92-070 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

436 Agency staff acknowledges the District's three-page summar~ of the conversations which took place on June 2, 1992. As vnth any negotiation session, there are two sides to the story and at least two versions of ~hat took place. It was not the Agency's staffs intent to "cloud ~the .account of the meeting" by the one- paragraph summary contained within Section M of the Report to Council. Health and Safety Code Section 33352(m) requires that the report include "an analysis by the agency of the report submitted by the County as required by .Section 33328, which shall include a summary of the consultation of the agency, or attempts to consult by the agency, with each of the taxing agencies as required by Section 33328; and an analysis by the age. ney of the report of the fiscal review committee, if any, which shall include .the agency's response to the report of the fiscal review committee, as requiredby Section 33353.7, additional information, if any, and, at the discretion of the Agency, proposed mitigation measures." The Agency prepared a twenty-seven (27) page'response and dedicated one paragraph each to summarize the consultations with each taxing entity. A portion of the June 2, 19.92 meeting, which the District's consultant has overlooked ~n their summary of the meeting, was the .A. gency's explanation of how the Agency was aPProaching the calculation of fiscal detriment for each of the affected taxing entities. That is, the Agency staff reviewed the development scenarios which were presented by the various taxing entities and des. cribed the revised sce. narlo the Agency used to calculate detriment and why it was ~mportant for the Agency t.o take a consistent approach to th.e negotia.tions with each taxing entity. The Agency also described how ~t used the impact rates generated by the District to calculate the detriment, how detriment prior to 1992 was incorporated, and the background for how the.proposed pass-through of 1.52% of gross, tax increment was derived. The Agency also presented specdic issues regarding the District's fiscal impact report and identified discrepancies within that report. The Agency's 1.52% offer was based upon 'a clear set of assumptions, and the backup for these assumptions was 8iven to the Dist. rict. Agency staff indicated to the District's representat, lves that they were unable to ascertain from the D~strict's fiscal detriment report exactly what the District was requesting as a pass-through~ Agency staff requested that the District present a number which represented what they felt the. calculation of detriment to be. After the District's "private t~me" during that meeting, the District returned to the negotiations setting and said they were willing to ac. cept 65% of their share and indicated that this calculation was "picked out of the air." The Agency consistently approached negotiations with all the taxing entities on the basis of calculations which could be supported. Agency staff does not believe that the District haspresented an adequate substantiation for their proposed level of pass- through. This is discussed further in Section L of this report.