CC 06-25-1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting Page two June 25, 1984 Mr. Roger Franke, Cable Administrator, said that the concern of the accountant was that Group W might look to this system as a unique system, and therefore look for a unique way of arriving at certain goals that are unIque to this system only. The accountant suggested that some language be put In that says "If the Company has a goal of a certain return on Investment, what they do here must be consistent with what they do other places.~ e.g. If a cable company has a style of Increasing subscribers, of going out and buying smaller and newer systems, and then as soon as the tax advantages are gone, they sell them to some- body else. Franke said he Is not criticizing this practice, but that's what they do. They'll look for and buy systems for this purpose. Group W/Westlnghouse has another approach. We are not sure what It Is, but when the time comes for rate changes, we'll expect them to tell us, and show us, that It Is consistent with . the other cable activities that they have In the United States. Franke explained that our goal was that we are not treated differ- ently in the north suburbs than the other service territories they provl de. Hicks moved, seconded by Woodburn, that Councl I Introduce Ordi- nance No. 233 by title, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 226, THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE, BY ALTERING THE PROVISIONS THEREIN RELATING TO CHANNEL CAPACITY, TWO-WAY CAPACITY, FACILITIES, SPECIAL CHANNEL AND ACCESS REQUIREMENTS, CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE, AND RATE CHANGE PROCEDURE. In discussion, Mulcahy asked If approval of the Ordinance or Resolution affect the City's rights for breach of the original agreement. Bauer answered "Yes"; said that one of the provisions of the Agreement Is to waive penalties and sanctions that might have accrued since November 12, 1983, and until November 12, 1984 (one year's worth of sanctions); noted that It contains many other provisions that reduce Group W's commitment to provide service; to that extent, It drastically changes Commission's ability to enforce the original c9ntract. Mulcahy stated that, on that basis, he is opposed t6 the motion. Woodburn noted that there Is a $150,000 Indemnification, in lieu of penalty. Lynden noted that this $150,000 is not an advance on past or future franchise fees. Bauer said he has been told that Group W does not like the word "fine" or "sanction"; they'd rather make a lump-sum payment In exchange for othe~ things, In addition to waiver of fines; stated that the $150,000 Is not speci- fically Identified as "In lieu of fines" or "other sanctions". We would be agreeing not to fine them If this motion Is passed. Motion carried (Hicks, Christiansen, Woodburn voting In favor of the motion; Mulcahy voting In opposition). (3-1) No action was taken on Resolution No. 84-18. Cable TV Complaint re Overhead Cable Lines - Cost Estimates to Relocate Lines Councl I concurred to defer action untl I Mr. Taylor can be present. REPORT OF VILLAGE ENGINEER DONALD CHRISTOFFERSEN . Feasibility Report, Impr. No. SS-W-P-ST 84-1, Royal Hills North - Resolution No. 84-19 Council was referred to Feasibility Report (6-21-84) and to letter supplement (6-25-84) on Royal Hills North Addition, City Improvement SS-W-P-ST 84-1. Christoffersen explained that the report shows the streets and utIlities In the development; noted that we have to obtain a 30' wide strip of property for Arden View Drive r.o.w.; noted that the only other unusual thing Is the dralnageway near Snelling Avenue. Woodburn asked the required procedure, If the Council would think It equitable and reasonable to Include some lots on the north side of Arden View Drive In the assessment; we then do not have a 100%