Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1985/02/05 Item 6 • • COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 6 Meeting Date 2/5/85 ITEM TITLE: Resolution //rat/ Appropriating $3,772.77 from the Unappropriated Gas Tax Balance for Reimbursement to Financial Scene, Inc. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/ OyJV City Engineer (4/5ths Vote: Yes X No ) REVIEWED BY: City Manager On June 8, 1983, the Financial Scene, Inc. (The Village Company) made a reimbursement payment in the amount of $211 ,772.47 to the City of Chula Vista. This payment was calculated to be the amount due Chula Vista for the advancement of funds to construct East "H" Street through their Terra Nova Subdivision. Recently it has been brought to our attention that Financial Scene, Inc. paid $3,772.77 in excess of the amount actually due to the City. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appropriate $3,772.77 from the Unappropriated Gas Tax Fund Balance for reimbursement to Financial Scene, Inc. (The Village Company) . BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In 1984, the City of Chula Vista agreed to advance funds for the early completion of East "H" Street through the Terra Nova Subdivision. The City agreed to advance these funds and be reimbursed by Financial Scene, Inc. (The Village Company) at a future date, with the advanced funds earning 7% simple i nterest. In June, 1984, the developer requested the City to compute the amount to be reimbursed as they were ready to pay back the City for all the monies advanced. Engineering staff calculated the amount due from the developer to be $211 ,772.47 which included $200,837.96 in principal and $10,934.51 in i nterest. We subsequently and recently discovered that the amount paid ($211 ,772.47) was incorrectly figured. The payment included $3,577.97 for work which the City was responsible for along East "H" Street. This was the pavement transition necessary to move westbound traffic from the 2-lane segment to the 4-lane segment. Since the City requested the early construction and since this work would not have if the street had been constructed in normal „„ „ , , Page 2, Item 6 Meeting Date 2/5/85 phasing, Financial Scene should not have been charged these costs. Thus, the correct principal amount due Chula Vista should have been $197,259.39 ($200,837.36 - $3,577.97). Had we computed the principal due Chula Vista correctly, the total interest owed the City would have been $10,739.71 . Instead we were paid $10,934.51 in interest ($194.80 too much). The Finance Department has reviewed our computation and has determined that the total overpayment is $3,772.77 ($3,577.97 in overpayment of principal and $194.80 in overpayment of interest). This amount needs to be refunded to the developer. Since the project account was closed out at the end of the 84-85 Fiscal Year, it is necessary to appropriate funds to cover the reimbursement amount. It is recommended that Council appropriate the $3,772.77 to refund the money to the developer. There are sufficient funds available in the unappropriated Gas Tax Fund Balance to cover this amount. FISCAL IMPACT: Amount to be reimbursed, $3,772.77 was erroneously collected by the City in June, 1984. The $3,772.77 is to be appropriated to Account 250-2501-GT168. AP019/EY093 r WPC 1354E CO- \1/4 Form No. F-229 12/73 CERTIFICATE OF CITY/DIRECTOR OF FINANCE Certification of Unappropriated Balance I HEREBY CERTIFY that the money required for the appropriation of funds for the purpose set forth in the attached resolution is available in the Treasury, or is anticipated to come into the Treasury, and is otherwise unappropriated. Amount $ 3,772.77 Fund Gas Tax Fund Purpose Reimbursement to Financial Scene Inc. Bidder Financial Scene, Inc. (The Village Cpmpany) TO: Account No. 250-2501-GT168 Director of Finance O The City of Chula Vista p Date 2/5/85 By Public Works/Engineering Certification of Unencumbered Balance I HEREBY CERTIFY that the indebtedness and obligation to be incurred by the contract or agreement authorized by the attached resolution can be incurred without the violation of any of the provisions of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista, or the Constitution or the laws of the State of California, that sufficient monies have been appropriated for the purpose of said contract, that sufficient monies to meet the obligations of the contract are actually in the Treasury, or are anticipated to come into the Treasury to the credit of the appropriation from which the same are to be drawn, and that said monies now actually in the Treasury, together with the monies anticipated to come into the Treasury, to the credit of said appropriation are otherwise unencumbered. Amount Not to Exceed $ Director of Finance The City of Chula Vista Date By Fund Dept./Activity Purpose (� p. Bidder �\\ Certificate No. 31 • COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 7 Meeting Date 2/5/85 ITEM TITLE: Resolution //jo?a`Approving a Negotiated Property Tax Exchange relating to the Bonita Long Canyon Estates Annexation SUBMITTED BY Assistant City Manager , -" (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) Reviewed By: City Manager During the latter part of 1982, the City annexed Bonita Long Canyon Estates. The subject property was not detached from the San Diego County Flood Control District because concerns were expressed by downstream property owners and the County of San Diejo that development of the property would impact other lands downstream. The developer of the subject property, McMillin, has filed an application with LAFCO to detatch the Property at this time from the County Flood Control District. The County Board of Supervisors has approved a nego- tiated property tax distribution allocation formula that differs from the Master Property Tax Agreement in effect in 1982, as well as the new agreement approved in November 1984. The proposed negotiated agreement is better from the City's perspective than either of the Master Property Tax Agreements in that the Flood Control District would not retain any portion of the current $756 per year they are currently receiving, but this amount would be distributed and split between the City and the County on the historical City 41% and County 59% ratio. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving property tax exchange agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N.A. DISCUSSION The flood control issues which prompted LAFCO to withhold detachment of the property from the Flood Control District have not been completely resolved but are being worked on by the developer, City, and the County Flood Control District. While the approval of this resolution will not assure LAFCO's approval of the detachment, LAFCO staff have advised the developer that he must receive County and City approval of any plans intended to resolve the flooding issues before they will recommend to the Local Agency Formation Commission detachment of the property from the County Flood Control District. The proposed resolution approving a negotiated property tax exchange is necessary if a split is not in accordance with the Master Property Tax Agreement and the agreement must be approved by the City and the County before final action on an annexation or detatchment request can be taken by LAFCO. FINANCIAL IMPACT Based on current values, the City would receive approximately $309 per year in property tax revenues. ERA:mab d-76/-44'1"-"-"" Form A-113 (Rev. 11/79)