1939-12-22 Regular CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AL
HELD FRIDAY AFTERNOON DECEMBER 22 - - -
EDA
.3.
The meeting convened at 5:02 o'clock P. M. with President Weichhart, presiding.
ROLL CALL:
The roll was called and Councilmen Carrington, Godfrey, Maurer, Morris and President
Weichhart, (5), were noted present. Absent: None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
J
1. The Clerk read the following letter from the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County;
dated December 21, 1939:
"This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of December 20, 1939,
relative to the operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge after
December 31, 1939. We appreciate your assurance that your City
Council stands ready to cooperate in every possible manner.
"In order to avoid inconvenience to the traveling public, are the
City Authorities of the City of Alameda willing to meet the County
of Alameda halfway in a temporary solution of the problem of the
operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge by furnishing one -half
of the personnel, materials and services necessary for the opera -
tion of the bridge for a period of ninety days?
"Assuring you of our full realization of the importance of this
problem to the citizens of Alameda and our willingness to cooperate
on this basis in order that they may have rail transportation, we
are...."
The City Attorney was then requested to make a statement in reply, which is quoted as
follows:
"I have given considerable thought and study to the situation that is
presented by the action of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County with reference
to the closing of the Fruitvale Bridge, or rather I should say, the discontinuance of
the County's operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge at midnight, December 31, 1939.
"I can find no legal justification and no legal authority whereby the
the City could spend public funds for the operation or maintenance of this bridge.
The bridge is not the property of the City of Alameda. The City of Alameda has no
interest, proprietary or otherwise, in the bridge itself. It is not under the juris-
diction of the City and not a part of the City Highway system.
"If the City were to join in the operation of the bridge by furnishing
one -half of the personnel, material and other costs of operation and any accident were
to occur, resulting in serious damage to a vessel by reason of such operation, lia-
bility might be imposed on the City and if not on the City then on its officers for
any damages which might have resulted. Likewise, if such accident were to result in
serious damage or partial destruction of the bridge, the City and its officers might
be held responsible for the damages caused to the bridge.
"I can see no legal way whereby the City could lawfully expend its
public funds for the operation or maintenance of this bridge, the principal use of
which is of a private nature."
Councilman Morris said it would seem that the sense of the letter from the Board of
Supervisors was that the County assumed the responsibility for the maintenance of the
Bridge and requested the City to furnish one -half of the personnel to operate said
Bridge and the question before the Council was not merely one of the amount of money
involved but a matter of the legal ability of the City to furnish the men.
The City Attorney responded, saying it was purely a question of whether the City has
the right to expend any amount of money for this purpose.
Councilman Maurer moved that the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County be informed
that the City of Alameda cannot accept the offer of the County Board of Supervisors
for the joint operation of the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge by the County of Alameda and
the City of Alameda as set forth in its communication of December 21, 1939, on the
ground that the City of Alameda cannot legally expend public funds for the operation
and maintenance of such Bridge, seconded by Councilman Carrington and on roll call
carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Carrington, Godfrey, Maurer, Morris
and President Weichhart, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None.
Councilman Godfrey suggested it might be well to incorporate a repetition of the Council's
request for the Board of Supervisors' continued efforts to reach some understanding with
the Federal Government whereby the County would be protected and the operation of Fruit -
vale Avenue Bridge continued. This was so ordered.
Councilman Morris inquired of the City Attorney, through the Chair, what action of the
Council might be desirable in case no action is taken on the part of the Board of Super-
visors and what the City of Alameda could expect from the Southern Pacific Company (The
Interurban Electric Railway Company) with regard to the continuation of transportation
service over the Fruitvale Avenue Bridge. The City Attorney replied as follows:
"While such a matter naturally involves a question of policy for the
Council to decide, nevertheless I am of the opinion that it might be advisable for the
Council to take action to the effect that the Interurban Electric Railway Company be
notified that the City of Alameda will expect the Company to carry out the obligations
which it has, under its certificate of public convenience and necessity, to furnish
uninterrupted and adequate service on its interurban lines between the City of Alameda
and the City of San Francisco. And that it might be proper to remind the Company that at
various hearings before the Railroad Commission the City of Alameda has strenuously
objected to the routing of the interurban lines over the Fruitvale Bridge because of the
possibility of interruption of service which might be caused by collisions with the
bridge on the part of sea -going vessels or other casualty, and that the company and its
predecessors had gone on record by sworn testimony at these hearings in opposition to
the City's contention, and its officers had testified, that the Company, in the event
that the bridge were put out of commission, would take such steps as would be neces-
sary to maintain uninterrupted service within a few hours notice, also, that it might
be advisable to point out that the Company has known of the contemplated action on
the part of the Board of Supervisors of Alameda County for approximately three months."
Councilman Morris moved that such be the policy established by the Council, and that a
letter be immediately sent to the Southern Pacific Company incorporating therein the
opinions of the City Attorney as stated. The motion was seconded by Councilman Maurer
and on roll call carried by the following vote. Ayes: Councilmen Carrington, Godfrey,
Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (5). Noes: None. Absent: None.
Frank Gottstein addressed the Council regarding transportation over the Fruitvale Avenue
Bridge.
Nothing further regarding this transportation matter being possible at this time, Coun-
cilman Carrington moved, seconded by Councilman Morris, that the meeting adjourn to
meet in adjourned regular session Wednesday afternoon, December 27, 1939 at 5:00 o'clock
P. M. The roll was called and the motion was passed by the following vote. Ayes :.
Councilmen Carrington, Godfrey, Maurer, Morris and President Weichhart, (5) Noes:
None. Absent: None.
Respectfully submitted,