CRA Minutes 07/07/2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. The land and subsequent in 2004 as a a review of the entire may not all the financial at the time. In any of whether to credit the city the loan is sold. If it for less than the amount of the a current appraisal the then the could be For purposes this we have not included a credit for the time to make the would be when the rather than on at that time. · With regard to expenses, 1 (a-h) describes the of expenses which the can reimbursed by the CRA These include, but are not limited administrative related to planning, engineering, design, financial analysis, acquisition of property, clearance and site of interest on any of affordable housing and community policing innovations. The reimbursements would be eligible back to costs incurred in assisting the CRA since 1995. The estimated amount of eligible reimbursable costs to the city from the CRA Trust Fund is $ · In reviewing Finance it appears that the under funded CRA Trust Fund in the total amount 101. This figure is calculated using the 95(% formula since tax increment has been collected starting in 1 Ii> Similarly, the county's share of tax increment contribution to the Trust Fund been under funded by a total amount of $23,995. These calculations are based on contributions since 1998. .. Another issue to be addressed relates to the interest accrued for any outstanding payments. legislation stipulates 1 % per month penalty for all outstanding payments. Though the city has provided figures on this penalty, we feel this must be recalculated based on the removal of the credit for the debt forgiveness above to determine the actual financial obligations to adhere to Chapter 163.387(2) (b). It appears that both the city and the county would be required to pay the penalties for their proportionate share of the under funded portion to the Trust Fund. The estimated amount of penalties for the under funded periods is $160,998 for the city and $28,858 for the county. Ii> In summary, while there have been a number of errors committed in adhering to the calculations and delivery of the appropriate revenues to the CRA Trust Fund, there appear to be reasonable options to restore compliance. These would include making up the under funded differential, not discounting the land swap/loan forgiveness, paying the interest on the under funded amount and having the CRA Trust Fund reimburse the City for eligible expenses. The interest payments owed by the County and the City could possibly be modified or forgiven if both the city and county agree. The two additional annexed parcels need their own course of attention to be properly included in a modified plan.