CCP 10-28-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1 60 days of receiving the authority's response. Any final noncompliance notice should . 2 contain the OSA's final position on the matter, the date upon which they forwarded the 3 matter to the county attorney, and the next steps that are required to be taken according to 4 state law. Upon expiration ofthe 60-day period, the authority should be deemed to be in 5 compliance with the TIF laws if no final noncompliance notice is received. 6 7 LE-23. OSA Time Limitations (ABH) 8 9 Issue: The Office of the State Auditor (OSA) has the authority to issue noncompliance 10 notices for every existing TIP district in the state for alleged violations of the TIP laws. This II authority extends retroactively to the inception of the district. Accordingly, TIP authorities can 12 receive noncompliance notices for alleged violations that occurred 20 or more years ago. Often, 13 staff and record-keeping procedures have changed, and TIP authorities fmd it exceedingly 14 difficult to reconstruct the past in order to identify and remedy these situations. Similarly, the 15 OSA claims the authority, based on the state's records retention schedule, to audit TIP districts 16 for up to 10 years after decertification, which requires cities to expend staff resources to maintain 17 files and a working know ledge of old districts for an umeasonable period of time. 18 19 Response: A reasonable timeframe within which alleged violations are identified 20 should be established. The Legislature should reasonably restrict the OSA's ability to issue 21 noncompliance notices to the six-year period prior to the notice's issuance date. The 22 Legislature should also require the OSA to conduct any audits on decertified districts 23 within one year of decertification. . 24 25 LE-24. Economic Development Authorities (ABH) 26 27 Issue: The 2000 Legislature authorized counties outside the metropolitan area to 28 establish county economic development authorities (EDAs). The new law lacks specificity on 29 certain process and limitations issues. County EDA activity in areas surrounding cities will 30 directly impact the adjacent city in terms of service provision and taxes. 31 32 Response: The Legislature should establish reasonable limits on county EDA 33 activities in unincorporated areas, including requiring city approval for proposed county 34 EDA activities within two miles of a city. The Legislature should revisit the county EDA 35 legislation and add specificity to other process and limitations issues such as the local 36 recommendation committee. 37 38 LE-2S. Workforce Readiness (ABH) 39 40 Issue: State and federal welfare reform efforts have focused on the importance of the 41 welfare-to-work transition, and have recognized the challenge of ensuring individuals are 42 qualified to work. Cities have an interest in the availability of qualified workers as part of their 43 economic development efforts, and can serve as a catalyst with other public entities and the 44 private sector to address workforce readiness issues. . 45 18