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
Q <br />Minutes of Regular Meeting <br />Redwood City Council <br />March 6, 1967 8:00 P. M. <br />Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilman Petersen. <br />Invocation led by Reverend Rafe Martin, Sequoia Presbyterian Church. <br />ON ROLL CALL the following were noted present: Councilmen Robert H. Bury, Floyd D. <br />Granger, Mary W. Henderson, Paul C. Keckley, Herbert G. Petersen, John S. Rosselli, <br />Mayor Sidney D. Herkner and City Clerk Helen C. Moore. Also noted present were <br />City Manager Howard C. Ullrich, City Attorney Richard E. Gardella, Assistant <br />City Manager Henry V. Burget, Police Chief William Faulstich, Planning Director <br />Ken Schroeter, Director of Public Works J. Louis Scherer, Traffic Engineer Arthur <br />U. Eskelin, Recreation Director A. S. Morton, Building Inspector S. H. Kreiss, <br />Associate Building Inspector Charles Gyselbrecht and Deputy City Clerk Marian <br />McCrindle. <br />Councilman Granger moved to approve Minutes of Regular Meeting of February 27, <br />1967, and Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of February 28, 1967, (Veterans <br />Memorial Building) as mailed, seconded by Councilman Henderson and carried. <br />CATV License Applications. <br />City Clerk stated Ordinance had been prepared to amend the basic CATV franchise <br />Ordinance setting forth certain conditions in respect to granting of a franchise <br />and that the Ordinance awarding the actual franchise awaited certain decisions <br />to be made by Council. <br />Mayor Herkner suggested brief opportunity be given to applicants for this fran- <br />chise to present their proposals, since two additional applications had been <br />received since previous presentations were made to Council. <br />Councilman Henderson questioned sequence of procedures because she felt Council — <br />should first take action on amendment proposed to basic ordinance. Councilman <br />Granger stated that City should set specific conditions and applications should <br />be submitted on that basis. City Attorney was questioned as to procedure of amend- <br />ing basic ordinance and terms to be imposed regarding granting of franchise. <br />City Attorney advised conditions should be determined before ordinance granting <br />the franchise is adopted; otherwise, it would be difficult to ascertain if appli- <br />cants could or would comply, i.e., performance bond to insure installation within <br />specified time limitation, amount of bond to be specified, etc. <br />City Manager reviewed basis for proposed amendments to the basic ordinance - <br />the 2% minimum of gross receipts to the City reflecting language from the City's <br />Charter concerning franchises, and also allowing possibility of this percentage <br />being raised, conditions which restrict franchise being sold, transferred, assigned — <br />etc., without prior consent of the Council; and, provision stating City's priority i <br />on use of utility poles in the event any conflict should arise on this point. <br />Because of questions raised as to changes which might be proposed after further <br />Council discussion and decision on specific conditions to the franchise proposal, <br />Councilman Rosselli moved to continue this matter for one week, seconded by Coun- <br />cilman Petersen. Councilman Keckley questioned sequence of action proposed, even <br />if matter is continued for one week, as he felt even amendments to basic ordinance, <br />if adopted, might result in withdrawal of some of the applications. Councilman <br />Keckley also questioned 2% gross revenue proposed and if this would be considered <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.