From January 2007 - January 2010. I thought it would be good to put this audit from last year up. Especially since the meeting last night - and because I noticed someone searched "comptroller sea breeze water district". I didn't see the Special Town Board Meeting last night - but I heard that the S.B.W.D. can't make payroll, and things don't look too good.
Sea Breeze Vicinity Water
Also, for the Town Board's reference - the Committee On Open Government has a section in their Open Meetings Law about executive sessions:
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
26 comments:
I am assuming when they went into exec session they thought it would be ok to use the financial condition of a corporation....I dont think that applies to this situation though. A seperate taxing district)
More importantly I dont think the town board can give loans with taxpayer funds to another entity and if they can I think it needs to be done publicly. While watching the mtg it was stated that they had already given sbwd a loan at the beginning of the year; does anyone remember them voting to do so in public?
I am very concerned about the atty for our town, I do not think he knows municipal law or if he does then I think our tb is skirting several legal issues in the past couple of years.
I missed most of this meeting, only saw a few minutes near the end. I was surprised to hear that SBWD is in such a financial pickle.
Anonymous, I don't remember the TB voting in public to give the SBWD a loan earlier this year. I may have missed it though.
Does anyone know specifics about this situation? Can the TB give loans with taxpayer funds to another entity? Wouldn't that have to be public?
I hate executive sessions! I think they are abused by most boards.
Anyone out there know more about what's going on with SBWD?
SBWD is a political scheme to take money from citizens then distribute it to politically connected friends. The district infrastructure is collapsing. The cost to district residents will be unaffordable. Those who have taken the money will walk away proudly.
Aside from any legal rules for the Town Board secret meeting: Why would a group of officials want to hide their discussions from the public? Before answering--remember these are the people who called for 100% disclosure in campaign promises---then opted for a back room deal to eliminated choice in the election. These are the same people who believe zoning changes for contributors are good for the east side of town while spending tens of thousands of tax dollars to prevent data transmission in an area of commercial and government operations.
These are the people who lie about Bills in the ways and means committee.
Why would they want to hide the talks about public finance?
This has the potential to be a very serious matter. I will be following it with great interest.
Anonymous @ 7:47 am -
The town can "give loans" to the "other entities" - they are called interfund transfers or interfund advances....and the board is supposed to separately approve each transfer at a board meeting with a majority vote.
I believe the problems with SBWD were from a few years ago, and this was all covered in the recent Comptroller's Audit
If you look at pages 9 - 12 - it explains it.
The town, with the previous administration (which included Perticone and Aldersley) experienced cash flow problems in the General Fund.
From the audit: "To address periodic cash deficiencies, the Town used cash advances, unauthorized by the Board, from other funds to provide sufficient cash for current operating expenditures."
It also says "Due to these interfund advances, several funds, including the highway, library, lighting and sewer funds, were left with little or no cash reported at December 31, 2009."
Considering the results of the audit, and their recommendations, I don't think they would approve a "loan" to SBWD without board approval. The audit specifically said that the transfers were not approved by the board with the previous administration, and that NYS General Municipal Law requires that the board approve every fund transfer....I know they are aware of this because Aldersley and Perticone tried to blame MEH and said that they never had any idea that this was going on. lol
I will look back at old meeting minutes sometime tomorrow and see if I can find anything relating to an interfund advance or transfer to SBWD and if it was approved.
I believe the board approved amendments to the 2010 budget at the RTB on 3/15/11 - if this link works it should take you to the meeting minutes.
I see the pages of adjustments, and SBWD is in there (page 12)- and page 1 of the minutes shows that they did vote and approve all of the adjustments which is usually called interfund transfers/advances.....so, they did vote in public to "give SBWD a loan".
Good work Jax! Thank you!
We now know that the TB did vote in public to loan money to the SBWD.
That audit was pretty scathing even though not much was made about it.
Jax said - "The audit specifically said that the transfers were not approved by the board with the previous administration, and that NYS General Municipal Law requires that the board approve every fund transfer....I know they are aware of this because Aldersley and Perticone tried to blame MEH and said that they never had any idea that this was going on. lol"
So even with the loan, it seems SBWD still is unable to dig out?
They can't even make payroll is what they were saying at the recent meeting.
Perhaps it is time for the Monroe County Water Authority to step in absorb the operation? There would likely be efficiencies to be gained by doing so.
"The town can "give loans" to the "other entities" - they are called interfund transfers or interfund advances....and the board is supposed to separately approve each transfer at a board meeting with a majority vote.
I believe the problems with SBWD were from a few years ago, and this was all covered in the recent Comptroller's Audit
If you look at pages 9 - 12 - it explains it.
The town, with the previous administration (which included Perticone and Aldersley) experienced cash flow problems in the General Fund.
From the audit: "To address periodic cash deficiencies, the Town used cash advances, unauthorized by the Board, from other funds to provide sufficient cash for current operating expenditures."
It also says "Due to these interfund advances, several funds, including the highway, library, lighting and sewer funds, were left with little or no cash reported at December 31, 2009."
The difference though between what is above and the SBWD is that it (SBWD) is a seperate tax district. It is NOT a department of the town in any way shape or form. They have their own board, their own budgets and recently all bills are to be paid to town hall (like schools) but interfund transfers should NOT occur with tax payers dollars (and no collateral) to SBWD.
You also see from the audit, they are quite clear that transfers that were made by the comptroller was his way of doing business and the supervisor and tb members were not aware of this procedure. I believe we all saw the same thing month after month as is required by law at public mtgs to the board and the residents.
The SBWD is it's own taxing district, yes.....but the Town can do inter fund transfers TO the SBWD, just like in the past the Town took FROM the SBWD to finance their operating expenditures.
NYS General Municipal Law Article 2 Section 9-A explains a little bit about it.
As far as the Comptroller "doing his thing" - the Supervisor, as Chief Fiscal Officer, should know the rules about inter fund transfers....and so should the rest of the board.
As far as I understood it, in the past, all inter fund transfers were just combined all together at the end of the year - and one lump sum was approved by the board.
I would have questioned what those
lump sums were. Nobody did, even after Richard Barone brought it to the attention of the board, and Stephanie said that they approve them at the end of the year - not understanding that Barone was talking about approving each transfer/s at a meeting instead of lump sum at "end of year".
"the supervisor and tb members were not aware of this procedure."
Doubtful. It's their jobs to be aware. If they weren't aware, then they weren't doing their jobs. The Supervisor is Chief Fiscal Officer and should have known, or at least questioned it. I would have looked into it after Barone made reference to it, at the very least.
But they didn't.
I do not believe that you are correct in this instance regarding the SBWD...I do NOT think the TB can "loan" them money. Inter fund transfers are not the same thing as a loan to a business not related to the tb. Could the town give a loan to the school district? no. same type of thing. AND another difference is they are still not explaining where the money is and how they will put it back. Time will tell (maybe) if this is illegal or not. Hell, I dont even think their executive meeting was legal but I am not Bob Freedman so dont take my word for it.
They do inter fund transfers for the Fire Districts - same thing there...the F.D. has their own board and their own board meetings and levy taxes, issue debt etc. - water districts don't.
The water districts don't levy taxes - they have "charges and fees" - which is why you get that little card in the mail that has the boxes there to record your water usage numbers.....that is your "fee" for water use. These fees may appear on property tax bills but are separate from real property tax and assessment collections. The Town Board is the governing body of the water district (even if they have their own "commissioners" or boards), as long as the special district pays back the "loan" by the end of the fiscal year.....then there is no problem.
Who knows....I could be wrong, but that's how I understand it.
Link to NYSOSC town special districts.
Might explain it better than I can.
SBWD is a Special District under Article 13 of NYS Town Law. Article 13 clearly spells out that, in the absence of a treasurer, the Town Supervisor shall be treasurer. Also, no borrowing or bonding is approved without local Town Board approval (super majority). Therefore, the District is NOT a separate taxing District. They can only "tax" customers with approval of the local Town Board. This is traditionally done only to finance large projects. I am not sure if the loaning of money by the Town Board was/is in line with NYS Town Law? I do know that the Town cannot loan monies beyond it own funds. An inter-fund transfer is a loan between departments. Fire Departments and the Water District are not Departments of the Town, they are Districts, with separate boards. This is different than the drainage and sewer district, which it so happens the Town Board controls,because they set them up. Also, the Town does not just transfer money from the Water District. It has to be vouchered as a an authorized expense to the District, approved only by the Board of Water Commissioners.
I've looked and searched on NYS Law and in the Town Code and cannot find anything that says the Town can't transfer funds to the Water District - call it an appropriation, inter fund transfer, or inter fund loan. Can't find a thing that says it is illegal.
I've looked at past budgets and financial reports and I see transfers to special districts (fire and water). Current and past administrations.
If anyone thinks that the inter fund transfer to the Water District is illegal, I encourage them to contact the NYS Comptroller's office for clarification.
Here is there website: NYS OSC.
Here is the information to contact the investigative unit to report fraud: NYS OSC Report Government Fraud.
Here is a question? If the Town of Irondequoit , by Law is the Treasurer of the Water District, who allowed this situation to get to this point, at the Town??
Anonymous @ 5:58 -
According to the SBWD Audit from the Comptroller:
"The District is governed by an elected three-member Board of Commissioners (Board). The Town Supervisor acts as the District’s Treasurer. The Water Superintendent is responsible, along with other staff, for the District’s day-to-day management under the direction of the Board."
"The Board (water commission board) has the responsibility to initiate corrective action."
"District officials (water district) are responsible for establishing an internal control system consisting of policies and procedures to provide reasonable assurance that billings are properly initiated, approved, documented, and recorded."
So - the water district was supposed to come up with a C.A.P. (corrective action plan) because of the audit - and I don't think they did.....and if they did....it certainly failed miserably.
The Supervisor is the Treasurer - but the water district's Superintendent and other staff are responsible for day-to-day management.
So - from that audit, I am assuming that the SBWD Superintendent, Board, and Staff did not sufficiently manage the operations well - and the Supervisor, as the Treasurer, did not ensure that the district was carrying out their financial/fiscal duties accordingly.
I don't think the Supervisor created the problems.....but I believe the Supervisor should have known about these issues and encouraged the SBWD to come up with a C.A.P. a long time ago.
Just my opininion.....
I concur with your assessment. Seems like several punts or fumbles on both sides.
misappropriation of funds on part of town..my guess
interesting comments under the D&C story run on Monday. One post mentions embezzlement or misappropriations. Something is up. Definitely appears to be 2 sides to the story..
I read those comments......I would think if there was "embezzlement" or "misappropriations" of funds....it happened a few years ago. Both the SBWD and Town Audits revealed such goings on.
Geez - the Town Audit said they did things against the law, and what happened?
Nothing.
Which is what will happen here IF there is anything to those comments.
I would think the Superintendent of the SBWD would have brought that up at a meeting if there were "illegal" activities going on which would threaten the District's solvency.
But then again....the article did quote him:
"This is incredibly frustrating," said Water Superintendent Lindsay Putnam. "I'm being expected — me and the board — to run this water district when we're not getting information to us in a timely manner. How am I supposed to run this place if I don't know exactly how much money we have?"
Um...how come when he DID know how much money they had....they still had problems? Hence the audit....
I was wondering....if they are absorbed by the MCWA - will the employees there still have jobs with the County?
I don't know if I agree with you FOILS. The article seemed to indicate that the Water District has not been given timely info on their finances by their Treasurer. It does not say exactly when this happened but there is an implication that it began after the Town began collecting Water District Receipts, which would be around beginning 2011.
I don't know what the fate of SBWD employees would be if the organization ceased to exist but it seems that better things come to those who face reality and work professionally through it.
On another note, maybe the town will be looking for some new hires. They appear to be looking to hire some people in the DPW next year in the budget.
Also, rampant rumor around Town is that there is some type of Fish and Game Club type scandal unfolding with a/some DPW Foreman. Maybe the Town can pick up a few good people after they discharge a few self servants? Remains to be seen..
anonymous @ 7:11 -
"The article seemed to indicate that the Water District has not been given timely info on their finances by their Treasurer. It does not say exactly when this happened but there is an implication that it began after the Town began collecting Water District Receipts, which would be around beginning 2011."
Yes, I believe that is what the SBWD is claiming - that the current TB is not giving them information in a timely manner in order to manage their finances.....but my point was, that when the SBWD was aware of their finances (supposedly) is when the trouble happened - they received an unfavorable audit. The SBWD audit was from January 2007 to January 2010.
I think that now that the "Treasurer" is aware of how they "run their business" - it is now obvious that it is not a good way of doing business.
The previous administration was co-mingling funds and doing inter fund transfers left and right and at the end of the year they approved it all in one lump sum....which, according to the Town Audit was a big no-no and caused special district taxpayers to pay more than necessary to fund the special districts operations.
MJD did not want to play the "blame game" after the Town Audit came out.....and I'm sure she does not want to play the "blame game" with the SBWD problems....especially since two of those involved in the past (against the law) practices are now on her "team" for the November elections.
In the past, the town board took/loaned money from/to the SBWD and nobody knew because of the shoddy accounting practices, co-mingling of funds, and inter fund transfers/advances whatever.
So-it is my opinion that because of the past accounting practices of the past administration - monies were "loaned" and "paid back" all the time without anyone knowing. Now that MJD is doing things "by the book" - it is glaringly obvious that the SBWD is not solvent.
I also think it's insane that they are going to charge 50 cents more to customers in the SBWD when people who use MCWA pay much less. I wonder if the customers can choose to go with MCWA instead?
"rampant rumor around Town is that there is some type of Fish and Game Club type scandal unfolding with a/some DPW Foreman."
OoooOOooo....juicy. I wonder what that is all about?
I thought they hired more DPW workers so they could head off the goddamned CONSTANT complaining from certain people that their sidewalks weren't plowed immediately and children were dying all over town because of unplowed sidewalks.
Forgot to mention this - in the sidebar of the article there were some numbers about how much the SBWD had/spent/is going to collect....above that it said:
"The Sea Breeze Water District spent more than it took in during 2008, 2009 and 2010. During those years, the district spent down nearly $250,000 in fund balance."
That's not 'good business practices'.....and not because of "not getting information in a timely manner"....I think that excuse is a cop-out.
Heyman claimed to have called for the audit of SBWD. My assumption is that if she knew that any Town money was being used to cover SBWD she would have not done that. Stranger/stupider things have happened though..
If she did call for the audit - that tells me that she was curious about their "business practices"....but what was done to correct it or "solve the problems" at that time?
Bleepin' nothing.
I don't think there was any "embezzlement" or "misappropriation" of funds for SBWD. Either from MJD or MEH.
I think SBWD is insolvent. They aren't bringing in more than they spend.
A corrective action plan should have been in place years ago.
Now, the current board has to clean up a mess they did not create.
I think the s breeze board should step down. So should the Irondequoit DPW Director for the ongoing scandal and also the Police Chief (I thought perhaps he was the 77 year old in the headline before I read the story).
Post a Comment