92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

41t8 in extending the time frame of the project in order to collect sufficient revenue to implement the project. After benefit of the receipt of the Fiscal Review Committee Report, Agency staff recon~..ended modifyin~g the proposed Amend.ment to set. an absolu, te hmit 9n. ~he receipt of tax increment whmh took into congiddi:atl°fi tli~ amount of tax increment which would be needed to alleviate "detriment" and still accomplish implementation of the project. It is an interesting "Catch 22" that the District now finds that the Agency has subverted the fiscal review process bemuse the Agency proposed to amend the language of the tax increment limit. Clearly, the law envisioned that one thing that may occur as a result of the fiscal review process is to "modify the total amount of tax increments to be received by the redevelopment agency." By modit~ing t. he Plan language and the documentation supporting the Plan language, the Agency has not "subverted the FRC process" but has accommodated the FRC process which is the intent of the laTM. It should additionally be pointed out that "Agency's steadfast position that the original limit was not only necessary, but that the Agency was unwilling to. cons. ider a capped limit in light of their redevelopment object,yes" is not a true statement. The Agency never indicated that they were unwilling to consider such a limit but tried to communicate to the taxing entities its reasoning for leaving the limit open at the time of the Preliminary Report (Paragraph 1 of page "Process- 14").. It should also be noted th.at the District and Agency continue to disagree over the housing set-aside revenue, how it is spent, and whether it generates detriment to the District. The Project Area can grow in excess of 4% per year without the construction of net new development. The Agency's pOsition is that assessed valuation can grow in excess of 4% and the District's position is that ~rowth beyond 4% can only occur in the event of the construction of net new development. Another point of differing opinions between the Agency and the District reflects around the use of the General Plan "FAR" designation of .4. The District maintains that the Agency must exceed the .4 FAR in the future in order to generate the lev.el of increment presented in the plan amendment documentation. The Agency maintains that .4 FAR is a reasonable basis given that that is what the current General Plan allows but has 8