Town Codes        Town Codes        Search Town Minutes

Tuesday, December 5, 2017

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING  TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD, NEW YORK


LOCAL LAW INTRODUCTORY “I” OF 2017
SOLAR ENERGY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the New Hartford Town Board has introduced Local Law Introductory “I” entitled as A Local Law to Amend the Code of the Town of New Hartford, Chapter 118 thereof entitled ZONING, Section 118­-74 Solar energy systems, and Attachment 3.3 Schedule A, Permitted Uses. If adopted, Local Law Introductory “I” would repeal and replace the existing Section on Solar energy systems, and amend Attachment 3.3 Schedule A. Permitted Uses. Said Local Law Introductory is on file in the New Hartford Town Clerk’s Office, 48 Genesee Street, New Hartford, NY, where it is available for public inspection during regular business hours, or may be viewed at www.newhartfordtown.com.

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a Public Hearing upon Local Law Introductory “I” will be held at Butler Memorial Hall, 48 Genesee Street, New Hartford, NY, on the 13th day of December, 2017, at 6:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as reached in the regular course of business, and that an opportunity to be heard in regard thereto will then and there be given. Butler Memorial Hall has a barrier ­free access for the physically disabled and any such disabled person seeking transportation to said Public Hearing should contact Town Supervisor Patrick M. Tyksinski at 733-7500, Ext. 2331 during regular business hours.

Date: November 8, 2017 
Gail Wolanin Young 
 Town Clerk               




Tuesday, November 14, 2017

Solar Energy Proposed Text Amendment discussed at Planning Board meeting...

The final item on last night's Planning Board agenda was a recommendation to the town board for the proposed solar energy zone text amendment.

After a few minutes of discussion, the Planning Board recommended to support the text amendments as written for Local Law Introductory "I" of 2017 Solar Energy Systems.

The next step is for the town board to hold a Public Hearing to give residents an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the current solar energy town code.

At the last town board meeting on November 8th, Councilman Reynolds recommended that the Public Hearing be scheduled for the next town board meeting. The town board voted to adopt a resolution setting the Public Hearing date for December 13, 2017.

After the Public Hearing is closed, the town board can discuss further and either adopt, change or deny the new text amendment.

For those residents interested in solar energy, here are before and after copies of the solar code for comparison:
If you have an interest in solar energy, plan to attend the public hearing on December 13, 2017 to voice an opinion or comment before the town board makes their final decision whether or not to adopt the law.

Here is the portion of the Planning Board meeting with the discussion of the proposed changes to the solar law:





2018 Town of New Hartford audit suspense...

Submissions which were received for the recently advertised Request for Proposals for the 2018 audit were discussed at the November 8, 2017 town board meeting.

Three proposals were received...EFPR Group, LLP from Williamsville, NY; The Bonadio Group from Clinton, N.Y.; and D'Arcangelo & Co. from Rome, N.Y.

D'Arcangelo has been auditing the town's finances since Tyksinski became supervisor eight (8) years ago; Tyksinski has always insisted on it.

As was the case in previous years, there seemed to be some objections from Tyksinski for the 2018 audit.

Dan Dreimiller said that EFPR Group was a good firm, but didn't go to any farther detail than that; their proposal came in about the same as the proposal from Bonadio. However, Tyksinski wondered whether using Bonadio might be a conflict of interest problem because Heather Mowat works for Bonadio and she is also President of the New Hartford Public Library.

Ha! Ha! Ha! What a joke...read General Municipal Law, Tyksinski! There is no conflict of interest with Bonadio doing the town audit. Dreimiller even said that two (2) people from the Albany office of Bonadio would be doing the audit. Got to do better than that excuse for once again hiring D'Arcangelo, Tyk!

Hmm...the suspense! What excuse will Tyksinski come up with to get the board to vote for D'Arcangelo again? Why is Tyksinski making up excuses in the first place? Will it work this time?

Hopefully, we will find out at the next meeting on December 13 which should be the last meeting conducted by Tyksinski.

In the meantime, here is the video of the November 8, 2017 town board meeting.





Friday, November 3, 2017

There seems to be some confusion...




...as to why the solar energy law changes have yet to be adopted by the New Hartford Town Board.

Rather than "buy" into the "blame game" which seems to be the rule during this election cycle, I thought it might be helpful to educate everyone as to how a proposed zoning code change becomes a local law; putting blame on any one individual board member is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding of NYS zoning laws and town code.



There are three (3) ways to amend the current zoning under the Town of New Hartford code:
  • By the Town Board upon its own motion.
  • By resolution of the Planning Board, filed with the Town Clerk, wherein certain changes to or repeal of specific provisions of this chapter are recommended
  • By a petition duly signed and acknowledged from the owners of 50% or more of the acreage in any district or part thereof requesting an amendment along with a $5,000 fee according to the updated town code during the Tyksinski regime.
Fortunately, in the case of the change to the solar energy code, the proposed law was brought to the town board based by Councilman Reynolds who sat at several zoning board meetings listening to residents being turned down for a solar use variance.

If you recall last Spring, Councilman Reynolds asked the town board to allow him to form a committee to recommend changes; prior to that, the solar energy zoning was discussed at several zoning board and town board meetings; Tyksinski made no bones about the fact that he did not want solar in HIS town.

At the August town board meeting, Councilman Reynolds presented the town board with recommended changes to the town's zoning code. I wrote about it on my September 15th blog, Solar Energy...I don't want it, therefore, you can't have it!

At that town board meeting, neither the town supervisor or the town attorney advised the councilman of the several steps to be followed for an amendment change including sending the recommended changes to the Planning Board, so nothing was done; the proposed changes never left the town clerk's office.

Councilman Reynolds brought the subject up again at the September 13th town board meeting; however, this time he knew the process to be followed for changes to the zoning code.
All proposed amendments, supplements or changes originating by petition or by motion of the Town Board shall be referred to the Planning Board for a report and recommendation thereon. In undertaking such review, the Planning Board shall make inquiry and provide recommendation...

If applicable, the Town Board shall transmit a full statement of any proposed amendment, either map or text, that meets the referral requirements of § 239-m of the General Municipal Law to the Oneida County Department of Planning for its review and recommendation.
A resolution was unanimously adopted at the September 13 town board meeting declaring the town as Lead Agency and referring the recommended changes to the Planning Board (Resolution No. 189 OF 2017).

There are a couple of caveats in the town code however:
The Planning Board shall submit its report within 45 days after receiving such referral. Failure of the Planning Board to report within the required time shall be deemed to be a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment.

No action shall be taken by the Town Board on such proposed amendment until a recommendation has been received from the County Department of Planning or 30 calendar days have elapsed since said Board received such full statement.
Therefore, unless the town clerk failed to do her duty regarding sending the proposed law to the Planning Board, or Oneida County Planning has held up their recommendation to the town board, by my calculations, the window for review of Councilman Reynolds proposed changes to the solar energy law is now closed.

It now falls on Councilman Reynolds shoulders to bring the proposed law back to the town board table and request a public hearing; the final step in the process before the town board votes to adopt or deny. The Public Hearing is an open meeting and residents are free to make their statement for or against the changes. The board then needs four (4) members of the board to adopt the local law.


There is no reason to doubt whether the proposed changes will be adopted after the public hearing whether Tyksinki likes it or not.

Should the entire town board know the process for changing a local law? Sure they should; there is no question about it! But blaming one board member does seem a little judgmental.

Here is a copy. of the New Hartford Town Code regarding making zoning amendments.



Wednesday, November 1, 2017

Neophytes....

...a person who is new to a subject, skill, or belief.

It always amazing to hear the promises made this time of year by people who have not attended a town board meeting until they seek election.

They have no idea of what it takes to be one (1) of a panel of five (5) members; yet, they babble on and on about what they would do differently if only you would vote for them.

They will promise everyone the sun and the moon; but in the end, taxpayers will get the same...same; unless at least two other people are willing to vote the same way. (That's assuming that the neophyte has the "stones" to make a move and knows the law which controls what move can be made in the first place.)

Add in a bully at the head of the table and no one seems to know how to say the word "nay", but the neophyte doesn't take that into consideration, because he is not the one that has been bullied for the past four (4) years! (Well, maybe there was one time...didn't feel very good, did it?)

Then there is the rhetoric of political party committee people (some who are even willing to support people of another political party merely to seek revenge against the candidate of their own party). There is a word for that...what's the word? Nauseating; yes, nauseating, that's the word!

But, that's what politics is all about...friends today; enemies tomorrow!

I just love writing to this blog...it's so cathartic!

Below is the videotape of the October 18, 2017 town board meeting with the bid opening for the first part of the Grange Hill Drainage Project...Bray won the bid and it's my understanding that the project is underway. Good job, Jim Messa!





Tuesday, October 31, 2017

The Town of New Hartford made the list...

...of the 82 fastest-growing (and shrinking) communities in Upstate New York according to Buffalo Business First.

Unfortunately, New Hartford is on the shrinking side along with Whitestown; Utica; and Rome according to the latest population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau.

According to the article, Western New York is home to the fastest-growing town in Upstate New York...Amherst.

Between 2010 and 2016, Amherst added 3,400 people with a rate of change of 47.22 residents per month.


Here are the stats for our area:
Utica...........lost 1,567 or 21.76 per month between 2010 and 2016

Rome............lost 1,321 or 18.35 per month between 2010 and 2016

Whitestown......lost 179 or 2.49 per month between 2010 and 2016

New Hartford....lost 160 or 2.22 per month between 2010 and 2016

The article is based on cities and towns that contained at least 15,000 residents between 2010 and 2016; follow the link to read the complete list of 82 growing (and shrinking) municipalities.

Those statistics tell quite a story and it is not good for our area, my friends! While other cities and towns in New York are thriving; our area is on the decline population-wise!

Definitely, some food for thought...


Thursday, October 26, 2017

Budget talks...

At the October 18, 2017 town board meeting, the last item the town board discussed was the Tentative Budget (supervisor's budget); the discussions lasted almost 2 1/2 hours.

When all was said and done, the town board made some additions...some deletions... and at the end of the meeting, they voted to adopt the 2018 Tentative Budget as the 2018 Preliminary Budget.

November 8, 2017 is now the date set for the Public Hearing...your chance to make any comment you might have regarding the proposed 2018 budget.

Grab some popcorn; your favorite beverage; and maybe a pillow as you relax and enjoy the video of that portion of the meeting:



Here is a copy of the 2018 Preliminary Budget that will be discussed at the November 8, 2017 Public Hearing.

I made the budget searchable in case you are looking for a certain item.



Friday, October 20, 2017

I don't like cliff-hangers (pun intended)...

...so an explanation might be in order as to my reference to Supervisor Tyksinski's Academy Award performance at the October 18th town board meeting...



I am appalled at Supervisor Tyksinski's public display of inappropriate language and his outburst of anger directed toward Councilman Paul Miscione. This language is unprofessional; outrageous; reprehensible; and totally out of line.

There was absolutely no reason for his abusive language and personal attacks on Councilman Miscione over a suggestion Councilman Miscione had regarding a possible cut in salary increases for non-union people.

Supervisor Tyksinski owes Paul Miscione; the other council board members; and the public an apology, but don't expect it any time soon.









I am taking some time off from the politics in this town.

Hopefully, I will be back toward the end of next week. By then, I should have a copy of the 2018 Town of New Hartford Preliminary Budget. I will also post the entire video of the last town board meeting.



Thursday, October 19, 2017

Sitting and watching last night's 2018 town budget discussions...

...was like watching a train wreck in slow motion!

From listening to Tyksinski vying for an Academy Award in "You Bastards" when some board members wanted to freeze non-union wages instead of automatically handing out 3% raises...to a realization that the councilmen have very little knowledge of municipal accounting...the meeting became more unbearable as time went on...and on...and on.

Tyksinski is narcissistic and clearly has crafted his budgets to tell a fable of his wonderfulness. The 2018 budget is no exception as, in my opinion, he has set the town board up for failure in future years; obviously he is pissed he didn't win a third term in office.

The public hearing on the budget is scheduled for November 8, 2017 which is the day after Election Day. I will post the video of last night's meeting sometime in the next few days. Right now, my business is more important to me than this b/s!




If I was on the ballot for the upcoming November election for councilman, I would pray that I do not win the seat. It is going to be a rough ride!

All aboard!



Tuesday, October 17, 2017

We interrupt this blog for an Editorial Opinion...

This morning I received a comment to my blog regarding Town Law 107:
"If all this is true, then why do you have the current 1st ward councilman's sign on your front lawn? Ouch."
Dear Anonymous "Ouch" person...

Obviously, you know my name and where I live, but you apparently don't have the moxie to ask your question either by calling me, stopping by my house, or sending me an email at one of my several email addresses that can easily be found on the Internet.

Let's see I own this blog; townofnewhartford.com; snsdolls.com; picturesandpassions.com; snshooksandneedles.com and a couple of others! They all have my business/personal email addresses where anyone can write to me and I will answer. Check it out on Google under Cathy Lawrence.

That being said, let me set the record straight.

I have lived in New Hartford since 1968; I came from a small town which was quite different than today's New Hartford, but similar to New Hartford back in the 1970s. Our town has changed and not for the better in some instances.

I looked back through my blog and realized that I have been writing this blog since November 11, 2006.

Prior to that, when the town was in an uproar over the reassessments back in 2003, I stepped forward and volunteered to be the town's webmaster so that never again would the town residents be taken by surprise by something that caused so much commotion. I also served on the town's Board of Assessment Review, until I saw first-hand the b/s that went on behind the scenes...I resigned at the end of my term on that board.

I continued as webmaster until 2006, when the Earle Reed's administration took over and Bob Payne tried behind my back to take the website and all files over in retaliation for my backing of Don Backman.

Unfortunately, Mr. Payne found out that I was doing the website at my own expense and I never took a dime from the town. Therefore, even though they hired Attorney Green to see if they could to sue me, it couldn't be done because I was not a town employee and I owned the website.

While I no longer have anything to do with the town's "official" website which in it's current state is an embarrassment, I still do own townofnewhartford.com. If you think that Earle & company cared about town residents...visit the town's current website that Mr. Payne put together at newhartfordtown.com; it is sorely lacking in detail and is hard to navigate.

By the way, Tyksinski has thwarted efforts of Paul Miscione to create a better, more informative town website even though the money has been approved in previous town budgets. I am told that will change next year.

So in 2006, New Hartford, N.Y. was created...again without taxpayer dollars; it is a service that I choose to provide paying my own expenses because I care.

As a rule, I do not state my political preferences on this blog. I provide town law and FOILed documents to state a case; you can choose to agree or disagree...your choice. Apparently, Anonymous isn't quite sure if the documentation is true....that is his or her opinion. I guess some people have difficulty separating fact from fiction. So be it!

However, since Anonymous has opened the door and I don't know who they are so I can't respond in private, I feel compelled to defend my private political actions in public! Not that I have to because this is America; I'm entitled to my opinion just as you are entitled to yours, but I have never been known to let someone get the better of me. I can battle with the best of them!

I am supporting Jim Messa as town councilman from Ward 1, the ward that I live in, because I believe that he cares about town residents and given an opportunity, he will see that the law is followed.

I have had several conversations with Mr. Messa; some to let him know what Tyksinski is doing to lead the town down a path that is not in keeping with town law and some just because he is my councilman.

He has always been willing to listen to my concerns even though politically there have been times that we have been on different sides of the table. I believe that with some guidance, Jim Messa will make the right choices to move our town forward.

After attending town board meetings where the town attorney and town supervisor assure the board that what they are proposing is legal (even though quite often it is not), I still do not blame Mr. Messa for decisions made at the town board meetings. Watch the videos and see Tyksinski bully the councilmen into submission. Anyone out there that thinks they could do better under the current town leadership is a fool.

For the record, I don't know enough about the other candidate to form an opinion, but he has not held an elected position; until recently has not attended town board meeting except for his own interests, and in my view it would be like starting from scratch with a considerable learning curve.

To be completely honest, it was disappointing to me when he failed to stand tall at a zoning board meeting to defend his application for a solar energy use variance. Instead, just before his turn on the agenda, he left the meeting and let the young gentlemen from the solar company answer questions from the zoning board members. His presence was missed and when zoning board members asked where he was...the town attorney stated he just left.

Sorry, but that was a game-changer for me. I am sure that he is a perfectly fine gentlemen, but I am looking for someone with town board experience. Jim Messa has seen the worst under Tyksinski; under new leadership, I believe he will best serve the residents in Ward 1.

Thank you Anonymous, whoever you are, whomever you serve. If you are trying to get a word in for the opposing candidate by trying to dis me, you just opened up the floodgate for me to state my position. Sorry if you disagree; the sign will stay. Obviously, you don't know enough about me to realize that I won't back down!

Ouch, right back at you!  Have a nice day!



Monday, October 16, 2017

Town Law 107...

Let me put this in plain English, during the past two (2) administrations, I have not seen a Preliminary Budget that follows the format prescribed in Town Law 107.

Seriously, how can a town board pass a responsible budget when they do not have the information that is required by law and/or needed?

Wed. night, October 18, in Butler Hall (meeting open to the public), the town board will discuss the 2018 Tentative Budget and make any changes they feel are needed to conduct business next year. They could also vote to accept the 2018 Tentative Budget as the 2018 Preliminary Budget and set a date for a public hearing.

The problem is that they have never adopted a town budget that contains the necessary information for making responsible decisions.

Town Law 107 requires that the budget MUST show by funds:
  • Proposed appropriations and estimated revenues by classification of accounts as prescribed by the state comptroller;
  • Estimated fund balances showing the breakdown of such fund balance estimated for encumbrances, amounts appropriated for the ensuing fiscal year's budget, amounts reserved for stated purposes pursuant to law (including reserve funds) and the remaining estimated unappropriated, unreserved fund balance for each fund (which is not to exceed a "reasonable amount");
  • the amount of taxes to be levied;
  • salaries of elected officers; and other information pertinent to the above as may be prescribed by the state comptroller
  • In addition, the budget may provide for general and special contingent purpose and must include any other data that the town board may, by resolution, require.

The above bulleted points are taken directly from the July/August 2011 Talk of the Towns magazine on a page entitled Legal FAQs; The Budget Process; a magazine, by the way, that each member of the board receives every other month; whether they read it or not is questionable.

How can decisions be made going forward when they don't know where they have been or where they currently stand regarding the spending of our tax dollars???

The last point, "...must include any other data that the town board may, by resolution, require" is a chance for the town board to put into a board resolution any other data they feel they need to do a responsible job of budgeting.

Come on, town board, it's your chance to do the right thing for taxpayers!

Besides the items prescribed by Town Law 17, how about a board resolution requiring the Preliminary Budget to contain columns for budget-to-date and a year-end projection for 2017? What is the usefulness of the columns entitled "Amended 2014 Budget" and "2015 Amended Budget"? You are working on the 2018 budget, for crying out loud! The only thing this town board has been given in preparation of the budget each year are "cash only" reports each month which are not even worth the paper they are written on.

Here's a copy of the proposed 2018 Tentative Budget that Tyksinski put together. I made it completely searchable for ease in looking for particular items.

Lord, please give this town board some courage to institute some changes to the budgeting process that are desperately needed; not only changes needed by law, but also changes needed so the budget can be a responsible budget based on facts not fiction!



Sunday, October 15, 2017

First contestant in How Did I Get Here? Me!

I'll start with the $106,165...

In any town budget, personal services is payroll.

I am betting that Public Safety Admin, Pers Serv BP-3010-10 for $106,165 is the Police Chief's salary because I don't think we have any other Administrative employees in the Police Department.

If I am correct, the problem is with the account number used for the NYS Comptroller report. The Police Chief is paid from account #BP-3120-11 according to every town budget I have seen in recent years. I believe that accounts starting with 3010 as was reported by the town in the comptroller report is for the salary expense of 911 employees. But, we will wait...maybe the Finance Department has another explanation.

In looking at the Police Chief budget line and comparing 2015 to 2016...well, there appears to be some discrepancies.

Let me start by saying this has nothing to do with the Police Chief or the police department as a whole. It has everything to do with the Town Supervisor and the Finance Department. The Police Chief submits his budget worksheets to the Town Supervisor and he is basically done...the rest of the budget is done by Tyksinski and Dreimiller with the help of the town board.

I am going to guess that in 2015, the Police Chief's budget worksheets show his anticipated salary to be $103,609 which was the amount in the 2015 Tentative Budget (the first budget that is created by the town supervisor from the budget worksheets submitted by each department).

The next step in the budget process is the Preliminary Budget.  For some reason, the Police Chief's salary was raised to $107,594 in the 2015 Preliminary Budget and it remained at that after the 2015 budget was adopted by the town board.  By the way, the higher expense is the amount that would be used to figure the tax rate for that budget line.

Next, I looked at the 2016 budget for the Police Chief's salary.

In the 2016 Adopted Budget, it shows the 2015 Adopted Budget for the Police Chief's salary as being $103,609; not the $107,594 that was used to figure the tax rate.

See for yourself...here are copies of the 2015 & 2016 budgets with the Police Chief's salary highlighted:
Click on each graphic for a pdf copy


Incidentally, the "actual" expense reported to the state comptroller in 2015 was $103,576 a little less than was originally budgeted in the Tentative Budget.  Doesn't make any sense, does it? It's almost like there was some "slush" money built in once the budget got to the Preliminary stage; and this is only one budget line.  The police department salaries are set by contract; they shouldn't be that difficult to accurately budget.


Next on to the $89,101 unbudgeted expense for Judgements & Claims.


In a budget, Judgements & Claims usually represents expenses for Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS); serial bonds; or possibly judgements against the town, etc.

Looking at the 2016 budget, a BAN principle and interest expense of $110,979 was included on a separate line and tax rates would have been figured on that amount.

However, the 2016 report to the state comptroller only shows BAN principle and interest expense paid of $3,407.

There were also Serial Bond principle and interest expense lines in the 2016 budget of $4,356; yet the state comptroller's report shows a Serial Bond principle and interest expense of $6,700.

Doesn't quite match the budgeted amount used to determine the tax rate, does it?

So that leaves a question of where did the rest of the tax money go and does it have any relation to the $89,101 of unbudgeted expense shown on the comptroller's report as Judgements & Claims?

Coincidentally, $89,101 is also shown as an unbudgeted expense on page 53 of the 2016 Financial Audit of D'Arcangelo.

For clarification, I believe parts of the 2016 Financial Audit were prepared by someone at the town because of this statement on page 2 of D'Arcangelo's audit, and I quote:
Emphasis of Matter

As discussed in Note l to the financial statements, the Town has elected to change its method of reporting the General Fund by combining the General Whole-Town, Part-Town, and Police funds that were considered separate funds in the prior year. The Town considers all activity in these funds to be General Fund activities. The Town added supplemental schedules to the financial statements combining these funds. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
In other words, that's how Tyksinski got his $3 million dollar fund balance fantasy..by co-mingling funds and it appears that D'Arcangelo does not support that part. I couldn't find anything in the audit that specifically states which parts were prepared by the town...it's all very strange.

So what is the $89,101 of unbudgeted expense reported to the state comptroller?

It might be the lease of police vehicles. If they were done on a lease purchase agreement, the lease is not in keeping with the law and it might be worth asking who thought they had the authority to sign a lease agreement absent town board approval.

Lease purchase agreements are by law supposed to be treated the same as a Bond or BAN by using competitive bidding; a town board bond resolution; and permissive referendum. In other words, in view of the public.

I spoke to Attorney Cully about lease purchase agreement procedures once after a town board meeting. He said he thought he had read that somewhere and would check on it. I have a NYS Comptroller's memo to back me up on this point. If it was done behind closed doors, it was knowingly done contrary to General Municipal Law because the memo I mention was sent to all town finance officers, but I don't want to make any calls on this one just yet. I'll just wait to see the response I get from the town.

I know this is long and probably boring for most people, but I wrote it so that taxpayers could see that they have been "played" by the people that they should have most been able to trust.

Again, no reflection on the police chief or his officers. This is strictly a financial problem within Butler Hall and the police fund was chosen by me to review because it has the least number of budget lines. I can't wait for the reply to my FOIL request!



Saturday, October 14, 2017

Everyone ready? Let's Play...

How Did I Get Here?



A game where everyone is left in the dark except perhaps two or maybe three people!

So, as I already mentioned in a previous blog, in view of a new budget season upon us, I have been doing some spreadsheets comparing the revenues and expenses of various funds using figures from the 2016 Adopted Budget; the 2016 Amended Budget (whatever that is; I'll explain later in this blog); against the "supposedly  actual" revenues and expenses reported to the NYS Comptroller in the Annual Update Document that is required to be filed by the town each May for the previous year.

I'll start with the expenses and revenues for the Police Fund only because it is a fund with the least amount of budget lines; therefore, it is the fastest to compare. I decided that based on what I found in this fund, it would tell me whether I needed to continue giving up my free time to do this comparison.

My comparison was quite surprising as I uncovered expenses that were not in the 2016 Adopted Budget and were not in the 2016 Amended Budget, but were in the report to the Comptroller.

These two expenses total almost $200,000. Without an amount budgeted in the 2016 Adopted Budget...How did I get here? That is the question that needs answering.

I FOILed all documentation regarding these two expenses from the town clerk's office early last Thursday and she immediately sent my FOIL request to the Finance office without giving me a date certain I can expect the answer to my FOIL. That would be against the Freedom of Information Law, but lately that has been S.O.P.

As of Friday afternoon closing time, I hadn't received any information from the Finance Office yet. Therefore, I am writing this blog in the chance that it will get someone's attention in the Finance Office or on the second floor of Butler Hall and my request will be expedited...or at least answered within a reasonable timeframe.

Let me explain my findings....


The unbudgeted expenses in question reported to the NYS Comptroller are:
  • Judgements & Claims--------------BP-1930-40 - - $ 89,101
  • Public Safety Admin, Pers Serv----BP-3010-10 - - $ 106,165

How did I get here?


A non-budgeted item cannot be paid until the board decides where the money is going to be transferred from to cover the expense and adopts a resolution allowing for the transfer.

If the town board had approved a budget transfer, these unbudgeted expenses should have shown up in the 2016 Amended Budget column; or so I thought.  However, these expense items ARE NOT accounted for in the 2016 Amended Budget column of the 2018 Tentative Budget nor do they show up as an amendment to the Police Adopted Budget on page 15 of the 2016 Financial Audit performed by D'Arcangelo under "General Fund Budgetary Highlights".

How can that be? How can a total of almost $200,000 of unbudgeted expenses in the 2016 Police Budget not show up as an amendment to the Adopted Police budget in the town's audit performed by D'Arcangelo? What the HELL is going on?

I guess I will have to just sit tight and wait for an explanation from the Finance Office. In the meantime, I will continue with creating spreadsheets as I have already found another unbudgeted expense reported to the state comptroller for the Sewer Fund!






Thursday, October 12, 2017

It's Budget Time...

Tyksinski says there is no tax increase in HIS 2018 Tentative Budget.

Sure, Tyk. Why don't you let everyone know how you have been budgeting since 2011; your first official budget for the Town of New Hartford?

Being a numbers person, I have done some computations. Let me share a couple of them...

For example, in 2015, when comparing the budgeted revenues and expenses in the major funds plus the Sewer Fund against the actuals reported in the NYS Comptroller's Annual Update Document for the same funds, revenues were under-estimated and expenses were under-estimated. Guess, that didn't work because in 2016, revenues were once again under-estimated, but this time expenses were over-estimated.

Obviously, everyone knows that a budget is only a prediction of the future and there is always some fluctuation in the budget vs. actuals, but not to the degree of what I found.

Basically, the fund balance that Tyksinski touted in his campaign literature is because YOU, the taxpayer, has been funding the funds. Plus some funds, Sewer Fund for example, have been funding unbudgeted, non-bid expenses. I find it maddening that sewer payers are being charged year after year, when the 2016 D'Arcangelo audit shows a "supposed" Sewer Fund balance of $1,905,035.

The question is...after figuring out the due-to's and due-from's in each fund, where do the town's fund balances truly stand. The NYS Comptroller cited the town in their 2010 Town Audit for excessive Sewer Fund balance. Guess that didn't mean anything to Tyksinski. Remember when he told the newspaper that the Comptroller is only right 50% of the time?? Yeah, sure Tyk!

One of the other problems is that since Tyksinski has been in office, sales tax revenue has been used to offset the Police expenses. Tyksinski apparently figures that by calling the Police a Part-town Fund he can use the sales tax revenue in the Police Fund even though the fund by law does not qualify as a Part-town Fund.

New York Consolidated Laws, Tax Law - TAX § 1262 (f) (4) defines Part-town activities as:
Activities of town government, including highway programs, which are chargeable to the area of the town outside of villages, exclusive of special district purposes, unless such special district is a fire protection district coterminous with the area of a town outside of villages.
Can't get much clearer than that! The Village of New Hartford is included in the Police Dept., but the Village of New York Mills is not; therefore, the Police Fund is not a Part-town fund no matter what name Tyksinski tacks on it. Also, since the Village of NYM has their own police department, New Hartford Police is not a General Wholetown fund either which is the next choice for applying sales tax revenue to offset expenses.

Our Police Department is actually an anomaly; I didn't see a definition for that in the tax law. It's funny because former Councilwoman, Ms. Krupa, (remember her?) sent me an enail in October 2010 agreeing that the sales tax revenue couldn't be used for the Police Fund. Shortly after that email, she sent another one agreeing with Tyksinski that it could be used. Wonder who got to her?

At any rate, without the use of sales tax to offset Police expenses, the town cannot afford the department unless there is a significant tax increase drastically different from what is currently slated under Tyksinski's 2018 Tentative Budget.

I guesstimate that the Police tax rate which was $1.77 per thousand in 2017 would balloon up to $2.84 per thousand for next year (2018)...and that is just for the Police which is more than the total tax rate of all funds in 2017. And, folks, that is just for starters.

In 2011, Tyksinski's first budget & the first time sales tax was used to offset the Police budget, Tyksinski budgeted $689,261 of sales tax to offset Police expenses. However, for 2018, that amount has grown to $1,375,320 of sales tax improperly used to offset Police expenses.

Doing the right thing shouldn't be difficult, but apparently for some people it is. Anyone have an "in" with the NYS Comptroller's office so maybe they will help us out and overlook a little thing like the law?

The town board and the newly-elected supervisor are now left with quite a dilemma! Some tough decisions are going to have to be made...make sure to thank Tyksinski on his way out!




Saturday, October 7, 2017

How did it happen?? The long and the short of it...

It is interesting to note that on page 5 of the town's 2014 Financial Statements prepared by D'Arcangelo it states:
Findings - Financial Statement Audit

2014-01 Willowvale Service Award Program

Condition: During our audit, we noted Willowvale Service Award Program has not been audited since its inception in 2008.

Criteria: Chapter 620 of the Laws of New York, 2006, amends section 219-a of the General Municipal Law and now requires the sponsor or designated program administrator of a Length of Service Award Program to obtain an annual audit by an independent certified public accountant.  A copy of the audit shall be presented to the program sponsor and to the State Comptroller. LOSAP audits must be completed within 270 days of the end of the sponsor's fiscal year. Due to other legislative requirements, those that choose to fulfill this requirement by providing the appropriate service awards program note disclosure as part of the Town's annual audited statements now have 180 days for completing the audit.

Recommendation: The Town needs to establish system of policies and procedures to ensure that the program is monitored by management and ensure that an annual audit is performed and filed as required.
In their letter to the Town Board that year, D'Arcangelo states:
"We consider the deficiencies described in the accompanying schedule of findings and recommendations as items 2014-1 and 2009-1 to be a material weaknesses."
Friends, FYI, a material weakness is "a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the company's annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely basis".

So basically, even though the town's finances are maintained by two (2) CPA's who audit other towns for a living, neither one knew about the 2006 law change requiring an audit of the program until the 2014 audit by D'Arcangelo, and therefore, no independent person was looking at the financial condition of the Willowvale Length of Service Awards program since its inception in 2008?

But what about 2014, 2015 and 2016 when supposedly D'Arcangelo WAS auditing the LOSAP during the town's annual audit?

Knowing that the program had not been audited since 2008 and declaring it a "material weakness" in 2014, shouldn't the auditors have taken extra care to audit the program in 2014 or was there something else going on? Something that prevented them from seeing the extra money that was being collected from taxpayers each year?

How does a person with no ability to physically review the town books pick up on the discrepancies when an accounting firm who has been hired specifically to audit the books does not?

How can it be that they did not question the extra $20,000+ that taxpayers in the Willowvale Fire Protection District were being charged on their tax bill to "supposedly"cover the program costs?

How did D'Arcangelo account for the difference in what was being collected from the taxpayers against the total of the checks being written by the town to pay the annual invoices particularly when the fund balance of the fire protection districts as a whole was far less than the extra money being wrongly collected for the Service Awards Program?

Were findings in D'Arcangelo's 2016 audit responsible for the correction to the budgeted 2018 tax rate in the Willowvale Fire Protection District? If that was the case, shouldn't the town board have been made aware of the situation and shouldn't a statement have been included in the 2016 audit?

So many questions that probably will never get answered...

Anyway, at the August 2017 meeting, Councilman Woodland asked about the status of going out to bid for an audit of the 2017 town financials and was told that unbeknown to the town board, Director of Finance, Dan Dreimiller, had already sent out requests to certain auditing firms with a return date of September 1.

At the September meeting, the town board was told that the only firm to respond was...D'Arcangelo.

Amazing, the only firm that wants to audit the Town of New Hartford books is the same firm that has been hired each year since Tyksinski took office in 2010; a firm that Tyksinski has bullied the town board into hiring every year even in the years when the town board wanted to do an RFP to solicit other proposals. Hmmm...

Unfortunately, since the proposals were sought without the knowledge of the town board, and at least four (4) town board members had no idea who or how many firms were actually contacted by Dreimiller, the town board decided it would be best to wait until the October 5th meeting to see if more proposals would be forthcoming.

In the meantime, a "little birdie" let members of the town board know that the town's Procurement Policy had very specific rules for hiring a professional firm...that is by using Request for Proposals (RFP).    The town's RFP policy states:
The RFP process is handled in the same manner as the Competitive Bidding process. An approved advertisement is placed in the newspaper. A specification package is prepared (RFP request) and made available including instructions and deadline established. See Section Competitive Bidding.
By the way, the town's Procurement Policy is not an option; it is a requirement under General Municipal Law. For some reason, the "top dogs" of the current administration always seems to have a problem following policies and laws.

Anyway, at the October 5th town board meeting, the board voted to do a "Request for Proposal" to hire an accounting firm to do the 2018 financials.

An ad has been placed on the town's website and should appear in the legal notices of the local newspaper shortly:
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES  TOWN OF NEW HARTFORD, NY

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, New York will receive Requests for Proposal for Professional Audit Services for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, with the option of auditing the financial statements for each of the two subsequent fiscal years December 31, 2018 and 2019.

Parties interested in submitting a Proposal must contact the New Hartford Town Clerk's Office, 48 Genesee Street, New Hartford, NY 13413 during regular business hours (Holiday excepted) for necessary information.

Proposals SHALL be submitted in sealed envelopes not later than 12:00 Noon on Friday, November 3, 2017 at the Finance Director’s Office, 48 Genesee Street, 1st Floor, New Hartford, NY 13413 and shall bear on the face thereof the name and address of the company submitting the Proposal.

Dated: October 6, 2017
Gail Wolanin Young, Town Clerk 
Hopefully, the town board will receive several proposals and be able choose a firm that will provide board members with a thorough and accurate accounting of where the town's finances stand since under Town Law Section 64, General powers of town boards:
1. Control of town finances.  Shall have the general management and control of the finances of the town and shall designate in the manner provided by section ten of the general municipal law the depositories in which the supervisor, town clerk, tax collector, tax receiver, and trustees of the freeholders and commonalty of a town shall deposit and secure all moneys coming into their hands by virtue of their offices.




Friday, October 6, 2017

Corrective Action...

Identification and elimination of the causes of a problem, thus preventing their recurrence.


How many times did I blog about the taxpayers in the Willowvale Fire Protection District "taking one for the Tyk" regarding the amount they were being taxed for the fire company's Length of Service Award Program?

Well, apparently in his parting 2018 town budget, Tyksinski decided (or was persuaded by someone) to try to right his wrong.

Click here to view a larger print pdf!


As you can see by the 2018 Tentative Fire Protection District Budget sheet above, the Willowvale Service Awards Program expense has been reduced to $52,000 from the $71,000 that has been wrongly used to fix the tax rate each year.

Additionally, a $75,000 surplus has been credited to the Willowvale Fire Protection District bringing the tax rate per thousand to $1.9852.

Last year's tax rate was $2.6117 so that is a savings of $.6265 per thousand of assessed value; not bad, eh? I hope that the town board will ask for an accounting of the $75,000 because my records show that the taxpayers in that district have been overtaxed by more than $75,000.

Anyway, I have a copy of the entire 2018 Tentative Budget and I will be sharing more information shortly.

For now, let me leave you with the fact that some tough decisions are going to need to be made by the town board as Paul Miscione gets ready to take over the supervisor position. Even though the budget has been put together each year by two (2) CPAs, there are problems that need to be addressed; some of the budgeting does not conform with state and town laws.

By the way, the 2018 General town tax that Tyksinski said would be slightly reduced...well, as the budget stands right now, it was reduced by $.0028 per thousand, that is, if you don't include the expenses that seem to have been left out of the budget thus far.


Corrective Action Plan start date...January 1, 2018!



On another note, Councilman Jim Messa lead the town board in adopting a resolution to go out to bid for the Grange Hill project. More information and the video of the meeting will be available over the weekend.


Saturday, September 30, 2017

Be wary of "friends" bearing gifts...

An article in today's Observer Dispatch quotes Tyksinski as saying:
“There is a slight tax cut,” to the tune of about one-half or one-quarter of a percent for property owners, he said. “Definitely no tax increase.”
Trying to set up Paul Miscione for failure, are we Tyk?

It's funny because just this past week I had a conversation with a friend who wanted to bet me that Tyksinski was going to reduce the tax rate.  No bet there, my friend; that is a given.  Tyksinski has been playing games with the budget since he took office. Why should this year be any different?

For instance, he has been under-estimating sales tax and crying the blues to the town board about the supposed decreasing sales tax revenue.

Really, Tyk? I made a spreadsheet using each year's budgeted sales tax versus the amount of actual sales tax reported to the NYS Comptroller in the Annual Update Document (AUD):

Click on image for larger print pdf


As you can see, each year starting with 2011, which was the first year of Tyksinski's budget, budgeted sales tax revenue has been under-estimated anywhere from $349,000 to $541,000 until the year 2015 which was probably close to what it should be since it is wise to leave some "wiggle room" in case of declining revenue. But then, in 2016, the disparity between actual and budgeted sales tax revenue started to go up again.

Remember though, we are only talking about the under-estimating of revenue in sales tax. Under-estimating revenue means that taxpayers are paying more taxes than needed to offset expenses. This doesn't include the other revenue streams and the expense side of the house; there is a story there too.

But now, the last budget prepared by Tyksinski before he leaves office is going to give you a tax break. Hip, Hip, Hooray!

I have several other reports that will prove that the town is heading for trouble which I will share at a later date.

But, in the meantime, as luck would have it, the NYS Comptroller just made available their fiscal stress calculations.

In 2015, the state comptroller's report ranked the Town of New Hartford 9.6%; in 2016, we were ranked 15.8%. In 2017, we are projected to be 22.1%. Do you see a trend starting to emerge? Of course, please keep in mind that this report is based on the accuracy of the reports submitted to the state comptroller by the town supervisor.

However, let's rejoice because in 2018, according to Tyksinski's budget, we can expect a "slight property tax decrease". Pray tell, Tyk, how much of a decrease are we looking at and how is that possible?

Don't be fooled, my friends. Paul Miscione is going to need your patience as he sorts through the b/s. Don't expect a tax decrease this year; Paul will not be able to afford a tax increase until he knows the true status of the town. He has some great plans on the horizon. I hope you will join me in wishing Paul the best and give him a chance to get a handle on the town's finances.

One last thing...

The last sentence in the Observer Dispatch article regarding New Hartford's 2018 budget is:
The New Hartford tentative budget will be presented at Thursday’s board meeting.
Gee, with such good news about a property tax cut for 2018, it is surprising that the meeting is on a Thursday instead of Wednesday, the normal meeting day.

I am also surprised that Tyksinski waited to release his "good news" budget until the last day town law allows for the supervisor's budget to be released to the town board.

What is he really hiding?

It's time to corral those flying pigs!




Friday, September 15, 2017

Snarky; cranky; irritable...

...yup, that pretty much sums up Tyksinski's attitude at the September 13, 2017 town board meeting.

I'm sure it must be difficult to lose an election particularly when you are so arrogant that you think it's YOUR TOWN and you can't be beat.

However, Paul Miscione will be the Town Supervisor as of January 1, 2018. Congratulations, Paul!

Enough said on that subject.

On a more positive note, kudos to Councilman Reynolds for looking into the "real" process for introducing a change to the town's solar code. Dave asked that the town board pass a resolution to be the lead agency for SEQR; a resolution to that effect was adopted by the town board.

Next, the proposed change to the town code goes on to the Planning Board; the town clerk has been asked to take care of that part.

Town Code says "the Planning Board shall submit its report within 45 days after receiving such referral. Failure of the Planning Board to report within the required time shall be deemed to be a recommendation of approval of the proposed amendment."

The town board then has to hold a Public Hearing before the code change can be acted on. I will update everyone on this blog as to the date and time of the Public Hearing.

On another positive note, I am also told that the town website is in for an overhaul to make it more informative and user-friendly. Yeah!! Transparency...something for town residents to look forward to in the coming year(s)!

Without further ado, here is the September 13, 2017 town board meeting:





Tuesday, September 12, 2017



Republican Primary today! Be sure to vote!




Tuesday, September 5, 2017

Solar Energy...I don't want it; therefore you can't have it!

...so says Tyksinski!

As predicted in my O Sole Mio blog on August 15, 2017, you will not see a change in the current 10 kw allowable solar energy town code until and unless Tyksinski is no longer the town supervisor. He doesn't want solar in HIS town, period!

If you remember, Councilman Reynolds brought a revised town code to the August 9, 2017 town board meeting which would have allowed up to 25 kw of solar energy for your home. Councilman Reynolds explained to the town board that the new code was based on NYS Solar Energy Law.

After some discussion, the town board adopted a resolution at the August 9th town board meeting to hold a public hearing on the new code at the September 13, 2017 town board meeting. As soon as the public meeting was held, the town board could have adopted the new code as a local law.

If you watch Tyksinski's facial expressions and mannerisms in the video of the August 15th blog as Councilman Reynolds introduced the new code, it is quite apparent that Supervisor Tyksinski would not let that code change take place during his reign.

So how does he stop it when he knows full well that he has four (4) councilmen that are in favor of the change because that is what their constituents are telling them they need to make solar energy a viable choice for their home? You merely never let it get before the town Planning Board. Under New Hartford Town Code, without the Planning Board's report, the local law to change the code will not go beyond the town board table as a draft. Clever, don't you think?

The proposed zoning change could have been presented at the last Planning Board meeting on August 14, 2017. There was plenty of time to get it to the Planning Board since the new code was already written down on paper at the August 9, 2017 town board meeting. However, it was not an agenda item at that Planning Board meeting.

Here is a copy of the proposed local law that I FOILed from the town clerk.

Even though it wasn't presented to the Planning Board on August 14th, the Planning Board was scheduled to meet on September 11, 2017 so there was still a chance that the Planning Board could review the new code in time for the next town board meeting so that the Public Hearing could be held at the start of the September 13th meeting.

But as luck would have it, the September 11, 2017 Planning Board meeting has been cancelled due to a lack of agenda items. So, the public hearing will probably not take place on September 13th. Looks like that solar energy code change that several residents were hoping to get has been temporarily stalled!

As I predicted in my previous blog, Tyksinski will stall until after the September 12, 2017 Republican Primary so the voters in New Hartford don't get upset knowing that he has no plans to update the town's zoning laws on solar energy.

After the Primary, if he wins, he may stall the updated solar energy code so that it never gets changed!

Looking for a change in the town's solar energy code to allow up to 25 kw of solar energy for your home?

Tired of Supervisor Tyksinski bullying the councilmen; withholding documents; meeting behind closed doors; and running the town as his own little "fiefdom"?

You have a choice on September 12, 2017.

If you are tired of living in Tykville, vote for Councilman Paul Miscione to be the next town supervisor!

Republican Primary - September 12th.





Friday, September 1, 2017

FEMA Buy-out Program...

On August 29, 2017, the New Hartford Town Board held a meeting to address possible questions from the owners of the fourteen (14) homes affected by the FEMA Buy-Out Program and instruct them as to the procedures going forward.

Here is the video of that meeting:



Even though Tyksinski tried to call it an informational meeting instead of a town board meeting open to the general public, you will notice all four (4) councilmen were in attendance that evening. Even the town attorney and a county legislator were also present!

After I was given information that all the councilmen were planning on being there to represent their Ward, I advertised the meeting on this blog and informed the town clerk that the meeting had to be open because town councilmen would be present. I was told that she was only doing what she was told. Apparently, she was told to only put the notice on the doors at Butler Hall.


Why would Tyksinski ever believe all the councilmen wouldn't want to be there to discuss the FEMA buy-out with their constituents? Why wouldn't he want them all there?

Call it what you want, Tyk...it is a meeting open to the public when at least 3 out of 5 town board members are present to discuss town business!

Open Meetings Law, Tyk; it's a beautiful thing!!



Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Special Town Board meetings seem to be the norm in New Hartford, N.Y..

Lately, Tyksinski seems to feel the need to call last minute 5 p.m. meetings behind closed doors without notice to the public.

Perhaps that is an indication that one meeting a month is insufficient for conducting town business or perhaps it's just his way of doing town business out of the view of the public while he makes "deals" to garner support in an election year.

On June 26, 2017 such a meeting was called with the only notice to the public, once again, being a notice taped to the door of Butler Hall. It was not until the minutes were approved for the meeting that the public could have known of the meeting since there was no indication on the town website that a meeting would be taking place.

I don't know about anyone else, but my day does not include a visit to Butler Hall to read any notice that might be posted on the door. They know better; the meeting should be posted on the town website and sent to the paper.

This meeting involved what is being termed in the approved minutes as "Side Letter Agreements" between the town and the Police Benevolent Association; and the town and Chief Inserra.

Here are the meeting minutes:

Click on graphic to read all five (5) pages of the agreement


Where is the emergency that this could not wait to be noticed to the public or couldn't wait until the July 12th meeting?

There is only one reason why Tyksinski would call a town board meeting without noticing the public...they don't want you to know about it!

Now you know!



.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Reminder...Special Town Board Meeting...

A SPECIAL MEETING WILL BE HELD ON TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 29, 2017 AT 6:00 P.M.IN THE COMMUNITY ROOM ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF BUTLER HALL WITH TOWN RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR THE FEMA BUYOUT PROGRAM.

Here is the video of the discussion regarding the FEMA Buyout Program at the August 9, 2017 town board meeting:



Also discussed at the August 9, 2017 town board meeting was the ravine owned by Judy Cusworth:





Saturday, August 26, 2017

Grange Hill Drainage Project.....

On August 24, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. the town board met in a Special Meeting to review the bids received for the Repair Work, Equipment and Operator Rental 1-Year Contract that was recently advertised for bidding.

According to the information provided to me by the town clerk at the meeting, six (6) people picked up bid sheets, but only four (4) bids were submitted according to the information that the town clerk handed me at the meeting.

The low bid, which was accepted by the town board, was from James Bray Paving, 1025 Newport Road, Utica, NY 13502.

Here is the videotape of the meeting:



Toward the end of the meeting, Councilman Messa asked about the Spinella contract for the Grange Hill Drainage project and was told that it is almost ready to go; there was no indication whether or not the contract would be brought before the town board to authorize Tyksinski to sign it or whether Tyksinski would just take upon himself to sign the contract without board authorization.

Interesting facts about the Grange Hill Project.


The project went out to bid for the second or third time in late February 2017 with a March 6, 2017 bid opening. The bids were brought before the town board at the March 8, 2017 town board meeting.
All were rejected because they were deemed to be too high. According to the minutes (which you can view here), Tyksinski said the town's contracted engineer thought they would come in around $800,000 but they came in around $930,000.

The video of the March 8, 2017 meeting will show that the consensus was to wait until the Fall to rebid the Grange Hill project because they felt the price would be cheaper and there would still be plenty of time to complete the project..

On March 14, 2017, Oneida County put out an Invitation to Bid for Construction Materials, Groups 6, 7, 8, & 11, which is the bid that the town now wants to piggy-back off using Spinella to do the Grange Hill Project.

The closing date of the Oneida County bid was March 28, 2017.

The winners of the County bid were announced on April 17, 2017, after the Town of New Hartford April board meeting which was on April 12, 2017 so the town probably would not know prior to their April meeting if Spinella won the Oneida County bid.

However, at the May 10, 2017 town board meeting, Tyksinski asked the board to adopt a $900,000 Grange Hill Stormwater Project bond; which the town board did adopt. Funny how $900,000 is the amount of bonding needed in May to do the Grange Hill project, without the benefit of any further bidding figures to work with, when in March $930,000 was too high.

At any rate, on June 30, 2017, the town once again asked for bids for the Grange Hill Project. This time, four (4) people picked up bid packets, but only one (1) person submitted a bid. Mr. Spinella was one of the contractors who picked up a packet, but did not bid the Grange Hill project.

Surprise, surprise!


Lo and behold, the one (1) bid received, after much discussion and arm twisting by Supervisor Tyksinski, was deemed to be too high and was rejected.

However, Tyksinski had "a plan". The town could piggy-back off the county bid and use...Mr. Spinella. Apparently, Mr. Spinella emailed Tyksinski after the July 10, 2017 Grange Hill Drainage Project bid opening and said he could do the job for no more than $350,000.

At the July 12, 2017 town board meeting when Tyksinski laid out his "plan", he said Spinella could do the job for even less than $350,000 if some town employees were used. Really?

Let's see, if town employees are used, then Mr. Spinella wouldn't have to hire anyone to help him so he would be able to not worry about the Prevailing Wages Law like the other person who submitted the rejected bid. That would probably make his bid offer much lower than a contractor that had to abide by labor laws.

Lucky thing Mr. Spinella submitted a bid to get on the Oneida County bid list in March!

Wait a minute, folks! Here's the problem...


General Municipal Law 103 (3), which Attorney Cully is using to support the town's use of piggy-backing, states:
No officer, board or agency of a political subdivision or of any district therein shall make any purchase or contract for any such services through the county in which the political subdivision or district is located or through any county within the state when bids and offers have been received for such purchase or such services by such officer, board or agency, unless such purchase may be made or the contract for such services may be entered into upon the same terms, conditions and specifications at a lower price through the county. (emphasis added)
The county bid that the town wants to piggy-back on DOES HAVE some technical requirements attached to it!

As luck would have it, I just happen to have a copy of the "Technical Specifications for Rental of Equipment " used by Oneida County for BID #1896.

They are, and I quote:
F: PAYROLL RECORDS

Oneida County is required under Section 220 of the Labor Law to receive and maintain monthly transcripts of certified payroll during the life of the contract and maintain same for 3 years from completion of work.

Please forward your copies by the 15th OF EACH MONTH TO:

Oneida County Purchasing Dept.
800 Park Avenue
Utica, NY 13501

Please include the name of project and the project number with each mailing. The contracting department will need to notify Purchasing in writing when a project is completed and the completion date. Prevailing Wage rates: as printed on-line 1-15-16. Please refer to the Dept. of Labor Project # PRC 2016000484 Oneida County for all rates following this page.
I do believe that the county considers their bid, BID #1896 Construction Materials, to be a public work under the NYS Labor Law Article 8 (Construction). While the General Municipal law allows piggy-backing on Article 8 county bids, the town still has to comply with the Prevailing Wages Law, and NYS Labor Law Section 220: Hours,Wages, Supplements.

So town board and Attorney Cully, if Mr. Spinella's contract that the town plans to negotiate does not include provisions for the above terms of the county bid, the town cannot legally piggy-back off this particular county bid.

Mr. Spinella's signed contract with the town for the Grange Hill Drainage Project with a total price of "not to exceed $350,000" must contain the same provisions as the county bid. Also, since the use of town (or in this case, county) employees was not part of the original town or county bid specs, the use of town employees cannot be part of Mr. Spinella's contract. I suggest that the town go back to the drawing board and this time fairly and lawfully bid out for the project.


On Another Note...



I visited the town clerk's office on Friday to view some financial data that I will report on soon. Anyway, posted on the door to Butler Hall was the following:
A special meeting will be held on Tuesday evening, August 29, 2017 at 6:00 p.m.in the Community Room on the ground floor of Butler Hall with town residents who have been approved for the FEMA buyout program.
 I am told that all the town board members plan to attend so that makes it a meeting open to the public!



Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Knock three times....

There will be a "special" town board meeting Thursday, August 24, 2017 starting at 5:00 p.m. in Butler Hall.

The possibility of a special meeting was mentioned at the August 9, 2017 town board meeting, but I hadn't seen it advertised anywhere including the town's wonderful website, but we placed a call to the town clerk's office this morning and were advised that signs for the meeting are posted on the front and back doors of Butler Hall.

Wonderful! Like town residents normally visit Butler Hall each day and would see the signs typed on a letter-size sheet of paper that is taped to the front and back doors! What are these people thinking?

Just in case Butler Hall is not one of your regularly scheduled stops each day, I posted the information here!

One item to be discussed is the bids for the Repair Work, Equipment & Operator Rental - 1 Year Contract bid notice in the August 13, 2017 Observer Dispatch.

This special meeting is open to the public and is slated to be held in the downstairs room of Butler Hall.



Saturday, August 19, 2017

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"

--a line from the play Hamlet, by William Shakespeare.

--An officer of the palace guard says this after the ghost of the dead king appears,walking over the palace walls.

--A phrase often used to describe a situation in which something is wrong.

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017, I sent a FOIL request to the town clerk asking to view an original, spiral-bound Final 2016 Financial Statements & Audit performed by D'Arcangelo.

Technically, I didn't need to send a FOIL request because by law financial records must be available for public view in the town clerk's office during regular business hours.

To my surprise, it would appear that the town clerk does not have an original; she is asking any board member who has a copy to make it available in her office.

I already have spoken to two (2) board members who told me they have tried to get a copy, but have basically been ignored. Any town board member would include Supervisor Tyksinski, yet it would appear that either he doesn't have one or he is not making it available. That in itself seems strange!

I have already stated in a previous blog that some of the pages in the 2016 final audit performed by D'Arcangelo would, to a reasonable person, seem to be either altered or sloppily put together by D'Arcangelo. Not good!

At the August 9, 2017 town board meeting, Councilman Woodland mentioned the fact that he would like to go out to bid to hire an auditor for 2018. To the surprise of everyone, Supervisor Tyksinski said that Dan Dreimiller, the town's Finance Officer, had already put out Requests for Proposals (RFP) with a return date of September 1.

This in itself seems quite odd, since I have already blogged, Note to New Hartford Town Councilmen, about the fact that each year the town board brings up their desire to RFP and each year, until now, Tyksinski has used some excuse to continue on with D'Arcangelo. So it is quite obvious that something is up!

Did D'Arcangelo finally begin to realize that they have been duped all these years?

Were they one of the firms sent an RFP or did they tell Tyksinski to stick it where the sun don't shine?

Anyway, getting back to my subject. I will be filing a FOIL appeal next week regarding the "missing" original copy of the 2016 audit and on one other FOIL request that has been unanswered since July 14, 2017.

Stay tuned...this should be interesting! One way or another, I will be letting everyone know what appears to be out of order in the copy of the 2016 audit I was sent and Supervisor Tyksinski certified is a true copy of the original audit.

Sure it is, Tyk! How come you still have not uploaded a copy for your Continuing Disclosure as required under the Securities & Exchange Commission rules?