Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout19810420 public hearing cable television 104 PUBLIC HEARING - CABLE TELEVISION, April 20, 1981 A Public Hearing was held on April. 20, 1981 , In the Thomas E. Whitecotton Law Enforcement Center Training Room at 7 : 30 p.m. Councilmen present : Brant , Gordon , Halsey, Hequembourg, Kliegel, Prenger, Wade and Whitecotton. Councilmen absent : Borgmeyer and Crader. A quorum was declared present. After discussion it was decided that the purpose of this meeting would be for the public and Councilmen to ask questions of the three cable television bidders and to voice any complaints they might have regarding the present cable service. Councilman Gordon asked Mr. Alden, of TCI , if TCI were awarde the franchise would they install new equipment? Mr. Alden replied the equipment currently in existence was adequate. It is the in- tention of TCI to rebuild the existing system. The amplifiers will be torn down and replaced. The existing messenger strand wily remain. Councilman Wade asked about the outages he had been ex- periencing. Mr. Alden replied every system has outages. Mr. Collett stated there had been many storms recently and that could account for the outages. Councilman Halsey stated the picture on his television was snowy and he wanted to know if this would be corrected. Mr. Alden replied that perhaps the number of sets Mr. Halsey had hooked up to the system could contribute to the snowy picture. Councilman Brant stated he was having trouble with Channel 8 going out and with other channels interferring. Mr. Alden replied perhaps it was the fine tuning on the set . He further stated TCI had done a tapreading in front of Dr. Brant' s home, as well as in front of each Councilman' s home. Councilman Halsey stated that his home had not been checked. Mr. Mike Gillilan , Highway 50 West , asked what plans were being made for expanding out of the City limits. Mr. Barry 13abcocl , of Toltran , stated Tel.tran ' u first priority would be to provide cable service to the residents of the city. Mr. Gene Bushman , of Central Telecommunications , Inc. , stated it was also CTI 'a priority to provide cable service within the Cit and planned to build the system within .fifteen months . After that time, they would go outside the City. He also stated that in theiii bid proposal. they promised to build a system to accomodate every resident in the City with no restrictions. Paul Rogers , 1811 !Brookside, stated he also has ghost images on his television picture. He also asked if we have a performance bond requirement . Councilman Hequembourg replied we have a letter of credit requirement which is equivalent to a performance bond. Clyde Lear, 1521 Lowell, Dr. , asked what provisions had been made by the Council for continued service. Councilman Hequembourg replied the Council could not make a determination on any proposal until the Judge rules on the pending litigation between TCI and thi City of Jefferson. The Council will do everything in its power t see there is no discontinuation of service. Harold Muir, 620 Michigan, asked why we needed bids when we have cable service in existence. He is pleased with the service we presently have. Councilman Hequembourg replied that with the franchise about to expire and considering the problems we have experienced in the past with the present company we put the fran- chise out for bids in order to obtain the best service for the best rate. Mr. Farrow, Counsel for TCI , stated that as of now there were no provisions made for the continuation of cable service. At this point Mr. Andrea, Local Counsel for TCI , presented a Resolution to the Council which read as follows : '?t PUBLIC HEARING - CABLE TELEVISION A•ril 20 1981 RESOLUTION BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Jefferson City now grants a license to TCI Cablevision, Inc. , to continue to operate its cable television plant in Jefferson City; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the terms of such license shall bed established by negotiation between the City and TCI within 45 days , from the date hereof ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during such 45 days no action shal be taken on any Request for Proposals and proposals dealing with cable T.V. ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that nothing in this Resolution shall prejudice either the City or TCI ; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that during such 45 days that the City and TCI request the Court in which TCI 's action is pending to take no further action on this case for the next 45 days. DATED: April 20, 1981. Councilman Hequembourg stated because of the pending litigatio the Council could not agree to the Resolution without the Judge addressing the problem. Mr. Andrea stated that TCI was prepared to sit down and negotiate a new agreement with the Council. Y. Don Brown, 317 Manila, said he had no complaints about TCI 's service and wanted to know if he would have service tomorrow. Stan Hoit , 206 Fredericks, appeared and stated he could not understand why we waited twenty four hours before the franchise expired to hold a public hearing. Councilman Hequembourg again stated there was nothing the Council could do until the Judge ruled on the issue tomorrow. The Judge has ruled we could not make any awards until we hear from him. Gordon Spear, residing on East Ashley, appeared and made inqui y. Rael Amos, 558 Senate Court , appeared and stated he did not care who services Jefferson City with cable television , he only wanted good service for his money and inquired what would be done for those who had paid for service in advance. Mr. Farrow replied that if the service was discontinued , a refund would be coming to those who had paid ahead. Councilman I3rant asked Mr. Amos if he had not appeared several months ago with complaints on his service and had his complaints been satisfied? Mr. Amos replied he had been before the Council previously with problems and they had not boon corrected, his picture continued to be snowy and his HBO picture was cross-hatched. Mark Schmutzlor , Route 3, appeared and inquired if a survey had been made. Councilman Hequembourg stated the Council had not authorized any type or survey , however, tho bidders indicated they had each interviewed individuals and offered some indication of their support . Paul. Rogers stated ho wished to commend the Council for the effort of competitive bidding. The process we are going through is good. Mr. Farrow stated TCI did not oppose additional licenses to other companies. TCI is prepared to meet with competition. Councilman Hequembourg stated the Council had not told any of the companies that they could not operate in Jefferson City. Councilman Prenger stated that while it may be possible for more than one company to operate, no two companies can operate in a city of this size profitably. Mr. Bushman stated he wished to clarify something. The City decided it wanted to improve the quality of cable television service. The City only received two bids. The third "proposal" is merely a proposal to sit down and negotiate something on the side. Councilman Brant replied that the Council can not negotiate with any company unless we either accept one company or turn down all bids and then negotiate, however, at this time we have to consider all three bids. Councilman elect Vernon Schulen then directed questions to the three bidders. To CTI , he asked if the system cost overruns the bond figures, how will you finance the remaining portion? Mr. Bushman replied the company had informal commitments for additional financing if needed. 1.06 PUBLIC HEARING -- CABLE TELEVISION, April 20, 1981 To all three companies he asked if they would be willing to turn over the cable system to the City on a leaseback basis? TCI responded no, CTI and Teltran stated they did not wish to answer at this time. He asked the three companies how they would introduce new technology within the cable field over the next fifteen years? Mr. Bushman, of CTI , stated they would purchase new equipment and the best equipment which would make their system the best . Mr. Babcock, of Teltran, stated the 400 MH system they propos; to use is the most modern system. We have designed the system to have a tremendous channel capacity. We are starting out with the best system available. Mr. Alden, of TCI , stated that in order to be effective , they have to make a profit , to expect a favorable return on their in- vestment. The system we have proposed has more than adequate channel capacity and will accomodate any service. He then asked CTI if they had plans to sell their system. Mr Bushman replied they have no plans to sell the system. He asked CTI are you proposing the tower vs. the microwave. Mr. Bushman replied that TCI and Teltran each own a microwave system. However, because of the tower, CTI is ready to go into the business as soon as the franchise is granted regardless of any suits filed. Mr. John Schott , of CTI , then spoke of the technical aspects of the tower. Bob Watson, 608 Waverly, asked Mr. Schott how he would respon• to the Consultant ' s suggestion that the microwave system was better than the tower. Mr. Schott replied there are pros and cons to both systems but we are saying we have a better program. Mr. Schulen then asked TCI why they have not introduced new • technology in the last ten years. Mr. Alden replied they will do what the marketplace wishes. However, TCI has had only one $.55 rate increase and we have not recovered our investment. Bob Priddy, 218 Landwehr Hills, stated he was around ten year. ago when promises were made by TCI and those promises have not been kept . Judging by past performance of TCI why should the Council believe their offer now. Ho stated he got along fine witt three channels before TCI provided cable service and could get along with three channels now until we can got good cable service After further discussion , Councilman Whitocotton moved the meeting be adjourned. Motion was seconded by Councilman Wade. t 1 }