CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

system, and it was the opinion that the Peninsula Cable Television Corporation had fulfilled the conditions of the franchise, Their request for reduction of the bond to $25,000 was therefore recommended for approval. City Manager then invited questions from Council, noting that representatives were present from the Peninsula Cable Television Corp., who could respond to administrative questions, and from the County Communications office, to answer questions of techni- cal nature, Mr. John Nicklaus, Peninsula Cable Television Corp., 894 Industrial Road, San Carlos, responded to questions from Council, advising that while the system has a capability of 20 channels, 18 are currently available. In a discussion concerning application of converters, it was learned that the regular system provides 12 channels and with the converter, the 12 -channel system is shut off and an 18 -channel system replaces it, Responding to question concerning location of the main antenna, he advised one is located at 894 Industrial Road and the other is on a hillside in a location behind Carlmont, Councilman Rhodes inquired with respect to service complaints as to how quickly the company responds, and Mr. Nicklaus stated that calls received in the morning can in most cases be handled the same day, otherwise it may take until the following day. The kind of problem encountered would also be a consideration. It was felt by their Company that response to the public in the past two weeks has been good. Councilman Arnett questioned whether there was a specific legal reason for setting reduction of performance bond at $25,000, and City Attorney stated that there was no legal implication, but this was the figure requested by the Franchisee. Mr. Ernest Brown, of San Mateo County Communications Shop, reported he had physically observed the installation and was satisfied as to signal quality. Councilman Henderson indicated concern relative to time limitation for availability of service within the City, recalling that the Company had stated in a letter dated January, 1970, that they had met the requirements, but there appeared to be some concern at the time whether such was the case, One question raised then was whether the City had some rights against the bond outstanding for compliance, and she.ques- tioned whether Staff was prepared to answer to that point, City Attorney indicated the purpose of the bond is to attempt to determine in advance the amount the City might be damaged if the franchisee failed to meet the terms of the franchise. He advised, however, that as a matter of law, it would not be possible to find damage to the City near the amount of the bond, if any damage was suffered at all, nor would it be possible to collect the $200,000 amount of the bond, Coun- cilman Henderson felt performance requirements were open to a degree of question as to having been met, as well as being met within the time allotted, and that legal questions should be examined before consideration of reduction of the bond, City Attorney advised that the bond may not be viewed under any circumstances as giving the City the right to impose a penalty. The amount of $200,000 was arrived at to cover loss in having granted a franchise and not having received the system