►
From YouTube: San Bruno City Council Meeting 08-25-09 10d. Challenge Seizure of City and Agency Funds by State
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting 08-25-09 10d. Challenge Seizure of City and Agency Funds by State
A
B
Mayor
members
of
City
Council
at
the
last
meeting
in
July,
the
city
manager
and
I
freaked,
the
council
on
both
the
state
budget
and
the
impact
that
the
state
budget,
as
it
was
approved
by
the
legislature
and
signed
by
it
by
the
governor,
would
impact
cities,
including
San
Bruno.
The
information
that
you
that
was
provided
to
you
at
that
time
has
borne
out
over
the
last
month
to
be
highly
accurate.
B
At
that
time,
a
month
ago
was
was
mentioned
that
there
are
really
two
impacts
for
seen
on
san
bruno.
The
first
impact
is
a
borrowing
by
the
state
of
city
property,
tax
funds
that
is
anticipated
to
amount
to
about
eight
hundred
and
twenty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
eight
hundred
twenty
twenty
nine
thousand
six
hundred
dollars
will
be
taken
will
be
borrowed
from
the
city
in
nine
ten
for
a
period
of
three
years.
B
But
the
way
the
State
Department
of
Finance
is
defining
property
tax.
It
also
includes
the
sales
tax
in
lieu
monies
and
the
VLF
in
lose
in
our
books
when
we
record
sales,
tax
and
and
vlf
in
lieu,
even
though
it
comes
in
the
form
of
property
tax,
we
only
we
actually
record
that
as
sales
tax,
because
that
that's
what
it
is
and
vlf
we
record
the
in
lieu
as
vlf
and
that's
the
proper
accounting
for
for
that
there's
there.
B
B
California
communities,
California
communities
will
actually
is
setting
up
a
program
that
would
allow
bonds
to
be
issued
sort
of
like
revenue,
anticipation,
notes
that
would
bonds
would
be
issued.
That
would
allow
the
amount
of
money's
the
cities
are
to
receive
to
actually
receive
that
money
from
the
proceeds
of
these
bonds,
and
then
the
bonds
would
be
paid
back
through
the
repayment
that
the
state
would
be
making
it
rather
than
repaying
us.
If
we
participated
in
that
program,
the
repayment
would
be
made
to
the
bondholders
so
there's
a
program
that
is,
that
is
evolving.
B
At
this
point,
the
League
of
California
cities
to
my
information
is
not
pursuing
any
legal
action
related
to
property
tax,
because
if,
if
this
securitisation
program
works,
there's
really
no
loss
to
the
city,
but
that
again
will
be
forthcoming.
Probably
in
the
next
month
there
would
be
at
action.
The
City
Council
would
be
required
to
take
probably
before
the
end
of
October
if
the
city
wanted
to
participate
in
that
program
and
receive
the
funds
through
the
through
this
bonding.
B
If
you
recall
in
the
budget
and
the
budget
discussions
earlier,
not
knowing
exactly
what
what
the
state
would
do,
there
was
discussion
that,
since
it
was
a
borrowing
that
there
an
option
for
the
council
would
be
to
take
these
funds
that
were
losing
the
800
nine
thousand
out
of
one
time
reserves
and
with
with
the
anticipation
that
that
money
would
earn
interest
and
be
repaid
at
the
end
of
three
years.
So
that
remains
an
option
to
the
council.
B
But
at
this
point
it
may
not
be
necessary
just
very
briefly
again
for
the
redevelopment
agency,
not
a
borrowing,
but
an
actual
taking
of
1
million
nine
wanted
to
this
is.
This
is
an
anticipated
by
the
state
that
redevelopment
agencies
will
pay
this
amount
due
by
May
of
2010,
so
it
will
require
ultimately,
a
council
appropriation
of
this
money
that
would
allow
us
to
in
fact
transfer
this
money
and
to
pay
it
from
from
the
state
or
to
the
state
did
want
to
just
point
out
what
you
have
in
front
of.
B
You
is
really
the
910
revenue
and
expenditure
budget
for
the
redevelopment
agency
operations,
the
loss
or
the
1.9
million
is
actually
being
calculated
on
tax
increment
that
the
city
received
in
06
07,
but
it
is
on
the
gross
revenue
that
we're
receiving
prior
to
any
low
and
moderate-income
housing
calculation.
But
the
payment
needs
to
come
out
of
the
redevelopment
operations.
You
can't
use
any
of
housing
money
if
you
did
you'd
have
to
pay
it
back.
B
If
you
didn't
pay
it
back,
there
would
actually
be
a
death
penalty
for
the
agency,
so
so
it
can't
come
out
of
housing,
but
what
I?
What
I
wanted
to
pour
point
out
and
looking
at
the
Redevelopment
Agency
budget
for
this
year,
you
can
see
that
1.1
million
goes
directly
to
operations.
Our
obligation
for
pass-through
payments,
including
basic
aid,
is
2.9
million.
Our
debt
service
for
the
police
plaza,
is
six
hundred
forty
eight
thousand.
B
The
interest
payment
to
the
general
fund
is
200
transfer
to
capital
projects
in
this
year's
budget
is
a
hundred
thousand
dollars
if
the
state
and
when
the
state
takes
1.9
million
dollars
way.
This
year,
the
redevelopment
agency
will
be
in
a
deficit
of
forty
one
thousand
dollars,
so
it
is
not
looking
at
this
year
and
saying
that
the
state
is
taking
excess
money
or
free
money.
In
fact,
they're
taking
will
for
this
year
put
the
redevelopment
agency
in
in
a
deficit
so.
B
Take
as
the
agency
is
considering
the
implementation
and
the
the
final
transit
corridor
plan
and
some
of
the
interests
of
the
council
has
potentially
even
around
great
separation
or
or
the
division.
This
is
a
significant
taking
route
from
the
city,
and
that
is
that
is
in
fact,
subject
of
legal
action.
The
river
just
just
port,
went
out
very
very
briefly.
A
similar
taking
by
the
state
in
08
09
or
a
similar
attempt
by
the
state
was
found
unconstitutional
by
a
Sacramento
Superior
report.
B
The
state
changes
the
wording
slightly
and
is
directing
the
money
towards
schools
in
the
redevelopment
agents.
In
the
redevelopment
area,
I
mean
that's
a
pretty
flimsy
restructuring
in
order
to
get
directly
to
get
around
the
port
ruling,
so
the
California
redevelopment
Association
is
pursuing
and
gearing
up
for
legal
action
against
the
state
that
this
is
clearly
an
unconstitutional
taking
and
that
that
is
something
that
I
will
go
see
through.
C
C
B
That's
gone,
the
anticipation
is
this
year.
They
would
take
one
point:
seven
billion
dollars
from
agencies,
and
next
year
they
would
take
350
million
dollars
from
agencies.
It
would
be
my
personal
view
that
if
they
get
away
with
taking
one
point
seven
this
year,
that
350
billion
million
next
year
will
be
a
next
bigger,
much
bigger
number.
So
the
significance
of
this
is
not
a
one-time
event,
and
so
the
long
term
impact
on
redevelopment
agencies
has
the
potential
to
be
significant.
D
That
said
there,
as
the
administrative
services
director
has
articulated,
we
anticipate
that
this
type
of
action
will
continue
and
I
think
we.
We
have
kind
of
a
double-edged
sword
situation
in
that
the
state
has
demonstrated.
In
my
opinion,
it's
clear
inability
to
address
its
own
budget
situation,
and,
while
the
state
legislature
and
the
governor
have
found
a
deal
to
sign
off
on,
it
is
by
no
means
a
solution
to
the
state's
much
more
serious
budget
challenges.
So,
on
the
one
hand,
this
occurring
presumes
or
anticipates
that
it
will
continue
next
year.
D
On
the
other
hand,
if
the
litigation
by
the
CRA
is
in
fact
successful
in
the
state
is
precluded
from
taking
the
redevelopment
resources,
we
should
not
kid
ourselves.
They
have
no
alternative.
There
is
no
plan
B
in
order
to
take
care
of
the
state's
continuing
serious
budget
problem.
So
I
guess
that
that's
meant
only
as
a
word
of
caution
and
reality
check
that
this
is
an
issue
that
is
going
to
continue
to
challenge
us
and
other
cities
up
and
down
the
state
into
the
future.
D
The
2.9
million
dollars
is
not
only
a
big
number,
but,
as
Jim
indicated
a
moment
ago,
it
includes
not
only
pass
throughs
that
are
made
a
formulaic
basis
to
all
of
the
taxing
entities
within
that
would
otherwise
receive
taxes,
property
taxes
within
the
redevelopment
project
area.
At
the
end
of
that
amount,
a
significant
amount
is
schools,
in
our
case,
just
over
1
million
dollars
of
the
total
1.9
million
dollars
in
basic
pass-throughs
goes
to
schools
just
just
over
half
of
the
amount
that
is
passed
through
initially
passed
through.
D
So
because
of
the
circumstances
of
the
financial
structure
which
are
Redevelopment
Agency
and
we
have
no
jurisdiction
over
those
school
districts-
and
there
are
two
of
them-
san
mateo,
high
school
district
and
the
junior
college
district,
both
our
basic
aid
school
districts
and
they
receive
additional
property
tax
increment
because
in
fact
they
do
not
receive
other
normal
school
funding
from
property
taxes
considered
to
be
sufficient
enough
in
their
jurisdictions
that
the
state
does
not
make
other
payments.
So
in
essence,
we're
test
with
making
those
payments
via
RV
development.
Age
see.
D
D
Obligation
to
schools,
I
wanted
to
be
I
went
there
to
be
no
mistake
that
the
city
and
its
redevelopment
agency
does
not
have
that
independent
obligation
to
schools.
This
is
a
state
obligation
in
any
obligation
that
we
have
is
already
well
addressed
by
the
sharing
of
property
tax
and
the
distribution
of
redevelopment
property
tax
increment.
So
with
that
will
stop
any.
A
A
E
A
plus
I
thought
dad
that
I
wouldn't
have
it
any
other
way
to
have
and
to
have
redevelopment
and
as
much
as
it's
a
big
pile
of
money
that
the
state
is
is
taking.
Redevelopment
has
been
a
very
good
thing
for
the
city
of
San
Bruno,
and
it's
just
unfortunate
that
right.
When
we're
primed
to
be
able
to
use
redevelopment
money
that
we're
getting
hit.