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

Browse Search

reported, the city council is under a limitation which prevents it from committing the city to an expenditure beyond that which can be provided for in the current year's budget. This purchase would involve $107,000 which can not be met out of the current budget. He also said another question was in- volved in that this purchase was not for necessary municipal use and that, there- fore, he had advised the committee -that the proper way to purchase this property was to introduce an ordinance to submit it to the voters at the November election along with the general election but on a separate ballot. The proposition authorizes the council to proceed with the purchase of this property under a lease and contract which would commit the city to purchase this property over a five year period. If trio -thirds of the voters sustained this proposition, the council would have the authority to enter into this contract over the period of five years and the city would be reimbursed by property sold. He stated the election code authorizes the council to start an initiative p"ro- ceedings. The County Clerk advised mr. t;McCarthy that the'main ballot had already begun to be distributed and that it would be necessary to have the issiB placed on a separate ballot, although the sine election officials could be used. Four of the six elec ipn;-officials-, vtould ;be ablecto handle'.tb.e proceed-, ings, and the votes would be canvassed by the City.Council. Councilman' Anderson moved that it be the consensus of the council that the city attorney be instructed to submit to -the council at its next meeting the necessary documents with respect to placing this matter on the ballot. He explained that his motion was not to place this matter on the ballot but was merely a consensus of ,the opinion of the council as to Whether or not it desired it to be placed on the ballot. The motion was seconded by Councilman Fletcher. Under the question, Councilman Armstrong asked if the council wanted to beat the bond issue and stated, in his opinion, it was a sure tray of doing it. Councilman Anderson said this issue was entirely separate from the bond issue. He stated that he believed when the other bond issue was brought before the people and explained in detail, it wrould not sound like a large -amount of money. Councilman Britschgi entered the meeting. Coundilman Anderson further explained that the council. would be merely buying this property over a period of five years and stated that Redwood City is a community of fine homes and residences as well as an industrial, community. He stated private owners are apt to raise the price of property if it is known that an industry is interested in its purchase. Councilman Armstrong, was still of the opinion that it was unwise to place this matter on the ballot at this time, saying he did not think the council could ' sell both issues at one time. Councilman Anderson was of the opinion that a bond issue can't be sold but must be left to the discretion of the voters who have the privilege of either accepting or rejecting the issues. There followed some discussion in regard to the expense of -the separate ballott with. City Attorney McCarthy aftising the council that it would be approximately ,$300 to $400. 11 (J