Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/08/1962On motion of Councilman Shipsey, seconded by Councilman Miller, the meeting was adjourned in memory of former Councilman Ray P. Howell, to 7:30 P.M.,.October 8, 1962. Approved this T.!/ day of 1962. ADJOURNED MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL October 8, 1962 - 7:30 P.M. City Hall Pledge was given by Councilman Miller. Invocation was given by Mayor Davidson. Roll Call Present: R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q. Miller, Gerald W. Shipsey, Clay P. Davidson Absent: Miss Margaret McNeil City Staff Present: J. W. Abraham, Planning & Building Director; J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Clerk; William M. Houser, Jr., City Attorney; Richard D. Miller, Administrative Officer; David F. Romero, City Engineer. 1. Communication from the City Engineer requesting increased cost for land- . scaping of the City Hall parking lot is as follows: "The planting, planters and sidewalk for the City Hall Parking Lot will amount to $1,472.50 which is about $150.00 higher than our original estimate, but still within reason. "During the design of the sprinkler system, we found that some of the existing lines had rotted out and could not be used. Therefore, the'.sprinkler system work will be considerably more extensive and expensive than originally anti- cipated. A minimum project for the sprinkler system could be accomplished for approximately $562.00, a second unit for $76.00 additional, and a third unit for $219.00 additional. Although these latter two units are not-necessary at this time; they are desirable for.the convenience of the Park Department and should be installed. If the large project is constructed, total cost will be about $2,300.00 which is $800.00 more than was set-up by the Council. "Prior to awarding bids on all of this work, I would.like to have some indi- cation of the Council's wishes regarding the amount of work we should conduct at this time." After discussion by the City Council, there was a motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller, that the landscaping plan be completed as originally presented to the City Council. On motion of Councilman Graves, seconded by Councilman Miller,. the following Resolution was introduced. RESOLUTION N0. 1014 (1962 Series) "A Resolution increasing the 1962 -63 Budget." Passed and adopted onthe following roll call vote: AYESi" R. L. Graves, Jr., Donald Q.'Miller, Gerald W. Shipsey, Clay P. Davidson NOES: None ABSENT: Miss Margaret McNeil 1 1 2. At this time the -City Council considered the adoption by the City of a proposed Cable TV Ordinance. Mr. Houser,-City Attorney, presented the following report on suggestions for Cable TV Ordinance. "Cable T.V. (CATV) has recently been undertaken by several cities with two basic approaches, to -wit: (1) Ordinance setting forth the license fee (2 to 3 %) and ..the maximum fee and'hook -up charges with competing firms free to obtain a license as soon_as_they.can sign_a contract with the telephone and P.G.&E. Companies, and (2) an Ordinance inviting bids with'the applicants to set forth the percentage of gross receipts to be paid as a fee and the charges to be-made to the customers and other information shown in the attached 'Application for License,' with the Council determining which-applicant would best serve the public-interest and re- jecting or tabling the rest. "Though CATV operations are not classified as utilities, there are certain 'utility' features of the operations that make it desirable to handle the business license on the basis of a franchise. The primary reason for handling the problem on a franchise basis is to prevent numerous companies from occupying city sidewalks, streets and easements with poles and wires to serve customers. Though utilities all state that the franchise is non - exclusive, it would appear as a practical matter that the original applicant, if successful, would end up-with the only franchise granted. "In the-event-the federal government or state government should determine that CATV operations-are public utilities and'a necessity, City controls would cease and the federal or state government would take jurisdiction. The attached Ordi- nance"and application are those used by Salinas and appear to be the most complete in providing necessary controls and information desired. "Following is a summary of the main points in the proposed Ordinance. It is assumed that this draft would be made available to all interested parties for comment, criticism or suggestions, which the Council could consider and a final draft could then be passed to print. 1. The franchise is non- exclusive. 2. Some Ordinances exempt installation cost in cllculating guess receipts for'the fee basis. This Ordinance exempts only taxes collected for a governmental agency. 3. Term would be changed to not to exceed 35 years in conformity with the Charter. Most Ordinances use a term of 15 to 20 years. 4. License fees vary-from 2 to 3%. The attached draft calls for the appli- cant to propose the fee.- $100.00 per month minimum fee is also provided for. 5. Licenses could not be transferable without consent, but the City cannot arbitrarily withhold consent. 6: Licenses would waive any recourse against the City and provide a $25,000 faithful performance bond on a policy of liability insurance,•naming the City, its officers and employees as co- insured, and it is suggested that a bond be provided in -the amount of $5,000 to- $10,000, which could be forfeited if the franchise holder does'not•provide initial service to the City. My reason for this suggestion is that a performance bond depends upon damages to the City, which would only be a temporary loss of licensed revenue and men the license was awarded it would, of necessity, prevent other applicants from making arrangements to provide the ' required service. 7:' Grantee shall proceed, within 30 days, to obtain necessary permits and authorization and thereafter commence installation within 90 days and shall pro- ceed to render service within 60 days following commencement of installation. Provisions are made for approval of the location, construction and installation of licensee's.property on the subject land. 8. 'If service is discontinued for 12 months or licensee abandons his property, it must be removed or ownership may be claimed by the City. 9. Operational standards are provided which should be checked by a dis- interested technician. 10. Licensee is required to reimburse the City its cost of granting . the license. . 11. Licensee is prohibited from engaging in TV sales or repair, and 'Pay TV' is prohibited. 12. Licensee is prohibited from duplicating local TV programs. 13. A determination of the TV stations to be carried should be in- serted and.it is suggested that the requirement of carrying at least five (5) FM stations, background music and stereo programs.which have been offered, could be added. 14. The Council could consider whether to require the furnishing and operation of remote facilities for free transmission of.local events. 15. .I would also suggest a 3 to.5 year prohibition against'any sub- scriber rate increase to prevent any applicant from planning on initially charging a minimum fee and shortly thereafter coming to the Council with Justification for a fee increase when all the.facilities are in and suffi- cient customers being serviced. 16. Some Ordinances provide for the City having the'right.to purchase the operation with standards set forth for determining fair-market-value." Mr. Mills appeared before the Council requesting that before the City "Council grants a Cable TV license, they insure that free TV will not be- hindered and further that the sponsor will guarantee first -line TV. . Jim Ranger, Channel 12, Santa Maria, stated that he..believed.that if CATV is allowed to spread,. he is sure that free TV would be hurt, which in turn could be _a dis= service to the viewer. Mr. Vaughn Taylor, Manager of the Fremont Theater, stated that the Chamber of Commerce Retail Merchant Commission.urged that the Council not grant a CATV franchise as it would hurt the local merchants and allow no more free TV. He further stated that CATV was.only brought into San Luis Obispo by the Telegram- Tribune to weaken the advertising for local TV and radio stations. He then presented for Council's consideration a copy'of 'Highlights", a trade paper'of the National Association of Broadcasters, dated.August 6,_1962, re- garding the legal ruling handed down in the U. S. District Court.for• the District of Idaho. The City Clerk then read a letter from.the.H & B Communication Corporation, dated September 14, 1%2, commenting on sections of the proposed Ordinance as presented by Mr. Houser. The City Clerk then read a letter.from.the Central California Communication Corporation, dated September 26, 1962, regarding the proposed CATV Ordinance for the City of San Luis Obispo. City Council and representatives of CATV present discussed various problems involved in the granting of a CATV license. A discussion of what could possibly happen to free TV if and when a CATV franchise was granted was then presented., City Council and City Attorney Houser discussed various sections of the proposed CATV Ordinance in view of the comments of H & B Communication Cor- poration.and Central California Communication Corporation. Mr. Rirkeeng,constilting engineer of Central California Communication Corpor- ation, explained for the Council's information the problem that we are faced ' by any CATV company in trying to install service to consumer's properties. He urged that Council require that the recipient of the franchise be.required to proceed with due diligence. He also stated that the "franchise holders should be advised to install service as rapidly as possible as.it is only upon com- pletion of service that the company will receive the money on their investment. On motion of Councilman Miller that any permit be denied for CATV in the City of San Luis Obispo; motion lost for lack of a second.. October 8, 1962 On motion of Councilman Graves, that the City call for.proposals• from the CATV companies to be received within 30 days at which time City Council will take these proposals: under advisement and render a decision within -30 days of the receipt of proposals as to granting or denying said license; motion lost for lack of a second. Councilman Shipsey stated that he did not believe that this was the proper action for the Council as he believed that the City Council was considering the adoption of a CATV Ordinance at this time and until the Ordinance is adopted, the City would not call for proposals as no one would know what the conditions would be. 1 City Attorney Rouser stated that the Council could call for bids and then pass the Ordinance granting the franchise except that the conditions of the proposal should list the minimum conditions such as fees, insurance, bonding, etc., and that the City should make these conditions known to all applicants so that some basis of comparison could be had. Mayor Davidson stated that he felt that the Ordinance should be adopted %first and then call for proposals under -the conditions of the adopted Ordinance. The'City Council went through the Ordinance section by section by Council and City:r Attorney, who was then requested to bring the corrected Ordinance before the City'. Council for their consideration on November. 5, 1962. �'!J 3. Mayor.Davidson brought to the Council's attention the matter that -he.read.in the v paper regarding the proposal of the auto dealers to open an auto park on the west;:'':';::; side of the freeway north of Los Osos Road and asked that the City Council have a report.on.this matter as it affects the welfare of the City. ' Mayor Davidson -asked Mr. Abraham, 'Building and Planning Director, to report to the .City- Council on -this im tter., . . -1 _ .. _ Mr. Abraham read for the Council ''a information the.report prepared by the auto dealers for development of the auto park, dated August, 1962. After reading the report, Mr. Abraham reported to..the Council on a joint meeting ' between the proponents of the auto park and the City Planning Commission, held on .September.125, 1962-at which.time the proposal was thorodghly explained by the City Planning Commission and at the end of this meeting, no commitment was made by the.City Planning Commission. - -.... Following the meeting of September 25,.1962,.with the City Plannirg Commission, the proposals were presented, to the County Planning Commission by the proponents and the Planning Commission recommended-to the Board of Supervisors that a classification.of I'M" be placed on this land. The Board of Supervisors set November 19, 1962.as a public hearing for adoption of the "C2D ".Ordinance. City Council and staff discussed the proposals of auto dealers in establishing an.auto park outside the City. 4. Mayor Davidson reminded the Council of the scenic highway meeting to be held on October 9,..1962 at.10:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers. 5. Mayor Davidson brought up the matter of the development of the school site at Laguna Lake on land granted to the school district by the City. He stated that the City Council must decide very soon is they wish this exchange to go through or whether the Council should buy a substitute site and give it to the school board and keep the land at-Laguna Lake.for.park development..- The Mayor stated that he believed that the City Council should meet with the Park and Recreation Commission to decide-if the-City is going-t9-develop a park at Laguna Lake and to discuss with the Commission the benefits or detriments of the proposed junior high.school on this site as related to the_park_ development. A joint meeting of the Park and Recreation Commission and City Council was set for 7:30 P..M.,.October 17;..1962 in the Council. Chambers of City.Hall.. 6. Mr. Romero, City Engineer, brought to the Council's attention the fact that the Gudel lease.at the sewer plant expires in October and that the balance of the sewer plant lease expires December 31, 1962 and asked Council's permission to hold the Gudel lease until the end of theeyear on a month to month basis so that the grazing lease at the sewer plant could be leased to one person.