92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

43,4 The District also states that the A~n. endment proposed by the Agency requires, pursuant to Section 33354.6, the Agency to follow the same procedure, and that the legislative body is subject to the same restrictions as providedfor the adoption of the Plan. While the Agency acknowledges that Section 33354.6 generally applies the same procedural requirements to plan amendments as to adoptions of new redevelopment plans, the Agency maintains that where the procedural requirements of plan amendments are more specifically tailored to the special circumstances ofplan amendments, the Legislature intended these more specific sections to apply instead of the more general adoption procedural reqmrements. In fact, Section 33457.1 states "[9 the extent warranted by a proposed amendment to a redevelopment plan...the reports and information required by Section 33352 shall be prepared..." (underline added). It made no sense for the Agency to request a Section 33328 Report which gives a breakdown of the base year assessed valuation because the Age.ncy already had !n its possession such a r.e .port which was provided to the District and all other taxing ent~ties. "Foil~re to Tron~mit Information to Fiscal Review Committee" Objection: The District objects to the fact that certain requested information was n. ot provided directly by the .Agency to the Fiscal Review Comrmttee and instead the Comrmttee was burdened with "collecting and duplicating the information requested." The District also states that the responses to requested information "do not address the cope (sic) of the request or level of detail deemed appropriate and necessary to enable the District to comprehensively conduct its analysis" (page Process-6). Response: Between the months of February and June 1992, the Agency received approximately one dozen letters from the District's consultant requesting information. The Agency resp.onded t.o virtually every letter and did its best effort to prowde the Information requested. However, it should be noted that as soon as one letter was responded to and information provided, another letter arrived requesting additional information..~..e amount of documents r. equested by the District comprised literally boxes of informatmn. For the Agency to bear the cost of copying and supplyin/~ this information only to then again be requested to prowde additional information seems neither prudent nor expedient. The Agency did make availab, le to any member of the Fiscal Review Committee who was Interested all documents and indicated the Agency's willingness to have the.m, copied at cost. The only informatio, n not duplicated and provided by the Agen~ to the District were the past City and Agency budgets, past City and .Agency financial statements, and past Agency statements of ~ndebtedness. Although these documents may be of interest to the Fiscal Review Committee, the Agency does not believe that failure to provide copies of all of these 4 Ill I