Laserfiche WebLink
8 <br />` <br />10 <br />A copy of this report, which is a digest of statistical data taken from <br />the official records, and which has required considerable research by the <br />Water Superintendent and his staff, as well as the City Clerk's office, <br />is attached hereto for the Councills consideration. <br />Obviously, however, any questions pertaining to "conformance to law" <br />which has been mentioned in these discussions, should b e referred to the <br />City Attorney, or some other person qualified to make legal determinations, <br />since such matters are beyond the province of administrative officials., <br />E. A., Rolison, City Manager <br />The City Attorney stated that a copy of the court judgement of the Land Development <br />Company was turned over to the City Manager and since that time it has been returned <br />to the City Attorney's office. The City Manager stated that the judgement looked <br />i <br />? <br />all right to him. Councilman Weiss read the following prepared statement. <br />To begin with I wish to call attention to the second paragraph of the City. <br />Manager's report, in which he indicates that he has referred certain <br />portions of the question to the City Attorney, I therefor presume that <br />j <br />further report should be forthcoming either from the City Manager or the <br />City Attorney. <br />Next it is to be noted that the City Manager has dutifully and in effect <br />complied with Councilman Herkner's expressed stipulation that the report <br />i <br />contain an affirmative statement that "it was approved by legal couns8l." <br />It * is also very interesting to note that the City_ Managerts closing remark <br />insaid report correctly states that a proper determination of the legal <br />questions involved is beyond administrative officials and should be deter- <br />mined by appropriate people of the legal profession such as the City i! <br />Attorney. <br />Since we have done so much talking and bandying of words, I offer at this ! <br />time a brief outline of my reasons for questioning the propriety of these <br />transactions. Naturally as layman not gounded in legal matters, they are. j <br />not all inclusive: <br />1. It appears that at the March 18, 1946 council meeting City Manager <br />E. Blum reported that no record of a water department agreement with the <br />Land Development Company could be found in previous council minutes. <br />2. At the same meeting Mr. Werder representing the Land Development Company <br />requested a resolution be adopted so that there would be an official record ij <br />of the agreement. <br />3- Again at this same meeting the Council did oblige and adopt <br />Resolution 288, which appears to be the only record of any understanding on <br />the question. <br />4• That since there appears to be no record of the exact details of <br />any previous understandings and considerations the disregard of the pro- <br />visions of the subdivision ordinances then in existence in adopting said <br />resolution an act of ultra vires may have been involved. <br />5. That the resolution in question did indicate that the Land Develop- <br />ment Compariy was obligated to do its development lot by lot, block by block, <br />this they apparantly did not conform to. <br />6. That subsequently, and notwithstanding non-conformance with the terms <br />of said resolution others were permitted to benefit from said agreements, <br />again notwithstanding the requirements of our subdivision ordinances. <br />7. That a likelyhood exists that the Court Decree mentioned was obtained <br />without All the facts to establish its propriety having been presented to <br />the court. <br />Much more could be said, but as I have previously stated, J - <br />I am not an <br />attorney, and would prefer to have a man of the legal profession give us the <br />answers. <br />Accordingly, I again offer my previous motions as offered at our meeting of <br />May 13th and June 10th, <br />Louis Weiss, Coum ilman <br />Councilman Weiss moved that the entire matter and related questions effecting the Water <br />Department indebtedness which is the subject of the petition be referred to the City <br />Attorney for exploration, determination of legal questions and problems involved, and <br />that he submit his opinion as to the validity of any and all matters involving the <br />Carson -Monckton, Land Development and other water deals with the City, and in the <br />event the press of 61her matters or current work in his department is of such volume <br />as would prevent his giving this matter reasonably diligent and expenditious attention <br />