My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 1956
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1956
>
CC MIN 1956
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2017 1:34:09 PM
Creation date
7/25/2016 10:19:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/3/1956
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
339
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
190 <br />be accepted, and that all bids be rejected• <br />Tha City Attorney stated that the record should show that this is being alone by agreemtn which has,been <br />signed by all the property owners involved. The money is on deposit with the City Clerk, any balance <br />of funds to be pro—rated ,back to the property owners. <br />Councilman Herkner moved approval of the recommendation, seconded by Councilman Britschgi. Mr. Tom <br />Tuite, Jr. spoke on the -question and wanted to know if there was any way that the City could determine <br />the percentage to be charged on engineering. He was of the opinion that the City should do the ...r <br />engineering work and not charge the property owners because they have been paying taxes for many years and <br />he did not think there was much engineering work to be done inasmuch as street was already there. This <br />was followed by discussion wherein the City Attorney stated that Mr. Tuite had signed the agreement <br />wherein it is stated that actual costs chargeable for said improvements shall include the contract <br />costs, engineering costs, inspection fees, and staking costs. If Mr. Tuite wants any changes he must <br />so state now and declare the agreement invalid. Thr. Tuite stated that he wanted the agreement to stand, <br />he just did not want to pay for engineering costs. This was again followed by discussion in regard to <br />engineering cost chin.°ges. The motioncarxied. <br />REPORT ON BID OPENING, CONCESSION STAND HALES PARK. The Clerk read the following letter submitted by the <br />Redwood City Merchants Softball Team: <br />In reference to the advertisement that was carried in the local paper concerning the bids for <br />a refreshment stand at Hawes Park softball field, we are very sorry that we overlooked turning <br />in a bid for this concession as was our intention. <br />We would appreciate it very much, even if it means paying for the re—advertising of this bid, <br />if the City Council would authorize the City Manager to re—advertise these bids. <br />Hoping this information is satisfactory in order for you to proceed, we remain <br />Yours very truly, <br />H. Dotoli <br />Redwood City Merchants, Softball Team. <br />Councilman Britschgi moved that the City Manager be authorized to advertise for new bids and to notify <br />Mr. Dotoli that he will be expected to pay for re—advertising, seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried. <br />CITY_ ATTORNEY REPORT ON MICHEL BUILDING, MAIN STREET. The City Attorney submitted the following letter from the <br />Michels attorney: <br />Confirming our recent telephone conversations regarding the Michel property at 1116 <br />Main Street, Redwood City, I wish to advise you and the City Council that the Michels <br />will take down the present building upon the expiration of the present tenancy or in any <br />event not later than October 15, 1956. <br />At the present time the building is being rented by Pisano Bakery of Redwood City <br />for storage purposes. The tenant is building new quarters elsewhere which we are informed <br />will be ready for occupar..y about September 1st, at which time it will not need the Michel <br />building any further. We will. raze the building -upon its being vacated by the bakery. <br />-Th'e Alternate time limit to October 15th is intended in order to take care of any delay <br />in the completion of the new bakery building. <br />I.see no'purpose whatever in the Michels furnishing a bond in any amount and I have <br />advised them no to do so.. It is perfectly obvious that if their agreement to raze the ..� <br />building should not be legally enforceable, the bond would likewise be unenforceable. <br />At this time they -are represented by counsel and the forbearance by the City to institute. <br />abatement proceedings is adequate consideration for the agreement irrespective of whether <br />or not such proceedings would be successful which I seriously doubt in view of the un— <br />broken line of decisions in this state excluding mere dilapidation as a ground .for <br />abatement. <br />In short, there will be no difficulty in drafting a legally enforceable agreement <br />under which the Michels will not only agree to raxe the building within the times W14 <br />indicated but will waive any right to contest abatement proceedings. <br />wow <br />If you will prepare such agreement in any form you desire I will have it executed by <br />the three owners of the property. In this connection, as I told you over the telephone, <br />I am leaving for the east on business this Friday and will return to my office on Monday, <br />June 25th. If you will forward—the agreemtn by that time I will have it executed <br />immediately after June 25th. <br />%lith kindest regards, we are <br />Very truly yours, <br />ROGERS AND CLARK <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.