7/14/1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

other method, and failing that we either have to put them out of business and offer the territory to someone else or issue them a new franchise which they may not accept or the amended franchise which we are giving. Considering the history of this franchise, staff does not see any benefit in fighting the issue of giving them our new standard franchise. It doesn't work in this situation because of their contractual rights from the past. This utility has claimed a property right in its assets and wants to make money on the deal unlike our normal developer utility, which generally is happy to get out of the business and turn it over to us. Commissioner Eggert asked if we grant this recommendation and on September 14th, everything isn't satisfied, are we then into termination. Attorney Vitunac confirmed we would be, but then they would have had every opportunity to comply and could not say we were unfair to them. Commissioner Bird felt we all agreed the original franchise was poorly worded as far as term is concerned, but it seems there is no question there are provisions in that franchise they have failed to comply with. Director Pinto agreed and noted that when we look at the severity of the violations of a franchise, the very first thing we are concerned about is the health and welfare of the people in the service area. Lack of compliance with the administrative type thing is secondary. He felt it would be too severe to remove the franchise based on this hearing without giving them another opportunity to bring everything in line administratively. If they are not going to do that or feel they do not have to, then we will address that as a pure violation of the contract and go on from there. Chairman Scurlock quoted from the Board Minutes of August 6, 1986, as follows: 47 BOOK 0 FAGS 799 JUL 141 1907 s