08/26/1974 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.... ., . -.. . ~ . -. ~ ". the joint committee, noted that the Assessor I s figure included Teleprompter IS in- ---} : ventory although there was no firm figure on it. He added that estimate of prop- i i erty values were calculated either on earning capacity of the property, actual i ! value as bought, sold, or constructed" or on a combination of the two. So it; IlIA ; would seem any difference could be "reasoned out." He said the last appraisal; ~ i (sometime within the last six years) was based on the market value of Teleprompter ! i and took into consideration equipment, number of customers, number of channels, \ : cable in the ground, etc. , ; Mayor Anderson said appraisal was usually also based on the rate of return and I he challenged to some extent market value shown in the financial report on the I basis that on no market would such a substantial investment be made with such a ! small rate of return. Mr. Cobb thought a knowledgeable appraiser could substan- i ; tiate the figures presented by Mr. Larson and said it was well known'that the : ratio of value for assessment purposes was always lower than the true market value. ~ He suggested that Mr. Larson be asked to explain the details of his report, or : Teleprompter was willing to have any analysis the Council desired. They felt the ~ figures presented were correct. Councilman McDonald added that the committee'had explored in detail the figures presented and felt the increase a reasonable re- I quest. He noted that the $6.95 rate would be in effect beginning September 1,1974 regardless. : Mayor Anderson felt the Council would not want to be in the position of going ; through a meaningless exercise, it seemed they were delegated the responsibility of investigating the basis for any rate increase and had the right to ask for ~ available ..valid information. Councilman Keller thought' the rate of return would \. ! be predicated on income rather than on investment. He thought the value would ! I not be relevant except to the Assessor's office. --~ -' ~----------. ',councilwoman B-eal expressed_cOm;#Ji~outthe-:::.impa~t of the increase on _elder?;; l : people and shut-ins depending on teeve~amusement and wondered if some reduced "",\ rate could be arrange for service to those people. . I ! iAssistant Manager suggested holding the matter over to next week's committee meet- I ! ing to qive the opportunity to reconcile the figures presented, but Mr. Cobb said \ ! the increase was schedu~ed to go into effect September 1 and he could see no reason \ to hold ,it over for a week when a short session with Mr. Larson would give the in- \ : formation desired. '-.. ~ }" ' ~ It was' a'qreed that the informad_o!J.~wouJd be obtained and further consideration of Comm' \ the rate increase would occur at the A~S.t;-.~~ Council meeting. 8/21/74 ~ . , - ....-., . Pub Hrng i Bob Haas, 2288 Blackburn, sa~d that teevee cable~e~v~ce ~as cons~dered a publ~c i utility by some people. He said the property on which his home was located had deed : restrict_ions prohibiting teevee antennas. And the teevee cable was placed in a pub- \ lic utiLi ty easement at the back ~f h~S lot, s~. i~ h~.~. to b~ consj,dered a publi.c utili ty. \ . Manager reported staff review of information' supphedby Charles Larson, CPA, baseclon . figures given by the New York office of Teleprompter, 'indicated different ways of deter- mining the value of the business - cash flow, median figure accepted in the industry based on the number of customers, value of physical plant on basis of replacement cost and rolling stock. In reviewing the value of the physical plant, based on replacement costs, and comparing with County Assessor's figures, there appeared to be a substantial disparity regarding some of the equipment. Also, a considerable. amount of rolling stock appeared in the business valuation which did not appear in the Assessor's records. Public hearing was opened.. Ralph Cobb, attorney representing TelePrompter, reviewed frknchise terms which allowed the rate increase ($5.00 per month to $6.95) to go into effect on September 1, 1974 , with the provision for cancellation of the franchiseafterlsix months if the city ~roved the increase unreasonable. To justify the increase in their own minds, he said, Mr. Larson was engaged. Mr. Cobb felt TelePrompter's figures were accurate although unaudited. He said a more detailed audit could be supplied if wanted.,... He reminded the Council that TelePrompter was not a public utility, that its service was optior:;al to its customers. And that there was risk involved in that a new television staticn would dec:e~se TelePr?mpter's customers,.or t~e possibility of.a satellite process .~ . for telev:ls~on receptlon could put them ~mmedlately out of buslness. He reported si~ilar increases throughout the Northwest as the result of the current inflationary trend and said the inc~ease announced by TelePrompter was appropriate to give a reasonable rate of return. 8/26/74 - 14 301