Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-24-1966 • • 85 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, -MARCH 24, 1966 . The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session in the C ity Hall- in said City Thursday, March 24, 1966 at the hour of 9:00 o'clock a.m. (est). Mr. Jameson presiding with the following members being present: Mr. Gehr and Mr. Keller. The following business was had to-wit: There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of the meeting of March 17, 1966, Mir. Keller moved the minutes be dispensed with seconded by Mr. Gehr'and on voice vote was carried. . Mr. Gehr moved the claims be. allowed and paid, seconded by Mr. Keller and on voice vote was carried. Fire Chief Fredricks reported that he had received requests from Harry Hengstler and Dale Knarzer that permission be given them to move outside the corporate limits of Richmond. Both men had served on department the legal time as permitted by the Indiana Statutes and also within distance permitted . Chief Fredricks recommended that thes.erequests be granted. Mr. Gehr moved the Board concur in the recommendation of the Fire Chief, seconded by Mr. Keller and on voice vote was carried. Mr. Gehr presented a petition signed by Mrs. 'M. G . Mulvihill, 1600 National Road West, requesting permission to cut the curb on S.W. 16th Street for a driveway. Mr. ' Gehr moved the n"equest be granted, seconded by Mr. Keller and on voice vote was carried. • Street Commissioner Burelison made. his report on the tabulation of bids received March 17, 1966 for a new street sweeper. His investigation presented a problem; that of one of the bidders submitting a bid of a unit having a capacity of `cubic yards and the specifications called for 4 cubic yard capacity. Mr. Burelison made a study of the 22 cubic yard unit and in his opinion it would fit the operation of the depart- ment better. Mr. Gehr moved that the Board reject, all bids received and further the Street Commissioner prepare the specifications that would include a 22 cubic yard or more capacity sweeper so that all bidders could compete in the bidding. Nh.• Keller" seconded this motion and on voice vote was carried. The elate set for receiving bids for a new street sweeper is April 14, 1966 until the hour of 10:00 o'clock a.m. (est). The Board recessed for ten minutes to prepare for the hearing on C.A.T.V. applica- tions which was set on this date at the hour of 10:00 o'clock am. (est). The hour being 10:00 a.m. (est), the Board met in the Council Chambers of the City Hall and all members present. Mr. Jameson called the meeting to order and read the following opening statements: OPENING STATEMENT - CATV by President of Board of Public Works, March 24, 1966 - City Hall PURPOSE OF HEARING The- purpose of this hearing is to hold a hearing at which taxpayers may appear and file protest against any or all of the provisions of the franchise under consideration. It is hoped that .this hearing will be of benefit and educational value to' members of the Board of Works, who are charged with recommendations of procedure in problems of establishment and administration of CATV at a time when CATV is in the process- of development in the Oty at which time no tangible steps have been taken. The concern of the Board of Works is to investigate and conclude means of establishment of a program for CATV which is best for the City of Richmond, its taxpayers- and residents. It is hoped that the atmosphere of this hearing will be one of frankness and congeniality. Legal Status • The legal status of CATV in Indiana and elsewhere is doubtful. This is evidenced by a quotation from Official Opinion No. 75 of the Attorney-General of the State of Indiana from which I quote. "At the outset, I wish to say that this opinion represents the views produced by considerable research but in which I readily state there can be no great clarity, because CATV is a "wild, animal" which present laws :were not designed to control or regulate . It is only logical, therefore, that legislative action will, of necessity, occur in this field. It is with this preface that I have attemoted to collect the authorities and relate them to Indiana law and pro- "' to provide some guidelines in the interim before the enactment of specific legislation regulating CATV. The Board of Works of the City of Richmond having devoted considerable time, both individually and collectively, to the legal status of CATV agrees heartily with the above quoted.opinion of the Attorney-General. The area of Federal control is undefined and there is little or no background of authority in Indiana. This situation gives rise to problems at the local legel which are the outgrowth of lack of legal guidelines. Is the city in which CATV is to be introduced required to provide a franchise to an applicant for installation of CATV or can this installation be done without a franchise by the 'city? 'It is felt by the Board of Works that it is necessary for the city to extend a franchise before 'installation can proceed. If there are any dissenters to this position, they are urged to express their opinion. .86 Technical Problems. Technical.problems are of several types: Rental of facilities furnished and operated by the telephone company servicing- the local community or cable stringing and ownership by the applicants. • toning with respect to location of CATV structures. Attitude of the Board • . Each applicant will be requested. to explain his proposed method of operat- ion. • 1) Applicants will be heard in order of date of filing. - 2) Each applicant is free to express any comments, ask questions, or disclose any information pertaining to his interest in a franchise application. 3) No committments have been made by the Board of Works to any .aoplicant, therefore, no franchises exist at the present time. There will be no , Ill committments by the Board of Works until they have an .opportunity to . give full consideration.to information developed in this hearing in its entirety. 4) Final approval of franchises, as you know, must be made by the Common Council of the City of Richmond upon the recommendation of the Board of Works. PROCEDURE • Record of Hearing . This hearing is being taped and is also being recorded by a court steno- grapher. A' full transcript of the hearing will be available to the members of the Board of Works. Groups - . It is assumed that there are in audience at least three groups interested. in this hearing. These may be: Those opposed to installation of CATV. V Applicants seeking a franchise. Taxpayers and members of the general public. • ' Selection of Spokesman V e.quest each group rise and identify themselves.) It. is suggested that the groups consisting of "those opposed" and members of the general public retire and select a spokesman if you want to. A recess . of ten (10) minutes will be granted so that you may select a spokesman. It is then expected that the spokesman for each group will speak for the group he represents using a microphone on the floor in front of the Board of Works table. "Those Opposed" will be heard first. Spokesman for the groups of "those . 0000sed" will be limited to thirty (30) minutes. It is requested that each spokesman give his name and adress and be sure that the stenographer has each name spelled correctly and the address is correct. Individuals • Individuals from the general public will be heard upon request and it • is hoped for a period not to exceed ten (10) minutes each. It is requested that such individuals refrain from any repetition. All discussions by the Board or sp okesman will be into the microphone. No random speakers from the floor, other than into a microphone, will be permitted. - • Applicants . . It is requested that the presentation of each application be limited to 30 minutes. It is suggested that each applicant give an orderly presentation of his V plan for establishing CATV in Richmond and other information that he feels will be of benefit to the Board of Works. There is no limitation on the subject matter expressed by each applicant. If necessary and if time permits, a limited rebuttal will be provided. During the recess all applicants file proof of publication. with the chair. V • • Mr. Jameson called for a spokesman for those who were ooposed to C.A.T.V. in the city of Richmond, Indiana. V Mr. Marlin K. McDaniel announced that he was representing several firms that in- stall' radios•, televisions and antenna towers in the City _of Richmond, Indiana who were opposed to C.A.T.V. Mr. McDaniel after his lengthy presentation, introduced the following citizens of Richmond who were opposed to C.A.T.V. Mr. Daniel Jennings, Mr. Guy Brown, Mr. Chester Benson `and Mr. Robert Beach. Mr. McDaniel in closing filed with the Board cooies of: 1. Vital questions to the City of Richmond Adminstration regarding C.A.T.V. 2. What do experts say. about C.A.T.V. 3. The Federal Communication announced plan for regulations of all C.A.T.V. systems published February 15, 1966. Mr. McDaniel recommended on behalf of the citizens of the community that the Richmond Board of Public Works and Safety and the Richmond Common Council protect our citizens from exploitation and profiteering in the C.A.T.V. field, until such time as the State of Indiana or the Federal Government can establish sound regulations and safe- guards. SS The hour being 4:45 p.m. and no further business presented on motion duly made, seconded and carried the meetin i. adjourned . There will be a complete transcript of the proceedings of this meeting available. Henry n'!, J e son, n.re side nt Attest: Athe J. Reeg, erk BOARD OF PUBLIC WCRKS AND SAFETY OF THE CITY CF RICHMOND, INDIANA, MARCH 31, 1966 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the .City of Richmond, Indiana met in regular session in the City Hall in said City Thursday, March 31, 1966 at the hour of 9:00 o'clock a.m.. .(est) . Mr. Keller presiding with.the following member being present: Mr. Gehr. Mr. Jameson being absent. ' The following business was had to-wit: - Mr. Gehr moved the minutes of the meeting of•March -24, 1966 be dispensed with, seconded by Mr. Keller and on voice vote was carried. Mr. Gehr moved the claims, be allowed and paid, seconded by Mr. Keller and on voice vote was carried. Mr. Howard Brumley, 510 Peacock Road, appeared before the Board seeking informa- tion about purchasing a plot of ground from the City of Richmond, Indiana which. is located on the west side of N.W. llth Street, between West Main Street and Peacock • Road. Mr. Keller asked Mr. Gedvillas, who was present, if he would make an investi- gation of this plot: of ground to see if it was of benefica.l use in the future planning of the City. Mr. Gedvillas appeared before the Board and requested that his report on the complaints on N. W. L. Street be deferred until the Board of. Works approve an outline of procedure to be followed if the complaints are valid. Mr. . Keller asked that the procedure be. placed in writing and be presented at the meeting of April 7, 1966 so the Board of Works can make a study before making a final decision. Mr. Jack Turnbaugh appeared before the Board requesting that a. study be made of providing 4 or 5 parking spaces on the west side of Whitewater Boulevard between the two f ront entrances to the Richmond Senior High School for visitors only. This was . referred to the Traffic Division for study and recommendation. . The Clerk presented proof of .publication of Notice to Bidders printed in the Richmond Palladium-Item, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Richmond, Indiana, on. the dates of March 7 - ]!�, 1966. Said notice designated the date of March 31, 1966 until the hour of 10:00 a.m. (est) that sealed proposals would be received and opened for the. construction of an alley as provided in Improvement Resolution No. 1074-1966. Mr. Keller examined the proof of publication and found the same to be correct and in order and moved the same be received and filed. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gehr and on voice vote was carried. . March 31, 1966 at, the hour of 10:00 o'clock am. (est) being the date and time designated to receive and open sealed. proposals to improve the alley between Lincoln and Randolph Streets, from N. W. 3rd Street to N.W.4.Street with concrete as per plans, specificatio s and profile provided in I.R. No. 1074-1966. The following proposals were opened. =and read aloud: Henry L. Owens & Son Cloyd McDowell • Mr. Keller moved the proposals be referred to the C ity Engineer.for tabulation and recommendation, seconded by Mr. Gehr and on voice vote was carried. The .Clerk presented oroof of publication of Notice To Bidders printed in the • Richmond Palladium-Item, a newspaper of general circulation in the City. of Richmond, Indiana on the dates of March 7 14, 1966. Said notice designated the date. of March 31, 1966 until the hour of 10:00 o'clock a.m. (est) that sealed proposals would be received and opened for the construction of an alley as provided in Improvement Resolution No. 1075-1966. Mr. Keller examined the proof of publication and found , the same to be correct and in order and moved the same be received and filed. Mr. Gehr .seconded this motion and on voice was carried. March 31, 1966 at the hour of 10:00 o'clock a.m. (est) being the date and time to receive and open sealed proposals to improve the alley between North 21st Street and North _22nd Street from North "C'! Street to North "D" Street with concrete per plans, specifications and profile as provided in I.R. No. 1075-1966. The following ._., proposals were opened and read aloud: ' Henry L. Owens & Son Cloyd McDowell Mr. Keller moved the proposals be referred to .the City Engineer for tabulation and recommendation, seconded by Mr. C hr and on voice vote was carried. Malvern Price and Roland Walls of the Fire Department reported that they had attended the 38th Fire Department Instructors Conference held in Memphis, Tennessee. There were 4.,177 registered from all the States and 13 other countries. Twenty-four subjects were selected from a total of over three hundred submitted to the Planning Committee to be presented to the Conference. Malvern Price spoke to this group on the Telephone Company Fire and it was well received by those present . Both Price and Walls stated that they brought home valuable information that can better the local department