 |
AGENDA ITEM REVIEW FORM |
6.E.
Regular City Council Meeting
- Meeting Date:
- 12/13/2017
- Department Head:
- Kay Macuil
- Submitted By:
- Kay Macuil, City Attorney, Attorney's Office
Action Requested:
Motion
ITEM:
Discussion and possible action on any and all matters regarding First Reading of Ordinance No. 375. An ordinance of the Mayor and City Council of the City of San Luis, Arizona, amending subsection 51.12(C) of City Code, rates and charges for sewage collection and disposal rates and charges by amending provisions regarding liens and provisions for enforcement of liens; repealing any conflicting provisions; and providing for severability. (Jorge Perez, Billing & Collections Manager)
A. Approval of First Reading of Ordinance No. 375 by title only
(City Clerk to read Ordinance by title only)
A. Approval of First Reading of Ordinance No. 375 by title only
(City Clerk to read Ordinance by title only)
SUMMARY:
Background
San Luis provides sewer service (but not water service) for a number of accounts in Gadsden. Sewer service without water service creates unique problems in Gadsden that we do not have for utility services in the City of San Luis. If an account is delinquent in the city, the city may shut off the water and the account holder will then pay the bill. In Gadsden, we cannot shut off the water because the city does not provide the water there. The Gadsden accounts will go years without paying the charges. What we do is impose a lien on the real property, and then foreclose the lien. The lien and foreclosure process is time-consuming and, depending on the particular case, can be a costly process.
The City Code Subsection 51.12(C) allows for liens on the property. A.R.S. §9-511.02 authorizes it by state statute. Our City Code provision conflicts in some parts of the state statute. As a result what we have been doing is following the state statutory provisions if the City Code conflicts. Our code does not provide for, nor does the statute prohibit, the collection of our costs which will involve 1) recording fees at the County Recorder: 2) title search fees for a title search if a foreclosure action occurs; and 3) process server fees. State law allows recovery of these fees in a contested action arising out of contract, and are normally assessed and part of regular foreclosure actions in court. We have begun actual foreclosure twice on one property owner, who keeps getting behind. We now have multiple other properties owing more than $30,000 in total. Several owe more than $3,000.00.
The Proposal for Ordinance No. 375
The proposed attached ordinance does several things:
(1) It brings our code into strict conformance with state law. It makes sure the notice provisions prior to the filing of lien comply and provides the property owner with a right of hearing if they disagree with the charges on the account or whether their property should be subject to a lien.
(2) It provides that a recorded lien is behind all other previously recorded liens. (This is a state law requirement.)
(3) It allows for the recovery of legal interest. (Allowed by state statute.) It provides that the city can recover its costs which can include a reasonable attorney’s fee. The recorded lien secures those costs.
This Ordinance does not propose new fees or charges for fees or services. As a result, it need not go through the rate hearing process. Recovery of costs involved in the collection of delinquent fees and charges for service differs from a fee or charge for service.
San Luis provides sewer service (but not water service) for a number of accounts in Gadsden. Sewer service without water service creates unique problems in Gadsden that we do not have for utility services in the City of San Luis. If an account is delinquent in the city, the city may shut off the water and the account holder will then pay the bill. In Gadsden, we cannot shut off the water because the city does not provide the water there. The Gadsden accounts will go years without paying the charges. What we do is impose a lien on the real property, and then foreclose the lien. The lien and foreclosure process is time-consuming and, depending on the particular case, can be a costly process.
The City Code Subsection 51.12(C) allows for liens on the property. A.R.S. §9-511.02 authorizes it by state statute. Our City Code provision conflicts in some parts of the state statute. As a result what we have been doing is following the state statutory provisions if the City Code conflicts. Our code does not provide for, nor does the statute prohibit, the collection of our costs which will involve 1) recording fees at the County Recorder: 2) title search fees for a title search if a foreclosure action occurs; and 3) process server fees. State law allows recovery of these fees in a contested action arising out of contract, and are normally assessed and part of regular foreclosure actions in court. We have begun actual foreclosure twice on one property owner, who keeps getting behind. We now have multiple other properties owing more than $30,000 in total. Several owe more than $3,000.00.
The Proposal for Ordinance No. 375
The proposed attached ordinance does several things:
(1) It brings our code into strict conformance with state law. It makes sure the notice provisions prior to the filing of lien comply and provides the property owner with a right of hearing if they disagree with the charges on the account or whether their property should be subject to a lien.
(2) It provides that a recorded lien is behind all other previously recorded liens. (This is a state law requirement.)
(3) It allows for the recovery of legal interest. (Allowed by state statute.) It provides that the city can recover its costs which can include a reasonable attorney’s fee. The recorded lien secures those costs.
This Ordinance does not propose new fees or charges for fees or services. As a result, it need not go through the rate hearing process. Recovery of costs involved in the collection of delinquent fees and charges for service differs from a fee or charge for service.
RECOMMENDATION / SUGGESTED MOTION:
I MOVE TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 375 BY TITLE ONLY
(CITY CLERK TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY)
(CITY CLERK TO READ THE ORDINANCE BY TITLE ONLY)
Fiscal Impact
- IS THERE FISCAL IMPACT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ITEM:
- No
- CITY/STATE/FEDERAL FUNDS:
- N/A
- TOTAL:
- N/A
- BUDGETED AMOUNT:
- N/A
- AVAILABLE AMOUNT TO TRANSFER:
- N/A
- ACCT NAME & GL#/REMAINING BALANCE BEFORE PURCHASE:
- N/A
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT (IF THIS IS A BUDGET TRANSFER, YOU MUST ATTACH THE BUDGET ADJUSTMENT FORM):
This ordinance formalizes the city's procedures to collect money due to the city.