Nichols Fire Department audit finds faults

By Matt Freeze —

NICHOLS — The New York State Comptroller’s Office recently said it has found some issues with the Nichols Joint Fire District’s procurement policy — namely, that it didn’t always follow it.

An audit by that office found that the fire department board of commissioners did not adhere to the piggybacking exemption or obtain competitive bids for two purchases totaling $319,945, in accordance with general municipal law and the established procurement policy.

This was in relation to the acquisition of a brush truck.

The comptroller’s office said the board did not document the necessary requirements for an exemption.

Also flagged under this finding was one purchase for two extraction tools totaling $35,146, where the board had received two informal quotes and chose to purchase from the lower-cost vendor, but the two purchases were over the appropriate threshold.

Additionally, the fire board didn’t issue requests for proposals or use any other competitive process before procuring professional services from two vendors totaling $38,873.

Auditors said the board did not issue RFPs or seek written quotes before procuring insurance coverage, as well as audit services – $30,273 and $8,600, respectively.

Auditors said town law requires fire districts with annual revenues of $400,000 or more to issue RFPs for annual audit services.

The third finding was that it failed to obtain quotes for several purchases totaling $27,810, as required by the procurement policy.

Those purchases included three truck repairs totaling $10,566. The board said that there is only one local provider of the service, but auditors said that does not eliminate the need for the competitive process being used.

Another purchase was for fire protection gear totaling $8,836. While the fire chief told auditors that the firefighters prefer coats and pants from a specific vendor because the gear is more durable compared to gear provided by other vendors, it does not eliminate the competitive process required, auditors said.

There were also two purchases for equipment testing services totaling $6,398.

Auditors said that while the fire board stated that the district lacked vendor options for those services and that traveling to another town for testing services was impractical due to high costs, the fire board did not document that a cost-benefit analysis was conducted.

Fourth, the comptroller’s office said the board did not seek competition for fuel purchases, which may have saved the fire district $3,626, or 19%, over the audit period of Jan. 1, 2024, through March 31, 2025.

The fire district’s policy requires officials to analyze potential purchases to determine whether they must use a competitive bidding process to procure goods and services that exceed $10,000 or are expected to exceed $10,000 in aggregate for the same commodity or service within the fiscal year. It also applies to public works contracts exceeding $20,000.

Auditors recommended that the fire board update and/or adhere to its policies, review its procurement policy, and retain appropriate supporting documentation.

The fire board is expected to file a corrective action plan with the comptroller’s office to address the above findings within 90 days.