►
Description
San Bruno City Council Meeting June 12, 2012
7. Consent Calendar
A
A
Is
second
on
the
question
all
in
favor
aye
items
see
his
waved
the
first
reading
and
introduced
the
ordinance
imposing
at
2.34
one
rate
increased
requested
by
Recology
san
bruno
for
2012-2013
to
be
effective
july.
26
2012,
as
presented
in
the
notice
of
proposed
increase
mailed
to
all
property
owners.
Michael
thing
thank.
C
You
Jim
this.
This
ordinance
appeared
before
the
council
earlier
and
we
voted
on
it
and
I
believe
we
voted
unanimously
to
pass
it
along
with
two
other
ordinances
that
I
that
I
was
told
at
the
time
did
pass
now
they're
being
reintroduced,
but
rather
than
just
have
this
go
into
the
consent.
Calendar
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
and
inform
the
public
in
terms
of
what
was
changed
in
this
version
of
the
ordinance
versus
the
original,
and
so
if
we
could
get
some
clarification,
please.
E
As
I
understand
this
on,
as
I
understand
the
issue,
there
was
a
recital
and
the
initial
ordinates
that
referred
to
a
help
with
Safety
Code
section
that
referred
to
a
voting
requirement.
That's
not
accurate!
So
the
the
reason
we're
having
you
reintroduce
the
ordinance
is
to
make
sure
that
the
ordinance
has
the
correct
language
in
it
and
does
not
refer
to
an
incorrect
reference
to
a
Health
and
Safety
Code
section.
The
material
terms
of
the
ordinance
are
the
same.
Okay.
C
And
I
hate
to
put
you
on
the
spot,
because
I
know
that
you're
walking
into
this,
and
probably
don't
have
a
lot
of
the
instrument
in
your
experience
as
city
attorney
in
other
cities.
Has
it
been
your
experience
that
the
reference
to
the
health
and
safety
code
is
fairly
common
in
these
ordinances,
as
they
pertain
to
city
fees,
I.
E
F
Let
me
just
elaborate
a
little
bit
further:
the
specific
health
and
safety
code.
Reference
is
for
a
two-thirds
voting
requirement
in
the
event
that
the
collection
of
the
fear
charge,
that
is
the
subject
of
the
ordinance,
whether
that
collection
is
via
the
property
tax
rolls.
That
is
not
the
case.
Here
has
never
been
the
case
here
and,
frankly,
staff
is
a
little
bit
unclear.
We
do
not
know
how
or
why
that
language
appeared
in
the
ordinance.
C
E
Well,
I
I
understand
that
it's
a
very
complicated
area
of
statutory
and
constitutional
authority,
I've
done
in
in
the
other
city
I
represent.
We
just
did
our
garbage
rates
a
few
weeks
ago
and
we
did
it
by
ordinance
and
it
did.
We
did
not
require
a
two-thirds
vote.
I
think
that's
the
rule.
We
did
not
just
like
Sam
brio
here
we
do
not
put
it
on
the
property
tax
roll.
It's
it's
a
great
setting
procedure
whereby
it
gives
the
City
Council
sets
the
rates
for
the
service.
E
That's
provided
through
your
franchise
with
recology,
and
then
that
is
the
authority
for
Recology
to
put
that
on
a
regular
bill
that
goes
to
the
residence,
so
the
so
the
I
can't
speak
to
why
it's
two-thirds
to
put
it
on
the
property
tax
roll.
It's
probably
a
technical
or
policy
reason
that
that
that's
because
it's
something
that
is
more
formal,
if
you
will,
because
it
requires
a
action
and
involving
the
county
tax
collector.
E
That
may
be
the
reason
I'm
speculating
little.
But
the
main
point
here
is
that,
and
I've
talked
with
mr.
zafar
know
about
this
particular
issue-
that
the
solution
to
the
issue
of
the
reference
was
to
reintroduce
the
ordinance,
we're
confident
that
the
issue
that
the
process
is
appropriate,
it
does
not
require
a
two-thirds
vote.
Okay.
C
E
Purpose,
thank
you
that
would
that
would
entail,
but
I'll
repeat
myself
for
the
for
the
benefit
of
the
audience
in
the
recording.
That
would
entail
a
rib
proceeding
in
Superior
Court,
where
someone
would
say
that
in
essence,
that
the
council
did
not
follow
the
right
procedure,
that
would
be
their
allegation
and
the
remedy
in
court
would
be
do
they.
Do
it
the
right
way,
if
that
what
happened
to
be
the
wrong
way,
but
we're
the
process
you're
employing,
is
the
correct
way.
Okay,
thank.