bill tlirit is about $2.34 lower as a result ot?tlre change50 For example. In the Town ?TlT'lr'lf'W? . oun- 2015 Election Casts: Waworsing Taxable Value: $75.38 per 3100.000 in taxable value .- The portion of election costs still being paid by Town Portion ot'Eleetian Costs: "Ass resen 2015 (Year 1) Election Costs Paid by Wawarsing . (2I3): anarsing Taxable Value: $50.26 per 8100.000 in taxable value County Portion green-mamas" 3.15.5. resente x. t?Eleettan Costs: 30315? Dollar Share ot?County Assumed BOE Costs?: Wawarsing Equalized Taxable Value: $.81 pet-8100.000 tn taxable value ?The Dollar sum areas com apportioned to a determines! um: one call: "mm: by the County in ants and u; 5611. =32: 2. ?-71 ?sore-Pr. w? . wm. . prior to the new ?l?t?fnx?m Recalculatlan of Figures Presented in Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Financial tmpaot of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (istYear Phase-In) . -orre?eted: m. wit-bar'n'. 5.2-: 1:3. 1.1201322?. DWI-otter.- 825.920.92 $100,000 $75.38 325.920.92 2: $100,000 $139.87 ($64.49) 834.385.323.00 818.531.492.00 $139.87 per Sl00,000 in taxable value ($5,681,818 in market value) . on . 32532092 emanadm?nrk'etvaiuc "$2.46 318.531.492.00 .. . . 3. ?9359. 11.3 817380.61 $100,000 $50.26 517380.61 $100,000 $93.25 ($42.99) 830.385.323.00 318.531.492.00 - - $93.25 per $100,000 in taxable value in market valuex8100.000 market value 317.280.6'1' $1.64 818.531.492.00 . ohm-r. . d5. :r Dollar Share of . County Assumed BOB $135.91 $100,000 . 80.81 Cosls?: $8.095.l2 at $100,000 $44.28 Wawarsing Taxable 816.787.785.51 Value: 818.280.265.00 Dmreaee ($43.47) $44.28 per $100,000 in taxable value ($5,681,813 in market value) by the proportion \?ulueln relallon to thetotll Counlyeqttulhezl \?ulue - - - - "33.69.51.xSi00.000 market oalue Q. 318.280.265.00 "The Dollar Siam: costs appanieaal to Watt-auto; is detonated hyteltiag the total DOE eon: assumed by the County in 2015 (?31.096400 and multiplying It by the propenlan ol'Watvenlag's equailzu! value In relation to the total County equalize! value (S $0.78 Attachment 51 Recalculatlon of Figures Presented in Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Finanelal Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (lstYear Phase-in) .Tolal 2015 Election Costs: 'l'ownfCity $50.26 Town/City $93.25 $44.28 $137.53 in BOE costs per Sl00.000 taxable value ($5,681,818 in market value) For every Si 00k taxable value ($5,681,818 in market value), the Wewarsing property owner wiil now pay $137.53 to cover election cosls as a result oftlte new legislation as compared $139 87 rt. - . - - .-.-. .m . ..4. .. .. . 1, County Tom. .. .. ., 50-73 $2.42 in 1308 costs per3100,000 market value ninety $1.64 For every $100k in market value, the Wawarsing property owner will now pay $2.42 to cover election costs as a result ofthe new legislation as compared with $2 46 Without it Ii. . With this legislation. a resident from annrsingx will residents. in Corrected rue-.. With this legislation, resident from Wawars . . . 4 .. . 4 l?llI-v-le-ri. . .4. log will be subject to only: 0138 in .BOE. cost per $100,000 in taxable value as opposed to $140, resulting in a 32 savings per $100 . .. . .000 in taxable value for Wawarsing residents. a resident ?'om Wawarsing will he pay virtually the same for BOB cost per $100,000 in market value, resulting in no savings for $100,000 in market value for Wawarsing residents With this legislation. Attachment .R 52 Lyraser'it?? Estimatin; Future Effects Recalculatlon of Figures Presented ln Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Flnanctal Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Locallttes(1stYear Phase-In}. If 3.340.505, 15,934.05 Gardiner 8,101.14 1,637.01 ?denburg Hurley 11.143.90 Kingston Town 1.764.11 Kingston City 40.195.89 Lloyd 10.71020 17,090.74 Marlborough 7.551.45 Pall: o; 14.551.36 Olive 8.99237 PlanekilT 13,466.79 Rochester 8.806.49 Rosendale 6,179.81 Sanger-lies 242268.57 7.401.91 12.343.89 Ulster 25.049.80 merm?ng I 7,280.61 Woodstock 17,048.45 .. Dennint! 3..340 50 Esopus 15,934.05 Gardiner 8.101.144 Hordenburg 1.637.01 Hurley 11,143.90 Kingston van 1,764.1 1 Kingston City 41.529.23 Lloyd 10.710.20 17,090.74 Marlborough 7.55 1.45 New Poll: 142551.36 01ch 8.992.77 Pluttcki?lt 13,466.80 Rochester 8.806.451 Rosendaic 6.179.82 Sangarllus 24263.5 7 7.401.91 12.343.89 Ulster 25,049.80 17.280. 6! Woodstock 1 7.04 3.45 Totni 11.74.192.79 Attachment 53 resentedm- . .- 355'? I. Etta? ism . Recalculatlon of Figures Presented tn Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: . The Flnanelol Impact of the the Costs of Elections from toeallties list Year Phasedn) - .. . ?1:1 Dunning 5.010.75 Esopus 23.901.07 Gardiner 12,151.71 2.455.52 Hurley 16.75.85 Kingston Town 2,646.16 Kingston City 60393.84 Lloyd 161065.30 Marbletown 25.636.11 Marlborough 11.327.17 New Pair: 21,827.04 Olive 13.489.16 Plattekill 20.200.19 Rochester 13.209.74 Rosendoie 9.269.72 36.40286 11.102.86 18.515.83 Ulster 37.574.70 25,920.92 Woodstock 25.572.67 Garret: .13? i. Dcnning Esopus 23.901.07 Gardiner 12.151.71 l-lnrdonburg 2.455.52 Hurley 16.715.85 Kingston Town 2.646.16 Kingston City 62393.84 Lloyd 16.065.30 Marbletown 25.636.1 1 Marlborough 11,327.17 New Poll: 21.82204 Olive 13.489.16 Plattckill 20.20 0.20 Rochester 13209.74 Rosondale 9,269.73 Sanger-lie: 36.40286 1I.102.86 18.515.83 Ulster 37.574510 25,920.92 Woodstock 25.572.67 Tomi 411.289.19 Attachment C, 54 201 Exhibit A 5 Board of Election Cost and Taxable Value venom?? Ampmsentedt-te. hi Municipality TownICltv Taxable Value Denning 27.316.406.00 Recalculatlon of Figures Presented in Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report: The Financial Impact of the County Assuming the Costs of Elections from Localities (lst Year Phase-En) nun- - ?no - Caun Taxable Value Eguallzed Value 2015 3015 Actual Cost_s_ 27.132.824.00 151.268.30m 5.010.75 Esopus 801.868.255.00 793.349.877.00 808.080.469.00 23,901.07 Gardiner 727.157.154.00 724.386.634.00 788.101.533.33 12.151.71 Herdenburg 106.250.422.00 106.035.936.00 171.270.277.42 2,455.52 Hurley 815.077.129.00 801.542.361.00 816.272.612.00 16,715.85 Kingston Town 76.665.965.00 76.104.534.00 79.435.434.87 2,646.16 Kingston City 1,383,517.084.00 1,374,720,831.00 1.394.813.953.00 60,293.84 Lloyd 1.006.821.727.00 1.006.127.217.00 1.023.467.70200 16,065.30 Marbletown 917.087.127.00 915.073.552.00 927.208.027.00 25,636.! I Marlborough 711.651.169.00 704.551.319.00 722.556.892.00 1 1,327.17 New Pam 1.130.459.2433!) 1.134.403.246.53 21,827.04 Olive 1.201,006.295.00 1.193.616,670.00 1.203.677.517.00 13,489.16 Plalteltili 643.149.236.00 639.521.748.00 655.148.835.00 20,200.19 Rochester 758.726.469.00 757.258.410.00 767.832.691.00 13.209.74 Rosendnle 471.185.653.00 471.211.153.00 480.758.677.00 9.269.72 3.034.063.301.00 1.640.242.088.00 1,678,072.249.00 36,402.86 Shandnken 162.714.300.00 162.259.233.00 653.828.696.00 11.102.86 183.834.580.00 179.272.531.00 828:49431461 18.515.83 Shawangunk Ulster 1,028,226.07 .00 l,016.871.936.00 1.241.803,448.19 37.574.70 34.385.323.00 18.280.265.00 16.787.785.51 25.920.92 Woodstock 1.305,630.225.00 1,296,748.555.00 l,308.384.454.00 25,572.67 .- . n? M- p. 9.. .te?ncct??d? Municipality Denning 27.316.406 15?: 3 ?1 .ss Countv Taxable Value County Equalized Apportionment Value 2015 HAVA Costs nor Invoice Subtotals 27.132.534 151.268.300 85.01 0.75 Esopus 801,868,255 793.349.877 808,080,469 323,901.07 Gardiner 727.157.154 724,386,634 788,101,533 312.151.71 Hardenburg 1 0 6.25 0.422 106.035.936 171.159.1152 $2,455.52 Hurley 815.077.1329 801,542,361 832.93 1.237 316.715.85 Kingston Town 76.665.965 76,104,534 80,258,600 82.646.16 Kingston City 1.3 83.5 17.084 1,374,720.83! 1,394,813,953 562293.84 Lloyd 1,006,821,727 1,006,127,217 1.023.467.702 $16,065.30 Morbictown 917,087,127 915.073.552 927.208.027 525.6361 1 Marlborogp 71 .651.169 704,551,319 722,556,892 $11,327.17 New Fall: 1,131,149,677 1,130,459.243 1.145.747.2751 521.827.1514 Olive 1.201 ?06,295 1,193,616,670 1.203.677.517T $13,489.16 Plattckill 643,149,236 639,521,748 655,148,835 $20,200.20 Rochester 758,726,469 757258.410 767,832,691 111 3,209.74 Rosendalo 471.185.6511 471.211.153 480.758.1577 $9,269.73 Samaria-.5- 1.653.176.258 1.640.242.0811 1.678.072.1249 336402.86 Shaadeken 162.714.360 19.250333 628.681.438 511.102.86 183.834.1580 179.272.531 828.494.7115 818.515.83 Shawangunit Ulster 1.028.226.071 1.016.871.9315 1 227,020,074 $37,574.70 18.531.492 18.280.265 1.055.722.784 525.920. 92 Woodstock 1.305.630.225 1.296.748.555 1.308.384.454 $25,572.67 Total 15.133.742.754 15.034.766.917 17.879.387.278 S411.289.19 Attachment Attachment ULSTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 1NAN CE REAL PROPERTY TAX SERVICE AGENCY PO. Box 1800, 244 Fair Street, Kingston, New York 12402 Telephone (845) 340-3490 Fax (845) 340?3499 THOMAS JACKSON Director of Real Property Tax Service Deputy Commissioner QfFinance BURTON GULNICK I R. Commissioner ofFinance Interdepartmental Memorandum - Date: July 15, 2016 To: Burton Gulnick, Jr., Commissioner of Finance From: Thomas Jackson, Director of Real Property Tax Service Re: Analysis of ACE report on' impacts of Ulster County assumption of election costs lwas tasked with conducting an independent review of a report prepared by Lisa Cutten, CPA, Director regarding the actual bene?ts and/or impacts ofthe three year phase-in for the assumption of election costs bythe County. This is intended to be a summary ofthe results of my review. The Ulster County Real Property Tax Service Agency was designated to perform the extension of property taxes by Legislative Resolution No. 74 on March 12, 1987. This function involves the apportionment of county taxes among municipalities, as well as calculating tax rates for towns and special districts. The methodologies utilized for these calculations involve the fundamental principles of factoring taxable values and equalization rates. The ACE report is based upon sound tax extension methodology and lam in complete agreement with the "Corrected" data presented in the report, as well as the descriptions of data and conclusions regarding impact. was able to replicate all of the report "Corrected? data through independent analysis utilizing the same tax extension worksheets used by this department for annual apportionment of county taxes and to calculate tax rates. Ulster County Website: 55 Attachment Selected Comptroller?s Reports with Serious Errors Report'?tl .w Ulster County Board of Elections Annual Report The Financial impact of the County Assuming ;-the Costs of Elections from Localities (lst Year Phase-in) [as directed by Res #404 dated 11/18/14] All of the calculations and conclusions are wrong by substantial amounts The Legislature requested this information for impact evaluation purposes related to funding decisions made affecting County ?nances, the County?s municipalities? ?nances and individuals taxpayers; and the numbers they were given are wrong; and if relied upon, would impact decision makers? understanding and conclusions. URGENT Program: Report of Examination March 1, 2007 through June 30, 2012 Failed to provide the information asked for The County Attorney requested and needed this information for resolution of issues related to City of Kingston?s withdrawal from the Comptroller is the only one with the authority to do an accounting; URGENT was the victim of a $77,000 embezzlement by a member of the City of Kingston Police Department per the Sheriff, which went undetected by the Comptroller in his audit of claims function; resolution of the URGENT withdrawal issues had to be negotiated without the bene?t a complete accounting due to the failure of the Comptroller to perform the requested work. Legislative Attendance Reported a legislator had a 10% attendance record when it was 95.8%, in addition to other legislators? attendance records errors Legislators? integrity was wrongly called into question and could have negatively affected their ability to be re-elected due to errors in facts presented. Ulster County Health Benefit Dependent Eligibility Audit Poorly designed approach taken in conducting audit resulting in litigation against the County and lack of conclusion about the dependents The morale of the County's workforce was negatively impacted by the manner in which this audit work was conducted; it resulted in the County Attorney investing resources defending . the Comptroller's actions; and ultimately the audit work did not answer the basic question about dependen?ls receiving health benefits because the method chosen for veri?cation may have been ill-conceived initially. 56 Attachment Selected Comptroller?s Reports with Serious Errors Confidential Funds Review January 1, 2012 through November 2.912 Failed to identify discrepancy of over $14,000 in cash on hand This high pro?le multi-agency operation, URGENT, which was the victim of embezzlement during this period has more than twice the cash on hand than the Legislature authorized at the date of the count. There is no identification of the source of these additional funds raising the question of where this money came from and why it has not been recorded on the books and records of the County who has acted as a fiduciary in the operation of the URGENT program. The extra money might have been from seizure of assets, refunds of expenses or some other unidentified source(s), all of which should have been properly accounted for and reflected on the County?s books and records. Ulster County Assigned Counsel Report Incorrectly reports potential savings of $2.7 million dollars based on incomplete information and assumptions Legislators, the County Executive the public are-given the impression that valid comparisons have been made between the costs of the assigned counsel program and the Public Defender's of?ce when they have not; the report does not take all of the data regarding either operation into account, nor does it address missing information, making it appear to be a valid comparison and assessment; governance decisions about programs and funding that do not take factual information into account might be made as a result. Fiscal Stress Monitoring: A Report on Ulster County's Fiscal Condition Under the Of?ce of the New York State Comptroller's Proposed Fiscal Stress Monitoring System incorrectly included bond anticipation notes as short term debt issued for assessing fiscal stress, resulting in a negative assessment that this factor is showing the greatest level of financial stress in Ulster County Legislators, the County Executive, bond rating agencies the public might heed this negative assessment about the County's financial position and its management when it is factually untrue as Ulster County has issued no such short term debt. Bond anticipation notes are used for short term ?nancing for capital projects, and not for operational cash flow purposes as their name suggests. 57 Attachment Selected Comptroller?s Reports with Serious Errors .- Wholly?Exempt Properties What Do They Cost Ulster County Tax Payers? Ef-sWhvait'Matters characterizes the Erroneously effect of wholly exempt properties as lost tax revenue of $32 million; erroneously states that each Ulster County taXpayer Would save approximately $736 per year if all wholly exempt properties were required to pay taxes Legislators and the public could believe this information and pursue legislative and other actions based on it, much of which would be in vain as many wholly exempt properties are in a class protected by the NYS Constitution; and even if they were all able to be taxed, the resultant savings for each taxpayer would never be $736 per year. Hotel/Motel Occupancy Tax 12/20/07?6/20/10 Alleged $2.3 million in revenue was uncollected Legislators, the County Executive the public were led to believe that the County was entitled to receive revenue which it was not due to being based on faulty assumptions and facts. 0n the Rise: Ulster County Sales Tax Revenue Reported that Ulster County's sales tax was reduced to 3% for most of 2014 The County's financial condition as well as that of all of the municipalities in the county would have been severely affected with a loss of between $13.5 and $26 million dollars in 2014 revenue if the statement were true. That did not happen. Instead, the reduction only applied to the months of December 2013 and January 2014, not most of 2014. if the misrepresentation was relied upon by a stakeholder such as a bond rating agency or investor, they might have made an incorrect and negative assessment of the County's ?nancial condition. 58 7 Attachment Selected Comptroller?s Reports with Serious Errors Error The Quarter in Review: Reported combined unreconciled The Legislature, the County Quarter2013 differences of $1,763,566 as of Executive, outside auditors and February 28, 2013 for Bank Reconciliations others are misled in being told this difference is a fault of the Finance Department; the reflection of this amount, characterized this way, does document that by de?nition, the bank accounts have not been reconciled by the Comptroller as required by the Charter. There was no problem with the County?s books and records; there was a problem. with the completion of this critically important element of the County?s internal control system the bank reconciliation. The amount of the unreconciled difference would be materiai to the County's ?nancial statements and would be a very serious issue for ?nancial reporting and possibly a fraud indicator, but there was no actual problem. ANY unreconciled difference greater than means the account(s) have not successfully reconciled. 3? Quarter 2014: September 30, 2014 July 1 Reported materially inaccurate ?nancial data for 2009-2013 for actual operating expenditures ($147 million too low), salary 8: bene?t expenditures ($115 million too low), and budget to actual comparison (off $151 million) Legislators, the County Executive the public and others are provided inaccurate ?nancial data about Ulster County?s results of operations over a 5 year period by the Comptroller which they might rely upon to make decisions. The Commissioner of Finance aierted the Ways 8: Means Committee on December 1, 2014 of the errors and provided them with corrected data and related conclusions about the financial condition of the County. Unfortunately, the inaccurate data remains on the Comptroller?s website so that an uninformed public and legislators who were not on the Ways Means Committee on December 1, 2014 might erroneously rely on the accuracy of the report for analysis and decision making. 59 EXHIBIT Newspaper Clipping about Upstate County Comptrollers testifying at Ulster County Budget Hearing 12/16/2016 ?x Ulster County budget hearing all about comptroller cuts The Daily Freeman Ulster County budget hearing all about comptroller cuts By William J. Kemble, Wednesday, November 16, 2016 KINGSTON Ulster County legislators have been asked to restore funding to the county Comptroller?s Of?ce in response to what comptrollers from other New York counties described as revenge cuts by Ulster County Executive Michael Hein amounting to $175,721. All ?ve speakers at a county budget hearing on Tuesday said the .1 proposed $695,221 budget for the independently elected of?ce would force the comptroller to conduct fewer investigations because of the i 20 percent reduction. Among the speakers was Albany County Comptroller Michael Conners, who said the Legislature should be glad to have someone who carefully examines government leadership. ?It is something that you have to look at that the Legislature has a representative that looks over the executive?s budget for you, helps you with the audit process and the functions of looking at expenditures,? Conners said. ?You want to make sure that?s going to be there. When you start to cut somebody by 20 percent of staff and no one else is cut by anywhere near that, it becomes clear that you?re looking at a targeted retribution.? Hein on Wednesday said the budget for the comptroller?s of?ce budget simply was too high. The [county?s former] nursing home, which used to be a $30 million portion of county government, with over 300 positions that the comptroller used to have to provide oversight for and other portions of the government overseen by the County Executive?s Office, are actually reduced by 40 percent,? Hein said by phone. ?So it?s not unreasonable to have something that resembles a proportional reduction in the Comptroller?s Of?ce.? He added: don?t believe any elected official should be above tightening their belt to protect taxpayers.? Onondaga County Comptroller Robert Antonacci told Ulster lawmakers Tuesday that he was subjected to similar cuts after announcing that pay raises had been illegally approved for his county?s legislators. He said he declined to certify payroll for the county and took lawmakers to court to overturn the salary hikes. ?My executive (Joanne Mahoney), without any doubt, [in] a revenge budget, tried to cut my staff 25 percent,? Antonacci said. ?She eliminated my entire payroll staff, wanted to take that oversight out of our of?ce. We fought hard and our Legislature returned those positions back to our of?ce.? Ulster County Comptroller Elliot Auerbach spent several minutes at Tuesday?s hearing introducing all seven staff members in his of?ce, noting that at least two will lose their jobs if the proposed cuts are allowed to stand. lvfreemancomlaeneralmews/201 ate= orintart 1I2 12/16/2016 x. Ulster County budget hearing all about comptroller cuts ?They are busy protecting the pi. interest from waste and abuse in people who understand that it is more cost-e?ective to prevent ?aud than to detect it,? he said. Following the hearing, Auerbach said animosity ?om Hein, a fellow Democrat, seems to be the result of comptroller reports critical of popular programs. think some of our audits seem to touch on sensitive nerves,? he said. couple of them have been pet projects of the sixth ?oor (Hein?s of?ce) one of them being the electric car chargers, one being the ethics and campaign ?nance recommendations that we made.? Auerbach said that, ?with the electric car chargers, we felt [it] was literally giving away taxpayers? money by allowing people to charge for free.? The Ulster County Regional Chamber of Commerce ultimately agreed to pick up the costs associated with the chargers. Auerbach said the Patriots Project, a Hein initiative to house homeless veterans, also is coming under scrutiny. ?We?re in the process right now of auditing, along with the state comptroller the homeless veterans? situation in Ulster County,? he said. ?While the Patriots Project has done some great things, I don?t know that it?s solved the entire homeless veterans problem in Ulster County. The Patriot?s Project saw 52 veterans go through it and not 52 individual veterans; there?s some recidivism.? The overall county budget for 2017 that Hein has proposed totals $324.82 million, which is about 1.7 percent smaller than this year?s Spending plan. The proposed budget has a property tax levy of $76.89 million, which is down 0.25 percent from the 2016 level. Related content ?Expected year-end Ulster County budget smlus not enough to balance 2017 plan,? Nov. 3, 2016 Ulster Countv budget for 2017 includes lower property tax law. iob cuts through early retirement incentives,? Sept. 30, 2016 URL: out-comptroller?cuts 2016 The Daily Freeman EXHIBIT Comptroller?s Budget Restoration Amendment AMENDMENT TO THE 2017 ULSTER COUNTY TENTATIVE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS Legislator Greene moves. Legislator Schwartz Berk Donaldson Fablano seconds: RESOLVED. that the 2017 Ulster County Budget ls hereby amended as follows: Change Executive Account Total Executlve Item Change Item Account DEPARTMENT NAME PAGE ACCOUNT NUMBER Recommendatlon ITEM DESCRIPTION Recommendation Amount To Amount To NET CHANGE mun?W Comptroller 30 1315.1082-1300.1375 -120,000 Payroll Reduction (120.000) 0 0 120.000 Comptroller 30 1315.1082-4900.4900 43.000 Contractual Exp Reductlon (13.000) 13.000 Comptroller 30 1315.1082-8500.8500 457.000 Bene?t Reducllon (67.000) 0 0 67.000 Account 6? 1990133146004660 750, 000 Misc Con?lual Expense 750.000 550.000 550.000 (200.000) Total Budgetary Change $0.00 7 Justi?cation: Moving funds from contingency to make the comblned amendments budget neutral In order to restore the Comptroller's budget without reductions to payroll. contractual expenses. and bene?ts. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: 0 NOES: EXHIBIT Chairman Gerentine?s Ways and Means Committee 2017 Budget Amendment for Comptroller?s Of?ce AMENDMENT TO THE 2017 ULSTER COUNTY BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS Legislator Gerentine moves, Legislator 5 seconds: RESOLVED. that the 2017 Ulster County Budget is hereby amended as follows: . Change DEPARTMENT NAME Comptroller - . PAGE Comptroller Comptroller Comptroller Comptroller Comptroller Comptroller ACCOUNT NUMBER 11115108243013.1300 Executive Account Total Recommendatlon 577.208 ITEM DESCRIPTION Regular Pay PL 13151002 PL 13151005 PL 13151006 PL 13151010 PL 13151015 Pl. 13151308 PL 13151404 Executive item Recommendation 577.205 79.287 77.827 64.682 30.185 68.684 64.105 52.052 0 69.576 60.879 63.398 55.473 Change Item Amount To 454.444 74.001 66.099 30 30 30 30 30 30 Contingent Account Contingent Account 1315.1082-8000.8000 1315.1082-8010.8010 1315.1082?8020.8000 1315.1082-1300.1375 1315.1002-4900.4900 1315.1082?8500.8500 92.989 44.443 140.848 (120.000) (13.000) (57,000) Retirement Health Insurance Payroll Reduction Cont. Exp Reduction Bene?t Reduction Account Amount To 454.444 NET CHANGE (122.764) 92.989 44.443 37.361 140.848 114.482 (120.000) 0 (1 3.000) 0 (67.000) 0 78.158 67 67 Justi?cation: 1990.1331-4600.4660 19901333114600.4660 75 0. 000 750.000 Earmarked Contingency Misc Contractual Expense 73.153 (19.666) 37.361 (9.391) 114.432 (34.952) 0 120.000 0 13.000 0 67.000 0 45.925 750.000 690.858 795.925 690.858 45.925 (59.142) - Total Budgetary Change I sonol This amendment reduces the the Comptroller statf to 35 hour weekly work schedules to match the standard hours of other county employees. deiunds PL 13151015. and moves half the funding for P1. 13151006 to contingency. The second half of the for PL 13151006111111! be moved back to the Comptroller?s of?ce upon Completion oi Audits as directed by the Legislature and to the satisfaction of the Legislative body.To achieve the budgeted Payroll. Contract. and Bene?t Reductions; remaining needed funds will be appropriated from contingency. ADOPTED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: NOES: . AYES: EXHIBIT 0 Additional News Paper Clippings NewPaleTims December], 20i6 - 23 Hugh Reynolds Peril harbor While marry willbo observing the 75th anni- versary of the japanese attack on Pearl Harbor next Wednesday, the Ulster County Legislature will be in session working out the ?nal details on county ex- ecutive Mike Hein?s proposed 20!? budget. Except for the county executive's preemptive launch on the county comptroller, it promises to be just another sunny morning. Like the events of December 7, 1941. a date that will live in infamy, executive budgets are steeped in secrecy, carefully plotted, and with many a surprise contained therein. Number One was Hein's slashing of comptrol- ler Elliott Auerbach's budget. A thorn in the execu- tive paw and perhaps a future rival, the three-term comptroller saw his budget cut by some 20 percent, for reasons the comptroller says have more to do with power politics than ?scal considerations. Auerbach to have been blindsided by the executive, who, after advising him in late September of the intended cuts, declined to supply attendant rationale. That came after the election via a 59-page report to the legislature. Though Auerbach called that document ?laughable," legislators seemed more impressed with it. Auerbach got his day in court, as it were, before the legislature's Ways and Means Committee two weeks ago. Not unsurprisingly, given his statisti- cal ?repower, the comptroller o?'ered a myriad of graphs and charts to demonstrate the ef?cacy of his department which, without ?ill staf?ng, he claimed would be unable to meet its constitutional obligation as watchdog of county ?nances. Be?tting an office populated with Cratchirs, Au- erbach detailed interesting statistics. One of eight counties with an elected comptroller, Ulster's bud- get per employee for that o?ice is among the low- est in the state. The comptroller's $70,000 average is about $30,000 less than the county executive's. Who knew? To say that Auerbach got a cool reception from Ways and Means would be an understatement. Wav- ing the 59-page report from the executive as though it were gospel, chairman Rich Gerentine all but con? ?rmed Hein?sjudgment. Auerbach's compromise, to cut his budget by about two percent, seemed to fail on deaf ears. Testimony ?'om ?nance director Burt Gulnick, a Help appointee, echoed the party line that the comptroller's workload had been considerably re- duced by Hein's establishment of an independent accounting department, called ACE, formed under We must stand together i retumed from a week at Standing Rock in North Dakota a little over a week ago. i traveled there to be in solidarity with my sisters and brothers who are ?ghting to stop Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). i went there because we are ?ghting a pipeline too - the Pilgrim Pipelines and we must stand together. This extraordinary moment in history remains vividly with me, especially as I have watched with horror these last few days, the escalated violence and brutality of the police response and even more powerful for me has been watching with awe the ex- treme courage and bravery of the water protectors who are determined not to allow this pipeline to be completed without doing all they can to stop it. Atthe resistance and prayer camp atStandingRock thousands of people are camped, many of whom have been there for months representing hundreds of Indigenous Nations and tribes from arms the continent standing in Solidarity for the ?rst time in over 100 years. There are allies from every corner of the world and from the struggles forjustice, protect- his control in 2013. is the place, it could conceiv- ably replace the charter'mandated comptroller, or so says speculation. At one point, Gerentine asked Auerbach to jus- tify his budget based on savings or wastage the watchdog had effected or uncovered. Obviously prepared for the question, Auerbach came up with a savings on a social-services con- tract. Appearing unimpressed, Gerentine then asked him to project savings going fonvard. An obviously ex- asperated comptroller called that impossible. He failed to press his point that the cop on the beat (the comp- troller) was a deterrent, and that it was impossible to manure something that hadn't yet happened. After the committee hearing, Auerbach groused about taking legal action based, he said, on the ex- ecutive's "arbitrary and capricious" reduction of his budget. itmight have been. Mean-spirited and sneaky, too. But the odds of a judge ruling that Hein exceed- ed his constitutional authority in evaluating a county department would seem to be slim. Hein exercises similar budgetary control over the independently elected sheriff, district attorney and county clerk, with nary a whimper from those alfected. It should be noted. however, that none of those departments are charged with watching over county ?nances. Legislators, as indicated at the Ways and Means Conunittee hearing, are not much bothered with these matters. The executive does his thing in terms of reward and punishment, and they do theirs, which comes down to getting along by going along. The outcome of this confrontation is almost entirely predictable. drove past that o?'ensive (and since removed) school-play promo sign on the lawn of Kingston High every day without a second thought. Like school off:- cials, was unfamiliar with the history of And Then There Were None with a noose as a symbol. The play, based on a 1939 Agatha Christie murder mystery, de- bored in this country with a racially charged title, later softened to Ten Little Indians. Somehow, this sordid history, including the current title, escaped school of- ing our water and air from Black Lives Matter to immigrant rights groups, to labor and faith groups, to environmental groups, radical activists and more. Upon entering camp, you see a wind-swept plain dated with thousands of tents, tipis, yurts, domes, structures under construction and a road lined with hundreds of ?ags from Indigenous Nations, from allies - even saw a bold flag from the Texas State Workers Union. 1 had the opportunity to spend time with ?'ierrds ?cials, but not so a horde of indignant web surfers. The play will go forward this weekend break a leg, kids! at the newly dedicated Wendell Scherer auditorium even as the controversy simmers. While refusing to ?nger administrative suspects, district o?icials soft~pedaled the embarrassing in- cident, calling it a "teaching moment? for staff and students. Indeed. One wonders if the next KHS play might be called ?Boneheads A Teaching Moment," starring a cast of clueless adults. Winding donor The hotly contested campaign for congress be- tween Republican John Faso and Democrat Zephyr Teachout ended not with a bang but a whimper; Faso stormed to a more than 27,000 plurality. And this one wassupposed to be close. Mid-October polls showed Faso with a surprising (for some) six-point lead, ?nally expanding to almost ten. Faso. having digested the handwriting on the wall, went into cruise control. ?i didn't run a negative ad for the last two weeks of the campaign," he told us during a recent visit to Kingston. ?My opponent stayed negative until the end," In fact, he didn't have to go negative. Negative ads are meant to bring down frontrunners. The results do suggest that Faso, 64, could be around for awhile. On paper a toss-up, the district has now elected Republicans in three consecu tive elections since the popular Chris Gibson came alongin 2012. This may seem blasphemous in some quarters, but i wonder if even the revered Maurice Hinchey could have bucked that tide. Democrat Hinchey, 78, retired in 2012 after ten terms in a much differently con?gured district. In politics as in war, hard lessons are learned in combat. Democrats have been twice soundly de- feated by ?elding left-leaning newcomers, however attractive and well-funded. Perhaps it?s time to seek homegrown talent. Faso, for one, will not allow any grass to grow under his feet, and the clock is ticking. Mall music I'm told by people who know their stuff that shop- ping malls are rated in three categories, A, and C. Going upriver, think Westchester, Poughiteepsie and the Town of Ulster. Hudson Valley Mall in Kingston, which is in receivership, falls somewhere between and D, ?dead." The buzz around local taxing authotiu'es with a keen interest in this outcome is that the once $66-million?assessed mail could sell for considerably less than its current $19?million assessment. The up- side is that it would be in the new owners' interest to market and improve the 35-year-old mall. There are no plans that I?ve heard for parking meters in the mall's vast parking lots. That's a Kingston thing. While hopeful of a positive outcome, local taxing authorities, like Ulster?s Jim Quigley, can only cringe as the other shoe hangs in the air, which is to say, further legal challenges for lower assessments based on sales price. from the Onondaga Nation and from the Oglaia Sioux - some elders are veterans of the struggles at Wounded Knee, Alcatraz and Akwasasnee. They told stories of those struggles and of their work over the last 40 years to ?ght for their treaty rights, for their land and water and their future generations. They laughed as they shared memories of those dif?cult battles and watched as their children and grandchil- drenjoined them in the struggle today to protect the water and now taking up the lead. ?We are still here Almanao?Weeisend every Friday morning. Sign up for theAlmanao Weekend newsletterand receive a brie?u on local arts and events delivered fresh to your inb ox EXHIBIT Ulster County Listing of CSEA Workers that currently work 80 hour work periods CSEA Employees 80 hours with similarjob classifcations to Comptrolier?s 80 hour staff Last Name First Name Job Class Description Pay Type Description Work Start Date Location Location Description Group/8U Start Date Hours Per Period Hours Per Day Annual Salary STOGK- ERIC f, .- -. . .05/01/ 2006 1420? 1? 33.3 CSEAHF 05/01/2006 2311.3} ROSS 012221.015:- . . - REGHOURLY. .-. 01/01/2009 1315? . 01/01/2009 . REG HOURLY.2.. 1315-: ., ., .. A WEREDYKIZ . ELIZABETH 27' SR AUDITOR REG ..05/07/2012 1315 3" - . 12/06/2010 1. 05/07/2012 . JOSEPH .: =5 AUTEMECIIZ - :73. 03/21/2006 1640 . CT R-GARAGE -CSEA "2 03/21/2006 )1 . . . :4 :409/15/ 2008 1640 CTRGARAGE 1? - If: f7. 3.: 1? GEORGE: AUTMECII REG-HOURLY .- "-01/31/ 2011 1640 - .1 .?09/15/2008 .. 01/31/2011 I 1.5 3545;437:312 REG 04/29/2013 1640 04/29/2013 3 5? - I ACCOUNTANT REG HOURLY 1. 5 :09/ 13/2010 4010? .. HEALTH CTR GARAGE . 5; 09/13/2010 '5 -. Q: 64,790.64 REG A 03/21/2006 iv. - 3 1742771128 .. . JODIIEW. REGHOURLY A . 01/01/2007 4010 . 4. ?'203/21/2006 L: :25 - ?01/01/2007 ,1 - REG 2201/04/2010 4310 68,862.24 05511., [01/04/2010 157,340.88 KROM- . .. ADM - 03/17/2006 3140? .V. . I i 03/17/2005 258,422.24 SNYDER DAWN 1:5. TRANS T-YP..- REG-HOURLY: 3140'," CSEA I: 03/19/2007 a ADMTAST 03/19/2002 '03/16/ 2006 1490 PW . i A. .- .. 03/16/2006 CASEWGRKER . - 06/05/2006 6010 58322.24 605802.56 GSEA . 5 -. -. 09/21/2009 6010 . SOC soc -.- .- est-55309.36 . 4. PR-SWE. . REG HOURLYE . 06/14/2012 6010'. . -. -. . :06/14/2012 DEGREGORIA: 3' REG . 5103/21/2006 6010 CSEA - i-i 03/21/2006 323309.92 WILLIS '1 SR 'l 9 03/20/2006 6010? .- 03/20/2006 ?65,709.36 REPOSA - I REG HOURLY. A 07/05/2011 5630 I. 07/05/2011 4 :3 1140;0683'2 BUTON ?3 'f 2? 05/26/2011 5630 1? UCAREAIR: I -. . 05/26/2011' [49,360.32 - i ELENA . AUTMEC II - - 03/21/2006 5630 UCAREATRE 7" - CSEA i- 4.350.070.24 If"? i .. 2 .: -. CLIFFORD Aurgmecn: REG 5. 06/16/2008 5630 .2 .. CSEA-: {05/16/2008 2? 5481441160 ALLEN - REG, HOURLY 11/10/2014 5630 UC AREA TR-fv . 1. CSEAE 11/10/2014 13911-70588 RARKHURST BRIAN AUT. MEC II REG HOURLY): If 08/24/2015 5630 UC AREA ,5 :1 24/2015 - {-413864540 UHALOE . if AUTJMEC il?: . 5630; - .0 CSEAI 3109/28/2015 - ?415,864.40 AKUS. JOHN. -. LD -, REG HOURLY ..03/21/ 2006 5630 {03/21/2000 - . 358142224 ALLEN JEREMY. LD . 41/10/2014 5630 -.- UG . 08/31/2015 3} 5 - $518,984.48 KIME DAVID J. DR- . 7 01/20/2015 6510 . ?01/20/2015 - ., A. 1. ?138356.56 CSEA Employees 80 hours Last Name First Name Job Class Description Pay Type Description Work Start Date Location Location Description Group] BU Start Date Hours Per Period Hours Per Day Annual Salary STOCK PARALEGAL - REG V3. . 05/01/2006 1420 05/01/2006 BERRYANN JEFF SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 03/21/2006 1410 CO CLERK CSEA 03/ 21/ 20 06 80.00 64,790.64 DERELLA AUDITOR. . . REG 3 01/01/2009 1315 01/01/2009 55?. 1:2: .2 . 49,819.68 69,843;60 - NANCY, . 1' .. . REG 12/06/2010 13153 .. -1 .-12/06/2010 WEREDYK .- . . ELEZABETH . 1 SR AUDITOR REGHOURLY 55, -: -?05/07?/2012 1315 .- 1- . 80.00 . 1 62,827.92 REG HOURLY . 03/21/2006 1640. cm GARAGE .: CSEAZIJ mower/20,12 '2 80.00 77.631384 AMODIOZ, 5- .: 09/15/2008 1640- . CSEA 1'09/15/2008 - 2- 49,360.32 - FISHER01/31/2011 1640 CTR GARAGE ch GARAGE .7 -. . 48,441.60 KROSLOWITZ. . MICHAEL: AUTMEC Ill?" REGHOURLYL . 04/29/2013 1640 . ~cssA-1; CSEA- i04729/2013 FLANNERY PATRICK EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 15/ 2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/2006 1~ -44,202.96 PHILIPP VICTORIA EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 16/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/ 2006 50,738.40 FIORE BRAD EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 16/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/ 20 06 50,738.40 51,552.72 RUSSELL JOHN EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 16/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/2006 55,164.96 ADSIT JAMES EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 16/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/2006 53,452.80 SMITH KATHY EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/25/2013 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/25/2013 51,552.72 QUICK LUANNE EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/16/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 16/ 2006 50,738.40 WINTERS JOHN EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/ 21/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 21/ 2006 51,552.72 BOUGHTON ROBERT EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/31/ 2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 3 1/ 2008 50,738.40 QUENT VICKIE EMSRDI REG HOURLY 04/30/ 2007 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 04/30/2007 RILEY ROBERT EMSRDI REG HOURLY 12/03/2007 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 12/03/2007 $0,738.40 ROMESSER LISA EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/03/ 2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/03/ 2008 50,738.40 BRAKER JASON EMSRDI REG HOURLY 03/31/2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/31/2008 49,736.16 QUIRK ROBERT EMSRDI REG HOURLY 08/11/2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 08/11/2008 50,738.40 FRICKE DANIEL EMSRDI REG HOURLY 05/28/2013 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 05/28/2013 50,738.40 ANZALONE SCOTT EMSRDI REG HOURLY 07/13/2015 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 07/13/2015 46,666.80 GAFFNEY MICHAEL REG HOURLY 03/02/ 2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/02/2008 44,516.16 DAVIS MICHAEL REG HOURLY 03/ 16/ 2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/16/2006 53,724.24 MCKENZIE ANTHONY REG HOURLY 10/23/2006 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 10/23/2006 55,290.24 CAFALDO ANDREW EMSRDII REG HOURLY 03/ 17/2013 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/ 17/2013 53,724.24 ROMESSER LISA REG HOURLY 03/03/ 2008 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 03/03/ 2008 $3,724.24 PASSANTE AUGUSTINE REG HOURLY 07/19/2010 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 07/19/2010 53,724.24 JOHOSKY CHRISTINA EM SR DTR REG HOURLY 08/15/2016 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 08/15/2016 52,722.00 MATHEASEN JOHN EM SR 0 TR REG HOURLY 11/30/2015 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 11/3 0/ 2015 40,214.88 40,214.88 BUBOLTZ WILLIAM EM SR DTR REG HOURLY 08/08/2016 3020 EMERG COMM CSEA 08/08/2016 NELSON . 1 ACCOUNTANT REG - - 09/13/2010 4010 . HEALTH . CSEA ..09/13/2010 40,214.88 PERRY, KELLY 71.1.; . REG HOURLY. 03/21/ 2006 4010. . 3. CSEA.- 03/21/2006 - .: 64,790.64 1743.71.28 ., .- 01/01/2007 4010 HEALTHS- CSEA _01/01/2007 . .. 568,862.24 NERONE JAMES PH NURSE REG HOURLY 03/17/2006 4010 HEALTH CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 65,709.36 PINE EDWARD SR ENG REG HOURLY 05/19/2006 5020 HIGWAY ENG CSEA 05/19/2006 94,732.01/04/2010 4310 --. CSEA- - 01/04/2010 257,440.88 JANET STD CM CO REG HOURLY 03/ 21/ 2006 4310 MH ADMIN CSEA 03/21/ 2006 88,071.84 MARTIN ANDREW MHS UNT LD REG HOURLY 01/01/2013 4320 MH PRG CSEA 01/01/2013 91,537.92 KROM ADM j" if3140;, CSEA . .03/1?7/2006 58,422.24 KRAMER-HARRISON SARAH CR VC COUN REG HOURLY 02/06/2012 3140 PROBATION CSEA 09/28/2016 61,721.28 REBECCA CR VC COUN REG HOURLY 03/ 20/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/20/2005 80.00 8.00 62,577.36 HIGLEY DARLENE CR VC COUN REG HOURLY 03/22/2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 22/ 2006 80.00 8.00 PISANO ANN CR VC COUN REG HOURLY 06/29/2015 3140 PROBATION CSEA 06/29/ 2015 80.00 8.00 64,874.16 LYONS SHARON CR VC COUN REG HOURLY {14/04/2011 3140 PROBATION CS EA 04/04/2011 80.00 8.00 54,288.00 FARRELL CHRISTOPHER PRB CL SUP REG HOURLY 03/22/2005 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/22/2006 80.00 8.00 68,798.08 CROOKSTON DIANE PROB AST REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION C5 EA 03/ 23/2006 80.00 8.00 84,918.96 SPRING KING HELEN PROB AST REG HOURLY 03/ 17/2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/17/2006 80.00 8.00 51,531.84 50,216.40 PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/17/2005 80.00 8.00 67,880.88 KLEIN LISA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/17/2006 80.00 8.00 JAN ET PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/23/2006 80.00 8.00 62,827.92 LAPP KIMBERLY PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 20/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 20/ 2006 80.00 8.00 67,880.88 KNIFFEN-HARRINGTON AMANDA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 369,843.60 BUSENER PATRICIA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 . 66,565.44 KELDER DAVID PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 - 64,790.64 BRONTOLI LINDA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 23/ 2006 80.00 8.00 . 66,565.44 . 68,862.24 SINGER MARGUERITE PROB OFF REG HOURLY 01/01/ 2010 3140 PROBATION CSEA 01/01/2010 80.00 8.00 . 65,709.36 AITKEN ANDREW PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/23/ 2006 80.00 8.00 LEWIS MARY BETH PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/17/ 2005 3140 PROBATION CS EA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 68,862.24 CRAFT PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/22/2005 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/22/2005 80.00 8.00 69,843.60 BROWN PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 22/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/22/2006 80.00 8.00 65,709.36 TYLER MICHAEL PROB OFF REG HOURLY 07/ 09/ 2007 3140 PROBATION CSEA 07/09/2007 80.00 8.00 - 68,862.24 GOODRICH SILVIA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 08/20/2007 3140 PROBATION CSEA 08/ 20/ 2007 80.00 8.00 . 64,790.64 HILL RHEA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 09/10/2007 3140 PROBATION CS EA 09/10/2007 80.00 8.00 64,790.64 - 64,790.64 OSG OOD DAVI PROB OFF REG HOURLY 10/22/2007 3140 PROBATION CSEA 10/22/2007 80.00 8.00 . 64,790.64 LANE KRISTINE PROB OFF REG HOURLY 12/10/2007 3140 PROBATION CSEA 12/10/2007 80.00 8.00 . 67,880.88 ROSEN AMANDA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 07/28/2008 3140 PROBATION CSEA 07/ 28/ 2008 80.00 8.00 MITCHESON IRMA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 06/27/2011 3140 PROBATION CSEA 06/ 27/ 20 11 80.00 8.00 64,790.64 GRECKE SUSAN PROB OFF REG HOURLY 02/24/2014 3140 PROBATION CSEA 02/24/2014 80.00 8.00 . 64,790.64 ZITER MELISSA PROB OFF REG HOURLY 05/19/2014 3140 PROBATION CSEA 05/19/2014 80.00 8.00 . 59,466.24 ATAN OV ARTUR PROB OFF REG HOURLY 02/02/2015 3140 PROBATION CSEA 02/02/2015 80.00 8.00 59,466.24 BRADY BRIAN PROB OFF REG HOURLY 02/23/2015 3140 PROBATION CSEA 02/23/2015 80.00 8.00 59,466.24 RICHARDSON MATTHEW PROB OFF REG HOURLY 06/ 08/ 2015 3140 PROBATION CSEA 06/08/2015 80.00 8.00 - 64,790.64 LYONS SHARON SR CV COUN REG HOURLY 04/04/2011 3140 PROBATION CSEA 04/04/2011 80.00 8.00 - 62,827.92 - 67,129.20 HAYES LECHELE 530300 REG HOURLY 07/ 24/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 07/ 24/ 2006 80.00 8.00 - 41,760.00 CORDARO CHRISTINE SR PRB AST REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 23/ 2006 80.00 8.00 DAW SANDRA SR PRB AST REG HOURLY 01/01/2013 3140 PROBATION CSEA 01/01/2013 80.00 8.00 59,403.60 BAKER CLAUDIA SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 12/05/2011 3140 PROBATION CSEA 12/05/2011 80.00 8.00 . 56,125.44 PISANO MARK SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 03/17/2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 - 73,184.40 JOHNSON WILLIE SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/ 17/ 2006 80.00 8.00 73,184.40 - 70,031.52 DOYLE DENNIS SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 23/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CSEA 03/23/2006 80.00 8.00 RYAN DANA SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 12/ 19/ 2010 3140 PROBATION CSEA 12/19/2010 80.00 8.00 - 74,165.76 '73,184.40 SCHMIDT TODD SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 17/ 2006 3140 PROBATION CS EA 03/17/2006 80.00 8.00 73,184.40 MCCABE MARCIA SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 01/02/2011 3140 PROBATION CSEA 01/02/2011 80.00 8.00 73,184.40 . 55-.7 a TRANS '5 REG HOURLY . A 03/19/2007 3140, - PROBATION, 03/ 19/2007 5 380.00 7 2,739,880.80 women-.3, ADM - 03/ 15/ 2006 1490 .55 . .-03/15/2005 tag: 60,00 .2800 358,422.24 SCHWARTZ GARY LEE SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 03/23/2006 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 03/ 23/2006 80.00 8.00 . 47,648.16 KNUFFKE MARTIN SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 05/ 19/2006 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 05/19/2006 80.00 8.00 - 48,504.24 COLON RICHARD SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 03/22/2006 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 03/ 22/ 2006 80.00 8.00 47,648.16 RENFROW RUSSELL SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 03/21/2006 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 03] 2 1/ 2006 80.00 8.00 50,801.04 FOWLER CHRISTOPHER SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 10/12/2011 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 10/12/2011 80.00 8.00 44,724.96 CARROLL MEAD PATRICK SEC GUARD REG HOURLY 12/15/2014 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 12/15/2014 40,214.88 DAVI 0 SR SEC GD REG HOURLY 03/ 23/2006 3110 SHERIFF CSEA 03/23/2006 56,188.08 - . 3 06/05/2006 6010- socsavc-v . 056.1221 06/05/2006 BRANDT ROBERT CH 55 INV REG HOURLY 03/21/2006 6010 SOC SRVC CSEA 03/ 21/ 2006 60,802.56 AMY - MAUREEN s: '5 09/21/2009 6010 9-1" SOC SRVC 1? CSEA- 09/21/2009 74,165.76 . 65,709.36 1? PR .7 REG HOURLY: 06/14/2012 6010? 1 soc 5va r? ?05/ 14/2012 KIERSTED WAYNE PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/17/2006 6010 SOC SRVC CSEA 03/ 17/2005 69,843260 LEIDER KAREN PROB OFF REG HOURLY 03/ 22/2006 6010 SOC SRVC CSEA 03/ 22/2006 66,565.44 ANDERSON BURGUNDY PROB OFF REG HOURLY 02/28/2011 6010 SOC SRVC CSEA 02/28/2011 67,880.88 7 :?ffa' Rscoamsc - .1 ?1 REG 03/21/ 2006 6010-1'7: 0312172005 z- 62,827.92 . REG :Li 03/20/2006 6010 . SOC ., :03/20/2006 1?3. 652,909.92 MCGRATH JAM ES SR PRB OFF REG HOURLY 09/17/2007 6010 SOC SRVC CSEA 09/17/2007 265709.36 1.151;.? .. ACC cum": 07/05/2011 5630.: UC 1. . CSEAT, . . 07/05/2011 . -j 70,887.60 BUTON. JENNIFER v.3, - ?i 05/26/ 2011 5630 .3 UCAREATR- V. 310,068.72 14936032 AUT-MEC II- 3 03/21/2006 5630] .. . . i5503/21/2006 1; 050,070.24 CLIFFORDH- Aura/15c uh: 3- is' REG HOURLY.- .5206/16/2008 5630 06/16/2008 ALLEN. ., JEREMY. . - MEC 5 REG REGHOURLYE. .25 11/10/2014 - UC mm - - i- 439,170.88 . AUTJMEC II 08/24/2015 5630 UC CSEA 08/24/2015 . - ., AUT MECII- - REG 09/28/2015 563013 .2. 0?0 09/28/2015 I 141,864.40 41,864?40 DACHENHAUSEN DANIEL BUS DISP REG 03/20/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/ 20/ 2006 45,748.08 DELLARUFFA STEVEN BUS REG HOURLY 03/20/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/20/2006 45,748.08 WOLVEN DIANE BUS REG HOURLY 03/ 22/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/22/2006 CONSTABLE SUSAN BUS REG HOURLY 04/13/ 2015 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/13/2015 46,604.16 CALIFANO WILLIAM BUS REG HOURLY 05/27/2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/ 27/2010 36,414.72 FARRIS CHRISTOPHER BUS REG HOURLY 04/08/2013 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/08/2013 38,982.96 ANABLE DAVID BUS paw/0 REG HOURLY 05/06/2013 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/06/2013 38,356.56 TAYLOR NANCY BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/20/ 2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/ 20/ 2006 39,504.96 HOUSE JACKIE BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/ 20/ 2006 5630 UC AREATR CSEA 03/20/2006 45,748.08 PLONSKI JEFFREY BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/20/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/20/ 2006 44,829.36 GRAHAM REXFORD BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/ 20/ 2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/ 20/ 2006 44,829.36 BEEBLE THOMAS BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/21/ 2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/21/2006 46,604.16 HARRIS LASEAN NA BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 05/27/2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/27/2009 46,604.16 ROWLES DOUGLAS BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/ 20/ 2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/20/2006 45,748.08 GRAY RAYMOND BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/20/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/ 20/ 2006 45,748.08 HADDEN BRIAN BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 04/20/2015 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/ 20/ 2015 47,919.60 GARCIA JOHN BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/ 02/ 2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/ 02/ 2009 36,414.72 BRYANT CARIA BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 12/24/2007 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 12/24/2007 43,680.95 CARSON STEVEN BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 08/14/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 08/14/2006 44,829.36 PATCHIN WILLIAM BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 04/22/2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/ 22/ 2008 44,829.36 CEBALLO DEIDA BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 06/03/2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 06/03/2009 44,829.36 HALMAGYI ANDRAS BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 01/28/2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 01/28/2008 44,829.36 TORRES ANTONIO BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/24/ 2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/24/ 2008 44,829.36 MARRERO RAYMOND BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 04/28/2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/28/2008 44,829.36 LIESE H. GARRETT BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 03/30/2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 03/30/2009 44,829.36 NEMER ANA BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 04/06/2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/06/2009 43,680.96 YONTA DOMINICK BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 05/ 1 1/ 2009 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/ 11/2009 43,680.96 43,680.96 RODRIGUEZ HERIBERTO BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 01/02/2011 5530 UC AREA TR CSEA 01/02/2011 DICKERSON LORRI BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 01/ 11/2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 01/1 1/ 2010 43,680.96 42,845.76 SCHRADER NICHOLAS BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 04/ 12/2011 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/1 2/ 2011 42,845.76 WEST KATHLEEN BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 05/ 24/ 2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/ 24/ 2010 40,548.96 YOUNGER PHILLIP BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 07/18/2011 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 07/18/2011 80.00 DAVIS BILLY BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 09/09/2013 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 09/09/2013 80.00 38,356.56 KENSCY JASON BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 09/30/2013 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 09/30/2013 80.00 36,414.72 HENRIQUEZ FELIX BUS DRIVER REG HOURLY 05/04/ 2015 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/ 04/ 2015 80.00 38,356.56 AKUS f- 1'335630 CSEA ?1031/21/2006 30:00 36,414.72 $8,422.24 21.. CHAMBERS :f LD AUTMEC A 3 11/ 10/ 2014 5630 08/31/2015 .. 180300 PT COORD REG HOURLY 04/05/2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/05/ 2010 80.00 60,802.56 CLOSE SANDY PT DISP TR REG HOURLY 11/20/2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 11/20/2008 80.00 SCHEFF PATRICIA PT PRC REG HOURLY 05/02/2008 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/02/2008 80.00 49,360.32 CALI FANO WILLIAM PT M815 CRD REG HOURLY 05/27/2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 05/27/ 2010 80.00 61,721.28 CERTOMA PAULA SR BS DISP REG HOURLY 09/11/2006 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 09/11/2006 80.00 59,654.16 OLIVIERI MICHAEL TR CRD AST REG HOURLY 04/26/2010 5630 UC AREA TR CSEA 04/ 26/ 2010 80.00 49,360.32 .7 VET SRV i 4; REG 01/20/2015 6510?? ., A 01/20/2015 48,441.60 [138,356.56 EXHIBIT Ulster County Comptroller?s 2017 Budget Request 2017 UC Comptroller's Office Budget Worksheet 1300 Regular Pay 1410 Overtime Pay 1440 Longevity Pay 2000 General Office Equipment 2220 Software 4025 General Office Supplies 4315 Professional Services Accounting 4580 Conference Related Exp 4590 Travel Related Expenses 4625 Memberships I 4635 Periodicals/Subscriptions 4660 Other Misc Contractual Below are appropriated by the Budget O?ice 8000 State Retirement 8010 Social Security. FICA 8020 Dental 8030 Health ins Buy-back 8035 Hospital Medical 8055 Optical Total 5?l 870i -551: ?In1 H. mun-.7655 . Ni'l' 02-6 2016 Budget .5 570742-00? ?plfril??'? 00935 i? Proposed 2017 use-?mu uni."- 576,825.00 3,750.00 ,4 1,50 3,000.00 10,000.00 6,750.00 1,000.00 2,175.00 1,058.00 10,000.00 058? 00 JXSJ?wnka {if-r" [?gaaiyt'u balmy:- 3133?:?3. $036,058.- hft-?l- lei-EH 2017 1300 2016 Budget l5 575,742.00 Account Activity Regular Pay Adjustments Title Comptroller Deputy Comptroller 75 Senior Auditor - 80 Senior Auditor 75 Director of Internal Audit Control - 7S Confidential Secretary - 70 Auditor - 80 Auditor - 80 2016 Amended Budget 2017 Budget Proposal 576,742.00 575,325.00] Begum Payroll Payroll 5 Payroll Payroll Payroll 5 Payroll Payroll Payroll 2016 Amount 101,709.00 79,592.00 77,632.00 67,896.00 64,930.00 52,252.00 69,844.00 62,887.00 m- 2017 Amount 101,319.00 79,287.00 77,827.00 68,684.00 64,682.00 52,052.00 69,576.00 63,398.00 1315 PMBIIHIIE ?ll/MI]! 13151001 13151002 CO DEP CMPT AUERBACH GALLO WEREDYK DEMARCO A BOUGHTON TORRES 13151005 SR AUDITOR 13151006 DIR IAC 13151010 SR AUDITOR . 13151015 CON SEC CM 13151308 AUDITOR ROSS 13151404 AUDITOR DERELLA 4 Thursday. May 12, 2016 HIIE BATE 01/01/2009 09/08/2015 07/27/2009 02/03/2015 12/15/2014 02/03/2015 05/14/1984 12/06/2010 BENEFIT HATE 09/08/201 5 07/27/2009 02/03/201 5 12/1 5/2014 02/03/2015 05/14/1984 12/06/2010 COMPTROLLER (COUNTY) DEPUTY COMPTROLLER SENIOR AUDITOR DIR OF INTERNAL AUDIT 81 SENIOR AUDITOR CONF SECRETARY COMPTROLLE AUDITOR AUDITOR Page 11 8111 HRS SHADE STEP 8151/ 7-1 8 7-1 8 7-15 7?15 12 HATE 55.67 40.66 37.18 33.17 34.66 28.60 33.45 30.03 DHE MGT CSEA MGT CSEA MGT CSEA CSEA BEEP- STATUS PER YEAR 1,820 1,950 2,080 1.950 1,950 1,820 2,080 2,080 HRH 12/31/2017 81111110! 1111/1 DIFFERENT IIME 55.67 40.66 37.10 33.17 35.20 28.60 . 33.45 30.40 101,319 79,287 37.73 44,021 64,682 35.73 65,736 52,052 69,576 63,398 AI 12/31 ERIE 33.006 2,948 Tot?! Comptroller Total 200 SMARY 101,319 79,287 77,827 64,682 68,684 52.0? 69,576 63.398 576,825 576,825 Page 11 of 93 EXHIBIT Executive?s Memorandum to Department Heads regarding 2017 Budgetary Requests 244 Fair St, PO. Box 1800, Kingston, New York 12402 Telephone: 845640?3800 Fax: 845?334?5724 MICHAEL P: HEW ROBERT County Executive Deputy County Executive ADELE B. REITER . - KENNETH CRANNELL Chief of Sta? Deputy County Executive MEMORANDUM To: All Ulster County Department Heads CC: Department Deputies From: Michael P. Hein, County Executiv Date: May 13, 2016 RE: 2017 Executive Budget As webegin work on the 2017 budget, we should re?ect on, and I would like to thank you for, what our hard work and sacri?ce have meant to the taxpayers of Ulster County. Together, we are ensuring more services than ever before, while lowering spending to levels not seen since 2009. According to the New York State Comptroller, we remain the most ?scally stable county government in our region and our bond rating continues to be strong. Attaining these achievements has not been easy. However, as a team, by identifying new, more ef?cient and innovative ways to provide essential services, and by being ?scally prudent, we have been able to bene?t our property taxpayers and residents alike. As a county government we remain focused on ensuring essential services for our citizens while remaining a leader in protecting our taxpayers. While we have achieved so much, we still face obstacles ahead. With these challenges, the budget process remains dif?cult. Therefore, my guidance for the 2017 budget is no increase to personnel services beyond what is contractually required, and no increase to contractual and equipment spending. Additionally, I ask that you please review your core missions, identify ef?ciencies and collaborations with other departments designed to save taxpayer dollars, and review best practices across the state and the nation. The Budget Of?ce has scheduled meetings to begin discussions speci?c to your department. As always, please continue to work with the appropriate Deputy County Executive prior to these meetings. County Government is continually evolving as the needs of our community and the challenges we __fac.e_c_ontinue_tp_ch_ange. Once again, I thank you for your creative and innovative solutions that continue to make Ulster County a model. You should be very proud of your continued individual efforts. Our workforce is an amazing team that provides high quality critical services to the citizens of Ulster County and together, we will continue to make Ulster County a great place to live, work and raise a family. Ulster County Website: