|
w
<br />Mr. F. MacKenzie Brown advised that on this project there is a petition submitted 6
<br />by the property owner requesting that the City Council, at this time, take a formal
<br />action indicating that they will proceed with the formation of the assessment dis-
<br />trict. Mr. Brown said that Mr. King has indicated in the petition that he will be
<br />guaranteeing paying all the costs of the consultants, there will be no obligation
<br />on the part of the City as it relates to consultants fees and expenses, and also
<br />transmitted are the three consultant contracts relating to the design engineering,
<br />legal consultant, and assessment engineering.
<br />Mr. Brown said at this time he would recommend approval of the contracts, subject
<br />to the approval of the City Attorney, if the City Council is desirous in proceed-
<br />ing with the formation of the assessment.
<br />Mr. Chuck King, petitioner for Assessment District No. 79-1, stated he would like
<br />to move forward on this project and, in this regard, he would agree to putting up
<br />a letter of credit in the amount of $50,000.
<br />Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Temby, approving and authoriz-
<br />ing Mayor to execute Agreements with Willdan Associates, F. MacKenzie Brown, and Joe
<br />Bonadiman & Associates, relating to the proposed Assessment District No. 79-1, and
<br />accept letter of credit from Mr. Chuck King. Unanimous vote.
<br />Assessments
<br />(� City Treasurer
<br />0) The following is a statement as read by City Treasurer, Margaret A. Berkebile.
<br />� arg
<br />I am making this presentation tonight because of my concern over the new assessment
<br />Q district, 1978-2, and the way in which it is being bonded. There are presently 3
<br />assessment districts covering the Cooley Ranch area and District 1978-2 will make the
<br />4th. It is common practice for the City Treasurer to be left out of the planning
<br />stages of assessment distrficts and in December the City Manager requested that I
<br />not attend anymore Staff Meetings, so it was from an "outside" source that I learned
<br />District 1978-2 was being considered for a 1915 Act bond instead of a 1911 Act bond.
<br />I immediately voiced my concern in a memo dated January 9, 1980, to the Mayor, each
<br />Council Member, and the City Manager, the Acting Finance Director, and the head of
<br />the Engineering Department. This concern stems from the Cooley Ranch Sewer Assessment
<br />District which is a 1915 Act bond. To date I have only heard from Mayor Gonzales
<br />concerning my memo.
<br />Two months after I was first elected to the office of City Treasurer, I was presented
<br />with the Cooley Ranch Sewer Assessment District. Everyone who had been in on the
<br />planning stages of this district had left the City's employ. I wrote a memo to the
<br />Public Works Secretary asking questions on how this was to be handled. She answered
<br />to the best of her ability, then wrote to the attorneys, Wilson, Jones, Morton &
<br />Lynch in San Mateo for further clarification. As soon as the first worksheets were
<br />received from the County of San Bernardino detailing the amounts collected through
<br />the tax rolls, I began recording these payments next to the assessments in the
<br />Auditor's record book in my office. We did not have a City Auditor at that time.
<br />If I could not identify a parcel per the worksheet, I asked the Engineering Depart-
<br />ment for help. I was not always successful in receiving the requested help. When
<br />the City hired an Auditor in 1974, I requested his help in keeping these payments
<br />properly recorded. After several months and a request to the City Manager, the
<br />Auditor and I went to the office of the Property Tax Accountant for the County of
<br />San Bernardino and located all unaccounted for parcels. From that date on, all
<br />worksheets, including the ones previously received, were given to the City Auditor
<br />in order to keep an accounting of the district for the Finance Department ledgers.
<br />This district began with a separate bank account, however every January and July
<br />when the principal and interest on the bonds was due I had to borrow money from the
<br />City in order to pay the bonds and coupons. The City Clerk & I both requested the
<br />County to advance more funds, but they politely refused, saying they could not ad-
<br />vance more funds than they were guaranteed of recovering. In September, 1975, I
<br />closed the bank account and the entire file on the Cooley Ranch district, except
<br />the bond records, were placed with the Auditor. The funds remaining in the bank
<br />account were transferred to the City's general fund, designated by a specific ac-
<br />count number. All correspondence from the County regarding parcels was turned over
<br />to the Auditor as soon as it was received. It was acknowledged to me that all neces-
<br />sary adjustments were being taken care of by the City Auditor. During the years that
<br />have followed we have also received several letters from the County requesting more
<br />information on parcels which have been split, before they could be placed on the tax
<br />rolls. There was great concern voiced in some of those letters over the fact the
<br />information was not getting to them in a timely manner. We have also received notices
<br />of parcels not being applied to the tax rolls for various reasons every year, beginning
<br />with the 1974/75 tax roll.
<br />FF 6 1980
<br />
|