92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

437 do "$1jl>vcrsion of the Fiscal Review Process" Q..hj.edilJ~: The District states that the Agency has subverted the FRC process "in an attempt to minirmze the importance of the process and the conclusions arrived at as apart of the process" (page Process-16). The District cites documentation of this "subversion" in that the Agency modified its documentation following the FRC process and "misrepresented the implementation of the Amendment" (page Process-16). ~: Apparently the District believes that the Agency "subverted" the fiscal reviewprocess because the Agency, after receiving and reviewing the Fiscal Review COmmittee Report, revised elements of the proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan and, therefore, revised documentation ?rt.aining to the Amendment. Health and Safety Code ectmn 33353.7 specffically requires the Agency to "address the ~ssues raised by the committee's report, including reasons for not adopting recommendations of the committee regarding the financial burden or detriment which the redevelopment plan will cause." Further, Section 33353.5(c)(1) provides that the Fiscal Review Committee can include recommendations which would "(a) Modify the total amount of tax increment to be received by the r~develo~ment aeencv" (underline added). Finding 5 on page 4 of ttie "Final-RelSort of the Fiscal Review Committee on the Amendment to the Santa Ana South Harbor Boulevard/Fairview Street Redevelop .m. ent Project" states "that .the langtmge contained in the Prehminary Report, pertaining to the financial limits of the Amendme.n. ts to the Redevelopment Plan and the explanation of such hmits by the Redevelopment Agency were inconsistent and made the analysis of impacts more complicated." As explained .numerous times during the fiscal review process, the Agency Initially proposed limits on t.he tax increment which were (a) adjusted by the consumer price index, and (b) exclusive of any pass-throughs to ~ther taxing entities, in an effort to set limits that could be flerdble and take into consideration the impacts (a) of inflation, and (b) of any pass-through agreements which may be negotiated during the Amendment process. If the Agency had, at the Preliminary Report stage of the. Amendment p. rocess, includedan absolute cap or limit on the receipt of tax ~ncrement, it would have been without the benefit of knowing what the fiscal review process would dete. rmine in terms of detriment and corresponding amo. unts of tax Increment which .m. ay need to be paid to taxing entitles rather .than being available for project implementation. The Prelirmnary Report attempted, in its financing section, to evaluate the level of costs associated with implementation of the Redevelopment Plan and the level o.f revenues which could be g.enerated by the Project Area. It is simple to see that if a portion of. the revenues are instead passed throug, h to other taxi.n, g entities, an equivalent level of revenues wall not be avadable to pay for project implementation. This would result 7 I