HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0606 CC REG ITEM 11LBERNARDO M.PEREZ
Mayor
SCOTT MONTGOMERY
Mayor Pro Tem
ELOISE BROWN
Councilmember
CLINT HARPER, Ph.D.
Councilmember
PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr.
Councilmember
LILLIAN KELLERMAN
City Clerk
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MOORPARK ITEM I1" L•
M E M O R A N D U M
STEVEN KUENY
City Manager
CHERYL J. KANE
City Attorney
PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P.
Director of
Community Development
R. DENNIS DELZEIT
City Engineer
JOHN V. GILLESPIE
Chief of Police
RICHARD T. HARE
City Treasurer
The Honorable City Council
Craig Phillips, Administrative Assistant <f_lP
May 29, 1990 (City Council Meeting 6 -6 -90)
Consider a Report on the FY 89 -90 Assessment
Districts' Method of Spread
In early February, 1990, we received less than ten requests
to review assessments for overcollection. In several
instances, a refund was due and paid. In the process of
evaluating the requests, staff noted there were problems with
the data base. Dwight French & Associates (DFA) responded
to staff concerns in the attached February 19, 1990 letter.
Then, around May 4, 1990, it was noted that the Villa
Campesina rebates were much greater than any of the previous
overcollections. To ascertain the extent of the problem,
staff made several demands of DFA in March. First, they were
asked to assess and correct the data base. Second, they were
asked to provide a variance report that would list deviations
from an accurate respreading of the FY 89 -90 assessments.
The accuracy of the respread was assured by comparing the
data base to County records, taking a small sample of parcels
to confirm use and units, and checking parcel maps (see
attached May 21, 1990 letter).
Based on this detailed analysis of the assessments, it
appears that the problem was caused by spreading costs over
all parcels but not all the units and by misapplying use
codes. Apparently, there was a problem with the transition
from Willdan to DFA. That is, the data base was not
accurately provided and processed until March, 1990.
The attached summary variance report, prepared by DFA, shows
that the average overcollection ranged from $2.09 to $217.66
per unit and the average undercollection from $1.14 to
$201.39 per unit. About two - thirds of the parcels were
799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864
The Honorable City Council
May 29, 1990
Page 2
assessed within $3.00 of the correct amount while one -third
of the parcels were assessed a difference of $10.00 or more.
Of this third, 240 parcels (297 units) were assessed a
difference of slightly more than an average of $200.00 per
unit. Generally, variances within the $3.00 range are
expected due to rounding and interaction in the data base
between use codes, parcels and units.
Implications and Recommendation
The variances in last year's assessments had no impact on
funding and each district had a carryover of about $25,000
that was used to offset expenses. However, there was an
impact in excess of $3.00 to a third of the individual
parcels. This impact can be corrected by respreading the
underco1lections and overcollections as part of the FY 90 -91
Engineer's Report.
The respread assessments would be collected on next year's
tax bill. Anticipating that there may be questions from the
240 parcels that varied by slightly more than $200 per unit,
there may be a need to provide an explanation. The cost to
print and mail notices would be about $1 each.
In summary, 62% of the assessments would remain about the
same since they are essentially the result of rounding
differences and, of the 38% that would change, only 3.3%
change significantly (by more than $200 per unit) . The most
effective method to correct the assessments is to respread
them as part of the FY 90 -91 district proceedings. The
result would be an accurate assessment for all parcels and
units for FY 89 -90 and FY 90 -91. Where resperading results
in a significant change in assessments, there is a need to
provide notice and an explanation of the difference.
Staff Recommendation
It is recommended that the City Council direct the assessment
engineer to respread the FY 89 -90 assessments as part of the
FY 90 -91 district proceedings.
SK:sc
5296.tem
Attachment
Moorpark AD -85 -1 and AD -84- 2(89 -90)
Spry
1
I f
I
I---------
REFUNDS ( +)
It
I
BILL ( -)
---•-•
I
I Number of
I.._------1-----------
1
l
I---------
I
I --------- I1
1A+g- If
--------- I-----------
I
1-----------
f
I----------
C
I---------- I
I Avg- I
Range I
Parcels)
Parcels'
Units
I AMCXAIT
I Range
lPer Unit f1
Parcels I
Units
[ 1lNWNT
1 Range
I Per Unitl
l
1�asslz=
srsr= zfzzzzazzr_
f
1 =av-X===s==
1===== _== ===
1== = = =___!
-_- = I
I -3 to +3 1
4497 1
180 1
180
1 376.80
I 2.09
l 2.09 11
4317 I
4.317
1 4,918.00
1 1.13
1 1.14 1
I 1
1---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
I
1
f 2.11
I if
I
!
f 2.62
I I
l -1D to +10 1
1023 1
1001 1
1001
1 6,074.42
1 4.39
1 6.07 fl
22 I
22
1 75.87
1 3.45,
- - - - -1
I 3.44 l
I 1
----------------------------•---••----------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1
I
1 9.24
1 fl
I
I
1 3.45 I
1
I -20 to +20 1
415 1
377 1
377
1 4,571.05
1 10.95
1 12.12 11
38 1
76
------ -------
1 757.29
--- --- ------
1 19.93 I
- - - - -1
9.% I
I !
1-----------------------------------------------------------------•.------------------------------------•------------
I
f
I
1 13.E
1 II
I
I
1 19 -93 I
f
1 -50 to +50 1
559 1
240 1
240
1 7,610.29
1 25.81
1 3].71 11
319 I
319
110,840.20
..-----------
I 23.24 1
- - - - -1
33.98 f
1 1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1
1
1 45.51
I II
I
1
I 34.02 1
C
1 -100 to +100 l
484 1
353 1
353
121,438.07
1 51.28
1 60.73 11
131 1
156
i 7,932.47
i 59.80 I
- - - - -- f
50.85 1
t 1
1
1
C
1 87.86
i II
f
I
l 94-47 I
f
i--------------------------------------------------------------------------------•------------------------------------------------
I -500 to +500 1
240 1
148 1
150
132,649.37
1 123.93
1 217.66 11
92 1
147
129,604.60
1 113.73 1
- - - - -1
201.39 f
I I
- - - --- --------•_-...----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I
1
1
1 435.87
1 11
1
1
1 465.71 1
f
1--
1 -1000 to +10D01
6 1
0 1
0
1 0.00
1
1 11
6 1
831
117,883.86
1 811.21 1
- - - - -- l
21.52 (
1 1
--------------------------------------•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1
1
1
1
I 11
1
1
14,742.58 1
I
7224
2299
72,720.00
4925
72,012.29
February 19, 1990
Ms. Susan M. Cauldwell
Administrative Assistant
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
SUBJECT: 1989 -90 and 1990 -91 Assessments for
Lighting and Landscaping
District No. AD -84 -2 - Lighting Maintenance District
District No. AD --85-1 - Parks, Maintenance District
Dear Ms. � well:
Pursuant to your request at our meeting last Thursday, we have
evaluated the above mentioned assessment projects.
After a review of the computer printout you made available for our
use, we have checked it versus the data we received from Willdan
Associates last year, as well as the signed engineering report of
1988 -1989.
our conclusions after this review of the information, is that:
1. The data on the computer printed output has the same
dollar amount as the final engineer's report.
2. The computer data file we received from Willdan is
different from both Willdan's engineer's report and the
computer output you loaned to us.
3. The hard copy printout we received from Willdan (see
attached) did not match to their engineering report nor
your computer printout.
Hence, it appears that some of the data we generated for the year
of 1989 --1990 may not be loot correct as we used base information
supplied that was not correct. These facts confirm the
conversation between my staff, Henry Pao and Larry Sunyich and
yourself last year in which we suspected the information supplied
was not correct from Willdan.
In order to correctly perform this year (1990 -1991) assessment
calculation, we propose:
1. Not updating the data base from last years assessment
that was regenerated last year.
2. Either obtaining the complete and correct data file from
Willdan or input the computer printout that the City has
in its possession. We would then use this file as our
original data base.
' 3. Quality control the data we created or obtain in step 2.
F• 7W X Dfuniond Mir 13oulc%urri, nlaniond 13ar, (illfonilra 91765 ■
L: (714) 8W -35W Fax Nu. (714) 860 -3476 a
4. Recomputing the 1989 -1990 Assessment calculation and
comparing the assessment data we generated last year.
5. Based on the updated information generated in step 4,
the calculation of the new 1990 -1991 assessment could be
made. During this calculation,corrections will be made
to reflect any changes due to miscalculation in step 3
prior to 1990 -91 assessment.
This procedure would not only correct any possible error in last
years assessments, but would also accurately calculate this years
amount. With this update, we would provide to the City a good data
base for future use.
Attached is a detailed price estimate of $5,800 to recreate last
years assessment and generate an accurate data file. This type of
effort is required to insure the correct application of approved
assessments. This amount is in addition to the $7,000 allocated
to update the subject district for 1990 -91. Please note that
the inconvenience by the City has been caused by the incorrect data
supplied DFA. DFA has expended over $6,200 beyond last years
budget without compensation, trying to resolve this data base
problem.
Please review our revised proposal
or need clarification please call
completing and providing the City
Sincerely,
Gay
Aar ick �+
HCL: rla
1=
cc: Charles Abbott
ltr \028Assmnt.hcl
and is you have any questions,
me. We are most receptive to
an accurate and usable product.
ADDITIONAL EFFORT
1. Recreate 1988 -89 data file, add
8000 recorded to tape
2. Quality control data entry
3. Respread 1989 -90 Assessments
4. Compute adjustments for 1990 -91
from 1989 -90
TOTAL
$3,000.00
800.00
2,000.00
0
$5,800.00
This effort would allow for an accurate data file. The effort
could be reduced to $2,800 if the correct data can be obtained from
the previous assessment engineer.
"t, C".
ww. �41
DISTRICT NO. 12 ZONE NO. 41
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT TRANSMITTAL
DATE APR 27. 1989
SA
10007
AREA
NAM
S K"
00 000 0 000 111
... ........ "
12 345 6 789 012
0-22 6-b2d
OANOE�'.� ILL
SA: AO 56&6-:2'26�`666:
"S ul
....9k -4 Gy
SA 10015 500-0-220-075
VESTOAXS INVESTMENTS 027
34Ot3 500= 0-230 -0i3
, 4vttl'k6dt4.i7
A'
L
SA
10007
500-0-230-125
CH JESUS CHRIST LDS
S K"
... ........ "
..2$794. .
SAL
I ODOT
500-0-230-195
PETERS EDWARD R-OPAL L
t SA 2000'3 500 -024 1�5
:41RONALO 'At!Wt L
soo-o - 2a 0-mqjjg
A'
-A 4.6 2,
-50.0-0+240-
.0A.0
SA
10007
500-0-240-055
PETERS EDWARD R-OPAL L
158,274 36.60
821.533 26.72
18.826 36.60
io-.: Ste
36,931 31.66
34 5678 901 234 56 1
.9
5 00a 00-0;-
164" 939'
z
S K"
500=0-2400 7s
..2$794. .
SA 10007 500-0-240-095
GUNY ASE 40.819
36.60
t SA 2000'3 500 -024 1�5
:41RONALO 'At!Wt L
c
-A 4.6 2,
SA 10061 500-0-240-155
HIN040SA ARNOLD 10.084
21.76
-too! 50-06G
c. ME T;
64'
!,t",4000T �'.-50D -0;-250-070:�
�"ANDERSUWAPTWRA�' URT:, 74
P
May 21, 1990
Mr. Craig Phillips
City of Moorpark
799 Moorpark Avenue
Moorpark, CA 93021
RE: Moorpark AD 84- 2/85 -1
Data Base
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Pursuant to your request, DFA has made a concerted effort to assure
a valid database for the subject assessment district. As discussed
in the letter to Ms. Cauldwell, data file used for 1989 -1990 update
did not have two basic data elements - use code and number of
units. DFA to ascertain for the City as last year data file with
these missing elements has updated the information. We believe the
current file is adequate as DFA has:
1. Reviewed data file provided by City on 3- 29 -90.
2. Revised 1989 -90 information using above information and
the approved Engineers Report.
3. Sampled Item 2 and manually confirmed the appropriate
data.
4. Contacted directly large multi -unit property owners to
confirm unit estimate on database.
This effort we believe insures that the current file for 1990 -1991
assessment is as accurate as to be expected for this type of
database.
ltr \006base.hcl
RECEIVED
MAY 2 5 iGZ
706 N. Diamond Bar Boidcvard, Diamond Bar, California 91765
-. ( 714) 860 -3566 Fax \o. ( 714) 860 -3476 .3