Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutF-189I T 4 t LEfRK'S FILE no. -is9 SUBJE[T t I ` r - CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA CITY ENGINEEK May 5, 1954 MAY 1953 m Mr. Fred Lucksinger, Mayor RECEIVED Mr. Paul W. Davis, Commissioner of Public Works �, City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo'.. California Res Miss Anita Hathway's letter dated December 10, 1953. Gentlemen: I do not have any information on Miss Hathway's claim that she paid for but was later denied a building permit. Under II, Miss Hathway did install and pay for certain water lines on Ellen 'Way some time prior to and possibly after my association with the City, and bills for this work were presented to the City Council on December 17, 1951. However, numerous complaints from Mr. Walter Pfleghar and others living at the north end of Ellen Way prior to this time proved, after investigation, that water lines laid by Miss Hathway were completely inadequate for normal service. The City therefore was forced to spend a considerable awe to lay a 4m water main on 3rd Street from Hathway, to Ellen Way to correct the inadequacy of the system. Estimated total coat to City was approximately $1,000. According to my recollection, the Council felt that this expense on the part of the taxpayers in correcting a serious de- ficiency in Kiss Hathway's subdivision was adequate compensation. Under II1, Miss Hathway's development of H111crest Street extension was undertaken as a completely private development without submission of complete plans to the City. Under City policy of not permitting the laying Of inexpensive, inadequate water lines under City streets, I required the laying of a 4' water line from the Grove Street main to the property line. Very truly yours, O. HOMER HAM City Engineer GHH/pbg C OPY • • FRED L. GIS AKenj 103 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, January 6, 1951+ Miss Anita Hathway 1546 Hillerest Flace San Luis Obispo, California Dear Miss Hathway: In response to your request that I recall the plan used by the City Council of San Luis Obispo for the refunding of costs of watermains to property owners, I believe the plan in effect at the time you put or, the Ellen Way imirovements was as follows: The property owner was to bear the entire costs of putting in the watermains and the City of San Luis Obispo would refund a proportionate share of costs as each meter was attached for the lots involved. Such an agreement was in effect with you and Mr. A:iliolm at the time and as I recall the matter, the problem was not a question as to waether you would receive a refund, but in the manner in which you were to receive it, the City feeling that you had the refund coming but not having worked out the mechanics of paying a refund to you. FLO; is Very truly yours, SIG1,LD FRED L GIST Fred L. Gist :ae ..,�v • December 100, 1953 Councilman Nels Beck 1865 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California Still in search of fairminded men and justice, I ask your indulgence and patience in reading this rather lengthy communica- tion, and your help in solving some problems. In 1948 and probably before your advent into local politics, I dared to disagree with the members of the City Council regarding a spur for the highway and apparently then met with their dis- approval and later with the following injustices: I. On October 1, 1948 I applied for, paid for and received a permit to build a house on Ellen Way. Under the supervision of the City a culvert and garage were built, but later the plumber, the Gas Company and the Concrete man were in turn refused a permit. When I went to Mr. Jack Brown, City Clerk, for an explanation he told me that I did not own the lot. This surprised me no end as the property had been acquired by my father about 1874 and had belonged to me for many years. Mr. Brown then said that the taxes had not been paid. This surprised me further as I had never in my life received a delinquent tax notice. Mr. Brown then said that he would refer the matter to the City Attorney. After waiting for some weeks and receiving no info-mation from the City Clerk I wrote to him. No reply! He also stubbornly and steadfastly refused to send me a tax statement. I consulted my Attorney who, after studying the case, advised me to go ahead with my building, but that I felt I could not do as contractors would be involved. Since then I have sold the lot to the State, thus proving my ownership to the property. What about the money that I paid to the City for this permit? II. As explanation for injustice II I quote a letter written and sent registered to the members of the Council and to the Mayor. I send in substance the same to the City Attorney. "According to the TelRgram Tribune report on Council Meeting held December 17, 1951 my claim for water pipe laid on Ellen Way was denied. I called one of the Councilmen for verification and information and was told that I should receive a letter. To date this has not been forthcoming. Since I had not been advised as to when the claim would come before the Council, I was not present to make any explanation and since such seems necessary I take this means of bringing it to your attention. When Ellen Way was opened and the first water line laid, I understood that there would be a refund made by the City when the houses along the street were completed and the City furnishing and receiving pay for the water. There was no reason for me to question the intelllr,ence or the integrity of my informant. Later when further mains were laid on Ellen Way, then belonging to the City, I continued to pay the bill still relying upon the honesty of City Officials. • Its 2 When in 1951 the last house was completed and sold, I spoke to Mr. Kinney who advised me to present my bill. This I did. Later Mr, Hamlin discussed it with me. I have read the minutes of the Council Meeting of December 17, 1951 and have learned that in the opinion of the City Attorney my claim had been denied because it was outlawed by the statute of limitations. This I do not understand because the work was com- pleted in 1951 and the bill was presented within a short time there- after. Perhaps due to oversight or, my part one of the three bills was omitted so I herewith enclose copy. Mr. Hamlin has the other two. I request that you reconsider my claim". Only two of the recipients of the above letter had the courtesy to extend me a reply --Ms. Lucksinger and Mr. Davis. A letter from Mr. Davis dated January 22, 1952 stated --At the Council Meeting yesterday, Mr. Andre was out of town and therefore the matter was held over until the next meeting so that he could advise us it: view of your letter. I find in the minutes of the meeting on January 21, 1952-- "Communication from Anita Hathway held over on motion of Frank W. Woods, seconded by Paul Davis". In the minutes of February 189 1952--"Communication from Anita Hathway, refund on water line read and filed on motion of D. M. Carpenter, seconded by Frank Wood". No where do I find any record of opinion of the City Attorney. What I can't understand is this --A Company suooly a commodity through a conveyor pays for the conveyor. Why then should the City of San Luis Obispo on ANY GROUNDS refuse to pay me for the water mains through which runs the water for which the City receives pay? III. When in September 1951 I began to build a house on Hillcrest where the street being opened belonged to me, a permit for a 2" water pipe was obtained by the Construction Company and work begun. After the ditches were dug and the pipe on the ground, it was reported to me that two City Officials appeared and ordered the work stopped. I consulted my Attorney and followed his adviaa. Throwing the men off the job, moving equipment and pipe, and delaying the work cost an extra $170.44. Why should I pay this bill? Do permits mean nothing? Can they be cancelled with no consultation with or consideration for the party to whom they have been given? I certainly shall appreciate anyt::ing that you can do to right these wrongs. Very truly you_•s, r �_. ve .M, i w .vw'.: MIN Ya Mr °a"Wt$}$ GYud Y� '49- i:LY�4a'TdKe�."' .. "k �• (COPY) W. M. LYLES CO. CONTRACTORS Phones: AVENAL 222 YRESNO -17 7 VI5ALIA - 20 P.O. BOX 495 AVENAL, CALIFORNIA March 5, 1952 Miss Anita M. Aathway 5+6 Ellen Way San Luis Obispo, California Dear Miss Hathway: In compliance with my telephone conversation with you on March 4, 19529 I am sending you an accounting of the extra time and labor spent in installing a 2" galvanized water line on Hillcrest and Grove streets. This was due to the fact that after the ditch was dug and pipe strung the city told us that they would not allow anything less than 4" to be installed. We moved off the job awaiting word from you. When told to go ahead on the 2" we restrung the pipe and had everything dug out for the tie in when the city stopped us again. They insisted on 4" in their street. After you told us to do as they asked on Grove street alone we went back in and completed the job. We feel that the delay and extra work amounted to $119.44 in labor cost, $28.00 in equipment costs and $23.00 in com- pressor rental costs. The total amounting to $170.44. Also note that if we could have done the job when we first started it, before the rains came and messed up the ditches and made working conditions miserable, it could have been done more cheaply. Yours truly, W. M. LYLES CO. By (SIGNED) W. R. Thomason W. R. Thomason (COPY) W. M. LYLES CO. CONTRACTORS Phones: A'd'c'.NAL 222 FRESNO 5-1767 VISALIA 4-6205 P.O. BOX 495 AVENAL, CALIFCHNIA March 1, 1952 Mr. P. J. Zuiderweg 210 Beebee Street San Luis Obispo, California Dear Sir: The price we are billing for the installation of water lines was a little high so I felt an explanation was necessary. We were told to go in and install a 2" galvanized line which tied onto the cities 6" main on Grove Street. When we had dug the ditch and strung the pipe the city told us that they would not allow anything under 4" to be installed. We moved off the job awaiting word from Mrs. Hathaway. She then told us to go ahead on the 2" so we restrung the pipe and had everything dug out for the tie in when the city stopped us again. They insisted on 4" in their street. After Mrs. Hathaway told us to do as they asked on just Grove Street alone we ordered a 6" x 4" cast iron tee, 2 dresser couplings, a 4" valve and enough 4" pipe to lay in the street and went back in again and completed the job. Starting and stopping the work this way and the bad weather were costly. We hope you were satisfied with our work and in the future we do not intend to start any work until the city and property owner are completely together on the requirements. We believe this will save everyone considerable expense. Yours truly, I.. M. LYLES CO. Bi_(Slened) W. R. Thomason T/ap W.R. TlophON r P • (COPY) • CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CALIFORNIA January 22, 1952 Mrs. Anita M. Hathway 546 Ellen Way San Iuis Obispo, California Dear Mrs. Hathway: Thank you for your letter of January 12, regarding your claim for water pipe. I believe that since your letter to me, you have received a letter from the City Clerk explaining the situation. At the council meeting yesterday, Mr. Andre was out of town, and therefore, the matter was held over until the next meeting so that he could advise us in view of your letter. Very truly yours, (SIGNED) PAUL W. DAVIS Paul W. Davis Councilman PWD/j (COPY) TIMOTHY I. O'REILLY G. H. HAMLIN MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER DOUGLAS M CARPENTER COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA November 17, 1951 Miss Anita Hathway 546 Ellen Way San Luis Obispo, California Dear Miss Hathway: In regard to your extension of Hil.lcrest Avenue place, be advised that the City of San Luis Obispo willrefund to you the entire cost of a 4" water main from the water main on Grove Street to the end of said line on Hillerest Avenue. Such refund to be made on the basis of a total of 5 services. Refunds will be at the rate of 1/5 of the total cost of the 5 services each to be made immediately after the install- ation of each meter. In view of the requirement for 4" minimum size water mains in our subdivision ordinance we are extremely reluctant to approve the installation of mains of lesser size. I believe that you will agree that the advantages of the larger line are obvious. Yours very truly, (SIGNED) G. H. Hamlin G. H. Hamlin City Engineer GHH bw T January 16, 1952. Miss Anita M. Hathway, 5d6 Ellen Wey, "en Luis Obispo, California Dear Miss Hathway: The City Council, at its meeting on Decem`er 17, 19519 voted to reject your claim for water line reimbursement for the reason that a search of city records revealed no contract or other documents in writing pertaining to nny agreement to rotund you moneys for the installation of a water mine. if the City Council at the time the installation of water lines was madelirreed orally to reimburse you'the present City Council is powerless to fulfill the oral artr� ement for the reason that ornl agrA,^ment is outlawed, and should the present City Council vote to reimburse you now each member of the Council could be held individually liable to a taxpayer's suit at law for illevally expending the city's funds. The City Council is sorry that because of the above eircumstanfes and the statutes of the State of California it must of necessity, reject your claim. This letter 1s beinn written to you at the direction of the City Council. Very truly yours, city e