CC MIN 1969 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

288 trict ( Lots 41 and 42 ) to avoid double improvement costs be - cause of double access , would still stand if improvements installed on a private basis . City Attorney stated a review of the Council minutes stating their stand on this issue would provide Staff with Council ' s policy on this question of " double jeopardy " as to access and costs , but also it was possible to incorporate such provision in any private agreement . City Manager advised of the concerns of Staff in putting together with property owners an improvement agreement on a cash basis , partly because of City investment made up to this point in setting up the proposed Assess - ment District , which costs would have ordinarily been recouped under an Assessment District proceeding . Mr . Harder stated matter of picking up City ' s initial costs on this proposed District had been discussed previously . He also advised he would be unable to attend next hearing if con - tinued to April 7th . Attorney for the District , advised his recommendation would be to continue this public hearing and hold the bids in order to leave the maximum number of Council options open until that time . He pointed out inter•ir : eriod would give staff opportunity to make a recommendation on proposal presented , and Council could at that time determine what position to take with all alternatives intact . Motion carried to continue this public hearing to April 14 , 1969 ( MINUTE ORDER #69 - 49 ) Deferred ACCOUNT PAYABLE , covering an expense account of Councilman Petersen resubmitted , as requested by Council . Councilmazr Petersen stated because of his absence at the previous Council meeting when this claim discussed , he felt it necessary to continue the discussion because he felt both his personal integrity and reputation , along with that of Staff members , and more importantly the public image of Redwood City , suffered damage by the allegations made . Councilman Keckley moved to approve the re - submitted claim, seconded by Councilman Arnett . On question , Councilman Herilerson asked that the record indicate at time Council withdrew this claim from the warrants approved for payment last week , she was not aware that the check had already been issued . She again challenged the item of " mileage " in lieu of " air coach fare . " Councilman Petersen detailed a comparison between costs involved had he reported expenses by air fare travel to attend this particular meeting in Sacramento , against the mileage expense account he had submitted and which was less costly , and construed by him to be within the meanin of the Ordinance referred to . Councilman Henderson agreed with the rationale presented , but still indicated Ordinance as written didn ' t allow for individual interpretation and perhaps should be corrected or revised . After requesting a reading of the particular section of the Ordinance which pertained to this issue , Councilman Arnett felt that Councilman Petersen had lived up to its intent in incurring the least amount of expense to the City , but felt it time this whole Ordinance is reviewed . Councilman Henderson protested ruling of Chair that no opinion from City Attorney need be requested on this point , and voted no on motion to approve this claim ( MINUTE ORDER #69 -50 ) Mayor Bury requested that the Ordinance Review Committee study this particular tArSI ^l ,6