92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

447 o private enterprise will accomplish the construction of needed sewer improvements, storm drain improvements, utility improvements, bridge construction improvements, street construction, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, trees along parkways, traffic circulation system improvements, recreati°n impr0~ements and other community development programs. Section 3: 'Misuse of Tax Increment Financing' Objection: The District finds that the City's redevelopment tax increment financing vehicle has "become a "windfall" for the City to implement it's (sic) required capital facilities, which would have nor .maily been an obliga, tion of the General Fund, at the e.xpense.of the ~mpacts of the District. The City has used this vehicle In lieu of implementing politically more difficult alternatives such as increased ~PnrOperty taxes, property assessments, general obligation bonds, and creased development fees, etc" (page Windfall-5). Response: The District has implied that the Agency has "misused" tax increment financing; however, the Di.s. trict does not substantiate or quantify ho.w the Agency has accomplished this "misuse". The District impliedby ~ts tables that the "misuse" is the fact that property tax increment is growip, g at a faster rate than other sources of revenue to the City. The implication of the Dist. rict seems to be that only if the tax increment collected within the C~ty was growing.more slowly than other revenue sources, would the Agency not be "rmsusing" tax increment. This kind of logic is irrelevant to this Amendment process. The Agency's collection of tax increment is obviously related to the increase in numbers of project areas created within the City and the relative success of the redevelopment activities in those project areas. The Agency has and will continue to use tax Increment as. legally allowed for the purposes of redeve, lopment and the Districts suggestion that the Agency has "nnsused" .funds has not been sut)stantiated in the District's documentaUon. Section 4: "Lack of General Plan Conformity and Inadequacy of General Plan' The following responses also address those w. ritten objections ~ontmned in the script presented at the heanng by John Raya entitled General Plan Conformity." a. "Adequacy_ of General Plan" Obiection: The District implies that the City's Ge.neral Plan is not- adequate because: a) it contains elements whmh reflect obsolete base data, b) has not been updated enough, and c) does not address the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989. 17 I