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
}