Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING JUNE 16, 1975 <br />P <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />Mr. Wells advised those present that, in the event they own several <br />lots and do not want taps put in for each lot, they can indicate <br />this to him and the tap charges for any taps not wanted will be <br />removed from the assessment roll and they will be charged for only <br />one tap. Mr.. Wells said anyone who wanted to discuss this with him <br />could do so after the meeting. Mr. Wells was asked about,the charge <br />for hook-up from the tap to the existing system and he said he did <br />not have an exact figure, but the last figure quoted to him was <br />$6.00 a foot. <br />Mr. Farrand then said the comments of those present are a matter of <br />record and he made a motion that the matter be taken under advisement <br />for a period of.two weeks, to give any property owner listed on the. <br />assessment roll a chance to make their position known to the Board <br />of Public Works, in writing, should they so desire. Two weeks from <br />today, June 30, 1975, the Board will make a determination on the <br />project, based on the position of the affected property owners. <br />The motion was seconded and carried. <br />Mr. Farrand was asked what kind of a timetable the project would <br />have if it was approved. He said that within a period pf three months <br />it could be in the ground and completed. . <br />REPORT - VALLEY CABLEVISION PETITION TO INCREASE RATES <br />Mr. Farrand read the following report from the Board of Public <br />Works relative to the petition of Valley Cablevision for a change <br />in rates: <br />"The Board of Public Works has carefully examined and <br />studied the recent Petition of Valley Cablevision for <br />a change in its rate structure and intends to give the <br />matter its further attention and consideration before <br />rendering a final decision.on the petition. Valley <br />Cablevision does provide service in other counties, towns <br />and cities under other franchise agreements and has <br />announced its intention to file similar petitions for a <br />change in rage structure in such other counties and <br />communities. <br />In order to better evaluate the need, if any, for a rate <br />increase under the franchise agreement between Valley <br />Cablevision and the City of South Bend, this Board will <br />withhold a decision on the Petition of Valley Cablevision <br />until it has filed similar petitions in such other <br />counties, towns and cities in which it operates and some <br />indication as to the probable action of such other counties, <br />towns and cities on the petitions to be filed by Valley <br />Cablevision. The Board promises a prompt decision as <br />soon as this has been accomplished." <br />Mr. Louis Chapleau, Attorney for Valley Cablevision, was present. <br />He said this recommendation places Valley Cablevision in an <br />untenable position. The petition was filed with the City of South Bend <br />because they serve the most customers in South Bend. Mr. Chapleau. <br />said it was their thought that the other franchise holders would <br />respond to the action that would be taken by this Board and they <br />would be guided by what this Board would do. Mr. Chapleau said it <br />would be very difficult for Valley Cablevision to go to nine different <br />places and file their petitions and then come back and tell the <br />Board what the attitude of nine different groups was. He said <br />Valley has presented a petition to the Board and has given the Board <br />information to enable them to act. Mr. Chapleay said he felt the <br />Board should make a decision because he felt sure the other communities <br />were going to look to this Board. They would feel that this Board <br />is better qualified to act on these matters. <br />