HomeMy Public PortalAbout027-1988-APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE GENERAL FUNDAPPROPRIATION ORDINANCE NO. 27-1988
AN ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND
WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is now necessary to appropriate more money than was
appropriated in the annual budget:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,
WAYNE COUNTY, INDIANA:
SECTION 1. That for the expenses of said municipal corporaion the following additional sums
of money are hereby appropriated.
AMOUNT- AMOUNT
REQUESTED APPROPRIATED
GENERAL FUND -
Board of Works
3000-Other Services & Charges $10,000. $10,000.
SECTION 2. That for the expenses of said municipal corporation the following additional sums
of money are hereby appropriated and set apart out of the fund named and for the
purposes specified. Said sum being subject to the laws governing the same.
AMOUNT AMOUNT
REQUESTED REDUCED
FUND BALANCE $10,000. $10,000.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and
approval by the Mayor and is subject to the laws of the State of Indiana governing
emergency appropriations.
oC
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana this' � day
of 1988.
President of C6mrfion Council
ATTEST:R-r_y��eti�i�c�
City Cler
PRESENTED by me to the Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana this day of
,1988.
APPROVED by me, Frank H. Waltermann, Mayor of the City of Richmond, Indiana this ee
of 1988.
Mayor
ATTEST:j
City Clerk
Ordinance No. 27-1988
(4A) ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION AND
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS CERTIFICATE
I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, hereby
certify to the Auditor of Wayne County that the attached is a complete transcript of the
proceedings had with respect to additional appropriations adopted by the Common Council of the
City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana at a meeting held on May 2, 1988.
Mary Mekhanthouse
City Clerk
EXCERPTS OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMON
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND INDIANA
The Common Council of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in regular session in the Council Chambers in
the Municipal Building of said City on May 2, 1988, at the hour of 7:30 P.M.
Counoilmember Morris presided with the following members present:
Councilmembers: Elstro, Williams, Brookbank, McBride, Parker, Hutton, and Paust
Absent: Hankinson
The following business was had to -wit:
(OTHER BUSINESS HAD)
The Clerk presented Proof of Publication of Notice to Taxpayers printed in the Richmond Palladium
Item, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Richmond, Indiana, on the date of April 22,
1988. Said notice stated that a public hearing would be held on the 2nd day of May, 1988, by the
Common Council to consider additional appropriations in excess of the budget for the year 1968 within
the City of Richmond, Indiana. The Proof of Publication was examined and found to be in order.
Councilmember Brookbank moved the Proof of Publication be received and filed, seconded by
Councilmember Hutton and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried.
The Clerk read on second reading Ordinance No. 27-1988.
President Morris announced Ordinance No. 27-1988 was on public hearing.
After hearing all persons present, Ordinance No. 27-1988 was placed on final passage or rejection and
on a call of the roll the following was recorded:
Ayes: Elstro, Williams, Brookbank, McBride, Parker, Hutton, Paust and Morris.
Nays: None
Absent: Hankinson
The vote being 8 to 0 in favor of the passage of Ordinance No. 27-1988.
(OTHER BUSINESS HAD)
There being no further business, on a motion duly made, seconded and passed the meeting was
adjourned.
/s/ Lynn Nepote Morris
President of Common Council
ATTEST: Mary Merchanthouse
City Clerk
Dept of Finance
August, 1984
Form 103
City of Richmond
Additional Appropriation From Fund Balance
Council Action Required
(For use by Finance Dept Only)
Fund :
Dept:
From: /D/—/- 6 -6a/-- 3— c)
•wCx Amt $
Y
Reason & Source of Funds:
City Controlle
Assigned Ord
Council Agenda Date
Passed by Council:
SBTC Approval:
Posted to Budgetary:
By:
;oF glcy� INTEROFFICE MEMO
* guy« i1 * CITY OF RICHMOND
.�,J1i"^•. ' 50 NORTH FIFTH ST. RICHMOND. INDIANA 47374
�NDiANP
DATE. April 12, 1988
TO: Members of Common Council
FROM: Sue Silberstein, Telecommunications Assistant
SUBJECT: Appropriation Ordinance No. 27-1988 for Support of Community
COPY TO: Access Television
Telecommunications Council; File
As you are probably aware, Whitewater Community Television, Inc.
(WCTV, Inc.) came into existence March 10, 1988. It is a non-profit
corporation, with an already - broad base of community support,
formed to foster community access programming in this area,
specifically through cablecasting on Channel 16 on the local TCI
system. Richmond Community Schools has temporary operating authority
for this channel until the end of the school year, when WCTV, Inc.,
will assume this authority.
Initial plans are to enter into formal arrangements with RCS for the
continued use of its studio facilities at Richmond High School, which
are a tremendous existing asset to community access television here.
There is a tremendous potential for providing local programming on
this channel of area governmental bodies' meetings, sports and
cultural events, news, and public interest programming; as well as
training opportunities for local youth and other citizens in video
production and communications technology. The potential, and the
need, is all the greater because of the general lack of sustained
coverage and access afforded by area broadcast stations.
You have before you an appropriations ordinance to appropriate to the
support of community access television on this recently -dedicated
Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) access channel, through
its administering body, WCTV, Inc., an amount equal to the 1988
unanticipated income resulting from TCI's Jan. 1988 3% franchise fee
payment. The return of cable franchise fees for the support of
community access television is a widely -accepted practice nationally,
and in fact may well be advisable to protect the City from the
possibility of constitutional challenges to the payment of franchise
fees as a tax of First Amendment speech. Please read the attached
Article, "The Cable Franchise Fee and Access Programming" in this
regard. Regardless of the actuality of such a challenge, I believe
it is clear that it is now time for the City to begin to use fees
generated by the cable franchise to pay for regulatory and access
activities directly related to the cable which generates them, rather
than continue devoting them in their entirety to the general fund in
support of unrelated city services and activities. For this year,
the Telecommunications Council has recommended that you as Council
members return to access programming only that amount of what was
actually received that was not counted on in setting the 1988 budget,
so as not to adversely impact the budget. However, in the future a
funding amount, probably based on a percentage of anticipated
franchise fee (which is paid annually in January based on the prior
year's revenue), should be included in determining annual budgets.
This would be a line item under Board of Works, similar to the annual
payment to the Animal Shelter in support of its services.
This particular appropriation is critical to the success of WCTV,
Inc., and local access programming, in that it will enable WCTV to
fund start-up costs and, most importantly, hire a staff person who
will provide a physical presence in the existing studios beyond the
generous volunteer services currently provided by RCS staff and
students. WCTV must have some semblance of a paid staff to
coordinate and train volunteers, provide coverage at meetings and
events, and produce and cablecast material. Another priority will be
the purchase of certain equipment to supplement that provided by RCS.
Your support for this appropriation, and City support of community
access programming, is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions or comments you may have.
Thank you.
NOTICE TO TAXPAYERS OF[
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS[
Notice is hereby given the taxpayers of the City of Richmond, Wayne County, Indiana, that the
proper legal officers of said Municipal Corporation at their regular meeting place at 7:30
o'clock P.M. on the 2nd day of May, 1988, will consider the following additional appropriations
in excess of the budget for the current year.[
GENERAL_ FUND[
Fund Balance
These funds are to be used for the following:[
3000-Other Services & Charges
lIT, mc► I a
$10,000. [
AMOUNT REQUESTED f
$10,000[
Taxpayers appearing at such meeting shall have a right to be heard thereon. The additional
appropriations as finally made will be referred to the State Board of Tax Commissioners, which
Board, upon Receipt, will hold a further hearing within fifteen days at the County Auditor's
Office of said County, or at such other place as may be designated. At such hearing taxpayers
objecting to any of such additional appropriations may be heard. Interested taxpayers may
inquire of the County Auditor when and where such hearing will be held.[
Mary Merchanthouse[
City Clerk[
Publish Date: April 22, 1988[
DATE:
TO:
FROM
SUBJECT:
-%OF Rlcy�
z INTER -OFFICE MEMO
U � � O
1. * CITY OF RICHMOND
t��vru
50 NORTH FIFTH ST. RICNMOND,NOIANA 47379
NDIAtA
April 12, 1988
COPY TO:
Members of Common Council
Sue Silberstein, Telecommunications Assistant
Appropriation Ordinance No. 27-1988 for Support of Community
Access Television
Telecommunications Council; File
As you are probably aware, Whitewater Community Television, Inc.
(WCTV, Inc.) came into existence March 10, 1988. It is a non-profit
corporation, with an already - broad base of community support,
formed to foster community access programming in this area,
specifically through cablecasting on Channel 16 on the local TCI
system. Richmond Community Schools has temporary operating authority
for this channel until the end of the school year, when WCTV, Inc.,
will assume this authority.
Initial plans are to enter into formal arrangements with RCS for the
continued use of its studio facilities at Richmond•High School, which
are a tremendous existing asset to community access television here.
There is a tremendous potential for providing local programming on
this channel of area governmental bodies' meetings, sports and
cultural events, news, and public interest programming; as well as
training opportunities for local youth and other citizens in video
production and communications technology. The potential, and the
need, is all the greater because of the general lack of sustained
coverage and access afforded by area broadcast stations.
You have before you an appropriations ordinance to appropriate to the
support of community access television on this recently -dedicated
Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) access channel, through
its administering body, WCTV, Inc., an amount equal to the 1988
unanticipated income resulting from TCI's Jan. 1988 3% franchise fee
payment. The return of cable franchise fees for the support of
community access television is a widely -accepted practice nationally,
and in fact may well be advisable to protect the City from the
possibility of constitutional challenges to the payment of franchise
fees as a tax of First Amendment speech. Please read the attached
Article, "The Cable Franchise Fee and Access Programming" in this
regard. Regardless of the actuality of such a challenge, I believe
it is clear that it is now time for the City to begin to use fees
generated by the cable franchise to pay for regulatory and access
activities directly related to the cable which generates them, rather
than continue devoting them in their entirety to the general fund in
support of unrelated city services and activities. For this year,
the Telecommunications Council has recommended that you as Council
members return to access programming only that amount of what was
actually received that was not counted on in setting the 1988 budget,
so as not to adversely impact the budget. However, in the future a
funding amount, probably based on a percentage of anticipated
franchise fee (which is paid annually in January based on the prior
year's revenue), should be included in determining annual budgets.
This would be a line item under Board of Works, similar to the annual
payment to the Animal Shelter in support of its services.
This particular appropriation is critical to the success of WCTV,
Inc., and local access programming, in that it will enable WCTV to
fund start-up costs and, most importantly, hire a staff person who
will provide a physical presence in the existing studios beyond the
generous volunteer services currently provided by RCS staff and
students. WCTV must have some semblance of a paid staff to
coordinate and train volunteers, provide coverage at meetings and
events, and produce and cablecast material. Another priority will be
the purchase of certain equipment to supplement that provided by RCS.
Your support for this appropriation, and City support of community
access programming, is greatly appreciated. Please feel free to
contact me with any questions or comments you may have.
Thank you.
Community Television Review 69
1.. Volume 9, No. 2, 1986
The Cable Franchise Fee and Access Programming
By Henry Geller and Catherine Boggs
Over -the -air television, with its single
channel, has been much constrained in
allowing citizens access to its mass media
facilities. In the decades since cable televi-
sion has emerged, it has been heralded as
a much more effective medium for such
access programming, both locally and na-
tionaliv. But the high promise of cable ac-
cess programming has not been fulfilled,
primarily because of a serious lack of sup-
port money (as well as organizational
defects). And the 1984 Cable Act may well
exacerbate the problem.
"The Cable Franchise Fee and the First'
Amendment,": a recent paper issued by
the Washington Center for Public Policy
Research, argues that the cable franchiser
fee as it now can be used and often isi
used, is unconstitutionah The paper also
argues that there are strong policy and
legal reasons to iise the fee. for, access Or -
poses? To do so would not only take_care
of the constitutional problems, but by
helping cable access reach its full poten+
tial, it would also promote the true diver=
sity of cable programming envisioned_'
The Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984 was a serious departure from pre-
vious FCC policy in that it permitted fran-
chise fees collected by cities to be used for
any purpose. Thus, under the Act, cities
are not required to use the fees for cable -
related expenses, such as. covering their
costs of regulation or to support access
programming. Local governments can and
do devote the money to general revenue
purposes.
Despite the Cable Act," there is strong"
case law indicating, that non -cable uses ob
the franchise fee are improper; In 1983,
the U.S. Supreme Court held in .Minne-
apolis Star and Tribune Conrparry v..Nin-
nesoia Commissioner of Revenue that a
tag which singles out the First Amend-
ment speaker is unconstitutional.
In that case, a major newspaper
challenged the state of Minnesota's tax on
ink and newsprint. The state was not at-
tempting to interfere with newspapers'
free speech, but merely to raise general
revenue funds from a profitable business.
Nevertheless, the Court found that a tax
which singles out the press, and thus
threatens First Amendment rights, is per.
mitted only if necessary to achieve an
overriding governmental interest. The
need for additional revenue was held not
to be such an overriding interest; the state
clearly can raise revenues by general taxes
that include but do not single out news-
papers.
In our view, this analysis applies fully to
the franchise fee in the cable television
area. Cable is without a doubt a medium
of expression protected by the First
Amendment, as the Supreme Court has
just made clear in Preferred Communica-
lions v. City of Los Angeles, While the
precise nature and level of that First
Amendment protection is not yet clear, it
is enough, for the present discussion, that
cable -is a First Amendment medium
Further, the franchise _fet# especially as
it can be used under the Cable Act, is cc"
tainly a tag: In fact, there are recent cases
where cities have used the fee exactly as its
other taxes are used. For example, in 1980,
the city of Erie, PA apparently used its
cable fees to pay off a S3,000,000 city
budget deficit. Los Angeles has just passed
an ordinance allowing the city council to
use franchise money for general fund ex-
penditures. There are similar examples
elsewhere.
Clearly,, the use of franchise fee mone7tr
to de&ay the legitimate regulatory costs of
cable is constitutional? These regulatory
costs, which the city must be prepared to
demonstrate in any lawsuit, vary from jur-
isdiction to jurisdiction. In a city with at
mature cable system„ it is likely that these
costs would amount to less'than'one per-
cent of the cable operator's gross annual:
revenues' Given that franchising authors-
:ties, are; permitted to collect a five percent'
franchise fee under the "Cable`A,,,'tha
franchise fee.fs a source of additional rev
enue over and above the cost of regula-
tion; In light of our analysis, the use of,
this "additional" money for other than'
cable -related - purposes provides cables
companies with a legal basis for. largely
escaping_ their franchise fee obligationq
and for claims of repayment of sums illess
gaily collected. Significantly, there' are
pending lawsuits in the lower courts Fais?
4ng thisAssue sThe issue,: in'short,:is not
only, Festering but likely to be_explosige;
This is emphatically not to say that fran-
chise fees should be reduced to a level that
only covers the cost of city regulatory ac-
tivities. There are other cable -related purr -
poses for which these funds could lawfully
be useO Foremost of course, is funding'
support for public, educational: and govs
ernmental access programming; since this
approach not only would not be harmful
from a First amendment perspective but
would actually enhance cable speech.
The use of cable -generated fees to sups
port PEG channels is fully consistent both?
with FCC and legal precedents Most im-
portant, PEG access channels fulfill two
basic purposes of the Cable Act —to
"assure that cable systems are responsive
to the needs and interests of the local com-
munitv," and "that cable communica-
tions provide the widest possible diversity
of information sources and services to the
public." Such -a use of the fees -would also
appear to pass constitutional muster: PEG
access support achieves an overriding gov-
ernmental interest —in this instance,_pr_o=
motion of the First -Amendment itseIfl
As,a policy matter, we argue that the
public',interest would be well served b�9'
dedicating a substantial portion of the
_franchise fee (everything above the cost yf
regulatory expenses) to support PEG aer
Bess aetivitiesl In our paper, we proposse
that part of the fee be used for local access
purposes and part be used to support na-
tional access activities. The proposal is
thus similar to one urged by Chairman
Wirth of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunications. Consumer Protec-
tion and Finance in February 1984.
Under our illustrative proposal, cable
operators would pay a four percent fran-
chise Fee. Cities would allocate a sum of
up to one percent of the funds for regula-
tory purposes and any remaining amount
of the one percent plus an additinal one
percent would go to local access activities.
The remaining two percent would be paid
to a national access programming fund,
70 Community Television Review
Volume 9, No. 2, 1986
which would be used for producing high
quality programming for distribution to
local access systems at minimal or no cost.
As Chairman Wirth stated in the open let-
ter describing his proposal, the goal is to
"assure that both local and national ac-
cess programming is adequately funded so
that the availability of such programming
can be a reality for the public."
The legislative route is now foregone, in
all likelihood. But the cities, under the
leadership of the NLC, can and should act
together to accomplish the same goal.
And in this connection, they might con-
sider cooperative arrangements with local
broadcasters, particularly in the public
broadcasting arena. The art of statecraft
is to foresee a problem and take construc•
tive action before it boils over. The cities
now have such an opportunity.
Henry Geller is directorof the Washington
Center for Public Policy Research. Cath-
erine Boggs is on the staff of the Washing-
ton Center for Public Policy Research.
Henry Geller, Alan Ciampercero and
Donna Lampert are the authors of "The
Cable Franchise Fee and the First Antend-
rnera. " It will appear in the Federal Conr•
rnunicadons Bar Association Journal.
The study xvas funded by the Benton
Foundation, but the views expressed are
solely those of the authors.
Congratulations
"— to NFLCP
,-fffw,A;
Thanks for
TIN VALLEY TELEVISION Your help
WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
HaPPy Anniversary, NFLCP...
Keep On Paddling!
Citv of Dubuque, Iowa
Tourist Information: Contact Dubuque Convention R
Visitors Bureau. 170 To«-n Clock, Dubuque, IA 52001
Tel. 1-800-255-2255 Est. 9200
COE-NGRUTULATIO
NxF La C P.
Loca i..,, Prog ra m ran i_n is
y. _ = -v;- _�_ g
the star, on ' Jh6_,hbeizon
Americari CablesWem Corperoticn
55 Tozer Road
3/ Beverly, MA 01915 '
DISPOSITION OF ORDINANCE NO. 27 -198 P
RESOLUTION NO. -198
by Common Council
Drdinance Noa27-Y(
Resolution No. _
Elstro
William
Brockban
Hankinson
McBrideParker
Hutton
Paust
Morris
Date
Susp. rules Ist read
Title only
`s f�FC�il
�--
Seconded u
------
------
--
----------
- -
- -
- - -
-
Proof of Publicaton
�iwrrrac, -----
------
------
--`-/---
----------
------
---•--
Seconded
------
-------
---------
Move to 2nd read
Seconded
--
------
--------
-----
- -
----------------------------
Engrossment
�xAnwr� ..............
--------
Seconded 4,4-&
Susp rules 3rd read
---------------
Seconded
Passage
✓
_
-- -
O R-
-------
--------
------------
-------
------
--------
------
-----------
Rejection a
Date Passed JS- ;2 - 919
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS:
Committee Date
Commites Hearing Date
Reassigned to Council Agenda
PUBLICATION DATES: Sl Z.2—�8
AMENDMENTS:
COMMENTS:
Form Prescribed by State Board of Accounts - General Form No. 99 P (Rev. 1987)
City
.t...clerk-city
i er -city of Riclm{)rid
To ................... PalladiumPublishingCorpgrgtion,,.,, .,, Dr.
(Governmental Unit)
1175 North A Street
..................._................ Wayne.._....... County, Indiana Richmond Indiana 47374
:..........................................
PUBLISHER'S CLAIM
LINE COUNT
Display Matter (Must not exceed two actual lines, neither of which shall total more
than four solid lines of the type in which the body of the advertisement is set)
number of equivalent lines
Head — number of lines
Body — number of lines
Tail — number of lines
Total number of Iines in notice
COMPUTATION OF CHARGES e
40
...... I ...........
...... columns wide equals ................... equivalent
lines at ...................... cents per line
Additional charge for notices containing rule or tabular work
(50 per cent of above amount)
Charge for extra proofs of publication
($1.00 for each proof in excess of two)
TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM
DATA FOR COMPUTING COST
Width of single column 8 ems Size of type 6 point
Number of insertions .. .... Size of quad upon which type is cast .....
8 . C, n,
$ ........................
.7............
$ ........................
3
Pursuant to the procisions and penalties of Ch. 155, Acts 1953,
I hereby certify that the foregoing account is just and correct, that the amount is Iegally due, aft Ilowing all just credits )at no part
of the same has been paid,
..................................�a....
Date: ....... ............ ........................ e , 19 ...... Title....................................................................
PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT
State of Indiana )
...... Wayne ...... County) ss
Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for said county and state,
alc D. ; rk CaFabier
........................ who, being duly sworn, says that he is ................
a daily newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the
(city) of Richmond, Indiana in state and county aforesaid, and that the
ed hereto is a true copy, which was duly published in said paper
e dates of publication being as follows: .......................... ................
19"
.................................................................................. ......
...................................................................... ...... .
27th Fair. Be
Subscribed and sworn to before me this ................. /.. ay of ........................ 19f.�/j_
.._.................... j..,:,-rj..Yi3.<.,...^.....0 :,:� /........ ........ .... Cv/�''-Y�� r/
�" `'" ; ary Publics
January 24, 1991
My commission exires... ........................................