MERCEDESINDEPENDENTSCHOOL DISTRICT
Mercedes, Texas
The Mercedes Independent School District Board of Trustees met in Special Session on Tuesday, October 24, 2006.
Present:
Mr. Don Vogel, President
/Mr. Monte Churchill, Member
Absent - Mr. George Cardenas, Secretary
/Mr. Ron McVey. Member
Absent - Mr. Pete Guajardo, Member
/Mr. Daniel Salinas, Member
Absent - Mrs. Elvia Sandoval, Vice President
Present from the District:
Mr. Luis Ramos Jr., Superintendent
/Mr. Esequiel Garcia, Sp Ed Director
Mrs. Gloria Cepeda, Assistant Superintendent
/Mr. Rene Guajardo, Transportation Director
Mrs. Nancy Sanchez, Chief Financial Officer
/Mr. Rafael Leal, CATE Director
Mrs. Melissa Aguero-Ramirez, H.R. Director
/Mr. Walter Watson, Federal Programs Director
Mrs. Cindy Cardenas, CNS Director
/Mrs. Michelle Guajardo, Principal, Hinojosa
Mr. Juan Gama, Facil/Maint. Manager
/Mr. Ignacio Garcia, Principal, MECC
Mrs. Olga Hinds, Asst. Financial Officer
/ Mrs. Lisa Cantu, Director Bil./ESL Testing CoordinatorMr. Rolando Handy, Technology Director
/ Mrs. Sylvia Carlin, Support Services CoordinatorRicardo Atkinson, Principal, High School
/ Mrs. Gloria Cantu, PrincipalAlternativeAcademyMr. David Rivera, Principal, Junior High School
/ Mrs. Mary Alice Gonzalez, Principal, KennedyMrs. Pearl Guerrero, Principal, Travis
/ Mrs. Cathy Chamberlain, Principal, TaylorMr. Odon Garcia, Jr., Accounting Supervisor
/ Ms. Mary Brown, Purchasing SupervisorMrs. Cynthia Galvan, Coordinator, 21st Century
/ Ms. Thelma Luna, Coordinator, 21st CenturyMrs. Laura Summy, Reading 1st Coordinator
/ Millie Reynolds, Curriculum CoordinatorMrs. Patty Delgado, Math Strategist
/ Mrs. Juanita Mariscal, Science StrategistMr. Daniel Runnels, Data Analyst
/ Mrs. Josie Ruiz, Sp. Ed. SupervisorMrs. Olga Badillo, Secretary
PresidentDon Vogel called the meeting to order at 6:30pm. and apologized for the absence of three Board Members. Board Member Daniel Salinasled the Pledge of Allegiance; Mr. Ron McVey gave the invocation.
129. Report and possible discussion – MISD Annual Tax Collection Report from Armando Barrera, Tax
Assessor & Collector
Mr. Vogel introduced Mr. Barrera to present the 2005-2006 collection report.
Mr. Armando Barrera: Good evening Members of the Board and Mr. Superintendent. For the period of September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006 in BaseTax we collected $3,602,948.51. In Penalty & Interest, $226,791.76 and Attorney Fees, $78,698.08 and Special Inventory Variance $42.11 for a total of $3,908,480.46. We had prior year refunds for $2,092.43. Net amount collected $3,906,388.03 for 2005-2006.
Disbursements made to the Attorneys $78,698.08. The collection fees$33,650.40. Total Attorney Fees and Collection fees $112,348.48and disbursed to the school is $3,794.039.55 for a net of $3,906,388.03.
Mr. McVey: Attorney’s Fees is that 15%?
Mr. Barrera: Yes 15%.
Mr. McVey: The $78,698.08 is the 15%?
Mr. Barrera: Of the taxes that go delinquent for more than six months.
Mr. Barrera presented the Tax Collection Report and reviewed the tax based for the 2005 Current year in comparison from last year to this year.
Mr. Barrera: We started off with $3,703,317.02 and subtracted $9,665.69 for Homestead exemptions, double assessments; (this would be any adjustments that we get from the Appraisal District reducing the roll). That left a current levy of $3,693,651.33 We collected a total of $3,287,629.31 at the end of August and the percentage of the original is 88.78% of the modified is 89.01%.
Mr. Barrera reviewed the RollbackCollections which is money that comes in when the property changes use from Ag to non-Ag use. It was mentioned that the total collection made was $13,468.90.
Mr. Barrera presented a three year comparison collections with the current year taxes without penalties and interests. He added that the current Levy from 2003 went from 3 millionall the way to 3.7 million, the percentage was 89.60 back in 2003, down to 87.88% and it was brought back up to over 89%. He added that they hope to continue that trend in the future.
Mr. Barrera reviewed the current delinquent collection for a total of $301,850.30 with a percentage of 23.03.
Mr. Barrera briefly presented the 2004 & Prior Delinquent collections.
Mr. Barrera explained that the CED collection was for the 1991 and 1992 taxesthat are still being collected. He stated that the total collected is $9,980.05.
Mr. Vogel: Is this collection rate of 89%in line with what other districts are doing?
Mr. Barrera: We had it up at 89%, it dropped last year and this year we brought it back to 89%. We have implemented some steps between when they go delinquent on February 1st. In July we contact the attorneys and they help us. Between February and June, we have designated people to make phone calls. Collection rates vary between the different Cities. Sharyland, McAllen are 94, Edcouch Elsa is 78 or 80. Mercedes and Weslaco usually run 89 or 90. There is a higher collection rate depending on how urbanized the area is.
Mr. Salinas: Because of our lower percentage, are youtherefore applying more pressure on this area?
Mr. Barrera: We remind people to pay their taxes not only because it helps you but also because it helps the tax payerdue to the fact that the penalties and interests are outrageous.
There being no further questions, Mr. Vogel thanked Mr. Barrera for his presentation.
130. Report and possible discussion – Delinquent Tax Collection Report for Fiscal Year September 1,
2005 thru August 30, 2006 from Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP.
Ms. Cindy Garza with Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP Attorneys At Law addressed the Board and presented the Delinquent Tax Collection Report Fiscal Year for Period September 2005 through August 2006.
Ms. Garza indicated that every delinquent tax payer for Mercedes ISD had received notice at least nine times. In addition to this they had also contacted them depending on the status of litigation. She added that personal visits were conducted on sixty-seven properties. We go and try to work out a payment plan and that usually works towards everybody’s interest. Ms. Garza reviewed a table illustrating the outcome of the personal visits as well as the Litigation Summary. Out of the people that were contacted, nine paid in full collecting $15,249.55. Twenty-one entered the partial payment agreement collecting $10,050.37 and thirty-seven of them are being target for litigation. Ms. Garza reported that 12 suits on behalf of the School District were filed this yearseeking a collection of $33,332.83 Non-Suits paid 11 pending suits collecting $39,905.74 Took fourteen judgments seeking a collection of $43,687.96 and took 4 warrants on businesses in the area that were not paying taxes to the School District and collected $34,473.81 Currently we have 95 suits pending on behalf of the School District and that accounts for just over $507,696.05 of your delinquency and that’s approximately half.
Ms. Garza informed the Board that eight properties have been posted for tax sale in the MercedesIndependentSchool District. Two were struck off to the entity, 4 were paid in full just before the tax sale collecting just over $9,224.44 and 2 were pulled, one because they filed for Bankruptcy and the other because they filed for disability exemption. Those account for $22,380.79 We are currently following the bankruptcy process so you haven’t loss those funds, you just don’t get them right away. In November 2005, we had a property that was put up for resaleand it did sell. MercedesIndependentSchool District received approximately $11,901.61 on that sale. Ms. Garza explained that the big advantage on resale is not only that you will receive the money that is owed up-front, but rather that it is no longer exempt and its back on the tax roll giving you tax dollars on a yearly basis and hopefully in the hands of a responsible tax payer that will continue to pay those on a yearly basis.
Ms. Garza reviewed the Work Plan and reported the 10 mailings scheduled for the 2006-2007 fiscal year: September 2006, October 2006, November 2006, January 2007, February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, July 2007 and August 2007.
Ms. Garza reported that they had One hundred and five (105) property-inspections scheduled that would be conducted this year.
Ms. Garza reported that the tax sale scheduled for October took place this past Saturday. A couple of properties were posted for tax resale and they did sell. Ms. Garza explained that she would address this in a couple of weeks.
Ms. Garza stated that approximately five (5) tax warrants were scheduled for this year.
Ms. Garza stated that they would continue to follow the One year Project to notify, identify the tax payer that have recently gone delinquent in order to help them get into some payment agreement on that property.
Ms. Garza reviewed the 2005-2006 Collection of Delinquent taxes. She explained that $301,850.30 in base tax and $149,360.15 in penalties and interest for a grand total of $451,210.45 had been collected.
Ms. Garza stated that penalties and interest are harsh but they are given back to the School District.
Ms. Garza clarified that the 15% is above and beyond what is owed to the school by the tax payer. For example, if the tax payer owes the School District a $1.00, the law allows me to charge them $1.15 The School District is getting all of their money plus the penalty and the interest that comes off of that as well. The 15 cents is mine, it does not come from your pocket. The School District does not pay our fee rather the delinquent tax payer does.
Mr. McVey: That is standard among school districts?
Ms. Garza: Yes that is correct.
Ms. Garza reviewed the Two Year Fiscal Comparison and asked if there were any questions.
Mr. Vogel: Are those 95 cases in law suits? Are some of them in judgment?
Ms. Garza: It is an open case that we are currently seeking to take before the court for a judgment. It could have been just filed. We are trying to seek citation on a defendant. We could be in the various steps of litigation between when we file and when the judgment is taken.
Mr. Vogel: If it goes into judgment, how long does it stay there? Until the property is sold? Is there a period of time that a person can do a tax sale?
Ms. Garza: We review our judgments regularly. Several things can happen once a judgment is taken. It takes 30 days for a judgment to be filed for me to be able to get a sale processed. During that time period the tax payer is contacted and many times the tax payer will come in and we will do a payment agreement which we monitor. If that person does not make the payment agreement, we will schedule it for tax sale. Usually it takes two months before we get permission from the court.
Mr. Churchill: Mrs. Sanchez what are your projection needs for this coming year?
Mrs. Sanchez: For delinquent and current, 95% combined both together.
Mr. Churchill to Ms. Garza: How often do you plan to come this year to report to us?
Ms. Garza: We have been coming on a quarterly basis and I intend to continue that schedule as long as I am asked to.
It was mentioned that quarterly visits would remain the same.
131 Discussion and possible action on approval of Delinquent Tax collection Contract Renewal
Mr. Ramos recommended that the Board approve the Agreement for Tax Collection Services with Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLp for a two year period and if at anytime the Board would like for them not to provide tax collection services, we can inform them 60 days in advancethat we no longer are interested in their services and another agency may be selected.
Motion by Mr. Churchill and seconded by Mr. Salinas to approve the Agreement for Tax Collection Services with Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLp for a two year period. Motion passed unanimous.
132Discussion and possible action on approval of fuel bid
Ms. Bernie Brown, Purchasing Supervisor for Mercedes ISD presented a Tabulation sheet for Vehicle/Bus Motor Fuel. She explained that a total of seven proposals were sent out: 1. Betts Oil Company,2. Coastal Transports Company, 3. Hicks Oil Company, 4. Oil Patch Company, 5. Ram Oil Company, 6. Gold Star Petroleum, 7. South Texas Petroleum. Two companies that did submit: Oil Patch (Best and Final offer) with a Profit Margin for Unleaded 0.0425 and Profit Margin for Diesel 0.0425 with a delivery fee for both unleaded and diesel in the amount of $20.00 per delivery. The LUST fee which is a leakage underground storage fee has also been included in the Profit Margin for Gold Star.
Ms. Bernie Brown: Gold Star – On the first try they came in with a Profit Margin for Unleaded 0.0259 and 0.0292 Profit Margin for Diesel with a delivery fee for both unleaded and diesel up to $40.00. They have separated their LUST and the OSLTF. The OSLTFis the oil spill liability that is imposed by the IRS. After I called for a best and final offer, Gold Star stated they would not charge for delivery and to add a penny to their Profit Margin along with the IRS fees. That came in at 0.0381 for Unleaded and 0.0414 for Diesel with no delivery fee. The difference in the profit margin is 0.0044 for Unleaded with GoldStar still being lower thanOil Patch and for their Diesel it is .0011 and it is still lower than Oil Patch. The term for this proposal is if it gets approved today, it will start tomorrow October 25, 2006 thru August 31, 2007. The committee which consisted of me, Mr. Guajardo, and Mr. Gama recommend Gold Star and our rationale for that is their lower profit margin. The budget Amount for 2006-2007 is $166,000.00 and the actual expenditure for 2005-2006 is $205,178.00
Mr. Vogel: The $166,000.00 that is not the total fuel budget?
Mrs. Sanchez: No, if you include Federal Programs, we looked at it and it’s $231,000.00
Mr. Churchill: How does this compare to what you can buy if you were going to Buy board?
Bernie: No Sir, we didn’t look into Buy board.
Mr. McVey: I would recommend that we look into Buy board before we approve because what if Buy board is lower than Gold Star. That is something that we can check real quick.
Mr. Ramos stated that this item would be tabled while the staff checked the Web Site.
Motion made by Mr. Churchill and seconded by Mr. Salinas to table Item 132 for later during the meeting. Motion passed unanimous.
133. Discussion and possible action on selection of HVAC engineering firm
Bernie Brown presented a tabulation sheet on HVAC Engineering Services. She reported that six proposals were sent out: 1.Halff Associates, 2. Rimkus Consulting Group, 3. Unitec, 4. The Alex Group, 5. Ambiotech, 6. ACR Engineering. Four firms submitted proposals: Halff Associates, Unitec, The Alex Group and ACR Engineering. Qualifications were opened October 19, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. The committee consisted of Mr. Ramos, Mrs. Nancy Sanchez and Mr. Juan Gama. Unitec Engineering, Inc. from McAllen came in first with average points of 91.66 from all committee members. It would be a one year term starting tomorrow October 25, 2006 thru October 25, 2007 if it does get approve tonight. Again our recommendation is Unitec Engineering, Inc. The total amount for the projects is $750,000.00 for 2006-2007 and the engineering fee would be negotiable between 6% and 8%.
Mr. Churchill stated that this was not a fixed rate. Why can we not get an actual fixed fee from the engineers?
Mr. Ramos: It is not allowed in regards to the selection of the firm, the fee.
Mr. Churchill: They have always been in the past. It may not be allowed now. When you ask the question, what is your fee? I presume these are all very good firms. The 8% is a pretty high figure.
Mr. McVey: What about their experience with other school districts?
Mr. Ramos: I selected Unitec because they are local, they are from McAllen. The have two engineers on staff available. We have three schools that you can actually have two engineers working on a projectto make the process move faster. They also have thirty-three employees which is more than a usual firm. Their references were all excellent.
Danny Salinas: Were they all school districts?
Mr. Ramos: They were all school districts. I think they had twelve school districts that they worked with here locally. Nicki Rowe, Ringo Elementary in Rio Grande City, Ramirez Elementary in Rio Grande City, Santa Rosa High School and an Elementary School in Laredo. Mr. Ramos added that they had twelve additional projects they were involved with.
Danny Salinas: I believe this evening we need to name somebody but with the fact that the price is negotiable. I believe that the Board can reverse its decision in the future and simply choose not to award any projects.
Mr. Churchill: I just think that 8% is a very steep figure and it is one we are not used to paying. We shouldn’t.
Mr. Ramos: We are going to try to get 6%. That certainly is going to be our stand. Basically since we deal with professional services, whether its attorneys,orarchitects, or engineers. Basically we need to look at their statements of qualifications.
Mr. Churchill: We have always done that for the past thirty years. The bottom line is that our tax payers do not deserve to pay a high premium rate. I will support that Mr. Salinas if you would take the recommendation and subject to our review if it comes at 8%, I would like us to review that. I think that most of these companies probably would charge less than 8%.