Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCCM-05-18-98 CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEE~ MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 COUNCIL CHAlV[BERS / CITY HALL / MEETING CALLED TO ORDER 2. 3. 4. 10. INVOCATION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING CITIZE APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. May 4, 1998, Regular Meeting b. May 9, 1998, Special Meeting RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS WHO WISH ~ a. Larry Hopldns, Regional Transit Authority ACTION OF MAYORAL VETOES CLAIMS · Payroll · General Claims · Retirement COM~IITTEE REPORTS OLD BUSINESS a. Second Reading Ordinance C-191/An O~ Ordinance C- 188; Mayor James Brainard b: Second Readin_o Ordinance Z-325/Ame~ 23C.0/US 421-Michigan Road Corridor & Commission (tabled fi:om April 20, 1998, 1 *published in The Daily Ledger on March PUBLIC HEARING NG AGENDA · 7 P.M. )NE CMC SQUARE ~S/CITY EMPLOYEES O ADDRESS T~rE COUNCIL finance Repealing Annexation [ment to Zoning Ordinance, Section ~lay Zone; Carmel/Clay Plan teeting) 1998 11. NEW BUSINESS a. ' - Additional Appropriations (see attachment A); Mayor James Brainard *public hearing to be June 1, 1998/published in The Daily Ledger May 15, !998 b. Resolution CC-05-18-98-01/Resolution Approving Payment of Construction Costs ($1,593,500.09) and Landscaping Costs ($2,644.61) for Hazel Dell Parkway; Kate Boyle, Engineering c. Resointion CC-05-18-98-02/Resolution Approving Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Between the Hamilton County Park Board and the Carmel/Clay Board of Parks and Recreation (River Trail Project); Carmel/Clay Parks Board cL Resolution CC-0~-I 8-98-03/Resolution Establishing a Barrett Law Improvement Revolving Fund and Taking Actions Related Thereto; Mayor James Brainard 12. OTIqlr~R 13. A1NNOLINCEMIglNTS 14. NOTICE TO TAXPAYERS CARM~-, INDIANA NOTICE OF PUBLIC t-IEARING FOP. ADDITIONAL APPP.OPRIATIONS Notice/s hereby given to the taxpayers of the City of Carmel, F. amilton County, Ind~-,, that the proper legal officers of the City of Carmel, at thdr regular meeting place at Carmel City PIall, One CivicSquare, Council Ch~mber~ at 7 p.m. on the l~t day of~une 1998, will consider the following appropriations in excess of the budget for 1998: Fund L~ne Item ~ Amount Development $I,9~0,000 - ~6Z5.0~ (I 16~ St. $160,000 - #600 $300,000 - #509 (Ot~er Con: Ser,,iee~) 116~ Stre~ Ar~ I~uv~vvements Between Keystone Avenue Rang¢Iine Road $;[,400,000 Cumulst/ve Capitol Improvements mulative provements ~2~ ($idewa~ Improvemenm) ~22 (Sidewalk Improvements) 1998 Citizeus Sic~alk Com~ttee t06~ Street/G~y Road Sidewalk $ 100,000 85,000 Local Roads a~d Streets #822 (Sidewalk L.um~ovements) Gray Road Bridge Sidev~ $ i35,000 Local Roads and Streets ~02 (Contracted Street Repaviug) Additional Pay/rig Program (includes speed humps) 140,000 General Fund (To: Bd. of Public Vv'ort~ & Safety) $80,000 - ~50.02 (Promotional & Special t~'inting) $20,000 - #5 I5.04 (Web P~ge Ma/ntemnce) City Newsletter, City Setwices Directory amd Web Site Mmiutet~uce $ I00,000 Local Road~ and Struts 962I (TrsflSc Light Improvements) 4.e and Main Street ~ntersection Ares Improvements 300,000 Cumulative Capital Sewer. #627 (Sewer 126m Street Storm Sewer ~rrll~fo-v'eme~j~ $1,050,000 Cumulat/ve C~pital ~-~proverll~ts Ban-err Law K~'volv/ng Improvement Fund Bar~tt Law Revolvimg Improvement Fund $ 200,000 ~nd L~e Item Descr~tion $ 216,000 Local Roads ~600 (La=E) Land,Acquisition for 126~/I22'~ $ 700,000 and $~ Stx-,~ Right..of-W~y (to be constnm~ in 1999) Taxpayers at. earing at the meeting ~hall have a fight to be hesrch The additional approp~/ation as ~.aI!y made will be referred to the Sta~e Board of Tax Comm~.~/one~s. The Board w/ll m~Ite a wr/tten deterr-~,,~on as to the suf~cieucy of lauds within fifteen (15) days of receipt ora c~tLffed copy of the action take= Dj-n- L. Cordray, Clerk-Trea.~rer May 12, 1998 CARMEL CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MONDAY, MAY 18, 1998 --7 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS / CITY HALL / ONE CIVIC SQUARE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor James Brainard, Council President Robert Battreall; Councilors Kevin Kirby (arrived at 7:45 p.m.), Jim Miller, Norm Rundle, Luci Snyder, Ron Carter and Billy Walker. Clerk-Treasurer Diana Cordray and Deputy Clerk Christie Crail also attended. Mayor Brainard called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Brainard recognized Nurse LeAnn Pearce, the Carmel Firefighters, the Carmel Policemen and the Communication Center for their heroic efforts during the Key Bank incident of April 30, 1998. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Councilor Rtmdle moved to approve the minutes of the May 4, 1998, meeting. Councilor Snyder seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0. Councilor Snyder moved to approve the minutes of the May 9, 1998, special meeting. Councilor Carter seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0. RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL: Mayor Brainard asked the length of time to address the council be limited to five minutes. Larry Hopkins, Regional Transit Authority, presented an Interlocal Funding Agreement to provide a local match to do a major investment study of the Northeast corridor. The Regional Transit Authority was not successful in front of the City of Indianapolis or City~County Council. Councilor Rundle asked what the dollar amount was previously. The previous amount was $38,250. The requested amount now is $31,250 billed in four quarterly installments to the City. Councilor Rundle stated all funding requires an ordinance and two readings. Councilor Battreall will contact legal department to proceed. Mr. Hopkins stated that this is a simple Interlocal Agreement between two units, and that a resolution is not required. The agreement was not signed. Councilor Snyder stated that at the special council meeting on May 9, 1998, councilors discussed whether to add a special section to the council agenda described as: "Comments to the Council". She stated this section would help citizens get answers to questions they may have. Councilor Battreall stated the council is not trying to limit participation of citizen input by putting a five minute limitation on citizens who wish to address the council. An ordinance is being drawn up at the present time to implement the "Comments to the Council" section of the agenda. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray stopped Mayor Brainard before he announced Ordinance C-191 to introduce a citizen who wished to address the council. Clerk-Treasurer Cordray apologized for not providing Former Mayor Ted Johnson with a Request to Speak Card. Mr. Johnson asked the Council to waive the five minute time limit for his presentation. Council President Battreall stated he did not object to waiving the five minute time limit. Mr. Johnson addressed the council and mayor regarding the settlement of the suit with the Indiana State Trooper and the NAACP (Exhibit A). Mayor Brainard opened the floor for any other citizen comment. No one came forward. Mayor Brainard asked if any of the Council Members wished to comment on anything. Councilor Battreall stated on May 4, 1998, Mrs. Roger Coma asked Council to lift the gag order allowing the people to know the truth. Mr. Battreall believed Mrs. Corm was referring to Section 38 of Rules & Regulations, Section 26.1.1 & 26.1.2 issued by Former Chief of Police Roger Coma on June 22, 1994 and approved by the Board of Works on the same date. Mr. Battreall stated he believed this was an excuse to use the council meeting to demean the Mayor and refute any blame placed on Sgt. Conn. _C._L__&IM~: Councilor Snyder moved to approve claims inthe amounts of $286.70, $174,977.22, $749,970.83. Councilor Rundle seconded. The council voted 6-0 to approve claims. COMMITTEE REPORTS: No committee reports were presented. Mayor Brainard announced Ordinance C-191. an ordinance repealing Annexation Ordinance C- 188. Councilors Walker, Battreail, Snyder and Carter spoke about annexation. Mayor Brainard asked if any members of the public had any comments. No members of the public wished to comment. Ordinance C-191 was approved 6-1. Councilor Walker voted no and stated that the City should not repeal the ordinance because annexation is a good thing. Mayor Brainard aunounced Ordinance Z-325~ an amendment to Zoning Ordinance. Section 23.0FLiS 421~Michigan Road Corridor Overlay Zone. Councilor Battreall thanked Plan Commission Member Rick Sharp and DOCS for the time they spent answering his questions. Mr. Sharp addressed the council regarding his meeting with Brian Tuohy, an attorney representing land owners in the overlay zone. Mr. Sharp stated the land owners were concerned about front yard setbacks and minimum lot size requirements. He stated the plan commission has made or will make the appropriate amendments. Mayor Brainard asked if anyone had any additional comments. No one commented. Councilor Carter asked Mr. Sharp if Mr. Tuohy and his clients had received answers at the April 30th meeting with the exception of the 3 acre minimum lot size concern. Mr. Sharp stated they had addressed the concerns and reached agreements in almost every case. Councilor Kirby stated the ordinance would not preclude anyone from addressing the Board of Zoning Appeals with a lot less than 3 acres, but it would give them another avenue for a development plan. Mr. Sharp agreed with Councilor Kirby. Councilor Rundle asked Mr. Tuohy if he agreed with the documents issued by DOCS and if he was comfortable with them. Mr. Tuohy concurred with the changes made in the memorandum from Steve Engelking (Exhibit B). Councilor Rundle inquired how this ordinance would be passed to satisfy the procedural requirements Mr. Sharp had explained. Mayor Brainard stated that the state and local laws that govern joint plan commissions are very specific. If any changes are made to the ordinance, it must be returned to the plan commission. If the council wishes to pass this ordinance tonight, it must do so without any conditions. The mayor stated that the council could, immediately after passing the ordinance, pass a resolution to request or direct the plan commission to deal with the amendments. He stated that a separate resolution would be required for the ordinance to be valid. Councilor Kirby stated the only other option would be to table the issue. The mayor and council further debated the issue. Ordinance Z-325 was approved 7~0. Mayor Brainard called for a short recess at 8:25 p.m. The council reconvened at 8:35 p.m. The mayor turned the meeting over to Council President Battreall. NEW BUSINESS: Mayor Brainard announced Ordinance D-1365-98. an ordinance making several additional appropriations (See Page 2 of agenda for amounts and funds). Councilor Kirby stated he had several concerns about the ordinance and was interested in hearing public input. Councilor Snyder stated she did not like how the additional appropriations were lumped together in one ordinance. She stated she was unsure how councilors should vote if they agreed with only some of the appropriations in the ordinance. Mayor Brainard suggested amendments could be made. Ordinance D-1365-98 was carried over to the next meeting. Councilor Battreall turned the meeting back over to Mayor Brainard. Mayor Brainard announced Resolution CC-05-18-98-012 a resolution a_nproving payment of construction costs ($1.593,500.09) and landscaping costs ($2.644.6l) for Hazel Dell Parkway. Councilor Battreall moved to approve the resolution. CoUncilor Kirby seconded. Resolution CC- 05-18-98-01 was approved 7-0. Mayor Brainard announced Resolution CC-05-18-98-02, a resolution approving an interlocal cooperation agreement between the Hamilton County Park Board and the Carmel/Clay Board of Parks and Recreation for the River Trail Project. Mayor Brainard stated that City Attorney Douglas Haney suggested the council add the following sentence to the resolution: If the project is not completed or moneys remain after all costs of the project are paid, all such moneys shall return to and shall be immediately deposited in the fund from which they originated. Councilor Battreall moved to approve the resolution. Councilor Kirby seconded. Councilor Kirby stated the council needed to officially amend the resolution before approving it. Councilor Kirby moved to approve the amendment as recommended by the city attorney. Councilor Snyder seconded. The amendment was approved 7-0. Resolution CC-05-18-98-02 was approved, as amended. 7-0. Mayor Brainard announced Resolution CC-05-18-98-03. a resolution establishing a Barrett Law Improvement Revolving Fund and taking actions related thereto. Councilor Rundle moved to approve the resolution. Councilor Battreall seconded. Resolution CC-05-18-98-03 was approved 6-0. Councilor Snyder was not present. ADD-ON ITEMS: Councilor Battreall moved to add a letter (written in accordance with Federal Communications Commission rules) to Time Warner Cable asking the company to justif_v rate increases to the agenda. Councilor Miller seconded. Councilor Carter asked Councilor Battreall how the cost might affect the City with legal fees. Councilor Battreall stated at this time fees were very small. No money will be spent until Time Warner replies and makes its presentation. Mayor Brainard stated the franchising authority, which is the city council, is requesting a justification of the rate increase. Council Battreall moved to approve letter. Councilor Rundle seconded. The letter was approved 6-0. Councilor Snyder was not present. Councilor Walker moved to adjoum the meeting. Councilor Snyder seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Resp ~ ully submitted Approved, Attest: City Council meeting 5/18/98 Remarks by Ted Johnson I want to say that I appreciate Councilman Kirby's comments at the last meeting regarding the issue of debating those who speak to the Council. I have no intention of entering into a debate tonight because I sincerely believe that the issue I bring to you is not debatable. There are thousands of places I would rather be this evening. My seeking the opportunity to speak to the Mayor and the Council is not a commonplace behavior of mine. As a matter of fact this is the first fane in over two years I have come before you. Please don't pemeive by that absence that I have not been tempted to do so as a reaction to a great number of negative comments you have made during the course of your collective terms of office. I come before you to take issue with a current matter regarding the settlement ora suit with an Indiana State Trooper and the NAACP. The issue more specifically regarding the comments made by you Mayor and apparently the representative of this council, Councilman Carter. On a number of occasions one or both, the Mayor or Councilman Carter, have made statements that it was the policy of the previous administration to stop vehicles in Carmel with youth, blacks or out of Hamiltun County plates without provocation. It has also been stated by those same individuals, the Mayor or Councilman Carter, the previous adminislration put into place a program of identification for a business located in Carmel which allowed their employees the freedom of movement within Carmel. Now let me be absolutely clear on my response to these accusations, THEY ARE LIES. You will note that I didn't say there were misunderstandings or there is no basis for mlth or that the statements do not appear to be factual or any other all most not tree description of their, the Mayor or Councilman Carter's, continuing accusations regarding the policies of the previous administration on the stopping of certain vehicles or individuals entering, within or passing through Carmel. I repeat to you tonight again, Mr. Mayor and City Council (represented by Mr. Carter in this matter) that those statements are pure and simple LIES. I also say to you Mr. Mayor and Councilman Carter, the Trooper and the NAACP that my record is clear on the treatment of other human beings. I can tell you that I serve on a Metro Board of the Methodist Church that administers inter-city centers. I have with my wife served in Liberia on tltree different occasions for improving educational possibilities, we contribute and participate in the Brightwood Community Center activities to improve the youth opportunities in the Brightwood Martindales area of Indianapolis. As Mayor of the City of Carmel I worked with many programs to provide education and employment for youth in the inter-city of Indianapolis. I worked with Mayor Goldsmith and Carmel employers to bring in workers from inter-city Indianapolis to fill employment opportunities. This was a particular sensitive area in discussions with Sam Jones of the Urban League. His fear of youth coming to Carmel was the feeling (not fact) that Carmel has always stopped such youth driving into the area without provocation. I assured Mr. Jones as did the Chief of Police that was not the case and there was no policy for such actions and they need not be concerned about employment in our area. That brings us to the matter of the suit itself. It would be my guess that when the issue came up, some twelve months afier the incident with the Trooper, the mayor assumed as many do, obviously Councilman Carter as well, that Cannel had some policy for such actions. This was in lieu of verificatiun that the officer whom I believe made a valid stop, had made an invalid stop. The Mayor reacted as an attorney and made an out of court offer to settle in the amount of $75,000. Not Necessary. The Mayor and Councilman Carter claim that an agreement with a local employer made their case impossible to defend. Not so. What really made it hard to defend was the fact that the Mayor made an offer to settle a charge that had, in fact, no basis. If the matter with the employer was so faultfinding why were the individuals who were involved in those discussions not contracted by the city legal department or the insurance company? Several of those people are still employees. With such a grand money saving Law Department one would not be out of line to assume any such department worth its salt would have performed that very simple function. They might have also investigated to determine if there really was such a policy. I know what they would have found. Nothing. The City of Carmel has been had. Don't kid yourself ur the public even if the insurance company pays the cost, of which I have some reservations, who pays the insurance company? That's easy we do, the taxpayers. It is not hard for me to provide evidence that you, Mr. Mayor and you Councilman Carter have slandered the previous administration undeservingly by your LIES. Tkroughout these past two plus years you have provided that evidence to the public by your own comments andl actions, in other matters thereby firmly establishing your reputations for altering the truth and while I have only been the target of a few of those alterations it positively affirms their existence. We only have togo back to all of the policemen and fireman we were going to have to layoff if we gave a tax reduction to the public in January of 1996. An action that the previous fiscal body approved. That action confirms what is possibly but not guaranteed to be the fkst LIE and it certainly has not been the last. What do I expect by coming before you this evening? When yofi, Mayor and Councilman Carter utter such statements as you did you include a number of people who represent the "administration" that are innocent bystanders in a drive-by shooting. People who have worked hard and long to make this community special. Those such ~acitizens, employees and policemen. With just one careless statement you have undone their good works. You have indicted a whole community by your actions and that is unconscionable. What I expect fi.om you is a statement from both the Council and the Mayor admitting there is no evidence that the previous administration practiced what both the Mayor and Councilman Carter have stated in public and press releases. If you have evidence that such a policy existed then it would be in your best interest to bring it out. The issue with the Carmel employer substance is not acceptable evidence as it has no relationship to the policy statements. The ball is now in your court. Thank you for the opportunity to practice my citizen rights. I have submitted a copy of my presentation to the Clerk for placing into the minutes of this meeting for the record MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: 'DATE: Common Council, City of Carmel, Indiana Douglas C. Haney, City Atto~ Add On To May 18, 1998 Council Ag'~nda May 13, 1998 Dear President Battreall and Council Members, As City Attorney, I have been instructed by the City of Carmel Cable Television Advisory Committee to prepare and send a letter to Time Warner Cable asking it to provide justification for the basic and tier cable television rate increases which became effective January 1, 1998. In order to comply with jurisdictional time limits, this letter must be received by Time Warner Cable no later than May 29, 1998. 1[ prepared this letter for my signature. However, on May 13, 1998, I was informed that the Federal Communications Commission requires this letter to be signed by the "local franchise authority" - - which is the Common Council. Therefore, if this letter is not authorized and executed by the Coug, cil at its May 18, 1998 meeting, it cannot be sent out in time to be received by May 29, 1998. Rather than risk jeopardizing the City's fight to seek justification for these cable rate increases, I respectfully ask that this letter be added on, considered and executed at your May 18, 1998 meeting. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. DCH/eb VIA CERTIFIED MAIL NO. Z 010 796 429 May 18, 1998 Mr. Jay Li Satterfield Division President Time Warner Cable 3030 Roosevelt Avenue Indian.apolis, IN 46218 Re: NOtice of Intent.to File FCC Form 329 Dear Mr. Satterfield: By this letter, the Common Council of the City of Carmel, Indiana, acting in its capacity as the local franchise authority, gives notice to Time Warner Cable as follows: 1) The local franchise authority has received Subscriber complaints in accordance with the roles of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regarding a rate increase to the basic and Ca~ble programming services tier provided by the Time Warner Cable within 90 days of the date of the increase first appearing of the subscriber's cable bill; 2) Consistent with the requirements of FCC Form 329, Time Warner Cable is hereby provided with a draft copy of this form by certified mail and given 30 days fi:om the date of receipt of this letter to give the local franchise authority a rate justification on the appropriate FCC form or, alternatively, a certification that it isnot subject to rate regulation. Absent an acceptable response or a rescission of the rates at issue, it is the intent of the local franchise authority to file a Complaint with the FCC within 180 days of the date the rate increase became effective. Any response you file will be made a part of that filing; if you do not file a response within the specified time period, that fact will be noted to the FCC. Any and all correspondence regarding this matter should be addressed as follows: . Mr. Douglas C. Haney, Esq. City Attorney City of Carmel One Civic Square Carmel, IN 46032 Mr. Robert K. Johnson, Esq. Bose, McKinney & Evans 135 N. Pennsylvania St. Suite 2700. Indianapolis, IN 46204 Mr, Jay L. Satterfield May 18, 1998 Page Two Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARMEL, INDIANA Acting as the local franchise authority By: Robert Battreall, President Cannel Common Council cc: Mayor James Brainard Terrence L. Brookie, Chair Carmel Cable Television Advisory Committee Enclosure FCC FORM 329 CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICES RATE COMPLAINT FORM PLEASE READ THE INSTRUCTIONS PRIOR TO COMPLETING THIS FORM All of the ~equested information must be provided to enable us to consider the complaint. Incomplete filings cannot be processed and will be returned. Franchise Authority Name: city o¢ Carmel, [nd±aaa Street Address: One c±v±c Square City carmel Phone Number: 317-571-2472 State Zip Code 46032 Cable System Name: Time Warner Cable Street Address: 3030 Roosevelt Avenue City Indianapolis Phone Number: 317-632-2288 State IN Zip Code 46218 FCC community unit identifier number for cable system. I N 0 0 8 7 Subscriber complaints regarding a rate increase to the cable programming services tier(s) were received by the local franchise authority within 90 days of the effective date of the increase. (If no, the complaint cannot be fi]ed.) ~ NO Specify in detail the cable programming services tier being complained about: Basic and programming tier The complaints referred to indicate the following increase(s): Basic current rate: $9.26 Prior rate: $8.76 Tier Current rate: $ 19.68 Prior rate: $ ].6.85 Effective date of increase: 1/t/98 (month, day, year) Were any channels added to or dropped from the cable programming services tier concurrent with the increase in the rate? indicate the number of channels added: o YES ~' FCC FORM 329 Sectem0er 1995 · F.t. ceral Communlcauons Commission '~~]'80-C54g Indicnm the number of chnnnels dropped: o CERTIFICATIONS: By signing this form the local franchise authority certifies to the FCC that, to the best of its knowledge and belief, the following is true and correct: 1) The local franchise authority has received subscriber complaints in accordance with the Commission's rules regarding a rate increase to the cable programming services tier(s) provided by the cable system within 90 days of the date of the increase first appearing on the subscriber's cable bill. 2) Consistent with the requirements of this form, the cable system was provided a draft copy of this form by certified mail and given a minimum of 30 days from that date to give the local franchise authority a rate justification on the appropriate FCC Form or, alternatively, a certification that it is not subject to rate regulation. 3) Consistent with the requirements of this farm, this information provided by the cable system is attached to and made a part of this filing by the local franchise authority. If no such attachments are filed with this form, the franchise authority certifies that the cable system operator failed to file the appropriate information with the local franchise authority within the specified time period, and requests that the FCC act upon the information as submitted. 4) In the event additional information relevant to the filing of this FCC Farm 329 is obtained by the local franchise authority pdor to the Commission taking final action thereon, the local franchise authority will immediately notify the Commission of such additional information and provide the same to the Commission. 5) The local franchise authority has filed this complaint with the Commission within 180 days of the date the rate increase became effective, Name Signature Date FCC NOTICE TO INOIVIDUALS REQUIRED By THE PRIVACY ACT AND THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT The solicitation of personal information in :his form is aulnodzed by the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. The Commission will use the information proviced in this form to determine the reasonacleness of a cable ccmdany's ,'ares. In reaching that determination, or for law enforcement 2urposes, it may become necessary :o 0rcvide 0ersonal information contained in this form to another government agency. Ali information OrovideP in this form will ~.e availaole for public insoecdon, subiec: to local reduirements. Individuals are not rec~uireo :o respond [o collections of information I~,a: do not contain a valid O~ce of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. Public reporting for this collection is estimated to average 45 minu~es per filing, !nc!ucing the time for reviewing irs:ructions. searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining [he dale needed, ar: comoledng the collection of infc,'mation. Send comments regarding this burden estimate cr any olher aaoect of :his collection cf information, inCuding suggestions for reducing :~e burden, to the Federal Communications Commission, Records Managemsr~: Branch. Washington. CC 20554 OD no~ send como~e~eo ~orms ~o ~his address, THE FORGOING NOTICE IS REQUIREC BY THE PRIVACY ACT OF1974. PL. g3-57g, DECEMBER 31, t97~ J,SC. FCC FORM 329 Sec:ember I gg5