1980 REG MTG MIN FEB 5 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

368 About one week after the City Auditor was dismissed, in July 1979, I retreived all the Cooley Ranch Sewer Assessment District files from his desk and found that noth- ing further had been done since 1975. After several days of trying to sift thru the different papers myself, I requested help from the Finance Director in a memo dated August 2, 1979. He in turn brought my request to the attention of you, the City Council, during the meeting of August 21st, at which time you approved funds of $2,000 to hire an independent auditing firm to go over these files, bringing them up to date and locating any possible losses to the City from uncollected assessments. As yet I do not have a copy of their findings, but have requested a copy from the City Manager as soon as it is completed. I receive phone calls on a daily basis from several title companies asking for updates on the assessments. This includes figuring the amount to pay the assess- ment in full and whether or not an assessment is current. I can only furnish them with what information I have on record, which does not include delinquencies. Several times it has been mentioned by these companies that certain parcels are not showing on the tax rolls. I have tried over the years to keep the Cooley Ranch parcel splits up to date because of the constant information requests yet I would invariably be informed by the title companies of new splits which I did not have. Whenever I questioned our Engineering Department and asked for an update, they would give me the excuse that the Attorneys in San Mateo were holding up the paper work. This was not entirely true. Currie Engineering brought me up to date in July, 1979, with a schedule of the changes since 1972. There have been 14 amended assessment schedules of which I had only been given 3 from with the City. I then got copies of the other amendments from the City Clerk's Office and after a few months of repeated requests, received the proper ammorization schedules from San Mateo. I now have all the paper work involved in the amendments, but for some reason there are parcels that never made it to the tax rolls. Since my responsibility, according to the Streets and Highways Code, Improvement Bond Act of 1915, Sections 8671-8673, is limited to the payment and recording of the bonds, I feel I have far exceeded my required duties in trying to keep updated in- formation on these assessments. It is the duty of the City Auditor, per Sections 8682 and/or 8761-87649 to make an annual record showing the installments of princi- pal and interest due on the assessments and to be sure sufficient funds are collect- ed to pay bonds when due. As this responsibility has not been fulfilled for the last 4 years, I am gravely concerned that a new district under the same bond act will fall into the same mis-handling. I have attached copies of these code sec- tions for your review. The Cooley Ranch Sewer Assessment District has grown from 89 parcels in the beginning to the current 201 parcels. According to information I have received, of these 201 parcels, 36 are missing from the tax rolls. This could result in a probable loss to the City of Colton of $21,000 a year. Under a 1915 Act bond we have issued bonds in $1,000 denominations that cover the entire amount of the district with the County of San Bernardino authorized to made all assessment collections thru the tax rolls. However, if the parcel never made it to the tax rolls the amount of the assessment has not been paid. Whether or not the County has collected any assessments to be forwarded to us, the City is still committed to paying the bondholders. This is because the 1915 bond act allows this to happen. The County may never collect another cent, yet the City is still liable. With a 1911 Act bond, such as first proposed for District 1978-23 the control of collecting the assessments and payment of the bonds falls entirely on my office. And eventho it means an added workload to the Treasurer, it guarantees that no bond is paid unless the assessment has been paid. In that way we are not committed to paying bonds on assessments which are delinquent. I understand your reasoning in voting for a 1915 Act bond. It allows you an easier and more successful way of selling the bonds. But do you realize that even in $5,000 denominations this means there will be approximately 1200 bonds that the City will be committed to pay if the assessments go unpaid? Eventho there is a reserve fund set aside which should never be depleted, I do not feel under the present conditions, that the City should undertake another 1915 Act bond series unless steps are taken to be sure all departments, including the City Auditor, work together effectively to control all facets of the district in order to avoid the same pitfalls we have encountered with the Cooley Ranch Sewer Assessment District. Eventho the record keeping of the bonds and probably the assessment record itself, of the new District 1978-2 will be placed in my office, I, as City Treasurer, have not received one piece of information on this district. In closing I will answer two of your questions before you ask: F E R 51980