Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-07 Joint Meeting � � CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING � TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1980 AT 7 : 30 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET � I. CALL TO ORDER II. INVOCATION: MAYOR PRO-TEM TED WARE III. PUBLIC HEARING City Council and Planning and Zoning Commission to conduct a public hearing relative to Zoning Applica- tion Z80-42 , submitted by Mr. Paul Verburg. IV. END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING A. City Council to remain in session to consider further published agenda items. B. Planning and Zoning Commission to recess to the Conference Room to consider other items on their published agenda. ,�, . i �_. IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 , V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1980 AT 3 : 30 P.M. City Sec t � � CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1980 AT 8 : 00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 413 MAIN STREET V. CITIZENS REQUEST and/or MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS VI. OLD BUSINESS � A. City Council to consider awarding a cable television franchise. � B. City Council to consider an application to relocate a house. (HMA 80-6 , David Spalding) C. City Council to consider the recommendation of the Plarining and Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-42 , (Verburg) and a subsequent ordinance. VII. PUBLIC HEARING City Council to conduct a public hearing relative to the Grapevine/ColleyviZle boundary annexation. VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. City Council to consider proposed agreement between the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau and the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. B. City Council to consider an ordinance amendment � , relative to the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau. �.:.� C. City Council to consider authorizing the City Staff to proceed with engineering relative to a water expansion project and to advertise for bids for related materials. D. City Council to consider an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 80-33 , pertaining to water rationing. E. City Council to consider an ordinance relative to parking regulations. IX. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES City Council to consider the Minutes of September 2 , 9 , and 16, 1980. X. ADJOURNMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17, V.A.T.C.S. , AS ANiENDED BY CHAPTER 227, ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, � THE REGULAR CITY COUNTIL MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1980 AT 3 : 30 P.M. WI`rr � irley t g City Sec ary CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS AGENDA SPECIAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, OCTOBER 7 , 1980 AT 8 : 00 P.M. CONFERENCE ROOM - 413 MAIN STREET � V. OLD BUSINESS �"�` A. Planning and Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-42 , (Verburg) and make a recommenda- tion to the City Council. VI. NEW BUSINESS Planning and Zoning Commission to consider setting the date for public hearings relative to the City's Master Plan study. VII. CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES Planning and Zoning Commission to consider the Minutes of August 19 , 1980 and September 16, 1980 . VIII. MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS and/or DISCUSSIONS IX. ADJOURNMENT ,.�-.� IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 6252-17 , V.A.T.C.S. , AS AMENDED I,�,..,, BY CHAPTER 227 , ACTS OF THE 61ST LEGISLATURE, REGULAR SESSION, THE SPECIAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA WAS PREPARED AND POSTED ON THIS THE 3RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 1980 AT 3: 30 P.M. S irley m rong City Se etary � � STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TARRANT CITY OF GRAPEVINE The City Council and the Planning & Zoning Commission of the City of Grapevine, Texas met in Special Joint Session on this the 7th day of October, 1980 at 7 : 30 P.M. , with the following persons present to-wit: �"`" William D. Tate Mayor Ted R. Ware Mayor Pro-tem Charles Dunn Council Member �.�r C.L. Oliver Council Member William Shafer Council Member Aulton Mullendore Council Member Marion Brekken Council Member constituting a quorum with the following members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: Duane Rogers Chairman Gerald Norman Member Ron Cook Member Harlen Joyce Member constituting a quorum with Vice Chairman Sharron Spencer, Members Robert Sands and Harold Anderson absent, with the following members of the City Staff: James L. Hancock City Manager Bill Eisen Assistant City Manager John F. Boyle, Jr. City Attorney � Shirley Armstrong City Secretary � � CALL TO ORDER +�r Mayor Tate called the meeting to order. INVOCATION The Invocation was delivered by Dr. George Clerihew, Pastor First Baptist Church of Grapevine. INTRODUCTIONS & PROCEDURES Mayor Tate introduced the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and explained the procedure of the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING APPLICATION Z80-42, PAUL VERBURG The first order of business was for the City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission to consider Zoning Application Z80-42, submitted by Mr. Paul Verburg. Mayor Tate declared the public hearing open and called upon the City Secretary to explain the requested zoning. Mrs. Armstrong advised that the properties in question were Tracts 50C and �,,, 50D of the A.F. Leonard Survey, Abstract 946; that the total acreage was approximately fourteen (14) Acres; and that the current zoning was "R-1" Single Family Dwelling District with the requested zoning being for "R-3" Multi-Family Dwelling District. i�rr Mr. Bob Taylor, Realtor, gave a b�ief presen�.ation on behalf of the appl�aant explaining that the property in question was an "L" shape around a ten acre tract of land already zoned "R-3" . He further noted that other adjacent property was currently zoned "C-2" , thereby justifying that "R-1" was not the highest and best use for the property in question. Mr. Taylor further 10/07/80 commented that the owner of the adjacent ten acre tract had submitted a purchase contract on the property in ques- tion, which would therefore add continuity to an "R-3" development. Planning & Zoning Commissioner Harlen Joyce asked when con- struction would begin. Mr. Taylor answered that plans were to begin within the next few months. Following comments from the Council, Mayor Tate asked if .� there were guests present to speak for or against the application. An unidentified member of the audience asked who would be developing the property. Mr. Taylor answered �.� that the developer was James Thomas of Dallas. There being no further discussion, Planning & Zoning Com- mission Member Gerald Norman made a motion to close their portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Member Harlen Joyce and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Rogers, Norman, Cook & Joyce Nays . None Absent . Spencer, Sands, and Anderson Councilman Mullendore then made a motion to close the Council ' s portion of the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman William Shafer and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None END OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Tate then advised that the Planning and Zoning Commission would reconvene in the Conference Room to determine their ''"""'�!" recommendation to the Council relative to the preceding zoning ; � case. He added that the Council would remain in session in the ,,�;, Council Chambers to consider further published agenda items. Guests were invited to attend either meeting. CITIZENS REQUEST and/or MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS Mayor Tate asked if there were an Citizens Re uests. The Y q City Secretary answered no. CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE The next order of business was for the City Council to consider awarding a cable television franchise. Mayor Tate began by calling upon the City Secretary to read the recommendation and report of the Cable Television Committee. The report, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A" was then read into the record. Mayor Tate then advised that the Citizens Cable Television Information Committee had submitted a written report and had further requested that same be read into the record. The report, attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "B" , "�""" was then read by the City Secretary in its entirety. City Attorney, John Boyle reported on the question as to ��► whether or not there were any legal conflicts of interest under the State Law or the City Charter that would preclude the City of Grapevine from entering into a valid, legal, & binding contract with either of the applicants. Mr. Boyle 10/07/80 advised that his firm reviewed the status of the stock holders listed and their particular relationship. He further noted that Article 11. 02 of the City Charter, and Article 988 of the Texas Statutes had been reviewed and that it was the judgement of his firm that there were no legal conflicts of interest that would preclude the City from entering into a contract with either of the applicants. Assistant City Manager Bill Eisen, who has served on the Cable Television Committee with the Council, then responded j briefly to several other questions raised in regard to award- ing the franchise. He also reviewed provisions of the draft ordinance relating to safeguards and protection of the City. �rrr Members of the Council then complimented the Committee and City Staff relative to their assignments and expressed the fortunate position of the City in that the two largest firms in the nation had bid on the Grapevine franchise. Mayor Tate added that a great deal of additional work remained in finalization of the contract agreement. He then appointed Mr. Bill Criswell, a local citizen, interested in cable tele- vision and knowledgeable in construction contracts , to serve as an additional member of the Cable Television Committee to provide citizen input and expertise in the completion of the franchise agreement. Mayor Pro Tem Ted Ware, Chairman of the Cable Television Committee then publically acknowledged appreciation to Assistant City Manager, Bill Eisen for his total cooperation during the decision making period. There being no further discussion, Councilman Oliver made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Cable Television � Committee and award the franchise to Teleprompter Community � � Cablevision. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and � prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Dunn, Oliver, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None Abstain . Councilman William Shafer RECESS Mayor Tate then called a brief recess. RECONVENE Following the recess, Mayor Tate called the meeting back to order with all members present. HOUSE RELOCATION, DAVID SPALDING, HMA 80-6 The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an application to relocate a house. The City Secretary gave a brief history advising that the applicant, Mr. David Spalding, was requesting permission to �* relocate a house from 319 East Texas Street to 710 East Wall Street. It was noted that the application had been tabled on September 16th pending further review by the Council. � Following several favorable comments from the Council, Council- man Dunn made a motion to approve the application as submitted. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ted Ware and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None 10/07/80 RESOLUTION NO. 80-35 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT AUTHORIZING THE RELOCATION OF A HOUSE, PROVIDING FOR A NON-TRANSFERABLE PERMIT, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE ZONING APPLICATION Z80-42 , VERBURG � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission relative to Zoning Application Z80-42 , and �� a subsequent ordinance. Chairman Duane Rogers reported that it was the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission that the application be approved. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Shafer made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning & Zoning Commission and that the ordinance be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Mullendore and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None ORDINANCE N0. 80-51 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 70-10, THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, SAME BEING ALSO ,� KNOWN AS APPENDIX "A" OF THE CITY CODE OF � GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, GRANTING A ZONING CHANGE ON A TRACT OF LAND DESCRIBED AS BEING A �++ LOT, TRACT, OR PARCEL OF LAND LYING AND BEING SITUATED IN TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS, BEING A PART OF THE A.F. LEONARD SURVEY, ABSTRACT N0. 946 , IN THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, MORE FULLY AND COMPLETELY DESCRIBED IN THE BODY OF THIS ORDINANCE; ORDERING A CHANGE IN THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY FROM "R-1" SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT TO "R-3" MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING DISTRICT CORRECT- ING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP; PRESERVING ALL OTHER PORTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE; PRO- VIDING A CLAUSE RELATING TO SEVERABILITY; DE- TERPgINING THAT THE PUBLIC INTERESTS, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE DEMAND A ZONING CHANGE AND AMENDMENT THEREIN MADE; PROVIDING A PENALTY; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY PUBLIC HEARING, GRAPEVINE/COLLEYVILLE BOUNDARY ANNEXATION. The next order of business was for the City Council to conduct a public hearing relative to the Grapevine/Colleyville boundary annexation. Mayor Tate declared the public hearing open. �,..,,;� City Manager, Jim Hancock gave a history of the proceedings to date and advised those in attendance of the existing boundary and the proposed boundary change. Following a brief discussion among members of the Council Mayor Tate asked if there were guests present to speak for or against the annexation. There were none. The City Secre- tary also reported that there was no correspondence pertaining 10/07/80 to the matter. Councilman Oliver then made a motion to close the public hearing. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shafer and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None � ORDINANCE NO. 80-54 AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING ADJACENT AND CON- TIGUOUS TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF GRAPE- �'" VINE, TEXAS FINDING THAT ALL NECESSARY � AND REQUIRED LEGAL CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED, PROVIDING THAT SUCH AREA SHALL BECOME A PART OF THE CITY AND THAT THE OWNERS AND INHABITANTS THEREOF SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF OTHER CITIZENS AND BE BOUND BY THE ACTS AND ORDINANCES NOW IN EFFECT AND TO BE HEREAFTER ADOPTED, AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR AMENDING AND CORRECTING THE OFFICIAL BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND PROVIDING FOR THE ORDINANCE TO GO INTO EFFECT UPON PASSAGE OF THE ORDINANCE ON SECOND READING REQUIRED BY ��E CITY CHARTER AND PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE CONTRACT AGREEMENT, DALLAS CONVENTION BUREAU AND GRAPEVINE TOURIST AND CONVENTION BUREAU The next order of business was for the City Council to consider � � proposed agreement between the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau and the Dallas Convention Bureau. � City Manager, Jim Hancock advised that several months ago an interest was expressed for the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau to enter into a contract agreement with the Dallas Convention Bureau in which Grapevine would be provided convention leads and participation in promotions for a cost of $24 , 000 annually. Mr. Hancock advised that upon investigation by Mr. Bob Phillips, the Executive Director of Grapevine ' s Tourist and Convention Bureau, it was determined that similar services were available from the Amfac Hotel through their membership with the Dallas Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Hancock added, that it was therefore the recommendation of the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau that such a contract agreement not be entered into with the Dallas Convention Bureau. Following a short discussion, Councilman Mullendore made a motion to accept the recommendation of the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau and concur with their suggestions not to participate in the contractual agreement between the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau and the Dallas Convention Bureau. The motion was seconded by Councilman Shafer and prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None yrr GRAPEVINE TOURIST & CONVENTION BUREAU, ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an ordinance amendment relative to the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau. 10/07/80 The City Manager advised that Mr. Bob Phillips had requested that the name of the Grapevine Tourist and Convention Bureau be changed to the Grapevine Convention and Visitors Bureau in keeping with most other convention bureaus throughout the United States and for the purpose of keeping the name less confusing to meeting planners , visitors and journals in which advertisements are placed. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Dunn then made a motion, duly seconded by Mayor Pro "'�" Tem Ware that the ordinance be adopted. The motion prevailed by the following vote: �:._..� Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None Council Member Brekken questioned the residency requirement that was mentioned in the reading of the caption of the ordinance. The City Attorney explained that a conflict existed in two sections of the Ordinance establishing the Tourist and Con- vention Bureau. He further explained that the section creat- ing the five member board and the alternates , p�ovided that two of the members shall be from the hotel area and that the balance shall be citizens of the city. He added that Section 21-29 , stated that all members of the Board shall be citizens of the City. Mr. Boyle further advised that the amendment did not preclude all five members from being citizens of the City but it just gave the discretionary element to those two who are representatives of the hotel industry. It was the general concensus of the Council that they under- stood and agreed with the amendment. � ORDINANCE N0. 80-61 � ,�: �. AN ORDINANCE �iF4F�NI�I1`dG THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS, CHAP- TER 21, SECTION 21-28 BY CHANGING THE NAME OF THE GRAPEVINE TOURIST & CONVEN- TION BUREAU AND BY DELETING THE FIRST SENTENCE OF SECTION 21-29, RELATING TO RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WATER EXP��ION PROJF.CT, ENGINEERING AND ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS The next order of business was for the City Council to consider authorizing the City Staff to proceed with engineering relative to a water exp�r�sion project and to advertise for bids for related materials . City Engineer, Jim Baddaker explained the project as follows : PROJECT COST 1. 12" from Boyd Drive to N.W. Highway $78 , 000 � 2. 16" from Water Plant to Boyd $390 , 000 3. 20" from Hall Johnson to Bear Creek ��` & from Hughes to Glade Road $257 , 050 4. 12" from N.W. Highway to Dove (Park Blvd. ) $102,380 5. 16" from Bear Creek to Timberline $75, 000 $902 ,590 10/07/80 Mr. Baddaker further advised that because of time involved in receiving pipe, that it was essential to the project that the necessary pipe be ordered at the earliest possible date. Councilman Oliver then made a motion to accept the recommendation of the City Staff to proceed with the engineering relative to the water expansion and to advertise for bids for related materials. Council Member Brekken seconded the motion and it � prevailed by the following vote : Ayes . Tate, Ware, Dunn, Oliver, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None �r.r WATER RATIONING ORDINANCE, REPEAL The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 80-33 , pertaining to water rationing. City Engineer, Jim Baddaker advised that the source of water from the Airport had not been used since the 22nd of September and that water levels in the City' s tanks were maintained at an ade- quate level. He therefore advised that it was the recommendation of the City Staff that the water rationing ordinance be repealed. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. Councilman Mullendore made a motion that the ordinance be adopted. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following vote: Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None �"�"' �`? �; ORDINANCE N0. 80-53 � �""' AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 80-33 OF THE CITY OF GRAPEVINE, TEXAS RELATIVE TO PROHIBITING THE WATERING OF LAWNS; PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY PARKING REGULATIONS The next order of business was for the City Council to consider an Ordinance relative to parking regulations. Police Chief Deggans reported that a citizen had advised that automobiles from two neighboring businesses were parking along the curb adjacent to their residence on the southwest corner of West Wall and Barton Streets. It was therefore his recommendation that "no parking" signs be placed on the west side of Barton Street beginning at the southwest corner of Wall and Barton Street, and continue southward for 110 feet. The City Secretary read the caption of the proposed ordinance. ,,..� Councilman Dunn then made a motion that the Ordinance be adopted. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ware and prevailed by the following vote: � Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None 10/07/80 ORDINANCE NO. 80-52 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23, SECTION 63, OF THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY OF GRAPE- VINE, TEXAS TO PROHIBIT PARKING IN SPECIFIC DESIGNATED LOCATIONS, PROVIDING A PENALTY, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE; REPEALING CONFLICTING ORDINANCES AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY MINUTE CONSIDERATION � The next order of business was for the City Council to consider the minutes of 5eptember 2, 9 , and 16 , 1980. � Council Member Brekken made a motion, duly seconded by Council- man Shafer to waive the reading of the minutes and approve them as published. The motion prevailed by the following vote : Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken Nays . None MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS Council Member Brekken advised that she and Councilman Oliver were concerned about the Citizens Advisory Committee and asked if a date could be set for a candidate reception. The reception was then planned for October 21st at 7 : 00 P .M. , preceeding the Council meeting of that same date. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Council , Councilman Shafer made a motion to adjourn. The motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and prevailed by the following ,,,,,�„�! � vote. � �,, Ayes . Tate, Ware, Oliver, Dunn, Shafer, Mullendore, & Brekken � Nays . None PASSED & APPROVED on this the ,��� day of ��(f�,�� , 1980. APPROVE . �/"� ..�.,_ -��---�,:* � � ���� Mayor �TTEST: ity Se e ary � � Exhibit "A" 1�age 1 � �' Octob�r 9 , 1980 '1'0 : Mayor Tate and Me;nbers of thc� City Council r�1�U�1: Cable Television Comniittee SUBJECT : Reconunendation for Cablc� Televisiczi Franchise 11��.ard • On July 3 , 1979 , h7ayor Tate appointe:d Councilmen Tcd �ti�are , Aulton i�lullendor�, and Ldilliam Shafer to serve as a committee to rcview applications for franchises that nad b�en submitted by Cable Television companies . On August 30 , 1979 , the members of this conunitte� atter.ded a cable television seminar sponsored by the North Central Texas Council of Governments . At the September 18, 1979 Council bieeting , Councilman Ware who had been selected ''"" � as Chairman by the committee members reported to the Council tiiat it was the committee ' s be.lief that the City should move ,,,�,,, slowly in making an award and that some procedure Lor obtaining comparable information from interested companies was necessary . He al.so indicated that this procedure would be developecl k�y th� conunittee . The committe� then completed development of a draft ordinance and a Request for Proposals and submitted them far Council approval on April 15 , 1980 . The Council � OI1 that date, approved these documents and established a procedure for accept- ance of proposals . Letters were sent to all 12 of the Cable Television compani�s that had expressed interest in the Grapevine franchise. These letters invited each company to pick up copies of the bid documents developed by the committee. Nine companies picked up the necessary forms and two submitted applications prior to the ,�une 27 , 1980 deadline . The companies submitting proposal� were Teleprompter Comn�unity Cablevis.ion anc3 Tarrant Cable Cornmunica- tions , Inc. When these applications were received, it was notec� that two of Coun�ilman Shafer' s brothers-in-law were finaricially involved in one of the applicants . Councilman Shafer thought it in the best interest of the selection process to resign from the commi.ttee . Ilis l.etter of resignation was mailec.l t.o membc�rs ai ttic C;ouncil on � July 3 , 1980 . After these events occur�-ed, Councilmen Ware arld Mullc�ndore wi tn staff assistance reviewed t11e I�roposals , met inclividually with �"' each appli.cant, and held a public hearing in conjunction with the remainder of the City Council (September 9 , 1980) . Exhibit "A" Page 2 � The conur�ittee has reviewed tl�e iz:zorn,atic�n compiled during eac17 of these phases of th� process . Ba�;ecl ti���n ��nalysis of tliis in- � iormation , the Cabl� Television Commi ttc.��� 1��coilli;lc.�ncls th�t tt1� City of Grapevine a�aard a cable tele�-isiu�l �r�-�nchis� to Tele- prompter Cor,ununity Cablevisi.on. This recommendation is in part based on the foilowing factors : 1. The parent company of the mana�J.ing partner of Teleprompter Cem;�lunity Cablevision is the largest cable television compan� in thQ Unites States , servi.ng 1, 300 , 000 st.��scribers in 450 communit�ies . This insures a high level of e�:pertise i�i manag�ment ot cable television systems . 2 . Teleprompter has made a substantially larger financial committment to .construction of the Grapevine system than has Tarra?zt Cable Com,-nunications (TCC) . Teleprompter and �.ts local nartners will commit S2 ,Oi1 , 000 to construction of the Grapevine system �,ahile Tarrant Cable Communications has received a committ- ment irom Storer Broadcasting for "up to 51 , �00 , 000 as required" . z�vailabilitv of these additional funcls could prevent del�zys in system construction due to insufficie;�t. funds . 3 . Teleprompter will offer more chann�ls initially than wi.11 �'" TCC. Teleprompter proposes to provide 43 channels while TCC will initially offer 35 channels . � '� . Teleprompter will offer free iristallaLi.on if a customer orders service within 60 days of its avai.lability in an area. TCC offers this privilege for only 30 aays . S . Teleprompter offers a lo;aer-cost "mini-pay" service tnan TCC. `I'eleprompter ' s mini-pay service is offered for $3 . 95/month as compared to $5 . 00/month proposed by TCC. This makes movie service more available to those unable to affcrd full pay-TV service . 6 . Both companies will provicle iock-our. devices which parents may use to prevent children £rom watckling R-rated movi�s when their parents are not home . Teleprompter offers the device ;��ith no installation fee . TCC will install the device for their cost plus 1Q percent. TCC representatives indicated at the public hearing that this would be approximately eleven dollars . 7 . Teleprompter makes a greater committment to local pro- gramming. Teleprompter will provide 20 hours of operator-praduced local programming per week as compared i�o 5 haurs prox�os�:d by `I'CC. The chart below compares operating budgets for local origination '""�"" programming proposed by both applicants . � -2- Exhibit "A" Page 3 Teleprompter TCC F'irst Year $28,000 $ 500 Third Year 58 ,000 1 , 000 I'ifth Year G4 , OU0 1 , 000 � Tenth Xear f32 , 000 1 , 500 In addition , Teleprompter will have a full-time local pragram ,�,,, director to assist access users and develop local programming . 'I'CC proposed to provide a half-time employce to perform this iunction. `I'eleprompter specifically describes local programming which u✓ill be operator-produced. This loc�l programminy includes elected officials forums , public affairs programs such as candidate de- bates , childrens programming , and programming dealing with issues of ` special interest to caomen. 8 . Telepro�pter provides a strongcr local access program. Teleprompter will provide a full color studio, and a studio van e�lui�ped with two portable color cameras . TCC alsa proposes to provide a studio, but proposes that a portable studio van be shared by Grapevine and seven ott�er cities . 9 . Teleprompter proposes to initiate a wor}c-study program in Grapevine High School . Z'he program would be a cooperativc effort between Teleprompter and the School District. Teleprompter would provide electronic news gathering equipment, working space, and training for students selected by tl�e School District in the „�: .,. use of the equipment. Students would film and edit news stories for broadcast over one of the system' s access channels . This program �vould provide an excellent learning experience for our +.�.� children while at the same time offering a local news program to the community . . 10 . Teleprompter has located a site for its headend and local access studio. This site is owned by one of the non-managing partners . Thus the likelihood of a delay in system construction because of inability to locate a headend site is greatly reduced . 11 . Teleprompter will install its underground cable in PVC conduit. This will eliminate the need to dig up lawns to repair cable malfunctions , thus eliminating future inconvenience to cable customers . 12 . Teleprompter offers a 5 percent discount for purchase of two or more pay television services . TCC offers a free month of service , but only if el�v�n months of service are paid ir� advance . e�* � -3- Exhibit "A" Page 4 � � The Cable Television Committee wishes to compliment both applicants on their excellent presentations and cooperation exhibited in the original applications , in meetings with the committee, and at the public hearing. Both companies are of the highest caliber and are leaders in the field of cable television. A d�cision as to which company was better was a difficult one to make but in the committee 's judgement the items enumerated above make Teleprompter Community Cablevision the superior applicant. Respectfully submitted, CABLE TELEVIS.ION COMMITTEE o\ . .��fOrQ� Ted R. Ware, Chairman �����.- %� ��,.. Aulton Mullendore ���n �� �,.� � -4- � , � � , * � Exhibit "B" � � � Page 1 � THE C1'PIZFNS CA�3LF TELEVi�TCN INFOI�.MA`I'IOIV CONI:MIT'I'L;T�: . Jin�illi�.� Mutidell, `I'reasiirer To The ��onor�aule NIayor and the City Ccx�ncil af Crrapc�vine: . .� � We .atten�pted to have aur citizeiis or�;a�lizatic»i tc► bc� ��lzcecl u��� ,� • yc7u� �ageiida to be Iieard oxi the cable tel�visic�n n�riti:cr at yc�ur ' sneeti�l� Octol�er 7, 19t�>0. We G�ere advised thai� t�ec�uisc tlie � ' rne�tiz�g af that date ivas tioi: a public lzeari�l�;, cx�i• requc;st cc3uld � not be honored. � ' Izi view of this denial an� in Iieu of an opportlinity to malte a �,ublic st�.temezit and to ask questions in betialf of citizens conce�rned with the process by whicli the council is seeking to ��,w�rd a cable fT'd11CI11SC'� •we respectfully request tlia,t tllis lettex• k�e read at the co�ancil meetin�;• 4ctober 7 and be placed in the r�:cord af thal meeting. 4 It is aur considered request ttiat the City C��licii and the Cable ' Cornmittee �rior to niakin� a recomme�idation or a brai�t, af a franchi�e � to repoz•t s�ecifically and ��ublicly i�s fiiidi�l�;�s i•e�;�.rdizi�; tlie matters � � listed�below; . � *Have the Commit#�e and the C01111C11 s�1t1S�1@C� t�1�I1lSP.IVES ` . �l�l.t 11,0 T:1@TI��JP,rS O.f t}18 COLI]1C1Z t1.11C� �le C011lllllt�eE', �1.-iVE,' � onguiii� �relationships, or �rat'its, wit�i individual shareholders ' nf the applicant cab1� company? � , *Have the committee and the council considered atid t�iker� a ' '� " position on t�i� poteiitial coi�flict af interest involvin�; aud'ztors z•etair�ed by the city who are al,o shareholders in a cable � company seekin� a fz•anchise froni the city? Has t}�e co�nmittee merely accepted a sta.tement from the auditors in question or t�ie city attorney with respect to the propriety af this relationship � or lia.s the �on�mitt.e sou��Yzt a separate o�inion'? Does tlie ' � couimittee or the council bel�eve tl��.t such a relatioiiship � compo�ts with �le e�liical standards it uel�ieves appropriate . � for an award c� cL �'Lbht with i:he ma�nitude c� a 15 yeax� cab�e f�anchise? . *Why did the city of Issaquah, Washinbton, have t� eng�a.ge in Q.}a�I1S1'J2 adversary liti�,Ta.tion (whicli tlie city receni:ly won) witl� Teleprom�ter i� order to ob�lin` pro��ez� �erforma.nce by - Telcpi•ompter af its contract to provicie cable tel�vision to Uiat ezty? *Wlk�.f effect on the credibility af '�`elepran�ter insued frozn the � + liti��.ti�n a�,�inst Telepro�ngtei• in federal coul-t in El Paso, T�xas� ' whicli was brou�ht by minority shareholders a� a local corr�pany � i�� �wliich Teleprom�ter is tlle inajority shareholder? . � *Have the ecnzncil and tlle colni�littee ���Zs�aE�r�a u�� appropriat�iiess af a State Senafior whose district responsibilities include tYie � `"� City af Grapevine OWIIIIT� an iiiterest 1T1 OII� c� tlie a���licant � C011�j?a.I118S� �0 t11@ COU11C11 �111C1 COI11Illl�te@ C�E:�t11 t�115 ti3 �J@ a��pro��riate and etliical? *��ave the cc�a..ncii and tlie con�r��ittee assured t1�����selv�s U��.t local stia.reholc�ers af ak�plicant cUmEr���ies 1�a ve >>�adE� reasoikible �� + , � � � Exhibit "B" • ` � , Page 2 "�lt risl�" izivesti�ieiiLs iil retux•ri foi• i:Iicir re�E�ective ii��ez��.s�:� � iii tiie �itcoiile c;l tlle cuuiicil �;z•�ult'? \XJh.:it retui�ns tiZv�� hc�e�l ' E�rU�i�ised these iriveslors? � • R *�-�ave the� ccxincil and tli�: co�ncl�ittee as:�uz•ed t�le�nse:l,�Te:; �I�at � �, � .Storer� (and Telep�•amC�ter) 1�a�%e denian�trated pc�rfoi��i�aiice records in othcr marlcets wl.lzch �issure th�1t t��� ��er!'orniance in� Gra�evine will bc expeditious? I�z this re�ard, l��.ve the 'cauncil � �iid tI�e �on�mittee c�l�tained the det��.ils u�iderlyin� Stor�rs failure to perforin in Cocicrell T�ill, '�exas, wllich' Ied ta i•evvca�ion af tliis fr�ncliise? , *Have �t�ie couticil and i;he com�nittee souf;lii: i���rmatio�i reg�.rdiTi{; . . Stoz•ers, involvement in �-Ious�on, where serious accusatioi�s have �� ueen made that Storer has txa..fricked lIl franchises'? � *Have the cotiiicil and the committee satisfied titiemselves witli the access provision and �romises of applicants witl► res�ect thereto are sufficient to pravide tlle citizeiis c�f Grapevine with facilities, personnel and traiiiing co�nmensurate with access cotnnlitmelits " � rnadE by�the two applicazlts in oi:her cities? *It is obvious from tlle foregoing� tl��,t many citizens of Ga�apevine are seriaasly cancerned tha.t tl�e fraiichise �;rant proceec�ures � }�1ve �rlot allowed for fair coz�sideralioii of� tl�eir` interests. We would re�ommend that aziy ��ospective grant be delay�d until ' " ` the questions raiscd �ire answered to �}ie satis:faction af the � �"" citizens. To tl�at end we alss� recommend that a c�nsul�,�.xlt i.iti�nately familiar with cabl� tcievision fxanchi�ing be retaiuied , 1 �• in �rder to iiisut�ti:e tlie cauilcil azid tile coii�n�ittee fro�n' criticisixi. � *i'1e sug-�;�est that i.t is not sulficient iti Z inattcr af tliis nia�;nitud� for the �:oui�cil to act as it does with re�,�`ards� to ordii�.�.ry iizatters which it xeviews iristead, iii view of the extra.ordinary publicity on �both a nai:ional and Iocal ba,sis r�garding unfulifilled �promises � made by cable com2�znies during a franchise process. The real test for Gral�ev-ine is a gra.nt beyond any appearance c� undue, � influence oz• impropriety no matter how well intentioned the council and committee may ha.ve been. � It is iiot our intention to attempt to divide GraPeviiie into political ! factions. � However, si�ice tllis is probably the most in�porta.nt , d�cisian this particulaz council wili ever make we believe �hat it is imperativ� th.at t�ie council try to achieve a braad consensus . It ' is in this spirit tl�at w� ask tlie cauncil to ��ive this f ranchise further ` ��udy. . ' , � ' e ��ctfully yours, � ^ � � � � ./-r��-���'-�' ,���'- �.- � • rI'IIP CT`PILLNS CA13Lr TTL��JISION _II��OT�,NIATION COMNiITTEE ��im�nie Mundell, Treasuker , , ,