Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-24 Resolution No. 97-24 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD-HOC CABLE FRANCHISE PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council directed the formation of the Ad-Hoc Cable Franchise Public Hearing Committee to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the need for a second cable television system in Elgin; and WHEREAS, on January 8, 1997 , the City Manager delivered the recommendations . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELGIN, ILLINOIS, that it hereby accepts the following recommendations of the Ad-Hoc Cable Franchise Public Hearing Committee: The issuance of a second cable television franchise would be appropriate based on criteria established under Illinois state law (Chapter 65 ILCS, Section 5/11-42-11 ) and the testimony received at the November 13, 1996 public hearing and the City Council requests staff to continue to negotiate a cable television franchise with Ameritech New Media. s/ Kevin Kelly Kevin Kelly, Mayor Presented: January 22, 1997 Adopted: January 22 , 1997 Vote: Yeas 5 Nays 0 Attest: s/ Dolonna Mecum Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk Committee of the Whole Meeting January 8, 1997 Page 3 Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters, Yearman and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None. Recommendation from Ad Hoc Hearing Committee Regarding the Issuance of an Additional Cable Television Franchise Councilman McKevitt made a motion, seconded by Councilman Schock, to accept the finding of the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee that issuance of a second cable television franchise would be appropriate based on criteria established under Illinois state law and the testimony at the November 13 , 1996 , public hearing and accept the committee ' s recommendation to authorize staff to continue to negotiate a cable television franchise with Ameritech New Media Enterprises . Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Yearman and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None. Councilmember Walters abstained due to a possible conflict of interest . Discussion Regarding Mandatory Retirement Age for Police Officers Councilman Gavin stated that it had just been brought to his attention that Elgin ' s municipal code requires that police officers retire upon reaching the age of 63, whether or not they are still able to perform the duties of a police officer. He is concerned that this policy may be detrimental to the safety of the community. Councilman Gavin made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Yearman, to place a moratorium on enforcement of that section of the Elgin Municipal Code which mandates retirement at age 63 for police officers and to have staff review this provision to make sure it is the proper thing for the police department and the good of the community. Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters, Yearman and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None. The staff was also directed to consider age and performance policies regarding all departments . Adjournment Councilman McKevitt made a motion, seconded by Councilwoman Yearman, to adjourn and go into the regular meeting. Yeas : Councilmembers Gavin, Gilliam, McKevitt, Schock, Walters, Yearman and Mayor Kelly. Nays : None. The meeting adjourned at 7 : 20 p.m. Dolonna Mecum, City Clerk Date Approved , C � I ,y Agenda Item No. , := 7 City of Elgin January 2, 1997 TO: Mayor and Members of City Council - FROM: Robert O. Malm, Interim City Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation From Ad Hoc Hearing Committee on Issuance of an Additional Cable Television Franchise PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Mayor and members of City Council with a recommendation from the ad hoc committee appointed by the City Council to conduct a public hearing regarding the issuance of an additional cable television franchise. BACKGROUND At the October 23, 1996 City Council, an ad hoc hearing committee was appointed by the City • Council to conduct a public hearing regarding the issuance of an additional cable television franchise. 'The ad hoc committee included: Robert Malm (Chair), 'Ferni Folarin, David Lawry, Lori Moses, and James Nowicki. The public hearing is required by Illinois law prior to the issuance of a franchise in order to determine: the public need for an additional system; the capacity of the public right-of-way to accommodate such a system; the potential disruption to existing users of the public right-of-way; the lona term economic impact of such additional cable television service within the community; and any other issues the franchising authority (City of Elgin) deems necessary. A public hearing was conducted on the evening of November 13, 1996. The issues specified in the Illinois law were addressed through testimony by Ameritech New Media (the cable franchise applicant), Jones Intercable (incumbent cable franchisee), and the general public. The transcript of this hearing is provided for your review along with copies of material distributed at the meeting by Ameritech and information provided later by Jones Intercable regarding a complaint filed against Ameritech with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). On December 4, 1996, the ad hoc hearing committee met again to review the complete transcript of the public hearing and to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the issuance of an additional cable television franchise. The minutes of this meeting are provided for your review. After careful review and discussion of proceedings from the November 13 public hearing, the ad hoc hearing board unanimously approved the following recommendation that: • The issuance of a second cable television franchise would be appropriate based on criteria established under Illinois state law (Chapter 65 ILCS, Section 5/11-42-11) and the testimony received at the November 13, 1996 public hearing and the City Council request staff to continue to negotiate a cable television franchise with Ameritech New Media . • Additional Cable Franchise Recommendation January 2, 1997 Page 2 • COMMUNITY GROUPS/INTERESTED PERSONS CONTACTED Ameritech New Media Enterprises, Jones Intercable, and the general public through an advertised public hearing conducted November 13, 1996. FINANCIAL LMPACT None. - LEGAL IMPACT None. ALTERNATIVES The City Council could choose to not accept the recommendation of the ad hoc hearing committee. • RECOMMENDATION It is recommended_that the City Council accept the recommendation of the ad hoc hearing committee and request staff to continue to negotiate a cable television.franchise with Ameritech New Media Enterprises. Respectfully submitted, • Eric S. Stuckey Buda- . •irector/Public Information Officer / Robert O. Malm Interim City Manager Chair of the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee • • • Meeting Minutes Ad-Hoc Cable Franchise Public Hearing Committee December. 4, 1996 • Members Present: Femi Folarin, Lori Moses, Jim Nowicki, Robert Malm, David Lawry. Staff Present: Ery Jentsch, Eric Stuckey. Others Present: Ameritech - Jim Szczepaniak, Fred Fouse, Lee Graft, Helen Shumate; Jones Intercable - Wayne Vestal (General Manager). . The meeting was called to order at 4:15 p.m. Chair Malm stated that the purpose of this meeting was to review the transcript of the November 13, 1996 public hearing and to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the need for a second cable television system in Elgin. • Board members discussed the transcript, identifying necessary corrections. The committee members unanimously agreed to these minor changes. Mr. Malm stated.that additional information had been sent to the hearing committee members • from Jones Intercable. Corporation Counsel Jentsch stated that some of this information may require re-opening of the public hearing in order to allow Ameritech New Media to respond. Board members stated that they had requested information pertaining to actions filed against Ameritech with the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC). Mr. Nowicki moved that the ICC complaint and Paragraph #7 pertaining to the ICC complaint be added to the transcript. Mr. Folarin seconded. The board unanimously approved this motion. At this point. Mr. Malm asked the hearing board to discuss the issuing of a second cable television franchise in the light of the criteria stated in Illinois state law: public need, capacity of the public right-of-way, disruption of existing right-of-way users, and long-term economic impact. Public Need Ms. Moses stated that the public clearly say"yes" to competition. Mr. Folarin and Mr. Lawry agreed stating that those present felt that the public will benefit from competition in cable television service. Mr. Malm stated that the public wants a choice in cable service and feels that competition will improve programming and reliability. The public hearing also showed that citizens felt that consumer choice is better than bureaucratic regulation of a monopoly. Capacity of the Public Right-of-Way Mr. Lawry stated that there was sufficient space in the public right-of-way at this point and that this sort of cable is relatively small in terms of the amount of space it would use. Mr. Lawry also stated that the issue of future capacity raised by Jones Intercable is a concern that should be • addressed. Mr. Folarin asked if it would be more than one cable in any one place. Mr. Stuckey stated that the nature of the construction would be specified in a final franchise agreement. Mr. • I • Ad Hoc Public Hearing Committee Minutes- Dec. 4, 1996 Page 2 Fred Fouse, construction manager for Ameritech New Media, stated that the maximum number of cables in the right-of--way would be four. Ameritech would be using, however, one conduit only that would be approximately two inches in diameter utilizing a three inch boring. Mr. Lawry also stated that Ameritech would still need permits to do this work and this process would help identify potential problems. Mr. Nowicki asked Jones Intercable to clarify their statements regarding the future use of public right-of-way. Mr. Wayne Vestal, Jones Intercable General Manager, stated that they were raising the point that this is a public policy matter regarding who should get in the right-of-way. Should Ameritech be granted a franchise, two thirds of the right of way would be controlled by one entity. Mr. Lawry pointed out that the City does not grant space on telephone poles. Mr. Folarin asked Jones to explain their statement regarding one entity controlling two-thirds of the right-of- way. Mr. Vestal stated that one company would own right-of-way for both cable and telephone. Mr. Lee Graft, a representative for Ameritech, stated that existing laws and regulation require telecommunication and electrical utility users to allow future user on poles and into the right-of way. Mr. Jentsch stated that staff is currently working on a telecommunications ordinance. Mr. Malm stated that he hopes that a franchise would require burying of utilities where possible. Mr.. • Stuckey replied that this would be an element of the franchise requiring the cable providers to bury if other users are buried in the area. Disruption of Existing Right-of-Way Users Mr. Lawry stated that this is an element of the permitting process. Mr. Folarin stated that the technology and directional boring described by Ameritech seemed very effective. Mr. Lawry agreed. Mr. Malm asked Ameritech how long they had been using this method. Mr. Fouse stated that they had been using these methods heavily for over the last three years. Mr. Fouse clarified that directional boring would be used where existing right-of-way users were in place. Mr. Fouse stated that Ameritech New Media would use a plow and trench technique in areas where the right-of-way is unused. Mr. Fouse also_stated that 65% of Elgin's plant would be aerial. Mr. Lawry stated that the City has seen directional boaring from other right-of-way users such as Northern Illinois Gas. The City has also used it with good results. Long Term Economic Benefit Mr. Folarin stated that consumers want choice in cable services. Mr. Malm stated that competition could create innovation in services to customers including local businesses. Mr. Folarin asked if the system would be a two-way system initially. Mr. Fouse stated the systems they are putting in now are two-way. Mr. Folarin stated that competition should generate better service and foster innovation. Mr. Folarin asked Ameritech New Media to comment on the complaint to the ICC. Mr. Graft stated that this complaint is against Ameritech the telephone company and that the ICC does not govern cable television service. Mr. Nowicki asked Mr. Graft • • • • Ad Hoc Public Hearing Committee Minutes- Dec. 4, 1996 Page 3 to explain the relationship between Ameritech and Ameritech New Media. Mr. Graft explained that Ameritech New Media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ameritech Corporation. There are claims that this is an illegal cross-subsidy. Mr. Graft stated that these are only claims and that Ameritech New Media pays Ameritech for any services it receives based on rates set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Mr. Folarin asked if there is a financial subsidy. Mr. Graft stated that Ameritech Corporation is a holding company that uses retained earnings to finance new ventures. Mr. Malm asked the hearing board if there were other issues or criteria that should be discussed. No other issues were raised by the board. Mr. Vestal restated that Jones Intercable hopes, that if the City does issue a second franchise, it provides a level playing field for competition as required in Illinois law. Mr. Malm stated that the level playing field issue would be considered by the City Council in deciding to grant specific terms of a second cable franchise. Mr. Folarin moved that the board recommend to the City Council that they request staff to continue to negotiate a cable television franchise with Ameritech New Media and that the issuance of a second cable television franchise would be appropriate based on criteria established under Illinois state law and the testimony at the November 13, 1996 public hearing. Mr. Nowicki seconded. The motion passed 5-0. Mr. Malm stated that this recommendation would be forwarded to the City Council for consideration at.their January 8, 1997 committee of the whole meeting. The meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, 5‘*t‘t-c-ir Eric S. Stuckey Budget Director/Public Information Officer •• . _