March 24, 1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1241, Minutes March 24, 1980 Page 5 activities would be during their first six months here, if they were granted the franchise. Councilman Kelley asked the representatives if they would submit a proposal simi- lar to the ones proposed currently if University City wanted to finance the con- struction itself and end up owning the system. All said they would submit their proposals in much the _same terms; Mr.. Brooks of "Telcon thought the rates for sub- scribers might be lower doing this, although Mr. Wo.-nEL from Gateway disagreed. Councilman Metcalfe said she felt that a mistake had h eco :Wade in eliminating the Warner Cc Sre also moved to amend the resolution whish is to be passed by Council after selection of a franchisee, as follows, after BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED: "That said Franchise Ordinance be submitted to the City Council for final action, said action to be conditioned on a decision by the University City Council that this alternative is preferred over city ownership." Councilman Kelley seconded the. motion. Mrs. Metcalfe said the potential figures for either increased city revenue, if rates are kept comparable to other areas, or lower rates for subscrib- ers are the motivation for wanting to investigate this alternative, and it is also necessary to do it now, as it is not feasible to do it later. Councilman Lieber- man spoke against the motion, since he felt it involved a great deal of delay, and thought it would be possible to talk about the city's Lacing ov_ ownership of the system at a future time. Councilman Adams disagre&d, fce�:ng this possibility could be explored without any delay, and said he was in favor if the motion. Coun- cilman Glickert spoke against the motion, feeling government should not interfere with private enterprise.. Councilman Kelley spoke for the motion, feeling that the City should hz.% the benefits of either increased revenues ckr lower subscriber rates, if it is feasible for the City to become the owner-. Mayer Mooney spoke a- gainst the motion, saying that government should not get involved in matters of this nature. Upon roll call, the following vote was taken: AYES: Councilmen Adams, Metcalfe, Kelley and Sabol. NAYS: Councilmen Lieberman and Glickert and .Mayor Mooney. The motion carried by a vote of four to three. There was discussion_ about what might be involved in the writing of the cable tele- vision ordinance, while exploring.the possibility of the city's owning (but not operating) the system. Several councilmen felt there would be delay if this alter- native is explored, but.Councilman Kelley did not think so, stating that the amend- ment just.. passed merely preserves the option to go ahead with a city -owned system, if that is what the Council wishes to do. If.the Council decides it does not want to own the system, there.will be.no delay at all. The only delay would come if tree City decides it does want to own the system. The franchise would then have to be renegotiated, but it would.have been decided that it would bebeneficial to the City and its citizens. Mr. 011endorff said the way he und.erstood.the motion,.City Attorney Kay and he would return with two things for the Council --a report, and a negotiated franchise. Councilman Adams moved that a consultant or expert be retained to help Mr. 011en- dorff and Mr. Kay write the terms of the franchise in the ordinance, to ensure that everything is done correctly and that the ordinance is as tough and tight as possible. Councilman Kelley seconded the motion. In response to a question from Councilman Sabol, Mr. 011endorff said he had had some experience writing a cable television franchise, but in a community smaller