Laserfiche WebLink
ce/'15 <br />:q0Py) <br />MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL k�� <br />FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTF,ATO <br />DATE: AUGUST 23, 1984 <br />SUBJECT: CABLE TV FRANCHISE AMENDMENT NO. 1 <br />I have reviewed the current status of the proposed amendment <br />to the Cable TV Franchise with City Attorney Meyers and have <br />been advised that he has not had any conversations with <br />representatives of the North Suburban Cable Commission since <br />his letter dated July 2,1984, copy attached, which outlines <br />those areas in which the proposed Franchise conflicts with <br />the City Charter. <br />You will recall from my memorandum dated June 11, 1984 that <br />two basic areas of conflict were identified. They are: <br />1. The proposed amendment would allow for the <br />implementation of increased rates without a public <br />i hearing. Article VI, Section 4 of the Home Rule Charter <br />requires that public hearings be held prior to any <br />changes in rate structure and City Franchises. <br />2. The second area of conflict is the proposed resolution <br />implementing the amendments to the Franchise. The City <br />Charter clearly states that all amendments to the <br />Franchise must be implemented by Ordinance after a <br />public hearing. <br />Thus, a hearing is being held pursuant to the Charter on the <br />proposed amendments at your August 27, 1984 meeting, <br />however, the conflict with respect to the language in the <br />proposed Charter Amendment relating to passive rate <br />increases has not been resolved and should be before any <br />action is formally taken by the City Council on this matter. <br />