Laserfiche WebLink
441 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />Although the .FRC Report was not included in the <br />agenda materials transmitted to the Commission for the <br />June 2 meeting, Agency staff verbally presented a <br />summary of t.hat report to the C.om. mission at the meeting <br />and communicated to all Comm~ssioners that the report <br />was available for their review. It is acknowledged that <br />the June 2, 1992 draft of the report did not contain the <br />analysis of the FRC Report but the resolution adopted by <br />the Commission clearly instructed the Executive Director <br />to prepare the response. This information was not <br />withheld from the Commission, but was submitted to <br />them prio.r to the public hearing held on June 16, 1992. <br />The District overlooks the fact that typically documents <br />are not actually prepared by Board members and <br />commissi.oners, but are prepared by staff. Clearly, the. <br />Co.m.misslon delegate, d the responsibility for prep. aratlon <br />of th~s particular section of the Report to Council to the <br />Executive Director,~and such delegation of responsibility <br />is within their purview. <br /> <br />Rega. rding the substantiation of blight, and why <br />elimination of blight cannot be accomplished by private <br />enterprise acting alone, see. Section 2 of this response <br />(page 16) which addresses ~ssues pertaining to the <br />substantiation of blight. <br /> <br />Regarding the substantiation of blight, see Section 2 of <br />this response (pase 16) which addresses issues pertaining <br />to the subs!antiat~on of blight. Additionally, the District <br />states that statements set forth in Section B also <br />contradicts (sic) the Agency's South Harbor Boulevard <br />Redevelopment Area Strategy Plan date.d March 1987" <br />(p.ase Process-22) but does not substantiate or give <br />evidence to the nature of these contradictions. <br /> <br />Regarding the District's determination that Section C of <br />the Report "contradicts the Preliminary Report p.r. epared <br />by the Agency", page C-4 of the Report to Council clearly <br />states "these revenue proje.ctions have been revised since <br />thepreparation of the Prehminary Report to reflect <br />modifications resulting from the fiscal review process. <br />The revisions are further discussed in SectionM of this <br />Report to Council." If the Legislature had intended that <br />Section C of the Preliminary Report and Section C of the <br />Report to Council must be ~dentical, the Legislature <br />would have stated such in the law. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />I <br /> <br /> <br />