Laserfiche WebLink
-____ <br /> 6 <br /> The City Attorney stated that he had been requested to present a resolution amending a past <br /> resolution with regard to contract for improvement of Farm Hills Subdivision No. 3. Mr. <br /> Lebsack was present and told the Council that in checking with the California Pacific <br /> Title Insurance Company they found that the majority of the property involved in this <br /> subdivision was owned by Sterling Development Company and in order to straighten out <br /> the records they asked that a resolution be passed substituting the name of Sterling <br /> Development Company in place of Oddstad Homes. This was followed by discussion. Coun- 11.4 cilman Spillers offered RESOLUTION 2271 SUBSTITUTING STERLING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR <br /> ODDSTAD HOMES IN CONTRACT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FARM HILLS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 and moved <br /> its adoption, seconded by Councilman Herkner and carried on roll call. <br /> Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement: <br /> "At our meeting of June 10, 1957, by carried motion the City Manager was requested to <br /> submit detailed report on the Water Department indebtedness, even to including as <br /> Councilman Herkner stipulated a statement, and I quote from the minutes 'That it was <br /> approved by. legal council. ' <br /> The City Manager has under date of June 11, 1957, prepared such a report addressed to <br /> the Honorable Mayor and City Council. He apparently furnished a copy of said report <br /> to each of the councilmen for their consideration. I call attention to the fact that <br /> said report was not includedon our agenda for this meeting." I therefore moved that <br /> the City Manager' s report be placed on the agenda for Council meeting of June 24., <br /> 1957. This motion was seconded by Councilman Spillers and carried with Mayor Itoyer <br /> voting NO. <br /> Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement: <br /> "Earlier this evening we have introduced an appropriation ordinance that will provide <br /> some $10,066 for the Yacht Harbor operation, there is also provisions for reapproprt- <br /> ation of the 013,000 so call Port dividend, for expenditure on the Yacht Harbor. It <br /> is also my understanding that some members of the Council contemplate that a portion <br /> of the $18,000 balance of the Capital Projects Fund being reappropriated will also be <br /> diverted for Yacht Harbor purposes. I also note that the estimated revenues during <br /> the coming year are stated as $2,200 in the budget. All of this is equivalent to over <br /> two cents on the tax rate, believe it or not. <br /> However, I wish to repeat that I am not exactly averse to small boat harbors as such, <br /> but I do find a sad situation here - we are practically broke and yet we pursue this <br /> luxury matter that could and should be financed by the people specifically concerned. <br /> In order that we may judge this whole question properly, it is my belief that the entire <br /> matter should be the subject of a comprehensive survey and report by the City Manager, <br /> and at the earliest practicable date. I accordingly move that the City Manager prepare <br /> such a comprehensive survey and report for submission to the Council by not later than <br /> the first meeting in August 1957. Further that his report include any and all pertinent <br /> comments and recommendations he deems appropiiate, and should cover, amongst other <br /> matter, the following specific points: <br /> 1. Is the Yacht Harbor under the active supervision and administration of his office <br /> and the Recreation Department? <br /> 2. What present facilities, other than berthing are available at the Yacht Harbor? <br /> 3. What commitments, agreements and rules, etc. as to use of such facilities are of <br /> record? What fees, etc. are being charged? <br /> al4.. What berthing facilities are presently available at the Yacht Harbor? <br /> todj <br /> 5. When were, and what are the rates presently established? When if at all have they <br /> been reviewed? Are they adequate in the light of present day circumstances? <br /> 6. What plans for ultimate developments are presently available? <br /> 7. Have definite priorities for each phase of development been established? <br /> 8. Have costs and means of financing been explored and developed?" <br /> The motion lost for lack of a second. Councilman Herkner stated that the Council has <br /> approved the driving of the piles and the ramp and they are over the amount of money <br /> allocated for the development of the Yacht Harbor. The Yacht Harbor Committee is pre- <br /> pared to ask for the $2,000 they are short to complete the project for the Yacht Harbor. <br /> Claims 22710 to 22847, totaling $63, 701.06, were ordered paid on motion of Councilman Weymouth, <br /> seconded by Councilman Spillers. Councilman Weiss asked if there were any unallocated <br />