Proper Public Notice?
City Council tabled action last night on appointing the official auditor for Marfa's 2005-2006 fiscal year which ends in a couple of weeks. The city has hired accountant Dan Painter of El Paso for four years (auditing 01-02, 02-03, 03-04 and 04-05). Marfa has paid him approximately $13,000 a year since January 2003. This would be his fifth round as auditor if appointed.
Mr. Sauceda said that he posted the position and received only one response: Mr. Painter. Well, I checked the Sentinel and found only one public announcement for the auditor job and it ran in the August 24, 2006 issue. The deadline was 4:00PM August 25, 2006. I don't know if Florencio ran the announcement anywhere else. I will ask him when I get a chance. If this was Mr. Sauceda's due diligence in finding an auditor, it's a joke.
Dan Painter has also been involved in the budget preparation. He has consulted on the current budget, proposed amendments to the current budget, and possibly the proposed budget for next year. He was in City Hall for days during August. At the end of August, Mr. Sauceda published the proposed amendment to the 05-06 budget and the proposed 06-07 budget. The proposed amendment includes an extra $100,000 in spending not authorized by Council. Was Painter involved in this work? Well, he was not doing the audit this August because it was already done and we already paid his $13,000 bill on that early this year. So he must have been working on these proposals with Mr. Sauceda.
Mr. Sauceda is asking council to appoint the person who helped create the amended budget proposal in August to come in and audit this same budget in October. If council approves the administrator's amended budget at the end of September, Painter will use that as the "current" budget to audit in October. Fishy?
Marfa's City Administrator allows ONE day for accountants to respond to the public notice. Then he "strongly recommends" the accountant that helped amend the budget to then audit that same budget the next month? Who is he trying to fool?
Mr. Painter was not at the meeting Tuesday night, but his contract employee was present. I was at city hall the next morning and who comes in? Dan Painter! He must have come in from El Paso Wednesday morning to do damage control. He spent most of the day with Mr. Sauceda and Mr. Lanman. I heard reports that Mr. Sauceda was contacting each council member to get them to change their mind and appoint Mr. Painter. Why does Florencio want Mr. Painter so desperately that he would call him in from El Paso immediately. And who will pay for that trip?
I get concerned when the city administrator lobbies on behalf of his chosen auditor. I have nothing personal against this administration. I want to see the budget process done in a transparent way. Mr. Sauceda should not be selecting the auditor for his work (or possibly Painter's work). That is not an "independent" auditor. The auditor must be independent from the budget author(s). City Council must select an independent auditor of their choosing to audit the administrator's work.
For the record, Council member Lupe Devine was not present at last night's council meeting.
Mr. Sauceda said that he posted the position and received only one response: Mr. Painter. Well, I checked the Sentinel and found only one public announcement for the auditor job and it ran in the August 24, 2006 issue. The deadline was 4:00PM August 25, 2006. I don't know if Florencio ran the announcement anywhere else. I will ask him when I get a chance. If this was Mr. Sauceda's due diligence in finding an auditor, it's a joke.
Dan Painter has also been involved in the budget preparation. He has consulted on the current budget, proposed amendments to the current budget, and possibly the proposed budget for next year. He was in City Hall for days during August. At the end of August, Mr. Sauceda published the proposed amendment to the 05-06 budget and the proposed 06-07 budget. The proposed amendment includes an extra $100,000 in spending not authorized by Council. Was Painter involved in this work? Well, he was not doing the audit this August because it was already done and we already paid his $13,000 bill on that early this year. So he must have been working on these proposals with Mr. Sauceda.
Mr. Sauceda is asking council to appoint the person who helped create the amended budget proposal in August to come in and audit this same budget in October. If council approves the administrator's amended budget at the end of September, Painter will use that as the "current" budget to audit in October. Fishy?
Marfa's City Administrator allows ONE day for accountants to respond to the public notice. Then he "strongly recommends" the accountant that helped amend the budget to then audit that same budget the next month? Who is he trying to fool?
Mr. Painter was not at the meeting Tuesday night, but his contract employee was present. I was at city hall the next morning and who comes in? Dan Painter! He must have come in from El Paso Wednesday morning to do damage control. He spent most of the day with Mr. Sauceda and Mr. Lanman. I heard reports that Mr. Sauceda was contacting each council member to get them to change their mind and appoint Mr. Painter. Why does Florencio want Mr. Painter so desperately that he would call him in from El Paso immediately. And who will pay for that trip?
I get concerned when the city administrator lobbies on behalf of his chosen auditor. I have nothing personal against this administration. I want to see the budget process done in a transparent way. Mr. Sauceda should not be selecting the auditor for his work (or possibly Painter's work). That is not an "independent" auditor. The auditor must be independent from the budget author(s). City Council must select an independent auditor of their choosing to audit the administrator's work.
For the record, Council member Lupe Devine was not present at last night's council meeting.
posted by RobC at 11:55 PM
11 Comments:
Good point on this issue ROBC. Having the advertisement for accounting services for one measly day does not constitute a diligent search for bids. Two weeks at the least.
Common 1st grade purchasing practices require three quotes from various organizations in order to make an intelligent decision on whose services to use. Common 1st grade accounting practices put a two to three (at most) year limit on the services of auditors. It seems like Mr. Painter has been taking the test and grading it at the same time. Strange.
Council needs to MAKE the City Administrator give them three quotes so that they can make the proper decision in regards to this issue. The taxpayers dollars should be priority one. Our $65000 a year City Administrator should be able to handle something this elementary.
Assuming that a new announcement will be posted seeking firms interested in becoming this city's auditor and assuming that Dan Painter submits a bid and it happens to be the low bid...I would hope (and expect)that Council will not renew his contract. ROBC has uncovered murky and extremely questionable accounting practices in his review of the budget(s)and Marfa doesn't need any more of this.
Those of you who had the patience to scroll down under one of the budget articles to the newspaper account from the City of Taft of why Flo was fired will notice that one of the reasons was "using city property and personnel inefficiently." It has been obvious to all and sundry that Public Works Director Robert Silva is practically a personal servant to Flo but here is another case. Corina Brijalba works part time in the Police Department. She has 20 years bookkeeping experience as well as extensive Justice of the Peace experience in Balmorhea. She has repeatedly asked to be placed in the accounting job at City Hall. In the immortal words of Kinky Friedman, "Why the hell not?"
I'll save the surprise for later but we have a firm of topnotch quality that is interested.
Has a proper city notice been done per the Attached Truth in Taxation?
Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase
Once the taxing unit’s representative publishes the effective and rollback tax rates and reports them to the governing body, the governing body—other than one for a small taxing unit or a water district —assumes the duty of complying with truth-in-taxation laws. Failure to carry out this duty in good faith carries a high price: any property owner in the unit believing the unit has violated the law may go to district court and enjoin tax collections. The injunction stops the delivery of tax bills until the unit convinces the court that it has complied with the law. The property owner must act to enjoin before the date the taxing unit delivers substantially all of its tax bills.
Section 26.05(d) requires a taxing unit to hold two public hearings and publish newspaper ads before adopting a tax rate that exceeds the rollback rate or the effective tax rate, whichever rate is lower.
If proposing a tax increase, the governing body must issue the first of two public notices. This first notice is titled Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase. The Comptroller’s model forms appear in Appendix 10. Units must publish the notice in a newspaper or mail it to each property owner in the unit at least seven (7) days before the public hearings.
Content of the notice. The notice has several sections. The first section states that the unit is proposing to increase tax revenues and states the percentage increase that the proposed rate exceeds the effective or rollback rate. It gives the time, date and place of the public hearing(s) and tells how members of the governing body voted on the proposal.
The next section is entitled “Comparison of Proposed Budget with Last Year’s Budget” and shows the percent increase or decrease in the amount budgeted in the preceding fiscal year and the amount budgeted for the fiscal year that begins this tax year for 1) maintenance and operations, 2) debt service, and 3) total expenditures.
Following is a section entitled “Total Appraised Value and Total Taxable Value.” This section lists the total appraised and taxable values for all property and all new property in the unit calculated under Tax Code Section 26.04 for last year and the current tax year.
Taxing units are next required to state the amount of their outstanding and unpaid bonded indebtedness.
Below the information about debt, the notice must show the adopted tax rate for last year and the proposed tax rate for the current year and give the difference expressed as an amount per $100 and as a percent increase or decrease, as applicable, in the two rates.
The next section of the notice is a table comparing the preceding year’s appraised and taxable value on the average residence homestead to this year’s appraised and taxable value on the average home. This table compares the following information:
Average appraised value last year and this year of a residence homestead in the taxing unit, disregarding the limited home value that some homeowners may have due to the 110-percent value limitation;
Amount of the residence homestead exemptions that would apply to the average home last year and this year, disregarding over-65 or disabled homeowner’s exemptions; and
Taxable value of the average residence homestead after exemptions last year and this year, disregarding over-65 or disabled homeowner’s exemptions.
There are several ways to calculate the average residence homestead value in the taxing unit. The taxing unit coulde average the value of all residential property, Category A property (coded using the state code system), or only homes with general homestead exemptions. In each instance, the total appraised value of the properties (before exemptions are removed) is divided by the number of properties. The appraisal district can assist with this step. Legal advice should be requested if a question arises concerning the appropriate methodology for this calculation.
The final section of the notice is a comparison of last year’s taxes and this year’s proposed taxes on the average home in the taxing unit. The unit must show the amount of taxes on the home each year and state the difference between the amounts as an increase or decrease in taxes.
(Note: If applicable, counties must add a paragraph on the criminal justice mandate and a taxing unit with enhanced indigent health care expenditures adds a sentence stating those costs.)
The law no longer requires that taxing units use the Comptroller’s model form for the Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase. Statutory language must be followed. All notices should be prepared or reviewed by legal counsel.
Newspaper requirements. Tax Code Section 26.06 requires the notice be at least a quarter page in a standard-size or tabloid-size newspaper. Its headline must appear in 24-point type or larger. It must not appear in the legal or classified section of the newspaper. The unit must publish the notice at least seven (7) days before the date of the first public hearing.
The newspaper must devote at least 25 percent of its space to general interest items. It must be published at least once a week and must have been regularly published for at least 12 months before the notice is placed. Finally, it must be entered as second-class postal matter in the county where it is published.
The United States Postal Service’s change in name of “second-class” mail to “periodicals” is fundamentally a name change only.
Just when we thought it couldn't get any worse: Please go to www.window.state.tx and find a booklet called Truth in Taxation. Go to part 5 that states the required notices.
1)
The City of Marfa never published the first notice which is the one with all the schedules. It is critical. Injunctions can be filed in district court to halt the collection of taxes.
2) On September 7 and September 14, the city published the second required notice, the Notice of Public Hearing on Tax Increase. Unfortunately, in both editions, Flo left off a second page that contains critical property tax information. This is not the fault of the newspaper.
3) will be required, the Notice of Vote on Tax Rate. Wonder if that will be done correctly.
Whoops! The schedules were published on August 10. But the Notice of hearing is still missing page 2.
For the record, I spoke Mr. Sauceda today. He claimed to have posted the notice twice in the Sentinel and only the Sentinel. I told him it ran once. He claimed to have requested it twice. I have heard a couple of stories about why it did not run the first time. It does not matter. I told him that when he told council that he posted it, he is using terminology that implies proper procedure including two weeks and suffcient time for responses. By withholding from council the information that it ran only once and had only one day to respond, he was intentionally misleading council. I stand by my position that he gives the appearance of impropriety by implying proper procedure when he knew otherwise. He gives the appearance that he is slanting the selection process in favor of his preferred auditor. In the case of audits, there is zero room for suspicion of motives.
Also for the record, Mr. Sauceda claims that Dan Painter was not involved in the budget when he worked for the city for two days in August. He claims he was working on the ORCA grant. ORCA is auditing the closure of this grant and the city must have its paperwork in order. Now the question is this: Is there money in the ORCA grant to cover Painter's work on ORCA, or is the city paying for Painter to come in and organize the ORCA accounting because Flo cannot do it? Is this a skill we would expect a $65,000 administrator to have so that we avoid hiring a $1000 per day accountant?
Finally, Dan Painter showed up in Marfa on Wednesday to try and save his contract on his own. Mr. Sauceda claims that he did not know he was coming, and the city was not paying for his time in Marfa, nor that of his employee at the council meeting.
And Add to all this mess there is an outstanding balance of Accounts Payable in the amount of $75300.+-for the month of August. Not including payroll, etc. Is that the way to conduct the business of a municipality that is "doing so good financially".
Post a Comment
<< Home