Laserfiche WebLink
those had expired and therefore the City could not claim them. <br />(Subsequently in discussions in 1987 the representative from <br />Property Resources Company wondered why the City had not <br />collected it as they (PRC) were of the opinion that the City did <br />have a right to do so.) In addition to the outstanding principal <br />from 1984 and 185 the City was also owed the interest on the <br />delinquent amounts together with penalties thereto. <br />COURSE'S_ OF_ AC_TION - SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - The City having <br />collected a porti( i of the money for the assessments on the <br />Letter of Credit looked at how it should treat t'ie assessments <br />tt:at were still on the books. The City at that point chose not <br />to remove the assessments until the entire matter had been <br />resolved for the following reasons: <br />A. Accounting Method of Removal - Based on the way the <br />County does the assessments the money for assessment <br />would have been credited to the most delinquent of the <br />special assessments and possibly also the taxes with <br />full credit not being given to the '85 and later <br />assessments for which the money was collected <br />B. Bank Claim - It was the opinion of the City's <br />Attorney that :hould the City forgive a portion of the <br />special assess:' ",t-a while this matter was in bankruptcy <br />that the bank could in fait have a claim againsc the <br />City for having removed the special assessments -)n <br />property over which it at that point did not have full. <br />control. <br />C. Unpaid Interest - The City still had unpaid interest <br />even if the principal had peen p, id off and as mentioned <br />in (A) the city could possibly not not get. the County to <br />separate the outstanding principal '.rein t.ne ,>utstanding <br />interest. <br />Q <br />