CC MIN 1957 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Couneilman Weiss moved that the reports be accepted and asked that a second aupplemental report be made by the City T��anager as to the expenditure of the ma jor items which compromise the "Investment of Fixed Capital�t. This was follaaed by discussion. Auditor Brophy stated that he could give the answer to eouncilman we3ss if he would come into his office. Council man weiss stated th at he did not want the answer for himself only. He stated that in reading the report and analysis thereof reveals that some �92,137.88 have been expended on Capital Improvements and Fixed Capital. Investment since 191�9. It was his thought that a supplemental report should be had to deliniate more specifically the types of improvements and fixed capital improvements with appurtenant costs, etc. Councilman Herkner seconded the motion which carried. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON VANDALISM, UNION CEMETERY. The Clerk read the followin� reportt This offiee has been requested for an opini.on on the question of whether or not the City is empowered to offer a •.reward for the apprehension and conviction of the person or persons responsible for the demolition of the Civil War monument in Union Cemetery. Although the City of Redwood City is a chartered city and as such has complete authority and power with respect to matters of local con cern, the apprehension and convietion of persons violating the criminal laws of' the State as opposed to local ordinances or regulations ai e held not to constitute matters of local concern. i�riffin v. City of Los Angeles, 134 Cal App 763 at 7?2; Robert v. Police Court, 148 Cal 131. Therefore it is held that a municipal corporation has no power, unless expressly authorized, to of'f'er re�ards for the arrest and conviction of of'fenders ag�.inst the criminal laws of the State. Los Angelss v. Gurdan.e, 59 F 2d, 161; 3 McQuiliin Municipal Corporations, Sec. 11,06, p. 10; see also 2 Atty. Gen. Opinions, 509; 4 Atty. Gen. Opinions, 201. In the destruction of the monument in question, no offense ag�inst local ordinances or re�ul ations was committed. The offenses corr�nitted constitute violations of the Penal Code of the State of Californi a. It is the opinion of this offiee that the power of the City to offer a reward under the abovementioned circumstances is doubtful. This office has also been requested to render an opinion on the power of the City to appropriate and expend moneys for the reconstruction of' the abovementioned monument in Union Cemetery. The erection of monuments and memorials in public places upon public property constitutes a public purpose. Slavich v. Hamilton, 201 Cal 299. The apecific type� location, and character of such monuments are questions of purely local concern and as such constitute local munic3.pal affairs under the �uris�iction of the City. This office is informed tha.t the record title ownership of the property included in Union Cemetery is p resently vested in the State of California and therefore such property constitutes publie property. Under the abovementioned circumstances, it is the opinion of this office that sub- ject to the consent of the appropriate department of the State of CaliFornia having �urisdiction of the Cemetery, the City may appropriate and expend moneys f�r the reconstruction of the abovementioned monument or contribute moneys to a public fund for such purpose. Councilman Granger moved that the City Manager again be irB tructed to check in.to the cost of fixing the statue back into its regular form if it is possible and he also moved to accept the report of' the City Attorney, seeonded by Councilman Stout and carried. �