December 22, 1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1265, Minutes Page 7 December 22, 1980 councilmembers and the City Attorney feeling that the City had the inspection rights being discussed. Mr. Kelley moved the following amendment, to be subparagraph f) under Article II, Section 4: "During construction and thereafter, from time to time during the life of the franchise, the City or its delegate shall have the right to conduct all reasonable inspections of construction or installations, and to make any tests that are reasonably necessary to determine compliance with the system, with all standards prescribed by this ordinance or by the Federal Communications Commis- sion." Mr. Sabol seconded the motion. Mr. Adams thought the amendment should be referred to University City's cable television consultant. Mr. 011endorff said that was not necessary and that although he and others felt it was not necessary to put the specific language Mr. Kelley wants into the ordinance (feeling it is already implied), he did not have any objection to its being in the ordinance. It was brought out that there would not be a change in the entity paying for the tests -- that is, the company would pay for them during installation, and the City. would pay for them thereafter. Mr. Kelley said his amendment did not amend or eliminate Sec- tion 6 d) on page 23, which requires the company, upon receipt of complaints, to hire an independent engineer to supervise tests on the system. It simply gives the City the right to test the company's system at'any time. The roll call on the amend- ment was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Metcalfe, Kelley, Sabol, Thompson, and Mayor Mooney. NAYS: Councilmembers Adams and Lieberman. The amendment passed by a vote of five to two. Mr. Kay suggested that Mr. Schleyer look over the amendment to see if the company felt it was a substantial change. Mrs. Metcalfe suggested that since the Council has had the bill for only three weeks, councilmembers and perhaps others might like to provide some input and suggest some changes. She felt the Council should not be in a hurry to pass this bill, since there is a great deal to digest. Mr. Kelley questioned the length of the initial subscriber rates (page 49), feeling that under some circumstances it may be less than four years. Mr. 011endorff re- minded him that the original agreement with the company when the franchise was award- ed was for two years, and the present length is much longer. Mr. Kelley asked about the provision that guarantees the rate in University City to be equal to or lower than any other rate in St. Louis County. Mr. 011endorff said that is covered by the factors to be considered by the City Council during the rate review. He said it was very difficult to write, since each cable television pack- age of services in each municipality is slightly different than any other package. He noted that if Mr. Kelley proposed an amendment changing that section, it would have to be renegotiated with the company. Mr. Kelley said he was concerned and would return to this subject shortly. Mr. Kelley said he did not understand Article II, Section 12 e), page 32, which has to do with two-way capability. It was brought out that this section was written by the cable television consultant. In the same paragraph, Mrs. Metcalfe wished to know specifically what "reasonable number of subscribers" meant. Mr. 011endorff said this paragraph was not in the original proposal from the company, but it was felt it should be included to provide for a two-way capability in the future, and the company agreed. Mr. Kelley wished to know if the money required to install two-way capability would come from the $900,000 the company is to provide for new developments. Mr. 011endorff said if the company puts two-way in on its own, it would not come from the $900,000; however, if the City requires that it be put in,