BOOK 19_1942-09-08 to 1945-05-07

Browse Search

. 0 meeting in July .and a report be made at that time by Mrs. Kopke as to what is being done, seconded by Councilman Fletcher. Motion passed unanimously. Property owned by the State of California, Lot 1, Block 13, Range D, Mezesville, 1226 Allerton Street, room and toilet structure, was next discussed. Building Inspector Duncan testified as follows: Q. Do you recall this property? A. Yes. That belongs to the State. They are taking bids and are.going to sell. Councilman Anderson, seconded by Councilman McNulty, moved the matter be continues to second meeting in July and a report be.made at that time. Motion passed unanimously. Councilman Armstrong brought up the fact that nothing had been accomplished on the Meussdorffer property. There was some discussion as to what could be done to improve the building. Councilman Anderson moved that the matter be placed on the: agenda for the second meeting in July so that if Mr. Meussdorffer wants to make progress, the council can have a report on it. He included in his motion that the health conditions must be cleaned up at once. Councilman Granger and Councilman Armstrong were of the opinion that this motion was the same as.the one. voted down earlier in the meeting. Councilman McNulty stated he had voted againss the first motion but inasmuch as the other property owners had been given additional time, he believed Mr. Mewssdorffer should be. Councilman Granger stated he would like to make an amendment to the motion that the City Manager contact Mr. Meussdorffer and arrange a meeting with the department heads to go over the matter. Councilman Armstrong asked if it was the intent of this motion to attempt to rehabilitate the building and stated he wanted the department heads who had made the inspections to be satisfied that something was done. Councilman Anderson accepted the amendment to his motion. Motion was seconded by Councilman: Granger. Motion passed unanimously. amity Attorney McCarthy reported to the Council on the matter of a bulkhead in creek on Lot 22, Wallace Subdivision which had been installed by Mr. Emil Steinegger after being so instructed by the F. H. A. Mr. Steinegger sold the property to Mr. Harry E. Heins. City Attorney McCarthy had a copy of the agreement signed by' Mr. Steinegger and his wife agreeing to maintain the bulkhead. The bulkhead has fallen and Mr. Steinegger refuses to accept the responsibility of replacing it, stating that Mr. Heins signed an agreement to maintain it. This agreement cannot be found. City Attorney McCarthy wished to know what disposition the council wanted to make in the matter. Mr. Steinegger appeared before the council disclaiming any obligation to maintain the bulkhead. He stated he did not wish to go to any expense in the matter and did not want to engage an attorney. He stated Mr. Heins had bought the property on contract and did not take title to it until after the bulkhead was completed. Councilman Granger was of the opinion that the matter should have been brought to the council's attention at the beginning. City Attorney McCarthy stated he believed it was merely a routine legal matter and, as such, was not necessary to bring -ii; before the council. After considerable more discussion as to the proper procedure to follow and as to who was legally responsible for clearing the channel and replacing the bulkhead,