Laserfiche WebLink
C ("19 '1 <br />XG4 t <br />KESWICK, VIRGINIA <br />MARCH 1, 1951 <br />CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE <br />CITY HALL <br />CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA <br />ATTENTION: MR. JAMES E. BOWEN, CITY MANAGER <br />GENTLEMEN: <br />ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER INFORMING ME <br />COMMUNICATION RE: OF THE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CONCERNING FOREST <br />J. HUBERT CARVER HILLS AVENUE, AND I HEREBY ACCEPT FULFILLMENT OF THE <br />FOREST HILLS AVE. TERMS THEREOF AS PAYMENT FOR MY RIGHTS UNDER THE DEED. <br />CALLS JUST BEYOND THE CITY BOUNDARIES IN A LIMITED WAY, HOWEVER, <br />THE COUNCIL DOES NOT FEEL THAT IT CAN GIVE ASSURANCE IN ANY WAY <br />SO AS TO ENCUMBER THE CITY TO ANSWER CALLS BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS. <br />ON MOTION THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS AGAINST THE DOG FUND WERE <br />APPROVED: <br />CLAIMS AGAINST <br />DOG FUND PAUL M. WALTON 117 - 9TH ST. , S. W. $8.00 <br />D. L. JONES 1117 LYMAN STREET 30.00 <br />VIALLACE B. HUGHES 1309 BELMONT PARK 4.00 <br />TOTAL $42.00 <br />THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS PRESENTED: <br />TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: <br />I HAVE RECEIVED FROM 23 COMMUNITIES REPLIES TO <br />MY INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO SUITS, CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS <br />REPORT RE: ARISING OUT OF FLUORIDATION OF MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES. <br />INQUIRi'ES NO CITY OR TOWN REPORTED ANY SUITS OR CLAIMS9 THERE <br />RESPECT TO WERE ONE OR TWO REPORTS OF COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE ADOPTION <br />FLUORIDATION OF THE PROGRAM. <br />VERY TRULY YOURS, <br />LYTTELTON WADDELL (SIGNED) <br />CITY ATTORNEY <br />THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE CONSIDERATION <br />REGRET THAT IT FELL YOUR TASK TO SETTLE A MATTER <br />TO THE USE OF SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE INSTEAD <br />NOT ORIGINATED BY YOU. WHILE I DID NOT GET ALL THAT WAS <br />PROMISED ME BY MR. BURNLEY, I DO FEEL THAT THE DECISION <br />THE WATER SUPPLY SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT <br />WAS A FAIR ONE, CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED. <br />FORMER WOULD NOT <br />I OFFER EACH OF YOU MY SINCERE APPRECIATION OF YOUR <br />USE SODIUM SILICO- <br />TIME AND EFFORT AND MY ADMIRATION OF YOUR DESIRE TO BE <br />FAIR. <br />THANKING YOU, I REMAIN, <br />ONLY PROVIDE ALL THE BENEFITS OF SODIUM FLUORIDE <br />YOURS TRULY, <br />BUT ALSO PROVE TO <br />J. HUBERT CARVER (SIGNED) <br />J. HUBERT CARVER <br />JHC:ES <br />THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED A COMMUNICATION FROM THE THOMAS <br />p <br />JEFFERSON INN, I NC. , WHICH REQUESTED THAT THE CITY GIVE ASSURANCE <br />BY MR. HILL, <br />BY LETTER THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WILL ANSWER CALLS TO THE INN <br />(� COMMUNICATION RE: <br />REQUESTED TO ASK <br />Q, FIRE PROTECTICN <br />PROPERTY LOCATED ON ROUTE # 29, NORTH, JUST OUTSIDE THE CITY <br />FOR THOS. JEFF. INN. <br />THE <br />EMPLOYMENT OF <br />LIMITS. ON MOTION, THE CITY MANAGER WAS REQUESTED TO ADVISE THE <br />ABOVE CONCERN THAT IT HAS BEEN THE POLICY OF THE CITY TO ANSWER <br />CALLS JUST BEYOND THE CITY BOUNDARIES IN A LIMITED WAY, HOWEVER, <br />THE COUNCIL DOES NOT FEEL THAT IT CAN GIVE ASSURANCE IN ANY WAY <br />SO AS TO ENCUMBER THE CITY TO ANSWER CALLS BEYOND THE CORPORATE LIMITS. <br />ON MOTION THE FOLLOWING CLAIMS AGAINST THE DOG FUND WERE <br />APPROVED: <br />CLAIMS AGAINST <br />DOG FUND PAUL M. WALTON 117 - 9TH ST. , S. W. $8.00 <br />D. L. JONES 1117 LYMAN STREET 30.00 <br />VIALLACE B. HUGHES 1309 BELMONT PARK 4.00 <br />TOTAL $42.00 <br />THE FOLLOWING REPORT WAS PRESENTED: <br />TO THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE: <br />I HAVE RECEIVED FROM 23 COMMUNITIES REPLIES TO <br />MY INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO SUITS, CLAIMS AND COMPLAINTS <br />REPORT RE: ARISING OUT OF FLUORIDATION OF MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES. <br />INQUIRi'ES NO CITY OR TOWN REPORTED ANY SUITS OR CLAIMS9 THERE <br />RESPECT TO WERE ONE OR TWO REPORTS OF COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE ADOPTION <br />FLUORIDATION OF THE PROGRAM. <br />VERY TRULY YOURS, <br />LYTTELTON WADDELL (SIGNED) <br />CITY ATTORNEY <br />THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTED THAT THE COUNCIL GIVE CONSIDERATION <br />UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED. <br />J DR. S. D. STURK i E AND MR. HOMER CH EAVACC 1 , OF THE JOINT HEALTH <br />TO THE USE OF SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE INSTEAD <br />OF SODIUM FLUORIDE IN <br />REQUEST TO <br />THE WATER SUPPLY SINCE IT WAS BELIEVED THAT <br />THE <br />FORMER WOULD NOT <br />USE SODIUM SILICO- <br />FUOFLUORIDE IN WATER <br />ONLY PROVIDE ALL THE BENEFITS OF SODIUM FLUORIDE <br />BUT ALSO PROVE TO <br />BE A LESS EXPENSIVE MEANS OF FLUORIDATION. <br />A MOTION <br />BY MR. HILL, <br />SECONDED BY MR. HADEN, THAT THE CITY MANAGER <br />BE <br />REQUESTED TO ASK <br />APPROVAL OF THE STATE HEALTH DEPARTMENT FOR <br />THE <br />EMPLOYMENT OF <br />SODIUM FLUORIDE OR SODIUM SILICOFLUORIDE IN <br />THE <br />WATER SUPPLY, WAS <br />UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTED. <br />J DR. S. D. STURK i E AND MR. HOMER CH EAVACC 1 , OF THE JOINT HEALTH <br />