92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

acknowledged that .development may occur at a higher level and has, therefore, increased the development assumptions assumed in the Preliminary Report by 50% in order to calculate and make offers to alleviate fiscal detriment. It should also be noted that the Agency has never criticized the District for a lack of analysis as implied in Paragraph 2 ony~age Process-16. The Agency has o~y criticized the District in presentation of volumes of demment analysis that are based upon assumptions that are unrealistic, cannot be supported by the marketplace, and are not allowed under the City's existing General Plan. The District's consultant refuses to accept the Agency's position with regard to the level of development which can occur in the area and in regard to the level of increment which could be generated in the area. The District also contends that the Agency has "modified the intent of the Plan from a 40-year amendment to a 55-year amendment, much different than the intent expressed to the FRC during the FRC process" (page Process-17). The proposed language of Section 800 of the Amendment entitled, "Duration of this Plan" has never changed from that which was first presented at the time of the Preliminary Report. Precisely the same language which was presented to the FRC was recommended to the City Council the night of the public hearing. The District consultant seems to be confused over the difference between a duration for the "provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan" and the time over which the Agency may collect tax increment. Section 800 of both the existing Redevelopment Plan (adopted in 1982) and the proposed amendment provide that the Agency may issue bonds and incur obligations pursuant to the Plan which "extend beyond the termination date, and in such event, this plan shall continue in effect for the purpose of repaying such bonds or other obligations until the date of retirement of such bonds or other, obliigations, as determined by the City Council." The District's implication that the Agency staff h.as modified this since the time of the FRC process is clearly m error. The District's contention that the Agency's report co.n. tains four major erro.rs (see last paragraph, page Process-17) wall be addressed ~n Section L of this response. The District's determination that the modifications the Agency has initiated following the FRC process is "not.a constructive response to the FRC report and recommendattons, but a self- serving presentation to minimize the financial detriment or burden suggested by the District, and offers the City Council misrepresen.tations of the facts, based upon the manipulation of the com. plex~ty of the assumptions, projections, and conclusions," (page Procass-18) is not supported by the evidence provided by t.h.e ~istrict. Clearly, Agency staff h~ laid out its reason for ~mtmlly not including an absolute linnt 439 I