BOOK 20_1945-05-21 to 1946-09-03

Browse Search

ABSENT: Councilmen: ANDERSON. RALPH S. DODGE City Clerk APPROVED: W. W. HILTON Mayor of the City of Redwood City Councilman Britschgi entered the meeting. City Manager Blom advised that a Mr. Williams who owns property on West Union Road outside the limits of the city had inquired about the possibility 'of connecting sewers to the city sewer system and to obtain water service in this area. It was discovered that some years ago, in 1927, the Council had I; agreed to let him connect to the city sewers and to furnish water service. It did not state in the minutes of the meeting in April, 18270 whether the agreement was to cover one home or more. City Manager Blom asked Council- man MoNuity if he recalled the agreement. Councilman McNulty did so but was unable to say whether the agreement covered an individual home or sev- eral homes. 'Mr. Williams advised that he contemplated building seventeen homes in this area. It was the general consensus of the Council that Mr. Williams should petition to come into the city limits inasmuch as it was believed that the city was not in a position to offer extension of services outside the city limits. Due to the fact that. Mr. Williams had not taken f advantage of the agreement entered into in 1927 up to this time, the Coun- i I i' oil did not feel that it was obligated to stand by this agreement. Coun- cilman Fletcher moved, seconded by Councilman Armstrong, that, due to the fact that the city sewers are overloaded and the property in question is ,outside the city limits, the request of Mr. Williams be denied. Motion passed.unanimously. Mr. Ingersoll explained that the amendment to Ordinance No. 515 provided for a new section. He stated that the 1913 State Act had proven cumbersome in recent years and that in 1941 it was amended"tto.-,provide that where 856 of property owners within a proposed improvement district petitioned the governing body to go ahead with the work that the investigation proceedings could be dispensed with. The proposed amendment to the ordinance, he said, complies with the provision in the State Act. Councilman Britsohgi asked if this provision would eliminate the resolution of preliminary intention to which Mr. Ingersoll replied that it did upon petition of 856 of the affected property owners. Councilman Armstrong asked if the method was not an alternate procedure and did not supersede Ordinance No. 515. City Attor- ney McCarthy agreed this was so. Councilman Fletcher offered introduotionx of ordinance amending Ordinance No. 515, seconded by Councilman Armstrong. Motion passed unanimously. In regard to the amendment to Ordinance No. 333, Mr. Ingersoll elaborated on the remarks made by Mr. Wilson at the last meeting of the Council. He explained the procedure followed after the resolution of intention is adopted for pub- lic improvements and which provides for selling bonds before the contract is 291