Laserfiche WebLink
payment of these in advance of requesting a collection on the <br />Letter of Credit. To the 7ity's best knowledge there were 15 <br />parcels in default in the second half of '85 and on January 10, <br />1� 86 the City made a demand for the second half of '85 together <br />with accelerating, the payments on the balance of all 16 for a <br />total of $114,630.77 (Attachment F). On January 23, 1986 this <br />demand was mct by the Bank with a check, number 18426, First <br />Southdale Bank. In January of 1986 the City also filed <br />Attachment G as its proof of claim in the total of $53,573.21. <br />The City calculated its demand based on: <br />-Total Letter <br />of Credit <br />245,000.^3 <br />-Fight pre -payments <br />(@ 10,208.31) <br />81,666.72 <br />-Sub Total <br />163,3.i3.28 <br />-Assessments <br />paid '84 <br />17,903.82 <br />'85 <br />2,993.93 <br />20,397.75 <br />-Sub Total <br />142,435.53 <br />-Delinquents <br />'84 <br />13,901.72 <br />'95 (1st Half) <br />13,901.74 <br />27,803.44 <br />Total <br />114,632.09 <br />The differences between this method anJ other method f <br />calculations were in part due to the estimate that was higher <br />than the total assessment together with the fact that in this <br />means of calculation the assessments were only credited at the <br />amount actually paid, rather than the higher estimated amount <br />that was used on the pre -payments. Unbeknowns" to the City at <br />the time that it collected $114,632 there was a prepayment on <br />P.I.D. 17--117-23-34- 0027 for a total of $5,957.94. <br />Based o:, <br />the City's legal advice t"e City did not <br />attempt <br />to <br />collect <br />tt.e outstanding amounts from '•.t4 or 165 as <br />it w:3s <br />the <br />opinion <br />of the City's Attorney that the redemption <br />-period <br />for <br />