& Speaking of Audits. HEY JED Where did $13.3 million go?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

So JED is or wants to be the spokesman of the Region.... read on...

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B43106.pdf page 20

The Hammond Sanitary district audit...

If you think $3,720,000 is past due NIPSCO delinquencies is a concern, well maybe mayor Tom can explain:

Quote:

The Sanitary District's annual other postemployment benefit (OPEB) cost (expense) is calculated
based on the annual required contribution of the employer (ARC), an amount actuarially determined
in accordance with the parameters of GASB Statement 45. The ARC represents a level of funding
that, if paid on an ongoing basis, is projected to cover normal cost each year and amortize any
unfunded actuarial liabilities (or funding excess) over a period not to exceed 30 years.

As of January 1, 2011, the most recent actuarial valuation date, the plan was 0 percent funded. The
actuarial accrued liability for benefits was $7,387,762, and the actuarial value of assets was $0,
resulting in an unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) of $7,387,762. The covered payroll (annual payroll of active employees covered by the plan) was $6,382,197, and the ratio of the UAAL to covered payroll was 116 percent.

Now I understand why Marty was brought aboard.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

In 2010 the unfunded accrued pension liability was $9,163,348.
In 2011 the unfunded accrued pension liability was $7,387,762.
In 2012 the unfunded accrued pension liability remained the same.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Now the interesting thing here is, this all was discussed with:

The contents of this report were discussed on September 24, 2013, with Robert Lendi, CPA,
Controller; Rachel Montes, Business Manager; and Marty J. Wielgos, Chief of Staff.

But what is more interesting, well visitors to my Hohman ave campfire have long b een saying that bidding on work in Hammond is not on a fair or level playing field.

One contractor was rather damn angry ... while roasting marshmellows over the campfire, they told how time after time after time they bid on Hammond jobs and didn't get the nod. Yes, they refused to put cash in an envelope. What they said was after bidding on a specific job, the bid winner, would under estimate the job and later during the job would request increases.

Now they brought to the other campfire visitors the following ... reading for the audit:

Quote:

http://www.in.gov/sboa/WebReports/B43106.pdf page 24

PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS

The Hammond Sanitary District (District) Board approved change orders which increased the scope
of two construction projects by more than 20 percent. The first construction project contract was awarded for
$183,700; one change order was approved for $41,563. This change order increased the original contract by
23 percent. The second construction project contract was awarded for $296,502; two change orders were
approved totaling $154,386. These change orders increased the original contract by 53 percent.
Indiana Code 36-1-12-18(d) states in part: "The total of all change orders issued that increase the
scope of the project may not exceed twenty percent (20 percent) of the amount of the original contract."

They said how can you compete with Tom's friends and family plan?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

And a common byline in most all of Hammond's State Board of Account Audits:

Quote:

-22-
SANITARY DISTRICT
CITY OF HAMMOND

EXAMINATION RESULTS AND COMMENTS
BANK ACCOUNT RECONCILIATIONS

The Hammond Sanitary District (District) payroll bank reconcilement at December 31, 2012, included many adjustments that were not adequately documented.

The reconciling items totaled $10,859.02. Some of the reconciling items dated back to 2011; others were not
properly dated and did not note the fund for which the adjustment was required. The District has not made adjustments to the records in a timely manner.

The majority of the adjustments included with the December 31, 2012 reconcilement are also included with the
reconcilement at July 31, 2013.

Indiana Code 5-13-6-1(e) states: "All local investment officers shall reconcile at least monthly the balance of public funds, as disclosed by the records of the local officers, with the balance statements provided
by the respective depositories."

OVERDRAWN CASH BALANCES

Overdrawn cash balances at December 31, 2012, were as follows:

For financial statement reporting, the Sanitary District's Bond and Interest Fund, a restricted fund,
was reduced by the amount of the overdrafts. The overdrafts are reported as "Due From Sanitary District
Unrestricted Funds" on the Statement of Net Position.

The cash balance of any fund may not be reduced below zero. Routinely overdrawn funds could be
an indicator of serious financial problems which should be investigated by the governmental unit. (Accounting
and Uniform Compliance Guidelines Manual for Special Districts, Chapter 10)

Amount
Fund
Overdrawn
Sanitary District Operating $1,313,692

Sanitation Utility Operating $378,065

Recycling Utility Operating $667,185

State Board of Accounts says a zero balance should be investigated by a governmental unit. Hmmmm.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Excuse me the above last sentence should read balances below zero....

How can Tom take a perfectly running well, well not really perfectly well, and suddently develop deficits.

Maybe Marty could answer those questions.... or was that why Marty was brought on, not that he has any expertise, but he might just be able to deflect someone requesting answers.... of course that deflection would attempt to be legal.

I wonder if Marty remembers Tommie dumped him like a hot potato.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

So actually, the under funded, unfunded or shortages in this agency's books are:

"Due From Sanitary District Unrestricted Funds" or $1,313,692

PLUS

Amount Fund Overdrawn

Sanitary District Operating $1,313,692

PLUS

Sanitation Utility Operating $378,065

PLUS

Recycling Utility Operating $667,185

PLUS

$3,720,000 is past due NIPSCO delinquencies

PLUS

$7,387,762 in unfunded pensions

Now on that last number the SBA report reads the most recent actuarial valuation date, the plan was 0 per funded....

The shortage the way I read those numbers is just over $9,000,000 smackers.

Even the State Board of Accounts alerts Hammond residents about this crisis, overdrawn accounts.

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Now JED wants to be the voice of the region... how come you haven't heard Mr. Jed ask Tom where nearly $9,000,000 has gone?

Or is this something which might jeopardize a business relationship?

Or as some inquiring minds would like to know, how come bids were changed upwards, illegally changed upwards juiced over 20% for some favored contractors?

Why are accounts overdrawn?

Why weren't hard working government employee's pension contributions not paid?

Why, in the case of other contractors, the couple listed in the SBA audit got a 25% increase in their bid cost?

Where did $9,000,000 go?

Marty was brought in to help Tom, but didn't Marty get screwed by Tom a few years ago, dropped like a hot potato?

Is Marty supposed to put the lid on this?

Is this how Tom is funding MAC PAC?

justcallmetommy · **Joined:** Thu May 01, 2008 8:25 pm **Posts:** 5662

Actually surprised no one caught my error, it is closer to $13,300,000 that is in question....

hammonite · **Joined:** Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:58 pm **Posts:** 762

Interesting topic in an election year.

Northwest Indiana Discussion

& Speaking of Audits. HEY JED Where did $13.3 million go?

Who is online