My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1967 Jan to Dec
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Minutes
>
1967
>
1967 Jan to Dec
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/23/2017 2:54:19 PM
Creation date
12/16/2016 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Type
Regular
Agency Type
City Council
Date
1/1/1967
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
456
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Councilman Bury asked whether makers of motion would be willing to amend this <br />motion should other recommendations be made by Council. City Attorney advised <br />any germane conditions could be added prior to introduction of the Ordinance. <br />Councilman Henderson requested clarification regarding restudy and analysis of <br />rates in five years. City Attorney stated flat 4% was set as directed by Council <br />but this could be changed, or any other conditions, under general provisions of the <br />ordinance. <br />Councilman Bury questioned any possible liability or obligation City might have to <br />see that installation of CATV service completed because of several cases of invali- <br />dation suits in Southern part of the United States he quoted from a magazine <br />article. City Attorney stated three facets of this situation; (1) general lia- <br />bility directly on operator; (2) this installation being granted by a franchise, <br />where as cases recited would indicate a possible purchase of this type of system by <br />a City which could be invalidated if not presented for vote of people; (3) stan- <br />dards of quality which were enforceable in basic ordinance, which if not met, could <br />call for revocation of franchise or law suit against operator, or calling of the <br />performance bond. City Attorney stated there could be a question as to actual <br />costs which would be forfeited to City on calling of performance bond, and subject <br />to a thorough review by a court. Motion carried on Council's acceptance of City <br />Manager recommendation. (MINUTE ORDER #67-49) <br />Councilman Keckley questioned M & M Cable Company whether there would be an addi- <br />tional charge for converters when obtainable and was advised therewould be no ex- <br />tra charge to the subscribers. <br />Councilman Keckley moved to award franchise to Redwood City CATV, Inc., seconded <br />by Councilman Henderson. Councilman Granger suggested roll call to poll the <br />Council for preference on award of franchise. Councilman Rosselli indicated his <br />reasons for preferring Peninsula Cable Television Corporation for granting of <br />franchise, theirs having been first application received, their evidence of com- <br />munity responsibility because of their presenting their proposed CATV installation <br />to community groups with explanations of the system, and also their high financial <br />backing and evidence of technical competence and experience. <br />Councilman Keckley outlined points which would warrant franchise being given to <br />Redwood City CATV Inc., as their cable lines were presently bordering City Limits <br />from their installation of a system in adjacent County areas, which would make <br />for greater expediency in installation for Redwood City, and also felt the lesser <br />subscriber charge offered by this Company should be taken into consideration. <br />Motion lost on roll call vote, Councilmen Granger, Henderson, and Keckley voting <br />yes, Councilmen Bury, Petersen, Rosselli and Mayor Herkner voting no. <br />Councilman Petersen moved to award franchise to Peninsula Cable Television <br />Corporation, seconded by Councilman Rosselli. Councilman Bury questioned com- <br />ments made by this applicant concerning a proposed routing on bayfront area. <br />W 20 'Y1 <br />L� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.