Laserfiche WebLink
� <br />� <br />� <br />� <br />April 10, 1990 <br />To: <br />From: <br />Re: <br />Craig Waldron <br />Community Development Director <br />Ed Burrell l� <br />Finance Director �\ <br />Woodbridge Request <br />I have reviewed the request received from Woodbridge Property <br />Company dated December 28, 1989 asking for $142,082 of increment <br />to be paid to them toward $2,700,000 of reimbursable expenses. <br />Briggs and Moxgan presented an interpretation of the mechanical <br />computation far this reimburs�ment in a letter dated Febr�uary 22, <br />1989. <br />First of all, I think we do need to have a full underst�nding <br />between Woodbridge and the City what amount is due back to Wood- <br />bridge for additional exp�enses based on the development agree- <br />ment. The City does need to o�ficially acknowledge the makeup and <br />amount of reimbursable expenses to W�oodbridge. Once thi� item i� <br />agreed upon, we �an proceed without having to rehash thi� 3�sue <br />each tim�e. (See Section 3.7 (4) e�f the Developer's agreement <br />att�ched.) <br />The letter from Briggs �nd Morgan dated FeJaruary 22, 1989 seta <br />out ti�e calcu�.�tion of the reimbureement to Woodbridge as fol- <br />lows: <br />l. Add together the developer's taac incr�men�s, capitaliz�d <br />inter�st and any supporting increments fram Schedule M af the <br />Dev�lop�r's �►greement. <br />2. Adci the August 1�nd the next Febxua�y 1 debt service and <br />multiply by 105$. . <br />3. Suiatract N'o . 2 f ron� No . Z. <br />4. If �here is a positive difference, pa� it to Woodbridge �g <br />t r� ext�r�t ( a j the dif ferer�c� doesn' t exceed the developer' s tax <br />imcrem�nts and (�) th� Developer has ce�sts o€ at ieaet tD�at <br />amount �till �ta be reimburse�d. <br />The following calculatian has been made under the method above <br />and in line with the definitions as setout by th�e Develop�r�$ <br />agreement, <br />