92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1992-93 Factor per Dist. Report ~ 20% Office $5.~97 psf $1.19 20%Retail ' ~'3'!85 psf .77 60% Light Industrial 4.95 psf 2.97 1992-93 Factor Used: $4.93 Adjusted for 1991-92 (4% "deflation") $4.73 It should be noted that the Agency's willinsness to look at 2.4 million additional square feet .o.f construction, rather than the 1.7 million assumed in the Preliminary Report was an effort to compromise and ac.knowledge that change could occur over the next 30 years which could increase the amount of development which could be added to the area. The District repeatedly tries to use this to conclude a.n. acknowledgment that the Amendment conflicts with the City's General Plan, or that the Agency has "subverted" the fiscal review process, or that the Agency has violated CE. QA requirements. Because no amount of analysis and calculation can absolutely accurately determine the level of development which will occur at what time in the Project Area,. the negotiating process requires each side to be reasonable in its approach. Although Agency staff believes that future long-term development in the Project Area will not cause a significant financial burden to the District anywhere near the levels the District is suggesting, the Agency attempted to be "reasonable" and compromise with the District. While the Agency does understand that the District has and will continue to suffer from financial shortfalls, the Agency d.o. es not agree that "redevelopment" h. asp. rimary . responsibility for the shortfall. The District will hkely continue to experience substantial growt.h resulting from changing demographics and State educational policy more than from development. Regarding the District's objective that the cost factor used by the Agency should have been applied to 1991-92 costs rather than 1992-93, the 1992-93 factor used by the Agency was $4.93 as explained above. Regarding the Dist.rict's conc. ern that the Agency cannot guarantee that sufficient tax increment will be passed through (beyond 40 years), it is noted that the actual amount of tax increment passed through to the District under the Agency's proposal would be a function of two variables: (a) actual ~qrowth in the Project Area and (b) timing of that growth. either the District nor Agency can control nor accurately project these variables; therefore, only reasonable assumptions can be made. This same problem also relates to the District's objection that the "present value" of the Agency's offer does. not match the "present value" of the District's detriment. This 32