Laserfiche WebLink
1 the contracts to the following as recommended in Public Works <br />2 Director Hamer's April 26th memorandum: <br />3 Blacktop Midwest Asphalt <br />4 Aggregate Barton Sand and Gravel <br />5 Oil Koch Materials Co. <br />6 Concrete Wyatt Bros., Inc. <br />7 Motion carried unanimously. <br />8 Manager Expects City Insurance Costs to be Lower for 1988-89 Period <br />9 The insurance package had not come back from the underwriters in time <br />10 for the meeting that evening, but Mr. Childs said he knew those <br />11 figures would be available long in advance of the Council's May 24th <br />12 meeting. Now that there's more competition in the liquor liability <br />13 insurance market, the City Manager indicated he anticipated a <br />14 substantial reduction in those quotes and that the City shouldn't <br />15 have the difficulty it had a couple of years ago placing that in - <br />16 surance. <br />17 UNFINISHED BUSINESS <br />18 Council to Wait for Further Research Before Taking Action Related to <br />19 Channel 34 Programming <br />20 A copy of the legal opinion from the North Suburban Cable Communica- <br />21 tion Commission Attorney regarding what was perceived to be por- <br />22 nographic programming on the North Central Cable Company's system, <br />23 had been included in the Council's agenda packet. Dennis Murphy, who <br />24 represents St. Anthony on the Cable Commission, had been invited to <br />25 comment on that opinion. <br />26 Mr. Murphy reported he had just taken over his responsibilities on <br />27 the Cable Commission when this issue had surfaced. He indicated he <br />28 personally found it hard to understand why, when the original cable <br />29 franchise agreement had expressly said "the cable company shall not <br />30 cablecast any programming which would be considered in the sole <br />31 opinion of the City to be X-rated or pornographic", there should be <br />32 any question that programming like that on Channel 34 would not be <br />33 allowed. However, he had been told the cable company was arguing that <br />34 provision was unconstitutional because the First Amendment "not only <br />35 allows them to have such programs, but their viewers have the same <br />36 right to view those programs." <br />37 The Cable Commission Attorney had perceived both the City and Cable <br />38 Commission had some options when it came to indicating their dis- <br />39 pleasure with the cable company programming. Mr. Creighton had rated <br />40 these in his memorandum according to how he thought each would be apt <br />41 to risk a legal battle which he had concluded would in all likelihood <br />42 be lost in the courts. <br />10 <br />