My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
CC MIN 1969
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1969
>
CC MIN 1969
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/2/2016 5:20:25 PM
Creation date
8/2/2016 3:50:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/6/1969
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.
/
344
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
406 <br /> unable to purchase required converter , although there are 20 channels running through <br /> system now , He stated it would require only a simple connection between the cable <br /> and the individual homes . There was additional discussion regarding the converter <br /> aspect and it was noted that this company ' s indication of their ability to provide <br /> converter gave significant weight to the decision to award the franchise to Penin- <br /> sula Cable Televsion Corp . <br /> Mayor Bury suggested that in a subsequent progress report , the firm might be in a <br /> position to respond more fully as to their present position on the converter . <br /> Mayor Bury thanked Mr , Schneider for his report , and requested that he convey to <br /> Mr . Sinkunas the several items of concern brought up by the Council . <br /> Continued PUBLIC HEARING , Resolution of Preliminary Determination , Oak Knoll - Canyon <br /> Lane and Vicinity Sewer Improvement District . <br /> City Attorney requested that opening of the public hearing be delayed , pending re - <br /> commendation from Attorney for the District . Mayor Bury therefore called a brief <br /> recess for that purpose , after which the public hearing was opened . <br /> Mr . Chester W . Lebsack , Attorney for the District , questioned whether Council is <br /> going to pay specific assessments on parcels acquired by the City , He was not ad- <br /> vised property going into public ownership until last week . In published notices no <br /> reference was made to any publicly owned property , nor distribution to be made or <br /> charges to be assessed to public property , In addition , there was a discrepancy <br /> in estimated costs of the project in that published notice indicated an amount of <br /> S37 , 700 and the revised estimate in the specifications of S42 , 000 . If it is the <br /> intention of the City to pay assessment for these parcels this should be stated <br /> in the resolution , which when adopted , obligates the City to pay the assessment . <br /> City Attorney pointed out that the City presently has not acquired the parcels re - <br /> ferred to , In addition , the appropriation is contingent type and acquisition at <br /> present is in the stage where an opinion can only be expressed as to whether it <br /> will be consummated and when . <br /> City Manager stated at the time the District was being formulated and plans being <br /> prepared for formation of this assessment district , it was determined a given number <br /> of parcels were included in Canyon Road Park acquisition . Acquisition is now at <br /> the stage where it can be broughtto Council next Monday for authority to proceed with <br /> acquiring of this property . City Manager recommended termination of proceedings , <br /> and that Council proceed with consideration of the appropriation to cover City ' s <br /> pro -rata share of improvements contemplated . He added that getting new informa- <br /> tion to the Attorney for preparation of the hecessary legal documents , and bringing <br /> them back when ready means a slip of about three weeks . <br /> Councilman Rosselli expressed concern about the publication costs for the several <br /> times this matter has come up . <br /> Mr , Lebsack commented there is no word in any of this as to what happens to "publicly <br /> owned " property; determination must be made not to exempt publicly owned property , <br /> and to make specific statement in resolution to that effect , Either publicly owned <br /> It 28 '89 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.