HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - January 10, 1978 - CC I
u6
MARTIN J. BURKE PHONE
ROYAL M. SORENSEN
DWIGHT A.NEWELL 3) 485-0101
JAMES T. BRADSHAW, JR. LAW OFFICES
MARK C.ALLEN,JR.RICHARD R.TER2IAN BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
MARTIN L. BURKE SUITE 3300 HARRY C. WILLIAMS
CARL K. NEWTON (1912-1967)
J. ROBERT FLANDRICK UNITED CALIFORNIA BANK BUILDING
DENNIS P. BURKE 707 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
LELAND C. DOLLEY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 GEORGE W.WAKEFIELD
COLIN LENNARD
OF COUNSEL
R. MICHAEL WILKINSON
BRIAN J. SEERY
NEIL F. YEAGER
BRIAN A.PIERIK
WILLIAM PAUL KANNOW January 10, 1978
W
Mayor and Members of the �—
City Council r
City of Azusa = _ '
213 East Foothill =.
Azusa, CA 91702 y -_
Re: Cable Television Franchise } �J
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I was informed that the City Council directed a question
to me at the City Council meeting of January 3, 1978,
relative to remedies available to the City under Ordinance
No. 1077, when a franchisee failed to comply with the
terms of the franchise.
Various sections of Ordinance No. 1077, bear upon this
problem as follows :
Section 14 . 06. 050 provides:
"Section 14 . 06. 050. PROMPT PERFORMANCE
Time shall be of the essence of any franchise
granted hereunder. The grantee shall not be
relieved of this obligation to comply promptly
with any of the provisions of this title by
any failure of the City to enforce prompt
compliance.
"The grantee shall have no administrative re-
course against the City for any loss , cost,
expense, or damage arising out of any provision
or requirement of this title . "
Section 14 . 07. 040 provides:
"Section 14 . 07. 040. EXTENSIONS OF TIME
Failure on the part of the grantee to
commence and diligently pursue each of the
requirements of this chapter and to complete
Mayor and Members of
the City Council
Page 2
January 10, 1978
each of said matters , shall be grounds for
termination of such franchise; provided,
however, that the Council may extend the
time for the commencement and completion
and construction and installation for addi-
tional periods in the event the grantee,
acting in good faith, experiences delays by
reason of circumstances beyond its control. "
Section 14. 04 . 020 provides :
"Section 14. 04. 020, TERMINATION
Any franchise granted hereunder may be
terminated by the Council prior to its date
of expiration after a public hearing, held
after sixty days notice to the grantee of
any such proposed termination, if the
Council finds the grantee has failed to com-
ply with any condition, limitation, obliga-
tion, or provision of this title, or has,
by act or omission, violated any term, con-
dition or provision of the franchise, permit,
or license issued hereunder and has failed
after sixty days written notice to completely
obviate such default. "
Based upon the foregoing provisions of Ordinance No. 1077,
it appears that the remedy available to the City Council
for failure of the franchisee to perform the obligations of
the franchise within the time periods required can be implemented•
as follows :
1. The ordinance granting the franchise to the
franchisee should be reviewed to determine the time limits
established for the performance of various acts by the franchisee
such as commencement of construction, completion of construction,
commencement of service, etc.
2. If review of the ordinance granting the franchise
establishes that the franchisee has failed to substantially meet
the time requirement set forth in said ordinance and the time
requirement set forth in Ordinance No. 1077 , the Council can
order that a sixty day notice be sent to the grantee specifying
the failure on the part of the grantee to comply with the terms,
conditions , provisions, and obligations of the franchise and in-
forming the franchisee that a public hearing will be held at the
Mayor and Members of
the City Council
Page 3
January 10, 1978
end of said sixty day period to determine whether said
franchise should be terminated.
3. If prior to the expiration of said sixty day
period the franchisee cured the failures specified in the
notice of public hearing, then the public hearing could be
cancelled.
4. If the franchisee failed to cure the defects
noted in the notice of public hearing as of the end of said
sixty day period, then the public hearing could be held,
evidence could be presented on the part of the City and the
franchisee relative to the issue of the failure on the part
of the franchisee to meet the terms , conditions, provisions,
and obligations of the franchise.
5. The City Council could then consider the
evidence presented, make findings of fact relative to the
issue, and thereafter either determine to continue the
franchise subject to such conditions as it considered
appropriate or to terminate the franchise.
If you have any further questions relative to this matter,
please don' t hesitate to call upon me.
Sincerely,
'Ate.
CARL K. NEWTON
CKN/pkb