|
462
<br /> ESTABLISHING RULES, REGULATIONS AND CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES;
<br /> AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 598 and moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Granger and carried
<br /> on roll call, Councilmen Herkner and Stout being noted absent.
<br /> COUNCILMAN WEISS REGARDING WATER DEPARTMENT FINANCES AND INDEBTEDNESS. Councilman Weiss read the following
<br /> prepared statement:
<br /> In accordance with motions adopted at our official meeting of March 18th, the city "
<br /> manager has furnished us with two letters on the question of Curtaz' Forum Letter
<br /> and Water Department Refunds, the first dated March 22, and the second dated April 4th, .,,,,,
<br /> to date this council has taken no action on either of the letters, though to my
<br /> thinking they do warrant serious consideration with a view to final disposition and
<br /> determination.
<br /> The enclosures attached to letter of April 4th contains considerable pertinent
<br /> data, but certainly not a complete picutre.
<br /> As a matter of fact it is to be noted that the full amount of the indebtedness
<br /> originally mentioned, and as indicated in auditors report as of June 30, 1956, is not .4.011
<br /> covered.
<br /> It is also pertinent to comment that the report states and I quote "During 1946
<br /> and 1947, the Redwood City Water Department incurred several large encumbrances
<br /> which depleted the actual cash reserve of the department. The installation of water
<br /> mains in Redwood Terrace No. 1 and Redwood Terrace No. 2 constituted a considerable
<br /> portion of this deficit. At. the City Council meeting of March 11, 1946, City
<br /> Manager E. Blum advised the City Council of his concern over the financial condition of
<br /> the Water Department. At the meeting of March 18, 1946, he reported that no record of
<br /> a water agreement between the City of Redwood City and the Land Development Company
<br /> Could be found in the previous Council minutes. At this same meeting, Mr. Werder,
<br /> representing the Land Development Company, requested that a resolution be adopted
<br /> so that there would be an official record of the agreement. At this same meeting,
<br /> the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 288, copy of which is attached,
<br /> which clearly sets forth the mutual understanding of the City Council and the Land
<br /> Development Company relative to water service in the area."
<br /> Later on the report indicates amongst other matters, that on June 7, 1948, the
<br /> city Attorney advised the council that the subdividers of Woodside Terrace intended
<br /> to file suit, yet it is noteworthy that at Council meeting of July 6, 1948, final
<br /> maps for Woodside Terrace and Redwood Terrace #3 were approved by the council subject
<br /> to subdivider providing a bond for improvements, including the water system. While
<br /> this last named action appears to be in accord with the provisions of Ordinance #494,
<br /> adopted Septemeber 7, 1943, and which apparently governed subdivisions at that time;
<br /> it is doubtful, however, whether ,previous actions and subsequent actions were in
<br /> conformance with the aforementioned ordinance or with the provisions of Ordinance
<br /> 631, adopted November 21, 1949, and which superceded Ordinance #494.
<br /> The City Manager correctly concludes in his letter of April 4th by stating that
<br /> "any question pertaining to conformance to law which has been mentioned in these
<br /> discussions should be referred to the City Attorney, or some other person qualified
<br /> to make legal determination, since such matters are beyond the province of administrative
<br /> officials."
<br /> I fully concur with such conclusions, and I further believe that not any member
<br /> of this council is qualified to make such determination. Yet the question posed is
<br /> that it is .highly possible that not any of such funds are properly due claimants.
<br /> Therefor, I feel we would be remiss in our duty to the people, if we did not once for
<br /> all obtain ,a legal determination of the propriety of any past and future payments
<br /> on said purported indebtedness or any portion thereof.
<br /> Accordingly I move that that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
<br /> recommendation and a legal opinion as to propriety and proper procedure in the matter,
<br /> and in the .event that the press of other current work in his department is of such
<br /> volume as would prevent his giving this matter reasonably expeditious consideration,
<br /> that he submit suitable recommendation as well permit as early and proper determination
<br /> and action ,to resolve the question.
<br /> °RI
<br /> Louis Weiss, Councilman
<br /> Councilman Weiss moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for recommendation and a
<br /> legal opinion as to propriety and proper procedure in the matter, and in the event that the press
<br /> of other current work in his department is of such volume as would prevent his giving this matter
<br /> """"4
<br /> reasonably expeditions consideration, that he submit suitable recommendation as will permit an
<br /> early and proper determination and action to resolve the question. This motion lost for lack of ..r1
<br /> a second.
<br /> Councilman Granger stated that there seemed to be some questions raised in regard to the subdivisions
<br /> in 1945. He stated that the Council at that time had proper legal representation and proceeded
<br /> under the advisement of their legal represetative. Councilman Granger referred to the action taken
<br /> by the Council at the time of the Carson-Monckton Tract.Subdivision. He refrred to the suit, Court
<br />
|