Loading...
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... ........................................