My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
BOOK 25_1955-08-01 to 1955-11-28 (missing 1954-02-15 to 1955-08-01)
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1955 PARTIAL BOOK 25
>
BOOK 25_1955-08-01 to 1955-11-28 (missing 1954-02-15 to 1955-08-01)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2017 4:56:04 PM
Creation date
10/12/2017 4:52:28 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council
Date
8/1/1955
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
114
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
462. ' <br />•Money to be loaned by -the Water Department and repaid by a one -cent levy of <br />Capital Tax for a six year period, thus saving the interest charge if a lease-pur - <br />chase contract were negotiated. <br />Councilman Granger stated that the Council had asked for this report at their last <br />meeting. He then moved that the proper authorities be authorized to accept the <br />deed and proceed with the purchasing of the property, the money to come from the <br />Capital Fund, seconded by Councilman Jones. <br />Councilman Stout clarified his position of last week. He stated that lie voted no <br />because at that time it appeared that the money might not be available and he was <br />interested in knowing how anyone could use the building with the trains going by. <br />He thought that the Council should have purchased the church property before when <br />they had the opportunity, and he is of the opinion that the Council should keep in <br />mind the possibility of possibly purchasing the Post Office property and the <br />doctor's offices across the street. He read a portion of the minutes of November <br />151 1954, regarding the lack of availability of money to purchase the church <br />property. <br />Councilman Granger stated his opinion that the City needed additional property to <br />take care of future expansion. Councilman Jones stated that if the Council passed <br />up this opportunity now, in ten years they would be critized for not expanding <br />when the <br />opportunity presented itself. <br />This <br />is <br />definitely a <br />part <br />of <br />a forward <br />program <br />and if necessary the building <br />could <br />be <br />rented until <br />such <br />time <br />as the city <br />is ready to,make use of the property. Motion carried on roll call, Councilman <br />Britschgi and Spillers being noted absent. Councilman Stout stated that he was <br />voting yes because he is looking forward to future expansion. <br />FURTHER REPORT OF CINNABAR COMMITTEE. Councilman Granger stated that they had made <br />progress but not to the extent that they could recommend which bid to accept. He <br />stated that a thorough survey must be made and the boundaries set before any <br />action can be taken by the Council. He stated that he, as chairman of the comm- <br />i.ttee, had received a letter from A. F. Oddstad, Jr., in regards to a small amount <br />of cinnabar which had been inadvertently removed from property owned by the City <br />of Redwood City adjacent to the Farm Hills subdivision. Councilman Granger asked <br />that the letter be made a part of the record. <br />"Dear Mr. Granger: <br />It has come to my attention that a small amount of cinnabar has been <br />inadvertently removed by us from property owned by the City of Red- <br />wood City adjacent to our Farm Hill subdivision. On the basis of <br />the letter from Francis H. Frederick, which is being forwarded to <br />your under separate cover, and surveys made by our personnel at the <br />Farm Hill Mine, I believe that approximately twenty tons of market- <br />able ore were accidentally removed from your property during the <br />course of our mining operation, and thereafter processed. The ore <br />has been accurately estimated to contain between eight and fifteen <br />pounds of mercury per ton, having a sales value, after processings <br />of slightly less than 640.00 per ton. The cost of mining, processing <br />and processing and marketing the ore represents a total of about <br />$27.00 per ton, therby indicating a profit of approximately $13.00 <br />per ton. Assuming such profit on the 20 tons of ore removed, it <br />would appear that the City is entitled to receive $260.00 from me. <br />Because of the difficulty in ascertaining the precise amount of ore <br />which was removed from City property, the undersigned is willing to <br />make a payment of 5500.00 to the City at this time, in full settle- <br />ment for all ore allegedly removed .from City property prior to this <br />date. I am making this offer in a spirit of compromise, as I feel <br />the amount thereof substantially.exceeds the net value of the ore <br />so extracted and sold. <br />Enclosed find my check for $500.00 which is being tendered to you in <br />full and complete satisfaction of all claims and damages arising out - <br />of or resulting from the removal of such ores. Ver;truly yours <br />A. F. Oddstad, Jr.11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.