►
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting 07-28-09 10c. City and County Agreement
A
B
Really,
the
purpose
of
the
resolution
authorizing
the
execution
of
a
first
agenda
goes
back
to
an
important
directive
that
the
city
council
has
given
to
staff
previously,
and
that
is
to
really
make
sure
that
we
attempt
to
recover
and
any
possible
dollar
that
we
might
be
able
to
recover
and
to
do
everything
we
can
to
protect
city
funds.
So
while
this
is
really
not
involving
huge
amounts
of
money,
it
is
part
of
that
continued
effort.
B
The
background
to
this
is
that,
as
the
council
well
knows,
the
county
assesses
and
collects
property
taxes
on
behalf
of
all
the
cities
in
the
county
and
in
doing
that,
its
authorized
to
charge
an
administrative
costs,
which
is
the
prop
I,
was
mixed.
This
up,
but
I
think
it's
a
property
tax,
administrative
fee
or
PT
AF.
There's
call
it
a
fee
for
the
shorthand
during
our
discussion,
so
you
know
that's
operated
well
for
a
number
of
years,
but
in
the
2003-2004
timeframe.
B
Basically,
they
take
different
funds
and
put
them
aside
potentially
for
recovery
by
the
city,
so
they're
put
into
special
accounts
now
in
doing
that,
the
state
said
that
the
counties
should
be
reimbursed
for
that
extra
work
for
the
increased
administrative
costs
for
those
activities.
But
what's
at
issue
and
what's
happened,
is
that
the
cities
have
been
charged
more
than
what
we
think
is
really
the
cost
of
implementation
of
those
programs
and
they're
being
collected
in
the
same
manner
as
property
taxes,
and
so
that
increases
that
be
greatly.
B
So
the
legal
question
that
is
being
addressed
right
now
is:
are
the
county's
really
charging
too
much?
Are
they
charging
more
than
is
appropriate
to
the
city
of
San
Bruno?
This
makes
a
difference
in
2003
and
there
abouts,
and
maybe
our
finance
or
finance
director
could
speak
more
specifically
to
this.
It's
my
understanding
that
the
city
was
charged
somewhere
between
15
and
30
thousand.
B
We
need
to
correct
a
statement
of
my
my
report,
because
now
the
fee
is
closer
to
80
thousand
dollars
a
years,
so
there's
a
big
difference
to
us
now
the
way
that
we're
handling
this
is
because
the
the
answer
to
my
question
about
are
they
charging
too
much?
That
is
a
legal
question
that
is
being
addressed
through
various
litigation
in
the
state,
and
the
answer
to
that
question
is
not
yet
clear.
B
So,
rather
than
have
the
city
of
San
Bruno
be
compelled
to
either
make
a
choice
to
sue
and
expend
those
resources
or
to
give
up
those
costs,
we've
taken
a
different
route,
and
this
is
what
we
did
based
on
City
Council
authorization
we
filed
as
is
required.
It
claimed
with
the
county
for
the
amounts
that
we
think
we
should
be
reimbursed.
B
In
other
words,
we
need
an
answer
to
our
question:
did
they
charge
too
much
so
at
that
point
would
be
positioned
to
decide
how
to
proceed
in
doing
this.
The
city
has:
our
city
has
joined
15,
other
cities,
neighboring
jurisdictions
in
this
county
and
and
some
beyond
to
where
we
have
joint
legal
representations
so
that
we
can
share
the
costs
among
all
of
these
different
cities
and
therefore
the
amount
that
San
Bruno
is
bearing
is
quite
small
to
the
tune
in
the
last
fiscal
year
of
about
twenty
six
hundred
dollars.