CRA Minutes 07/07/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--- , -- RESEARCH CONSULTANTS M M RAND M June 2006 John J. Pavlis, Interim City of RE: Thomas R. Kohler, Real Estate Preliminary Findings Regarding eRA Trust Fund on the review of the as discussions with on and documents provided by as well the following is a of the findings: .. The .original County resolution (1 approving the delegation powers and creation of the Casselberry CRA stipulated that no County funds would be contributed to the Trust Fund. Though there may be some differences in the interpretation of the intent of the delegation of powers as descri~ed in Chapter 163.410, it appears the intent between the city and the county was eVident. The City of Casselberry, by ordinance, established that it would pay 70% of the amount formula required as its share into the Trust Fund. It is our determination that under the legislation, the city had to pay the full 95% portion as defined by the formula since the CRA's inception and could not pay less. .. .. The subsequent Seminole County resolution of 1998 and corresponding city ordinance relating to the increase in the percentage contribution to 95% seems to be clear. Thus, beginning in 1998, both the city and the county should have contributed their full 95% tax increment share into the Trust Fund. It appears the county under funded for 1998 and 1999 using the 70% formula and the city did not fully contribute appropriate share every year due to its 70% calculations. .. In 2004, for some unknown and unauthorized reason, the Seminole County Tax Assessor increased the tax increment base amount from $81,977,660 to $91 in essence altered the amount contributed (under the 95% formula) to the Trust Fund. It is our understanding that this increase in the base occurred as two annexed into the city were folded into the CRA district. However well intentioned the increased may have been, Chapter 163.361(4) specifically describes the process by which a tax increment area can be expanded. To do so, the same process, including the "Finding of Necessity" documentation and public hearing process for plan amendment must be followed. This was not done, so there should not have been any increment attributable to these annexed parcels and obviously, the 1996 base year could not be changed. Should these two parcels be subsequently included in the CRA tax increment area, a separate year for these two parcels will be established and future increment will be calculated off of that new base. The original base is inviolate and cannot be changed.