2006-03-22 CC Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

b) Page2 of Resolution No.29 establishing TIF District No. 1-2 could not be located in the city files such that complete documentation showing that the findings required by Minn. Stat. 469.174, subd.12 (1986) or 469.175, subd.3 (1988) is not available. (Count 2 of the Complaint) c) The TIP Plan for TIF District 1-3 does not clearly articulate the reasons and facts identifying how the "but-for" test is satisfied.(Count 4 of the Complaint). d) The TIP Plans for TIP Districts 1-1, 1-2 and 1-3 imply which properties the City intends to acquire with tax increment, but does not expressly identify the properties. (Counts 6 and 8 of the Complaint.) e) The City improperly transferred tax increment from TIF Districts 1-1, 1-2 and 1- 3 on lease payments to fmance construction of City Hall and a fIre station and has repaid funds in the amount of $44,595 to the county auditor.(Count 7 of the Complaint. ) WHEREAS, the TIP Plan and resolution approving the TIP Plan for TIP District No.I-2 and 1- 3 was adopted prior to December 31, 1990 and no penalty may be imposed under 469.1771; and WHEREAS, under Minnesota Statutes, Section 469.1771, subdA(b), a court may abate all or part of any amount payable by the authority if the court determines that the action was taken in good faith and the payment would work an undue hardship on the municipality; and WHEREAS, Counts 1, 3 and 5 relate solely to the way tax increment budgeted expenditures were presented in the tax increment plans; Counts 2 and 4 relate solely to missing paperwork or documentation regarding findings; and Counts 6 and 8 relate solely to the specificity of descriptions regarding property to be acquired; and PAC-229845v2 CE155-18 3 Ji