Which Tyksinski-isms are correct...

...the statements made in the June 28, 2017 report that Tyksinski filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission for SEC Rule 15c2-12

...OR...

the ones posted in Tyksinski's political ad in the July Town Crier?

Tyksinski wants you to believe that he has worked for YOU for the past seven (7) years and he has the statistics to prove it.

However, those statistics just don't seem to jive with the ones he officially reported to S.E.C. on June 28, 2017.

Let's take a look:

Tyksinski says...he has lowered taxes each year since taking office in 2010.

Fact is, Tyksinski AND the town board did lower the tax rate in the 2011 budget, but that was a result of consolidating 911.

The only other time the tax rate was lowered was in 2013 for the 2014 budget. Tyksinski lowered the tax rate a couple of pennies per thousand in his 2011 Tentative Budget, but the town board lowered the taxes even further to the present tax rates of $1.00 General Wholetown that everyone pays and $1.77 for Police which is paid by the town proper and the Village of NYM.

Since the 2014 budget, the tax rates have remained the same according to the June 28, 2017 filing with the S.E.C. and according to town records in my files.

Tyksinski says...Increased general fund balance from a deficit of $(500,000) to a surplus of over $3,000,000.

According to the 2009 Financial Audit prepared by D'Arcangelo & Co., the General Wholetown Fund deficit was $(10,921) when Tyksinski took office in 2010, NOT $(500,000). As far as the current general fund balance being $3 million, that is very misleading because the 2016 Financial Audit, specifically states that Tyksinski has combined three funds that really have nothing to do with each other into what he is now calling a General Fund. However, two of the three combined funds are assigned meaning they can only be used for certain related expenses; General Part Town & Police...not General Wholetown taxes.

If you remove the fund balance of two assigned funds and redistribute the general town money owed to other funds, and subtract the amount of overage reported for sales tax projected for the first quarter of 2017, you would see a much different picture. The REAL amount of fund balance that is spendable and actually attributed to the General Wholetown fund is somewhere around $1 million, if that! We would have to believe that the "FINAL" audit that I received is factual!

Think about it for a moment...if the town is in such great shape as Tyksinski says, there shouldn't have been a problem with the release of the 2016 Financial Audit. Plus, as of today, the 2016 Audited Financial Statement which is required to be filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission has yet to be filed.

Tyksinski says...Improved the Town's infrastructure - $4,200,000 in road paving and over $2,000,000 in rehabbing our sewer system. Updated highway and police equipment.

Might be true, but your children's grandchildren will be paying back the bonded debt incurred under the Tyksinski regime. How does that make you feel?

Tyksinski says...Spent $2,500,000 in storm water remediation.

How was that stormwater remediation working for everyone during the July 1 storm?

Again, it is debt that everyone is paying and will be paying back for some time to come plus some of the money spent by Tyksinski was borrowed during the Reed administration.

I'll be back to talk about the bidding process utilized by Tyksinski for the Grange Hill Project. That is a story all of its own!

Tyksinski says...Rejuvenated development in the Town, adding $60,000,000 to the taxable assessment.

Odd, because the June 28, 2017 S.E.C. filing claims that only $35,000,000 has been added to the assessment since 2010.  Must be Tyksinski's campaign ad forget to subtract the assessments that have been rolled back because of tax certiorari battles that were lost in court!

I also have to wonder if $60 million in assessments were added as Tyksinski claims, how come there has not been a reduction of the tax rate since 2014? Huh?

Tyksinski says...Reduced budget appropriations by over $1,000,000.

Well, that's easy because Tyksinski also reduced the number of Highway and Parks employees plus he didn't renew their contracts that expired in 2010 until recently. Therefore, the remaining workers never received a pay raise during the past seven years. He also consolidated 911 with the County which took about $500,000 out of the budget.

Here is a copy of the June 28, 2017 report the town submitted to the S.E.C. I have highlighted each of the items above that I pointed out.

I also highlighted the statement that the Town Comptroller is appointed for a one year term. What town comptroller would Tyksinski be referencing...we don't have one, although Tyksinski manages the finances as if we did by circumventing the town board regarding the transfer of funds.

Friends, if things are so rosy in the Town of New Hartford, how come Tyksinski included $150,000 of park fees ("phony revenue") to balance the 2016 budget before the town board even voted to adopt a local law to assess park fees to non-residents? Problem was, the town board rejected the idea and Tyksinski had to scramble looking for ways to make up the $150,000.

You, my friends are suppose to believe Tyksinski's "pie-in-the-sky" accomplishments because he says so; after all he is the Emperor!

Two days after the initial filing, and the same day as...

...the June 28, 2017 blog I wrote, Apparently for Some People..., about the town's lack of compliance with the Securities & Exchange Commission (S.E.C.) rule regarding Continuing Disclosure requirements, an additional document was added for the Town of New Hartford.

Under "Annual Financial Information and Operating Data", a document supposedly written with the help of Fiscal Advisors dated June 28, 2017 was added to the State Comptrollers AUD report that was previously reported to the S.E.C.

An interesting document to say the least as it seems to contradict some of Supervisor Tyksinski's campaign ad in the Town Crier. I'll get back to that later in the week.

At any rate, what is more important is the fact that, as part of the June 28th update to the Continuing Disclosure, no 2016 Financial Statement was added as required by the S.E.C. Rule 15c2-12.

Instead the unaudited report to the Comptroller was still listed under "Audited Financial Statements or CAFR" and the June 28, 2017 document prepared with the help of Fiscal Advisors states that, "The independent audit covering the fiscal year ending December 31, 2016 is not available as of the date of this Continuing Disclosure Statement."

Today, July 9th, the 2016 Financial Statements prepared by D'Arcangelo have still not been provided to the S.E.C.

What makes the lack of reporting the 2016 Financial Statement to the S.E.C. more intriguing is the fact that on July 5th I was contacted by the town clerk to let me know that she has a copy of the FINAL 2016 Financial Audit and would be sending it to me in response to my FOIL request of June 29, 2017.

The "FINAL" 2016 audit report she sent me was dated May 30, 2017, the day of my FOIL appeal for the DRAFT audit!

After looking over the "supposed" final copy of the 2016 Financial Audit prepared by D'Arcangelo, I found some rather curious pages; pages that might lead a reasonable person to believe that the audit was not the work of D'Arcangelo, but might have been altered by someone else so I requested "certification that the document I received is a correct copy of the FINAL 2016 Financial Statements" performed by D'Arcangelo.

On July 7, 2017, I received an email from the town clerk with an attached signed and dated copy of the certification I requested:

I, Patrick M. Tyksinski, as Supervisor of the Town of New Hartford, herewith certify that I have compared the attached copy of the original 2016 Final Financial Statement prepared by D' Arcangelo & Associates and that it is true and accurate.

If that is the case, and the copy I received is the "real" final copy of the 206 Financial Statement prepared by D'Arcangelo, then the town board needs to ask some serious questions at the next town board meeting!

Stay tuned as I run through some of the highlights of the newly submitted document prepared with the help of Fiscal Advisors!

Someone is trying to "fool" a lot of people! Is it Tyksinski; D'Arcangelo; or Fiscal Advisors?

"...rendered at the conclusion..."

You have to release those financials at some point prior to the November election, Supervisor!

On June 20, 2017, I again sent a FOIL request to the town clerk asking for:

"...the 2016 Final Town Financial Statements performed by D’Arcangelo to include the management letter and the responses to the management letter. I would also like a copy of the Engagement letter for 2016."

On June 26, 2017, I received the following email from the town clerk:

Dear Cathy:

Attached is the Engagement Letter for the 2016 Audit. I have been informed that, as of today, the FINAL financial statement(s) have not been received.

Gail Wolanin Young

Hmmm...FINAL financial statements not received as of June 26, 2017??

Funny, to say the least, because page 6 the 2016 Engagement Letter, dated November 30, 2016, says:

"Leonard P. Carissimo, CPA, is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the engagement and signing the reports or authorizing another individual to sign them."

"Our fee for these services, excluding the New Hartford Public Library, will be based on the actual time spent at our standard, hourly rates. Our standard hourly rates vary according to the degree of responsibility involved and the experience level of the personnel assigned to your audit. Our invoices for these fees will be rendered at the conclusion of our interim and year end procedures and are payable on presentation."

So after reading that paragraph, I naturally FOILed, the D'Arcangelo invoice whether it was paid or still waiting for payment.

To my surprise, on June 29, 2017, I received a copy of the D'Arcangelo invoice dated June 2, 2017. Accoding to the invoice "Balance is due upon receipt. Please remit."  However, it has yet to be paid...we will see if it is included in the July bills to be paid.  It should be very clear to the public as to whether or not it is included for payment since the town board will need to approve a budget transfer for the overrun prior to paying the bill.

According to the invoice submitted by D'Arcangelo, one of the reasons that the invoice total is more than was budgeted is because:

"Additional time required for: 1) change in fund reporting, 2) Trust and Agency reconciliation issues; 3) accounting for BAN activity".

Interesting...could that possibly be a clue as to what is being hidden from taxpayers?

At any rate, between the 2016 Engagement Letter and the unpaid D'Arcangelo invoice dated June 2nd, we can conclude that as far as D'Arcangelo is concerned, the audit is FINAL and was probably final before my FOIL appeal hearing on May 30, 2017.

A 2016 Financial Statement was also clearly available before the Supervisor chose to submit an unaudited state comptroller's report (AUD) on June 26, 2017 in place of the submission of the town's audited financial statements as required by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Continuing Disclosure Rule 15c2-12.

Even though I sent another FOIL appeal on June 29, 2017, I have yet to receive a copy of the FINAL 2016 Financial Statements. I did hear from the town clerk on June 30, 2017 when she copied me on a letter to Tyksinski and Dreimiller:

Good morning, Cathy:

Receipt is hereby acknowledged of your FOIL request below for the 2016 Final Town Financial Statements performed by D’Arcangelo to include the management letter and the responses to the management letter.

By copy of this e-mail to the Town Supervisor/Finance Offices, I am apprising them of your request.

Pat and Dan, If neither office has such document, Ms. Lawrence has requested a certification to this effect.

Gail

The fact that the town councilman have not been given a copy of the final audit should be troubling to every New Hartford resident.  Whatever Tyksinski is hiding will eventually be made public either by this blog or the state comptroller; or both!

In the meantime, stay tuned as I write a couple of blogs with a little "fact checking" of Tyksinski's campaign mantra in the Town Crier.

Everything is NOT as he tries to make it appear. Let's just say he appears to be a person stuck in "I am wonderful" mode. We all know what eventually happened to the last town supervisor who constantly said "everything is wonderful". Just sayin...