HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-20 Public Hearings and Regular Meeting• MINUTES
OF THE
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND REGULAR MEETING
OF THE LA PORTE CITY COUNCIL
JULY 20, 1983
1. The meeting was called to order by Mayor Cline at 7:00 P.M.
Members of the City Council Present: Mayor Virginia Cline,
Counci persons Ed Matusza , Kevin Graves, Lindsay Pfeiffer,
B. Don Skelton, Linda Westergren, Norman Malone, John
Longley
Members of the City Council Absent: Councilperson Deotis
Gay
Members of the City Staff Present: City Manager Jack Owen,
City Attorney Knox As ins, Assistant City Secretary Cherie
Black, Director of Administrative Services Bob Herrera,
• Fire Chief Joe Sease
Others Present: Walter Barnes and Mrs. Barnes; Shirley
Davis; Dr. Larry Maher; Decker McKim; Jim Sullivan et. al;
Dave Dalpini, Amoco; Frieda Beaty, Baytown Sun; Ken Koehn,
Bayshore Sun -Broadcaster; 7 interested citizens
2. The invocation was given by Councilperson Malone.
3. The minutes of the Regular Meeting of the La Porte City
Council held July 6 were considered for approval.
Motion was made by Councilperson Lonalev to anurove and
adopt the minutes as presented. Second by Councilperson
Malone. The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
4. Mrs. Shirley Davis presented to the City, on behalf of
the La Porte Bay Area Heritage Society, three beautiful,
framed water colors depicting the sold Sylvan Hotel,
St. Mary's Seminary and St. Mary's Catholic Church.
5. Walter Barnes was recognized as Employee of the month for
. May. Mayor Cline presented him with a certificate of ap-
preciation for a job well done.
•
•
Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
• La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 2
6. Mayor Cline called the public hearing on federal revenue
sharing to order.
City Manager Owen explained that the City has a balance
left in federal revenue sharing funds of $177,083.31.
Anticipated funds for the coming fiscal year amount to
approximately $213,491, although the funds have not yet
been allocated by Congress. Owen reported that TML fore-
sees no problems in the funds being allocated.
Mayor Cline asked for public input as to how they would
like these funds used. The following persons spoke:
a. John Paul Zemanek, 3102 Valley Brook - Speaking as a
citizen and also for the Chamber of Commerce, would
like to have another $10,000 added to the Christmas
lighting fund. Would also like to request $15,000
be set aside for the Clean Up -Green Up project.
b. Jennie Riley, 401 N. 6th - Would like $8,000 be used
• to finance the transportation program for the coming
year.
C. Sue Farmer, 115 Edgewood - Speaking on behalf of the
Seamen's Center, requested $15,000 operating expenses
for the Center.
d. (Garbled name) - Does yard work and has cut grass at
the Community Center for no compensation and would
like to do work for the City if they need his services.
e. Lois Compton, 307 S. First - Would like to see money
used to put a City park on the property adjacent to
City Hall.
f. Councilperson Skelton - $12,000 for concrete walk
along G Street from San Jacinto to Broadway.
g. Councilperson Longley - $100,000 to improve La Porte
Municipal Airport.
h. Councilperson Malone - A swimming pool in the Lomax area.
i. Councilperson Matuszak - $25,000 for Clean Up -Green Up
project.
• j. Councilperson Westergren - Bicycle path/walkway along
Broadway (old 146) past the housing project on Old 146.
Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
• La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 3
k. Councilperson Malone - A walkway from the high school
parking lot to Sylvan Beach
1. Councilperson Matuszak Some kind of walkway between
Valley Brook and Myrtle Creek
Mayor Cline declared the public hearing closed.
7. Mayor Cline called the public hearing to consider issuance
of Industrial Development Corporation revenue Bonds for
the Larry W. Maher, Jr., D.D.S., Inc., project to order.
Dr. Maher spoke on behalf of his project, and described it
to Council.
There being no further input, Mayor Cline declared the
public hearing closed.
8. City Attorney Askins read: A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE
BY THE CITY OF LA PORTE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF AN ISSUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $380,000 OF THE CITY OF LA
• PORTE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP-
MENT REVENUE BONDS (LAWRENCE W. MAHER, JR., D.D.S., INC.
PROJECT) SERIES 1983; APPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF THE
ISSUER AUTHORIZING THE BONDS, THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS
AUTHORIZED THEREBY AND THE PLAN OF FINANCING APPROVED
THEREBY AND THE BOND DOCUMENTS; AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
TO BE FINANCED WITH THE BONDS.
Motion was made by Councilperson Skelton to aDDrove and
adopt Resolution No. 83-11 as read v the Citv Attornev.
Second by Councilperson Pfeiffer. The motion carrie
8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
9. Council considered the request of Decker McKim to close
the alleys in Blocks 1098 and 1134, Town of La Porte.
City Attorney Askins read: AN ORDINANCE VACATING, ABANDON-
ING AND CLOSING ALL OF THE ALLEY IN BLOCK ONE THOUSAND
NINETY-EIGHT (1098), IN THE TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS
COUNTY, TEXAS and
AN ORDINANCE VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING ALL OF THE
•` ALLEY IN BLOCK ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR (1134),
TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
•
11
• Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 4
Motion was made by Councilperson Westergren to appro,
and adopt Ordinance Numbers 1369 and 1370 as read
the City Attorney. Second by Counci person Graves.
The motion carried, 8 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
10. Council considered the request of Air Products, Inc., to
waive a 35-day waiting period on a rate change by Amoco
Gas Company.
Mr. Dave Dalpini of Amoco Gas Company was present to ans-
wer questions by Council.
Motion was made by Councilperson Skelton to grant the
request of Air Products, Inc and waive the 35-day waiting
period or a rate change and permit the new rate to go into
• etfect on August 1, 1983. Second y Counci person Matusza�.
The motion carried, ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
11. Council considered awarding a bid for construction at
fire station #1 and appropriating $23,000 from the General
Fund Contingency Fund.
Motion was made by Councilperson Westergren to award the
bid to the low idder (Chatham Construction in the amount
o , 7) and appropriate 3, rom the General Fund
Contingency Fund to cover the amount not budgeted. Secon
y Counci person Matuszak. The motion carried, ayes and
0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
12. Council considered Change Order #5 - Street Paving and
Drainage Improvements.
Motion was made by Councilperson Westergren to approve
• Change Or er #5 - Street Paving and Drainage Improvements.
Second by Councilperson Skelton. The motion carried
ayes and 0 nays.
•
•
•
Minutes, Public Hearings
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 5
and Regular Meeting
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
13. Council considered awarding a bid for a paint booth.
Motion was made by Councilperson Pfeiffer to award the
bi -to H & T Erectors of Baytown in the amount o
$39,217 for the -paint booth. Second y Councilperson
Malone. The motion carried, 8 ayes and A nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
Councilperson Gay was seated at the Council table at
7:40 P.M.
14. Motion was made by Councilperson Skelton to delav item 14
and item 15 until last and to hold an executive session
• on t ese items. Second y Councilperson Pfeiffer. The
motion carrie , 8 ayes and 1 nay.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Pfeiffer, Gay, Skelton,
Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: Councilperson Graves
15. Moved to executive session.
16. Council considered a resolution to encourage approval of
a Revenue Bond Referendum to allow Harris County Commis-
sioners Court to implement a program of toll roads.
City Attorney Askins read: -A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING HARRIS
COUNTY TAXPAYER APPROVAL OF A $900 MILLION REVENUE BOND
GUARANTEE REFERENDUM THAT WILL ALLOW THE HARRIS COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS COURT THE MEANS FOR IMPLEMENTING A PROGRAM
OF TOLL ROADS THAT WILL PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICE
TO THE CITIZENS OF HARRIS COUNTY.
Motion was made by Councilperson Gay to .approve and adopt
Resolution No. 83-12 as read by the Eit Attorne . Second
by.Councilperson Longley- The motion carried, ayes and
0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
n
U
• Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 6
17. Council considered a resolution requesting the Texas Turn-
pike Authority to build a bridge over the Houston Ship
Channel on Highway 146.
City Attorney Askins read: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, REQUESTING THE TEXAS TURNPIKE
AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY ON A PROPOSED
TOLL BRIDGE ON STATE HIGHWAY 146, OVER THE HOUSTON SHIP
CHANNEL, LINKING LA PORTE AND BAYTOWN.
nays.
ayes
e and
Second
and 0
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
• 18. Council considered making a contribution to Texas Municipal
Leagues Cable TV Defense Fund. This fund will be used to
lobby against a Federal Legislative bill that would remove
control of local cable TV companies from City Councils.
Motion was made by Councilperson Graves to contribute
175 as the City s.s are to the TML Cable TV Defense Fund.
Second by Counci person Westergren. The motion carried,
9 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
19. Council considered participation in the Texas Municipal
League Southwestern Bell Trust Fund. This is to help
TML protest the proposed rate increase by Southwestern Bell.
Motion was made-by'Councilperson Malone to contribute
�695.40 as the City's share for the TML Southwestern Bell
Trust Fund. Second by Councilperson Skelton. The motion
carried, 7 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
•
• Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 7
20. Council considered a resolution to allow James Benefits
to add a third signature to sign checks for City of La
Porte medical benefits. This is a corporate resolution
for the bank rather than for the City.
Motion was made
tion 3- 4 to a
carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays.
e Resnlu-
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
21. City Attorney Askins presented a report on Brookglen,
Section III. Kay Homes has requested a reduction in lot
size from 60 feet to 40 feet, which would necessitate
a revision to the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision
Ordinance. This in turn would open up the field for other
developers to reduce lot sizes. An alternative would be
for Kay Homes to develop -a Planned Unit Development (PUD)
on their property.
Kay Homes president Jim Sullivan was present and intro-
duced Tom Northrup, who is a land planner and traffic con-
sultant. Mr. Northrup spoke about-PUDs in general and ex-
plained what a Planned Unit Development is and the standards
for same.
After comments from the City Attorney, comments from Mr.
Sullivan, and questions and comments from Council, it was
recommended that Council refer the matter back to Planning
and Zoning for a recommendation. Council will have final
jurisdiction in the matter.
22. Administrative Reports
City Manager Owen reported that workshop on July 27 will
start at 6:00 P.M. and will be a lengthy one.
The "almost final" report on the solid waste study will
be ready at the workshop meeting.
Good time is being made in pulling up the computer. We
are running a little ahead of schedule.
•
•
• Minutes, Public Hearings
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 8
23. Council Action
and Regular Meeting
Matuszak: Thanked those who came out for the revenue
sharing. Is glad Mr. Zemanek has the same feeling he
does that upgrading and beautification of the town is
catching on. They are working with the staff to select
a landscape architect.
One more thing regarding the housing if Pasadena allows
them, let's give them to Pasadena.
Graves: Appreciates the beautiful work Mrs. Davis has
given us. It is something that will stay around City
Hall forever. Thanked the people who came out for revenue
sharing; last year there were only one or two people.
It seems funny for us to be asking for a study for other
people to do; we've been doing so many studies ourselves
and now we're asking the Turnpike Authority to do a study
on the feasibility of putting a bridge on the "bayou" out
• there.
One last thing - all the copies we make, thank goodness
Amoco and Air Products didn't come to us three times like
Mr. McKim did, with 40-something pages. Every time that
something repeats, it is back in the agenda packet, and I
for one would like to say why couldn't we look back at the
week before?
Mr. Owen replied that the agendas would be streamlined a
lot; Mayor Cline concurred.
Ga Sorry he was late tonight; sometimes you don't get
t�ie�relief you were expecting. His relief was late. It
is beautiful seeing everyone here tonight - God bless you.
Skelton: Appreciative of the group who came out tonight
an t e pictures Mrs. Davis gave us. Sure we will enjoy
them for years to come. Also appreciative of the ones,
including Mr. Matuszak, for the greenbelt. It is something
we have been working on for years here, and he is seeing
the results of that.
Malone: The ditches out in Lomax are real full. He re-
turned calls from citizens and they are having problems
• where there haven't been problems before with flooding.
Would like for Mr. Owen to check into this and see why
they are not getting drainage out in Lomax like they had
6 or 8 months ago.
•
C�
• Minutes, Public Hearings
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 9
and Regular Meeting
One other thing he'd like to mention: he did not appreciate
a citizen in the audience clapping when Deotis was making
his comments, and it's a land seller to begin with. I
kind of think they are feathering their own nest, and us
doing what we're doing with these small houses. The more
slabs we put on a piece of property, the less saturation
space you will have. I don't agree with the small houses;
I don't agree with the small lots. The people of Lomax
have fought this for a number of years, and when we came
into La Porte we went from a house of 1250 sq. ft. to 1050,
which the citizens were not happy with there. I think if
we pass or approve the request that has been made tonight,
it will infiltrate over into La Porte, and I don't think
we should take Pasadena's problems. If they want it in
Pasadena, let them keep it.
And speaking of Pasadena, I want to mention South Houston,
too. I'm real proud and priviledged to serve on this
Council because we're getting along real good. It seems
• like every time I read the Pasadena paper there is some-
thing in it about Pasadena and South Houston fussing and
fighting, and I want you to know what a privilege it is
working with us, because we settle our grievances and do
not go before the City and it's not published before the
entire country.
Long�ley� He feels toil roads are a very good way to
i�nance projects, although he used to view them in the
same light as a State income tax.
24. Executive Session
Council retired into executive session at 8:45 P.M.
Council returned to the Council table at 9:07 P.M.
Council considered items 14 and 15. Motion was made b
Councilperson Skelton to Dostuone these items for further
study. Second by Councilperson Pfeiffer. The motion
carried, 9 ayes and 0 nays.
Ayes: Councilpersons Matuszak, Graves, Pfeiffer, Gay,
Skelton, Westergren, Malone, Longley and Mayor Cline
Nays: None
Mr. Skelton asked if anyone would like to attend a seminar/
• workshop on _July 29 from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. at the HGAC
offices at 3701 West Alabama in Houston. Please let Cherie
know so she can make reservations. The price is $15.00 per
person.
• Minutes, Public Hearings and Regular Meeting
La Porte City Council
July 20, 1983, Page 10
25. There being no further business to be brought before the
Council, the meeting was duly adjourned at 9:09 P.M.
Passed & Approved this the
3rd day of August, 1983
Vi7gizinia Cline, Mayor
•
Respectfully submitted:
&Gt�
Cherie Black
Assistant City Secretary
• EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH FOR MAY - WALTER BARNES
Walter Barnes is Chief Operator at the Wastewater Treat-
ment Plant. He oversees plant operation, and has accepted the
added responsiblity of supervision of the lift station opera-
tion.
He has assumed responsibility of handling minor electrical
problems and has trained the lift station personnel to handle
minor problems safely. This action is estimated to have saved
the City at least $3,500.00 during the past year.
Walter has improved on the appearance of the lift stations
by having debris removed, fences repaired, weeds cut, scrub
trees removed and the equipment painted. Through training he
has given his personnel, the pumps are kept in an operable con-
dition by being rebuilt rather than having them replaced. Four
pumps have been completely rebuilt at a savings of $800.00 on
each pump. Work has been done on 25 other pumps at an unknown
savings.
Walter takes it upon himself to check the treatment plant
at night and on weekends to make sure everything is running
• smoothly, and has also passed by and checked on certain industrial
waste disposers at night on his own time. He does this without
being requested to do so, just to satisfy his personal need to
see that his area of responsibility is completely covered.
Walter devised a method to use existing "seed" sludge to
start up the new treatment facility, rather than transport new
"seed". This resulted in a savings of approximately $1,800.00.
Walter is producing solids from the belt press at 39 percent,
even though"it is claimed to be impossible to produce at that
rate. The national average is 18 to 20 percent. This repre-
sents a considerable savings in chemical and trucking costs.
Walter has shown extreme patience, firmness and fairness
with all his workers, developing each one in skills required to
operate the treatment facility. He responds with promptness
and thoroughness to all requests from the Superintendent,
Engineers and other Supervisors, and is often seen assisting
other departments with their mechanical or electrical problems.
0 •
•
MINUTES AND CERTIFICATION
- THE STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF HARRIS
On the .14 -Zk day of , 1983, the City Council
of the City of La Porte, T as, convened in Regular Meeting
at the regular meeting pl ce thereof in the City Hall, the
meeting being open to the public and notice of such meeting,
giving the date, place and subject thereof, having been
posted or prescribed by Article 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S., and the
roll of the duly constituted otticers and member of the City
Council was called, which officers and members are as
follows, to -wit:
Virginia Cline, Mayor
•
Linda Westergren )
Deotis Gay )
Lindsay Pfeitter )
Norman L. Malone )
Kevin Graves )
B. Don Skelton, Sr. )
John D. Carr Longley)
Edward Matuzak )
Councilmembers
Cherie Black, Assistant City Secretary
and all of such persowere present, except the following
absentees: , thus constituting a
quorum. Whereupon, amori§ other business, the following was
transacted, to -wit: a written Resolution bearing the
following caption was introduced:
A Resolution approving issuance by the City of La
Porte Industrial Development Corporation of an
issue in the amount of $380,000 of the City of La
Porte Industrial Development Corporation Indus-
trial Development Revenue Bonds (Lawrence W.
Maher, Jr., D.D.S., Inc. Project) Series 1983;
approving the Resolution of the Issuer authorizing
the Bonds, the issuance of the Bonds and the Bond
Documents; and approving the Project to be finan-
ced with the Bonds
The Resolution, a full, true and correct copy of which
is attached hereto was read and reviewed by the City Council.
0
•
40
•
Thereupon, the Presiding Officer declared open the
meeting for the purpose of conducting a public hearing
relative to consideration of approval by the City Council of
the commercial project to be financed with proceeds of the
bonds specified in the Resolution. All persons desiring to
speak for or against the project were invited to address the
City Council. After all persons present desiring to speak
had addressed the City Council, upon motion duly made and
seconded, the public hearing was declared closed by the
following vote:
AYES: 9
NOES: D
Upon motion duly made and seconded, the Resolution was
finally passed and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:— 9 -
NOES: D
The Presiding Otticer then declared the Resolution
passed and signed and approved the same in the presence of
the City Council.
MINUTES APPROVED AND CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT
and to reflect accurately the duly constituted officers and
members of the City Council of such City, and the attached
and following copy of such Resolution is hereby certified to
be a true and correct copy of an official copy thereof on
file among the official records of the City, all on this
1983.
• .
Ma r, city of La Porte, Texas
ATTEST:
Q.4,4Z. City Secretary, City of La
Porte, Texas
[Seal]
74BCSE
-2-
M
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83-11
_ A RESOLUTION APPROVING ISSUANCE BY THE CITY OF LA
PORTE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF AN
ISSUE IN THE AMOUNT OF $380,000 OF THE CITY OF LA
PORTE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION INDUS-
TRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (LAWRENCE W.
MAHER, JR., D.D.S., INC. PROJECT) SERIES 1983;
APPROVING THE RESOLUTION OF THE ISSUER AUTHORIZING
THE BONDS, THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AUTHORIZED
THEREBY AND THE PLAN OF FINANCING APPROVED THEREBY
AND THE BOND DOCUMENTS; AND APPROVING THE PROJECT
TO BE FINANCED WITH THE BONDS
WHEREAS, the City of La Porte (the "Unit") has approved
and authorized the creation of the City of La Porte Indus-
trial Development Corporation (the "Issuer") as a Texas
non-profit corporation, pursuant to the Development Cor-
poration Act of 1979, as amended, Article 5190.6, Vernon's
Annotated Civil Statutes (the "Act"), to act on behalf of
the Unit to promote and develop manutacturing and commercial
enterprises to promote and encourage employment and the
• public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer is authorized by the Act to issue
its revenue bonds on behalf of the Unit for the purpose of
paying all or part of the costs of a "project", as detined
in the Act, and to loan the proceeds thereof to finance all
of part of the costs thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer, by resolution (the "Bond Resolu-
tion") adopted July 14, 1983, has authorized the issuance
and sale of its $380,000 Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds (Lawrence W. Maher, Jr., D.D.S., Inc. Project) Series
1983 (the "Bonds") and by the Bond Resolution has also
authorized a Loan Agreement, among the Issuer, Lawrence W.
Maher, Jr., D.D.S., Inc. and Bayshore National Bank, wherein
the Issuer agrees to issue and sell the Bonds to provide
funds to finance a certain commercial project of the Owner
(the "Project") located within the Unit and certain other
agreements of the Issuer in connection therewith (collec-
tively, the Loan Agreement and such other agreements shall
be referred to as the "Bond Documents"); and
WHEREAS, the Act requires that the governing body of
the Unit approve, by written resolution, any agreement to
issue bonds approved by the Issuer; and
•
WHEREAS, the Texas Industrial Commission's Rules for
Issuing Industrial Revenue Bonds (the "Commission Rules")
require, with respect to commercial projects in "eligible
blighted areas," the city that established the eligible
blighted area to approve projects located therein after
posting notice and holding a public hearing thereon; and
WHEREAS, the Project is located within an eligible
blighted area established by the Unit; and
WHEREAS, this City Council, after posting notice in
accordance with law and before the adoption of this resolu-
tion, conducted a public hearing relative to its approval of
the Project pursuant to and in accordance with the Com-
mission Rules; and
WHEREAS, this City Council intends, by adoption of this
Resolution, to approve the Project; and
WHEREAS, Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1954, as amended (the "Code"), requires the Unit's approval
of the issuance of the Bonds and authorizes its approval of
a plan of financing additional facilities related to the
• Project after a public hearing following reasonable public
notice; and
•
WHEREAS, the Issuer conducted such a public hearing on
July 14, 1983, following publication of notice thereof; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has reviewed the Bond
Resolution and the minutes relative thereto and, by adoption
of this Resolution, intends to approve the Bond Resolution,
the issuance of the Bonds, the plan of financing approved by
the Bond Resolution and the Bond Documents and to make the
findings required by the Act to approve the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS:
Section 1. The Unit, acting through this City Council,
hereby approves:
(a) the Project;
(b) the Bond Resolution and the plan of financing
approved thereby;
-2-
•
11
(c) the issuance of the Bonds in the amount and. for
the purposes referred to in the preambles hereof and as
described in the Bond Documents; and
(d) the Bond Documents, copies of which are on file
among the records of this meeting.
Section 2. The Unit, acting through this City Council,
hereby finds, determines and declares, but solely for its
own purposes in performing its duties under the Act and the
Commission Rules that:
(a) the Project is located in an eligible blighted
area designated by the Unit and will contribute signifi-
cantly to the fulfillment of the redevelopment objectives of
the Unit for such eligible blighted area;
(b) the Project conforms to the resolution adopted by
the City Council of the Unit, pursuant to the Act and the
Commission Rules, designating the eligible blighted area in
which the Project is located; and
(c) the Project is in furtherance of the public
purposes of the Act.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect imme-
diately from and after its adoption.
PASSED AND APPROVED this
ATTEST:
12a.,2111 City Secretary, City of La Porte,
Texas
[Seal]
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
: BY
City -Attorney, City of La Porte,
Texas
• 74BCSF
, 1983.
y (b'f La Porte, Texas
-3-
141D4"A "XA \Ipit Iyl
June 30, 1983
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Cherie Black, Assistant City Secretary
SUBJECT: Request for Alley Closing, Blocks 1098 and 1134,
Town of La Porte
Mr. Decker McKim called me this date in regards to the
above referenced subject. His original petition was to close
referenced alleys, plus close "K" Street between the Highway
146 feeder street (southbound) and 12th Street. He informed
me today that he no longer wishes the street to be closed, but
he does wish to close the alleys in Blocks 1098 and 1134.
CB/
•
Cherie Black
Li
L:j
GAHERy OF HOMES
DECKER McKIM, INC., REALTORS-}6992-E' Q&? imo-RearSvRe-iF+leostort T 7.7g5g•t7}gi-,4gg 6g}q
P.O. Box 1711, La Porte, Texas 77571 471-3633
April 121, 1983
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Gentlemen:
I am the owner of Blocks 1098 and 1134, Town of La Porte, Harris
County, Texas.
I would like to request that the City of La Porte close the
alleys inside each of these blocks and also close "K" Street
between the Highway 146 Feeder Street (southbound) and 12th
Street.
Enclosed please find my check for $100.00 as application fee for
closing of the above mentioned street and alleys.
I hereby waive any personal claim for damages against the City
and further agree to save and hold harmless the City from any
other claims that may arise against the City in closing this
street and these alleys.
It is my intention to construct an office building on this
site.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
DECKE McKIb1, INC., REALTORS
ecker McKi.
DM/jf
1
•
N
C
" GO
r
a
Oil
s:
_ Cal
C
0`
in ce
+
U
C
w
mc
Oa
t-- u
Gc
11
r
ti
Q.
0'
rL
ED
O
0
N
z0P4
a
LLI
o
a�
la
00
.�
> W
owrn
ru
O
O
0
1 O
=_
O
�r
9 0
r.
O
o�
W+.)
iM
N
W
c
O
ef.W� •
T
.,4t..}�
/►��1
}✓
Q
I
'1J,)
.I
CITY OF LA PORTE
MISQELLANEOUS RECEIPT
I .
NO.: DATE
f RECEIVED FROM:
THE SUM 0F:�/�2�`���
DOLLARS $ / _C/ C� ery
FOR
r
BY: a, G
�I 82045
M Su�3H� 3vtlll�
MVOMI► OI�IOf �Y►SLY l• �O�T! T• T!!!� flea! T
n
U
•
The Light
company Houston Lighting & Power P. O. Box 597 Seabrook, Texas 77586 (713) 474-4151
May 9, 1983
Ms. Cherie Black, Asst. City Secretary
City of La Porte
Post Office Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Dear Ms. Black:
You have requested our comments concerning a
request to close and abandon specific parts of West "K"
Street and alleyways in Block 1098 and 1134 in the City of
La Porte as shown on the Exhibit attached.
Houston Lighting & Power Company has investigated
this request and determined we have no facilities located
within the area to be abandoned. Therefore, our Company
. interposes no objection to the request as filed.
If we may be of any further assistance, please
advise.
ours very t ly,
i
�r
v James L. Wyatt t/
District Manager
JLW/jm
Attachment
0
ENIEKP. 0. BOX 937, LA PORTE, TEXAS 775
1
�
3ett..y 2. te2J
21ty of 2a =t=, 2exas, 7731
22: Zec te, a aldon, d clone ea«e=e=ts in
o ±w 10; exid II/ lzo gorti n oL %2
Street - car ..2 y d a=& 12- treet.
_,ear s. ate z,
tez, c. e 3 i 3 : we any natural Ga3 = =a La
said 3c=ia d easeaeltz, a Ear b rcleaze and au a�_'o _
our ri Eta e above J6:c i 3 e ersatz, 071 i
_L,.ilar ra eaaea are o J ZErom the ot"h er atility
upanie3 havin6 the =i &E to «e -,aid eaG ent.
2n e doe : nave an azizt 3 2' Gas marl n3 J
de-,c-ribed portion o£ 2_ -At et - =ri1 e ± and yezt
:al&% >e yes 2le :1- 02 -'-a29: e £ the 3 3 area.
c 4o - t 2eleee thiJ 7g2& G of "y' Ar et, a-
%Si3 existing &ca i is vital to 002 o)e ions,
110!7-
eVer, to Saint= 1y; cxi,-_,tence ogtioa, can Ee toyed,
out.
J c £el,
all,
Local :%_. &=tex
£z Z=te 2ex
y: /c
oe: Ji %c lea
LJ
•
0
240.09 - Abandon and Close All Alleys in Blocks 1098 and 1134.
Town of LaPorte
J. M. Lee
Mgr.—Distr. Serv. Eng. (Design)
East District
Ms. Cherie Black
City of LaPorte
Assistant City Secretary
P. O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Dear Ms. Black:
Southwestern Bell
207 S. Munger
Room 101
Pasadena, Texas 77506
Phone (713)473-0031
April 29, 1983
In reference to your letter of April 26, 1983, please be
advised that Southwestern Bell Telephone Company has no facilities
in the alleys of blocks 1098 and 1134, town of LaPorte, Harris County,
Texas and has no objections to the abandonment and closing of the
above mentioned alleys. Also no objections to closing "K" Street
between the Highway 146 feeder street (southbound) and 12th Street.
Any future requests for telephone service within this area
will require easements or structures provided at the owners expense
and at no cost to the telephone company, to conform to any future
development.
Any further questions regarding this matter may be directed
to Jim Neas on 473-0595.
JL/eg
Sincerely,
Mgr.-Eng. (Design)
East
•
D;,TE: May 4, 1983
LOCATION: Blks 1134 and 1098
and "K" between SH 146 & 12th
KEY MAP REF: I-9
LA PORTE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Checklist for Street & Alley/Easement Closing Requests:
(1) Public Utilities
(a) The City shall check for existing utilities
in the R.O.W.s, Alleys, or Easements.
(b) Other public utilities will be checked by
the individual franchises; i.e. Entex,
Bell Telephone, H.L.&P., Cable T.V.
(2) Does the street closing request "landlock" or
seriously diminish access of adjacent land?
(3) Review the closing request in regards to future
needs (whether immediate or long-term) for:
(a) Utilities (water or sewer)
0 (b) Street/Thoroughfares
(c) Drainageways
(d) Buffer between proposed or existing
businesses and adjacent areas
(e) Other See recommendations Item 6
36" Sanitary Sewer in "K" ROW
& gas distribution main also
N/A See Recommendation
Necessary to retain "K" ROW
for existing & future utility
installations
None proposed
N/A Similar land use
expected
•
(4) Furnish small plat (81" x 14" max.) of the proposed
closings, the status of adjacent streets (open or
closed), property owners adjacent to (or nearby
and possibly affected) the proposed closing. Attached
is
(5) Receipt of comments from Public Works.
r�
U
(6) Comments/Recommendation(s): The "V ROW must be kept open for existing as well as
future utilities as "V will be a major utility corridor. It is also recommended
that the request to close the alleys be held until other negotiations regarding
this development are complete.
(7) Forward to City Secretary after approval at
Department level.
-eQ
_ _. ... .... - . - .... -..:., +m=+.a�..�m.sw�vo.,..+, ...:x•�Peaa�amavv�wx�nzx. of .-^F•;" ....- .. <'c; r:,.... e _
0
Speed Letter®
Public Works Tu John Joerns - Engineering Dept.:`-
-om
Subject Street A Alley/Easement Closing Requests
-No. 9 6 10 FOLD
MESSAGE
Please review the attached Street Alley/Easement Closing Requests and return
with your convents by,Fridays May I3th.
Thank you.
f
Date 5-6-83 Signed d '��,�-.�-
REPLY
-.A'o ok& e bcw c4"- 41te.,
B 1 k I $ � 13 - e' tf'q-^
Wilson Jones Company
GNAYLIP11 FOAM MAw 0-FMT
p "a.
PAWTED IN U-SA
0
At< ?33�73Y
,41�v C /0 J s-
�S
`..3 Date -� - F � ned
RECIPIENT —RETAIN 41TE COPY, RETURN PINK COPY.
TURN -OVER FOR USE WITH WINDOW ENVELOPE.
•
KI
0
•
West Fairmont Parkway
12S•
N
1
2
3
4
e
7
r
6 BI
9
10
1
12
13
14
13
N
16
West K Street.
32
31
30
29
26
27
26
23
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
vre5L i, Ozreet
r-J
LJ
ORDINANCE NO. 1369
AN ORDINANCE VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING ALL OF THE ALLEY
IN BLOCK ONE THOUSAND NINETY-EIGHT (1098), IN THE TOWN OF
LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
WHEREAS, the said alley in Block One Thousand Ninety-eight
(1098) of the Town of La Porte has never been opened or used as
a public thoroughfare, and the public utilities now making use
of such alley have all given their written consent for its
closing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has
determined and does hereby find, determine and declare that
• the said alley is not suitable, needed, or beneficial to the
public as a public alley, and should be vacated, abandoned and
permanently closed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The alley located in Block One Thousand Ninety-
eight (1098) of the TOWN OF LA PORTE, Harris County, Texas, is
hereby permanently vacated, abandoned and closed by the City
of La Porte.
Section 2. The City Council officially finds, deter-
mines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice
of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the
City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public
•
at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law
preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law,
Article 6252-17, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated;, and
that this meeting has been open to the public as required by
law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally
acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and
confirms such written notice and the contents and posting
thereof.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 6th day of July, 1983.
CITY OF LA PORTE
BY
• Virginia Cline, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED:
City Engineer
• City Attorney
t
6
ORDINANCE NO. 1370
AN ORDINANCE VACATING, ABANDONING AND CLOSING ALL OF THE ALLEY
IN BLOCK ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR (1134), IN THE
TOWN OF LA PORTE, HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS.
WHEREAS, the said alley in Block One Thousand One Hundred
Thirty-four (1134) of the Town of La Porte has never been
opened or used as a public thoroughfare, and the public utilities
now making use of such alley have all given their written
consent for its closing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Porte has
determined and does hereby find, determine and declare that
the said alley is not suitable, needed, or beneficial to the
public as a public alley, and should be vacated, abandoned and
permanently closed;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The alley located in Block One Thousand One
Hundred Thirty-four (1134) of the TOWN OF LA PORTE, Harris
County, Texas, is hereby permanently vacated, abandoned and
closed by the City of La Porte.
Section 2. The City Council officially finds, deter-
mines, recites and declares that a sufficient written notice
of the date, hour, place and subject of this meeting of the
City Council was posted at a place convenient to the public
at the City Hall of the City for the time required by law
preceding this meeting, as required by the Open Meetings Law,
Article 6252-17, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated; and
that this meeting has been open to the public as required by
law at all times during which this ordinance and the subject
matter thereof has been discussed, considered and formally
acted upon. The City Council further ratifies, approves and
confirms such written notice and the contents and posting .
thereof.
0
Ordinance No. 1370 Page 2.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
force from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the 6th day of July, 1983.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By
Virginia Cline, Mayor
ATTEST:
City Secretary
APPROVED:
City Engineer
eel
�,City At orney
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Box 538, Allentown, PA 18105
(215) 481-491 1
13 July 1983
Mr. Jack Owen
City Manager
City of LaPorte
P.O. Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Re: Statement of Intent to Change Rates Filed
by Amoco Gas Company on July 13, 1983
Sir:
On July 13, 1983, Amoco Gas Company filed with the City of
LaPorte a Statement of Intent to Change Rates charged to Air
Products and Chemicals, Inc. under an existing contract for sale
of natural gas. It is my understanding that, by statute, the new
rate will automatically go into effect after a 35-day period of
suspension, i.e., August 17, 1983.
• In order to facilitate the change of suppliers at our
chemical facility and simplify the arrangements required to
secure sufficient natural gas to maintain plant operations
during the month of August, it would be preferable to initiate
service under our amended Gas Contract with Amoco starting
August 1, 1983. Therefore, Air Products and Chemicals hereby
requests that City Council act to waive the 35-day waiting period
and permit the new rate to go into effect on August 1, 1983.
In support of this request, I have enclosed a copy of an
Affidavit dated July 6, 1983 that sets forth in detail our
position concerning this issue.
I appreciate your attention in this matter.
Very truly yours,
r
Kenneth E. No y
Manager of Fossil Fuel Supply
and Energy Forecasts
KEN/pe
Enclosure
cc: Mr. E. Hinders
Mr. L. L. Hurst
• Amoco Gas Company
P.O. Box 3092
Houston, Texas 77253
•
0
July 12, 1983
FILE: AG-419
Ms. Cherie Black
Assistant City Secretary
City of LaPorte
Post Office Box 1115
LaPorte, Texas 77571
Dear Ms. Black:
Amoco Gas Company
501 WestLake Park Boulevard
Post Office Box 3092
Houston, Texas 77253
Enclosed is an application by Amoco Gas Company for a change in rate for
sales of natural gas to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. under a contract
currently subject to the jurisdiction of the City of LaPorte, Texas.
Please return the attached statement concerning the receipt of the filing
to me for the Amoco Gas Company's files.
• Very truly yours, C
Edward B. Hinders
Attorney
Enclosure
C1
0
•
11
STATEMENT OF THE ASSISTANT
CITY SECRETARY
The City of LaPorte, Texas has received an application for a
change of rates to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. by Amoco Gas
Company on /9 day of July, 1983.
Assistant City Secretary
City of LaPorte, Texas
4
• CITY OF LA PORTE, TEXAS
DOCKET NO.: DATE FILED:
STATEMENT OF INTENT FILED BY AMOCO GAS COMPANY TO CHANGE RATES CHARGED
AIR PRODUCTS AND CHEMICALS, INC.
STATEMENT OF INTENT
COMES NOW AMOCO GAS COMPANY (Amoco Gas) and pursuant to § 22 and
§ 43 (a) of the Public Utility Regulatory Act, TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN.
art. 1446c (1980) (PURA), files this its State of Intent to change rates
charged to Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products), effective no
later than August 1, 1983, and would respectfully show the City of
La Porte, Texas (City) the following:
1.
Amoco owns and operates an intrastate pipeline located wholly
within the State of Texas and is a gas utility whose certain sales rates
are subject to the original jurisdiction of the City under Section 22 of
PURA.
II.
The original contract between Amoco Gas and Air Products is for
delivery of gas to the Air Products La Porte Plant. Therefore, the
amendment of this contract is subject to the jurisdiction of the City.
The proposed increase in rates and change of delivery points set
forth in the "Gas Purchase Contract Amendment," to be effective August 1,
1983, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A to this filing and made a
part of this Statement of Intent for all purposes. The proposed change
40 increases the price of gas paid by Air Products to Amoco Gas to a fee
•
• equal to 10% of Sellers Weighted Average Cost of Gas (WACOG) for deliveries
at a secondary delivery point. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow
Air Products to purchase lower cost gas for use at its Pasadena Plant.
III.
The 35th day after the filing of this Statement of Intent is August 17,
1983, and for purposes complying with provisions of PURA § 43(a), that
day is the "effective date of the proposed change." However, Amoco
intends and requests that the rate change actually become effective on
the 1st of August, 1983. For good cause, this City should allow the
rate change to become effective on August 1, 1983, because the agreement
for the change in the price of the natural gas was agreed to as a result
of arms -length bargaining between Amoco Gas and Air Products and offers
Air Products the significant benefit of receiving lower cost gas for its
• Pasadena Plant.
11
IV.
The proposed rate meets the requirements of § 38(b) of the PURA and
is agreed to by the parties to the "Gas Purchase Contract Amendment"
which is a product of arms -length negotiations.
V.
The increase in revenue to Amoco Gas, based solely on the proposed
change, will be approximately $182,500 per year.
VI.
Air Products will be the only Amoco Gas customer affected by the
proposed change.
VI I.
No municipalities are served by Amoco Gas.
-2-
C�
•
• VIII.
The proposed change in rate charged to Air Products does not
constitute a "major change" as that term is defined in § 43(b) of the
PURA.
ER1128/A
0
Respectfully submitted
AMOCO GAS COMPANY
BY
Edward B. Hindees
State Bar ID No. 09684400
Attorney for Amoco Gas Company
Box 3092
Houston, TX 77253
(713) 556-3639
-3-
11
J
11
AFFIDAVIT
BEFORE ME, a notary public in and for Lehigh County,
Pennsylvania, this day appeared the person known to me as E. V. Sherry,
who, upon first being duly sworn, based on his information, knowledge,
and belief, stated as follows:
1. My name is E. V. Sherry. I am Director of Energy Supplies for
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. (Air Products).
2. Air Products is a customer of Amoco Gas Company (Amoco Gas).
3. Air Products and Amoco Gas have signed an amendment to an
existing Gas Contract for the delivery of natural gas for use in Air
Products' Plant located at La Porte, Harris County, Texas.
4. Neither Air Products nor Amoco Gas had an unfair advantage
during negotiations leading to the above -described amendment. The
• amendment was fully negotiated with all parties exercising substantially
equal bargaining power.
5. Competition exists between Amoco Gas and other possible suppliers
to Air Products.
6. Air Products waives notice and hearing of a Statement of
Intent to Change Rates filed by Amoco Gas to have the amendment approved
by the appropriate regulatory authority and requests that the rate be
allowed to go into effect on August 1, 1983.
The above -stated facts are true to the best of my knowledge,
information, and belief.
Subscribed and sworn to before me thi he 6 th day of Jul ,
1983.
Notary u i �in and �fof
• Lehigh, County, PA
NOTARY PUBLIC ..
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES
EC/le
MAY 29, 1986
ER1343/C
TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: DATE:
Joe Sease, Fire Chief July 14,. 1983
NOW
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL'AGENDA ITEM 2. Report
1. Agenda Date Requested: 7 - 20 8 3 Resolution
Ordinance
3. Project Summary: Construction of Fire Station # 1
4. Action Required: Award bid and appropriate funds from General Fund
Contingency Fund
5., Alternative: Do not award bid.
CJ
6. ' Recommendation Award bid to Chatham Construction (base bid & alternate 2)
in the amount of $203,017.00 and appropriate $23,000.00
from General Fund Contingency Fund to cover amount not
budgeted
7. Exhibits: Letter from the Lammers Partnership
Memo from Joe Sease
8. Availability of Funds: _General Fund Water/Wastewater
Capital Improvmt. General Revenue Sharing
Other
Account Number:
. Approved for City Council Agenda
Funds Available: Yes No
Requested By
City Manager Date
•
L�
THE LAMMERS PARTNERSHIP
•ARCHITECTS S PLANNERS A.I.A.
OAAWEA SOO 780 E. TEXAS AVE.
■AYTOWN. TEXAS 778S0 C 712 ) 427-1737
July 11, 1983
Mr. Jack Owen
City Manager
City of La Porte, Texas
P.O. Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Re: La Porte Fire Station Expansion
Dear Mr. Owen:
The results of the bid opening on the Fire Station Expansion are as follows:
Chatham Construction
Base Bid $195,000.00
Alt.
1
No Bid
Alt.
2
8,017.00
Alt.
3
3,897.00
Alt.
4
( 700.00)
Days
150
Coastal Construction, Inc.
$249,000.00
4,830.00
26,000.00
7,000.00
No Bid
150
Alt. #1 - Carpet in existing fire station. -Offices and lobby
Alt. #2 - New door and windows in existing fire station east side
Alt. #3 - New room finishes coffee bar and storage room at existing station
Alt. #4 - Electrical service to be overhead in lieu of underground
Prior to the bid date, six (6) General Contractors had picked up the plans and
were bidding the project. Three (3) of these Contractors called to inform me
that they had just been awarded other contracts that stretched their bonding
capacity to the limit and would not be able to bond this job. Originally,
I had expected six (6) bids, however, I am satisfied with the two (2) received
based on my previous experiences with both the bidders.
•
• Mr. Jack Owen
Re: La Porte Fire Station Expansion
July 11, 1983
Page 2
Mr. Chatham, the low bidder, has reviewed his prices and subcontractors with
me and is very confident with his figures. All his figures seem to be in
order and I recommend that the City of La Porte accept his base bid and
Alternate #2 as follows:
Base Bid $195,000.00
Alternate #2 8,017.00
Total Contract Price $20Vner
0
Please let me know if this is alp oved as possible so that I can
draw up the required contractss'betweennd Contractor.
Sincerely,
• Jan Lammers, A.I.A.
JL:j1
I*
:
OFFICE OF THE FIRE &F
CITY OF LA PORTE
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: JACK OWEN
FROM: J.L. SEASE/I
SUBJECT: FIRE STATION 1 EXPANSION
DATE: 7-12-83
After discussion with Jan Lammers of the Lammrs Partnership, I think we
should accept the low bid of $195,000.00 from Chatham Construction. I
recommend we also include alternate 2 for $8,017.00 .
•
P. O. BOX M • LA PORTE. TEXAS 77571 • PHONE 471-4226
r /
• CITY OF LA PORTS
DATE
IN6TRUCTION9 TO 8EN OER:
I. KEEP YELLOW COPY. 2. SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES WITH CARBON INTACT.
0
INSTRUCTIONS TO RECEIVER:
1. WRITE REPLY. 2. DETACH STUB, KEEP PINK COPY, RETURN WHITE COPY TO SENDER.
CHANGE ORDER
•
Dated JUKE .2,7.,. 1983,
OWNER's Project No .......................... ENGINEER's Project No. , 1565-82......... , . , .. .
G
Project ,STREET PAVING . & .DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.. .. .
CONTRACTOR .....k1cMY ,QQNSTRUCT 1PN. &, EQUIPMENT, .INC..
Contract For LOMAX, STREET ,PAVING & DRAINAGE. , Contract Date ..... 15. M_ ARCH 1.983-........ .
IMPROVEMENTS
To: McKEY CONSTRUCTION & EQUIPMENT,. INC:.. ... _ .
CONTRACTOR
You are directed to maize the changes noted below.in the subject Contract:
CITY OF LA PORTE
• ................
OWNER
JACK *64EN , CITY MANAGER
Dated........................19.........
Nature of the Changes : EAST ( NORTH ) " L " STREET
Add aditional compaction and lime stabilization along the North
side of the proposed base material above and adjacent to the
new trench that the City of La Porte laid a water line extension.
Enclosures:
These changes result in the following adjustment of Contract Price and Contract Time:
Contract Price Prior to This Change Order S ,473, .776.... .89..............
isNet (Increase) (Decrease) Resulting from this Change Order
Current Contract Price Including This Change Order
S 2,500.00.............
S ,476,276.89
NSPE•ACEC 1910.S-B (1978 Edition)
C 197E. %*aIlvna! sn.Ieq or
Prnfe,!jurt1 Enlineer,
Contract Time Prior to This Change Order ........................... 56. Days.... .. _ .. .. ,
(Days or•Dare)
Net (increase) (Decrease) Resulting from This Change Order ................ 1. Day..........................
(DAYS) •
Current Contract Time Including This Change Order ................... . 57, Days.... ... ........... .
(Days or Date)
The Above Changes Are Approved: H. CARLOS SMITH. ENGINEERS, &, SURVEYORS. ,INC.
... ENGINEER .
/ate.
.�....... �....... ....
.. JUNE. 27............. .19.83 . .
The Above Changes Are Accepted: _ , , McKEY CONSTRUCTION. & EQUIPMENT, , INC.
CONTRACTOR •.... ...•
B.... .............
Date ......... JUNE.. �............ . 19. $3 .. .
E
40
•
•
U
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
JUNE 28, 1983
TO: J.. Hodge - Director of Public Works
FROM: I J. Ray
SUBJECT: Sealed Bid #0008 - Paint Booth
Advertised, sealed bid #0008 was opened and read in Council Chambers at
4:00 P.M., June 28, 1983. Bid specifications will require that the success-
ful contractor complete the turnkey installation of a paint booth for use
by the Equipment Services Division.
A total of thirteen contractors were invited to bid with responses received
from H & T Erectors of Baytown and Car Color and Supplies of Pasadena. Low
bid meeting specifications was submitted by H & T Erectors in the amount of
thirty-nine thousand, two hundred sevent do dollars ($39,217) and an estimated
completion time of seventy-five (75VI�
There is presently an unencumbered appropriation of fifty thousand ($50,000)
to complete this project. I hereby recommend that the City of La Porte accept
• the low bid of thirty nine thousand, two hundred seventeen dollars from H & T
Erectors of Baytown.
Should you have any questions concerning this recommendation please advise.
cc: B. Herrera
S. Gillett
D. Root
11
t H CAR COLOR OSTHDALE
-Turnke§ Installation of E TORS & SUPPLIES CONST. CO.
Paint Booth. INC.
SEALED BID #0008
S MOORE & XBO W'HITTEN
. \MOORE CONS - CONST.
1. Turnkey Installation of $39,217.00 $45,000.00 No Bid No Bid I No Bid No Bid
-- --- --- -- ---
Paint Booth, Sprinkler -
System and Bldg. Addition
per City bf La Porte Spec- -- -- ,-- _- f- - - - - __---
ifications.'
2. Completion in Days
3. Budgeted Amount for
75 Days 90
ec $50,000.00
•
•
•
City Manager
City of La Porte
P. 0. Box 1115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Dear Sir:
June 30, 1983
Please accept my resignation from the City of La Porte Board of
Equalization, due to my appointment to the Planning and Zoning
Commission of the City of La Porte.
Thank you.
•
•
Yours very truly,
Charles D. Boyle
•
•
n
LJ
E
•
RESOLUTION NO. 83-%J,
A RESOLUTION ENCOURAGING HARRIS COUNTY TAXPAYER APPROVAL OF A
$900 MILLION REVENUE BOND GUARANTEE REFERENDUM THAT WILL ALLOW
THE HARRIS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT THE MEANS FOR IMPLEMENTING
A PROGRAM OF TOLL ROADS THAT WILL PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE SERVICE
TO THE CITIZENS OF HARRIS COUNTY.
WHEREAS, there currently exists a mobility crisis in Harris
County that demands the attention of City and County officials;
and,
WHEREAS, Harris County Judge Jon Lindsay has prepared a
plan of toll roads and associated user fees that would pay off
the bonded indebtedness of same that could be administered
through the Harris County Commissioners Court; and,
WHEREAS, necessary additional State funding to assist cities
and counties of the State of Texas with traffic and mobility
improvements will not be forthcoming in that no additional funds
were approved during our recent Legislative Session to the Texas
Highway Commission; and,
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the City of La Porte that
locally elected Commissioners would be more responsive in meeting
the needs of Harris County taxpayers, including that of resolving
mobility and traffic problems in Harris County as compared to
the Texas Turnpike Authority; and,
WHEREAS, Harris County's present AAA bond rating would
naturally provide substantial savings to taxpayers of Harris
County in the implementation of a toll road program over the
Baa rating of the Texas Turnpike Authority; and,
WHEREAS, the City of La Porte supports this solution to the
mobility and traffic problems of Harris County as proposed by
Judge Jon Lindsay whereby user fees would substantially pay for
the improvements;
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
That we hereby encourage the taxpayers of La Porte and all
of Harris County to approve a $900 million revenue bond guarantee
referendum that will allow the Harris County Commissioners Court
the means for implementing.a program of toll roads that will
provide cost-effective service to the citizens of Harris County.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 13th day of July, 1983.
ATTEST:
Assistant City Secretary
CITY OF LA PORTE
Virginia Cline, Mayor
•
0
RESOLUTION NO. 83-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE, REQUEST-
ING THE TEXAS TURNPIKE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY
ON A PROPOSED TOLL BRIDGE ON STATE HIGHWAY 146, OVER THE HOUSTON
SHIP CHANNEL, LINKING LA PORTE AND BAYTOWN.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA PORTE:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of La Porte hereby
respectfully requests the Texas Turnpike Authority to conduct a
feasibility study on a proposed high rise toll bridge, on State
Highway 146, to connect the cities of La Porte and Baytown, cross-
ing the Houston Ship Channel. When constucted, such high rise
• toll bridge would replace the outmoded two-lane tunnel, now
operated by the Texas Department of Highways and Transportation.
Section 2. This Resolution shall be effective from and
after its passage and approval.
PASSED AND APPROVED, this the 20th day of July, 1983.
CITY OF LA PORTE
By
V' ginia line, Mayor
ATTEST:
•
Assistant City Secretary
APPROVED:
•
City Attorne
•
•
0
0
TMLTEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
1020 Southwest Tower Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 478-6601
June 29, 1983
MAN", FIM
TO: TML Member Cities
FROM: TML Staff
SUBJECT: Cable Legislation Pending in Congress
A highly detrimental cable television bill--S. 66--now pending in Congress, if
passed, would strip your city of virtually all of its powers to regulate CATV
rates and services at the local level.
Meeting on June 27, the Board of Directors of the Texas Municipal League voted
unanimously to oppose S. 66 and take all actions necessary to defeat it. The
Board also voted to ask TML member cities to make a nominal, voluntary contri-
bution to offset the cost of outside legal counsel that would be hired to
lobby in Washington against S. 66.
A summary of the provisions of S. 66 is attached. As you will readily see,
passage of this legislation would effectively eliminate all meaningful munici-
pal CATV rate -regulatory powers, and leave your city and its residents at the
mercy of the cable industry.
At your early convenience, contact your congressman and advise him of your
city's opposition to S. 66. The bill, which has already passed the U.S.
Senate, could move in the House in the near future; therefore, timely action
on the cities' part is imperative.
Additionally, please use the attached form to let the TML office know whether
your city will contribute funds to support efforts in Washington to defeat S.
66. Each city is requested to contribute 1¢ per -capita (based on its 1980
Census population), payable to the "TML Cable TV Defense Fund." A committee
of city officials will be appointed to supervise the Fund, and a complete
accounting will be furnished to all participants.
For further information concerning S. 66, please contact Dick Brown at the TML
office.
Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Summary of S. 66, The
Federal "Cable Communications Act of 1983"
• A. Background
During the past four years, the National League of Cities (NLC) and the
National Cable Television Association were involved in a series of intense
congressional battles over CATV-related legislation. Claiming that it was
being suffocated by municipal overregulation and overtaxation, the cable
industry pushed for federal legislation to severely limit the regulatory
authority of cities. NLC fought the legislation on the basis that municipal
controls were necessary to protect the interests of local cable consumers and
the general public.
Concerned that the politically -potent CATV industry would eventually prevail
in the congressional struggle over this issue, the NLC board of directors met
with the cable operators this past March and agreed to a compromise bill--S.
66. In early April, the TML office furnished all member cities with a
detailed description of the compromise.
With strong support from NLC and the cable industry, S. 66 handily passed the
U.S. Senate on June 14. The battleground has now shifted to the U.S. House of
Representatives, where opponents of the measure expect to have a better chance
of crippling or defeating the bill.
As is indicated below, the so-called "compromise" to which NLC agreed is
heavily biased in favor of the cable industry. Cities currently exercise vir-
tually unlimited CATV regulatory powers; however, if S. 66 becomes law, many
of those powers will be abolished and CATV operators will be free to do pretty
much as they please at the local level.
B. Key Provisions of S. 66
1. Abolishment of City Regulation Over Basic Service Rates
For a 5-year period after the effective date of S. 66 (or one-half of the
remaining life of the city's franchise, whichever is greater), cities could
continue to regulate monthly subscriber rates for basic (Tier One) services.
But, during that period, local cable operators would have the unilateral
authority --without the city's consent --to make yearly increases in Tier One
service rates in an amount equivalent to the increase in the Consumer Price
Index. Upon the expiration of 5 years, the regulatory powers of cities over
Tier One rates would be totally abolished, and local cable operators would be
free to increase basic service charges without limitation. (Note: Two excep-
tions from this provision are provided. Upon expiration of the 5-year transi-
tion period, municipal ratemaking powers would be continued: (a) in any city
where 80% or more of all households subscribe to the basic service offered by
the particular franchisee; and (b) in any city served by fewer than four TV
broadcasting stations. Even in those cities, however, cable operators would
still have the unilateral right to impose annual increases according to the
rate of increase in the Consumer Price Index.)
2. Abolishment of City Regulation Over Other Rates
• For Tier -Two and Tier -Three services, city rate regulation would totally
expire upon the effective date of S. 66.
u
0
L�
•
•
3. Limitations on Municipal Franchise Powers
S. 66 would grant cable operators what amounts to almost an absolute right to
have their franchises renewed. Under the bill, the city would be required to
renew an expiring CATV franchise unless it can be shown that: (a) the cable
operator failed to comply with the requirements of the franchise; (b) the
operator was convicted of a felony; or (c) the operator made unreasonable
demands in his or her franchise renewal application. Additionally, S. 66
would require the city council to review, de novo, any previous decision not
to renew a franchise if the operator can show that the city failed to provide
an opportunity for consideration of all related issues or failed to arrange an
independent review of its decision not to renew the franchise.
Additionally, S. 66 invalidates all municipal franchise provisions in conflict
with the Act.
4. Abolish City Limitations on Crossownerships
S. 66 bars cities from prohibiting a person from owning a CATV company by
reason of his or her ownership of other media.
5. Other Provisions
S. 66 contains several other provisions which preserve certain existing muni-
cipal powers to control the overall performance of CATV operators. (See NLC
summary and copy of S. 66, attached). However, these provisions do not alter
the bottom line effect of the legislation --that being the abolishment of muni-
cipal ratemaking authority and preemption of local CATV regulatory powers by
the federal government.
U
•
Ft. Worth Star Telegram
6/24/83
Cities unite to take
on cable industry
By JOE BE
star -Telegram Writer
Led by Fort Worth officials, cities
across the nation are organizing a
coalition for a final showdown in
the U.S. House over who will control
cable television.
Officials of 21 cities in 16 states
and the District of Columbia partici-
pated in a telephone conference
Thursday afternoon with Fort
Worth Assistant City Manager Ruth
Ann McKinney to shape the nation-
wide lobbying effort.
Organizing at the state level is the
Texas Coalition for Cable Consumer
Interests, which will be financed by
contributions from participating
cities at the rate of 1 cent per capita
population.
The aim of the intensified lobby-
ing is to overcome a legislative de-
feat on June 14 when the Senate
passed a bill that creates a national
policy for deregulating cable sys-
tems. The bill is now in a House
committee.
The task force representing the
cities will seek to amend the House
version of the bill to allow more
local control of cableTV franchises.
After the Thursday conference,
McKinney traveled to Washington,
D.C., and was to meet with repre-
sentatives of other cities to organize
the national task force and begin
developing legislative strategy.
She said the cities are trying to
overcome a powerful.cable lobby,
which has been "working" Con-
gress for the last three years to
achieve deregulation.
"We are suggesting cities in other
states set up some kind of grass-
roots organizations (similar to the
Texas coalition)," McKinney said.
"We are not limiting this to munici-
palities. We are seeking to re -inter-
est and involve community groups
previously active in cable franchis-
ing."
Fort Worth Mayor Bob Bolen, rec-
ognized as a national leader of the
fight against the bill, has spent the
week drumming up support from
mayors in Texas and in other states.
He said the City Council's Cable
Television Committee has recom-
mended that Fort Worth "continue
to protect the interest of Fort Worth
citizens" through the lobbying task
force.
"We have polled what we think is
a representative group of Texas cit-
ies — some large, some midsize and
some small," McKinney said. `Be-
cause of the near unanimous re-
sponse (to organize for the legisla-
tive fight in the House), we will
begin contacting all Texas cities
next week."
The Texas coalition has hired for-
mer Dallas City Councilman Sid
Stahl, an attorney, to coordinate the
lobbying strategy.
On the national level, the cities
have employed the law firm of Pres-
ton, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman of
Washington, D.C.
"The National Cable Television
Association simply outlobbied the
cities" in the Senate, said Nicholas
P. Miller, member of the Washing-
ton law firm coordinating the lobby
ing for the cities.
Bolen has branded the Senate bill
as "self-serving legislation" for the
cable industry to "get out of con-
tracts" negotiated with Fort Worth
and cities throughout the country.
In response, National Cable Tele-
vision Association President Tom
Wheeler has called Fort Worth and
other cities opposing the Senate bill
a few "renegades" wanting to keep
the cable industry unfairly shac-
kled with local regulations.
In addition to overcoming the
strong cable industry lobby, the cit-
ies also face a time limit. The House
Subcommittee on Telecommunica-
tions is trying to have a cable bill
ready by the end of July, McKinney
said.
• Nad°^al
LoNgLb
Of
CM"
June 21, 1983
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue N*
Washington, D.C.
20004
(202) 626-3000
Cage: NLCITIES
Officers:
President
Charles Royer
Mayor, Seattle. Washington
First Vice President
George Latimer
Mayor, St. Paul, Minnesota
•
Second Vice President
George V Voinovich
Mayor, Cleveland, Ohio
Immediate Past President
Ferd L. Harrison
Mayor, Scotland Neck, North Carolina
Executive Director
Alan Beals
To: (1) Mayors and Managers of Direct Member Cities
(2) Executive Directors of State Municipal Leagues
From: Alan Beals
Subject: Senate Approval of Cable Bill
The full Senate approved Senator Barry Goldwater's cable bill
(S.66), "the Cable Telecommunications Act of 1983," on June 14 by
a vote of 87-9. The bill's sponsors accepted several amendments
on the floor which are favorable to cities and were supported by
NLC. Three additional pro -city amendments, however, were defeated
by wide margins. In addition, an amendment, supported by the
telephone industry, that would have subjected two-way services
provided over cable systems to public utility commission regula-
tion was defeated.
The NLC-supported changes in the bill include: (1) allowing for a
competitive renewal process; (2) empowering cities to mandate an
upgrade of the system and the set aside of system capacity for
public, educational, and governmental access during refranchising;
(3) establishing a conciliation process for modification of
franchise provisions requiring the provision of particular cable
system facilities; (4) limiting automatic increases in basic
service rates to changes in the regional Consumer Price Index
(CPI); (5) authorizing the city to mandate the set aside of system
capacity for public and educational access as well as governmental
access; (6) limiting de novo review of a city's decision to deny a
renewal application; (7) allowing cities to reimpose regulation of
basic service rates in markets served by four or more television
stations when the penetration rate reaches 80 percent; (8) pro-
hibiting the filing of a renewal application prior to 36 months
before the franchise's scheduled expiration date; (9) grand -
fathering access, service, and facility requirements in any fran-
chise resulting from a Request for Proposals issued prior to
October 1, 1982; and (10) grandfathering California law governing
the regulation of basic service rates for the longer of five years
or the remaining life of a franchise.
Past Presidents: Tom Bradley, Mayor, Los Angeles, California • William H. Hudnut, Ill, Mayor, Indianapolis, Indiana • Henry W. Maier, Mayor, Milwaukee, Wisconsin -Tom Moody, Mayor. Columbus.
Ohio • Jessie M. Rattley, Councilwoman, Newport News, Virginia • John P. Rousakis, Mayor, Savannah, Georgia • Directors: John B. Andrews, Executive Director, New Hampshire Municipal
Association • Richard Arrington, Jr., Mayor, Birmingham, Alabama • Marion S. Barry Jr., Mayor, Washington, D.0 • Carol Bellamy, Council President, New York, New York • Richard S. Caliguiri, •
Mayor, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania • David Cunningham, Council Member, Los Angeles, California • John P. Franklin, Vice Mayor, Chattanooga, Tennessee • William F. Fulginiti, Executive Director. New
Mexico Municipal League • Karen M. Groves, Commissioner, Salina, Kansas • Edwin L. Griffin, Jr., Executive Director. Kentucky Municipal League • Jonathan B. Howes, Council Member, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina • Charles Hoyt, Alderman, Minneapolis, Minnesota • Robert M. Isaac, Mayor, Colorado Springs, Colorado • George M. Israel, III, Mayor, Macon. Georgia • Luther Jones, Mayor, Corpus
Christi, Texas • Myra Jones, Vice Mayor, Little Rock, Arkansas • Peter C. Knudson, Mayor, Brigham City, Utah -Ted Lehne, Ccuncil Member, Fairbanks, Alaska • Christopher G. Loci( woc _ Er-rutwe
Director, Maine Municipal Association • Bob Martinez, Mayor, Tampa, Florida • E. A. Mosher, Executive Director, League of Kansas Municipalities • Jack Nelson, Mayor. Beaverton, Oregon • . •id
Nuessen, Mayor, Quincy, Illinois • Kevin O'Connor, Alderman, Milwaukee, Wisconsin • Martin L. Peterson, Executive Director. Association of Idaho Cities • Michael J. Quinn, Executve Director. it •,
Association of Cities and Towns • Elaine Szymonlak, Council Member, Des Moines. Iowa • Joseph-W. Walsh, Mayor. Warwick. Rhode Island • Iola M. Williams, Vice Mayor, 5-n lose. Cal,to
Thomas D. Wingard, Mayor, Greenwood. South Carolina.
•
•
n
LJ
Page 2
City -related amendments that w
amendment offered by Senator L1
existing franchises, defeated b
offered by Senator Alan Dixon
increases in basic service rates
72-26; and (3) a second Dixon
discretion in franchise renewal
ere not passed included: (1) an
oyd Bentsen (D-Tx) to grandfather
y a 79-19 vote; (2) an amendment
(D-Ill.) to prohibit automatic
by increases in the CPI, defeated
amendment to give cities broader
proceedings, defeated by 82-16.
An amendment, sponsored by Senator James Abdnor (R-S.D.), that
would have subjected two-way services provided over cable systems
to public utility commission regulation was defeated by a 55-44
vote. The effect of this amendment, opposed by committee leader-
ship, would have been to make the provision of two-way services
over cable systems very difficult, thereby ensuring that the pre-
sent revenue base of the telephone network would not be eroded as
a result of competition from cable companies.
The Subcommittee on Telecommunications, Consumer Protection, and
• Finance of the House Energy and Commerce Committee held hearings
on cable legislation on May 25 and a second hearing is scheduled
for June 22. Representative Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.), Chairman of
the Telecommunications Subcommittee, has indicated plans to move
cable legislation this year. House legislation is likely to be
introduced in late July.
Attached is a summary of the bill and the text of the bill, as
approved by the Senate.
0
•
•
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS OF 5.66
0
JURISDICTION
State and local authority. Broad federal guidelines are estab-
lished for state and local regulation of rates, access set
asides, services, facilities and equipment, franchise fees, fran-
chise renewals, and ownership. States and localities are specif-
ically granted residual authority by section 2(c) over local
matters such as "terms and conditions for the granting of a fran-
chise, the construction and operation of a cable system, and the
enforcement and administration of a franchise." In addition,
states and localities are authorized to grant "one or more cable
franchises "(Sec. 604(2)), clarifying the authority of cities to
franchise and thereby eliminating the possibility of antitrust
challenges to the franchise process.
Federal authority. Stringent federal privacy standards are estab-
lished and state and local authority over privacy is preempted.
OWNERSHIP
Crossownership. Existing authority of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) under the Communications Act of 1934 to restrict
the ownership of cable systems by other media interests such as
networks, broadcasters, and newspapers and by telephone companies •
is not in any way affected by the bill. States and localities
are, however, prohibited by section 605(a) from establishing
crossownership restrictions in addition to those imposed by the
FCC.
Municipal acquisition of a cable system. When a city buys back a
cable system on the expiration of a franchise or requires the
sale of a cable system to a third party on the expiration of a
franchise, it is required by section 605(c)(1) to pay fair market
value, defined as the ongoing business value of the system and
therefore including intangible assets such as good will. If the
parties are unable to agree on that value through negotiations,
the matter is submitted to arbitration.
When a city condemns a cable system or terminates a franchise for
cause at any time during the life of the franchise, it is not
required to pay a minimum price and may pay whatever price is
specified by the franchise (e.g., depreciated book value) or
determined in a condemnation proceeding. The cable operator,
however, is entitled under section 605(c)(2) to receive due pro-
cess protections such as notice and a reasonable opportunity to
remedy the breach.
Municipal ownership. Municipal ownership of cable systems is
permitted. Under section 605(d), however, an independent board •
or separate management company must be established to determine
•
•
Page 4
what programming
gramming, which
the system.
ACCESS
services (other than governmental access pro -
may be determined by the city) are provided over
Existing franchises. Existing provisions of franchise agreements
which require the set aside of channels on institutional or sub-
scriber networks for public, educational, governmental, and third
party leased access will remain in effect for the life of the
franchise under section 613(f). In any case in which a Request
for Proposals (RFP) was issued prior to October 1, 1982, whether
or not later modified or replaced, access requirements
susequently established in a franchise, even if that franchise is
granted after the bill's date of enactment, will remain in effect
for the life of the franchise. Rules and procedures for the use
of these grandfathered access channels established by the
franchise are also grandfathered (Sec. 613(f)).
New franchises. Under any franchise granted after the date of
enactment (unless the RFP was issued prior to October 1, 1982 in
which case access requirements in any franchise resulting from
that RFP are grandfathered), a city may require the set aside of
channels on institutional or subscriber networks for public,
• educational, and governmental access both during initial fran-
chising and refranchising (Secs. 606(a) and 613(b)(1)). In
addition, a franchising authority may request or indicate a pre-
ference in the RFP for the set aside of channel capacity for
third party leased access (Sec. 606(a)) and an offer to set aside
channels for third party leased access may be included in the
franchise agreement and enforced for the life of the franchise.
Rules and procedures for the use of access channels may be estab-
lished in the franchise agreement (Sec. 606(b)).
Use of access channels by cable operator. Under section 606(c),
a cable operator may combine access programming on a smaller
number of access channels until there is sufficient demand for
use of all the access channels required by the franchise for
access purposes. Rules and procedures governing the combination
of access programming and the use of access channels by the cable
operator may be established in the franchise agreement under
section 606(b).
Access facilities. Under section 613(b)(2), a franchising
authority may require the construction of access studios and
dedicated institutional networks as well as the provision of
cameras and vans in the RFP. Any requirement for the provision
of access facilities in an existing franchise or any franchise
resulting from an RFP issued prior to October 1, 1982 is
• grandfathered for the life of the franchise (Sec. 613(f)).
0
Page 5
RATE REGULATION 0
Regulation of basic service rates. Subscriber rates for basic
service and related charges such as installation charges and con-
verter rentals may be subject to rate regulation under section
607(a)(1). Basic service is defined in section 603(1) as the
"lowest cost tier other than a tier offered at a discounted fee"
which includes local broadcast signals, public, educational, and
governmental access channels and any other programming service
offered in the operator's proposal as basic service.
This language, which is somewhat ambiguous, is intended to ensure
that the tier which actually serves as the entry tier to the sys-
tem and, as a result, is purchased by all the system's subscrib-
ers is categorized as basic service for regulatory purposes.
Basic ' service rates may be increased annually without the
approval of the franchising authority by the increase in the
regional Consumer Price Index for the prior 12 months (Sec. 607
(b) (1) ) unless rates have been frozen or specified in the fran-
chise for a period of time (Sec. 607(b)(2)). Unused increases
may be accumulated for no more than three years. Under section
607(i), this provision will not affect basic service rates under
any franchise issued by a California city for five years or the
remaining life of the franchise, whichever is greater.
Deregulation of basic service rates. The regulation of basic •
service rates is gradually phased out in communities in which the
signals of four or more full power television stations, including
all .three networks, can be received over the air (Sec. 607(d)
(1)). Existing franchises, however, will not be affected by this
provision for five years or one half the remaining life of the
franchise, whichever is greater (Sec. 607(d)(2)). This provision
will not affect any California franchise for five years or the
remaining life of the franchise, whichever is greater (Sec. 607
(i)). Consequently, cities in California would remain subject to
existing state law governing the regulation of basic service
rates during that time period.
Even if basic service rates are deregulated under section 607(d)
(1), a franchising authority may reimpose rate regulation when-
ever 80 percent of the households passed by a cable system are
subscribers unless the cable operator can show that there is
adequate over the air reception of the signals of four broadcast
stations (Sec. 607 (d) (3)) .
Regulation of,two-way service rates. Basic telephone service
provided over a cable system, defined as "two-way voice grade
communications that is held out to the public," may be'subject to
regulation. The rates for other intrastate telecommunications
services (e.g., data transmission, security services, telemetry, •
• 0
Page 6
• etc.) provided over cable systems may not be subject to regula-
tion (Sec. 607 (g) (2) (A) ) . The cable operator, however, may be
required under that provision to file an informational tariff
specifying rates, terms, and conditions with a state and may be
prohibited from changing those rates, terms, and conditions until
a new tariff is filed.
The rates for a particular intrastate telecommunications service
provided over a telephone system shall be deregulated by a state
under section 607(g)(3) when that service is subject to effective
competition from another provider such as a cable system.
SERVICES
Existing franchises. Any provision of an existing franchise or a
franchise agreement resulting from an RFP issued prior to October
1, 1982 which requires the provision of particular services
(e.g., a particular programming service such as HBO) or partic-
ular types of services (e.g., children's programming) is grand -
fathered (Sec. 613(f)) regardless of whether the service require-
ment was mandated or the result of arm's-length negotiations.
New franchises. Any franchise granted after the bill becomes law
(except for a franchise resulting from an RFP issued before
• October 1, 1982 which may have established particular service
requirements as a condition of the franchise) may require the
provision of any particular service offered in the operator's
proposal. In addition, nothing in the bill precludes the city
from specifying in its RFP its preference for particular services
or types of services. Particular services, however, may not be
unilaterally mandated in the RFP.
Significant changes in circumstances. A cable operator may re-
move or replace a particular service specified in the franchise
under section 613(d)(1) if there has been a significant change in
circumstances since the cable operator made its proposal.
According to the committee report (S. Rpt. 98-67), a cable opera-
tor may remove or replace a particular service when a service is
not available (i.e., a particular service goes out of business),
the cost of providing a service has increased significantly, the
quality of a service has deteriorated, or a service is not viable
due to changes in marketplace conditions beyond the operator's
control.
Section 613(d)(1), however, does not create a right to eliminate
access channel requirements, according to the committee report.
Moreover, removal of a particular service required by a franchise
under section 613(d)(1) without a revision of the franchise
agreement should constitute a violation of the franchise, estab-
• lishing a basis for the city to deny renewal under section
Page 7
609(a)(1). Consequently, cable operators are unlikely to use
section 613(d)(1) to avoid contractual obligations unless the
consent of the franchising authority is obtained and appropriate
revisions made in the franchise agreement. In most cases, cable
operators are likely to seek consent of the franchising authority
and modification of the franchise agreement in order to ensure
that removal of a particular service cannot be construed as a
breach of the franchise agreement during the franchi-se renewal
process.
Program content control. Section
control of program content. Under
franchise agreement may prohibit o
provision of obscene programming o
child pornography which is not
Constitution.
FACILITIES
607(f) prohibits government
section 607(h), however, a
r impose restrictions on the
r other programming such as
protected speech under the
Existing franchises. Any provision of an existing franchise
agreement or a franchise agreement resulting from an RFP issued
prior to October 1, 1982 which requires the provision of particu-
lar facilities (e.g., institutional and subscriber networks of a
particular capacity, studios) or cable -related equipment (e.g.,
cameras, vans) is grandfathered (Sec. 613(f)).
New franchises. Under any franchise granted after the date of
enactment (unless the RFP was issued prior to October 1, 1982 in
which case facility requirements are grandfathered by section
613(f)), a city may mandate the provision of particular facili-
ties, including subscriber and institutional networks of a mini-
mum capacity, studios, cameras, and vans, in the RFP both during
initial franchising and refranchising (Sec. 613(b)(2)).
Significant change in circumstances. Under section 613(d)(2), a
city is required to enter into negotiations with the cable opera-
tor for the purpose of modifying or altering franchise require-
ments mandating the provision of particular facilities whenever
the cable operator shows that: (1) there has been a significant
change in circumstances; and (2) as a result of this change in
circumstances, the provision of particular facilities is imprac-
ticable for technical, economic or other reasons. If the parties
are not able to reach agreement on appropriate changes in the
franchise agreement within 45 days, the matter must be submitted
to arbitration. The purpose of this provision, according to
floor debate, is to establish procedures for the review of
facility commitments and the provision is intended to be utilized
only in limited circumstances.
u
0
Page 8
•
FRANCHISE FEES
Limitation. A franchise fee may not exceed five percent of the
gross revenues derived from the operation of a cable system (Sec.
608(b)). Current FCC regulations restricting the franchise fee
to three percent (unless greater regulatory costs are shown and
the FCC grants a waiver in which case the franchise fee may go up
to five percent) are eliminated. According to floor debate on
the franchise fee cap, the limit does not in any way restrict
authority to impose utility taxes or other taxes of broad appli-
cability such as sales taxes which are imposed on other
taxpayers in addition to cable companies or cable subscribers.
In addition, assessments which are incidental to the enforcement
of a franchise agreement (e.g., bonds, security funds, penalties,
insurance) are not affected by this limitation (Sec. 608(d)(2)).
Grandfathering of access payments. Section 608(b)(1) specifi-
cally grandfathers any contribution or similar payment which is
in addition to a five percent franchise fee and is required by an
existing franchise for the purpose of facilitating the use of
access channels.
RENEWALS
• Renewal test. A franchising authority is required to renew a
franchise only if the cable operator complies with section 609's
procedures and the franchising authority finds compliance with
each provision of a strict five part test. The franchising
authority may issue a complete RFP and consider competing appli-
cations during the renewal process. In other words, the reason-
ableness of the incumbent's proposal may be determined by com-
paring it with the applications of other potential cable opera-
tors.
Under section 609(a), a franchising authority may reject an
incumbent's application for renewal if it finds that: (1) the
incumbent has not complied with the terms of the existing
franchise; (2) there has been a material change in the incum-
bent's legal, technical, or financial qualifications; (3) the
cable system facilities proposed in the incumbent's application
are not reasonable in light of the community need (i.e., communi-
ty need for an up-to-date system) for and cost of the cable sys-
tem facilities; (4) the technical quality of the system's signal
has not met FCC standards; or (5) the proposals are not reason-
able in other areas--e.g., the particular services or the set
aside of system capacity for access uses proposed by the incum-
bent do not meet the community's needs.
C�
Page 9 •
Renewal procedures. Section 609 establishes procedures for con-
sideration of the incumbent's application and competing applica-
tions. The incumbent's application must be submitted between 24
and 36 months prior to the date of franchise expiration. An RFP
may be issued under section 613(b) requiring the provision of
particular facilities and equipment (i.e., an upgrade may be man-
dated) and the set aside of system capacity, including institu-
tional network capacity, for public, educational, and govern-
mental access use. A final decision on the incumbent's applica-
tion must be made within 12 months of the application's filing.
Additional franchises may be granted for an overbuild regardless
of this provision.
Review. The city's decision under section 609 may be subject to
dud iiciic al review. That judicial review will be de novo unless the
renewal applicant "has been afforded a hearing on the record
before an independent hearing examiner or administrative law
judge." (Sec. 609(e)).
Continuity of service. In order to ensure that service is not
interrupted during renewal proceedings or appeal of a denial of
renewal, the franchise will remain in effect until any appeal is •
resolved (Sec. 609(e)). This provision is intended to prevent a
cable operator from shutting off service on the expiration date
of the franchise if the court has not completed its review of the
franchising authority's denial.
PRIVACY
Prohibition of wiretapping. Section 610 extends the protections
of existing law, which prohibits the tapping of telephone lines
without a court order, to communications over cable systems.
Restrictions on collection and disclosure of personally identi-
fiable information. Section 611 establishes exclusive federal
stan ards for the protection of privacy. Under section 611, per-
sonally identifiable information such as a subscriber's program-
ming selections may not be collected unless authorized by the
subscriber. The only exceptions to this prohibition are provided
by section 611(a) which allows for the collection of information
which is used for billing purposes or for monitoring unauthorized
reception of service or which is required by court order. Per-
sonally identifiable information which is collected under these
exceptions or on the basis of an authorization may be disclosed
to other persons only upon authorization by the subscriber or as
a result of a court order. These stringent requirements, which
are stronger than most existing state and local privacy require- .
ments, are exclusive standards and may not be superseded or sup-
plemented by state or local standards.
0
E
• Page 10
PROHIBITION OF COMMON CARRIER OR UTILITY REGULATION
No common carrier or utility regulation. Section 614, which pro-
hibits common carrier or utility regulation of .any service pro-
vided over a cable system other than basic telephone service,
will effectively prohibit the substitution of state regulatory
requirements for franchise requirements. If traditional public
utility regulation of cable systems is not restricted, a state
public service commission (PSC) may prohibit or impose unreasona-
ble conditions on the provision of two-way services over cable
systems. Assertion of PSC jurisdiction over these services, as
is occurring in several states, will mean that franchise require-
ments governing the provision of two-way services are nullified
and superseded.
.Affect on leased access requirements. Section 614 does not
affect provisions of franchise agreements requiring the set aside
of system capacity for leased access or guaranteeing access to
the system, including the institutional networks, on a nondis-
criminatory basis. Section 614 prohibits the unilateral imposi-
tion of common carrier or utility regulation, but does not pro-
hibit the establishment of such regulation through franchise
negotiations.
EFFECTIVE DATE
Grandfathering. Access, service, and facility requirements in
existing franchises or those resulting from any RFP issued prior
to October 1, 1982 are grandfathered. Required payments or fees
to facilitate the use of access channels in existing franchises
are not affected by the five percent cap on franchise fees. The
regulation of basic service rates in communities for which dereg-
ulation of rates is required is grandfathered under existing
franchises for the longer of five years or one half the remaining
life of the franchise. California law governing regulation of
basic service rates is grandfathered for the longer of five years
or the remaining life of the franchise.
Other provisions. Other provisions of the bill, including the
franchise renewal, privacy, and ownership provisions, take effect
on the bill 's date of enactment (Sec. 4). Under section 2(b),
however, franchise requirements and other laws which are not
grandfathered by the bill and are in conflict with the bill's
requirements may remain in effect until six months after enact-
ment of the bill.
•
June 14,1983
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
S 8325
Glean
Kasten
Rieale
Gokhmter
Gorton
(3raddey
Lautemberg
Ia xatt
Lunar
Kota
Rudman
Sastaa
Bart ,
Satoh
Hatfield
Matsiaup
Nafifasly
Meicbw
shmp an
speewr
Stamm@
Hawkins
l[kdtell
Stevens
Hecht
Heflin
Moynihan
Muirkowda
Syam@
Heins
Iraidess
lburmoW
Toovs-
Hehas
Boma= "
1Pom
Trfbre
Hamplirey
Inouye
Faekwood
Peal -
PacT'
Taeiees" -
WaLop
Warner-
Jaekaon
Premier
Weieaer
JePM
Pryor ..
Wil m
Johnston
Quayle
Zosiosiy
NAYS-9
Bowhwita .
Levin
Ptosmire
Dunn
Alathiss
Sarbarm
Lesley
Hetsenbsum.
St:tLaed
NOT V01ING-4
Huddleston
Ions
Kennedy
111cclure
So the bill (S. 66). as amended, was
passed as follows;..
S. 66
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Reproventatfaes 4W -the United States o!
America in Congress assentbfetL* That (a)
this Act may be cited as the -Cable Tele-
cotmsmriatiaria Act of 1983-.
(b) The Communications Act of 1934 Is
amended by, inserting tmmedlatety after
tltle"V the following new title:
'TITLE vi-CA=
TZXJ=A fUNICATIONSACr
":Isnnras
"Snc. -60L The -.Congress hereby ftnds
that—
"(1) cable systems -am engaged in. inter-
state commerce through the origination,
transmission. distribution.. and dkeemina-
tion at broadband teleco®municatims serv-
lexs:
"(2) the provisloa ui bromaoand telecom-
munications is of concern to governmental
entities:
-. (3) a uniform national policy for broad-
band telecommunications can serve to elimi-
nate and prevent. conflid3ng. and counter-.
productive re.gnlatfons In order to allow un-
hampered growth and development; of able
as a competitive:, medium which will be re-
sponsive to and serve the needs and Inter -
eats of the'Publjc; • -
"(4)' competition is a more efflclent regula-
tor than government of the provision of di-
verse telecommunications services and as
competition continues to.develop..the dereg-
ulation . of telecommunications services
should occur and
"(S) recognizing the long standing tradi-
tion of the Congress of promoting universal
telephone service at reasonable rates, and
recognizing the rapid technological changes
of the types and delivery of services offered
by the telecommtmdatimts industry. it is In
the public interest to ensure that all provid-
ers of telecom muniation services share in
the obligation of providing universal service.
"Soc. 602. The purposes of this title are
to—
"(D establish a national policy concerning
broadband teieoommuak stance and to en-
courage a competitive environment for the
growth and development of broadband tele-
communications:
"(2) establish guidelines for the exercise
of Federal. Stateand local regulatory au-
thoritr
"(3) allow cable systems to be responsive
to the needs and Interests of the public on
an equal basis without a competitive disad-
vantage with other providers of telecommu-
nications services•, and
'14) eliminate government regulation in
order to prevent the imposition of an unnee-
essary economic burden on cable systems In
their provision of service to the public.
"vrrrrrrrroivs
"Sac. 603. for purposes of this title, the
term—
(1) Imsic service' means the lowest cost
tier, other than a tier offered at a discount -
ad 'IM of service which In available to sub-
scribers for a fee and which includes the
provision of retransmission of local. broad-
cast signals, public, educational. and govern-
mental programing and any other program-
ing service as offered by a cable operator as
part of the tier, and specified in the fran-
chise agreement as part of basic service,
which is distributed by coaxial cable or my
other dosed transmission medium;
"(2) `basic telephone service' means two-
way voice grade communications that is
held oat to the public and that would be
subject to regulation by the Commission or
any State if offered by a eommon carrier
subject. In whole or in part, to title rr of this
Act;
"(3) 'broadband telecommuaicatione
means any. receipt or transmission of elec-
tromagnetic signals. Including basic service. -
cable service. and ter serv-
ice- over coaxial cable or any other closed
tiaasmisaion medium;
"(4) 'broadcasting' means telecommunica
Lions by radio Intended to be received by the
pnblim directly or by the . intermediary of
relay stations:
"(8)•.'eable. e3saanel' or..'ehauncl , means
that portion of the electromagnetic frequeif--
cy spectrum used in a cable -system for the
propagation of an electromagnetic sigsial;
'(Weable operator' or 'cable oiler
&tor' mains any person or persons, or an
agent or employee thereof. -that; provides
basic service, able service; or telecommuni-
cations aervice over a cable system. or that
directly. or: indirectly owns a significant in-
terest in any able system, or that otherwise
contmia.ot- IS. responsible for..through -say..
arrangement. the managemeafr.and open-
anon of such a cable system;
_ "(7)'cabie service' means the Pao, on by
a chamet programer of one-way programing:
on . a. par channel._ per program, or other -
basis which is distributed by ooardal able or
any other closed transmission anedinm but
such temp snail not Include basic service:
"(8) `able subecribee mains any Person -
who receives or transmits electromagnetic
signals distributed over a able system: `
"(9) 'able system' means a facility or com-
binationof facilities under the ownership or
control of any person or persons, which con-
sist of a primary control center used to re-
ceive and retransmit. or to originate broad-,
band telecommunications service over one
of more coaxial cables, or other closed
transmission media, from the primary con-
trol center to a point of reception at the
premises of a able subscriber, but such
term does not include: (A) a facility or com-
binationof facilities that serves only to re-
transmit the television signals of television
broadcast stations; (B) a facility or combina-
tion of facilities that serves only subscribers
in one or more multiple unit dwellings
under common ownership. control, or man-
agement: or (C) a common carrier subject to
the provisions, of title II of this: Ad -when-
ever such carrier transmits broadband tele-
communications services other - than basic
service or cable service:
"(10) 'channel programer' .or `programer'
means any person having an agreement to
provide basic service or cable service to a
cable system operator. or -any person who
leases, rents. or is otherwise authorized to
use the facilities of a cable system for the
provision of basic service or cable service,
and such teen shall include a cable system
operator to the extent that such operator,
or person or persons under common owner-
ship or control with such operator, is en-
swed in the provision of such service:
"(11) 'closed transmission medium' or
Ydosed transmission media' means media
having the capacity to transmit electromag-
netic signals , over a common L-ansmission
path such as coaxial cable, optical fiber,
wire, wavegulde, or other such aural con-
ductor or device:
"(12) 'franchise' means a permit` license,
ordinance. resolutiom right -of --way, con-
tract, certificate., agreement. or similar au-
thorization Issued by a franchising authori-
ty which authoriaesi the provision of basic
service, cable service, or telecommunkations
service by a cable operator,
"(13) 'franchising authority' meaner any
State, political subdivision, or agency there-
of, or -any other governmental entity em-
powered to grant a franchise:
"(14) 'grade B contour' means the field
strength of a television broadcast station
computed in accordance with regulations
promulgated by the Commission;
"(IS) 'fnformstion' mamas knowledge -or to-
telligence represented by any form- of, writ
ng, ioff. signals, pictures. sounds..ar other
a9mbalK
"(16) 'law' -includes any regtuazlen,- rule.
a'derr standard,' policy. reQnirenumit proce-
dure,or resbiction;
,"tin Verson' means an fadfHduaL part-
nershU-aseociatiom joint stock .company.
trtr0 corporation our any governmental au-
thority-
"(18) 'telecom nunicatfons' means the
transmission of fafarmation by deetromag-
netia roes im with or without benefit of any
dosed dais meditmL Including all
instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and
services (including the collection; storage.
forwardfag..swsclLzaiM and delivery of. such
fafarmntion) essential'to such transmission:
" (19) service' means
tbe-- offering of `tdeoommtaiiations faciIl-
tiea, or of but such
terms shall not include basic service or cable
se'vim and
-(20) 17nited States` means the several
States and,territories. the District of Colum-
bia, and. thepow of the 'United
States.
lsmAinvarr or ArrHoRrrr
-Szc-- WAIL The Provisions of this title shall
apply as follows:
_ -(1) The Commission shon have jurisdic-
tion and exercise authority with respect to
broadband telecommunications in accord-
ance with the. provisions of this title and
other applicable provisions of law.
. 1'(2) Nothing In this title shall be con-
strued as prohibiting any State or political
subdivision or agency thereof, or franchis-
ing authority, from awarding, in accordance
with the provisions of this title. one or more
able franchises within its jurisdiction.
"(3)(A) Except to the extent provided in
paragraph (B). no cable system shall pro-
vide basic service or cable serrice without a
cable franchise in compliance with this title.
"B) The provision of paragraph (A) shall
not be applicable in the case of say cable
system in operation on April 21, 1983.
"owwmmP oa coirrsoL or cra= sysTEms
-S= 605. (a) No State or political subdivi-
sion or agency thereof, or franchising au-
thority. shall have the authority to prohib-
it. directly or indirectly.. the ownership of
cable systems by any person by reason of
that person's ownership of any other media
•
•
r-I
L J
CJ
98326
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
or other interests, including broadcast,
cable, newspaper, programing service, or
other printed or electronic information serv-
ice.
"(bXl) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section, for the pur-
pose of ensuring fair and equitable treat-
ment of United States cable enterprises
seeking access to markets in a foreign coun-
try, the Commission shall have authority to
conduct inquiries applicable to foreign per-
sons from that country seeking access to do-
mestic markets in the United States in con-
nection with the construction, ownership
and operation of cable enterprises as to
whether such United States cable enter-
prises are permitted fair and equitable
access to such foreign markets.
"(2) The Commission shall submit any in-
formation obtained through such inquiries
to the United States Trade Representative
to assist the Trade Representative in his
identification and analysis of acts, policies
or practices fghich constitute significant
barriers to, or distortions of, United States
exports of services.
"(3) For purposes of this subsection, the
term 'foreign persons' includes any individu-
al who is not a citizen of the United States,
any subsidiary (although established under
the laws of the United States or any State
thereof) of a corporation or other business
entity which was established under the laws
of a foreign country, any corporation or
other business entity established under the
laws of a foreign country, or any corpora-
tion or other business entity- established
under the laws of the United States or any
State thereof, if 25 percent or more of the
capital stock or equivalent ownership is
owned or controlled by an individual who is
not a citizen of the United States or'.by a
corporation or other business entity estab-
lished under the laws of a foreign country,
or any subsidiary of a corporation or other
business entity established under the laws
of a foreign country,
" lcXD Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section, a State or po-
litical subdivision or agency thereof, or fran-
chising authority, may not acquire an own-
ership interest in any cable system pursuant
to a buy-back provisions of a franchise or re-
quire a sale of a cable system to any other
person pursuant to a franchise, upon the ex-
piration of the franchise, unless such State,
subdivision, agency, authority, or person ac-
quires such ownership or interest at not less
than fair market value based upon the on-
going business value of the system. In the
event that the cable operator and a State or
Political subdivision or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, are unable to agree
upon any such fair market value, then the
matter of determining fair market value
shall be submitted to binding arbitration.
For purposes of arbitration, each of the af-
fected parties shall select one arbitrator and
the two arbitrators so selected shall choose
a third arbitrator.
"(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of
paragraph (1) of this subsection, in the
event of termination for cause of a fran-
chise due to a materill breach, a State or
political subdivision or agency thereof, or
franchising authority, may acquire an own-
ership interes' in such cable system but
only upon written notice of the breach, rea-
sonable opportunity to remedy the breach,
and other due process. Any such termina-
tion shall be subject to de novo review by a
court of competent jurlsdictiwi.
"(d) In any case in which any such State,
subdivision, agency. or authority has or ac-
quires any such ownership or interest, such
State, subdivision, agency, or authority
shall, in no case, own or control, directly or
indirectly, the content of any of the pro-
graming on such cable system, except for
programing on government access channels,
unless such State or political subdivision or
agency thereof, or franchising authority, es-
tablishes an independent board or a sepa-
rate management company. Such board or
company shall not include any State or local
office holder.
"ACCESS CHANNELS
"SEC. 606. (a) A cable system operator may
be required, as part of the franchise request
for proposals, to dedicate or set aside chan-
nels for public, educational or governmental
users, and the cable system operator may
offer in a franchise to dedicate or set aside
channels for other channel users.
"(b) The franchising authority and the
cable operator may establish rules and pro-
cedures for the use of the channels set aside
or dedicated pursuant to this section.
. "(c) Until such time as there is demand
for each channel full time for its designated
use, public, educational, governmental, or
other channel programing may be combined
by the cable system operator on one or more
channels, and to the extent time is available
on such channels, they may be used by the
cable system operator for the provision of
other services.
REGULATION OF RATES AND SERVICES
"SEC. 607. (a) Nothing In this title shall be
construed as prhibiting any State or politi-
cal subdivision or agency thereof, or fran-
chising authority, from establishing, fixing,
or otherwise restricting the rates charged
by cable operators—
"M to subscribers for the receipt of basic
service.
"(2) to subscribers for equipment neces-
sary for the receipt of basic service, and
"(3) to subscribers for equipment which
facilitates the reception of basic service by
hearing impaired individuals.
"(b)(1) Any rate regulated pursuant to
this section may be increased annually at
the discretion of the cable operator by an
amount not to exceed the regional consum-
er price index for the preceeding 12 months,
upon 30 days prior notice. The ability to
affect such increases shall be cumulative for
not more than 3 successive years.
"(2) Nothwithstanding the -provisions of
paragraph (1) of this subsection, nothing in
this title shall be construed as prohibiting
any State or political subdivision or agency
thereof, or franchising authority, from pro-
viding that such automatic increases shall
not apply to a franchise which is in exist-
ence on the date of the enactment of the
Cable Telecommunications Act of 1983 and
which provides for a fixed rate for basic
service over a specified period.
"(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (a) and '(b) of this section, a
cable system operator may automatically in-
crease basic service rates which exceed the
basic rates allowed pursuant to subsection
(a) or (b) of this section if—
"(1) such operator has requested the in-
crease in rates; and
"(2) the request is not acted on within 90
days following the date of its receipt.
"(d)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsection (a) of this section, the authority
to establish, fix, or otherwise restrict the
rates charged to -subscribers for the provi-
sion of basic services set forth in subsection
(a) of this section, except to the extent oth-
erwise provided in paragraph (2) of this sub-
section, shall not be applicable in any case
where the cable system is located within the
grade B contour of not less than four televi-
sion signals of which there shall be one af-
filiate of each of the three major television
networks.
"(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) o1
this subsection shall not be applicable in the
June 14, 198,E
case of any franchise in existence prior to
the date of the enactment of the Cable
Telecommunications Act of 1983. if the
rates charged to subscribers for the provi-
sion of basic services are subject to regula-
tion or are restricted by any State or politi-
cal subdivision or agency thereof, or any
franchising authority. The provisions of
this paragraph relating to existing rate reg-
ulation of basic service shall be applicable
for a period of 5 years following the date of
the enactment of such Act, or for a period
equal to one-half of the period of the re-
maining term of such franchise, as of the
date of the enactment of such Act, which-
ever is greater. The provisions of paragraph
(1) shall be applicable to any renewal or
other extension of -any such franchise.
"(3) The provisions of paragraph (1) of
this subsection shall not be applicable
where the cable system is subscribed to by
at least 80 percent of the residences to
which cable service is available, unless the
cable operator demonstrates that 90 percent
of the time, adequate on -site reception of
the four television signals is available to
more than 50 percent of the households to
which cable service is available. Such a de-
termination shall be made by the Commis-
sion. Failure by the Commissioli to "make 'a
determination within 180 days after the
filing of an application by the cable opera-
tor shall be deemed to be a determination
that such satisfactoryreception is available.
"(e) No executive agency of the United
States, including the Commission, and no
State or political subdivision or agency
thereof, or franchising authority, shall have
authority to regulate or restrict the rates
for reconnection, additional sets to the same
subscriber, or sales of equipment.
"(f) No executive agency of the United
States, including the Commission, and no
State or political subdivision or agency
thereof, or franchising authority, shall have
authority to regulate or restrict the provi-
sion of or nature of cable services offered
over a cable system except as provided in
section 613 of this Act.
"(g)(1) No, executive agency of the United
States, including the Commission, and no
State or political subdivision or agency
thereof, or franchising authority, shall have
authority to regulate or restrict the provi-
sion of or nature of telecommunications
services offered over a cable system, except
with respect to the provision of basic tele-
phone service, intrastate telecommunica-
tions services, and except as provided in sec-
tion 613 of this Act.
"(2)(A) Subject to the provisions of sub-
paragraph (B), a State may require only the
filing of informational tariffs for intrastate
telecommunications services that would be
subject to regulation by the Commission or
any State if offered by a common carrier
subject, in whole or in part, to title II of this
Act, which are offered over a cable. system.
Such informational tariffs shall specify only
the rates, terms, and conditions for the pro-
vision of service and shall take effect on the
date specified therein.
"(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
any private telecommunications service
which is a discrete service dedicated to a
single customer and operated by such cus-
tomer.
"(3) A State shall deregulate the provision
of intrastate telecommunications services if
it finds that such services are subject to ef-
fective competition.
"(4) For purposes of this subsection, an in-
trastate telecommunications service shall be
considered to be subject to effective compe-
tition in a particular geographic area or
market if there are reasonably available.sl-
ternatives. In determining whether there
• •
June 14, 1989 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE
are reasonably available alternatives, the
State shall consider —
"(A) the number and size of providers of
services;
"(B) the extent to which services are
available from providers in the relevant geo-
graphic area or market;
"(C) the ability of such providers to make
services readily- available at comparable
rates, terms, and conditions; and
"(D) other indicators of the extent of
competition, including affiliation of provid-
ers of services.
"(5) Nothing in paragraphs (2). (3), and
(4) of thig subsection shall be construed as
being applicable to basic telephone service.
"(h) Nothing in this Act shall be con-
strued as prohibiting a franchising authori-
ty and a cable operator from specifying, in a
franchise agreement or renewal thereof,
that certain cable services shall not be pro-
vided or shall be provided subject to condi-
tions, if such cable services are obscene or
are otherwise unprotected by the United
States Constitution.
"(i) The provisions of subsections (b), (c),
and (d) shall not apply to a franchise agree-
ment in existence on the date of enactment
of this Act for a period of 5 years following
the date of enactment of this Act, or for the
remaining term of such franchise agree-
ment, whichever is greater. in any State
which has in effect, and has had in effect
since January 1, 1983, a statutory scheme
deregulating rates which contains a require-
ment regarding minimal channel capacity.
FRANCHISE FEES
"SEc. 608. (a) Cable operators -may be re-
quired in a franchise to pay to a State or po-
litical subdivision or agency thereof, or fran-
chising authority, a franchise fee.
"(bXl) No franchise fee paid by a cable
system operator for the privilege of holding
a franchise, shall exceed an annual aggre-
gate of 5 percent of such cable operator'-
gross revenues derived from the operation
of the cable system which is the subject of
the franchise.
"(2) Nothing in this section shall be con-
strued as limiting fees required by a fran-
chise in effect on the date of enactment of
the Cable Telecommunications Act of 1983
to be paid directly or indirectly to entities
established for the purpose of facilitating
the use of channels set aside for public, edu-
cational. or governmental use.
"(c) Any cable system operator may pass
the cost of any increase in a franchise fee
through to subscribers, and may designate
the total franchise fee as a separate item on
the subscribers' bills.
"(d) For the purpose of this section—
"(1) 'franchise fee' shall include any tax.
fee or assessment of any kind imposed by a
franchising authority or governmental au-
thority on a cable system operator or cable
subscriber because of their status as such;
and
"(2) 'assessment' shall not include bonds,
security funds, letters of credit, insurance.
indemnification. penalties, liquidated dam-
ages or similar requirements which are inci-
dental to the enforcement of the franchis-
ing agreement.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall be
deemed to require a cable operator to re-
negotiate the provisions of an existing fran-
chise.
"RENEWALS AND EXTENSIONS
"SEC. 609. (a) In any case in which a cable
system operator submits an application to
the franchising authority for the renewal or
other extension of such operator's franchise
authorization. the franchising authority
shall grant such renewal or other extension
unless it finds that—
"(1) the cable system operator has not
substantially complied with the material
terms of such franchise and with applicable
law. or has been convicted of a felony;
"(2) there has been a material change in
the legal, technical, or financial qualifica-
tions of the cable system operator that
would substantially impair the continued
provision of service by such operator,
"(3) the facilities to be provided by such
operator, including facilities for governmen-
tal access, are unreasonable in light of the
community need for and cost of such facili-
ties:
"(4) the signal delivered by the cable
system within the control of the cable
system operator, has not generally met
technical standards as established by the
Commission: or
"(5) the proposals contained in the renew-
al application are otherwise unreasonable.
"(b) A cable system operator must file for
renewal at least 24 months, but not more
than 36 months, before expiration of the
franchise. The franchising authority must
consider the renewal within 120 days of sub-
mission of the application and conduct any
proceedings necessary to adequately consid-
er the application.
(ca A cable system operator with a fran-
chise which shall expire within 24 months
after the date of enactment of the Cable
Telecommunications Act of 1983, shall be in
compliance with subsection (b) if he files an
application for renewal within 60 days after
such date of enactment.
"(d) The franchising authority shall—
"(1) negotiate in good faith with any cable
system operator regarding franchise renew-
al within 30 days after the completion of
proceedings pursuant to subsection (b); and
"(2) make a final decision on granting or
denying renewal within 12 months after re-
ceipt of an application;
"(3) in the case of denial of an applica-
tion—
"(A) not make the final decision for at
least 7 months from the date of receipt of
the application; and
"(B) notify the applicant by written state-
ment, within 7 days after the final decision,
of the reasons for the denial.
"(e) Any renewal applicant adversely af-
fected or aggrieved by a final decision of a
franchising authority made pursuant to sub-
section (d), or by a failure of the franchising
authority .to act in accordance with subsec-
tion (d), may obtain judicial review of such
final decision in any court of competent ju-
risdiction. The existing franchise shall
remain in effect pending the completion of
such judicial review. Such judicial review
shall be de novo, unless the renewal appli-
cant has been afforded a hearing on record
before an independent hearing examiner or
administrative law judge consistent with
State law that requires—
"(1) adequate notice;
"(2) fair opportunity for participation by
the renewal applicant, which includes —
"(A) discovery;
"(B) the filing of pleadings, motions, or
objections;
"(C) the introduction of written or oral
testimony; and
"(D) cross-examination of opposing par-
ties: and
"(3) a written decision by the examiner or
judge based exclusively on the full record of
the hearings and stating the specific find-
ings of fact and conclusions of law on which
the decision is based.
"UNAUTHORIZED INTERCEPTION OR RECEPTION
"SEC. 610. (a) No person or government
authority shall intercept or receive broad-
band telecommunications unless specifically
authorized to do so by a cable system opera-
tor, channel programer, or originator of
broadband telecommunications or as may
S 8327
otherwise be specifically authorized by Fed-
eral law.
"(b) In order to safeguard the right to pri-
vacy and security of broadband telecommu-
nications, such broadband telecommunica-
tions shall be deemed to be a 'wire commu-
nication' within the meaning of section
2510(1) of title 18 of the United States Code.
"(c) In the event that there may be any
difference between the provisions of this
section and chapter 119 of title 18 of the
United States Code, or any regulations pro-
mulated thereunder, it is the intent of the
Congress that such chapter 119 shall be
controlling.
PROTECTION of SUBSCRIBER PRIVACY
"SEC. 611. (aXD Except as provided in
paragraph (2) of this subsection, no cable
operator, channel programer, or originator
of broadband telecommunications may use
the cable system to collect personally identi-
fiable information with respect to a cable
subscriber, except upon the prior written or
electronic consent of that subscriber.
"(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of
this subsection shall not apply to the collec-
tion of information solely for billing pur-
poses or to monitor whether there is unau-
thorized reception of cable telecommunica-
tions.
"(3) A cable operator, channel programer.
or originator of broadband telecommunica-
tions shall ensure that any such informa-
tion is destroyed when the information is no
longer used or to be used for the purposes
for which it was collected.
"(b) No cable- operator, channel pro-
gramer, or originator of broadband telecom-
munications shall disclose personally identi-
fiable information obtained pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section with respect to
a cable subscriber, or personally identifiable
information with respect to the services pro-
vided to or received by a particular cable
subscriber by way of a cable system, except
upon the prior written or electronic consent
of the subscriber, or pursuant to a lawful
court order authorizing such disclosure.
"(c) If a court shall authorize or order dis-
closure, the cable subscriber shall be noti-
fied of such order by the person to whom
such order may be directed, within a reason-
able period of time before the disclosure is
made, but in no event less than 14 calendar
days.
"(d) Each cable operator shall, at the time
of entering into an agreement to provide
cable telecommunications, and regularly
thereafter, inform every subscriber of the
rights of the subscriber under this section.
Such information shall include a description
of the nature of the information to be main-
tained by the cable operator, channel pro-
gramer, or originator of broadband telecom-
munications, and the location and availabil-
ity of such information.
"(e) A cable subscriber shall have access to
all personally identifiable information re-
garding that subscriber which is collected
and maintained by a cable operator, channel
programer, or originator of broadband tele-
communications. Such information shall be
available to the subscriber at reasonable
times and at a place designated by the cable
operator, channel programer, or originator
of broadband telecommunications.
"(f) Any cable subscriber whose privacy is
violated in contravention of this section,
shall be entitled to recover civil damages as
authorized and in the manner set forth in
section 2520 of title 18 of the United States
Code. This remedy shall be in addition to
any other remedy available to such sub-
scriber.
•
•
•
S 8328
"CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIARILITy
• •
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —SENATE
•' SEc. 612. Nothing in this title shall be
deemed to affect the criminal or civil liabili-
ty of channel programers or cable operators
pursuant to the laic of libel, slander, obseen-
ity, incitement, invasions of privacy, false or
misleading advertising, or other similar
laws, except that cable operators shall not
incur such liability for any program carried
on any public, educational, governmental, or
other channel referred to in subsection (a)
of section 606, or for any program required
by law to be carried on any other channel.
•
•
franchise and in accordance with the provi-
sion thereof. For purposes of this subsec-
tion, a franchise agreement containing such
requirements shall be considered to have
been in effect on such date of enactment if
such agreement was the result of a fran-
chise proceeding for which a request for
-proposals was originally issued, however
subsequently modified or replaced, on or
prior to September 30, 1982.
"PROGRAMING. SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
"SEC. 613. (a) No State or political subdivi-
sion or agency thereof, or franchising au-
thority, may require the provision of partic-
ular programing or other broadband serv-
ices, or facilities, equipment, services, or
other items of value which are not related
to the provision of broadband tekx*mmuni-
cations service.
"(b) A franchising authority may require,
as part of the franchise request for propos-
als—
"(1) channel capacity for public, educa-
tional or governmental access purposes; and
"(2) the construction of cable system facil-
ities or provision of other cable -related
equipment.
"(c) A cable operator may offer. but may
not be required to provide, as part of basic
service or any other tier of service--
"(1) channel capacity for other access
uses; and
(2) particular services.
"(d) The cable operator may replace or
remove a particular service specified in the
cable franchise as part of the basic service
or any other tier of cable service or telecom-
munications service in any case in which
there has been a significant change in cir-
cumstances since the cable operator's offer
to provide such service. The cable operator
may not be required to retain a specified
service in any particular category of service
other than basic service.
"(2) In any case in which a cable operator
submits a showing that, as a Insult of a Sig-
nificant Chan a in circumstances, particular
facilities and equipment required by the
franchise are economically, technically, or
otherwise impracticable, the franchising au-
thority shall enter into negotiations with
the cable operator for the termination,
modification. or deferral of such require-
ment. If such terms and conditions cannot
be agreed upon within 45 days, the matter
shall be submitted to binding arbitration.
For purposes of arbitration, each of the af-
fected parties shall select 1 arbitrator and
the 2 arbitrators so selected shall choose a
third arbitrator. The existing franchise pro-
visions. except for those which are the sub-
ject of arbitration, shall not be affected by
the arbitrators' final decision.
"(e) Except as prodded in subsection (C)
of this section, a franchising authority may,
in accordance with the provisions of this
section, enforce any offer to provide partic-
ular basic service set forth in subsection,(c)
or particular cable services or telecommuni-
cations services or cable system facilities or
cable -related equipment offered by a cable
operator provided that the provision of such
services, facili es, or equipment is specifi-
cally required by the franchise agreemert.
"(f) Notwithstanding the preceding provi-
sions of this section, in any case in which a
franchise agreement in effect on the date of
the enactment of the Cable': elecommunica-
tions Act of 1983 requires the cable operator
to Provide particular programing,_ services,
facilities, cable related equipment, or chan-
nel capability for access uses, such require-
ments, subject to subsections (d) and (e),
shall remain in effect for the term of the
"NO REGULATION AS COMMON CARRIER
"SEC. 614. No executive agency of the
United States, including the Commission,
and no State or political subdivision or
agency thereof, or franchising authority.
shall have authority to impose on a cable
system regulation as a common carrier or a
utility to the extent that such cable system
provides broadband telecommunications
service other than basic telephone service.".
EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION
SEC. 2. (a) Except to the extent otherwise
specifically provided in title VI of the Com-
munications Act of 1934, as added by the
first section of this Act and as provided. in
section 607 of such title, the Federal Gov-
ernment shall have exclusive jurisdiction
over broadband telecommunications regard-
ing matters covered by such title.
(b) Any law of any State or political subdi-
vision or agency thereof, or franchising au-
thority, in effect on the effective date of
title VI of the Communications Act of 1934,
as added by the first section of this Act,
which is In conflict with the provision of
subsection (a) of this section relating to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Gov-
ernment, shall be deemed superseded, as of
the expiration of the 6-month period follow-
ing the date of the enactment of this Act,
and shall thereafter be null and void and of
no effect.
(c) Except W the extent otherwise pro-
vided by this Act and the amendments made
thereby, any State or political subdivision or
agency thereof, or franchising authority,
may exercise jurisdiction over matters
which are of strictly local concern and
which are necessary for reasons of public
health, safety, and welfare, including the
terms and conditions for the granting of a
franchise, the construction and operation of
a cable system, and the enforcement and ad-
ministration of a franchise.
June 14, 1983
"DECLARATION
"SEC. 8. The Congress declares that com.
Petition is a more efficient regulator than
government of the provision of diverse com-
munications services and as competition
continues to develop, the deregulation of
communications services should occur.".
_ EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 4. The provisions of this Act and the
amendments made thereby shall take effect
upon the date of enactment of this Act.
REDESIGNATION
SEC. 5. The existing title VI of the Com-
munications Act of 1934 is redesignated as
title VII, and sections 601 through 609 are
redesignated as sections 701 through 709.
respectively.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which
the bill was passed.
Mr. BAKER. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. BARER: Mr. President, I wish
to commend the distinguished chair-
man of the Commerce . Committee
(Senator PACKWOOD) and the Senator
from Arizona, the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Communications
(Senator GOLDWATER), the Senator
from Kentucky, and others who par-
ticipated in the deliberations of the
Senate on the cable TV bill. This is an
important measure which was hotly
debated and adopted in a fairly
prompt manner.
I extend my congratulations to them
for the efficient management of this
important matter.
Mr. President, as I have already an-
nounced, there will be no more record
votes tonight.
ORDERS FOR WEDNESDAY
ORDER FOR RECESS UNTIL 9:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BARER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that when the
Senate completes Its business today It
NEW AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES stand in recess until the hour of 9:30
Sac. 3. 71tle I of the Communications Act a.m. tomorrow.
of 1934 is amended by inserting after section The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
6 the following new sections: out objection, it is so ordered.
NEW AND ADDITIONAL SERVICES
"Sac. 7. (a) Consistent with sound spec-
trum management, the Commission shall, to
the maximum feasible extent, encourage
the introduction of new and additional serv-
ices by new applicants, existing licensees, or
other persons. In any proceeding in which
new or additional services are proposed,
such services shall be presumed to be in the
Public interest whenever the Commission
finds that such services are techically feasi-
ble without causing significant technical
degradation to or interference with radio
transmissions by other licensees.
"(b) Any person may file with the Com-
mission a petition to establish or an applica-
tion to offer a new or additional services.
"(c) The Commission must determine
whether the new or additional service pro-
posed in a petition or application is in the
public interest within I year after such peti-
tion or application is filed. If the Commis-
sion initiates its owls proceeding for a new
or additional service, such proceeding must
be completed within 12 months after it is
initiated
ORDER FOR REDUCTION IN LEADERSHIP TIME
TOMORROW
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I fur-
ther ask unanimous consent that —and
may -I say, by the way. that I have
talked to the minority leader about
this and he is agreeable —on tomorrow
the time allocated to the two leaders
under the standing order be reduced
to 5 minutes each.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE RECOGNITION OF SENATOR
JACKSON ON TOMORROW
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, after the rec-
ognition of the two leaders under the
standing order, the distinguished Sen-
ator from Washington (Mr. JACKSON)
be recognized on a special order of not
to exceed 15 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
• TMLTEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE
1020 Southwest Tower Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 478-6601
•
July 5, 1983
TO: ALL CITIES SERVED BY SOUTHWESTERN BELL
RE: (1) 1983 Rate Increase Request
(2) "Access" Charge Case
(3) Appeal of 1982 Rate Case
On June 24, 1983, Southwestern Bell filed for another rate
increase with the Public Utility Commission. The Company has
asked for a massive $1.7 billion per annum increase (an increase
of approximately 76.36%).
The company is, once more, asking to put the bulk of its
rate increase on local exchange customers, both business and
residential. Local exchange service, both business and local,
would be increased by a total amount of $1,147.4 million per
annum. One party residential rates would be increased $19.60 per
month. Business rates would be increased from $10.25 per month
in Houston to $15.65 per month in the smallest exchanges.
The hearing date in the case has not been set but is
expected to last 6 to 8 weeks. The 1982 case required a similar
amount of time and the issues are much more complex in this case.
Also, the PUC has set several regional hearings to hear ratepayer
comments. Those hearings are to be held on the following dates:
July
6
Houston
July
7
Corpus Christi
July
8
Brownsville
July
8
Austin
July
11
Dallas
July
15
Lubbock
July
16
E1 Paso
Representatives of several cities met in Austin on June 21,
1983 to discuss what collective action, if any, should be taken
by cities in connection with the above rate request. The
unanimous opinion of all concerned was that cities should present
a consolidated case before the PUC.
To coordinate the cities' efforts a Steering Committee was
selected composed of those names on the attached list. Tom
James, Director of Consumer Services of Dallas will serve as
July 5, 1983 a •
Page 2
11
Chairman and Marsha Gardner, Director of Public Utilities of
Houston will serve as Vice -Chairman. The Steering Committee may
be expanded to obtain a broader representation. If any of your
city officials wish to volunteer their services on the Steering
Committee, please advise.
The Steering Committee subsequently decided to hire the
firms of Hess & Limm of Washington, D.C. and Ben Johnson &
Associates of Tallahassee, Florida to work as the cities' rate
consultants. Both firms have extensive experience in utility
rate cases across the nation including effects of the AT&T
divestiture. Don Butler and Grace Hopkins Casstevens of Austin,
Galen Sparks, Assistant City Attorney of Dallas, and other city
attorneys who can volunteer will act as attorneys.
The city representatives also heard a status report on
lawsuits involving Southwestern Bell rates. Over the past year
the Cities and the Attorney General's office have been involved
in extensive litigation brought by the company through appeal of
its 1982 rate case. A favorable decision in the district court
was obtained by the Cities and Attorney General on July 2.
. Also discussed was the "access charge" case instituted by
the PUC, which is to be heard August 1, 1983.
In order to present an effective rate case, it will be
necessary to have the financial support of all cities served by
Southwestern Bell. It is the request of the Steering Committee
that each such city pay 4� per capita (based on 1980 population
figures) to defray the cost of the case. Any excess collections
will be refunded upon the final determination of the case or held
as a reserve for the next case. Approximately $35,000 remains on
hand from the prior case. This case will be much more complex
and costly than prior cases. Prior cases have cost approximately
$150,000 each, including around $120,000 for consultants, $20,000
in attorneys fees and $10,000 for other expenses. Appeals by the
company have added to these costs.
Enclosed is an authorization for your city's participation
in the case. Please return (with your check payable to
TML-SOUTHWESTERN BELL RATE CASE TRUST FUND) as soon as possible
so that your city can be a part of this vital effort.
Please forward this information to your city councils and
all interested officials of your city.
0
0154 •
• Mr. R. H. Aughinbaugh
Utility Supervisor
1000 Throckamrton
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Hon. Richard Browning
Mayor
P. 0. Box 505
Edna, TX 77957
Mr. Earl Bracken, Jr.
City Attorney
P. 0. Box 1370
Waco, TX 76703
Mr. Harvey Cargill
City Attorney
P. 0. Box 60
Abilene, TX 79604
Mr. J. W. Dodson
. City Manager
Drawer 738
Yoakum, TX 77995
Ms. Marsha Gardner
(Vice -Chairman)
Director, Public Serv. Dept.
P. 0. Box 1562
Houston, TX 77001
Mr. Terry Haynes
City Attorney
P. 0. Box 1037
Paris, TX 75460
11
Mr. Tan L. James (Chairman) Mr. Leland Nelson
Director of Consumer Services City Manager
City of Dallas, Rm. IDS P. 0. Box 8005
1500 Marilla Street University Park, TX 75205
Dallas, TX 75201
Mr. Charlie McNabb
Asst. City Attorney
2 Civil Center Plaza
E1 Paso, TX 79999
Mr. Dan Parker
Director of Finance
P. 0. Box 309
Richardson, TX 75080
Mr. Merril Nunn
City Attorney
P. 0. Box 1971
Amarillo, TX 79186
Mr. Mark Neff
City of Fort Stockton
Box 1000
Ft. Stockton, TX 79375
Mr. Herb Prouty
City Attorney
Temple Municipal Bldg.
Temple, TX 76501
Mr. Roger Ibarra
City of San Antonio
P. 0. Box 9066
San Antonio, TX 78285
Mr. Clarence Jackson
Councilman
P. 0. Box 39
Marion, TX 78124
Hon. Glen White
Mayor
1901 5th St.
Bay City, TX 77414
RESULTS AND POSITIONS
ALL STATE-WIDE
SOUTHWESTERN BELL RATE CASES
($ MILLIONS)
Long
Local
Cities'
Company
Cities'
PUC Staff
PUC Examiner's
PUC
Distance
Exchange
Per Capita
Request
Evidence
Recommendation
Recommendation
Order
Increase
Increase
Ex ense
1976
$ 298.3
$ 61.5
$ 49.8
---
$ 57.8
$ 61.5
($68.4)
3.0�
1978
214.3
118.0
105.7
---
124.5
-0-
31
2.5
1979
143.7
109.8
156.4
$137.2
138.8
=0-
79
2.0
1980
326.3
73.4
152.7
114.3
114.3
-0-
20.5
3.0
1981
469.8
176.8
249.3
243.7
243.7
79.8
96.5
3.5
1982
471.5
210.0
307.4
243.9
243.9
88.5
70.3
3.5
Totals
1,923.9
749.5
1,021.3
---
923.0
229.8
228.9
17.5
1983
1,705.0
---
---
---
---
**504.0 ***1147.4
4.0� •
*Requested by Company
**Access Charges to Long Distance Carriers
***Includes Access Charges to Local Ratepayers
SW Bell files record request
*for $1.7 billion revenue hike
By Jackie Ca(mes
Austin Bureau of The News
AUSTIN — Southwestern Bell
Telephone Co., in its first Texas
case reflecting the impending
breakup with giant American Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., filed a
record $1.7 billion revenue request
Friday that would triple the cost of
a residential phone line.
The $1.7 billion is nearly four
times the size of any previous Bell
request filed with the Public Utility
Commission and is almost as much
as the six previous rate cases com-
S A C�; 0alla0)Rorninq)hW$
bined. Of the total, $1.2 billion
would come from higher local
rates. Long-distance rates would
not increase.
Rates for a one -party residential
line would increase $19.60 state-
wide — driving the monthly
charge for residents of Dallas and
many suburbs from $10.10 to $29.70.
Proposed increases for business
customers are substantially
smaller, ranging from $10.25 more
a month in the most populous areas
around Houston to $15.65 in rural
areas with the smallest calling
scope. In Dallas, a one -party busi-
Saturday, June 25, 1983
ness line would increase $12.40
monthly — from $24.50 to $36.90.
Bell vice president . Paul Roth
justified the request as being pri-
marily the result of Federal Com-
munications Commission decisions
and the 1982 anti-trust settlement
between the U.S. Justice Depart-
ment and AT&T. The AT&T divesti-
ture, which is still pending in fed-
eral court, takes effect Jan. 1.
"Without these changes," Roth
said, "our filing today would be
about $500 million — very similar
in makeup to our request in previ-
ous years."
SW Bell seeks record revenue hike
HISTORY
dF BELL REQUESTS
RIVDste Amount requested Amount granted
1976 $298.3 million $57.8 millio
in $214.3 million $124.5 million
im $243million • $138.8mllion
19611) $326.3 million $114.3 million
1981 $469.8 million $243.7 million
1982 $471.5 million $243.9 million*
'Bell reduced the $243 million to $143.7 million in line
with federal anti-inflation guidelines.
"These rates took effect last January, but Bell's ap-
peal of the decision is still pending in an Austin district
court.
NOTE: Until the rate filing Friday, Bell had asked for
more than $2 billion in higher revenues since the PUC
began regulating telephone utilities in 1976. The PUC
has granted $923 million — about 46 percent — of
Bell's requests.
The Dallas Morning News
PUC chairman Al Erwin, noting
that Bell's request is "the largest
rate case ever filed in the United
States," complained that "the only
Please see SW BELL on Page 8A.
40
Continued from Page IA.
beneficiary I can see is AT&T, other
long-distance providers and high -
volume long-distance users such as
giant retailers.
"The public itself does not have
any, benefits — other than to face
the possibility of seeing their basic
phone -service cost tripled," he said.
Erwin scheduled regional hear-
ings in July in six cities to hear
public testimony on Bell's request.
The;date for a.hearing in Dallas is
July, 11. The PUC has 185 days, or
until late December, to make a de-
cision.
Historically, the PUC has
granted Bell a fraction of its re-
quests. "There's no assumption
here that one penny is necessary,"
Erwin said of the request Friday.
Gov. Mark White said, "it sounds
like:thefte trying to reach out and
touch someone."
The case is a major challenge for
White, who campaigned for lower
utility rates and since has ap-
pointed all three PUC members.
Both White and Erwin indicated
that Erwin will be renamed to the
PUC when his term expires Aug. 31,
allowing him to complete the Bell
cass.
Bristling at descriptions of local
rates tripling, Roth said: "Let's
keep things in perspective.... Our
residential customers now pay
about 35 cents a day for local tele-
p e service — less than the one-
wbus fare in Austin.
. e're asking that they pay ap-
p 'matly,65:cents a day more,"
hO _ id. "Telephone service'would
th cost about the same per day as
ak of cigarettes or a round-trip
blkliticket in Austin and a little
In* -than cable TV — still, I think,
ott of the better values in the .
h hold budget."
breakdown of the $1.7 billion
in lades S502 million to cover busi-
neA,..expenses and to pay investors
a 1*57 percent return; $450 million
for; faster depreciation of equip-
ment; $249 million in "access
ch>irges" to ratepayers to subsidize
th long-distance revenues Bell is
losl`iig to AT&T, and $504 million in
similar access charges to independ-
en Iong-distance companies, such,
as MCI Communications Corp., to
HOW BELL RNUEST
WOULD AFFECT TEXAS CUSTOMERS DallasTimes Herald
City Residential Residential BU*ws -Business
rate request rate request
•Waxahachie $7.85 27.45 18.40 34.05
McKinney $8.05 27.65 18.85 34.30
Denison $8.50 28.10 19.90 34.90
WHO $8.28.2.55 35.25Bell seeks
Austin $9.05 05 28.65 65 21.25 35.60 60
Fort Worth -Tarrant Co. $9.55 29.15 22.35 36.20
Dallas and suburbs $10.10 29.70 24.50 36.90
Houston and suburbs $10.75 30.35 27.50 37.75 more from
NOTE: The charges do not include monthly charges for phone rental or for special
calling services. The Bell request also does not include a $4 charge that will be added
to customer bills after Jan. 1 due to a Federal Communications Commission order. 41:
The order is mandatory. The PUC cannot change it. rate hike
plug into Bell's network. The hallos Morning hews
The rate proposal reflects changes that are about to revolu- not local ratepayers - should have $92. million sought
tionize customers' relations to the to pay the subsidy to Bell.
phone system. After Jan. 1, Bell will from 1982 request
provide long-distance service only The league has retained the con-
within 15 intrastate LATAs -local suiting firm of Hess &Lim, Inc., of
Greenbelt, Md., to help oppose the Associated Press
access and transport areas. Calls
outside those LATAs would be car- Bell case. Tom Weiss of Hess and Lim AUSTM - Southwestern Bell
Lim said the access charge "smacks
tied by AT&T or along -distance Telephone Co., which has a $1.7
competitor. of discrimination right off the bat" billion rate increase pending, was
For instance, Bell would handle because it effectively charges cus- scheduled to go to court today to
a call from Dallas to Fort Worth. be- tomers for long-distance service try to squeeze an additional $92
cause both cities are within the even if they never call long-dis- million into its rate request of last
same LATA, but another company tance. year.
would have to provide service from Butler and Weiss echoedThe telephone company in 1982
Dallas to Houston. Erwin's concern that the Bell pro- asked for $471.5 million in in -
Also, Bell no longer will install posal threatens "universal service" creases, but was granted $243.9
- a Depression -era concept that
or repair phone instruments. So,' p p .million by the Public Utility Com-
8 wasappealed
phone rates should be low enough mission. That ruling before 1�984, customers will have to
�ecide whether to buy a phone or: to be affordable for all Americans. by Southwestern Bell.
to rent one from AT&T. Customers Roth, ackcould approach
that local The lawsuit, to be heard today
also will have to choose a company phone rates could approach , sa a by state District Judge Harley
month in the next five years, said
to provide long-distance service Clark of Austin, contends the
Bell is committed to universal serv-
outside their LATA and their state. ice. commission mishandled several as -
The most controversial element "I think the question is, is a $30- 1ects of the case.
of Bell's proposal is likely to be they a•month rate - or something in Company spokesman Jim Good -
idea of "access charges" to increase that range - the end of universal win said the PUC forced South -
local rates and replace lost long-dis- service? I don't think that it is," he western Bell .to make higher re-
tance revenues. said. funds than necessary to customers
The FCC has ordered that after who paid bonded rates for two
Jan. 1, Bell customers will pay an months while the case was
average $4 a month in "access pending.
charges" to make up for Bell's loss Refunds totaling $29.4 million
of lon&istance revenues. By were made in June, according to
separating from AT&T, Bell will Goodwin, although the company
lose its former share of all inter- felt that refunds of $8 million
state long-distance revenues and were justified.
three -fourths of intrastate reve- Clark also will rule on a South-
nues. western Bell complaint that the
Bell and the PUC have no choice PUC improperly disallowed a rate
about the FCC's order. But Bell has hike of $61.5 million to cover pay -
proposed a similar access charge ments made by the company to
that also averages $4 monthly. loth American Telephone and Tele-
graph for research and other
access charges would increase by projects.
about $1 annually for the next five "We feel those services are
years for ratepayers. Meanwhile, beneficial to Texas telephone cus-
the access charges would be phased tomers," said Goodwin.
kut over that period for AT&T and Clark also must decided on com-
her long-distance providers. pany claims that the commission
Austin lawyer Don Butler, who set a lower rate of return than
received the Texas Municipal was justified. Southwestern Bell
League's go-ahead Friday to oppose sought a 13.09 percent return, but
the Bell case, said he will argue was granted only 12.29 percent.
that the long-distance companies - Goodwin said the actual return is
now under 10 percent.
Junud'y, June To, iylsj AustiOnerican-Statesman •
Bell claims increase to replace rate
• By BRUCE RIGHT subsidy
American -Statesman Staff
from long-distance,
The $1.7 billion rate increase proposed by
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. hinges largely Greene also wrote that "the fostering of compe-
on the contention that long-distance rates have tition in the telecommunications field need not.
subsidized residential rates to keep them unnatu- and should not be the cause of increases in local
rally low — but that does not wash with the com- telephone rates."
pany's critics.
If the Public Utility Commission grants Bell its
request, Austin residential bills would jump from
$9.05 per month to $28.65. Until January, when the
commission will rule on the request, lively debate
can be expected over the subsidy issue.
Bell officials say the proposed tripling of resi-
dential rates is only what it takes to make residen-
tial service pay for itself. For years, they say,
residential — and to a lesser extent, business —
rates have remained low because the company
subsidized them with long-distance profits.
The subsidy ends Jan. 1, when Southwestern
Bell and 21 other local Bell companies become in-
dependent from American Telephone & Tele-
graph Co. AT&T will keep the bulk of the
long-distance business.
Bell Vice President Paul Roth repeated Friday,
when the company filed the rate increase, that
residential rates had never paid their own way
AWthat "local rates can no longer hide behind
g-distance."
THAT LONG-DISTANCE would no longer sub-
sidize local service should mean lower long-dis-
tance charges, and that was the only consolation
Roth could offer consumers.
Don
Butler, attorney for the Texas Municipal
League, denounced
Bell's claim as a mas-
sive propaganda job to
justify a big rate in-
crease.
Don Butler
ing the AT&T divestiture.
"There has never
been any proof that
there was a subsidy," he
said.
Another critic of the
subsidy rationale is U.S.
District Judge Harold
Greene, who is oversee -
In an April court memo Greene wrote that the
Federal Communications Commission, despite
years of regulating AT&T, "was never able to de-
termine whether, in fact, local rates had been sub-
sidized by long-distance rates."
GREENE SAID THAT there is no legitimate
s for using the reorganization of the Bell sys-
iass a means for undermining the universal ser-
vice objective or as an excuse for raising local
rates.
Universal service is a long-standing national
policy of keeping local rates as low as possible so
that the maximum number of people can afford a
home telephone.
Although the Texas utility commission has
stopped short of declaring that long-distance sub-
sidized local rates, it raised intrastate long-dis-
tance charges last year to keep down Increases in
local rates.
In last year's Bell rate case, the company asked
for a $471.5 million increase, of which $407 mil-
lion was to come from residential and business
monthly charges.
THE COMMISSION chopped that $407 million
to $96.5 million — in part by accepting a hearing
examiner's recommendation to boost, over Bell's
objection, in -state long-distance charges by 10 per-
cent to raise $79.8 million.
Among the intervenors in the upcoming Texas
rate case will be AT&T itself, which 18 months ago
decided to give up its 22 local Bell companies to
free itself of a federal antitrust suit that had kept it
in court since 1974 and to get around government
controls that had prevented it from entering the
computer business.
AT&T, however, will keep the interstate long-
distance business and the bulk of the intrastate
long-distance. It faces competition with other
companies, like MCI Telecommunications Inc.,
for long-distance business.
The local Bell companies will keep their mo-
nopoly on the supposedly money -losing local resi-
dential and business lines and retain about 25
percent of the intrastate long-distance business.
Not all of the $1.7 billion increase is directly at-
tributable to Bell's loss of long-distance revenue,
but a good chunk is.
BELL WANTS $249 million of the $1.7 billion to
come from a new access charge on residential and
business lines to help make up the loss of long-dis-
tance. Of the $19.60 increase in the monthly resi-
dential bill sought by Bell, $4 of it comes from this
new "access charge" (access to long-distance
service).
On top of the $4 sought by Bell, the FCC has or-
dered its own $4 access charge. Conceivably, then,
residential customers could end up paying $8 a
month in access charges even if they never use
long-distance.
Another $504 million would come from new ac-
cess charges against AT&T, MCI and other long-
distance companies themselves. Those companies
can pass the charges on to their own customers —
and AT&T still has more than 90 percent of the
long-distance business in Travis County.
Paul Roth
Bell's rate request Friday included $450 million
for faster depreciation of capital investment be
-
,,,Ouse of rapid technological change in,
Wecommunications.
Finally, Bell sought "only" $502 million in in-
creases to pay for conventional increases in the
cost of business and higher profits. Even so, a $502
million request would have topped the commis-
sion's previous high rate request — last year's Bell
rate case for $471.5 million.
•
0
THE WALL STREET JOUIRL
Friday, June 3, 1983
Judge in AT&CT Case Says He Seeks Ways.
To Help Bell Firms Limit Local Rate Rises
By ROBERT E. TAYLOR and JAME3 A. WHITE
Stqff Reporters of THE WAIL STRELT JOURNAL
WASHINGTON—A federal judge oversee-
ing the breakup of American Telephone &
Telegraph Co. indicated he was looking for
ways to help Bell phone companies hold
down increases in local rates, possibly at the
expense of the parent.
Judge Harold H. Greene said rate in-
creases allowed by the Federal Communica-
tions Commission beginning next year work
at "cross-purposes" with the national goal
of providing Americans with affordable tele-
phone service.
He noted that maintaining affordable ser-
vice was a major objective in the court's
August approval of AT&T's divestiture of its
22 local phone companies. Judge Greene
said he will determine whether the 'FCC's
rate decision in December impairs that goal
and upsets the delicate balance that was
sought in the original divestiture agree-
ment.
Attorneys in the case inferred the judge
was considering changes in AT&T's divesti-
ture plan that would shift some costs to the
parent from the local Bell companies or oth-
erwise strengthen the local units to hold
down rate increases. The judge "is really
looking for (added) revenue streams" for
the local companies, said Patrick Wiggins,
deputy general counsel of the Florida Public
Services Commission.
At a hearing reviewing the proposed_
AT&T divestiture plan, state regulators,
tclecommunications suppliers and local Bell
executives suggested to Judge Greene vari-
ous measures aimed at strengthening the lo-
cal companies. They included requiring the
parent AT&T to assume .all expenses in.
volved in the divestiture and to pay costs fo f
providing all long-distance competitors with
the same quality hookup to local customers.)
as enjoyed by AT&T itself.
Of those costs, estimated at $2.9 billion
over five years, all but $206 million would be
paid by the local companies under AT&T's
proposed divestiture plan.
Critics of AT&T's plan also contended
that it assigns to the local companies too
much of the potential liability for private an-
titrust suits pending against AT&T. The plan
would apportion the liability in direct rela,
tion to the local companies' shares of the as-
sets of the Bell System. Critics also urged
Judge Greene to allow the local companies
to obtain a wider range of Bell patents and
to sell phone equipment after the divestiture
under the Bell name.
AT&T and Justice Department attorneys
opposed ail the 'modifications suggested.
Judge Greene didn't indicate which, if any,
of the changes he would order before giving
his final approval to carrying out the Bell
System breakup that AT&T hopes to com-
plete early next year.
Judge Greene, sharpening previous criti-
cism of the FCC, scored the agency's deci-
sion to add at least $2 a month to every resi-
dential phone bill and $4 a month for each
business phone line to help cover costs of lo-
cal service that the FCC says have been
supported by long-distance charges. The
judge invited the FCC to answer questions
about the new, so-called "access charges,"
but the agency declined.
Instead, the FCC filed written comments
about the future use of the Bell name and
logo without making specific recommenda-
tions, Judge Greene said. "This is the kind
of approach to problems which debilitated
the regulatory route and left no choice other
than this lawsuit and the breakup of AT&T,"
the judge complained.
With only six months remaining before
AT&T's target date for the breakup, AT&T
attorney, Howard J. Trienens, urged Judge
Greene to act promptly on the proposed di-
vestiture plan. "Time is running and we're
overloading the circuits," Mr. Trienens said.
Judge Greene said he would do his best "to
speed it up" without indicating when he will
rule on the plan.
• Dallas, Texas, Saturday, ey 2, 1983 25 Cents
• Court denies
Bell bl*d'for
'*
061*5_M1llion
11
•
By Richard Fish
Austin Bureau of The News
. AUS71N — A state district judge
ruled Friday that Southwestern
Bell has failed to justify $61.5 mil-
lion worth of payments to its par-
ent company and is not entitled to
charge the costs to Texas custom-
ers.
The ruling was handed down in
Austin by state Dist. Judge Harley
Clark one week after Southwestern
Bell filed a record $1.7 billion rate -
increase request.
Bell had asked Clark to restore
charges that the Texas Public Util-
ity Commission cut from the phone
company's 1982 rate request.
Bell sought a $471.5 million rate
increase last year, but the PUC al-
lowed the phone company to raise
rates by only $243.9 million.
Bell officials said the PUC im-
properly rejected more than $90
million of its rate request, includ-
ing $61.5 million that it had paid to
its parent firm, American ;Tele•
phone & Telegraph, for special
services.
A PUC examiner said Bell
sought to charge Texas customers
for costs of political lobbying in
other states and in Congress and
for development of products that
will never be marketdd.
The PUC rejected the reimburse•
ment request, saying Bell couldn't
Please see COURT on Page 14A.
14 A 0,,belualladiloraiag rks Saturday, July 2, 1983
Court rules SW Bell
has failed to J*ustify
$61.5 million charge
Continued from page 1A.
prove that the expenses benefited
Texans.
Attorneys for Atty. Gen. Jim
11atLox'.office and the Texas Munic-
ipal i.eague argued successfully
Friday that Texas law requires spe-
cific justification of payments
made between affiliate companies
such as Southwestern Bell and
AT&T.
Assistant Aity. Gen. Fernando
Rodriguez said Bell provided the
PUC with 4,600 budget reports to
Justify the AT&T payments. But Ro•
driguez said that many of the re-
ports were "unclear and cryptic. '
"The PUC staff couldn't divine
the Propeand Bell'srtthem,numbers from
Own witnesses (the
1982 hearing) couldn't divine
them, either," Rodriguez said.
He said some documents
"clearly demonstrated" that the
AT&T charges were improper.
Bell attorney Robert Hearon
said some of the charges may have
been unwarranted, but he said that
"there is an underlying injustice"
in throwing out the entire request.
"Everyone in this room knows
that Southwestern Bell and its ra-
tepayers got a substantial benefit
from most of these services,"
Hearon said.
Rodriguez said. that lawyers
found $1.8 million in questionable
charges after randomly examining
Bell's reports.
"AT&T has sucked out of the (re-
gional) operating companies funds
which, it has been proved, went to
improper purposes," Rodriguez
said.
Clark also rejected Bell's conten-
tion that it had been required to re-
fund too much money to customers
after the PUC cut its 1982 rate -in-
crease request.
The PUC ordered Bell to return
$29.4 million to phone customers.
The company said it should have
refunded only $8 million.
After the ruling. Bell spokesman
Dale Johnson said, "We still feel
very emphatically that (the con-
tract payments to AT&T) contain
large amounts of benefit to Texas
ratepayers.... We will take under
consideration whether to appeal."
0
Dallas Morntg News 7/3/83
• AT&T split promises
C�
0
telephone
.,
By Jackie Calmes
Austin Bureau of The News
AUSTIN — Next Jan. 1, after a
night of New Year's revelry, most
Americans will awake to the begin-
ning of a revolution and the end of
the world as phone users know it.
Jan. 1 is the effective date, after
two years of preparation, of a court -
approved settlement of the U.S. Jus-
tice Department antitrust suit
against American Telephone &
Telegraph Co. Fifty years of low-
cost phone service, which Bell pro-
vided in exchange for monopoly
status, will come to an end.
Texans received a preview of
the coming age last month,, when
Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.
filed a request for $1.7 billion in in-
creased revenues — the largest
su:n ever sought by a U.S. utility
company.
If the request were approved by
the Public Utility Commission,
which has six months to decide the
historic case, local phone line rates
would triple. The benefits, Bell offi-
cials predict, would be lower long-
distance rates that might offset lo-
cal -rate increases for customers
who make many long-distance
calls, a wider choice of phone
equipment and a technology race
among AT&T and its competitors
that probably would reshape Amer-
ican business. -
The Texas case has its roots in
the 1974 Justice Department deci-
sion to sue AT&T for antitrust vio-
lations. For seven years, AT&T
fought back. Finally, in January
1982, the company and the govern-
ment announced a pact to make the
industry competitive.
The details of divestiture, after
18 months, are nearly complete.
But when experts met in San Fran--
cisco recently to discuss "The New
Telecommunications Market-
place," one thing was clear: No one
was sure what the results will be:
Joseph Fogarty of the Federal
Communications Commission com-
plained that "the Justice Depart -
went pursued: competition for com-
petition's sake - without any re-
gard for the ultimate effect on
ratepayers."
But Forgarty said the FCC
shares some blame.
"We had no battle plan. We had
no strategy whatsoever," Fogarty
said. "It was piecemeal. There was
nobody planning in Washington
for the ultimate impact."
The Dallas Morning News: Sharon Roberts
But Ronald G. Carr, a former
Justice Department attorney in the
antitrust case, said he "never
doubted it would be good public
policy to break up AT&T."
After Jan. 1, AT&T will shed all
but about $40 billion of an esti-
mated k55 billion in assets. The
still -gigantic company will have
five parts: the Long Lines division
for long-distance service, Bell Labs
and Western Electric for inventing
and manufacturing equipment,
AT&T International for foreign op.
erations and the new American
Bell, or "Baby Bell," to market
f�
0
•
equipment.
The 22 Bell companies will be
reorganized into seven regional
companies. Of the 22, only St. Louis -
based Southwestern. Bell will re-
tain its present area, which in-
cludes Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Missouri and Kansas. Its estimated
$14.8 billion, in assets will rank
sixth among the seven companies
but still in the top 10 of U.S. utili-
ties.
Competition, with its expected
lower prices, will. apply •only..4o
equipment and long -distance. -serv-
ice. Local rates will remain, a mo-
nopoly service ofthe the Bell compa-
nies. All sides agree the -local rates
are on thew' ay up.'
For .*eaTs, Bell officials have. ar-
gued that artificially high long-dis-
tance sates :have subsidized local
rates � that ; are 'too low. _.Now,
stripped of most long-distance prof-
its once shared _with AT&T, Bell
companies insist local rates must
go up to pay Bell's full cost of pro-
viding that'service.
One important voice continues
to rebut the .' idea of inevitably
higher local rates. Federal'Judge
Harold Greene, the man with the fi-
nal say on details of the breakup,
wrote in .an April opinion: "The
fostering. of competition in the
telecommunications field need not
and should not be the cause of in-
creases in local telephone rates."
Greene said he is angry about an
FCC order requiring an "access
charge," averaging about $4
monthly, that is intended to subsi-
dize Bell for losing its share of
AT&T interstate long-distance prof-
its. Southwestern Bell is asking the
PUC to approve a separate charge,
also about $4 per monthly bill, to
make up for lost intrastate long-dis-
tance revenues.
He complained that all Bell cus-
tomers will have to pay the charge
even if they never make a long-dis-
tance call. By inflating local rates,
he said, the FCC access charge
"runs directly counter" to his goal
of accomplishing divestiture
without disrupting the 50-year trad-
ition of affordable phones.
Greene argued that AT&T, MCI
and other long-distance providers
should pay, the access charges as a
cost of doing business — plugging
into Bell's network. Under the FCC
order, those companies will pay ac-
cess cnarges but only until 1989. In
the meantime, ratepayers' charges
will rise. until they pay the entire
subsidy. '
He disputed .both assumptions
behind the access charge -scheme..
one, that long-distance rates. haVo.
subsidized low local rates and, .two;
that "bypass" will result if AT&T,
MCI and Ithe others have to pay ac.
cess charges.
-.Bell's "bypass" theory holds that
if long-distance rates are too high,
major businesses will install .their'.
own communications "systems,
whether by satellite or other avail-
able technology, and bypass the
Bell network. The lost revenues;
Bell officials contend, would have
to be made up in local rates.
Higher local rates are only one
likely result of divestiture for the
Bell customer. Other changes that
lie ahead:
■ Ordering service & equip-
ment. As before, call the local Bell
business office to order an "access
line" to your premises. But Bell
will no longer lease, sell, install or
repair phones For equipment, -you
cWIlease.;'from . AT&T's ii'mited
stock at - Amaican Bell stores. or
buy.froni one of the many retailers
entering` lie market.
■ Repairs. Bell will fix: pk0ne-
4ine probletns, but its responsibil-
ity ends, at the customers` premises.
If equipment is leased; calLAT&T's
outlet: If a set is owned, the respon-
sibility for :repairs is" the cus-
tomer's.
■ Long-distance. Bell will link
calls within new geographic
boundaries called Local Access and
Transport Areas, or
LATAs, but not out-
side those areas. For
calls between, LATAs
— from Dallas to El
Paso, for example —
or between states, the
customer must choose
another provider,
such as AT&T, MCI or
Sprint.
.
By 1981, theafoft
aling codes.heeded to.,.
use MCI: and other..
companies will. be to
4ssociated Press dueed•to'four digits so
that AT&'T, _ with, its.
simple 1-plus-area=code' system, will
not have a competitive advantage:
■ Billing. Th6-dae.,sionthly bill
from Bell could be replaced 'by tip
to three: -one from Bell' for local
service,: a':second froni'.AT&T if.the
customer rents _ qnB and a third_
from the supplier of long-distance
service. But one bill still is possible
because AT&T and its iongdistance
rivals could contract withAe11 to
provide billing services. � :r
The PUC will continue to regu-,
late intrastate long-distance rates
for Bell and AT&T. Other long-dis-
tance companies, because they
share only about 5 percent of the
market, are unregulated. The FCC
will continue to regulate AT&T in-
terstate rates, although the com-
mission could forfeit the job if ri-
_ vat. namptigies.evei capture enough
busi4ess.4Q. pzpefe squarely with
'Alftg. itt} bypass, LAVA will,
enter At'-dh>lencaz} jgrgon afteirst
itui a"'Most simply;" as GrebfiOL
fin ed:rt; "a'IATA�karks the:6otind
caries beyond id-1 ich a Bell'b`per'tA,' =
:`.ng company . may no carry
telephonocalls,".'-.: r't
.,..Bell and-alfe Justice Departinobi
proposgd; thdjdea;. which :Greene-,
has' accepted, largely as a way fo. .
Bell to earn some long-distance ...:
I—.
.-revenues. ;Natioiiwide, 161 LATAs
.S#ere drawn by-Belj and AT&T; in
.rTexas,'there are 1S.
:Though Bell wants to have a mo-
nopoly on long-distance service
within each LATA, Greene has said
that competition should be al-
lowed. But his opinion is not bind-
ing on the Texas PUC because the
state regulates intrastate service.
To date, divestiture has been a
Washington, D.C., story: the Justice
Department, the federal corm, the
FCC and technological advances
hav6.0` fined fhe future: Now the 50
state iitiiity cpiumissions enter the -
9ontroversy es t?Sey, tryto set local
tea.t:eflectia a.revolution about.::
•which' the public i9 largely una
.,The .carman of ' Washington
sSate's cpiitmigsion, a participant in
�Ib .receat $an: Francisco seminar,
laid he is4esigned to the wrath of
'theatePayers
"Lpniy hope; `he said, that they,
.on
ntaIioot the. messenger before
we ha' tsh'the:explanation."
BID TABULATION SHEET
CITY OP. LAPORTE- -
STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE
IMPROVEMENT
J08 NO. 1565 -82
' BID OPENING 4:00 P.M. MARCH 111983
H. CARLOS SMITH M� k�Y COKST%atoN ANGeL OKOTHSR5 0.w• F�Nc. � xo
THI ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS, INC.
G l-k l N p/��11 N Ca, ANC . RI cNM o Nb ROAb Go• MQRAT- OKI CONGT Co. Row N� �e Rear .
� ti �QUIPM�N`T' ING. � NT• I NG • -p o.8ox I(oZS p.0. Box 101d-) P. o. Box Cc64-
P0• Box 25025 022 1401-M E-5 ROAD P. 0. P>oX 3
P.O. BOX M 718 S. BROAQWAY. Ill Mol2TN I(oTIA ST• 5ZIo W. CKoAr�
LA PORTE, TEXAS 77571 (.A Potter _ -rE)cP,•S 15QIeND5w00D 1-NSAAS BELTot l , re)CAS f bu�fnN TexAS Hous-roN , T�X�15 �0115'RbN ) TsXP%5
LIB PolzTS -r5, AS 13A'yTO v�lN T'I: AAs
) X , �75� i �(a�13 7?04-� 7?00l
ITEM DESCRIPTION NI ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT TOTAL. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL :UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT UNIT UNIT .UNIT UNIT
N0. QUANTITY PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE TOTAL TOTAL UNIT
AN AGINTO DRIVE �
t
PRICE PRICE PRICE PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL PRICE TOTAL
5EG O N L� STREET' PAV I N AsE D PR P RA ly S E
I
i T � R CIG � � ' W11 D• 6 ? Z z� IZ °� .75 Z•50 14 3Z1.r✓o z•3G 13 52s. I(o Z-4-3 t a22(0•33 Z.to t2 035.10 5 -
14 3 Z) 4-. 1 2. 30 3 Z• 10 2
Z ��� 5 s < Zoe 10
5.00 3 O 5.Z0 3Z Z13t . (v0 5. 3 5Z 3. Zo 5.4a 34 0). 5. 33 Z74- �- 03 7¢3. 0 3Z o .
30 2 40 5'11. to
3 (o" UME- P�IUZED �L.1 RADE Z�' DTN `�D. (P (o (o .�Z Z I.a14- 2 ? 2• ? .b2 3• 23 � .$ Z• 80 l ?A. .20 -
� �1 4- 2� 001.2o Z•�o 3 3. 0 2•(05
i I N � D1�A SAS •
4
t
-I
4 xZ�MOV E IZ„ G P 4g� 5.0 .O� (p• 00 Z13S a0 ¢O .00 ZZO.32 bo 3
S REM E SALVAGI✓ I RG.P. .00 O. 00 (000 r�-O 1530. 3' � 3. 20 11. 1 53Z • $o d2•50
(o o E SDI E (`' G• P. j-7
/ 080. $ I. o I _ 4 �1 I �� 0 5D
l.• l= ?� 5•Z <�3�. ?5 lam. 50 �� 3.50 .5o 1,5 Z (. 60 . o0 7�0. Zo I O.
�5. _ ,
32 . 5.3 °7 7. (oG✓ °� lo. �O . ZO Z5.
NSA NEW Z4 R.G•P. 3'12 (°� 00 ? 4%$.00 ZZ• 50 0370. oo Zo.00 ,00 7.33 7 �Z . o0 2?. 88 Ip 3?1. 3(0 21 2
8 1 trA I a _ SAU/AVED t u. oo t o0 ��Z • o0 7Q• 1 5 • Ca0 32 .CoO I Z l 2
19 1Z V t?�N A (At L w N DS 5A . 00 .5 Z 2 00 lv 5 0 Z . 00 Z 0)6) O • - . ZO
l o 500. oo 000 oU 30o ro ¢ zoo• ao (� OZO- 00 7 000• o0
5o 1435. °o' °o °°' °° 4 500. o v o • 00
1- 41 S.00 Z oho. oo .coo
G °� 7. 70 3• DO Zap. 00 �. �5. -75 2 5-7 00 v�
00
cats ' IT - i (o• 00 DO 3°9Z. OHO 5.�o to(04-. 75 t O. oo Z 00 (v- 50 S 5 '
00 • `�
AI- AT }
T : sTx ; a I�AD�3ED >E
O� Z o S 4, 00 8 3 Z• oo ¢. 75 42 ¢88. 00 5 �0 3¢,76 ¢ 80 c o 34 5 . 31 OQ-o .00 2 5 4- 00 Z� 3 S 5.� 5 3(0 37 . (p c� - I �
�T AT
Pg • v N ;_pzs
pk9k-n0K1 T
i
d)? I'IL" V1t1C� S ?31 3.25 /$•, 1v25.75 3.S /� /128. 85 35¢ Zo Z87.7¢ Z�S 1 -39 3.2� ZS), Z•61
D i, U69 a D I �8-10TA �1T��1 fo�0. ¢ �' I Qi2 Co3
,. �... ,�, : Z 4 �� 0 ONO _22 D .
ti p I • w.
°�°�3• /� 224. j . �O
.3. G� , 710 .
-
I Z 25 /3 648 0o Z• 5o /¢, 720. oo Z • 3� /3 8% 2 4 , 307.8 4- 1 o 14 7 Z • 3o 13 542 40 I -
,
u Z 3/ ,9 5 • zo 33,170.80 5. 40 3 ¢ 446 . l p 5 • A- 5(0 . 2 �. l 1 - . (o ZAI 53 4-J 3 2
I D 8(0� /. °-i2 /3, /S$ 4$ �¢ 3Z5. Slo Z 57 / I wJr3.3 O
3 .5 24 5 I oZ 2 `b0• !-� 23 zo 1 4 20 Za Z. (p o �•
� � Z DKAINAG� SYS-t
IREMOVEE tvA � fZ" .G•?• - '
�•�. �3 .00 ¢-��• 00 O•oo 5�8•cb .� ��o. 50 .5p7 2(fl. S.00 �44•00 � 3• 3lcc• zo I 1 2,
50
o f L 5 A E Gj K• G•Q o
rA
4� oo Z4S. oo . oo z�¢ c� 8 �0 /Ca50 4-.09? Z43. 5 .00 3°> 04 q- 2t 5 I I 3 ' I o P F 13(v 7• oo �SZ. oo Z2 0 515. o0 0 24.0p 3 5 -3o I So•
O. oo / 4 � / / 50 . O 2 . Z�• _.
$ � I 3. . O I �o . oo . 50 00 I Ns oAta., NEW za,,, R.G•P. t.• If? /')•00 1533. oo Z2.50 ¢ ZO7. 5o 00.00 3 7¢O• oo .3 ��� oo � 27. 8 5, Zt 3. 5(o Zl•25151-
R�M 60-00 8 Z� 0Yl 2•
.o. OS • oo V. OD //OZ • 00 /O• So / �. 00 �- � D 00 0 • I 1 • 35 Zo 4-. 3o I 40
Dfc 9� 2 P. I 20
oo. o0 2 0 3• (00
5i 8 • ao � • ao L 4Q
T�� ►' t�P• t,•F 7 00 o.so ��� oo .�co ,��1. • �� l�� � 7 00 � �16.1(p t, I(,�. 24-
EMOV� E Rif tZADE ?13-
3 _ 7• 270 • oo /D• 00 3�00 • oo
Z3 R� t,A Rev S Au. � �A L°� (s�288-- GZ • �0 �Z' °°�• 2 0 .
N s o o • oo /¢, Soo • GY0 300 • o0 8 700 00 ¢30.0o /Z, ¢70 . oo ° O • p0 -1 O 4-Q 8 0 S' 30 50. 80
24 o . w 0), 000 • co 5(00 4., Soo. Oo 1 0 z?000 00
cz BASE MAT�RIAI- 60- p. 3. 50 / 53 3• oo G p Z O/¢ So } b• ( 00
5 • oo Z, / �o . o0
2 M - Z��14-• �(� I , 3 t Q-. oo - �• 50 I to l • 00 •� Z T Q SAcID TON► O ZO. 00 / ZOO. 00 to • 00 /, ZDO• Q� ZO • DO / ZOO DO S t S .°� 0 .-60
�• 3
L �CAvl� `lD• � �- . 50 7, Z63. 00 4, oo �, QS�. cx� ✓ �O Oo I_ o0 1 So. o II (o• 50 00 S t0 `70o • 0o Z Z(op . b0
A ID U-ToTALS ITEMS IZ- 2(v 8, 877 S O 2• �Q., Sq 50 O 4�(• 00
¢7°�. Z3 87 020.3.66 ���/. Pi/ lCZlr ZD • I LLQ Z 3. �� ' 3.85 2103. '1 3 4-3 0
z5 .► l 20�•�0 -
�T� V
G E� A I A081a T SU gip '
Su V- (Z(o' W ltrrN 3'l ¢. oo Z5 ''516.00 �,S 30, 300. z,s 5 00 3S 7 oz. 40 6• �0 5
3 , 08 4. 50. 6. 00 31 � $� 5, op �I-.2�✓ Z 10. 75 5.d) 6 3 � 5 05 ,�, D
i
"L :FAT PAV I N t>F�fc t� �c p, Nlp
II IC. /�NLR�tt� pAyl N� (? 1NIl7�N D. 5 3. Z5 /�i /c3�o. 00 3.35 / o, 72¢. So 3 S¢ Zo 8¢,3, 52 Z.�
8 �; EA& Z+ 3.25 (� 13(p.Op Z.54-5. o O 3.2.s t�7 13Co. co
51�� BAE Sip T1' 5u5fTm1N� : zTFr�t� 12, 4� 4 _ 83 /DO• Z3 8.r� 033. I too(. 7 -
/- 1� 6.Zo N0
4lo o� . 7��Q .5 l LC� °�aa- s -� 8A6�c 8�0 �SuEz=S : TT��a�g � • Z *6 03 . 0 7�. �✓`- ��- � 1� ZO
�L3 , 3dq-: o �o
L! N
-E
e
L? I T CO Ut�� t RG �Z4�y
• ' � ` CR�.I��_tZ L� a<SroNE (�' W I ter
1
i M G. t-• F. S7 0 �o• DO 34 00 850 4$¢. ,� I I
• 5. Zs•'•°o '• 2.�0
� E 5 Dt,V�GI�. �R" R• G • P 5D 54- l �A
3 G L• 5•Z5 3? .Ocr, (0.00 ¢32. o0 B.So oiZ. o0 o coo. ra35 3 S.ZO .ZO 1 •Zo
4-O
�e C•tc-sue To C;cZAo� jg,C�.o. Q � � � 1 �. oo •3 l °�_ZOp ZZ. c� 3 �So . oo Zo • o0 3300.Oo • 3 zL? • 8�
. F. 3� -----� • 00 - S j oo oo / Z¢ Z. 00 /O • .50 / 44 00 00 0 4 (o 8 3.8 4- !o.
- 2 , Zo2. 9-� O. 00 3 0 . cep 2 �✓? O • DO 32 • (o0 4-"1
1LV�111�`��C Al.t✓ Kat�bS ER. ° ° Y6. 7(0 2 I"14- S�
CEM 5O 0 Z1 5 ��O.Op 300 co• / ✓�'00. 00 ¢,3o • 00 Z /50. 00 ,_��4O . QQ - 1� Oo � 5N 00 Z 5 00 � . 25 � S52 • rJo 3• Co0 � Co
�5 (sL5 s C T 5 20 .00 , .op zo•ao z ¢oo. 00 20.0o Z oo• oD o0 00 00. , oo I •oo 00o.00 3
(o 0.00
Drr xcA.,ran� Gu• ��. ,50 Z ('4�0.0O ¢ too z 3.s& oo ° boo . oOup-so 1 ��4,00 . oo zl oo Z` SZo • co
5.5D 3 Z319.50 3•?5 2 ZO8•?5 3.Oo I �. (�.50 3 $28.5p 5.3� 3 151. 15 SS "L �'19.�S
00 �S
•.-- ! O �2 .30
_ Ot • OO
-
37 '0��1 T25 SuR�A�rc-�ZEATtut-t�C� `_1t_ sc. �c o - Z1 �3� Z Z5 '+ S 2 8. ?5 Z. so 58 7.5o Z .3�Z16.5 533.5 '
38 tZt,ts E U M ESToN BPS 2!_0' w c i ---'- lv,, O Z • 43 Cam, 3. D S Z. (0 (3 . 5 2 0 (moo . 50 1 O S 33.
vrt� __-- sue - Z,$� 5• oo /� 2- o oo ,g. Zo /4 ¢o. So
�---- • 40 5 / /. � o s• 4 l5 5• � � 15 z� . d-q- 3 3 Z l . o I Z . zo � � S4-a�.°�o �
s � i Z. o Z T ZG � Z • Olo /0 332. ¢¢ . !�
---- --- - 8 0� 3. S$ 1 0 z •%? 12C9. • . 20 2 d) (o • O Z•70 c�5 S l Q-(o • i o
i- ---- --
� lad TL DRAI � Pc- ;� SCS�M i
T-
40 � i�MO U E � 5�•t�JDG� I� 2,G_ P• r' - _
5•0 .�4. ay c�v ozo. 00 8••50 00 ¢.��
41 ; R �+rin E.-c�p��,Jp�C�►E lr2�G_p L•F 1 D 6-00rs 00 OD 7 O 30 00 O 3.40 ? OD I $ 00 j (D 15 •00
00 50 0 .50 53 l . ? . 0° 85(0. 00 4.3� (° 3 1 ? . 1
moo v E e 5A_A�- _l" �. c.. P. 1. . 50 DO 50 j 3/ Z • GtD 50 g . 00 S 00 24D . 00 3 �5.35
e � R��-T��a%.AQ�1 -�• 2 .00 / < oo .o0 1 Zo?• oo /0•5o Z¢/. 50 .�� 3(07• 2S(o• o � �►3� .Zo �. (moo � -
.- � STAI L s��IAG-ice �" P. 7 / l _�. 50 .Z . O 8 2 30. Op � • � (o 3(o Z . ( O 31 Z
tom✓ ZSQ, 15
A � • 60 / 4(o O0 8. 50 / ¢¢,� . 00 I I I °��0.5o I o O• oo . ZO �D Oo
ll�IST tom- Cl=�I� "
(ZOO �. 00 �¢��.00 �i. GYM /�OBo. 00 50 /, OZD. DO D. '�- � Zfv O ,00 ZOO Oo O � � S Oc7
No i1I�2AC1 �_ L�1 0 ' oo L5
22 33• oo Z /� 00 3/0• .50 809. Do 33.00 70&. 00 I 3�0.00 1
--41- fi8t1�1i1.>r a RECo�►t`iEC�"LQ3(a�� ARM 5��1€ /, 400.00 Z Z000. coo 0O oOo O 1 0 . I 8 4� O �' tD Z. 00
QU tb zctao co 000 . oo a d '�� Go Z D5
>zI v ( Alm. iC� rl cps _ Z o0 0 �r----- --1 r-Qr'� 00 0 0o DOU • 40 010 ov o o• Oo 0) 5o 00 O 1, 5'�o • OD
_ Lo _-,�o o • o0 5, o0 0 o0 00 . o0 000 ao a I
¢30 00 ¢ 300 00 00 00 00 0o I Ooo•
4 11/L A �L�l-CI TE f-- 3 3t Q- �_ O0 000. 00 5G70 00 000. OO 00 00 10400. 00 (9�0. 00 GOOOo •
-_ �. 30o z � I.�.Dp tv• cb goo� 5.5o i, 050. o0 7.�2- � _
YAGE<�r.-SToGKRI.� FaC T113C-��A L �1,�L D• °�4_-.- In%''J.00 5•00 ��?o• oo--- -- - _ � �� 00 ` Q j ZOO• •ZO Z.4(�o• oc� _ .g✓ ZL(� 04 �Zo z4 o Oo
---�-- ,i -�T t�1l� ram_ Sa N D -- - - --- - --to N 2 Zo . CO /Zoo • oo Zo , oo / O o 0 p �7 I , (�$ • l 5 2.Oo <�6o I ; 4�3. �-�O 5. 5 -_) �11 3 .moo TS (a . (o o i
�XGLwAT1 �O°� t___ --- - O?. 15. OQ- °i00. OO I (��• ra0 °��O • �0 00_ ZI. 00 ( ?,Go, 00
oo 00 Z 03&. 00 S. Sv 7��,
'�L��UI�">^oTP�.�7��►>�-� - 'j� . 2 2'�2.7 503 7� I ,SOS. 75 3.Oo 52�. oo
T�L1 Qt�
-<At GI U M --- - ! _ - - --- -
, as 4 00 ¢1/�. oo -75 /3, 55�. 50 o
7i 50 /5 �7 5 o Z7o. oo 2� 12� 12?• so � ! 30
ALT
A�.IAL;TkL <�Nrz�c SAVING LZ4�wIPTN 'z (o35 3.Z� �3.75 3.35 ; 8 827 Z.S 3•S¢- �o -�a� $52.00 -
-
- --- , 3. 2 8l _ �4oq 35 Z.�S 7
3�'rz-� P�-�,�u3Ti�TA1 S 3� °� - 3�Z . Z
' 4� 5010.°� _
A RIO 1L b gttZ s TN�s_ I o ► °� 4� ! l - -- - 4?t 752 . 52 30.
� �o' gl b
---------1 - .
_?� �532- � --- - - �Z�o�• � � � �? 2 5¢,�80�. �2 �-,-� � --- __
�ItZ1��t�11..s : �� nrt � �Db,�Q � --- �2� Z� . 2 3 ✓� 2 • /o% � ---- - - ---- _ - -
-- - - ----
LoLiA------
�ri
, - �--- }:o z.1S _Z•5o /2, Z¢7 50_ _ 2 3� /0 28 0 2 sl Z�
►� 7. 12, (o A� 2. 30 , 2P"1 • `] O 2 10 l 0 Z16"l . � o
00 5', Zo,� Z S�� . 40 5 Z8, 057. 804-�_ Z� �Q 82. 3� Z�/¢. S Z q, c03 Zq- 5"1 l . 4--1
�?A l t Z�' Qi Z • •3 7 /3 �44 . b"S cz (0 85_ 3(352 •°� 5
tZ 1 �tAt Y(IIIL 5 'T Z 2 $ -60 �.10 3. 25 : ,5�3. 75 ZO ZA- �.
� - � 003.00 2•�r..�' r.�%.ZJ 2•(,� ,-1GJ .
--- -
i-�- ' _ L �, 2 0 6,ran I, 160 • oo 0.00 --- -__-
/ 3 0• 00 8.50 /, ASS. � -
- �E l�"_l am ----- - 4 I, 055 7D 3.40 �,z. oo I l.10 �3. o�.SO1L.
r - ------T_ - _-- -
l l _SAt�! - Co 8 00 / SQo. oo 2 85. oc
�l
• - - L.�- t_�- (0.15 I � I Z O , __ 30 8• �o /, ¢ 27 00 So / oO .
L_� 3 00 2 //' o 11. ao� 40 -
0
3_ • oo � o0 30�. oo �. o lo. 5 3S8. 3� /O.00 340• G1U �.35
lrI�TAI _ - -__ _ 5� j✓. oo /8.00 i /O Bo 50 Goo -- 1 � I • !?-0-- 25 3az• 0 .�O 37a(oo-----
540. o0
2(0. 50 Q(�O. 00 Z%• OD i / /�D 00 a--J-1_Z 1 & 8.00 .5¢p. OO I Qi-.24' 4-21.
t- - ,- Z4-. oo Voo 0 30g 1 4�- 34: / 360. 0o zo Sze o0
CotV10�s 1Z.6� r To Grtp�. t�IG�. i l00 00 O '
--(00 - - (0 3 0_�� _ °� 00 + -- - ✓`-QD OO i /O. ,5O �i-3D G10 25 _Q�r,L 0 r/0 00•GYM � 2 Z2.1 _ - t --- - --j rO'�i (v I. 00 1T0 T&- 0O 00
o �o0 00
-Aw
K o�l�. CZ�' T��aC�l�l�tZ c "P•.� 5� �. oo � - _ - ---__ _ _ _--1- - - - - - - - ---�- -- ---- - 13• �� - - - $! �' �-- - -- --- ---- ---
--------_--- - - - - - 1 - -¢7. 7• oo_ /o .50,SS�o. So i --- __ - 3?_h Qd �. oo -- - - ��_ a4��-�� /o • ono - -- -30 'tom 2sb _
T[irl�_ Zo ZO Op 44�QQ- I 20 00 ¢ Do Oo Zo 00 - -- _ -- / L'�_--
- - +----'- ¢OO. 00 - - -- - -- - -- --
p1 lam. �Xl Tr N�� .� LL�'r� t Ai- GU . `Ct� . 3o I � _ - ----- - - -- - � - --- --- ------ �-- �4� -9-� - - - - - 2 $� o o __ 5.00 300 • oo . So - - P _ _ _ o o _ 4Z o_• _Up
- ---- - 1.00
----- - � - _ 4: . oo I cm- 33Q • oo LS • 0° 3 0 . oo z t• -
-1 _ t 3 5Q_ --alr0-714i,QO 5 DO ! 53,5 ¢•60 / ¢-/Z. Zo --
- -
�,000. 0 300 • oo ¢30.00 _ 0 00 �,�. oo 400. Oo 000yo o _ �•50 � �roo 6•�5_ 1`�(�•2� ��-
OQ5.00 ¢ �o . Oy �.j 7 - - - ----- t ---- 8, 00 ' �__- 00► • �LDOO. 00 1000 00ypp 00 ��� ----
- )- LB) L� �O. 00 7 00 00 n
Ql�GN�.EyCCLaYQ.�'tat� U.IY I� �._S� DD 7, // 8¢. SO 5 �, �? I. 2r� . Oo 6 337 00 cp 3 2•
ASrc F1S2__�u0L--r �'� 1�-� -.(d5, n-10 . 19 .GS
• O
-__-_ �?O.OS
z--- _
' � �4f • d �- Z • 1 I • (v5
t72 (./41.o t u M s U 1.�� �A�E _ � �' vV- � I�%� 6, 30_ _ - - -- - -- ------ -
_ 4�_ Zt z2 .o 4• 76 25, 0oa. Z5 &o --- ----
- --� -- 5.50 2�, 188.50 - - - - --- - - --
- -- --�- - 5• oo Z<o 535�Ov q_�-25 _-22��'S4-^?5 ----
-
Z 02 3 5 /5, �2 /. �5 2 3l 13,'1(�(9 . I � Z•15 z
i
-
Tr-
�?�_$� .3 �ZI- �" 2 • N O 13 117
-761. -- -- - ---77,-83¢_ ZO r -_ _ -- S%o/!o. 4✓,- -- -- - � 375- L!� �°.Z3 3$-32
At.� Q 1� }-�A �_ 131<r� Tt__ mat •r ,, � t� lo�F t ,� } ------ --- - ? , _ 45 _ - - --- ?�, _ • O t _ - moo, o�?• 4�0 8.5, -4_-0 �. 30-
.
S.�Ti = �_ E� ��VtN� t3�S_rc,.�A�r3E�_ Pt�PA�iorl �1t� ��� _ . P��PP_•T_��orJ r
Z•5o t Z•3� # ¢,5�¢. %Z - 2•¢3 -- 4-,7-31. 2! z� 10- --4-088. 70 2,.�1
Ste__ _ UMEs`forlt✓ BAiS�-�3� I {�-- -- 54Y2 0�2 -- _ goo-1Q,-545.00 S.Zo /0, �40.80- i -- 5 40 //,38a. �o - 5.4$ J1,-557 32- --_ 5.2� --�-� %3 34- • o
-- -
T�- �" UMW-YAIZc�Dl�lIIt��2�_Y�11DT�i�--- --`ice_-Z12_l. - -- Z.2$ 517?. 8$ Z 37 5, 382.Z7_ --3. o¢ !ai%03.8¢ 3.68 8) 130. 1----3.2� 7� 38p .�5 - --O Z0 Z•�5
-- 2- (05 � 0 ! • t�
-1, 9-"1�42 �• oo / 8�0• oo /O• So 0, Zoe. 00 5.�6 3 3� 1. Go
- t O 500 00 5, 000. pp 900• 00 3� 000 • oo ¢80.00 . 00 3 50 o pp
. op I • 40 �i•?f� .2 Z 3(02
---- ----- - - -- - - - - _ - - -- ¢,- 300 - - GAO• GYM 000 . 00 44o oo lQ oQ• d0DDT•
10• oo 4.00 Z, 3Zg o
---�--- t- j- ,-� � ��Uoo• oo I,��� o, 000. o� �So• oo �, 500• 00
- - -- --
s��2 . lv 3 �8. � �� r 2 ��3.� 3 ---- - -- -- _ - - - - - --->Q- 3. 7, �3 Q2 - - fAl & o (04� •
- -- ?�t408 • y�
��T � : S-r�.'�r_��u►rt(�r��}TzoAaE�� _ P>z�a��zlDnl-�AI�d"to
l o'4,00
�-• OO - _ $,_43�..QO 50 S• oo 00
Ate A� ., *'I �, F- -__ _ ___ ----------- --- -- -- -
��--
.
1-4�1C.�ZeT�. PAV ►l.1Ca �4'_Y�ll�_ � `gyp • 1 � _---- -- - --- __ - - - - - --__ - --- - _--__--- __ ______..___---------- -- _ ______- ._..__-__ ------ •
l - z--mil--- - - 3 •Zr� Cn, 3 7.7 S 3.3� �o, 5 ZZ. ¢.ram 3.5¢ la,8�7Z 6 -- -, ----;
_ • 3 _-Z.�B 5 Sot ow 3.2� ,3Z7 7S ,g
---- G 2 • i �, 4,1 p Z•� 5 5, 354r . 25
-
., 2 S
32Z�r�
i
-
-t DIE) S 1 D I �,i �T V I O ?Z 2? O 3. (o
�` Po►�-1>: r�Ip� �US�TAt-s ZTMS Io�,� ,�°�, �o Z 31, I3�. l03 ;��, - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - �lt�ll�_
QS �Z ��� 3 t$ 3 4 l • 3� oco-7.
• 3¢ �. 4
BIpZ�� F� 3�Q 5�1�TQTIS�-�Ts-�o4� la�,(o�� -7z - Z�,3ca_. (03 �¢? _ z�._-__ __ __� 4-_a __-a_ 8�G�__ -
a _
- �3--- ZlO--iz. -_T2c Mrr �W �c}}� _ 2,�3 -_. _ 2.2 ✓ --¢���a�. 'lS . g0 SSo7. 5o Z 3� _/ ��. ,5 Z� Z • /O Z p 2 5I Z.
�.�d51t� L�Mr�-tDN,�� _ - YTZ 2, 3g� �•oo t��So. Oo S.Zo Zt ? Zo 3' ,� /0 3 5 �. 5 10 4 Z
5j 3 2 30 0wo.�o
(,tr�itS�A3iuZ�r� SUP.�G1 �h' w ram. Z, 5'l 0 2.2 Z, 3' 4,0 5 4-8 3 b7 28 • Z� /Z O. 3� 1 , 30 to •�5 -
- a 5}_8 1• �o , 0�0•690 3. o¢ � 8/a.So (¢
3 SS Zoo• �0 3. Z5 8 354 • �O -W "1�4 (,gyp o
Z(�.-1 �o � �. LVc„(-ate -t, `` .9 tom• F. 122 6 • oo6.570<i � ; ►.
0 00 732. 00 /J 0 3 7 00 4, r'v� 5�. . o 0
8 �7/o Oo 3.40
'tom tQyE G�-�E l-�R�Q. L_� 9� _- 5•°0 ' -- -Z4 4�j lv Qo Z�¢.00 8•So ¢/�O _ - o Z S. 5o I 15 -
. O i 135 tj- �
------ -_- 00 4- 7 Z4-3. S 3 . oo �� �. 00
' nl r 18-0 Lam_ L� 1Qo •Zo_.__� • oo / S Q - t (l L 54-3• oo • 50 00
2$�0� 3 ¢Zo /8.50 s /03• co /6.65 �. '
�r =Q t2�1� `� ���TQ GRACE I tL•G. P. t- F 1 -00 � °9. oo /1¢ DO /o• 50 /68 00 Z o o' r 2 I $ 1a 1 Z -35 SO �. p
/ 5 Z�Z • o o . o0 0 . oo I I. 35 8 I• (o0 11 .2o t �. Z (00 21'1. Cov
906ar TlZcal� -t1b?--c- P. L-F:. 2°7 Z0 OO _ 09• 00 Zoo/• 00 /O. 50 30¢. SO /5•a%fo Z . S / Z0j . 00 I r'J i(0 .25
�l Aw/c3 6 �t Isns� �I� YQ zo _ 60 5. Gio 32(0 25
-1, God. �. oo Z¢. �o
3•�
i is � t r1tD A . -7 -1, / • �7 . oo _(rzQ 3. oo a) SU 0) �O 5 75
00 -
800 �3o.cr� 2, 30o•c4 / 800. Oo 0.0 •moo "l�3•�O
__ _ �So 00 + (� Oo 0 Sdo Oo ►, 155 15 -
8 ' DITGH-_�xCAYA-nw4- !�!_`( - ------���9� - - -_4' - _3�3 Cam- _ DD 3, o/lo• DO S•.5o �¢7. OU - '
- - -- - -- --- - ¢, 00.00 3' coo b0 00 (fl 000 00 00 moo .00
- - ----- -- -- ,�----�� �; SZ�• �O • Q� Z ZIcZ . 00 1-----� q-
-_34 &7?. 60 8 3 38 -�I. 00 2 zZ 00 ��7.�
------------ ------------- --
2
1%[zT
Z� `��� °? 544f.on 75 ! j } _ --- -- ---- - -
-_----
// 333 40 , 6.00 / 3� 361.60 ,5. 50 /3 / Z 3 00 F
t_
- -/. 3o . Qo _ _
. i
i
l0� �ti" 1 uAt=AC ANC> .p .ALL 2 1cV15Tt-� 3.25 7 I5 ,'l5 3. 3 ? 3So. o� j 3. 5¢ 7 -
_ Z
- z�_�>z��Ta�S •• �r'�� 73 �� .�--�1��`�.. � , 3 1003 . �0
ID �-Z¢1 �-� 2.13 i
_� ---- I
M, I �7. ZO
TKIQ Its-1r - - '
?--
' �l � D� • Yam- 3 � 4r z. z S 7 �? 4. o Z.so - -
_t-1.1M •LQr��_P� �?� w lOrbl 3�4� _ ._Q� t��72o^oQ ✓_zO _ ¢z8 80 5 40 _ /°9, /37. h0 .Q-9 /� ¢ZI /Z- - 5,Z� -- �3-
7��
- ---
--� �- 1(p�40Qz7Z _T ZO (� �5 2t�,(o • 4t�
``t�Co_. C�."_.LIM_ lam- STL•�31�t�_ su�� 2Z' 1D11��-- - 3,_a��-_ -- 2.Za -jT ! �-
_
- -- � � 3.58- /3� �58 • �Z 3.25 / l07/••7$ - _---_
Z' 37 � -- �s-Z4-O• Co3 3• D¢• //,
Z• MI5
I1, SoZ.
-
1 .00 e34-.00 .50 -- - _ 60
00 �• II• -'So
� 4v o 5 w 5 u.o•P• � go � �s�o•oo {�,ap ,3C4 GD 8 So �ZG oo -°�7 8-00 - _ _ 132 r� ------ 4-�o _ 3�0 �o
10
a a G P ,� o• 00%A oa % 00 07? pp /O 50 • Z4.8 Zl 1110 5�fn , oo �• �0 15 . co - ---- ---- - -- - - -- - - _ - -- ----- - - �- i- - -- -
. fDboo• o0 4,,� �. 50 ,
E o. ?lob / / 3 00 3¢�. so /8• ,� �oZ,a5 /O o0 374.E 1.2t� 3(v (oo (0p
Sao. oa I (• 35 `�
CMO .G. 7 °�. 00 / ¢3/• OD /O SO / loGr% 50 /5.�� Z 537. �¢ 2 p 84- ' Zi g0 c
� � . �O ! �0 ' 00 /D • GYM • 5D � 8 • 3 7 GI, 5oJ O • Goo :� ?(m 5 ('] � .-7 5 13 l00 2 l fo2.4p
5•
- ZoO. OD
tq G ,, •G,p - •!a0 oo-22.4-�0 �4A�•(vo 'S 22? -
1.- F �o / oo i gip. oo Zo co / 800 00 / �o loGS Oo /8 G5 / 6�8 50 I •30:
Zoo • o0 00
• 30to pp '
ZO 00 / 00 Do
AI.V e S �tsT N�� E TLtI��. 3• So / 5/O. oo DD •� 1 ?7• (00 85 2� 2DS. o
/80 GL'� • 50� 4Z•00 'ls Z 5 ,00
o0 3 00
S �o 5 Q • 00 300 • oo �o o •oo �,30 00 S S690 . o0 3oe - oo o o • G1p o 00 0 0 . 00 , 00� 1 o O.00 ,+
0O 00
• ¢ 50 / off' •�o . oo ♦ 16 00 -
l o �5b•oo
131D:2Z 03�.¢ 3 Z38.Q0 73. o SO) I� 3�1. SO 4 Ir✓- c�c�
O ./ 8 5�8•S I 4=
� �,, 5�73. tt -
N
t: V I N -
£,------------------
IU a 3 5 /¢ /i1�. oo ¢ 75 /� 3¢ 00
v� !00 /°> 5' Zo•
/7 7 00 .a5; /5 oo2.Qo
, o. 35 22 5t�. q.�
�PA N 1�
0� 112b�, IG 3 54t .. • 2 // u�%8. 00 ,3.35 // 872, vD 3 5¢ /Z . -7
to Z °�8 /D .��/• /Z ,3. 25 // S/8.00 2 8ra�6Q,. OQ- Z•�� ?q-lo. co .25 00
At, N
���F Tr �1P�rrn2�t_S T-t��ss sue. ¢3 �o�I Z2
. (� 3 g �
~ 1 D 1� SUPS AID : T'-r 1 n� p v) �5 2-/°> O ? 6 �? / Z l°�
TF F�112 T- 61.1g pig Z /
�u2� & � - • ¢� �. ZZ 4�63. 03 8
z2 . Z ZZ . 7 28�• l0 3 Co �3.3
%�5 8/0 %a%Qcs : %t1/o ,eSE ,ter %zc:�oE 7irEA 5 s TavE 58 ¢Q% �S`ci. 73 �j� Q)
--_ � -/ 2 ¢7¢. i �- l • 1 22 Ott • Aq
8" ��/� �a7� e� 8 OZ7.. 4•!03 .3 -
. 23 5'O/ 33. gp 34- Z?�o. o
SID
•' �.-1�j2' ,�pNA��'lG �1�Pt✓`(� �y�-, � oN p6r ¢3 ¢ 3,7 7 p �
�� � � 5.3� O �Z Z . Flo ZCo •30 �52 a�(o.ZS
ur TcsrA�.s �Ilz'' t t� cOn�uz pvMT E Qo ,�Q. / 7. Z02 /?2.7�
CoM PG E T/oil! /"/M � AGEn/,DE�L A Ys ¢.�j /2D p
z /o Zao I
6/D 5ECu2/r
- - 5 % G�'i3• 5/ G.A•8. .� °0 6•�.� ,5 �/ ,•4.6. .� % ..8�r,1. �a G•,4.8.
/-97 COMMON Z<�
� //• 4� ZZ�•'30 So O. oo Z o /p.
• 50 Z /O • oo /o
/a. 69 3 ZI 80
o Zoo• oo .00 /OD• UO o / pp ,
• 00
a o G. S5• o0 550;' o Zao • oo cape ov o. o • Uc� / o . o . Do 30 • o0 7 oo ¢So ov 4 o0 3 �o Z� 2 • oo i c.
..
So 0 00 o Too 0 0 . oo �5• o0 750.00
�c'a 53.50 535y00 00• coo /, 250 • o0 7r, o0 7 0 • GY, I 75. oa
i Z•oao • oo /25 • oo zao•oo z 000• oo /o• o0
T N K.S 4- • Go
Z• ?2��a 35.00 �r�o. ao .00 00 • .0 75 00 °?o.00 moo •oo . o0 00
o E s l0 30.�0 00 25 0 0. ao OOO. Oo 5�. oo / 000• 00 00 .o0 7?S
• � 38 •moo 00
T -5 s
°O • o Oo• t�0 . oo So . oo 30.06 300. o0 37• vo , o0
1(ZTD l� l% LATE'_ �f 1_L1.�Q. fZi Lam_ fo 0 O bO ' ZO.00 •00 3 U O • 5. OO /�O 00
1NL�T i✓SC S�1Z1 tJ ILt✓>� CI-�- o Z . -7 o Z4?• n00 ` Oo oo O.00 3?• o0 3 o . o o ?O 60
.00 Ia7•
o . oo L / 00 0 0 0 ,5'0. oo / 500 • o 0 0o z 000 . o0 oO o0 0�
��
II - --
TO: 'FROM:
Date: July 14, 1983
City Manager Robert T . Herrer
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
1. Agenda Date Requested: July 20, 1983
3.
2. Report
X Resolution
Ordinance
Project summary: The City's group health administrator (James Benefit:
has requested that a third signature from their company be added
to the City's self insured Medical Fund.
4. Action Required: adopt a resolution permitting Richard Hillyer,
Senior Vice President of James Benefits, to be added on the City's
bank signature card for its self insured Medical Fund.
5. Alternative: Deny their request.
6. Recommendation: Permit James Benefits to have an additional
authorized signature added to our Medical Fund account.
7. Exhibits:
$,Availability of Funds: General Fund Water/Wastewater
Capital Improvmt. General Revenue Sharing
Other
Account Number:
Funds Available: Yes No
Requested By
9.Approved for City Council Agenda
City Manager
Date
r�rvdiks
FRED. S. JAMES & CO.
350 Glenborough Drive, Suite 260, Houston, Texas 77067 (713) 444-7509
•
July 5, 1983
Mr. Robert Herrera
City of La Porte
P.O. Box 115
La Porte, Texas 77571
Dear Bob:
This letter is to confirm our telephone conversation of June 30.
Richard Hillyer is a Senior Vice President of our company and is in
charge of the Houston operation. His name should have been included by
us on the bank signature card, at least in facsimile. His name was
omitted in anticipation of certain internal realignments which did not
take place.
It is requested that Richard Hillyer be added as an authorized person on
the account. A copy of the facsimile that would be utilized is attached.
Approval of this request will expedite the claim payment process.
• We apologize for any inconvenience caused by this oversight. If anything
else is needed, please let us know.
Yours very truly,
H. D. Maxwell, Jr.
HDM/jr
Enclosure
cc: Richard Hillyer
George Dreisbach
r�
Consultants, Administrators & Actuaries