|
462
<br />ESTABLISHING RULES, REGULATIONS AND CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH THE CITY SANITARY SEMER FACILITIES;
<br />AND REPEALING ORDINANCE -NO. 598 and moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Granger and carried
<br />on roll call, Councilmen Herkner and Stout being noted absent: .
<br />COUNCILMAN WEISS REGARDING WATER DEPARTMENT FINANCES AND INDEBTEDNESS. Councilman Weiss read the following
<br />prepared statement:
<br />In accordance -with motions adopted at our official meeting of March 18th, the city
<br />manager has furnished us with two letters on the question of Curtaz' Forum Letter
<br />and Water Department Refunds, the first dated March 22, and the second dated April 4th, II�
<br />to date this council has taken no action on either of the letters, though to my
<br />thinking they do warrant serious consideration with a view to final disposition and
<br />determination.
<br />The enclosures attached to letter of April 4th contains considerable pertinent
<br />data, but certainly not a complete picutre.
<br />C -
<br />As a matter of fact it is to be noted that the full amount of the indebtedness
<br />originally mentioned, and as indicated in auditors report as of June 30, 1956, is not li
<br />covered.
<br />It is also pertinent to comment that the report states and I quote "During 1946
<br />and 1947s the Redwood City Water Department incurred several large encumbrances
<br />which depleted the actual cash reserve of the department. The installation of water
<br />mains in Redwood Terrace No. 1 and Redwood Terrace No. 2 constituted a considerable
<br />portion of this deficit. At -the City Council meeting of March 11,.1946, City
<br />Manager E. Blum advised the City Council of his concern over the financial condition of
<br />the Water Department. At the meeting of March 18, 1946, he reported that no record of
<br />a water agreement between the City of Redwood City and the Land Development Company
<br />Could be found in the previous Council minutes. At this same meeting, Mr. Warders
<br />representing the Land Development Company, requested that a resolution be adopted
<br />so that there would be an official record of the agreement. At this same meeting,
<br />the City Council unanimously adopted Resolution No. 288, copy of which is attached,
<br />which clearly sets forth the mutual understanding of the City Council and the Land
<br />Development Company relative to water service in the area."
<br />Later on the report indicates amongst other matters, that on June 7, 1948s the
<br />city Attorney advised the council that the subdividers of Woodside Terrace intended
<br />to file suit, yet it is noteworthy that at Council meeting of July 6, 1948s final
<br />maps for Woodside Terrace and Redwood Terrace #3 were approved by the council subject
<br />to subdivider providing a bond for improvements, including the water system. While
<br />this .last named action appears to be in accord with the provisions of Ordinance #494.1
<br />adopted Septemeber 7, 1943, and which apparently governed subdivisions at that time;
<br />.it is doubtful, however, whether.previous actions and subsequent actions were in
<br />conformance with the aforementioned ordinance or with the provisions of Ordinance
<br />631, adopted November 21, 1949, and which superseded Ordinance #494.
<br />The City Manager correctly concludes in his letter of April 4th by stating that
<br />"any question pertaining to conformance to law which has been mentioned in these
<br />discussions should be referred to the City Attorney, or some other person qualified
<br />to make legal determination, since such matters are beyond the province of administrative
<br />officials.",
<br />I fully concur with such conclusions, and I further believe that not any member
<br />of this council is qualified to make such determination. Yet the question posed is
<br />that it is.highly possible that not any of such funds are properly due claimants.
<br />Therefor, I feel we would be remiss in our duty to the people, if we did not once for
<br />all obtain,a legal determination of the propriety of any past and future payments
<br />on said purported indebtedness or any portion thereof.
<br />Accordingly I move that that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
<br />recommendation and a legal opinion as to propriety and proper procedure in the matter,
<br />and in the.event that the press of other current work in his department is of such
<br />volume as Kould prevent his giving this matter reasonably expeditious consideration,
<br />that he submit suitable recommendation as well permit as early and proper determination
<br />and action,to resolve the question.
<br />Louis Weiss, Councilman
<br />Councilman Weiss moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for recommendation and a
<br />legal opinion as to propriety and proper procedure in the matter, and in the event that the press
<br />of other current work in his department is of such volume as would prevent his giving this matter
<br />reasonably expeditions consideration, that he submit suitable recommendation as will permit an
<br />early and proper, determination and action to resolve the question. This motion lost for lack of
<br />a second.
<br />Councilman Granger stated that there seemed to be some questions raised in regard to the subdivisions
<br />in 1945. He stated that the Council at that time had proper legal representation and proceeded
<br />under the advisement of their legal represetative. Councilman Granger referred to the action taken
<br />by the Council at the time of the Carson—Monckton Tract.Subdivision. He refrred to the suit, Court
<br />Y
<br />,a
<br />
|