92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

document, s in any way prohibited the Fiscal Review Committee from analyzingthe iml~act of.the proposed redevelopment project upon the affected tatung entities. The Agency presented the original Redevelopment Plan, su .mm..arized information of revenues collected to date., the origi.n, al EIR for .the project adoption, the Report to the City Council prepared in connection with adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, and other documents that were directly related to the project, its objectives, and its financial parameters. "Fgilure to Negotiate in Good Faith" Objection: The Di.strict objects that the "only meeting of me~aningful discussion and negotiation of an offer of impact mitigation was conducted on June 2, 1992" (page Process 9), and the scheduling of this meeting after the notice of public hearing was published is in violation of the provisio.m, of Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code. Additionally, the District objects to the'sumn?ary language used by the Agen.cy i.n the Repor. t to Counc. d regarding .negotiations with - "~ ndoes the District and particularly objects to the hume portrayed by the language" (page Process-12). Response: Section 33328 of the Health and Safety Code reqfiires that the Agency "shall consult with each taxing agency which levies taxes...with respect to the. Plan and allocation of taxes..." (underline added). The District's objection that the Agency did not properly comply with this section seems to be dependent upon the definition of the wor.d "consult." Agency staff maintains that there were "consultations" between the Agency and all taxing entities, particularly through the fiscal review process, prior to notice of the hearing. Although the Agency may have waited until late May to early June to present offers for alleviation of detriment to the various taxing entities, the law does not state t.hat the Agenc~ must "make offers to alleviate detriment" prior to publication of the notice of hearing. From a practical standpoint, the FRC report was transmitted to t.he .Agency on May 15, 1992. I.t was at that time that all of the districts formally presented their findings of fiscal detriment. The Agency then had to analyze all of those reports in order to respond to each entity's findings. Agency staff appr. oached the subsequent negotiations in a consistent manner, i.e., the Agency attempted to make offers to alleviate fiscal detriment based upon development scenarios which were consistent as opposed to using the various de.v.elopment scenarios presented by the various taxing entities. Agency staff is not of the opinion that presenting[ the Ag.ency's offer to alleviate detriment on June 2, 1992 was tn violation of the H. ealth and Safety Code. The Agency consulted with the District numerous times during the fiscal review process via telephone and correspondence and, therefore, complied with Health and Safety Cod? Section 33328 requiring the Agency to "consult" with the District. 5 I