Southtowns Record

Town of West Seneca - Capital Project Management (2019M-195)

Government
Town of West Seneca
Posted by publisher
Mar 6, 2020
Kind
State audit
Topics
Budget and taxes, Audits and oversight, Parks and recreation

Publisher's summary

The Board did not properly plan and manage the capital project and clearly inform taxpayers when the estimated cost and scope of the project changed. In addition, the Board was not fully transparent on the anticipated project costs. As a result, original estimates were $9.8 million and increased by more than $3.6 million after competitive bids were received. When inaccurate costs are included in project estimates, there is an increased risk that the Board may issue more debt than necessary to finance the project because funding is available to pay for costs that were not within the original project scope. Finally, Town officials did not ensure an itemized project budget outlining revenues and expenditures was maintained in the accounting records and periodically updated.

Original document

Text · page 8 of 14

and $1.6 million in grant funds expected to be received from the State. The March
12, 2018 bond resolution included an estimated maximum cost for the project
that was $1.5 million less than the January 18, 2018 bond resolution’s estimated
maximum cost of $14.9 million.

The Board minutes for the March 2018 meeting included the reports received
from Town officials requested by the previously discussed February 26, 2018
resolution. The report from the Town Attorney stated that the original bond
resolution was adopted before the final design and the project was publicly bid.
The report also indicated that $3.1 million of the $5.1 million proposed serial bond
funding on January 18, 2018 was to serve as money to be used to address cash
flow issues while waiting for grant reimbursement, and not the actual cost of the
project. If the Board intended to use $3.1 million for cash flow purposes, it was not
transparent to taxpayers because the increase in estimated cost to $14.9 million
made it appear to be necessary to complete the project.

Figure 2: Project Estimates vs. Final Cost
  FIGURE 2

  Project Estimates vs. Final Cost

  $14.9 million
  $13.4 million  $13.4 million  $13.5 million

  $9.8 million

  March 2016  January 2017 Post-  January 2018  March 2018  Final Cost
  Estimate  Bid Estimate  Estimate  Estimate

The Town Attorney’s report also stated that the $3.1 million intended for cash flow
purposes was no longer needed because certain grants had been received, which
the Town’s consultants were unaware of. Therefore, the estimate of required cash
was overstated. We found that as of March 12, 2018, the energy performance
contract funding and one grant totaling $1.9 million were received and/or available
as of February 2016.

Further, the Town Attorney’s report specified that the $14.9 million in estimated
cost was overstated by $1.4 million as costs related to the energy performance
contract funding was included twice after a miscommunication between the
engineer and bond counsel. The Supervisor and the engineer were jointly
responsible for preparing reports used by the Board to monitor the project and

6  Of f ic e of t he New York State Comptroller