December 22, 1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1265, Minutes December 22, 1980 Page 6 Mr. 011endorff said he would see to it -that she received a copy. He said he felt the company policy on this matter would be quite satisfactory to the community. Mr. Adams said he wished to commend Continental Cablevision for answering his question about editing equipment. Mr. Kelley said he had a number of concerns, some of which may eventuate in amend- ments, and noted he was very concerned that the Council spend enough time review- ing the proposed ordinance. He thought the Council might want to set a separate meeting to discuss proposed changes to the bill, and felt it was very important that the Council understand the results of the six-month negotiating process be- tween the City and the company which culminated in this bill. Mayor Mooney asked him to elaborate on his suggested changes. Mr. Kelley said he didn't understand how the bill prohibites "skimming." Mr. 011endorff said Article II, Section 4 b) protects against skimming by requiring the company, within 30 days, to furnish re- quested service within terms of the line extension policy. The line extension pol- icy is to be worked out by the company, and the Council has the prerogative of re- viewing and approving or disapproving company policy. Mr. Kelley said it was not clear when the 30 -day period went into effect. Mr. 011endorff said it would go in- to effect at the end of the eight-month period as noted in Article II, Section 2 a). Mr. William Schleyer, representing Continental, noted that the company's present line policy is 44 homes per mile, and the density in University City is 130-150 homes per mile. Mr. Kelley said he felt there probably would not be any area in the city where the company would not want to provide service because of home den- sity, but he wished to be sure that the city was legally protected. Pfr.. Kelley wanted to know-how the City must account for the 5% franchise fee in order to show that it is being used for regulatory purposes, and how salaries are allocated, since parts of those salaries will be used in review of CATV functions, and parts in other regulative functions. Mr. 011endorff said it would be decided what portion of the salaries of all of the City personnel who are involved in over- seeing the company's activities would be set aside for this purpose. If the Fed- eral Communications Commission requested it, those records would be submitted to them to see if they were correctly done. He said the 5% is an operating cost which cannot be capitalized. The 2% for local access and local programming is also oper- ating cost and cannot be capitalized. Mr. Kelley noted that since all operating costs must be recovered by the company, those amounts will eventually be paid for by subscribers. Mr. 011endorff said the Council may decide at the end of the four- year period to lower those fees in order to prevent or reduce a rate increase to subscribers. Mr. Kelley inquired about the City's right to conduct inspections, and Mr. 011en- dorff said he felt that right was demonstrated in Article I, Section 8 (page 10); Article I, Section 13 a) (page 11-12); Article II, Section 4 (page 21-22); Article III, Section l a) (page 46); Article III, Section 5 (page 52); and Article III, Section 6 c) (page 53). Mr. Kelley said that none of those sections authorize the City to conduct inspections, except Article II, Section 6 d) (page 23), and that section was severely limited. He felt the City was not given specific authoriza- tion anywhere in the ordinance to inspect the system. Mr. 011endorff said he did not object to putting in the language regarding inspections which Mr. Kelley wished, although he did feel that the right to inspect was implied in a number of places in the ordinance, as outlined above. There was discussion on this point, with several