My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 1957
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1957
>
CC MIN 1957
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2016 5:29:47 PM
Creation date
7/25/2016 1:11:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/7/1957
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.
/
262
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
� � A copy of this report, which is a digest of s tatistical data taken from <br /> the offieial records, and �rhich has required considerable research by the <br /> Water Superintendent and his staff, as well ae the City Clerk� s office, <br /> is attached hereto for the Council� s consideration. <br /> Obviously, howener, any questions pertaining to "eonformance to law" <br /> , whieh has been mentioned in these discussions, should b e referred to the <br /> ' City Attorney, or some other person qualified to make legal determin ations, <br /> since such matters are beyond the province of administratiee officials. , <br /> . E. A., Roli$on, �City Manager ..� <br /> 3 <br /> ' �he City Attorney stated that a copy of the court �udgement of the Land Development � <br /> ', Company was turned over to the City Manager and since that time it has been returned <br /> ' to the City Attorney� s office. The City Manager stated that the �udgement looked <br /> all right to him. Councilman Weiss read the fo]�lo�ring prepared statement. <br /> To begin with I wish to aall attention to the second paragraph of the City � <br /> Manager�s report, in which he indicates that he has referred certain � <br /> portions of the question to the City Attorney, T therefor presume that <br /> further report should be forthcoming either from the City Manager or the <br /> City Attorney. <br /> Next it is to be noted that the City Manager has dutifully and in effect <br /> eomplied with Councilman Herkner�s eapressed stipulation that the report <br /> con�ain an aPfirmative statement �hat ,�it was approved by legal couns�l." <br /> It is also very interesting to note that the City_ Manager�s closing r emark <br /> in said report correctly statea that a proper determination of the legal <br /> questions invol�ed is beyond administrative officials and should be deter- <br /> mined by appropriate people of the legal proFession such as the City <br /> Attorney. <br /> Since we hava done so much talking and bandying oi' words, I offer at this <br /> time a brief outline of my reasons for quest�.nning the propriety of these <br /> transactions. Naturall� as layman not gounded in legal matters, they are <br /> not sll inclusive: <br /> 1. It appears that at the March 18, 1946 council meeting �ity Manager <br /> E. Bluxn reported that no record of a water department agreement with the <br /> Land Development Company could be found in previous council minutes. <br /> � <br /> 2. At the same meeting Mr. Werder representing the Land Development Company <br /> requested a resolution be adopted so that there would be an official record .�+r <br /> of the agreement. <br /> 3. Again at this same meeting the Council did oblige and adopt <br /> Resolution 288, which appears to be the only record of any understanding on <br /> the question. <br /> 4. That sin¢e there appears to be no record of the exact details of <br /> an� previous understandings and considerations the disregard oE the pro- <br /> visions of the subdivision ordinancea then in existence in adopting said <br /> resolu tion an act of ultra vires may have been involved. <br /> 5. That the resolution in question did indicate that the Land i�evelop- <br /> msnt Company was obligated to clo its development lot by lot, block by block, <br /> this they apparantly did not conform to. <br /> 6. That subsequently, and notwithstanding non-conformance with the terms <br /> of said resolution others were permitted to benefit from said agreements, <br /> again notwithstanding the requirements oF our subdivision ordinances. <br /> 7. That a likelyhood exists that the Court Decree mentioned was obtained <br /> without all �he facts to establish its propriety having been presented to <br /> the court. � <br /> l�iuch raore could be said, but as I have previously stated, I am not an <br /> attorney, and would prefer to have a man of the legal profession give us the """� <br /> a.nswer s. <br /> Accordingly, I again offer my previous motions as offered at our meeting of <br /> May 13th and June lOth. <br /> Louis Weiss, Councilman <br /> Councilman Weiss moved that the entire matter and related questions effecting the 4�ater � <br /> , Department indebtedness which is the subjeet of the petition be referred to the City ""'� <br /> ; Attorney for exploration, determination of 1ega1 questions and problems involved, and <br /> ' that he submit his opinion as to the validit� of any and all mat#�ers involving the <br /> C arson-Monckton, Land Developm�nt and other water deals with the City, and in the <br /> ' event the press of ��her matters or current work in his department is oF such volume <br /> as would prevent his giving this matter reasonably diligent and expenditious attention <br /> . wy��.� -� ......-��_�.,�.��: _._.� . ,t _ ���_.� --- - �.,� ..� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.