Laserfiche WebLink
0 <br />within, or without, the limits of said city. In subdivision 17 the city <br />is given authority and power to do and perform any and all other acts and <br />things necessary, proper, or convenient to carry out the provisions of <br />the Charter. <br />The City Council has heretofore appointed a committee and undertaken <br />to sponsor the organization of a district hospital, under the hospital <br />district act of this'State and the question arises whether the City can <br />undertake to pay the Board of Supervisors for the incidental expenses <br />to organize such a district if the voters should decide adversely'on"the <br />question. <br />In my opinion, the organization of a hospital destrict and the man- <br />agement of a hospital does not cease to become a municipal affair merely <br />because the district embraced territory beyond the bounds of the City. <br />It is evident that the purpose of the Council in promoting the organiza- <br />tion of the district was to obtain a broader base of taxation for the <br />erection and maintenance of the hospital than could have been had if the <br />organization of the hospital was made purely a municipal affair of the <br />City of Redwood City without the aid of surrounding territory. Bearing <br />j in mind that the hospital district, if organized will provide a public <br />service or public utility for the benefit of the people of Redwood City, <br />it does not seem to me to effect the right of the Council to appropriate <br />money for the payment of the expenses of the election merely because the <br />service is incidentally rendered to persons outside the City of Redwood <br />City; The same principle applies to the activities of this City or any <br />city in furnishing water. Incidentally the city may serve the citizens <br />or residents'out side the City if it becomes convenient or necessary so <br />to do. This power has been specifically upheld in several cases, in- <br />cluding Durant vs. the City of Beverly Hills 39 Cal. Ap 2d.133. In <br />another case it was held that a city may acquire, operate and issue <br />' bonds to finance a municipal bus line running to another city under ex- <br />press constitutional grant of power though the service would benefit non- <br />residents and non -tax payers. The City of Mill Valley vs. Saxton 41 Cal <br />Ap 2d 290. assure the Board of'Supervisors that if the election is de- <br />feated you will reimburse the county for the expense of the election in <br />the amount of approximately $2,100.00. <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />PAUL A McCARTHY <br />City Attorney <br />Mr. Paul Jones appeared before the Council urging reconsideration of the <br />ordinance which was introduced at the last meeting of the Council in re- <br />gard to the keeping of chickens in the first residentigl district. He <br />asked that instead of prohibiting the keeping of chickens in this,district <br />that the Council merely revoke the war time measure in regard to the <br />distance chickens must be -kept from surrounding dwellings. He said he hed <br />discussed the matter with many residents in the first residential dis- <br />trict who were desirous of keeping chickens and that also the President <br />of the United States had urged that people raise chickens to help alleviate <br />the food shortage. Councilman Granger stated he had been considering this <br />matter and that he had intended when voting for the ordinance that only <br />the war time measure was being rescinded. Councilman Anderson stated thst <br />he had been absent when the ordinance was voted upon but that <br />it had also been his opinion that it was intended to revert to the ordi- <br />nance in effect before the war. Councilman Armstrong was of the opinion <br />that the ordinance adopted before the war was entirely out of order in..the <br />first residential district and that he did not favor the keeping of chick- <br />ens, goats, etc. in the first residential district which would be allowed <br />if only the war time measure were rescinded. A Mr. Kimberley spoke from <br />the floor urging that chickens be allowed in this district on the basis <br />that it was discriminatory to prohibit them. Councilman Britschgi was of <br />I <br />the opinion that inasmuch as there was no objection to the ordinance <br />i <br />adopted in 1941 he believed the Council should only rescind the war time <br />measure. Councilman Anderson suggested that this be done and if there are <br />v <br />any complaints amore severe ordinance be enacted. Councilman Britschgi <br />245 <br />