Loading...
12/08/1975 - 00014940� � �� �r �� ry � i � MINUTES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF THE FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 The Pub17c Hearing Meeting of the Fridley City Council of December 8, 1975 was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by ^layor N2e PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAiJCE: Mayor �Vee welcomed those present and inv�ted thein to ,7oin the Council in saying the Pledye of kllegiance to the Flag. ROLL CALL: Members Present Members A6sent ADOPTION OF AGENDA• Counctlman Fitzpatrick, Mayor idee, Councilwoman Kukowski, Councilman Breider and Councilman Starwalt P�one Mayor Nee added a Letter of Comme�dation for Officer David Younkin to the Aqenda. Counctlman Starwalt requested a dtscuss�on at the erd of the meet�ng on CATV. ��OTION by Councilman Breider to adopt the Agenda as amended. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, F9ayor fJee declared the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: PUBLIC HEARING ON AN OR�INANCE ESTABLISHING CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CO�E REGP�RDING MOTIOV by Councilman Fiizpatrtck to waive the reading and open the Public Hearing Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the Public Hearing opened at 7:40 P M. The Public �.Jorks Director explam ed that the inttiation of the proposed revision was at tne Commission level. The Board of Appeals, in their meeting of December 16, 1975 recommended to the Planning Commission that certain changes in the procedures in granting variances be made to allow a speed up of the procedure They were getting complaints at the Commission level that the procedure was quite lengthy Basically, the changes outlined are changes in the variance procedure as it effects all the residential variances. Specificaily, in order t� allow the Board to approve variances in resideni,ial areas, four ttems must be followed A Where there is unanimous agreement of ihe Appeals Commission. B. Where tr�e staff concurs with the recommenda- tion of the Appeais Commission. C. Where the general publi� attending the meetin9 or responding to the notice of the public heartng have no ob7ections, and D. Where the petitioner is in agreement with the recommendations. This oui.l�nes the proposed suggesttons by the ¢oard of Appeals. T�e second pr000sal was initiated at the Planning Commission level which was concern regarding the pro,7ect committees and the inanner �n which the committee shall be chatred. On page 1C, Section 6.07 of the Agenda, the last sentence: The Pro�ect Comm�ttee may (shall) be chaired by a member of the Commission. Some feelings at the P1anninq Commission level was this did not allow them flexibility. The Staff has no problems with i.he suggested changes, as far as may or sha17. As far as the variance procedure they agree that the present procedure is long and the residents in Fr�dley who are not familiar with the code requirements, are in an inconven�ent posit�on when they are not aware of the length of time that is involved in obtaining a variance. Mayor Nee opened the discussion by saying he had some problems with the Appeals Commission. He said it is, in e�fect, a change in the Zoning Drdinance in some cases. He said in the past ten to fifteen years, he has never felt the process of the Appeals has had a structure that he understood completely. In other words, with- out saying the setback requirements are valid or make sense, or whether side yard requirements serve a public purpose. He said he assumed they did serve some public service. He has never seen a variance request turned down, which raises the question either the requirement in the first place was invalid or ihe process which we create variances leave something to be desired, because he said he does not understand how we come to the conclusion that the requirement is valid but the variance is �ustifiable. He further explained that because the present neighbors do not ob�ect doesn't mean it .,'��� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 2 shouldn't stand to serve some purpose in the future, for future owners. He said he feels if the front yard setback serves any purpose, it should be defended. Basically, he said, this is in the Ordinance until someone comes in with a request, then we do not enforce it. He said he would like to see the Appeals Commission set some guidelines as to the criteria that should be used. If the Zoning Ordinance has any purpose with reference to these types of requests, there should be some stronger test than somebody did not ob�ect. Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that one thing it is based on is being too close to the neighbors, and they could ob�ect. Jerry Boardman said that it states you cannot grant a variance unless you have an undue hardship, but nothing as to what constitutes a hardship. Perhaps there should be some criteria in this regard. The City Attorney said that is one requirement. The courts often say there must be an undue hardship that is peculiar to the nature of a particular piece of property. We, and other mum cipalities,,'�ave been lenient if there were no ob,7ections As to the question of whether a side yard setback is reasonable, he said he did not feel that there shouldn't be a side yard setback, but maybe some review of the numbers used, although he didn't th�nk we would like to have someone build right up to a side line. Mayor Nee stated that what he was saying is that if it is valid, why don't we enforce it. Councilman Breider said a lot of homes �n the City were built on 65 foot to 70 foot lots, with a sinale car garage back in tl�e 50's. Now, people have additiona1 cars, snow mobiles, etc. He said his idea of a hardship is making someone move out of their home and build a new structure. The City of Fridley, he explained, has so many lot sizes and plats, �t is very difficult to outline it and say this is the way it has to be. Mayor Nee err�phasized that there should be some guidelines. He felt sure the Appeals Commission w�ll have the same concerns as we have, and he ,7ust feels if the Ordinance served a public purpose, then it should be defended. The City Manager said it is extremely difficult to cover all events at all times. Today, we plan the future and make reasonable assumptions and ad,7ustments to keep the proper development and growth. The point that is made is that there should be some guidelines developed and enforced by the Appeals Commission and Council, and have some basic effect of approving the guidelines. The City Mas developed certain standards and any deviation from that, the City is asking for a reasonable cause. Mayor Nee said he felt around Madison and Monroe, homes were laid out almost on the assumption that they could come in and get a variance if they just signed a piece of paper On Rice Creek Terrace, half of the properties there have had a variance. This raises the question of the validity of the Ordinance and whether puhlic policy was ever served by the variance or whether it is not now being served by all the variances we give. The argument is that the people did not know what the Zoning Ordinance was when they built and therefore we should cut a month off of the process, which really doesn't seem relevant Mayor Nee further stated that it may very well be Chat the Appeals Commission can do this work as well, if not better, than the Council, and should be allowed to do it, but he would like to see some guideltnes Councilman Starwalt said that in the last three years, he has been able to live with the variances in that they were few in number as compared to the overall City He also said he has not looked upon this as having blocked ourselves in. The City Attorney stated that the State Statute on Appeal provides some alternatives for the Community. First of all, the Council can 6e the Board of Appeals. Secondly, have a separate Board of Appeals, and if you have a second board, that board can have final �urisdiction or recommendation authority to the Council. Here in Fridley we have followed the latter for some period of time � � , � � � PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 � � `� ., PAGE 3 Mayor Nee said he would like to see a finding that says: The Public Policy which was to be served is ---------------------, and the variance is------------------- He f!arther explained that we do not do this ourselves, s� h? is not pointing any fingers at anyone. Counc�lman Starwalt said he thought that would be an interesting approach These four items plus a provision for f�ndtnys. Councilman Fitzpatrick said that there is an assump�ion thai tnere is a hardship. Maybe it is not always listed, he said, but that �s the assumption. Mayor Nee said basically the hardship is - I want to bui�d an add�tion zo my garage and I don't have enough land to do it if I meet zhe secback requirements. He said that this is ,7ust a public hearing, so perhaps something could be worked up such as, the Public Policy to be served----------- and why it does not apply in this case Mayor Nee said if there were no further comments, we could go on to the second part of this ttem - the Pro,7ect Commtttee r�� (shall) be chatred by a member of the Commiss�on. Councilman Starwalt said he would like to speak aya�nst "f�lay" and parc of his reasons are he would like Lo point out they are attempt�ng to qet too many items going at once in the Human Resource Comm�ttee. They cannet have a crairrr�an t�at has the time, and tnat is understandable. He referred to page 19, Section 6.1,1 entitled "Purpose" in the 4genda. "The purpose of the Commissian is to �aromot� intensified communication and protection of ,7ust a^d equitab3e rignts among all residents of the community; to promote harmo m ous relatienshins among people of all races, religions, ethm c groups, social/econormc stacus, ages, gender, physical, mental and emotional disabilities and diverse life styles, to promote uneerstanding and equal opportunity in employment, housing, public accomodations, and public, cultural and educational services; and full partictpation in the affairs of the City of Fridley." Councilman Starwalt explained tha± his cancern was with the life styles, and seme of these things he felt we could du w�thout. He satd he feels they could 6e handled within their resources and the nurnber of �eople they have to chair the committees, and they wouldn't be askinq for this change Councilman Qreider said he would like to speak against what Cour�cilman ��ar��slt sa�d because he feels that we are striving to involve as many citizeris as possihle, an� one of the problems we run into is - if we are only going to restrict it to five people, it would stymie a lot of the interests Tne svay he loo!<ed a± it, 'rie saic�, the Commission as a whole receives a report and recommendatiori of a:�y of the suk,- committees and they sttll have the right under the structure of th� Commission system to re,7ect it The five members are acting as the people who 6ring fr,rward the recommendations at that point, and if these things are not to the betterment of the community, he would guess the members of that Comrmssion woul� orobably do some research and say tt is a good idea or it tsn't He said how do we qet to this point unless we let the subcommittees do their ,7oh, and in many cases, fie would guess the people qualified to do some of this research are probably not one of the Commission members. The City Manager stated tlnat the point that came out t�,e last tinie this auestion came before the Council, was that if chairing th� committee might be difftcult, a liaison kind of function be performed by certain members to sort of srepherd th� interests. If the Commission is involvec7 in a l�t of aczivities, it would 6e difficult to find members to keep track of all twenty>or whatever nuniber of pro7ects, but with a liaison kind of seiup, one member can at least keep track of ftve interests. He said perhaps by just adding a paragraph that aL least one persan of the Comm�ttee will act as a liaison to each subcommittee, would be app�ropria±e. Councilman Breider added that another thing that bothers hnn is that it seems that if a commtttee wants to develop something, as many people onthe committee as possible should have to work together and develep it. If five comm�ssion members are going to be required to do everything the committee may want, they are asking them t� sho�lder quite a 6urden for their volunteer effort and that is a lot to ask. a ��%i) PUBLIC HEARING MEETING DF DECEMBER 8, 1975 Counc�lman Starwalt said he agrees that if we think he is chairman and no one else can act in his 6ehalf, there is no way one person can attend all these sessions Councilman Fitzpatrick said �f the Commission wants a pro,7ect committee to do a special study of one item, they should give direction to that project committee The pro,7ect committee could then go in that d�rection, and carry out the intent of what the pro�ect was in the first place. MOTION was made by Counctlman Fitzpatrick to close the public hearinq. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor fJee declared the motion carr�ed unanimously, and the public hearing closed at 8•35 P.M. OLD BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF REOUEST FOR SUPPORT OF CONCERT BAND AT NATION'S BIC PAGE 4 The City Attorney opened the discussion stating that he did some checking on the above item, and said it is a problem that is a little hard to pin down. He believes his im tial reaction at the first meeting was the proper one, and he will make a suggestion. An alternative means of accomplishing the request if that is what Council wants to do, is to make a gift to the band group. He explained that it would be appropriate for the City to enter into a contract with the band for them to perform at a function the City of Fridley would be involved in, Perhaps a concert at the Bicentennial City functions, and in return the C�ty would give the band a certain sum of money. Ms. Clark, representing the band, said that she could not speak for the band. The City Attorney asked her to take this information back to the 6and, and he commented that this would clarify the legal aspects and in return supply the taxpayers with someth�ng in re*urn for their tax dollars. Councilwoman Kukowski asked if we go along with this, and the band goes alona with it, could we pay them in advance so they will have the money for their trip. The City Attorney replied yes. Ms. Clark asked if we would possibly want the marchinq band even though we are supporting the concert band. The City Attorney said it did not make any difference on his part, but he was thinking in terms of a concert perhaps after the parade. Councilman Starwalt "s{.ed what the financial disposition was at the present time. Ms. Clark said they were do�ng very well, that people have 6een generous and the children did very well on their fruit selling efforts. Councilman Starwalt said he had heard comments they were doing well and if he under- stands the financial situation properly, there are a6out 60 members in the band, and the amount per person would 6e about $40 00. Ms. Clark sald that was correct Councilman Starwalt said his thoughts on this is that $40.00 is not an unreasonable amount for each family to pay Ms. Clark said she understood, and with some familtes it was not a problem, but with some �t would be. Also, the children are expected to ptck up one of the�r meals Counc�lman Fitzpatr�ck said it could be a cons�derable expense tf they wanted an ans��er tomght. Mayor Nee said as he sees it a motion would be �n order. He asked Ms. Clark MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to give $1,000 to the Columbia Heights Concert Band for their trip to Washington D. C in return for a concert to be arranged by +!�e band for the City of Fridley There was no second to th�s motion. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to give $500.00 to the Columbia Heights Concert Band for thetr trip to Washington D. C tn return for a concert to be arranged by the ban�+ for the City of Fr�dley. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a roll call vote, Councilwoman Kukowski voted aye, Councilman Breider voted Aye, Councilman Starwalt voted Nay, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted Aye and P4ayor Nee voted Aye. The motion carried 4 to 1 � � � PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF �ECEMBER 8, 1975 n �� f �.� n PAGE 5 There was further discussior concerning where the City could di-aw the line as to contributing to this type of activity. Councilman Breider stated that sometimes it is difricult to rationalize usinq taxpa�ers money for these �ype requests. However, he said, the fact that he was impressed with was thE children getting out and earm ng part of the fee ihemselves. He sa�d he would not like to turn down the ten children in Fridley and keep them from goirg on the trip. He said he would like to suggest to the Council that �n the future they iook towards some appro- � priations being made in the budget for these types of activities. He said we have talked a lot about youth centers, etc., and here is a situation where the kids will get a lot out of the trip, and it is less expens�vz for us to finance. The City Manager said the ooint Councilman Breider made �s good. He said he assumed it is underlying and the motion considered is that we transfer from unappropriated funds we have in the 6udget. That is where the money will be comin9 from Mayor Nee stated he voted aye, but he would like to speak in Councilman Starwalt's behalf, in that the City in comparison to the Scnool D�strict, lavy a very small part of the property tax. We are always sensitive to that Councilman Starwalt is taking the position the Schoo7 Board has taxing powei° and t�ey get it from the same source, and we do not ask the 5chool Board to pay any of our costs. I agree with Councilman Starwalt on this. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIOfJS FROM "1INNESOTA ENVIRON'4E"dTAL Councilman Breider asked Jerry Soardman if the Environmental Quality Comm�ssion had seen the proposed material and if they had made any rec�mmPndations on it. Jerry Boardman said there was some difficulty in getting a meeting scheduled, but they did see the infoC°mation and was asked to submit written commen±s to the � Planning Commission. Mayor Nee said he read the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting and it was quite an extensive discussion. He said the answer to one immediate question is that the hearing is closing tomorrow and if vue wanv to offer testimony �t has to be resolved tonight. As I understand, he said, the letier submitted by Mr Boardman re- flects the sense of tlie Planning Commission and his own thoughts Councilman Breider asked Mr. Boardman about the Environmental Impact Study He said he bel�eves it refers to the ahility of the Commission to require such a study based upon the petition of 500 people signing the petition and submitting it to them. As I read this, he said, I wondered if this is restricted to the State of Minresota or �he Urited States,etc Mr:rBcardman repiied that there is no restriction or it. Councilman Breider said the one thing he objected to is tfiese �eaple sa,y that any petiiion they receive from any group requires an Environmenta� Impact Study. Per- fza�,s you could expand or this. hir Boardman said tt used to be that way in the old rules and regulations where 500 signatures woul� automatically require an impact studu Thev have changed this somewhat wl�ere 500 s�gnatures would be rev�ewed by the Environmental Quality Camnission. Ai that time, they decide if the Environmental Assessment Statement would be needed. The petitioners subr�it their petition tc the Environ- mental Quality Council with suggestiors that there are harmful ervironmental effects and a layman's version of why they feel so. At that time, the Envirormental Qual�ty Commission reviews that petition and their comments on it and ma!<es a�etermination ' if an environmental assessment work sheet is neede� When thz worksheet is completed, tne resuonsible agency will make their determinatian as to whether a full impact statement is needeC. Councilman Breider said there is still ro restriction cn who the petttioners are. He said he feels this ts a gross injustice. As an example, ne said, �f I have a duck pond up North I like to go and hunt on and thc person d�cides he �s going to draln the pond, I can get 50� stgnatures and triat �s all that is needed. ��� J[ll7 PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 PAGE 6 Mr. Boardman exp7ained that the Environmental Quality Commission receives a lot of these types of petitions and spends a lot of time reviewing them for environ- mental assessments. This is one of the reasons they are putting themselves in a position to review these before an assessment is required. Getting a petition doesn't mean an assessment has to be done. He further explained that if an assessment is warranted on any problem, why should there be 500 signatures or 1 signature, if someone could prove that pro�ect is going to be harmful to the environment. � Councilman Breider sa�d he disagrees. He stated that if peop7e ob,7ect too much, a study is developed, and if they do not, it is not developed. This qets back to the gutdelines, and also, he said, in his mind, t M s is quite a political thing. It says that any person or group of persons may file a petition that contains signatures and addresses of 500 people. Mr Boardman replied that he believes the thresholds are above anything that could happen at a local level. He said he thinks there are several things in here that he feels make the rules and regulations weak, l. The rules and regulations, iF passed, will be mandatory to the Council. However, most local commun�ties will never be affected by these, and 2. The way it is laid out, the qoverrmer,+,;l agency in charge of permits is required to see that the assessment statements are done, and if they don't have a private developer to it, they do it themselves. However, under the rules and regulations and under law, there is no way that municipality can cover its costs for th�s. Another th�ng he said he would l7ke to brtng out under mandatory category is that there are no uniform means of controlling what is happening at the local level. Also, it ta1KS about what is required for an assess- ment statement as any governmental �ction that has significant erivironmental effect. Firstly, there is no layout of what a ma,7or governmental action is; and secondly, no determination as to what is a significant environmental effect. It is vague in this area. There is nothing a local commission can come back with as to a uniform regulations we are sure all City governments or inum cipalities will follow. Fridley may set their own types of standards, but Coon Rapids may go by State � stanc;ards. Another thing he said he would strongly urge, is that they develop a more effective framework wh�ch allows long-range environmental planning. This should be a key �ssue. The rules and regulations are only a measure to bring env�ronmental con- cerns at the beginning of the permlt. In the iong run, if you follow through with these stop gap measures, it may have some detrimental economic effects that will effect the total economic development of the community. Going proaect by project basis may be stopping some development that m�y he acceptable in another area. Mayor Nee said he had one note concerning the money, 6ecause unless they are pre- pared to allow us to cover the cost, they should not charge us for the responsi- bility for execution. Seems to me, he said, throughout here they are charging us or an equivalent governmental agency with the cost of study and not providing for the costs. They would have to a]low us to recover money from the deve]opment or none of us will want to do it. Mayor Nee said another item he would like to br�ng up is on page 3M of the Agenda, about six lines up from the bottom where it says -"No oral argument shall be permitted before the Council. Failure of the Council to act at this meeting shail be deemed acceptance of the recommendation of the hearing officer." He explained that it should not automatically accept recommendation of the hearina officer simply because they didn't take the matter up at their meeting. I ob,7ect to that, Also, Mayor Nee sa�d he would like to refer to page 3P of the Agenda the last sentence "The Council shall require each agency which requests the publication of material �n the state register including the Counci1 itself, to pay its proportionate' cost of the EQC Mon�tor unless other funds are provtded and are su`f�cient to cover the cost of the EQC Monitor." That ,7ust reinforces the whole thing of who pays for what. Either they pay or they give us the poarer to collect for �t. The item on page 3M, I feel should be striken. This bas�cally says that where there �s failure to act, the staff prevails, and this doesn't make sense to me, he said. Mr. Boardman added that another thing is they limit themselves to phys�cal im- pact. They do not relate to the possible social-economic impacts, which are equally important. He said, h�� ai�o has another concern - the mandatory requirements. They give themselves an out in which they can supplement those mandatory categories without any public hearing process � � PUBLIC HEARIPlG MEETTNG QF DECEMBER 8, 1975 Councilman Fitzpatrick stated that he thought Mr. Boardman had �one a f9ne ,7�b and asked the Council if we should authorize him to pursue these points Mayor Nee sald that as he understood it, it has to 6e 1n �vriting. `�, PAGE 7 Mayor Nee asked Mr. Boardman if he could exp�nd on this to in:lude the couple of concerns he has mentioned, and Mr. Boardman replied he could Councilman Starwalt said that he had no quarrel except one item which is Item 3, Paragraph 2 of the letter. Fle said he seriously belieeres that we should not delete the requirement for 500 signai.ures. Mr. Boardman explained that the reason he put this �n was that before the 500 signatures was under a mandatory assessment category. Th�s time it is not. He said he feels a 500 limit is not the important factor•, but whether or not an evaluation is needed to protect the environment. Mayor Nee added that it is based on tne merit of the situatzon, not on the individual. He said that he liked everything except the first line on Page 3, Number 13. He has a problem with the word "reprimand" He asked if this could be changed to "ob�ect". Mayor Nee then summed up by saying it seems as though the only area of disagreement is the 500 signatures. He said he would like tc have an expression on this. He explained that he feels that it is not relevant as long as it is argued on merits Councilman Breider sa�d that either way �t is set up it is k�nd of mute. If they get a petition, they will review it, and tf it looked 1�!<e a goed idea they would require some further action. Councilman Starwalt s3id that he liked the petition process, and he feels it is a valid consideration. Mayor Nee said that the Council could take a motion to concur uaith this letter as it may be revised to put in the additional items. Then, a motion to delete Item #3, if the Council wants to do that. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to adopt the Letter as revised Seconded b_V Councilman Breider. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to amend the Letter by str�kinq Item �?, and re- placing it with a statement of support for 500 sigratures or a resolution of a governmental agency. The motion was seconded Upon a roll call vote, Councilman Starwalt voted Aye, Councilman Fitzpatrick voted Aye, Mayor PJee voted Nay, Council- woman Kukowski voted Nay and Councilman Breider voted Aye. The Amendment to the Letter carried 3 to 2. COPJSIDERATIGfJ OF PTANCE OF UPJIOM CONTRACT WITH LOCAI_ ; The Finance Director presented a brief explanation of the terms of the proposed settlement for the years 1976 and 1977 of the Union Centract with Local #3?_0. He pointed out the pay rates proposed and a change in the hospitalization. MOTION 6y Councilman 2reider to aoprove the Conditional Acceptance of Union Contract wiLh Local #320 (Police Officers for the Years 1976 and 19�7). Seronded � by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CQNSI�ERATION OF AMENDMENT TO FRONTIER CLUB REZONING AGREEMENT PERTAI�lIPlG TO TIME LIMIT. The Public Works D�rector said that he discussed this with the City Attorney and we suggest it may be appropriate to read in the last lines of paragraph #l, "Such improvements to be completed within certain time per�od from the date of the adoption of the first reading of the Ordinance." r���It �� \� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 Mayor Nee sa�d he thought that would solve the problem. The City Attorney said another sentence that might strengthen it would be to tk�e effect, "If such improvements are not made within said ttisie, ti;is a9reement shall be void," Councilman Breider said he would suggest one year for the time period. MOTION by Councilman Breider to add an Amendment to the Letter of Agreement inserting one (1) year from the date of the adoption of the first reading of the Letter of Agreement. Seconded by Councilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carr�ed unanimously. COMMENDATION: Mayor Nee explained that the Council has received a Letter of Commendation for Officer David Younkin, issued by Mr. James Hill, Publ7c Safety �irector. PAGE 8 MOTION by Councilman Fitzpatrick to accept the Letter of Commendation. Seconded by Counc�lman 8reider. Upon a voice vote, a71 voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. CATV: Councilman Starwalt statetl he wou7d l�ke to bring up the posit�on the City may or may not be in regard�ng the Cable TV Company. He said his question is, due to the lac'r of clarity at th�s time, would it be prudent for the Council to put the Cabie Coinpany on notice that we do consider the offering of monies does re- quire the franchise payment and they should set up the books accordingly. He added, along with that, he has some comment regarding the Grand �ury investigation. He said these sort of thin9s regarding misrepres�r�tation on the part of the Cable Company in present sales and people paying ,7ust for one portion and gett�ng more. He explained that perhaps it was not misrepresentat�on, but at least a difference in opinion in that regard. The third item, he said, he is interested in knowing haw we can get �he Cahle Company to advise us as to when the technical considerattons can separate these two, The question is how to bill these people accordingly. Mayor Nee sa�d perhaps we should let the Commission pursue it for a few weeks. We authorized them to employ an attorney to adv�se them on the first quest�on. Regardin9 the second question, I have not heard anything about a Grand Jury he said. The Cable Company has taken the position, and advised the Council, that they have technical reasons why they cannot separate the two yet. Obviously, the Commissions argument is they should not be separated in any event, The City Attorney said that the contract language of the franch�se agreement and the intention of the parties may not be the same. He said he feels the revenue from the movie suhscribers be a part of the income that they pay the franchise fee on. They came back with some material that said FCC says other- wise. If they do say otherwise, unless some Federal Court overturns their position, that is probably go�ng to be the �°ule. He said he assumed that �s what the legal counci7 is going to advise them. The City Manager said another point is, as long as the service is being provided by Cable TV, and they are only collecting the charges for show�ng movies to certain customers, can we still get our revenue, because the serv�ce is being prov�ded. The City Attorney expla�ned that i* probably would not derive enough income to warrant it Councilman Starwalt said he still raises the question, that he contends that the basic channel and the movTes both, are sub�ect to 5%. � , ' ��� PUBLIC HEARING MEETING OF DECEMBER 8, 1975 Councilman Fitzpatrick said that is what they are asking legal experts to decifer. He said he would agree with Mayor Nee The City Attorney said the Company's posit�on �s that they may be but the FCC says otherwise, and that prevails until it is changed I believe it will take some kind of an appeal before the situation reverses. L_'I ADJOURNMENT: MOTION by Counctlman Breider to ad,7ourn the Public Hearing. Seconded by Councilwoman Kukowski. Upon a voice vote, all votinq aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously, and the Public Hearing Meeting of the Frtdley City Council of December 8, 1975, adjourned by 10 00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ��`� �= t'�,�� /' ,�:� �-�r-�� Helen Fagin ` Secretary to the Council Date Approved: �/`�/�� � � `;� �II,'���L�,vY✓�� �' � William J h�ee Mayor PAGE 9