December 22, 1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1265, Minutes Page 8 December 22, 1980 it would come from the $900,000. In other words, if the two-way system is feasible and the company can make money on it, the City can require the company to implement the two-way system. The City can still req,ifre it to be installed, using up to the $900,000 set aside for new developments. Mr. Lieberman asked if there was any provision for inflation, and Mr. 011endorff said there was not --the $900,000 was to remain constant, even though it is spread out over three two-year periods. Mr. Kelley asked why the $900,000 limitation was in the bill, since all of the ex- penditure could be capitalized and put into the rate base. Mr. 011endorff said it was felt there should be some way of requiring the company to provide for new devel- opments or improvements. Of course, the company did not want to give the City a blank check for this purpose. The $900,000 was a compromise between the two view- points. Mr. 011endorff said a number of approaches had been considered --one possi- bility was a 20% reinvestment, which would have provided $400,000 currently. Pro- viding for inflation raised the figure to $900,000 and that was what was asked for by the City and agreed to by the company. Mr. Kelley noted that the two words "human" and "manner" in Article I, Section 2 w) (2), page 6, were transposed. Mr. Kay said that would be corrected. Mr. Kelley questioned the meaning of a phrase at the bottom of page 10, under Arti- cle I, Section 8, second paragraph. He felt the City should not limit itself to situations which are declared emergencies, and moved to delete the phrase, which is worded as follows: "except that any such.exercise that is not of general appli- cation in its jurisdiction or applies exclusively to Company or CATV systems which contains provisions inconsistent with this franchise shall prevail only if upon such exeri`ise, the City finds an emergency exists constituting a danger to public health, safety, property or the general welfare or such exercise is mandated by law.' He said if the Council should decide to amend something in the ordinance, he didn't feel the City should limit itself to a situation which it declared to be an emer- gency. He thought the designation of an emergency should be left to the City Coun- cil. Mr. 011endorff said that phrasing came from other model ordinances. Mrs. Metcalfe seconded the motion. Mr. Kay said he would like to study that section and report back to Council. Mr. Kelley said that would be acceptable. Mr. Kelley asked that there be a line by line explanation of the bill, so that the Council will be able to understand exactly what this section means, and the alternatives available. Mr. 011endorff noted that several councilmembers, over the past few weeks, have submitted questions about the bill which the administration has, for the most part, answered, so he felt other councilmembers did not feel a line by line explan&tim was in order. Mrs. Metcalfe said she felt the section Mr. Kelley wanted eliminated was a protection for the company, and saw no reason for it to be in the bill. Mr. Kelley said that was exactly his point. Mr. Adams said he felt all of the suggested changes should,have been written out prior to the Council meeting and distributed to the other councilmembers instead of going through each one, .as was being done at this meeting. He said he had called to get the answers to his questions prior to the meeting. Mr. Sabol said he was ready to move ahead and vote on the bill with no further changes.