Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes and Assorted Cable TV Information 1962-1987COMMON COUNCIL/CABLE COMMISSION PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Joint Meeting 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: Alderpersons,(10) - Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson, Romanowski, Lytel, Schlather (arrived 8:30 p.m.) February 9, 1987 ABSENT: Mayor Gutenberger In the absence of the Mayor the meeting was chaired by Acting Mayor Sean Killeen. OTHERS PRESENT: TV Cable Committee-- Curt Dunnam, Robert Fletcher, Christopher Heegard- City Clerk - Paolangeli BPW Commissioner - Nichols City Attorney - Nash (left meeting at 9:00 p.m.) Dir., Planning & Development - Van Cort Consultant - Jean Rice PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Acting Mayor Killeen led all present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American flag. ADDITIONS TO OR DELETIONS FROM THE AGENDA: Television Cable Alderperson Lytel requested addition of an item "Consideration of a Technical Analysis on the Question of Degree of Competitiveness of the City of Ithaca as a Cable Market." No Council member objected. Local Law re. Annexation Alderperson Dennis requested addition of a Local Law concerning Annexation of Land from the Town of Ithaca. No Council member objected. New Business Alderperson Dennis requested addition of an item under "New Business" near the end of the meeting. No Council member objected. City Attorney City Attorney Nash requested addition of an item concerning inclusion of annexation hearing of Town,of Ithaca in conjunction with Common Council meeting of March 4'1987. No Council member objected. PETITIONS AND HEARINGS OF PERSONS'BEFORE COUNCIL': Cable Refranchising Georgia Griffith, General Manager of American Community Cable- vison, 519 West State Street, presented the following: "Won't talk about issues but am willing to answer questions at any time during the meeting or after. Notes for remarks before the City Cable Commission/Common Council joint meeting, February 9, 1987 All of you know we are in the midst of a franchise renewal process - what you may not know is - This process is defined by the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, commonly called the Cable Act (contained in the notebook I'll be handing out) -2- February 9, 1987 4 - this notebook contains a compilation and summary of all the material we have presented to the Cable Commission and others during the last two. years. - By resolution 2 years ago, the Common Council appointed the Cable Commission as your designee to determine what City residents wanted from a cable operation after the 1988 renewal date and to determine how ACC has performed under the current franchise. This process is called the Ascertainment Hearings by the Cable.act. According to the resolution, the Commission was also to report back to the Council on its "Findings of Fact" and make a timely recommendation as -to what formal action the Council should take. There has not been an ascertainment hearing since at least the end of November and the Cable Commission hasn't effectively received public comment since months before that. Because tonight you are deciding on some of the major issues of the RFP, the ascertainment hearings are clearly not continuing. Since the structure was defined, several things have changed. Some of our concerns are as follows: - The Commission has not reported its findings to the Council. The only summary of the two years of hearings was a confidential report prepared last fall that the Commission gave to Rice Associates - it has not been released to the public nor to ACC. - What role does the Commission have in this process now? We have asked the Mayor (this summer), Charter and Ordinance Committee (11/17/86) and the Cable Commission (numerous occasions) who we are to be dealing with in this process - Who is repre- senting the City? - and we were told that they would get back to us. No one has. Van Cort has told us that he is our contact, but the only official designation has been the cable commission. - Finally, the law requires the City to negotiate with ACC, the current franchise holder. In order for this to be effective negotiation, we need to know who we are dealing with. Who is gathering info and making recommendations and decisions. The resolution attached to tonight's agenda appoints the City Attorney and the Planning Department (two city employees who .have not been involved- In the 'public information gathering) and Rice Associates, a consultant who has done its own information gathering and accessment outside of the process defined by law with the responsibility for making final decisions on the RFP. At this point Rice Associates has been delinquent in releasing every report required under its contr-act and until tonight has only released publically one of the five reports expected between June 30 and September 30. These reports included --community -needs —as-s-ess m.en t From our point of view, the process as defined by the Cable Act and your resolution in early 1985 is not being followed. We are willing at any point to discuss any issue pertaining to the refranchising process. What we are asking you tonight is to appoint a contact person who will represent you in the remainder of the franchising process." Atty. Peter Costanza, Danby, N.Y., spoke to the Council urging that they include, in whatever specifications it places on the renewal process, a capability for two-way data transmission in the cable system which it does not now have. -3- February 9, 1987 Jane Hammond, 2010 Ellis Hollow Road, presented the following statement to the Council: "I want to speak in favor of building a two-way cable system for data transmission and to report a database will be accessible. to anyone with the equipment to use the two-way cable. I am Jane Hammond, coordinator of the project to automate the Cornell University Libraries' procedures. This project is putting our card catalogs and circulation records into a Cornell computer. We estimate that the more than one million books and magazines included in the file represent at least one-third of the entire Cornell libraries collections - everything acquired. since 1973 and many earlier acquisitions. These records will tell you not only if a given book or periodical is at Cornell, but also which library has it, so you will know which of the 16 libraries you want to go to to use the book. You can also find out what hours the library is open. The system will also tell you if someone has checked out the issue of the journal you want or the book, so you don't make a trip for -something that is not available. You will also be able to create your own bibliography by moving the information from the screen into your own file or printer. Moving of this information into your home computer will be facilitated by having a high-quality two-way cable rather than the slower and more error -prone telephone lines. Having the author's name misspelled or a call number transposed by static on the telephone line is worse than no information when you are dealing with a file as big as the Cornell Libraries database. Access will not be limited to those with Cornell connections; anyone with adequate computer equipment will be able to find, sort and read these records. I'm not guaranteeing that this access will always be free or unlimited because the Cornell University Library's computer capacity is neither free nor.unlimited. However, having a two-way cable access will enable more efficient and accurate use of•whatever access we are able to provide to area residents. I urge you to extend the cable system to computer users for reasons you have heard before as well -as .to"'accommodateoff- campus users of the Cornell online catalog. Thank you for your attention to this matter." Claude Colleyacme, 312 Esty Street, presented data to the Council from the Cornell Institute for Social and Economic Research with respect to senior citizens in the city. He -also read -the following communication:-- -- — "Mayor John Gutenberger City of Ithaca City Hall Ithaca, New York Dear Mayor Gutenberger: When considering any rate increase request made by the American Cablevision Corporation we would urge Common Council to give special consideration to the senior citizens who live on fixed incomes. Many senior citizens are homebound and television is their main source of entertainment and in some instances contact with the outside world. It would be unfortunate if this segment of the population were prevented from obtaining their main source of enjoyment due to its high cost. -4- We urge Common Council to ensure that American Cablevision heed the special needs of those on limited and low incomes. Sincerely, Marilyn Grey Executive Director The Tompkins County Senior Citizens' Council, Inc." Grady Wells, 110 Columbia Street, writer and editor, requested consideration of two-way data transmission in the cable system. Malinda Runyan, 420 N. Cayuga Street, requested consideration of restructured access management, improvement in equipment maintenance and one-half inch editing system. John Efroymson, 420 N. Cayuga Street, requested the Council to take a good look at the community access section of the contract which he feels should be improved upon. He supports _ the idea of an independent access board, and talked on specifics such as equipment, quality of audio, storage space, head phones, light bulbs, etc. Ben Nichols, 109 Llenroc Court, former member of the Ithaca Cable Committee who helped negotiate the current rate for television cable service, commented that the agreement clearly stated that there would be no additional rate until 1988. He feels there is a violation of "good faith" and wonders, therefore, what the evidence would be of any "good faith" in negotiations for the future. A.F. Marshall, 416 N. Geneva Street, recommended that the proposal refer to two-way capability; not two-way system because 91 percent of Tompkins County cable subscribers do not want two-way system. Only those who want it should be obliged to pay for two-way capability. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Cable Refranchising - Major Issues Jean Rice stated that the city is following the refranchising process as proscribed in the Cable act of 1984. She informed Council that it is typical for cities to have a commission, a consultant, and the city council involved in the process. The next step in the process was for a hearing to be held on community needs and for the issuance of the RFP. The company would then respond with a proposal and negotiations would not take place until after the proposal had been received. At the request of Acting Mayor Killeen, Jean Rice provided a brief recap of the ten points talked about at considerable length previously: Franchise fee, consumer protection, penalties and liquidated damages, performance bond and letter of credit, access channels, access equipment and ongoing operational support, access management, system channel capacity, two-way capacity, interconnection of ofher communities and term of franchise. Thys Van Cort commented that direction should be given to the Mayor in issuing an RFP based on the issues to be discussed. Also, he asked for discussion on competitiveness and on the possibility of Cornell University participating in a two-way system. He said that he had met with Cornell and that they have a real interest. Bob Fletcher, Chair, Ithaca Cable Commission, read from a letter from the Vice President and Regional Manager of ACC to the Commission which he passed on to City Atty. Nash, as follows: "It is our understanding that the basic rate -5- February 9, 1987 for 12 -channel service will increase to $7.00 per month on July 1, 1984 and to $8.00 per month as :of January 1986. ,—,Tn_ a.adition,AC,C—a.•gxe.e5—to—f.r..e„e.z.e—the.--,basis, r.at.es.<,,,unrt -1,January-a-W—_.. --- 20, 1988." Mr. Fletcher said there are several major questions yet to be answered with regard to a two-way data communication. system: regarding cost Alderperson Lytel had suggested 25-40% above conventional cable with operating cost 1.5 -2 -times that of conventional systems. .Mr. Fletcher stated that this will cause basic subscriber rates to increase dramatically. He said 9% of the subscribers will use two-way if it costs between $10 and $15; however, he added that ACC will spread the rate increase over all -subscribers. If the City expects Cornell University to share the cost, and if they decide not to the problem is that the RFP will already have been submitted. Chair Killeen commented that they would be trying to produce the elements for a request for proposal. Atty. Nash commented that what they were looking for was some general direction from Council that Rice Associates will then use to make a draft of proposed RFP. -Alderperson Booth asked City Atty. Nash where he contemplates the draft RFP to go, if it comes back to Council. Thys VanCort responded that it is entirely up to the Council. He said there is some concern that we are getting too far along in the process without going to the RFP because of time constraints set by the federal legislation. If the Council feels more comfortable having the RFP come back.to them, this can be done. Alderperson Cummings commented that another Council meeting is scheduled for February 24th and it could be brought back at that time. Jean Rice said it would take about two weeks to take policy recommendations and put them into the final document for the Council to look at. Thys Van Cort suggested that after Council had gone through all ten of the issues they could direct Rice to go ahead and prepare the RFP and authorize the Mayor to issue it. If not you can.request that it come back to Council and you can vote on it at your next meeting. Alderperson Schlather arrived at the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Franchise Fee -Jean Rice answered questions of the council members concerning the issue of franchise fee, its allocation, possible: effects. Discussion -followed on the floor. Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the franchise fee be 5%. Further discussion followed on the floor. Alderperson Schlather stated that he recognized full well that the franchise fee could in the final analysis be considered a tax. We have always worked to spread some of -the -costs of operating the city government to various users and to the extent that it is a tax it will relieve the other tax burden at least in some small way, which is spread across an even larger base of city taxpayers. This basically says "yes, you are going to pay a 5% tax to get cable service." There are some people in the city, believe it or not, who don't get cable service and therefore will not have to pay for that. -6- February 9, 1987 A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: -Aye s.---(9)•--- -Booth; Hof fman;•---Klle'en Peterson, Schlather, Lytel *Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried *Alderperson Romanowski explained that as a phone company employee he felt a conflict of interest and would not vote on many of the evening's resolutions but he would participate in the discussion.• Consumer Protection By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That strong consumer protection provisions be included in the RFP. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson, Schlather, Lytel Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Penalties/Liquidated Damages By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the City include penalties/liquidated damages in the RFP. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen Peterson, Schlather, Lytel Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Performance Bond and Letter of Credit By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the City require a performance bond to cover periods of construction and or ongoing operation and a letter of credit to cover penalties/liquidated damages arising from ongoing operations. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) - Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson, Schlather, Lytel Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Access Channels By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the City require 15% of the channel capacity of the system be access channels; given that there is no converter on the basic tier, one channel shall be provided on the bottom 12; that all the access channels be unscrambled; and that 3 access channels be activated at the time the system is turned on and the others activated by demand; and be it further RESOLVED, That if a converter is provided in every home or if there is a similar type of technical change, all access channels shall be provided on basic. -7- February 9, 1987 Discussion followedon the floor. Amending.Reso.latony ; - By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded~ by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That the requirement be amended to read 100 of the channel capacity of the system, 1 being on the bottom 12, that all of these channels be unscrambled and that 3 access channels be activated at the time the system is turned on and the othersactivatedby demand. Ayes (2) - Schlather, Booth Nays (7) - Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Peterson, Lytel Abstention (1) - Romanowski Motion Defeated A vote on the main motion resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Schlather, Booth, Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Lytel Nay (1) - Peterson. Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Access Equipment and Ongoing Operational Support By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Haine RESOLVED, That the City require a proposal for certain equip- ment, additional training, staff, publicity, insurance for access users, operating funds, remote access facilities and interconnection of public facilities. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (9) - Cummings, Dennis, Haine, Hoffman, Killeen, Lytel Peterson, Schlather, Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Access Management By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Hoffman RESOLVED, That the City adopt a non-profit operated access management organization, with a specific definable allotment from the franchise fee.. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes - (5) - Lytel, Cummings, Haine, Hoffman, Peterson Nays - (4) - Dennis, Booth, Killeen, Schlather Abstention (1) - Romanowski Motion Defeated Resolution-_ - .__ -- ------ --- _ By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That Council direct ACC to offer a proposal for the services they will provide; the City will have an indepen- dent oversight board and they will keep their option open for a non-profit organization at a later date. Ayes (6) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Booth, Killeen, Schlather Nays (3) - Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson. Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried System Channel Capacity By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Haine RESOLVED, That the City require a 60 -channel capacity. Discussion followed on the floor. -8- A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: _,._a1Ayes • (:9-)• _-_._Cummings.;._.Hain•e-:.__Dnn. s_;_ Bao_th;Kiileen.;Schl:a-the•r Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Two -Way Capacity By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That the City's goal be a two-way activated system at no cost to the non -using subscribers, in either capital or operating costs, and be it further RESOLVED, That a two-way system is required to be activated unless a binding agreement cannot be carried out between the cable operator, the city and one or more third parties that meets the above goals, and be it further RESOLVED, That some capacity be available at no charge to the City and the public sector organizations that were identified in the Institutional Assessment done by Rice Associates. Discussion followed on the floor. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (8) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Killeen, Schlather, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson Nay (1) - Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski - Carried Bob Fletcher asked that the views of Ithaca Cable Commission be noted in the record: Opposed - Fletcher In favor with/reservations - Heegard, Dunnam Interconnection Jean Rice and the Council discussed the draft findings of the Institutional Ascertainment and Ms. Rice explained how interconnection works. Resolution By Alderperson Schlather: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That interconnection be an encouraged offering in the Request for Proposal. Ayes (8) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Hoffman, Peterson Nay (1) - Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski Killeen, Schlather, Lytel, Carried Term of Franchise _ By Alderperson Booth: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the term of the franchise shall be negotiated after the company's proposal has been received. Ayes (9) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Killeen, Schlather, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson, Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Consumer Compatability By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Haine RESOLVED, That the RFP require that subscribers can purchase converters. from other sources and have internal wiring installed and maintained by other parties and that the cable operator -9- February 9, 1987 cannot charge for these subscriber installed improvements, and be it further RESOLVED, That the company must supply a consumer compatability plan. Ayes (9) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Killeen, Schlather, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson, Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Cable Refranchising - Schedule By Alderperson Cummings: Seconded by Alderperson Haine RESOLVED, That the RFP be prepared and returned to the Council for its March 4, 1987 meeting. Thys Van Cort will forward to the Clerk's Office to be_placed on the Agenda under "Old Business". Ayes (9) - Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Killeen, Schlather, Lytel, Hoffman, Peterson, Booth Abstention (1) - Romanowski Carried Alderperson Hoffman asked when the Public Opinion Surveys will be available. Jean Rice responded that the Public Opinion Survey information will go out with the RFP and the Consumer Market Analysis. Competitiveness Study Proposal By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That Rice Associates be authorized to do a General Consultation Computerized Technical Assessment, On -Site Technical Testing and Petition to the Federal Communications Commission which, including Travel and Expenses, would be an expense of $31,000, with the understanding that if we can get any part of that done by the New York State Cable Commission, it can be taken out of Rice Associate's services. Discussion followed on the floor. Alderperson Schlather asked Jean Rice to address the allegations made by ACC that they have made a determination that the City of Ithaca is in a competitive market place and in support of that, relate that they conducted tests using equipment purchased at Radio Shack for $113.20. Chair Killeen pointed out that Curt Dunnam had responded to ACC by letter. Mr. Dunnam responded to questions from Council. Further discussion followed. A vote on the resolution resulted as follows: Ayes (6) - Lytel, Cummings, Haine, Dennis, Hoffman, Killeen Nays (3) - Booth, Schlather,-Romanowski Abstention (1) - Peterson - Carried LOCAL LAW - ANNEXATION - LAID ON TABLE By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That a LOCAL LAW ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF ITHACA A PORTION OF LAND OF THE TOWN OF ITHACA AND AMENDING SECTION 1.2 OF THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ITHACA ENTITLED "BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY" AND AMENDING SECTION 1.3 OF THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ITHACA ENTITLED "WARD BOUNDARIES", SUBDIVISION B., WARD V, THEREOF be laid on the table. Carried Unanimously -10- February 9, 1987 NEW BUSINESS: 'East Hill Zoning By Alder -person Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That the recently passed East Hill Zoning Amendments be referred to the Planning and Development Committee for review of one section: Change in B -2b Maximum Building Height Requirements, and bring back recommendation to the Council at its March 4, 1987 meeting. Carried Unanimously Cable 'Franchise Negotiating Committee By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by Alderperson Booth RESOLVED, That a Cable :Franchise Negotiating Committee -be created to be composed of the following: 2 members of Common Council and 2 members of the Ithaca Cable Commission to be selected by the Budget and Administration Committee of Council; the City Attorney, Mayor and a representative of the Planning and Development Department, as well as Rice Associates in a consultant capacity, and that the Mayor be empowered to appoint the committee on recommendaiton of the Council. Carried Unanimously EXECUTIVE SESSION: By Alderperson Lytel: Seconded by Alderperson Cummings RESOLVED, That the Council adjourn into Executive Session to discuss possible litigation. Carried Unanimously Common Council adjourned into Executive Session at 11:35 p.m. Common Council reconvened in Regular Session at 12:00 midnight. Resolution By Alderperson Dennis: Seconded by, Alderperson Lytel RESOLVED, That the Common Council directs the City Attorney to pursue legal action against American Community Cablevision in order to prevent implementation of their proposed 504 rate increase due to take effect March 1, 1987. Ayes (7) - Schlather, Hoffman Nay (1) - Booth Absent (2) - Romanowski, Cummings, Lytel, Dennis, Killeen, Peterson, Haine Carried ADJOURNMENT: On a motion the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Carried Unanimously -"Ca1l-ista -Paolange-li - - _ _ Se -an Killeen_ _ City Clerk Acting Mayor OFFICE OF CITY CLERK CITY ®F ITHACA 1O8 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850. January 12, 1984 • TO Cable Commission Alderman Schalther Mayor Gutenberger FROM: Ben Nichols TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 The attached makes it seem clear that we should not revise the ATC franchise to a two-tiered system - even if we call it "augmented service". I think we had better come to some new proposal before we begin mediation. BN/cjh F "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" w.y. S-Tilie' C e'tt JJ, G (3 I l' -4- (fie COt'lS5LU;✓ ivcrcS V u L. tri A: ,, , 3 t r} t 1 � y 3 PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF "TIERED" SERVICE RATES John A. Figliozzi Item: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has "af- firmed its preemption of non -basic cable TV service, declaring cable systems to be exempt from local rate regulation of tiered ser- vices." -from "FCC News," Report No. 2814, November 9, 1983. "Tiering" of cable television services is a fairly recent development arising as a result of a proliferation of available program services, expansion of cable sys- tem channel capacities, and increasing sophistication of cable hardware. Tiered services are those which are available to cable subscribers for a fee in addition to that paid for basic service, and usually take the form of a few channels bundled and marketed under a number of titles such as "Supercable" or "Enhanced Tier" and the like. Tiered services do not include so-called stand-alone ser- vices such as HBO and Showtime, which are usually offered as single channels and termed "premium" or "pay" services. (Premium service rates were preempted from state and local regulation by the FCC in an earlier proceeding.) Cable systems may offer one or more of these tiered packages to maxi- mize revenue and tailor services in such a way so as to increase freedom of choice for the subscriber. It is a practice be- ing used with increasing frequency in cable systems. Municipal officials, regulatory agencies and cable operators have approached the ques- tion of tiered service rate regulation with a considerable degree of caution and con- fusion. Some operators have freely submitted to municipal regulation of such rates; con- versely, some municipalities have expressly chosen not to exercise jurisdiction in this rec. -v� j, c:'✓ area or challenge the assertion of other op- erators that local regulation of tiered rates and services are not permissable. In the absence of a definitive FCC ruling regarding tiered service rates, the New York -State Commission on Cable Television (NYSCCT) in- cluded such rates in its open docket 90172, Notice of Inquiry, on the subject of rate regulation in general. (While the FCC has characterized its Order in this matter as an "affirmation" of existing policy, it is apparent from the considerable confusion among interested parties over the issue that the policy in question was not clearly delineated until now.) Specifically, the FCC's action by Memorandum Opinion and Order (FCC 83-225) taken on November 9, 1983 grants a petition for special relief requested by Community Cable TV, Inc. (CCTV) against the Nevada Public Service Commission which had sought to regulate CCTV's rates for tiered ser- vices. In its Order, the FCC asserted that "states and municipalities are barred from regulating rates for non -basic services," of which tiered services are a part. The practical effect is that local and state regulation is limited by federal pre- emption to basic service. However, no explicit definition of "basic service" has yet been enunciated be- yond the recognition that basic service must include at least the broadcast stations that are required to be carried by cable systems under FCC "must carry" rules. Since the FCC claims its ruling is an affirmation of previously expressed policy dating to 1969, all existing franchise pro- visions regulating rates for tiered ser- vice packages may be determined to be with- out force and effect and, therefore, not binding on the cable operator. This Commission is studying the FCC's action and its likely effect on cable ser- vice, state regulatory policy and municipal franchise agreements. Should you have any questions about the FCC ruling or its ef- fects, contact the Commission's Municipal Assistance Division at 518-474-2213. CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE PUBLIC HEARING ON CABLEVISION RATE REQUEST Conunon Council Chambers 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Charter & Ordinance Committee (5) - Schlather, Myers,Hoffman, Killeen, Clynes Alderman Holdsworth Representative. of American Community Cablevision --Kevin Grossman Ithaca Cable Commission (3) - Robert Fletcher, Benjamin Nichols, Curt Dunnam Resident - Leonard Ferris November 21, 1983 Leonard. Ferris: Requests that the City eliminate from contract provision for separate charge for second and subsequent hookups; questioned the legality of ACC's recently announced efforts to curb illegal hookups; cited extensively. from FCC regulations and recently enacted Laws of New York State (Ch. 521-524 Session Laws 1983); noted that ACC has a virtual monopoly on the entire market. Kevin Grossman, Asst. General Manager ACC: Responded to Mr. Ferris' concerns by explaining that separate charges for extra outlets improves the company's Rate of Investment (ROI); stated that ROI is the basis for rate increase request; no increase since 1975; noted expenses have increased with inflation; two years since rate request was first filed; claimed that "Cable Conunission's math was shoddy," and "conclusions were founded on unrealistic suppositions;" offered us a compromise to guarantee satellite services if the City would agree to submit the rate increase request for final decision to New York State Cable Commission. Discussions and questions followed, including comments from Alderman Myers that it was irresponsible for ACC to increase the rate increase request at the eleventh hour and forty-five minutes from $8.00 to $8.50 for basic services. In order to clear the air as to the. possibility of the State Cable Commission's .making the final decision on the rate increase the conuuittee.then voted unanimously to.decline such an investigation. The committee emphasized that the final decision on the rate increase would be made in the City of Ithaca and by the City of Ithaca in negotiations with ACC. Submission to the State is not an option. • Robert Fletcher, Cable Conmission Chairman: The cable rate increase granted in 1975 was accompanied by certain promises of the cable company which concern grounding of the system which has not been done to 'date; instead a rate increase was requested almost immediately thereafter; in any event an evaluation of the figures submitted by ACC to the Cable Commission was the basis for.the Commission's recommendations to Common Council on the proposed rate increase. In discussions with State representatives it is clear that very Ben Nichols Curt Dunnam: -2- few communities set rates strictly using ROI analysis; instead the majority of municipalities establish rates by bargaining. ACC has refused to bargain. The Cable Commission is concerned by all aspects of the rate in crease request, and.especially.that part of the request which reduces "basic services" to 12 channels from the current 20 -channel possibility. supported Cable Commission's recommendations; reiterated difficulty of Cable Commission in negotiating with ACC. The first written request for rate increase was made by ACC on April 30, 1982. It wasn't until 1983 that the figures were produced by ACC for the Ithaca City Franchise alone; a comparison of costs of operation, both per subscriber and per mile indicates that ACC in those categories is approximately 75-80 percent of the industry average; encouraged further discussion on Mr. Ferris' problems. There followed a general discussion together with questions and answers by all people present. Certain questions were raised by members of the Committee and the Cable Commission concerning the mathematical. accuracy. of ACC's response letter dated.October.31, 1983. There. was also protracted discussion concerning ACC's proposed inclusion of the amortization of goodwill and provision for unpaid income taxes in the rate base. After further discussion it was MOVED and SECONDED that the Cable Commission's recommendations be adopted as recommendation of this committee in toto with the addition of a provision for a $10.00 converter deposit. The committee vote was 5-0 in favor of the motion. The motion PASSED. • The hearing was adjourned at approximately. 10:30 p.m. Raymond M. Schlather, Chair Charter $ Ordinance Committee LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Charter and Ordinance Committee of the Ithaca City Common Council will hold a Public Hearing in the Common Council Chambers, Third Floor of City Hall at 108 East Green Street, Ithaca, New York on November 21, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. upon a proposed amendment to the City's cable tele- vison franchise with American Community Cablevision, Inc. The proposed amendment would effect changes in the monthly service charge to subscribers. The changes to the franchise proposed by American Community Cablevision, together with the Ithaca City. Commission's recommendations concerning this proposal, together with the preliminary proposal of the Charter and Ordinance Committee, are on file and available for public inspection at the Ithaca City Clerk's office located at 108 East Green Street (first floor), Ithaca, New York. Any 'amendment, if approved, may not take effect without the prior approval of the New York State Commission on Cable Tele- vision, and interested parties may file comments or objections with the Commission, mailed to Tower Building, Empire State Plaza, Albany, New York 12223, and the Charter and Ordinance Committee of Ithaca City Common Council. Joseph A. Rundle City Clerk, CMC, City of Ithaca, New York November 11, 1983 L 1 1 ( Ut' l I t1Hl.M LHULC LUI II 11 �� 1 L P -'f RECOMMENDATION TO COMMON COUNCIL REGARDING AMERICAN COMMUNITY CABLEVISION DIVISION OF ATC REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN THE CITY OF ITHACA CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE 1. Unchanged. 4 1'4i~` !t Paragraph 11 (b) be changed to read: The holder of this franchise shall be required to permit any individual or corporation to have access to the services of the holder of this franchise, subject only to the payment of installation fees and monthly charges which are hereby established as follows. 1). Residential establishments [maximum charges]: First installation charge- . $25.38 Each additional installation- $15.08 Commercial establishments [maximum charges]: First installation charge- $35.08 Each additional. installation- $25.00 Custom installation, hidden wire, underground drop in area where drops are otherwise aerial - Monthly rental charges: First installation, basic service including 21 channels- $6.09",' Time + material p 10% Converter charge (subscriber opt i on) - $2.00 Each additional installation- $1.50 Upon addition of three or more satellite services to the midband channels, basic service shall be defined as channels 2-13. Augumented basic service shall be defined as channels 2-13 and B through J in the mid- and super- bands. Monthly rates will then be as follows: Basic service including 12 channels - Each additional outlet for basic service- $1.50 7 Augmented basic service including 21 channels - Each additional outlet for augmented bass service - 7a ,ae a akaeau ti.i , $.0 2). Suspended service: No charge shall be made for voluntary disconnection and no rental charge shall be made while dis- connected. Reconnection charge- $10.80 $4.50 3). The user shall have the privilege of selling or transferring the service to a different party for a 315.88 transfer charge. 4). Changing location of cable: $7.58 for moving to another location in the same room. 310.80 for moving to another location in the same living quarters. v\A 5). Any user who has paid the regular established residential installation fee and moves to another residence within the city. may have this service transferred for a 815.8E charge. 6). Cable service may be disconnected when rental or installation charge is sixty days past due. If service is disconnected because of non-payment, a charge of 810.82 maximum shall be allowed /6,0 for reconnection after the past due account is paid. 7). Unchanged. 8).. Unchanged. 9). Unchanged. 18). Unchanged. 11(c). Unchanged. a Be changed to: L 1r �1.� (, \ I: "American Television and Communications Corporation shall provide one full separate single channel for public access programming on a demand basis. A second channel shall be provided• within 6 months of a formal municipai request if the first such channel has been in use eight hours a day, four or more days per week, for a three month period." 32(b). Be changed to: "This single channel shall be designated as channel 13 in the basic service group." 32(c). Unchanged. 32(3). Unchanged. Section 32(m) be added as follows: "32(m). American Community Cablevision will maintain a record of the use of the designated terevision channel(s); such record to be available locally for public inspection and retained for a minimum period of two yeare." Section 32(n) be added as follows: "32(n). American Communitj CableviSIon will prohibit y the public access channel from being used for the promotion or sale of commercial products or services, including advertising by or on behalf of candidates for public office." T• Section 32(o) be added as follows: "32(o). The franchisee shall provide notice to each subscriber, at intervals of not more than one year, as to the availability of the television channel and production equipment and the address and telephone number of the pereon responsible for the operation of the access channel(s)." 38. Be changed to: "ATC agrees to supply a written statement to each new customer prior to commencing installation for service to such customer and to all existing customers prior to the effective date of any rate change and at least once per year. This statement shall contain the following: (1) Statement of rates pertaining to the customer, including hook-up and all other charges that might be made; (2) concise statement of procedures for notifying ATC of difficulties with service, the ATC "trouble" phone number, hours of availability of service, customer rights to service, and complaint procedures, both within ATC and those available through the City of Ithaca." / ` ajAke4v-evo- qv -cc (2e pct-v,A- v -L be i - ii-Ari-ALIf 0'14 ij c, October 31, 1983 The following changes are proposed for the franchise between the City of Ithaca and American Television Communications Corporation(dba American Community Cablevision): 1. Paragraph 11(b) is changed to read: The holder of this franchise. shall be required to permit any individual or corporation to have access to the services of the holder of this franchise, subject only to the payment of installation fees and monthly charges which are hereby established as follows: 1) INSTALLATION First outlet -residential First outlet -commercial OLD RATE c- NEW RATE $20,00 $2.5.00 20.00 31- Time& Mater: plus 10% Each additional outlet -residential 10.00 Each additional outlet -commercial 10.00 0y 15.00 T.i.me&Materia plus 10% Custom installation, hidden wire, N/A ``; Time&Mater is underground drop in an area where plus 10% 1, drops are aerial MONTHLY RENTAL CHARGES: First outlet-residential(12 channels) First outlet-residential(augmented channels - includes basic 12 channels) First outlet-commercial(12 chantels) First outlet-commercial(augmented service includes basic 12 channels) Each additional outlet -residential 12 channel or FM 5.50 7.50 5.50 7.50 1.00*, Each additional outlet -residential augmented 2.00 service Le itC‹ 600 -K Y} 1 if :8.50 11.00 _8.50 • 11..00 *In the old contract the same subscribers at the same address that .were in operation.as of March 1, 1975 were left at fifty cents.. 2,50 4.50 First FM outlet(assumes no •TV hookup) OLD RATE $5.50 MONTHLY RENTAL CHARGES FOR ADDITIONAL OUTLETS FOR COMMERCIAL SERVICE:. 7 Each additional outlet -commercial 12 channel 1.00 .8.50 Each additional outlet -commercial augmented service(includes 12 channel. 7 service 2.00 11.00 Nothing in the rental charges for additional outlets for commercial. service shall prohibit the Grantee from negotiating a discount or "bulk-rateP/ to commercial establishments including but not limited to: hotels,?\ motels, college and university dorms, retirement homes, nursing homes, or similar establishments interested in two or more outlets. NEW RAT $8.50 2) DISCONNECTION: No charge No char; No charge will be made for voluntary disconnection', and no; charge will be made during the time the, service is suspended. Cable service may be disconnected when the rental or other charges are 60 days past due. 3) RECONNECTION: • 5.00 regular Jb 15.00 5.50 non -pay (0-- 15.00 4) TRANSFER OF SERVICE: 10.00 Any user who haspaid the' regular .estabiished residential installation fee and moves to another residence within the city. may have this service transferred_for the above charge. 5) RELOCATION IN THE SAME DWELLING: To a new location in the same room 5.00 To a new location in another room 5.00 6) CONVERTER DEPOSIT(refundable) .10.00 7) All rates in this table are deemed to .bemaximum rates. 8) Paragraph 7 is unchanged. 9) Paragraph 8 is unchanged. 10) Paragr'a.ph 9 is unchanged.. 15:00 10.00 15.00 10.00 PUBLIC ACCESS The Public Access rules of the New York State Commission on Cable Television are adopted by reference except for the following provisions• Section 32 (b) is changed to read: This single channel shall be designated as Channel 13 in the basic service group. Section 32 (i) remains unchanged(equipment required by Grantee). Section 32, (j) remains unchanged(requires the Tompkins County Library be wired for public access transmission). Section 32 (1) remains unchanged(all access broadcast must conform to state and federal rules) ANNUAL NOTICE Section 38 is changed to read: The Grantee shall provide notice to each subscriber at intervals of not more than one year, of the'procedure for reportingand resolving subscriber complaints. This notice shall include the following: the procedure for billing disputes and credit given for service outages, the procedure for reporting and resolving trouble calls, billing procedures, late charges, advanced billing option, and other subscriber complaints. Grantee shall also notify each subscriber of changes in billing procedure and payment requirements whenever Grantee makes such changes.. . i \ O O (.i g ' '.�v .0 `LEONARD E. FERR!S P. O.BOX 104 ffHACA,' N. Y. -142 5 E USA 18 3/82 g'3. Cable Television Cable television (also called CATV or community antenna television) was developed in the late 1940s in communities unable to receive TV signals because of terrain or distance from TV stations. Cable systems located their antennas in areas having good reception, picked up broadcast station signals, and then distributed them by cable to subscribers for a fee. In 1950 cable systems.were operating in only 70 communities in the United States; these systems served 14,000'subs.cribers, cable television homes. By .the end.of 1981 approximately 4,600 cable systems served more than 20 million subscribers in some 12,600 communities. The largest' technically integrated system -- in San Diego -- serves more than 200,000 subscribers. Cable telefsion .systems are operating in every state of the United States and in several other countries, including Austria, Canada, Belgium, Germany,- Great Britain, Italy, .Japan, Mexico, Sweden, and Switzerland.' Within -the U.S., 'Pennsylvania has the largest number of cable systems,`and California has the largest subscriber population.. Although the number of systems in large metropolitan areas is increasing, most cable systems are located in small communities. Although -the average cable system is providing 10 channels of broadcast television and other services, most systems are tech- nically capable of offering 12 or more channels. Channel capacity in the industry has increased steadily; some systems now operating have sufficient bandwidth for 54 channels. Most systems now being built in large metropolitan areas are planning to offer 100 or more channels on dual -cable systems. The channel capacity of cable systems makes it possible for them to provide many services. In addition to both television and radio broadcast signals, many systems are also offering wire services such as news, weather and stock market reports and cable network program services providing, for example, movies, sports, special entertainment features and programing designed -for specific audiences such as children, women, and ethnic minorities. Some cable operators also originate their own local programing and provide access channels and, leased channels for public. and institutional uses. Electronic banking, shopping, utility meter reading, home security, and facsimile newspaper andimail are some of the home services made feasible by the two-way transmission capabilities of cable television systems. 2 CONTENTS INITIAL JURISDICTION AND RULES Court Test Proposed Revision of Rules 1972 Rules Pase 3 3 3 3 CURRENT RULES AND PROPOSED CHANGES 4 Definition'of a Cable Television System 5 Registration 5 Requirements for Small Systems 7 Franchising and Local Regulation 7 Rates for Service ' • 9 Signal Carriage _, 10 Manner of Carriage - 11 Educational Stations 12 Radio Programing 12 Sports Programing. . 12 STV Stations 12 Network Program Nonduplication .: 12 Syndicated Program'Exclusivity 13 Nonbroadcast Channels -- Access and 14 Origination Access Cablecasting 15 ChannelCapacity and Two—way 16 Capability. Pay Cable .'�` ;; 16 ` Local Record Keeping,Requirements 17 Equal Employment Opportunity 17 Reports and Forms 18 Cable System Ownership 19 Technical Performance Requirements 20 Use of Certain Frequencies - 21 Prohibited Frequencies 21 Microwave Facilities 21 OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS 22 Pole Attachments 22 . Forfeiture Authority 23 Copyright 24 - Legislation •- 25 State Regulation .. 26 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FCC REGULATION 26 Requests for Special Relief 27 Show Cause Orders and Forfeiture 27 Actions Rulemaking Proceedings 28 Complaints and Information 28 HOW TO OBTAIN THE RULES 29 CABLE TELEVISION BUREAU 'SOURCES OF INFORMATION 30 31 INITIAL JURISDICTION AND RULES The Federal Communications Commission first established rules in 1965 for systems which received signals by microwave. (Microwave stations have always been licensed by the FCC.) In March 1966, the Commission established rulesfor all cable. systems, whether or not served by microwave. See Second Report and Order in Docket 14895, 2 FCC 2d 725 (1966). This regulation required cable systems to carry all local TV stations; prohibited systems from duplication, on the same day,via signals originat- ing in. another city, a program broadcast by a local station; and prohibited them from bringing distant signals into the 100 major television markets without a hearing on the probable effect on local broadcasting. In all other markets, no restrictions were placed on the signals a cable system might carry, but procedures were adopted permitting threatened stations to chal- lenge proposed importation of distant signals. Challenged in the courts, the FCC cited its mandate under the Communications Act to regulate "interstate commerce by wire or radio." In June 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed the Commis- sion's jurisdiction over cable. The benchmark case, United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157(1968), arose from an interim Commission decision in 1966 which limited the right of San Diego cable systems to carry the programing of Los Angeles stations. The court decided that, the Commission has reasonably concluded that regulatory authorityover CATV is imperative if it is to perform with appropriate effectiveness certain of its responsibilities." The court found that the FCC needed authority over cable systems to assure the preservation of local broadcast service and to effect an equitable distribution of broadcast services among the various regions of the country. On December 13, 1968, the Commission invited comments on a major revision and expansion of its cable rules (Docket 18397). The Commission adopted "interim procedures" for use during the rulemaking proceeding. These procedures included suspension of distant signal hearings, deferral of processing of all petitions or applications seeking authorization of service inconsistent with the proposedsignal carriage rules, and grant of carriage. requests consistent with the proposed rules. A general outline of the proposed resolution of this pro- ceeding was submitted to Congress on August 5, 1971, in a "Letter of Intent." While the rules adopted six months later generally adhered to those proposals, they,were modified to reflect the consensus agreement on exclusivity and distant signal importation reached among broadcast, cable and television program production representatives in cooperation with the FCC and the White House Office.of Telecommunications Policy. The rules which the FCC adopted.February 2, 1972, and which became effective March 31, 1972, were the most comprehensive com- pilation of regulations ever issued on cable television. See Cable Television Report and Order, 36 FCC 2d 143 (1972). CURRENT RULES AND PROPOSED CHANGES The rules adopted in 1972 required cable television operators to obtain a certificate of compliance from the FCC prior to operating a cable television system or adding a television broadcast signal., The rules applicable to cable operators fell into the following broad subject areas -- franchising standards, signal carriage, network program nonduplication and syndicated program exclusivity, nonbroad- cast or cablecasting services, cross -ownership, -equal employment opportunity, and technical standards. Cable operators who originated programing were subject to equal time, Fairness Doctrine,.sponsorship identification and other provisions similar to rules applicable to broadcasters. Cable op.erators were required to maintain certain records and to file annual. reports with the FCC concerning general statistics, employment, and finances. A cable operator's use of microwave has always required.a license from the FCC. Since 1972, the FCC has modified or eliminated many of the rules. Among the more significant actions, the Commission deleted most of the franchise standards in 1977, substituted a signal regis- tration process. for the certificate. of compliance application process in 1978, and.eliminated the distant signal carriage restrictions and syndicated program exclusivity rules in 1980. In addition, court actions led to the deletion of the pay cable programing rules in 1977 and deletion of the cable television access rules in 1979. Rules regarding required local broadcast signal carriage, network program nonduplication protection, franchise fees, sports program blackouts, cross -ownership, equal employment opportunity, origination cablecasting, technical standards, cable television relay service (CARS), and record keeping and reporting comprise the current cable television rules. Proposed rule changes are pending regarding the cross -ownership restrictions, franchise fee limitation, mandatory signal carriage requirement, and aeronautical frequency interference restrictions. Issues regarding leased access and the .fairness and equal time rules are also under consideration. These topics are described more fully in this bulletin. - 5 -- t For. regulatory Purposes, -the rules distinguish between the .terms "cable television system" and ."system community unit." A cable television system is described as a "nonbroadcast facility consisting of a set of transmission paths and associated signal generation, reception, and control equipment,'under common. ownership and control, that distributes` or is designed to dis- tribute to subscribers the signals of one or more television, broadcast stations . ... :" This definition does not include such facilities which serve fewer than 50 subscribers. Facil .sties which serve subscribers in one or more multiple unit dwellings under common ownership or management, usually master antenna television (MATV) systems, are also exempted under the FCC definition, regardless of whether they serve 50 or more subscribers. The "headend" or "physical system" definition described above is applied primarily in rule provisions -related to -network program nonduplication protection exemptions, record maintenance, certain FCC reporting forms, cross -ownership, and technical standards. The term:system community ,unit" means a cable TV system, 'or portion of:a. cable system, operating ,within a separate and • distinct community or municipal entity, including unincorporated areas and separate unincorporated. areas within them. This definition 'of -:system is used in relation to registration, sig- nal carriage, and network program nonduplication protection requirements. As a precondition to commencing operation or adding any television broadcast signals to existing operations, a cable system operator must separately register each system community unit with the Commission. If a cable television facility serves fewer than 50 subscribers but is part of a larger system which, taken as a whole,. serves 50 or more subscribers, the smaller facility is considered a community unit and is required to register. Effective October 20, 1978, the Commission eliminated the certificate oftcompliance application process for cable systems and instituted this new procedure. To register, a cable television operator must send the following information to the Secretary of the Commission: (1) The legal name of the operator, Entity Identification or Social Security number, .and whether the operator is an individual, private association,'partnership or cor- poration;.if the operator is a partnership, the legal name of the partner responsible for communications with the Commission; • Definition of a Cable 'Television System Registration (2) The assumed name (if any) used for doing business in the community; (3) The mail address, including zip code, and the telephone number to which all communi- cations are to be directed; (4) The date the system provided service to. 50 subscribers; (5) The name of the community or area served and the county in which it is located; (6) The television broadcast signals to be carried. which previously have not been certified or registered; and (7) For a cable system (or an employment unit) with five or more full-time employees, a statement of the.proposed community unit's equal employment opportunity program, unless such program has previously been filed for the community unit or is not required to be filed based on an anticipated number of,fewer than five full-time employees during January, February and. March of the year following com- mencement of operation; an explanation must be submitted if no program statement is filed. 4 • Registration statements must be signed by an authorized, rep- resentative of the cable television company._ The Commission issues a public notice setting forth the details of each registration statement as it is received. For information .on how to obtain these notices, see page 26 of this bulletin. The cable television operator is not required to serve the registration statement on any party and may begin operation or add new signals immediately upon filing the registration state- ment. However, commencement of operation is entirely.at the risk of the system operator; if violations of the rules are subsequently discovered, appropriate regulatory sanctions, including imposition of forfeitures and the issuance of cease and desist orders, may be employed. The Commission does not systematically review the infor- mation to ascertain if the service proposed is in compliance with its rules. Filing a waiver. request or including in a registration statement signals whose carriage is not permitted by the rules will not prevent the Commission from imposing sanctions if carriage is commenced in violation of the rules, 'even if it subsequently_ were determined that waiver is appropriate. Cable systems previously certified (and those which had certificates of compliance pending) are considered to be regis- tered. No further filings, other than required annual reports, are necessary unless new signals are added. Cable television systems serving fewer than 1,000 subscrib- ers, are exempt from most of the Commission's rules. Generally, only the following requirements apply to smaller cable systems: (1) Comply with the registration requirements described above; (2) Comply with requests from local television stations for carriage on the cable system; (3) Comply with the Commission's technical stay -- dards for cable television systems, including the frequency use requirements (except that ••annual proof of performance tests are not . • required); (4) Correct and/or furnish information in response to the following forms sent to the cable oper- ator annually,by the Commission: -- Form 325: "Annual Report of Cable • Television System" (Schedules 1 and 2 only) -- Form 326: "Cable Television Annual Financial Report" -- Form 395A: "Annual Employment Report" (including the annual report of complaints) Acknowledging that Federal licensing would be an unmanage- able burden and that the industry was uniquely suited to "a 'deliberately structured dualism," the Commission adopted a • regulatory plan allowing local or State authorities to select a. franchisee and to regulate in any areas that the FCC does not .preempt. Typically, local governments have adopted laws and/or regulations on franchising, basic subscriber rates, theft of service, taxation, and pole.attachment. The Commission preempts '7')= -regulation of signal carriage, pay cable, and technical quality. However, in the areas of technical.standards enforce- ment the FCC may authorize local arrangements in some cases;. Requirements for Small Systems Franchising. and Local ,Regulation, In 1972 the Commission adopted minimum standards .for .franchises issued by local goveilnments. These standards related to the pro— cess of selecting a franchisee, franchise duration and fees, the establishment. of construction timetables, and procedures for regu— lating rates and for handling subscriber complaints. In 1976 the Commission deleted the franchise standard regarding local rate .regulation procedures and, effective November 15, 1977, amended the remaining franchise standards (Docket 21002).. The standards, which had been mandatory, were maintained on a voluntary or guideline basis, with the exception of the franchise fee limit.. The Commission's franchise standards retain the following nonmandatory recommendations or ,provisions that local governments might include in the franchise or as part of the franchising process:. (1) The franchising authority should approve a franchisee's qualifications only after a full public proceeding affording due process; (2) Neither the initial franchise period nor the renewal period should exceed 15 years, and any renewal should be ranted only after a public proceeding.affording due process;. (3) The franchise should accomplish significant construction within one year after registering with the Commission and make service available to a substantial portion of the franchise area each following year, as determined by the franchise authority; (4) A franchise policy requiring less than complete -wiring of the franchise area should be adopted" only after a full public -proceeding, preceded by specific notice of such policy; and • (5) The franchise should specify that the franchisee and franchisor have adopted local procedures for investigating and resolving complaints. The standards also suggest that •the franchise require the franchisee to maintain a local business office_or agent for handling complaints and that it specify that procedures have been adopted for investigating and resolving complaints and that each new subscriber will be given notice of these procedures. The standards also recom— mend that the franchise designate, by title,.the franchising authority office or official responsible for the continuing administration of the franchise and implementation of complaint procedures. - 9 - •• The• only mandatory franchise standard in the FCC's rules limits a franchise fee, the amount. the system.operator pays annually to the local franchising authority, ,to no more than 3 percent .of the franchisee's gross revenues per year from all cable services in the community.. The Commission may approve a fee in the range of 3 to 5, percent if the. franchisee shows that it will not interfere•with Federal regulatory goals and if the franchising authority justifies the entire fee as appropriate in light of. the planned local regulatory program. As a result of revisions. in Docket 21002, franchising authorities may assess a fee on all cable revenues, rather than excluding- those revenues derived from pay cable and other - extra services. If the system community unit was franchised or began operating before March 31,. 1972, however,.a "grandfathered" fee may be collected. until either 15 years from the initial grant of the franchise or the end of the current franchise period, whichever occurs first. In April 1979. the Commission denied reconsideration of its decision to relax the franchising standards and began.a further rulemaking in Docket 21002 to consider the desirability of continuing to have a Federal, limit on franchise fees. To date, the proceeding remains pending. The FCC does not regulate rates for.cable television ser- Rates for - vice. Local :overnments ma decide whether or not to re_ulate Service most rates, however, the FCC preempts local regulation of pay cable rates. Most systems have a rate for basic subscriber service, one or more charges for pay cable services, and charges tor installation and additional hook-up. An increasing number of systems have several tiers of programing, each with separate charges. The use of computerized billing methods is facilitating more complex rate structures. . According to the most recent FCC annual financial data, the average monthly subscriber rate for 1980 was $7.69. Among the States, the average low rate was_$6.37 in Vermont and the average high rate was $24.76 in Alaska. .For pay cable service, the average monthly rate was $9.13, with a high rate of $13.36 in Alaska and low of $6.00 in the Virgin Islands. The average installation fee was $17.66. Signal • The 1972. carriage rules set up standards of television signal Carriage - carriage which vary with market size. The determining factor is whether a community is located wholly or partially within a 35 -mile radius -- called the specified zone -- of a commercial TV station licensed to a major or smaller television market, as defined in the Commission's cable television rules. Certain television broadcast signals are required to be carried by cable. systems, if the 'stations request it.. Systems serving communities in major or smaller television markets must carry,.on request, signals from the following broadcast sources: -- All television stations licensed to communities within 35 miles of the cable system community. -- Noncommercial educational television stations within whose Grade B contour the system community is located. -- Commercial TV translator stations with 100 watts or higher power serving the community of the system and noncommercial trans- lators with 5 watts or higher power serving the community. -- Stations whose -signals are significantly viewed in the community. . The significant. viewing standard is: for network sta- tions, a minimum 3 percent share of viewing hours and 25 percent net weekly circulation; for independent stations, a minimum of 2 percent share and 5 percent net weekly circulation. A list of significantly viewed signals on a countywide basis; as determined by a survey taken in 1970 and 1971, is contained in Appendix B of the Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Cable Television Report and Order, FCC 72-530, 36 FCC 2d 326 (1972). The method for establishing sig- nificantly viewed status for signals not listed in Appendix B is contained in Section 76.54 of the cable television rules. Stations which were not on the air at the time of the survey are permitted to submit countywide data; other stations must submit community surveys. All Grade B signals from other small markets (applies to systems serving communities in smaller.markets only). . Where a cable system community is located entirely or partially within both a major and a smaller television market, the carriage provisions for the major market apply. . — 11 — In communities located outside of all markets, cable systems must carry signals from the following sources: -- All stations within whose Grade B.signal contour the system community is located. -- Commercial translator stations. with 100 watts or higher power and noncommercial translators with 5 watts or higher power serving the community. -- Stations whose signals are significantly viewed in the community. --.All educational stations licensed to com- munities within 35 miles of the system community. The cable 'TV rules adopted in 1972 contained restrictions on.the importation of distant signals into the local cable television community, with the exemption of those'systems serving fewer than. 1,000 subscribers.per headend. In general the rules permitted carriage of a full network station of each major national television network and 'from one to .three independent stations, depending on the size of the market in which a system was located.. Systems located outsidee-of all television markets . were not restricted as to a certain number or type of distant signal which they could add. In June 1977 the Commission began' an inquiry into the economic relationship between television broadcasting and cable television (Docket 21284). In April 1979, on the basis of its economic inquiry Report which concluded that' elimination of the distant signal carriage restrictions would benefit consumers without harming the ability of broadcast stations to meet their" public interest.responsibilities, the Commission issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to delete these rules. In July 1980 the Commission adopted the recommendations in Report_and Order in Dockets 21284 and 20988, 79 FCC 2d 652 (1980). The rule changes became effective July 7; 1981, following affirmation of the Commission's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 'Second Circuit in Malrite T.V. of New York, Inc. et al. v. FCC and USA, 652 F. 2d 1140 (2nd Cir. 1981), cert denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 3547 (1982). The programs of television broadcast signals must be carried Manner of in full, without alteration or deletion of their content. In Carriage cases where all parties agree, however, commercial inserts or changes may be permitted if the Commission grants a waiver of its rules. Educational Stations Radio Programing Sports Programing STV Stations Network Program Non- duplication onduplication - 12 - • All educational stations within 35 miles of a cable system com- munity located outside of all television markets and all educational stations that place a Grade B signal contour over the community of a system in a major or smaller market must be carried by the cable system. Also, cable systems serving communities in States where noncommercial educational stations are run by a State agency. may carry any such stations. Any additional educational stations may be carried if there are no convincing objections.. The Commission places no restrictions on either the carriage of radio stations or. cable system origination of .radio programing. • Cable television community units serving 1,000 or more -subscrib- ers may not carry local sports events broadcast by distant television stations when the events are not. broadcast' on local television stations. The purpose of this rule is to maintain the integrity of local television sports blackouts. .The holder of broadcast rights is - responsible for notification of programing. deletions at least no later than Monday preceding the calendar week during which deletions are desired. Programing from any other television station may be substituted for the deleted program. . The signal carriage rules were not intended -to and do not require a cable operator to carry the subscription, or scrambled programing.portion of a subscription television station (STV). If the station qualifies for mandatory carriage, however, the cable operator would be obliged to carry, on request, the unscrambled portion of the signal. Nonduplication protection is afforded a local television net- work. station program when a cable system does not duplicate the same prograds carried simultaneously on a distant station of the same network. The rationale for the nonduplication rules is that dupli- cation of the local station's programing through carriage of distant signals could fractionalize the audience, thereby economically injuring local broadcasters and the service they provide to the public. All systems serving at least 1,000 subscribers per headend are required to comply with the following general provisions: -- Dual Channel Carriage. Whenever a local station's pro- graming is protected, a cable system may carry the local station on the channel reserved for the programing of the more distant dupli- cating signal. This provision averts the need for a "blacked out" channel that would otherwise result. - 13 - -- Zones of Protection. Cable system community units located within fixed mileage zones (35 miles for stations licensed to top -100, or major television markets -and 55 miles.for those. licensed to smaller markets) of communities to which TV stations are- licensed must provide nonduplication protection to those stations. - - Translator Stations. These. stations located within the predicted Grade B contour of their parent station are entitled to nonduplication, protection against the duplicating network pro- graming of stations more than 55 miles away from the cable community. In addition, translators -licensed to a cable com- munity need not be blacked out to protect other stations. - - Notification. Television stations seeking nonduplication protection must submit. their requests to cable systems at least six days before the broadcast of the program to be protected and are required to notify the system of last-minute schedule changes. The First Report and Order in Docket 19995 includes a sample notification form. -- Program Overruns. The rules, allow, a one-hour "grace period" during which nonduplication protection need not be provided. -- Same -Day Protection. Stations in the Mountain Time Zone are entitled only to simultaneous rather than same-day nondupli- cation protection. However, a station. may be granted' more protection by the Commission upon a showing of need. -- Significantly Viewed Signals. Cable systems are not required .to delete the programing 'of any station that is sig- nificantly viewed in the cable community. The court's decision in Spartan Radiocasting Co. et al. v. FCC and USA, 619 F. 2d 314 (4th Cir. 1980), affirmed the Commission's 1978 rule change (Docket 19995), which then became effective May 29, 1980. The syndicated program exclusivity rules required that a. Syndicated cable system serving a community in the first 50 major markets, Program upon a notification from the copyright holder, cease carrying • Exclusivity syndicated programs from a distant signal during a preclearance period of one year from the date that they were sold for the first time as syndicated programs in the United States. And a cable system in any major market was not permitted to carry a syndicated program to which a commercial TV station, licensed to a designated community in the market, had. exclusive right..- A station was required to request such protection by appropriate notice. There were several exceptions to this prohibition for cables_ystems in the.second 50 major markets. Also, systems serving inKer than 1,000 subscribers per headend were exempt from these requi nts. Nonbroadcast Channels -- Access and Origination - 14 - When a program was deleted under the syndicated program exclu- sivity rules, a cable' system could substitute programing, not .otherwise subject to deletion, from any other television station. In November. 1976, the Commission began an inquiry (Docket 20988) to reevaluate the syndicated exclusivity rules by examining the following options: deletion of the rules; expansion of their applicability to smaller markets; revision of criteria; or retention of the present rules. In April 1979, the Commission adopted a Report on the syndicated exclusivity rules and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Dockets 20988 and 21284 in which it proposed to delete the rules. On July 22, 1980, the Commission decided to delete the syndicated program exclusivity rules in their entirety. These rule . changes became effective on July 7, 1981, following affirmation of the Commission's decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Malrite T.V. of New York, Inc.et al. v. FCC and USA, 652 F. 2d 1140 (2nd Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 50 U.S.L.W..-3547 (1982). A nonbroadcast channel is any channel which is not transmitting the signal of a licensed broadcast station. Two types of cable- casting channels -- access and origination -- fall into this cate- gory. Access channels are usually distinguished from origination channels, because cable operators program the latter and usually other individuals or groups program the former. This distinction may be broad or narrow however, depending upon such factors as the cable system's resources and the terms of the local franchise agreement. The Commission's rules do not require cable operators to origi- nate programing nor to provide access channels. Operators who originate programing, however, are required to comply with the FCC's rules on cablecasts by candidates for public office, the Fairness Doctrine, lotteries, and sponsorship identification. A pending rulemaking petition requests that the Fairness Doctrine not be applied to cable operator -supplied programing on systems which have access channels (RM -3626). The rules also prohibit a cable operator from using origination channels to cablecast obscene or indecent material. The restriction, however, applies only to programing subject to the exclusive control of the cable operator. Although satellite -distributed pay cable programing is "originated," cable operators usually cannot easily exert editorial control over its content. Futhermore, the preemption on regulation in the pay cable area prevents the imposition of local regulatory sanctions on such channels. On the other hand, require- ments regarding access channels are often the subject of franchise agreements and local regulation. No Federal rules relate to access channels. .Both access and origination channels typically provide. community -oriented programing, such as local. news, public an- nouncements, nnouncements, and government meetings. Originated programing may also include many types of specialized program packages such as' movies, sports, national news and public affairs, feature enter-. tainment, children's shows, and programing for specific ethnic groups. Program distributors or pay cable companies supply nonbroadcast programing to' cable operators for this purpose. At least 40 such program services for origination channels in. addition to signals of several independent television stations are available now via satellite transmission. Cable operators frequently identify access and origination channels by single or double letters or by some other method to avoid confusion with broadcast stations' call letters.. In a .policy statement issued October 8, 1976, on problems that could arise' from ,the method or lack of identification of cablecast channels, the FCC recommended that cable operators do not use broadcast call letters for such purpose. • - As a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision on April 2, , Access 1979, the FCC no longer requites any cable television operator to Cablecasting provide channels or equipment for public, educational,•govern- mental or leased access use nor -to provide a certain channel capacity. In its decision in FCC v. Midest Video Corp., 440 U.S. 689 (1979), the Court held that the access requirements exceeded the FCC's jurisdiction because the imposed rulemaking petition obligations on cable operators. A pending requests a leased access requirement for new larger capacity cable systems.(RM-3999). The Commission first adopted access rules in 1972, requiring systems in the top -100 television markets to provide four_dedi Gated channels for accessaccess).In eachfor 1969 thecCommission educational, had governmental, and leased adopted a requirement that cable systems also originate program- ing but stayed this rule in 19 71. In 1974 and in .1976 ite Coission revised the deleted access the origination requirement, - rules.. The revised rules, which the U.S. 'Supreme Court set aside, required that all systems with 3,500 or more subscribers, regardless of market, provide up to four access channels only if they had sufficient activated channel capability to do so and if there were demand for full-time use of the channels. 'Otherwise, they were required to provide at least one composite, or combined . access, channel. Provisions regarding equipment availability, charges for channel use, and local operating rules were also contained in the former FCC rules. Channel Capacity and Two-way Capability Pay . Cable Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court decision noted above, the Commission required systems having. 3,500 or more subscribers to provide a minimum potential capacity of 20 channels and to provide the technical capability for nonvoice return, or two-way communica- tions. Systems in- operation as of March 31, 1972, with less than 20 -channel capacity and at least 3,500 subscribers were required. to reconstruct by June 21, 1986, to comply with the channel capacity requirements. These rules were set aside by the Court decision. Most existing cable systems have 12 -channel capacity. About one fourth of all systems have a capacity of more than 12 channels. Many systems cannot carry all of the required local signals. This problem of "saturated" systems is the subject of a' pending rulemaking pro- ceeding (Docket 21472). As a result of another court decision, in NARUC v. FCC, 533 F. 2d 601 (D.C. Cir. 1976), the FCC no longer regulates intrastate two-way, point-to-point nonvideo cable transmissions. State and local authorities, therefore, may regulate cable transmissions of data and other nonvideo programing. - Cable systems frequently offer pay cable services, on a per- program or per -channel basis, to supplement the basic retrans- mission service. Included are feature films, sports events of regional or national intrest, and entertainment programs specifically produced for the cable audience. Two recent Federal Circuit Court decisions. involved the FCC's jurisdiction to regulate pay cable: In Home Box Office Inc. v. FCC,. 567 F. 2d 9, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 829 (D.C. Cir. 1977), the court overturned the FCC's pay cable program content rules because of failure to demonstrate a genuine problem which required regulation. The FCC does not now regulate pay cable program content. In Brookhaven Cable TV Inc. v. Kelly, 573 F. 2d 765 (2d Cir. : 1978), cert. denied, 99 S. Ct. 1991 (1979), the court affirmed a lower court finding that FCC preemption of pay cable rates pre- cluded the New -York State Commission on Cable Television from regu- lating such rates. The court found that FCC preemption in this area was clearly asserted and within its jurisdiction. The latest data indicate that approximately 13 million pay cable subscribers are served by more than 3,000 cable systems. Program distribution is provided by means of cassettes, common carrier microwave, common carrier multi -point distribution service (MDS), and satellites. Since commencing operation in late 1975, satellite delivery of pay cable'programing has proved popular and economical. - - • —17— The 17— The cable industry has been the largest -single user of satellite receive—only earth stations. As of March 1,.1978, .approximately 1,350 of a total of 1,525.earth station applica—. tions received were from cable companies. Most owners of earth - stations continue to register, although the Commission deleted • the mandatory registration requirement as of October 18, 1979. As of December 14, 1981, 5,535 of a total of 6,540 domestic earth station applicants were cable television operators. A11 operators of. cable systems• serving 1,000 or more sub— Local scribers must have a current copy of the Commission's cable Record television rules. In addition, the operators must maintain Keeping locally for.public inspection.a copy of 'the franchise, applica—. Requirements tion(s) to the FCC including any petitions for special relief or show cause, FCC annual reports and related documents, and. any application for transfer of control of a Cable Television Relay Station that may serve the system. . Furthermore, all.operators must maintain in the public •, inspection file certain records for specific periods of time. Records required on equal employment opportunity and annual .performance tests must be retained for five years. ' Records of origination cablecasts by candidates for public office .and lists identifying sponsors of originated programing must be maintained for two years. Records required on network program nonduplica— tion private agreements must be maintained for the run of the contract. -These documents must be maintained on file either at the system's local office or another accessible place in the community. Operators of systems serving fewer than 1,000 sub— scribers are not required to provide nonduplication protection . or to conduct _performance tests. All systems of all sizes must retain for three years all Equal records .of subscribers served during the last month of each Employment quarter of operation. This record does not -have .to be included, Opportunity in the public inspection file, but it must be made available upon request by an authorized Commission representative. Nondiscrimination rules were adopted shortly following- the 1972 Report and Order and have remained largely unchanged, although in 1978 the Commission restructured the regulations to improve 'their readability and adopted some minor revisions - (Docket 20829). All operators of cable systems and cable relay . stations are required to afford equal opportunity in employment to all qualified persona and are prohibited from discrimination in employment because of race, color, religion, national origin,, or sex. Reports - and Forms -18- The 18 - The rules require all cable operators and CARS licensees to establish and maintain programs designed to assure equal opportunity for females, Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians or Alaskan Natives, and Asians or Pacific Islanders in recruitment, selection, training, placement, promotion, pay, working conditions, demotion, layoff, and termination. In addition, if systems. have five or more fulltime employees, they must keep on file with the Commission and up-to-date state- ment of their equal opportunity program and file any changes to existing programs on or before May 31 of each year. They also must submit an annual employment report (FCC Form 395A). An employment unit, as defined in the FCC rules, may consist of one cable system or . of two or more systems which are under common ownership or control and are interrelated in their local management and operation. Employment units having fewer than five employees. are required to submit the 395A Form but not the employment statistics portion of that report. An annual report of EEO complaints, required of.all employment units, is permitted to be filed in conjunction with the annual employment report. : The Commission sends computer printed forms on the following subjects and asks for verification of their accuracy: (1) Schedules 1 and 2 of Form 325 (annual report of cable systems); (2) Form 326 (annual financial report), Schedule 1 of which is preprinted; and (3) Form 395A (annual employment report). - Whenever a change occurs in a system's mail address, operator legal name, or operational status, e.g., it obtains 50 or 1,000 subscribers, the operator must notify .the Commission of the change within 30 days. The operator must furnish the following information: (1) operator legal name and type (individual, private association, partnership, corporation), including the EI (Employment Identity) number or the Social Security number (if the company is an individual or partnership); (2) assumed name, if any; (3) mail address; (4) nature of operational status change; and (5) the names of the system communities affected and their FCC identifiers (e.g., CA0001), which are assigned routinely when the system registers with the Commission. Various FCC information reports are available to the public based on data collected from cable companies. Photocopies of these reports. of general statistical information, TV station distribution, mailing addresses, and other data may be obtained through the Down- town Copy Center, 1114 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 20037 (telephone 202/452-1422) for a nominal charge per page. _The center also provides research services to assist in locating materials (telephone 202/233-9765). Some reports are available on microfiche. The National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port.Royal Road, Springfield, Va. 22161, is another source of FCC data, available on magnetic tape and microfiche. An .NTIS accession number, needed to order a particular computer file, may be obtained by calling 703/487-4763; orders may. be placed by dialing 703/487-4650. The Commission prohibits cable system ownership by telephone Cable companies within their local exchange areas, by television sta- . . System tions .within the same local service area (Grade B contour) and Ownership by national television networks anywhere in the country. The ban on.telephone company ownership was designed to deter anti-competitive and discriminatory practices that evolved from the local telephone company's monopoly position in the community and its ownership of utility poles, which usually carry the distribution cables. This rule does not prevent telephone companies from owning cable systems outside their local exchange area or from providing cable facilities (channel distribution service) on.a lease or tariff basis for use by an unaffiliated system. In January 1980 the'Commission instituted a policy of reviewing waiver requests from telephone'companies proposing to provide cable television service in areas with a density of fewer than 30 homes per mile (CC Docket 78-219).. The purpose of.the- policy is to encourage the development of cable service in'rural areas. More recently the Commission supplemented this policy by adopting a .waiver standard which exempted rural areas (i.e., places of less than 2,500 inhabitants) from the telephone - cable cross -ownership restrictions (CC Docket 80-767; effective December 4, 1981). The FCC's rule prohibiting. certain types of television -cable cross -ownerships takes into account the growing role of cable systems as program originators and is designed to ensure vigorous competition among the media and to obtain for the public the greatest possible diversity of control over local mass communica- tions media. In its proceeding in Docket 20423, in 1975 the Commission amended its rule to require divestiture only in situations it identified as egregious. In June 1980, in a further notice of. rulemaking in the same .proceeding, the Commis- sion has proposed to require divestiture of all cross -ownerships. -As part of its continuing 'concern with patterns of media ownership, the Commission investigated whether cable system ownership by radio stations and local daily newspapers should be prohibited. An additional question was whether there should, be an upper limit on the number of cable systems owned by a single entity nationally or on a regional basis. The Commission con- cluded that no rules limiting cable -radio or cable -newspaper cross -ownership were required at present, but it continues to study these issues (Docket 18891). . Technical Performance . Requirements In October 1980 the Commission requested a staff study of the broad range of ownership issues. The economic study, conducted by the Commission's Office of Plans and Policy and released for comment in November 1981, concluded that cable television is a highly flex- ible, high capacity technology capable of providing a wide range of services and that its market is local and workably competitive. It endorsed a policy of free entry into cable and concluded that con- sumer. preference and entrepreneurial incentives could best determine an industry structure which meets consumer needs. The study recom mended deleting all of the broadcast -cable and network -cable cross - ownership rules and. retaining the current general ban on telephone - cable cross -ownership. It also recommended against imposing multiple ownership limitations or a separations policy (i.e., separation of ownership and operation of facilities from control of transmission or program content). To assure the delivery of satisfactory television signals to • cable subscribers, the Commission requires cable operators to meet certain technical performance requirements. These requirements, however, .do not apply to nonbroadcast services (such as access channels), cable TV receivers, "ghosting" and cable carriage of AM and FM programing. In general, the rules require every cable opera- tor to conduct annual performance tests and to use these results to determine whether the system is performing satisfactorily. Systems serving fewer than 1,000 subscribers are subject to the technical standards but are not required to take annual measurements. It should be noted, however, that any systems regardless of its number of subscribers, which operates in the frequency bands 108-136 and 225-400 MHz must comply with the signal leakage standards .of the rules, including annual performance measurements. The FCC preempts State or local regulation of technical per formance requirements to prevent the establishment of nonuniform requirements that might hinder system interconnectability.and impede the development and marketing of new cable services and equipment. However, the Commission welcomes local assistance in the resolution 'of subscriber complaints involving technical standards. Waivers may be granted in the area of additional standards only upon a showing of local capability to enforce them. As a result of the final report of the Cable Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC),` the Commission modified its technical standards (Docket 20765) to allow systems to make technical performance mea- surements based on headends rather than communities. - 21 - In the same proceeding, the FCC relaxed several standards for signal levels, clarified frequency standards for converters, and relaxed the frequency tolerance for cable carriage of trans- lator signals. Major current technical standards questions are (1) •stare .dards for signal leakage, (2) frequency channelling plans, and (3) standards for cable compatible receivers. Research in prog- ress on the nature of signal leakage must precede frequency channelling decisions, which. in turn must precede standardization of cable compatible receivers. The problem of signal leakage is being addressed in Docket 21006. A Final Report of the Advisory Committee on Cable Signal Leakage, released January 24, 1980, is available through the National Technical Information Service (703/487-4650), publication number PB80-11960.5. This study resulted in a further rulemaking in Docket 21006 proposing new .rules to. control interference to aeronautical radio services due to signal leakage from cable television systems using aero- nautical radio. frequencies. Any cable system, regardless of its size, which intends to use a frequency in the band 108-136 MHz or 225-400 MHz above certain power levels, must first- notify the Commission of .its intention to do so and await authorization before using the proposed frequencies. This requiremen permits Commission review of proposed frequency usage and prevents cable operations on frequencies which might interfere with the air navigation and communications functions of local aeronautical radio services. The standards used to determine the permissibility of proposed frequency usage are based on geographic proximity to -nearby aeronautical radio stations and the degree of separation between the proposed cable frequencies' and those in'use by the' aero- nautical stations. Certain logging and leakage monitoring obligations are also imposed on operators using frequencies within the critical bands. No cable television ,system may5utilize a frequency at power levels equal to or exceeding 10' watts within 100 kHz of the frequency 121.5 MHz or within 50,kHz of the frequencies 156.8 MHz and 243.0 MHz. Cable systems, in addition to providing subscribers with off -the -air signals, also obtain h microwavenrel.ayometimes stationsromCh�leeds TV of miles away,: through operators may purchase.microwave relay service from companies providing such common carrier services, or they may operate their. own relay stations licensed by the FCC as Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) stations. Use of Certain Frequencies Prohibited Frequencies Microwave Facilities -22 - The CARS rules also authorize licensing of mobile remote pick- . up stations for the transmission of programing from the scenes. of - events outside a studio back to the cable studio or headend. In addition, they provide for the licensing of studio-to-headend-link (SHL) stations. Applicants must use FCC Form 327 when filing for authorization to operate a CARS station.. Renewal applicants need file only Sched ule A of FCC Form 327 and make a representation that there were no legal or technical changes since the prior license application. If changes were made', a complete FCC Form 327 is required. The CARS rules provide that cable system 'owners or cooperative enterprises are eligible to be CARS licensees.. The service is designed to enable a cable system. operator to serve his system. However, the rules add that a CARS licensee also may serve non- affiliated cable systems based on a cost-sharing, nonprofit arrange- ment. These arrangements permit the delivery of cable programing where the economies might otherwise prevent a small system from using microwave transmission. The Commission on an ad hoc basis has operators, primarily. educational institutions, 'CARS stations. It also has permitted CARS translators (Docket 20539). The advent of satellite -earth station transmission capability adds another -dimension to microwave communications. The interface between a receive -only earth station and a CARS network now offers greater flexibility in'the distribution of programing to cable systems and a relatively inexpensive means of providing a long-haul transmission capability. In a rulemaking decision in 1979 (Docket 21505), the Commission expanded the CARS band from 12.7-12.95 GHz to 12.7-13.20 GHz. In the same proceeding the Commission allowed television auxiliary stations (i.e., broadcast microwave facilities) to -provide signals to cable television systems on a nonprofit, cost-sharing basis. In further rulemaking in Docket 21505, effective October 1, 1981, the Commission set similar technical standards. for both broadcast auxiliary stations and CARS facilities and also set radiation patterns of the corre- sponding antenna systems to conform with specified limits. permitted noncable to own and operate licensees to serve OTHER REGULATORY MATTERS Pole* Most systems distribute TV signals through coaxial cable -strung Attachments on existing poles owned by telephone or electric utility -companies. Cable operators also may use their own poles, place their cable underground, or use transmission facilities or rights-of-way owned or controlled by -a utility. Some may use combinations of these arrangements. . .- -23 - Sometimes conflicts arise between cable television. systems and utility companies over pole attachment issues, particularly the rates for use of utility facilities., The Communications Act Amendments of 1978 (P.L. 95-234, approved February•21, 1978)= require the FCC to regulate the rates,. terms, and conditions for cable TV pole attachments to ensure they are just -and reasonable unless a State regulates. such factors. The law requires such a State to certify to the Commission that it regulates the rates, terms, and conditions for pole attachments and that it has, the authority to consider and does consider the interests of both cable TV subscribers and 'utility consumers. The FCC has developed regulations to deal with pole attach- ment complaints (CC Docket 78-144) in States which have not certified their authority to the FCC. Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachu- setts, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York,'Ohio, Oregon,. Pennsylvania, Puerto. Rico, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont; Washington and Wisconsin have certified to the Commission that pole attachment regulation, 3s within their jurisdiction (Public Notice, February 2, 1982). In the Communications Act Amendments of 1978.the Congress also granted the Commission authority to impose monetary for- features on cable television systems or CARS licensees found to be in violation of the FCC rules, terms or conditions. of a certificate or license, any Commission order, or any provision of the Communications Act. The FCC may impose forfeitures by issuing.either a notice affording an opportunity for hearing or a notice of apparent liability to individuals holding a Commission certificate, license, or other authorization. Prior to the Commission's issuing either of such notices to individuals not holding, nor required to'hold, an FCC authorization, the following precondi- tions are necessary: (1) the Commission must issue a citation of violation, (2) the Commission must provide the opportunity for an interview, and (3) the individual subsequently must engage in the. violative conduct described in the citation. The maximum fine, imposed on cable system.operators for each separate offense is $2,000, the total fine not ,to exceed $20,000 for each notice of liability or hearing. Each day of a continuing violation is considered a separate offense. In the case .of cable television systems, the Commission must issue any such notice within one year of the offense. . In 1980 the Commission adopted procedural rules to implement the forfeiture law and has delegated certain forfeiture authority to the Cable Television Bureau. Forfeiture Authority Copyright The Act for General Revision of the Copyright Law (Public Law 94-533, Title 17 U.S.C.), effective January 1, 1978, established for the first time an obligation for cable operators to pay copy- right fees for the retransmission of broadcast signals. Regulations implementing the law may be obtained from the Copyright Office which administers the -law. The Office is part of the Library of Congress. According to-the.provisions of the law, cable operators must pay a copyright royalty fee for which they receive a compulsory license to retransmit radio and television broadcast signals.. The fee for each cable system is based on the system's gross revenues from the carriage of broadcast signals and the number of "distant signal equivalents," a term identifying non -network, programing from distant television stations carried by the.system. The law requires a cable operator to f ile'semi-annually a statement of accounts, including information about system revenue and signal carriage as well as the royalty fee payment. The amount of.the fee is the sum of 0.675 percent of gross revenues for the privilege of carrying distant signal equivalents.or fixed rates for the carriage of each signal, ranging from 0.675 percent of gross revenues for the first distant signal to 0.2 percent for the fifth and each additional distant signal equivalent. Systems whose total. gross revenues are less than $160,000 for the accounting period pay a reduced fee; systems grossing Tess than $41,500 are required to pay a flat fee of $15. The law also established a Copyright Royalty Tribunal, composed of five commissioners, to distribute the royalty fees and resolve disputes among copyright owners and to review the fee schedule in 1980 and every five years subsequently. The Copyright Tribunal also is responsible for revising the rates whenever the FCC amends its carriage rules in a manner that would allow carriage of additional programing from distant stations. Any revision of rates should - reflect changes impacting on the copyright owners'.property value. The question of whether copyright fees may be added onto subscriber rates is entirely within the purview of local regulatory authorities. Several bills proposing amendments to the existing copyright law have,been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 97th Congress. The Subcommittee on Courts, Civil Liberties and the Administration of Justice held hearings in December 1981 on H.R. 3560 concerning possible revisions of the law as it pertains to cable carriage of television broadcast signals. Congress continues to consider these issues, and other amendments are possible before a final resolution is adopted. For further details on the status of pending legislation, contact. the Subcommittee at 202/225-3926. For further information regarding copyright regulations, con- tact the Licensing Division, Copyright Office, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20557 (telephone 202/287-8130). The U.S. Congress has devoted considerable attention to - Legislation communications matters in recent years and, in particular, cable television policies. In January 1976, the staff of the Subcommittee on Communications of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives prepared a report on cable television entitled Cable Television: Promise Versus Regulatory Performance'. The Subcommittee subsequently conducted hearings on cable television which eventually led to the decision of several Subcommittee members to undertake a comprehensive review of communications policies in a complete "rewrite" of the Communications Act of 1934. As a result, H.R. 13015, commonly referred to as the "Communications Act rewrite," was introduced in the 95th Congress. A second rewrite bill, H.R. 3333 was introduced in the 96th Congress in March 1979. After holding hearings, the Subcommittee shelved mostof the broadcast and cable provisions and redrafted only the common carrier portions. The resulting legislation, H.R. 6121, was introduced in December 1979, amended, and voted out of the Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee (Oct. 8, 1980) and the Judiciary Committee (Aug. 25, 1980). In the 97th Congress, the renamed Subcommittee on Telecom- munications, Consumer Protection and Finance held hearings in May 1981 on the status of competition and deregulation in the tele- communications industry, in July on cable_ franchising, and in September on diversity of information'sources. Following release of a report in November 1981.entitled Telecommunications in Transition: The Status of Competition in the Telecommunications • Industry, H.R. 5158 (Telecommunications Act of 1981) was intro duced in December 1981. The bill relates primarily to common '.carrier services, with the exception of extending the existing pole attachment law. and codifying the recent FCC decision exempting rural areas from the -telephone -cable cross -ownership restrictions. As of this printing, hearings are planned for early 1982. For further information contact the Subcommittee on Tele- communications, Consumer Protection and Finance, Room B333, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington; D.C.. 20515 (telephone 202/225-9304). The Senate Communications Subcommittee also held hearings on cable television (June 1977), and several senators introduced specific legislative amendments S..611 and 622 (March 12, 1979). Following hearings, these amendments were incorporated into.a new comprehensive set of amendments presented to Congress in June 1980 as S. 2827. . This legislation addressed the FCC's regulatory authority on cable television ownership, signal carriage, rates, franchise fees and programing. No hearings were held on S. 2827." On April 7, 1981, several senators introduced S. 898, the Telecommunications Competi- tion and Deregulation Act of 1981, on which hearings were held in June. Although amendments containing cable television provisions were included in the bill as reported out of committee, the majority of these. amendments were defeated when the full legislation passed the Senate in October. The remaining cable TV related provisons, similar to H.R. 5158, also codify the new rules on telephone company ownership of cable systems in rural.areas and preclude the dominant telephone carrier from providing cable television service. A com— prehensive cable television bill, S. 2172 (Cable Telecommunications Act of 1982, introduced March 4), proposes to amend the Communica- tions Act of 1934. The bill includes provisions related to owner- ship, channel use, rate regulation, subscriber privacy and areas of 'FCC and State/local jurisdiction. Hearings are scheduled for late April. For further details, contact the subcommittee at the Russell Senate Office Building, Room 130, Washington, D.C. 20510 (telephone 202/224-8144). State 'A wide variety of laws and regulations for cable television Regulation exist at the State level. Eleven States regulate cable television on a comprehensive basis through a State agency. 'In Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York, these agencies_ are special commissions established for the sole purpose of cable television regulation. In Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the agencies are State public utility commissions. In Hawaii, regulation of cable television is the responsibility of the Depart- ment of Regulatory Agencies. In addition, at least 30 -other States have one or more laws specifically applicable to cable television, dealing most commonly with such subjects as franchising, theft of service, pole attachment, rate regulation and taxation. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN FCC REGULATION The Commission encourages meaningful:input from the public. The FCC's rules- provide for public participation in all phases of its regulatory proceedings. Persons who wish to participate but are unfamiliar with the procedures may contact the Office of Public Affairs, Consumer Assistance and Small Business Division, Room 258, FCC, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 (telephone 202/ 632-7000). All filings should be mailed or delivered to the Sec- retary, FCC, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Any member of the public may participate in the°Commission's regulatory proceedings. These may involve petitions for rulemaking, waiver of rules, orders to show cause, or declaratory rulings. The Commission's Office of Public Affairs issues public notices of the filings of cable TV registration statements, petitions, comments, and Commission actions. Copies of FCC decisions and comments filed may be obtained from the FCC's duplicating. contractor, Downtown Copy -Center (202/452-1422) for a nominal charge. Several commercial distributors will send copies of all, or- selected, public notices and news releases on a regular basis for a fee. A list of these distributors is available from the Consumer Assistance and Small Business Division. — 27 — Another source,., of this information is trade publications, including, for. example, Broadcasting, Cablevision, Television Digest, Multichannel News, and TVC. The Cable Television Bur eau's Public Reference Room clocated at 2025s t e StreetCrN.W., W. , Washington, D.C.; 6th .Floor, maintains public notices on cable matters. A cable system operator, broadcaster, or any other person Requests for may seek special relief or a wwaive an exi ting rule iver of any rule at any ortime.Special Relief a result, the Commissiony different requirements. Requests for declaratory orders, seeking FCC interpretationbeated as clarify petitionisputed for specialstion relief aboutorrule— making. rules, the yay making. A petitioner may submit the request by letter, accompanied by certification that all parties who may be directly affected" by any Commission action (i.e., interested parties) have been given a copy of the request. In addition to stating'the relief requested, the petition should contain the facts demonstrating the need for relief and show how granting the request would serve the public interest. An original and two copies of the petition must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission. Any, person may submit comments in opposition or support of the petition within 30 days after it -is filed. These pleadings also must be served on the petitioner -and all.persons listed in the petitioner's certificate of service, and an original and two copies should be submitted to the Secretary. The petitioner may then file reply comments within 20 days after the submission of comments or oppositions. 'In response to a petition or on its own motion, the FCC may issue an order to show cause or initiate a forfeiture proceeding. This action begins a proceeding similar to a". civil suit for an injunction; if the complainant prevails at the hearing, the Ca issues a cease and desist order. and/or a forfeiture. Suchproceeding may be started by filing an -original and ndctwos coopies of a petition which the Commissionsubsequently betsubmitted within 30 ic notice. Comments or oppositions days. Such petitions usually seek to remedy an alleged violation of the Commission's rules. A copy of the petition should be sent to the cable system operator and otherinteres a parties.a It is possible, however, for an individual or group to join cable system in opposing a request for an order"to show cause. Once all the pleadings have been submitted, the FCC reviews d she arguments should be issued nor determines tshowo ac forfeiture proceeding should be Show Cause Orders and Forfeiture Actions Rulemaking • The Commission is continually in the process of adopting Proceedings new rules or amending old ones. Since many of these rules have widespread impact, the public may wish to participate. Anyone may petition the FCC to adopt a rule at any time. A petition should include the text or substance of the proposed rule and provide supporting views, arguments, and data. The rulemaking process usually begins with the FCC's issuance of a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking". As the name.implies, such a notice proposes new or amended rules and- invites public comments within a specified time period --.usually 30 days or more. The notice is published in the Federal Register which is available in major libraries. Trade publications also generally report the issuance of a rulemaking notice. Following consideration of the comments, the Commission gener— ally issues a "Report and Order" stating its findings and either amending its rules or declining to adopt the proposed changes. Within 30 days after publication of the item in the Federal Register, any interested person may petition the Commission for reconsideration of its decision. The rules require that an original and five copies of all -petitions and comments be filed. Participants who wish each Commis— sioner to have a copy may submit' 12 copies (an original and 11 copies).' Members of the public may participate informally in rule— making proceedings by submitting a single copy (the original) -of a document,.whichwill be placed in the official docket -file. Complaints The Complaints and Information Branch of the Compliance Division and of the FCC's Cable Television Bureau functions to resolve problems Information involving cable systems. Its services include (1) attempting to clear up misunderstandings between subscribers or local governments and cable systems on Commission rules; (2) dealing with complaints about a system's service; and (3) helping local governments to structure complaint procedures. The Branch staff attempts to resolve disputes on an informal basis; where merited, however, it may request that an FCC investi— gation be conducted and/or may start formal legal action. -29 - Under the dual jurisdictional approach exercised by the Commission and by local authorities over cable television, several important areas of consumer concern are administered by localities rather than by -the FCC. These include subscriber rates and installation fees, inaccurate bills and questionable billing practices, damage to property, illegal taps, extension of cable service to individual homes and businesses, repairs, improper wiring, and false or misleading advertising concerning the cable system's capabilities. Complainants are urged to make their complaints by letter,. directed to local. officials respon- sible for regulation of their cable system. The _Complaints and Information Branch is interested par- ticularly in technicaloriginuofity and interference problems. the problem is the first step in However, knowing thee .determining where to direct a complaint.- For example, if a broadcast TV station carried by the cable system experiences frequent outages or distortions, the complaint should be filed with the Complaints and Compliance Division of the FCC's Broad- cast Bureau. Interference generated by Citizens Band or Amateur -radio operations should be addressed to the Commission's Field Operations Bureau. -Problems involving Master Antenna Systems (MATV) should be directed to consumer groups or other community organizations, since such operations are not regulated by' the Commission. Complaints related to FCC cable regulations may be filed by writing to the Complaints and Information Branch, Compliance Division, Cable Television Bureau, Federal Communications Commis- sion, 2025 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or by calling 202/632-9703. A copy of the complaint should be sent also to the -manager of the cable company. Unless otherwise advised, cow- plaints omplaints and all other correspondence will be available for public inspection. - HOW TO OBTAIN THE RULES Everycable operator serving 1,000 or more subscribers is required by the FCC to have an up-to-date copy of the Cable Television Rules and Regulations (47 CFR Part 76) and to keep track of Commission actions that might alter them. These rules are available in loose leaf form on a subscription basis through the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. Changes in the rules are forwarded to subscribers within a few months after their adoption by the Commission, without additional charges. To order, request Volume XI of the FCC Rules and Regulations, August 1976, edition (sub- scription price: $17.00). -30 - .Another means of keeping informed of rule changes is through the Federal. Register, published daily by the Office of Federal Register and distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office. A yearly subscription to the Federal Register is $75 (Catalog No'. GS 4.107). The Office of Federal Register also publishes an annual cumulation of the cable TV rules as Code of Federal RegulationsrTitle 47, Parts 70-79. This publication is revised as of October 1 each. year; the current edition (1980) is available in paperback for $8.50 (Catalog No. GS 4.108:47 Parts 70-79). Mail orders should be sent to the GPO at the above address; phone orders_are accepted. Payment may be,made by check or charge; prices given above include postage. For addi- tional. information contact.. the Office of Federal Register at 202/ 523-5240.. CABLE TELEVISION BUREAU The FCC's Cable Television Bureau is responsible for implemen- ting the. Commission's cable television regulatory program. . It is composed of the following five operating divisions: (1), Compliance -- enforces the rules and handles subscriber compliants; (2) Special Relief and Microwave -- handles petitions for special relief or waiver, and. licenses CARS stations; (3) Policy Review and Development.-- conducts rule- making proceedings and advises the Commission,. cable operators, local governments, and the public on cable television rules and policy matters. (4) Research -- conducts analytical studies largely of an economic, financial, or statistical nature and performs a broad range of advisory functions; includes equal employment opportunity (EEO) unit; (5) Records and Systems Management -- examines the. records filed by cable operators and produces • reports for Commission and public use. Members of the Bureau's staff welcome inquiries from the public. By contacting the appropriate division, a person can obtain assis- tance in participating in the Commission's processes. Bureau Organization Office of Bureau Chief Policy Review, and Development Division Research Division (including EEO unit) Records and Systems Management Division (including the Public. Reference Room) Compliance Division - - Complaints and Information Branch - - Enforcement Branch . Special Relief and Microwave Division - - Special Relief Branch - - Microwave Branch Telephone (Area Code 202) 632-6480 632-6468 632-9797 632-7076 632-7480 632-9703 254-3407 632-8882 632-8882 254-3420 The Cable Television Bureau is located at 2025 M Street, N.W. 6th floor. The following mailing address may be used: Cable Television Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. SOURCES OF INFORMATION The following government and nongovernment sources may be contacted for information and/or assistance on cable television matters: GOVERNMENT Complaints and Information Branch Compliance Division Cable Television Bureau Federal Communication Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 202/632-9703 National Telecommunications and Information Administration Department of Commerce 14th and Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20230 202/377-1840 Rural Electrification Administration Department of Agriculture 14th and Independence Ave., S.W. Washington, D.C. .20250 202/447-5606 Small Business Administration 1441 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. '20416 202/653-6822 Subcommittee on Communications United States Senate 130 Russell Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 202/224-8144 Subcommittee on Telecommunications,. Consumer Protection and Finance U.S. House of Representatives .B-333 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515. . 202/225-9304 . -32- NONGOVERNMENT Booker T. Washington Foundation 2000 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 202/857-4800 Cable Television Information Center 1800 N. Kent Street, Suite 1007 Arlington, Virginia 22209 703/528-6836 Community Antenna Television Association 3977 Chain Bridge Road Fairfax, Virginia 22030 703/691-8875 National Cable Television Association 1724 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 202/775-3550 -FCC- National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting 1530 P Street, N.W. Box 12038 Washington, D.C. 20006 202/462-2520 National Federation of Local Cable Programers 906 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20003 202/544-7272 National League of Cities 1301 Pennsylvania.Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 202/626-3115 CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 TO: Members, Cable Television Commission FROM: Ben Nichols: DATE: August 21, 1981 Enclosed is a copy of a press release that I have issued with respect to th.eincrease of HBO rates whichis being put into effect with extremely, short notice. I have also enclosed a copy of a letter to The New -York Times: that was sent on August 11, 1981 hut which they have not yet printed Cif they ever will), I read the press release over the phone to Morrie. and Bob and they seemed to think it was O.K, I was thinking of sending copies of one or both_ to our representa- tives in The House and Senate but Ithink it would have more effect if they receive statements from the City Council and Board of Reps, T will see what can do about the. City Council, I would think the Board of Reps -might respond .better to the County Cable Commission, "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" CITY OF ITHACA 1 OB EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 PRESS RELEASE FROM: Benjamin Nichols, Chairman, City of Ithaca Cable Television Commission SUBJ: Increase in rate for Home Box Office DATE: August 21, 1981 I have been informed that as of September 1, 1981 the local monthly rate charged to cable subscribers for Home Box Office will be raised from $7 to $7.95, a 13.6 percent increase. None of the special services supplied by cable television campanies is subject to price regulation. The power to fix rates for special services was taken away from municipalities by the Federal Communications Commission several years ago. The only charge .that local governments can regulate is the cost of the basic service. In the case of the City of Ithaca, the cable company can charge whatever the traffic will bear for Home Box Office and any other services they may add in the future. On the other hand, the company must provide us with complete financial documentation to justify a requested rate increase for the basic service. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" -2— The profits to be earned from a cable television franchise are great. In cities just being wired for cable the bidding for a franchise by large national companies is fierce. Many cable companies bidding for these franchises are offering a very low basic rate (in one recent example as low as $2 a month for 52 channels) in order to get the lucrative franchise and the extra advantage it provides in selling the special services. Under the circumstances it is incumbent on the local municipalities to insure. that cable subscribers are protected from unwarranted increases in the rate for the basic service, and that such:b.asic ser'Vice includes a full range of the available programs, The Ithaca Cable. Cotmission'is- committed to that effort, Most people are not aware of the. fact that the CongreaS is: now- consider' ing a revision of the. Communications Act to bar city and county governments from regulating any of the rates charged' by cable television. companies, If that proposal is enacted we. will no longer have the power.to protect citizens• from unreasonable rate hikes•and to assure tlie'quality and conditions of service. PRESS RELEASE ITHACA CABLE T.V. COMMISSION MAY 13, 1981 The Cable -Television Franchise for residents of the City of Ithaca is very specific in the various rates to be charged. In particular, for those residents (about 750) who had extra sets in their houses before March 1, 1975, the monthly rate for each extra set is held to 50Q per month. Newer subscribers are charged $1.00 per month for each extra set. Recently A.C.C. has been billing all customers_therrate of_$1.00 per month. When this was called to the attention of the Ithaca Cable Television Commission we alerted A.C.C. to the fact that the franchise is being violated. We have verbal assurance from Mr. Bradley Dusto, General Manager, that where extra payments have been made, there will be rebates, and that further billings will be corrected to the 50Q per month rate. The Commission would also like to call attention to the other rates in the Ithaca franchise, namely a $20 first installation charge, to be made at the time of installation and a rate for normal service of $5.50 per month. PRESS RELEASE ITHACA CABLE T.V. COMMISSION May 13, 1981 The Cable -Television Franchisefor residents of the City of Ithaca is very specific in the various rates to be charged. In particulr, for those residents (about 750) who had extra sets in their houses before March 1, 1975, the monthly rate for each extra set is held to 50C per month. Newer subscribers are charged $1.00 per month for each extra set. Recently A.C.C. has been billing all customers the rate of $1.00 per month. I When this was called to the attention of the Ithaca Cable Television Commissilon we alerted A.C.C. to the fact that the franchise is being violated. We have verbal assurance from Mr. Bradley Dusto, General Manager, that where extraa p yments have been made, there will be rebates, and that further billings will be corrected to the 50c per month rate. I The Commission would also like to call attention to the other rates in the Ithaca franchise, namely a $20 first installation charge, to be made at time of installation and a rate for normal service of $5.50 per month. Q CLERKS OFFICE 1`..13 \ siAa A DIVISION OF AMERICAN TELEVISION & COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 519 West State Street. Ithaca. N.Y. 14850 (607) 272-3456 Mr. Benjamin Nichols Chairman Ithaca City Cable Commission c/o Office of the Mayor City Hall 108 Green Street Ithaca, NdY. 14850 Dear Mr. Nichols: V:442 0 /980 i.Qvember .],( 1980 t K, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with the Commission and the public to discuss complaints about the cable television service provided by Ceracche Television. The meeting was a first step towards re -opening a good working relationship between the City and Ceracche Tv. Enclosed are copies of our financial filincrs with the State of New York since American Television and Communications Corp..AiC) Degan operation of the system. If you have any questions concerning these reports, I shall be happy to research the questions for you. Also, I have enclosed our latest -monthly New York State Cable Comm o technical r_e_port, Annually we prepare a technica report .for the FCC which is undertaken during the months of January and February. It is very important that we continue to keep our lines of communication open and Iwill be happy to meet with the Commission any time to discuss our cable service.. If you have any questions or problems, please do not hesitate to call me. My unlisted home telephone number is 272-4690 and our private line at Ceracche is 272-7875. I look forward to working with you and the Commission in the future. Thank you. Sincer. ly, CAAV Bradley General usto ger CITY ®F ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR E: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Morris Angell, Television Cable Cona>.i. Mr. Benjamin Nichols, Television Cable Comm. Mr. Robert Fletcher, Television Cable Comm. Mr. Robert Hines,, Television Cable Comm. Mr. Peter Portori, Television Cable Couan. Mr -.:.Donald Slattery, Chairman of the Charter c Ord. Comm. Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Raymond Bordoni DATE: February 25, 1980 SUBJECT: Notice of increase - Home Box Attached hereto please find.a copy of a letter received by my office today from the Ceracche Television Corp. in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. RB : rb ATTACH. •' CERACCHE TELEVISION A DIVISION OF AMERICAN TELEVISION 8 COMMUNICATIONS CORP. 519 West State Street, Ithaca. N.Y. 14850 (607) 272-3456 Mr. Ray Bordoni Ithaca City Hall 108 E. Green St. Ithaca, NY 14850 Dear Mr. Bordoni: February 22, 1980 During the past few months Home Box Office has invested a phenomenal $12 million on new programming development, to include at least sixty original specials which will be shown throughout 1980. This programming is in addition to the commercial free, uninterrupted movies and special sporting events our HBO subscribers have come to enjoy. The end result is an increase in the quality and variety of HBO's programming. In keeping with out commi t.ment to provide the best possible service, at the most reasonable price, Ceracche Television has charged only $6.00 for Home Box Office. This fee is $3.35 below the average monthly charge for Home Box Office throughout the nation. Due to increased costs associated with providing Home Box Office, we must raise our monthly service fee $1.00 starting March 1, 1980. Although our franchise does not require this type of rate notification, I felt that you would appreciate being kept aware of our activities. If you have any questions pertaining to this, please call. MS:bns Sincerely, - / %. /_.. Michael Suhanovsky General Manager ull By NATHANIEL SHEPPARD Jr. Special to The New York Times , • ST.,' PAUL -- Deciding that this city, not private industry, should reap the lucrative profits of cable television, the :: City Council has rejected franchise appli- cations from seven companies and has in- stead initiated an effort to make St. Paul the first 'major city to set up a publicly' owned cable television system. As envisioned by the, City Council and other city officials; a system with 80 to 90 channels.;offering' entertainment, infor- :mation and public access would be built .1 With financing through the sale of $41 mil- -0.; ljon is 'Port Authority industrial bonds . with a yield of about 11 percent interest: The system would be run by a tax -ex-' • empt, nonprofit organization, such as an existing public television or radio station; that would return profits earned by the cable operation to the city; which would Li use the money to•help pay for municipal' ° .services and redevelopmentprojects. ..;;; If the system is:successful in bringing in:the millions of .dollars, city officials estimate; it will earn each year, it would have significant implications for the na- tion's financially troubled cities. , • . "Cities have entered into ventures that made money for outside interestsfor too long in the past," said Richard.Broeker, executive assistant to Mayor George Lat- timer. "This is a. chance for this city to 'keep the profits at home and use them to nefit the citizens." Doubts Over Tax Status While, many city, officials laud the ef- fort as a major step forward for St.:Paul, some, . critics,' however,• have raised doubts, saying there: are legal problems Such !Ss getting the Internal Revenue :Service.to allow ,the city to benefit from untaxed profits:. „; ; • t'.'There is the obvious problem_of the I.R.S.. liking to tax profits and the city having to ,find .a .way -to avoid paying taxes on profits," said William H. Clapp, •areal estate executive who had negoti- ated, to buy stock in one of the seven cable companies if c it had been awarded: the franchise:, • x . :._. •• "And thereis a major argumentof whether we; would have government con- trolling apart of the media," he said.- "I don't see how, you could avoid • govern-. meat'. influence if government; .appoints the board that would run the system." City'officials insist that once a public corporation• was awarded a contract to run the system there would be no inter: ference from the city. ' • ;, , ','The' reasons we decided on a• public= controlled system, rather than a:munici- pally ;'controlled system ' were to : avoid adding another layer to the government bureaucracy and the potential for being )cone politicallypressured': to • censorpro- grams," said Joanne Showalter, a mem- ber of the City Council and head of the energy and utilities subcommittee that is studying whether the effort would v "We can avoid both•these problems by using a nonprofit organization that would be empowered to contract with the cable Companies for services if it needed to and which would be free from politi 1 pres- sures," she 4 n ' _ ; •Sale ofsaid Bonds Proposed } ' Mrs. Showalter also said the would 'finance the cable system with industrial revenue bonds rather than general Obli- gation bonds so that taxpayers would not ource of .Revenue suffer tax increases hi -the' event of de- fault on the bonds. The: Port Authority has large reserves that would cover such a loss, other city officials said.,`,•. • Ronald Maddox, another' Councilman, said he opposed the city's plan although hehad voted witlis the.majority -earlier this month to reject the franchise appli- cations.' His objections are on ideological grounds, he said ,. "Government should be.. involved in. health, education, safety and welfare and should not go beyond these," Mr. Maddox said. "Govermnent`should do for people only what people:4an't do for: themselves, 1 believe this is an areff for our free enter-; Prise system 1 . i '> �• 'Mr. Maddox said he also doubted that the city would receive $5 million a year in profits, as'proponents of the effort have estimated, "because we don't know what the expenses will be." He said he had voted to.reject the franchise applications nonetheless 'as a parliamentary maneu- ver, that required him to vote with the ma- jority in order to be able to seek reconsid- eration of the vote later, which he said he planned to do, : 'I ?:•; R.'Williatn Reilly,:presldent of Capitol City,Cablevision Inc.,.one of the compa- nies . that sought the franchise, warned that .the city .was entering an ruin *Whit had.no experience aid t ,encounterMany problems. "The 'purpose of government serve," he said, "not to provide me and sporting events. -Cable compo throughout the United States 1 demonstrated that they can provide ices at the lowest possible cost. , •'And if the city uses the profits tc •.for services, as it has said it will, the tem would not be able to keep pace technological advances," Mr. Reilly Nonprofit Agency Sought ' , I As the debate over public control times, the City Council was prepari move forward with the project by ha a subcommittee .do research into legality of the council's ' proposal search for a nonprofit agency to ma the proposed cable system. ; •.• ;'• Mrs. Showalter said the Council ha ceived . a letter #rom Minnesota P Radio,; a'nonprofit concern, expre interest in running ,the city's pro; cable system ::: , About 35 small cities have munici, owned cable systems of which the lar is San Bruno, Calif.; which has a po. tion of 42,000, according to the Nat League of Cities: In addition, Paterson; N.J.; is dra up plans for such a system and Mim olis, St: Paul's sister city across the sissippi River, • is studying ,_ muni ownership. ...:.;::c;: fi =a :: But with a population of about 261 St. Paul is by far the largest city to mit itself toward public ownership cable television system Threats to Reagan Brother .0 VISTA, Calif.,. May 28 (UPI) Angeles' woman has' been arreste charges of making threats against Reagan, President Reagan's brother San Diego County Sheriff's Depart said today. Raisa Borisova; 62 year was arrested Tuesday night inside tl rage at the home of Neil Reagan, 7; was unarmed.: •She ;was held on b $10,200. • 4 CITY DF ITHACA, 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mrs. Ethel Nichols, Chairman of the Charter and Ordinance Comm. Mr. Martin A. Shapiro, City Attorney Mr. Raymond Bordoni, Cable Advisory Committee - Alderman Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley DATE: February 2, 1978 SUBJECT: Amendment of the Commission's Rules on Cable Television Franchise Standards - Federal Communications Commission Attached hereto please find a letter received today from the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, D.C. in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. EJC:rb ATTACH. January 30, 1978' FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D. C. 20554 Amendment of the Commission's Rules on Cable Television Franchise Standards Dear Local Government Official: On July 21, 1977,. the Federal Communications Commission, in an effort to ease the regulatory burden on cable television system operators and to allow local governments maximum flexibility in dealing with cable tele- vision operations within their jurisdictions, significantly modified its rules regarding the local franchising of cable systems. We are pleased to take this opportunity to inform you, as an actual or potential cable franchisor, of the Commission's action, - Specifically, the Commission has deleted its former standards on public proceedings, construction schedules, franchise duration, complaint proce- dures, and modification of franchise pursuant to future changes in the federal rules, although it is retaining all but the latter as non -manda- tory recommendations to local authorities. In addition, the Conaiission's limitation on the franchise fee that may be assessed on a cable system was modified to allow inclusion of all revenue from cable services in .the fee base. However, the Commission indicated that it did not intend its action to effect any. automatic change in the specific provisions of exist- ing franchises. Consequently, existing franchise provisions that specify a fee less than the new limitation are not affected by this change. The text of the new rule regarding local franchise standards is reproduced on the reverse of this letter. You will also find enclosed a "News Release" which contains a more complete explanation of the Commission's action. A limited number of copies of the complete text of the Report and Order are available on request from the FCC's Public Information Officer, (202) 632-7260. If you have any specific question about how these rule changes affect cable operations in your community, please feel free to contact Anthony Lavender, Chief, Certificates of Compliance Division, at (202) 632-7480. General information on the franchising process may also be obtained from several non-governmental organizations, including the Cable Television Information Center, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, (202) 872-8888, and the National Cable Television Association, 918 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Wash- ington, D.C. 20006, (202) 457-6700. ncerely, 1 es R. Hobson, Chief Cable Televison Bureau Re% ass § 76.11 [Amended] 1. In Section 76.11, paragraph (a) is amended to delete the references to • "§ 76.13(a) (1)" and "§ 76.13(a) (6) and (7)" and substitute "§ 76.13(a)" and "§ 76.13 (f) and (g) ," respectively; para— graph (b) is amended to delete "June 1, 1977" and substitute "March 31, 1978;" and paragraphs (c) and (d) are amended to delete "at least thirty (30) days prior to" and substitute "on or before." 2. Section. '16.13 is revised toread as follows: § 76.13 Filing of Applications. No standard form is prescribed in con- nection with the filing of an application for a certificate of compliance; however, two (2) copies of the following informa- tion must be provided for each system community unit: (a) The name, mailing address, and telephone number of the operator of the existing or I.:oposed community unit, community or area served or to be served, television signals being carried or pro- . posed to be carried (other than those permitted to be carried pursuant to § 76.- 61(b((2) or § 76.63(a) as it relates to § 76.61( b) (2) ), television signals author- ized or certified to be carried but not be- ing carried, date on which operations commenced or will commence, and date on which the current franchise expires: (b) A copy of FCC Form 325, "Annual Report of Cable Television Systems," supplying the information requested as though the unit were already in operation as proposed. If parts of this form have already been submitted for this unit or another unit of the same cable system within one year of the date of filing the application, and the infor- mation remains the same, these parts need not be re -submitted; (c) A copy of the local franchise, li- cense, permit, or certificate under which the community unit operates or will op- erate upon Commission certification, un- • less a.copy has previously been filed with the Commission. If no franchising au- thority exists, a showing which estab- lishes that fact must be submitted; (d) A statement which provides the justification for carriage of television signals which would otherwise be incon- sistent with Subpart D of this part (e.g., notifications filed pursuant to former § 74.1105 of this chapter, waivers of the Rules granted by the Commission to per- mit carriage, proof of grandfathered status), unless such statement has pre- viously been submitted for the commu- nity unit; (e) A statement indicating the number of usable channels actually provided to all subscribers' homes, and whether, if required by § 76.254(b), the applicant has reserved at least one channel ex- clusively for the presentation of access programming; b - Televi Part 76 of Chapter I of Title 47 of . the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: (f) A certificate of service of the infor- mation described in paragraph (a) of this section on the licensee or permittee of any television broadcast station with- in whose predicted Grade B contour or specified zone the cable community is lo- cated, in whole or in part, the licensee or permittee of any 100 -watt or higher power television translator station li- censed to the cable community, the su- perintendent of schools in the cable com- munity, and any local or state educa- ttional television authorities. (g) A statement that a copy of 'the completed application has been served on any local or state agency or body assert- ing authority to franchise,license, cer- tify, or otherwise regulate cable televi- sion, and that if such application is not made available by any such authovity for public inspection in the cable com- ' munity, the applicant will provide fort public inspection of the application at any accessible place (such as a public library, public registry for documents, or an attorney's office) in the cable com- munity, at any time during regular busi- ness hours; (h) A statement of the pfoposed com- munity unit's equal employment oppor- tunity program, as described in § 76.311, unless such program has previously been filed for the community unit. However, if the operator of a proposed community unit believes that the unit will (continu- ously during January, February, and March of the year following commence- ment of operations) satisfy the condi- tions in § 76.311(c) (1) (1) (b), he may submit a statement justifying that con- clusion in lieu of a statement of the proposed unit's equal employment oppor- tunity program; (i) A statement that the filing fee pre- scribed in § 1.1116 of this Chapter is attached. § 76.18 [Amended] 3. In § 76.13, the term "three (3) " is deleted and "two (2)" is substituted. § 76.29 [Amended] 4. In § 76.29, paragraph (b) (7) is amended to delete the reference to "§ 76.13(a) (6)" andi substitute "4 76.13 (f)." 5. Section 76.31 is revised to read as follows: Piz Des § 76.31 Franchise standards. Franchise fees shall be no more than 3 percent of the franchisee's gross reve- nues per year from all cable services in the cominunity (including all forms of, consideration, such as initial lump sum,: payments) . If the franchise fee is in the range of 3 to 5 percent of such revenues, the fee shall be approved by the Commis- sion if reasonable upon showings: (a) by the franchisee, that it will not interfere with the effectuation of federal regula- tory goals in the field of cable television, and (b) by the franchising authority, that it is appropriate in light of the planned local regulatory program. With respect to a system community unit that was franchised or in operation prior to March 31, 1972, the provisions of this paragraph shall not be effective until the end of the system's current franchise period, or until 15 years from the date of initial grant of the franchise, which- ever occurs first. NOTE.—The following procedures and pro- visions are recommended for adoption as part of the local franchising process, but are not mandatory: (1) The franchisee's legal, character, financial, technical, and other qualifications and the adequacy and feasibil- ity of ii 3 construction arrangements should be approved by the franchising authority as part of a full public proceeding affording due process;. (2) The initial franchise period should not exceed fifteen (16) years; any renewal period should be of reasonable duration, not to exceed fifteen (16) years, such renewal to be granted after a public proceeding affording due process; (3) The franchise should specify that the franchisee shall accomplish significant con- struction within one (1) year after recelv)ng Commission certification, and shall theke- after reasonably make cable service available to a substantial percentage of its fran- chise ma each year (such percentage to be determined by the franchising authority); (4) Where a franchise contains a policy of construction requiring less than complete wiring of the franchise area, such policy should be adopted only after a full public 'proceeding, which includes specific notice of the consideration of such a policy; (5) The franchise should: (1) specify that procedures have been adopted by the fran- chisee and franchisor for the investigation and resolution of all complaints regarding cable television operations; (11) require that tho franchisee maintain e, local business • office or agent for these purposes; (111) deeig- . nate, by title, the office or official -of the franchising authority that has primary re- sponsibility for tho continuing administra- tion of the franchLse and implementation of complaint procedures; and (iv) specify that notice of the procedures for reporting and resolving complaints will be given to each subscriber at the time of initial subscrip- tion to the cable system. JULY 22, 1977. • -J Moral NM* a orisommidoo 1010 ki %' ,Y. VidlogtoneIC.2 54 For recorded listing of releases and texts call 632-0002 For general information call 632-7260 89569 On August 9, the Commission issued a News Release (Report No. 13228, Action in Docket Case) on Cable" Certification and Franchise Standards. At that time it noted that at a later date it would issue an updated release to supersede the August 9 release. The following is the updated release: Report No. 13370 ACTION IN DOCKET CASE September 26, 1977 - G CABLE CERTIFICATION AND FRANCHISE, STANDARDS STREAMLINED (DOCKET 21002) The Commission has eased the Federal regulatory burden on cable systems and relaxed the franchise fee limitation, while streamlining its cable television rules by simplifying its certification procedures and eliminating unnecessary filing requirements. The rule changes are summarized as follows: -- Each of the five franchise standards in Section 76.31(a) of the Rules was deleted. However, four of the five -- dealing with franchise award proceedings, franchiseduration, construction timetables, and complaint procedures -- continue as nonmandatory guidelines. In addition, the franchise fee limitation in Section 76. 31(b) was modified to allow inclusion of all revenues from cable services in the fee base. Fran- chising authorities will be permitted to assess a fee on all cable revenues as of the effective date of this Report and Order (if consistent with the provisions of their franchise). The fee limit will not be applied to system community units that were franchised or began operation before March 31, 1972, until 15 years from the date of initial grant of the franchise, or the end of the current franchise period, whichever occurs first. Until that time, a 'grandfathered" fee is permitted to be collected. (over) -2- - - Applications for certificates of compliance no longer will be required to explain how carriage of all proposed television signals is consistent with the signal carriage rules. Instead, the applicant will be requested to justify only the carriage of signals that do not fall within the normal complement. In addition, certain information on microwave delivery, which is reported on Form 325 (Cable Information Report), need not be supplied at the time of certification. - - Certification applications no longer will be required to show how the system's franchise is consistent with Federal standards. - - Rather than explaining how the system will comply with the access service rules, an applicant will be required to state the number of usable channels actually provided to any subscriber's home and whether, if applicable, the applicant has reserved at least one channel exclusively for access programing. - - The certificate of compliance application rules (Section 76.13) were redrafted to reflect these changes and to require the applicant to submit all relevant information except what had been filed previously for each community unit. In addition, operators will be required to file only two (2) copies of their application, instead of the three copies formerly re- quired. The Commission also clarified the procedures it would adopt in processing applic ations : Category 1. A system community unit that was previously certified, whose franchise has already expired or will expire on or before March 31, 1978, will be required to file an application for certificate of compliance, including a valid local authorization, by the aforementioned date. Category 2. A system community unit that has been granted interim authorization pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in Docket 21002, FCC 76-1070, 63 FCC 2d 3 (1976), as well as any system Previously certified until March 31, 1977, must file a valid local authorization with the Commission by March 31, 1978, unless a franchise was previously submitted in the application for interim authorization or certification. The interim procedures adopted in the Notice will remain in effect for systems in Categories 1 and 2 until that time, thereby allowing such systems to add a signal without requiring the submission of a franchise, although the authorization granted will be conditioned upon the systems possessing all necessary state and local authority. Of course, any franchise submitted for review will no longer be required to comply with former Section 76. 31(a)(1)-(6). 1 -3 - Category 3. In lieu of an application for certification pursuant to Section 76.13, a new systemproposing to commence operations may elect to file an appli- cation under interim procedures, as specified above, until March 31, 1978; by that date, however, it will be required to file a valid franchise. Those systems discussed above in Category 2 that are only required to file a franchise (as distinguished from a full application for certification pursuant to Section 76.13), will be required to serve a copy of the submission only on the local franchising authority (and the state regulatory agency, if appli- cable). Those operators who were previously granted certification through March 31, 1977, based on a substantially compliant franchise, and those operators who were granted interim authorization because the franchise submitted was not fully consistent with former Section 76. 31(a)(1)-(6) (both described in Category 2, above), will be issued a new certificate that will terminate on the date the franchise under which the community unit is operating will expire. The Commission also adopted procedures for processing the applications of cable companies operating in communities where no local authority is empowered to grant a franchise or other appropriate authorization. Community units which had previously been granted certification until March 31, 1977, based upon the submission of an acceptable alternative proposal, automatically will be recertified until March 31, 1992. The Commission will issue a certificate of compliance showing the corrected date of expiration upon the request of the operator. Otherwise, no further sub- missions will be required for systems in this category. Community units operating in those areas which were granted interim authori- zation pursuant to the procedures adopted in the Notice herein will be required to supplement their applications by March 31, 1978, by showing that there is no local franchising authority in the areas where this has not been previously demon- strated. In the future, systems proposing to commence operations in these areas will be required to file a like showing with their applications for certification. However, they will no longer be required to submit an alternative proposal, since the deletion of the franchise standards in Section 76.31(a) makes this unnecessary. These systems will then be certified for 15 years. The actions described spring from a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Notice released last December 9, in which the Commission announced its intention to review and possibly modify its requirements for the filing of certification appli- cations. This action stemmed from the FCC's desire to streamline its procedures by eliminating rule provisions that no longer were necessary, thereby easing the regulatory burden on both prospective and operating cable systems without sacrificing the Commission's original goals for the cable industry. (over) -4 - At the same time, the Commission requested comments on whether the experience gained since adoption of the 1972 cable rules would justify any modification in franchise standards. Nearly 100 parties, representing local governmental units, the cable industry, access groups, public interest organizations and individual citizens filed comments and/or replies in this proceeding. Based on an evaluation of the comments and its own experience, the Commission concluded that the revisions would be in the public interest. The effective date of this action, which amends Part 76 of the Rules, is November 15, 1977. Action by the Commission July 21, 1977, by Report and Order. Commissioners Wiley (Chairman), Lee and Quello, with Commissioner White concurring in the result, Commissioner Hooks concurring in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement and Commissioners Washburn and Fogarty dissenting and issuing statements. This is an unofficial announcement of the Commission's action. Release of the full text of the Commission's order constitutes official action. See MCI v. FCC, 515 F. 2d 385 (D. C. Circ. 1975). -FCC- olry UTE-iick CI 14 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 OFFICE OF MAYOR 8 E? 2 1R7( TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 MEMO TO: Mr. Dana Ulloth, Chairman of the Cable Commission Mr. Donald Slattery, Chairman of the Charter and Ordinance Comm. Mr. Joseph Rundle, City Clerk Mr. Martin A. Shapiro, City Attorney FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley DATE: September 1, 1976 SUBJECT: Rates Charged by Cable Television Companies for "Auxiliary" Programing Attached hereto please find correspondance received today from the State of New York Commission on Cable Television in regard to the above entitled matter for your attention. EJC:rb ATTACH., • aSTATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON CABLE TELEVISION IREC PPEP $fin P In the .Natter of ) ) Rates Charged by Cable Television Companies) Docket No. 90010 A for "Auxiliary Programming ) ORDER GRANTING DECLARATORY RELIEF (Issued: August 30, 1976) BACKGROUND On March 1, 1976, this Commission issued a "Clarification of Gtr_ j ssion Policy" regarding the imposition of subscriber rates for "auxiliary' cable television services.* Basically, we concluded that the provisions of Section 822 and 825 of the Executive Law require that all cable television subscriber rates be specified with- in the franchises •issued to the State's cable television operators by their respective municipalities. These franchises, and any amend- ments of them, must have this Commission's approval and certification, It was our conclusion, therefore, that cable television companies wishing to institute charges for "pay cable" services must negotiate with their municipal governments for amendment of their franchises, and must then submit such amendments for our ultimate approval. With respect to cable television systems already offering such services, however, we indicated that no immediate franchise amendments would be necessary. (even if the relevant franchises were silent on such services), so long as those companies filed a notice of the status of their "auxiliary" operations. A variety of filings were received,_ and several companies have reouested declaratory relief to allow them to initiate "pay cable" services without further franchise amendments, as if they had been in full operation on March 1, 1976. "Auxiliary' cable televisionservices, as used in this proceeding, are frequently referred to es ''pay cable" services by the cable. television industry. ** On April 8, 1976, Brookhaven Cable TV, Inc. and several other parties initiated a lawsuit against this Commission in federal court, '^ha1lenging the validity and legitimacy of our conclusions and 'actionv in the March 1, 1976, Clarification, Brookhaven Cable TV, enc, Vet al.v.Robert F. Kelly, et al., Civil Action No. 76 CV 154 (N.D.N.Y.) , still pending. 2 On April 20, 1976, we issued an "Order Cr��antin Decla-rator�r Ruling" at the renuest of Long island Cablevision Corporation ("LICC"). By that action we allowed LICC to complete the installa- tion and marketing of a "pay cable" service it had been developing in several localities on eastern Long island. This was done in recognition of the fact that LICC had been in the process of install- ing such service for some time and at great expense and upon sub- stantial notice to this Commission and all other interested parties. Similarly, Classic Cablesystems Corporation was permitted to initiate a "pay cable" service at several localities in Essex, Saratoga, Warren and Washington Counties. This action was taken in conjuncaon with our approval of the transfer of the subject cable television systems from Sullivan Cable of New York, Inc., to Classic (Order Approving Transfer, march 30, 1976) and because the relevant municipalities had been aware of, and had in effect approved, the proposed "pay cable" services in connection with their consideration of the above-mentioned transfer. REQUESTS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF We have before us now reruests from. Courier Cable Company, Inc., and from Central New York Cable TV, Inc., for declaratory rul- ings that would provide for treatment of their proposed "pay cable` systems similar to that afforded to LICC and to Classic. Courier indicates that it has been, for many months, in the process of instituting its "pay cable services (Home Box Office pro- gramming at $3.00 per month). It notes that its proposed service was well known to the city of Buffalo (its franchisor) and to this Conmmission because of its efforts to obtain an authorization from the Federal Communications Commission for e satelite "earth station" for the reception of.its "pay cable" programming. Moreover, it claims, franchise amendment procedures with the city of Buffalo would be unavoidably long -and cumbersome and result in the substantial delay of such service to prospective subscribers. Central New York Cable TV, Inc., has submitted a detailed schedule showing the activities in which it engaged over the last year with the object of installing a "pay cable" service on its cable television systems serving 15 municipalities in and around the city of Utica.* It has already signed contracts with a program * On May 12, 1976, we received a copy of a letter from Joseph J. Scarfarotti, Escl., First Assistant Corporation Counsel for the city of Utica., to Central New York Cable TV, Inc., objecting to any arbitrary increases in subscriber rates without prior city approval. Unless we are directly petitioned by the parties in this matter, we will leave it to be resolved between them independently. 3 supplier (Home Box Office) and ecuipment manufacturers, and is ready to provide the service to subscribers (at $9.00 per month). This petitioner also makes most of the arguments referenced above for Courier Cable, but notes, in addition, that any franchise amendment procedures that would be required of it would have to involve all 15 of its separate franchises, with inordinate and unique delays result- ing. Moreover, it notes, one of its franchises (for the village of Clinton) was recently amended for other purposes and now includes specific language authorizing the proposed "pay cable' service at the _ above -referenced rates. Having considered the requests of Courier Cable Company, Inc., and Central New York Cable TV, Inc., we are persuaded that their requests for declaratory relief merit favorable responses. Vie have stated our intention to require that all cable television subscriber rates and charges be included in their respective franchises. It was never our intention, however, to cause inordinate delays in the pro- vision of "pay.cable'a services to subscribers, nor to bar the pro- vision of such services in those cases wherein substantial efforts had already been made toward completion of installation. Therefore, consistent with our actions with regard to• Long Island Corporation and Classic Cablesystems Corporation, we shall grant the requests of Courier Cable, Inc., and Central New York Cable TV, Inc., and hold that they may enjoy the same status before this Commission with respect to their proposed "pay cable" operations, as filed, as that enjoyed by those cable television systems whose filings indicated such "pay cable" services on a pre-existing basis. We shall issue the above holding with one caveat, however. Only the two above -referenced companies are intended to be addressed by today's ruling. The submissions we have reviewed provided a variety of diverse examples and situations relating to the issues at hand, and it is by no means clear that significant problems do not yet lurk amongst the papers filed. At this time, however, only the filings of Courier and Central New York have demonstrated a need and a justification for our favorable declaratory. action. With these exceptions, we will assume that no companies not having filed notice of active "Pay cable" services in effect prior to March 1, 1976, will initiate such services henceforth without appropriate franchise modifications.* In no event will we entertain further requests for declarator_ relief from companies that have not yet filed notices in this respect at this late date. ;; Those companies indicating a desire to initiate ''pay cable" ser- vices for the first time, but not submitting any basis for waiver of our policy as expressed in the Clarification, are still not pre- cluded from presenting such a basis, if one exists. 4 ADDITIONAL ISSUES A number eof additional issues �'�oeour� Zalt rchto our l Clarification. by 'the parties filing notices pursuant cable Some of these issues renuire our comment poln icies apprisetto ots eocabieic~ television operators in New York of the will follow in those instances. 1. In some instances it is apparent that conglomerate cable television systems, those providing service in a number of munici- palities by means of a single integrated plant, have not provided "'pay cable`' services uniformly. The result has been that some parts of such systems have ''pay cable services available, while other part, The of the same systems have not ^Ypontasleoewheahersuch the extension of such question arises in this situation would services on the same system, but into new municipal areas, require prior franchise negotiations with then orlrelevant unicipal We have concluded that such be governments. therefore, needlessly onerous. T`ie��-ntend to dina e��simpose �'?a1'scab�.eonservices info new upon those companies exLen �, portions of their already franchised �hetsar_�eus ratessJ�nd uponareas, the same long as such services are offeredting :;pay cable" ser- vices. as those now imposed on their existhat any changes in such vices . It should remain clear, however,., uh rates would require franchise modifications at each relevantlocality. 2. In a number offilings it to determine with that havebeen imposed difficult for "pay cable'' .precision the exact rates e� 9. services to date. In some cases the rates imposed. on March 1, 1� have been increased by the addition of a particular charge or fee of "convertor" e Such a practice some different type (e. a new convertor f e)• is contrary to the intent of ourClarification dans d e willl�recoglize as legitimate only those rates actually imposed �p Foras of March 1. In other cases, more than one rate is specifiedexample, were made indicating :'established' rates nd ' r 'charged' ' ras.t":�e have been able to determine that these rates filings ("eseaiitinenteed") and the distinguish between a proposed range of For purposes of our rates actually imposed already. ("charged"). Clarificat-OLs, only the latter rate will .be considered effective un- til further franchise modification. 3. A e� f w filings showed that pre-existing 'pay cables' opera- tions might be expanded; not geographically, but in scope. Thus, tgons where one type of service has been provided at a given rate, new ser vices may be added at additional charges. Ve take this opportunity to make clear that our Clarification was not intended to indicate that new "pay cable - rates could .be imposed without franchise modifi- cation, "pay cable" services of. some cation, even in areas with pre-existing P Y type. CONCLUSION In conclusion, we note that a number of problems originally evident from the filings in this matter, and some that have become evident by other means, have been resolved at a local level. For example, we have been informed that Harbor-Vue Cable T.V., Inc., has negotiated a "pay cable' franchise modification with its fran- chisor, the city of Dunkirk. Many other municipalities and cable television companies have also apparently been able to reach accommo- dation on this issue without our involvement. We encourage and sup- port such local resolutions. THE COMMISSION ORDERS The requests of Courier Cable Company, Inc., and Central New York Cable TV, Inc., for declaratory rulings wigi'. regard to 1:1,1r status pursuant to the Clarification of Commission Faicv, issued March 1, 1976, are hereby granted to the extent and in the manner in- dicated above. Commissioners Participating: Robert F. Kelly, Chairman; Jerry A. Danzig, Vice -Chairman; Michael H. Prendergast; Edward J. Wegman, Commissioners. CITY OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY ITHACA, NEW YORK14B50 orrice Or THE MAYOR t11\R-R2A..0a6\ TELEPHONE: AR 2-1713 CODE 307 MEMO TO: Joseph Rundle, City Clerk Mrs. Ethel Nichols, Chairman of the Charter & Ordinance Martin A. Shapiro, Attorney for the City FROM: Mayor Edward J. Conley DATE: July 10, 1975 SUBJECT: Renewal of Operating Rights of Franchised Cable Television Cout)anies Attached hereto please find a copy of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in regard to the above entitled matter for your information. EJC:rb ATTACH. STATE OF NEW YORK COMMISSION ON CABLE TELEVISION . In the Matter. offriftENFD •,, Renewal of Operating Rights of Franchised Cable > p g g ) Docket No. 90026 Television Companies ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING (Issued: July 8, 1975) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Commission intends to adopt rules governing the procedures to be followed in renewing franchises and certificates of confirmation. A copy of the proposed rules is at- tached hereto.* Under the proposed rules, a cable television company is re- quired to obtain the approval of both the franchising municipality and the Commission for any extension of the duration of its operating rights.** The application for renewal must be made at least six months prior to the expiration of the existing authorization and the municipality must wait 60 days before conducting a public hearing with respect to the application and an additional 30 days before taking final action thereon. It is, accordingly, contemplated that the municipality's final determination will be made prior to the ex- piration of the existing franchise, but the rules provide that if a timely application for renewal is pending before a municipality or the Commission at the time the original franchise expires, the appli- cant will be permitted to continue to provide serving pending final Commission action.*** The rules also provide that if the municipality refuses to grant the company's renewal application, the company must continue to provide service until further order of the Commission. * On July 31, 1974, the New York State Cable Television Associa- tion filed "Further Comments of the New York State Cable Television Association on Franchise Renewals." This document supplemented the Association's "Comments of the New York State Cable Television Asso- ciation on Adoption of the Rules Implementing Article 28 of the Exec- utive Law'', filed May 28, 1973. The issues raised in the;Associatiorr filings are among those we address herein. ** There is an exemption from the requirement for municipal appro- val for any company whose franchise contains an option to;renew running in f^ver of the franchisee. Except as hereafter noted with respect to fr aucbicos rot incc:73liance with Part 595 of our Rules R these companies ray a . ° :j- riiretly' to the Com+nissIon for approval of a renewal obtained by e::t.rcise of the option. *** In the usual course of events, tb.e Commission will dispose of applicaticas for approval of a renewn1 within :90 . days' of receipt. These provisions are designed to ensure continuity of service pending final resolution (including any possible judicial review) of any renewal application. It is contemplated that all renewed franchises -- including those renewed pursuant to an option contained in a franchise pre- viously grandfathered pursuant to Section 821(6) of the Executive Law -- will be required to'comply with Part 595 of the Commission's Rules. (See Section ".3(c)(2)(ii) of the proposed rules.) Accord- ingly, any direct application to the Commission for approval of a renewal obtained by the exercise of an option should be preceded, if necessary, by efforts at» the municipal level to conform the fran- chise to the requirements of Part 595 of our Rules. The refusal of a municipality to grant the necessary amendments would not serve to defeat the option; in such cases, we intend to include terms and conditions effectuating Part 595 of our Rules in any certificate of confirmation we may grant.* Article 28 of the Executive Law contemplates a significant local role in the regulation of cable television companies and the Commission continues to believe this sharing appropriate. However, we have sensed a reluctance on the part of some municipalities to undertake the contemplated regulatory role and a willingness -- in- deed, a desire -- to defer to the Commission. Accordingly, Section -.4 of the proposed Rules affords an alternative under uh ich a franchising municipality, at its discretion, may certify to the Commission that it does not wish'to evaluate a pending renewal ap- plication. In that event, the Commission will undertake the evalu- ation and, if renewal is warranted, will condition its approval of the renewal on compliance by the franchisee with appropriate terms and conditions. In all such cases, the municipality will be a party to the,pro.ceeding befote•the Commissio and may suggest appropr=iate terms and conditions. The alternative procedure in Section r _4 will accopaQdate those municipalities wishing to defer t� the Commission and will also provide a basis for evaluating direct state -level regulation. We request comments on the alternative procedure and particularly invite interested parties to address issues involved in extending the operating rights of a cable television company absent the appro- val of the municipality in which the. cable television system is located. * We shall apply the same procedure in the case of grandfathered franchises whose initial terms extend beyond July 1, 1978, the date on which certificates of confirmation awarded pursuant to Section 821(6) of the Executive Law will expire. In such cases, the appli- cation for renewal of the 821(6) certificate should be preceded, if necessary-, .by efforts at the municipal level to conform the franchise to the requirements of Part 595.. If those efforts are unsuccessful, we shall include terms and conditions effectuating Part 595 in our certificate. --3-- The rules provide that the effect -of any renewal pursuant thereto shall be to extend the applicant's operating rights for a period of five years. We request comments concerning the appro- priateness of this period and note that the duration of a renewal award should be related to the type of proceeding leading to the award.* We call attention to the practice followed by the Commis- sion. in recent cases involving renewal applications not in compli- ance with the provisions of Part 595 of our Rules, which now governs renewals as well as initial franchise awards. In these cases,** we have indicated a willingness to extend the applicant's operating rights (assuming no objection by the franchising munici- pality) until 60 days following the adoption of new renewal proce- dures and, thereafter, until Commission action on any application filed within the 60 -day period pursuant to such new procedures. We shall continue to follow this practice in any cases that may arise prior to the adoption of the proposed rules (or any variation thereof). The statutory authority for the proposed rules is contained. in Sections 816(1), 821 and 822 of the Executive Law. We invite comments on the proposed rules from all interested parties. Initial comments may be filed not later than August 18, 1975. Replies to the initial comments of other parties may be filed not later than September 2, 1975. Commissioners Participating: Robert F. Kelly, Chairman; Jerry A. Danzig, Vice -Chairman; Michael H. Prendergast, Eli Wager, Edward J. Wegman, Commissioners. * Any municipality may, at the conclusion of its franchisee's term, elect to grant a franchise pursuant to Part 594 of our Rules in lieu of following the renewal procedures here proposed. In such cases, the franchise, even if re -granted to the franchisee whose term is expiring, will not be deemed a renewaland may be for an initial term of ten years. See Long Island Cablevision Corporation, Order Granting Certificate of Confirmation in Part, June 25, 1975, at page 2, fn. 1; Long Island Cablevision Corporation, Order Grant- ing Certificate of Confirmation etc., October 25, 1974, at pp. 2-3. ** See, e. ., Central New York Cable TV, Inc., Order Approving Renewals and Extending Certificates of Confirmation, May 15, 1975. Part RENEWAL PROCEDURES § .1 Applicability (a) The rules contained in this Part apply to the re- newal of all franchises and of all certificates of confirmation issued pursuant to Sections 821(3) and 821(6) of the Executive Law. Unless the Commission otherwise orders,no renewal of any franchise will be approved, nor will anycertificate of confirma- tion be renewed, except in accordance with the provisions of this Part. . • (b) For purposes of this Part, the "renewal" of a fran- chise includes (1) any municipal action that in any way extends' the duration of an operating authorization granted by a munici- pality and (2) 'the exercise by the franchisee of an option to renew. (c) A franchise which has been confirmed pursuant to the "grandfather" clause in Section 821(6) of the Executive Law and which, by itsown terms, remains valid beyond the expiration date of the certificate of confirmation (July 1, 1978) need not be re- newed prior to its expiration date; however, such a franchise may be exercised after July 1, 1978 only if thecertificate of confir- mation has been renewed in accordance with the rules contained in this Part. § .2 Application to Municipalit for Renewal of Franchise (a) Filing and Service Requirements Except as provided in subsection (d) of this Section, any cable television company lawfully engaged in operation of a cable television system pursuant to an existing franchise and wish- ing to renew that franchise shall, at least six months prior to the expiration of the existing franchise, file with the franchising municipality an application for 'renewal in the form required by subsection (b) of this Section. A copy of the application shall be served on the Commission at the time the application is filed. (b) Form of Application Applications pursuant to:this Section shall be in such form as the Commission may from time to time prescribe. Applica- tion forms will be made available by the Commission upon request. [A proposed form is annexed hereto.] 2 (c) Notice Requirement Promptly upon filing an application pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall cause to be published at least once each week for two successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the affected municipality notice that said appli- cation has been filed, that the application and all comments filed relative thereto are available for public inspection at the office of the clerk of the municipality during normal business hours, and•that any interestedparty may file comments on the application with the clerk. A copy of such notice shall be served by the applicant upon any other municipality .in which it provides cable television service from the same headend facilities as receive arid transmit signals to the subject municipality and upon any other municipality in the same or an adjacent county in which it provides cable television service, whether or not from the same headend facilities. Proof of publication and service of the required notice shall be filed with the Commission within ten (10) days of the date of last publication. (d) Options to Renew If a franchise contains an option to renew running in favor of the franchisee, the franchiseeneed not apply to the municipality for renewal of the franchise pursuant to this Section but may, instead, after having duly exercised said option, apply directly to the Commission pursuant to Section .6(a)(2) of this Part. If the franchise in question does not comply with the requirements of Part 595 of this subtitle, the franchisee shall, prior.to applying to the Commission, apply to the municipality for approval of the amendments needed to bring the franchise into compliance with such requirements. However, the refusal of the municipality to amend the franchise shall not defeat the fran- chisee's option to renew or its•right to apply to the Commission pursuant to this paragraph. § ►.3 Municipal Action on Application for Renewal (a) Review of Application Upon receipt of an application for renewal filed pursuant to Section " .2, a municipality shall exercise due diligence (1) to review the performance of the applicant under the existing franchise and (2) to ascertain the future needs and expectations of the community relative to cable television service.* (b) Public Hearing On Application Not sooner than sixty (60) days following receipt of the application, the municipality shall conduct a public hearing to afford all interested parties the opportunity to be heard concern- ing the renewal of the cable television franchise. All persons shall be given full opportunity to participate in the hearing and to ask questions of the applicant or any other participant in the hearing. The hearing shall be preceded by reasonable notice to the applicant and to the public. The notice of hearing shall conform to all applicable state: and local laws and shall indicate that copies of the renewal application are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the office of the clerk of the municipality, whose address shall be stated in the notice. (c) Action by. Local Legislative Body (1) Not soonerthan thirty (30) days following the public hearing required by subsection (b) of this Section, and after opportunity for further review, including negotiation of a final franchise agreement, the local legislative body of the municipality shall decide in a public session whether or not to renew the applicant's franchise. * It is suggested that, in additionto consideration.:of.the re- newal application, this review should include: .1. Solicitation of comments from residents of the municipality concerning the performance of the applicant's system. 2. Consideration of the trouble call records maintained - by the applicant pursuant to Section. 596.8 of the Commission's Rules and of the subscriber complaints filed by residents of the municipality with the Commissionpursuant to Section 590.5. of the Commission's. Rules and of the' applicant's responsiveness thereto. 3. Consideration of the results of all technical per- formance tests performed by the Commission on the subject system. 4. Consideration of appropriate financial information concerning the applicant. 4 (2) In the event the franchise is to be renewed, the local legislative body shall adopt a resolution setting forth findings that: i. the applicant has rendered adequate service during the previous franchise period and remains qualified in all respects to continue to provide adequate service to residents of the municipality; and ii. the applicant and the municipality have negotiated a franchise agreement agreeable to both parties which complies with Part 595 of the Commis- sion's Rules and otherwise fulfills the needs of . the municipality in respect to cable television. (3) In the event the franchise is not to be renewed, the local legislative body shall, within ten (10) days from the date of its decision, prepare and submit to the Commission a writ- ten report explaining the basis for that decision. The cable television company shall continue to provide service to all exist- ing subscribers in the municipality until further order of the Commission. § .4 Alternative Procedure for Municipalities. Any municipality in receipt of an application for renewal of a franchise pursuant to Section .2 of this Part may, in lieu of undertaking the procedures required by Section .3, certify. to the Commission that it authorizes the continued operation of the applicant's cable television system in the municipality pur- suant.to such terms and conditions as the Commission may prescribe. Upon receipt of any such certification the Commission will review the underlying application and conduct such investigations, hear- ings and other proceedings as may be appropriate and either renew the applicant's operating rights in the subject municipality on specified terms and conditions or prohibit further operations. The certifying municipality may participate as a party in the pro- ceedings before the Commission and may suggest any terms and con- ditions of service that, in its view, would be appropriate. § .5 Requirement for Commission Approval of Franchise Renewal and for Renewal of Certificates of Confirmation (a) No renewal of a franchise, whether obtained by municipal action or by the exercise of an option to renew., shall be effective without the prior approval of the Commission; provided, however, that the filing of a timely application pur• - suant to this Part shall, without further action, extend the appli- cant's operating rights pending .final Commission action. (b) No certificate of confirmation issued by the Com- mission pursuant to Section 821(6) of the Executive Law shall be valid after July 1, 1978unless it has been renewed by the Commis-. sign; provided, however, that the filing of a timely application for renewal of any such .c:ertificate pursuant to this Part shall, without further action, extend the applicant's operating rights pending final Commission action. § .6 Application to Commission (a) Form of Application (1) An application for Commission approval of the re- newal of a franchise obtained by action of the municipality shall consist of (1) a copy of the municipal resolution (or other writing) granting the renewal,(2) a fully executed copy of the new franchise agreement, and (3) a transmittal letter requesting Commission approval pursuant to Section 822. (2) An application for renewal of a certificate of confirmation issued pursuant to Section 821(6) of the Executive Law or for approval of.a franchise renewal obtained by exercise of an option shall be in the form prescribed and made available by the Commission pursuant .to Section -.2(b) of this Part and shall also include a copy of the franchise. (b) Time for Filing Application (1) . An application for approval of a franchise renewal obtained by action of themunicipality shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the adoption of the municipal resolution (or other writing) granting the renewal. (2) An application for approval of a franchise renewal obtained by .exercise of an option or for renewal of a Section 821(6) certificate of confirmation shall be filed at least six months prior to the expiration of the existing franchiseor certificate, as the case may. be. 6 (c) Ee uirements Applicable to Certain O'Grandfather" Franchises Prior to applying for the renewal of a Section 821(6) certificate of confirmation, the franchisee shall apply to the municipality for approval of any amendments needed to bring the franchise into compliance with Part 595 of this subtitle. The refusal of the municipality to grant such amendments shall not defeat the franchisee's right to apply to the Commission for re- newal of its Section 821(6) certificate. (d) Service of Application A copy of every application filed pursuant to this Sec- tion shall be served by the applicant upon the clerk of the municipality or municipalities to which the application relates. Proof of such service shall be filed with.th Commission. (e) Notice of Application Promptly upon filing an application pursuant to this Section, the applicant shall publish notice of such filing at least twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the munici- pality or municipalities to which the application relates. The notice shall indicate that. copies of the materials constituting the application are availabe for public inspection at the offices of the Commission and those of the clerk of the affected munici- pality during normal business hours and that comments with respect to the application may be filed with the Commission. Proof of publication of such notice shall be filed with the Commission with- in ten (10) days of last publication. No application pursuant to this Section will be acted upon prior to the thirtieth (30th) day following publication of the notice required by this paragraph. § .7 Effect of Commission Action (a) Unless the Commission otherwise orders, any approval by. the Commission of a franchise renewal and any renewal of a certificate of confirmation by the Commission pursuant to this Part shall be effective for a period of five years from the date on which the applicant's original franchise or certificate ex- pired; provided, however, that the renewal of a Section 821(6) certificate of confirmation shall not be effective beyond the ex- piration date of the underlying franchise. Approval of any fran- chise renewal shall constitute renewal of the certificate of con- firmation previously issued with respect to such franchise. (h) Unless the Commission otherwise orders, any Commis- sion oi:c er refusing to approve the renewal of a franchise or to renew a certificate of confirmation shall obligate the applicant �.9 1. to cease and desi,;t from furth_r operation of its cable television system in the municipality or municipalities directly affected by the application. A P :P L M A E s APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE OR CERTIFICATE OF CODFIRMATION 1. The exact legal name of applicant is: 2. Applicant does business under the following trade name or names: 3. Applicant's mailing address is: 4. Applicant's telephone number(s) is (are): 5. (a) This application is for a renewal of operating rights in the (city, town or village) of (b) Applicant serves the following additional municipalities from the same headend or from a different headend but in the same or an adjacent county: 6. The number of subscribers in each of the municipalities noted above is: Primary residential connections: Secondary residential connections: Residential pay-cable subscriptions: Commercial connections: Other: The following signals are regularly carried by applicant's cable system (where signals are received other than by direct off -air pickup, please so indicate): 8. Applicant does(:::] does not t provide channel capacity and/or production facilities for local origination.. If ans=wer is affinic.tive, specify below the number of hours of locally ox•_i.g:inaiied p cgx lam_ing carried by the system during the past twelve (12) months and briefly describe the nature of the programming: 9. The current monthly rates for service in the municipality specified in Question 5(a) are: Primary connections: Secondary connections: Pay-cable subscriptions: Commercial connections: Other: 10. How many miles of new cable television plant were placed in operation by applicant during the past twelve (12) months in the municipality specified in Question 5(a)? In the municipalities specified in Question 5(b)? 11. State and describe below any significant achievements and/or improvements that took place with respect to system operation during the past twelve (12) months: 12. Indicate whether applicant has previously filed with the State Commission on Cable Television its: (a) Current Statement of Assessment pursuant to Section 817 of the Executive Law? Yes1---1 No (b) Current Annual Financial Report? Yes If answer to any of above is negative, explain: 13. Has any event or change occurred during the past twelve (12) months which has had, or could have, a significant impact upon applicant's ability to provide cable television ser- vice? If so, describe below: Signature Title Date Please attach a copy of applicant's current annual performance test results per 9 NYCRR § 596.5. *STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS.: COUNTY OF ALBANY ) VERIFICATION [Name] , being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. .I am [Title] of [Name of Company] and I am familiar' with the business operations of said company. 2. This application was prepared by me or under my. direct supervision. 3. All of the statements and information contained herein are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief [Signature] Sworn ttr2 _.+...'_ 19 � U [Notary OFFICE OF CITY CLERK L° A06-, q+'rall. CITY OF ITHACA TOMPKINS COUNTY ITHACA. NEW YORK 14850 November 22, 1974 I have been requested by the Charter and Ordinance Committee of Common Council, City of Ithaca, New York to request a survey of Cities to determine other television cable service availability and rates. Please answer the enclosed questionaire and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you very kindly. JAR:mb Enclosure Very truly yours, Joseph A. Rundle City Clerk TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 QUESTIONAIRE 1. Do you have cable system T.V. reception in your municipality? 2. How many cable systems in your municipality? 3. How long has cable T.V. been in your municipality? k. How many channels do you receive? 5. What are the channel numbers and call letters? 6. Who owns your T. V. cable system? 7. Approximately how many subscribers in your municipality? 8. Does your local legislative body have any control over the cable system (example: granting of a franchise or control over rates)? 9. Does your municipality receive revenue from the T.V. system (example: franchise. fees)? 10. How much does it cost to connect to the system? 11. How much does it cost monthly for the first installation? 12. How much does it cost monthly for each additional installation in the same location? 13. Do you have home box office? ik. If •'so, is there an extra charge? QUESTIONAIRE 1. Do you have cable system T.V. reception in your municipality? 2. How many cable systems in your municipality? 3. How long has cable T.V. been in your municipality? k. How many channels do you receive? 5. What'are the channel numbers and call letters? 6. Who owns your T. V. cable system? 7. Approximately how many subscribers in your municipality? 8. Does your local legislative body have any control over the cable system (example: granting of a franchise or control over rates)? 9. Does your municipality receive- revenue from the T.V. system (example: franchise fees)? 10. How much does, it cost to connect to the system? 11. How much does it cost monthly for the first installation? 12. How much does it cost monthly for each additional installation in the same location? 13. Do you have home box office? 14. If %so, is there an extra charge? 1. Do you have cable system T.V. reception in your municipality? 2. How many cablesystems in your municipality? 3. How long has cable T.V. been in your municipality? 4. How manychannels do you receive? 5. What are the channel numbers and call letters? 6. Who owns your T. V. Cable system? 7. Approximately how many subscribers in.your municipality 8. Does your local legislative body have any control over the cable system:(.example: granting of a franchise or control or rates) 9. Does your municipality receive revenue fromtheT.V. system (examples- franchise fees) 10. How much does it cost to connect to the system? 11. How much does it cost monthly for the first installation? 12. How much does it cost monthly for each additional installation in the same location? 13. Do you have home box office? 14. If so is there an extra charge? 15. Do you have to subscribe to the regular cable system to receive hcme,box office? 16. How much does it cost to hook on to home box office? 17. How much extra does it cost per month to receive home box office? Cly of Ithaca Cablei...1Yriimiz6ical Agenda 4116/85 tilmrl.ng statement by chairman on the purpose of the meeting: lidtritify future community cable related needs and interests Z,IRevieve the performance of ACC under the current franchise • or18Wridence to the Co MMi$51011 Public Comment . ,enmrniion discussion of public comment Ditar,-afdan„ on final language of cable commission request to B&A for cable consulant to be • • * gflaittedlto B& 4/25/85. • AMERICAN COMMUNITY PO Box 6575 ITHACA, .NEW YORK CABLEVISION 14850 - t 6 GENERAL MANAGER, MARCH 10, 1985 ON FEBRUARY 14, 1985, I RETURNED ONE DESCRAMBLER/CONVERTER UNIT TO YOUR FIRM, A RECEIPT SIGNED BY THE DESK CLERK, AMY, IS IN MY POSSESSION, AT THAT TIME, I TOLD HER THAT IF MY SERVICE HADN'T BEEN DISCONNECTED, THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD IT CANCELLED, DUE TO MY DISPLEASURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: • IN DECEMBER OF 1984, I EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM -WITH THE REMOTE CHANNEL SELECTOR, I CALLED YOUR OFFICE, AND AFTER BEING LEFT ON HOLD FOR JUST OVER 15 MINUTES, WAS TOLD THAT I COULD BRING .THE UNIT IN FOR INSPECTION AND/OR REPLACEMENT, WELL, AS • DECEMBER GOES, F ENDED UP NOT HAVING THE TIME TO DO SO, AND..FINALY DID GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE UNIT IN ON THE MONDAY OR TUESDAY FOLLOWING NEW YEARS DAY, AFTER WAITING INLINE BEHIND FOUR OR FIVS PEOPLE FOR ALMOST A HALF AN HOUR, I TOLD THE GIRL AT THE DESK THAT I COULD WAIT NO MORE, THAT I WAS ALREADY LATE TO WORK, SHE WAS VERY NICE AND. HAD.A MAN COME OUT TO LOOK AT THE HAND HELD UNIT, I DON'T RECALL THE MAN'S NAME, I DON'T THINK HE HAD A -NAME TAG, BUT HE WAS OF AVERAGE BUILD AND DARK HAIRED, ANY WAY, HE ASKED IF I HAD A FEW MINUTE SO THAT HE MIGHT TEST THE UNIT, I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD TO GO TO WORK, BUT THAT I WOULD LEAVE HIM MY BUSINESS CARD SO. THAT LATER IN THE DAY, HE COULD CONTACT ME, HE TOLD ME THAT THAT WAS OK, AND THAT'S HOW WE LEFT THINGS, LATER THAT DAY,°NO ONE CALLED, THE A9 -!EN I CALLED YOUR OFFICE, NO ONE SEEMED TO EVEN- KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, I 'WENT ON THE RECORD AS SAYING," I WILL NOT. PAY FOR MY SERVICE IF I•CAN NOT HAVE THE UNIT FOR WHICH I AM BEING BILLED $4 A MONTH," NEEDLESS TO SAY, I DIDN'T PAY MY BILL, AND THE -SERVICE WAS -SHUT OFF, ON FEBRUARY 14TH, WHEN I RETURNED MY CONVERTER/ DESCRAMBLER UNIT, I RELAYED MY STORY TO AMY, WHO TOLD ME THAT THE PROBLEM WOULD BE RESEARCHED•AND I WAS AGAIN TOLD THAT SOME ONE WOULD CALL ME TO LET ME KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED, AFTER BEING TOLD THAT IN THE PAST, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN -BETTER, NO ONE'CALIFD ME; AS I HAD BEEN PROMISED ! INSTEAD, ON MARCH. 2ND, I RECEIVED A FINAL BILLING FOR MY ACCOUNT WHICH IN- CLUDED A CHARGE OF $75 FOR " CONVERTOR DAMAGE. ! " I MUST ASSUME -THAT THIS IS FOR THE`HAND HELD UNIT THAT YOUR PEOPLE LOST,- As FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE . BALANCE THAT.I OWE AMERICAN COMMUNITY CABLEVISION IS $49,01, AND THAT IS WHAT I AM WILLING TO PAY, IF YOU INSIST ON MY PAYING $75 FOR YOUR MISTAKE, I WILL HAVE. NO OPTION BUT TO CONSULT MY LAWYER, AS WELL AS MAKE -THE ISSUE KNOWN TO THE LOCAL CABLE COMMISSION AND THE LOCAL PRESS. AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THE FOLLOWING PHRASE WAS ADDED TO THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER OF MY FINAL BILL, " WE MUST REQUEST PROMPT PAYMENT TO AVOID ANY FURTHER ACTION," AND THEN YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CLOSE BY SAYING "THANK YOU ? " NOT ONLY HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO CHARGE ME FOR A MISTAKE MADE BY YOUR PEOPLE, BUT NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME TO PAY FOR IT; I'M SURE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ILLEGALITIES INVOLVED HERE. THIS TREATMENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, PLEASE ADJUST MY FINAL BILLING ACCORDINGLY, ANY RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MY IN WRITING, CC: MiR, R. FLETCHER, CABLE COMMISSION �. EDITOR, ITHACA JOURNAL EDITOR, ITHACA TIMES EDITOR, GRAPEVINE PRESS REGARDS, GERRY [...ANGEL 25 BEACH ROAD LANSING, N.Y. 14882 MEMBER of NEW YORK BAR FLORIDA BAR April 10, 1985 NEIL T. WALLACE ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW 105 CHERRY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 339 ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 RECEIVED APR 111985. American Community Cablevision P.O. Box 6575 Ithaca, New York 14851 Dear Sirs: Several months ago I discussed my concernover being forced to rent remote controls from you at $4.00/month when their retail value could not be more than $20 to $25. I again wish to indicate that I desire to purchase these controls or to pay a rental fee more reasonably related to your costs. Failing an appropriate response, it is my intent to purchase a large quantity and sell them to the public. If I am prevented from doing so I will bring a restraint of trade action against you and the manufacturer and request treble damages. Very truly yours, CC: Ithaca Cable Commission Robert Hines, Esq. TELEPHONE (807) 273-1222 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET' ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMORANDUM TO: Sean Killeen, Common Council Ray Schlather, Common Council Bob Fletcher, Cable Commission FROM: L. Richard Stumbar, Corporate Counsel DATE: April 9, 1985 RE: CABLE FRANCHISING AND REGULATION fzTi TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 The cable franchising and regulation guidebook. has finally arrived., It will be in my office when you care to review it. • The City of Ithaca Cable Commission offic.ally requests approval from Common Council to initiate a Request for Proposals_, for consultant ser vices i n connection. with the Cable Franchise • renewal proceedings now underVay.. The functions of the consultant should be: • .• 1. To specify what modern state of the art cable systems should include. Modern systems to be considered sould i ncl ude one wrfiy systems with expanded channel cepacit►j and two ..ray. systems tidith expanded channel capacity. • ;. . . 2. To provide technical specifications and esti mated costs for such systems. 3. Iiinirnurn channel capcity for these systems should be at least 36 channels. Citg of Ithaca Cable Commission Agenda 4/16/85 pe;Ini rig statement .bg chairman on the purpose of the meeting: ldentifq future communitg cable related needs and interests performance of ACC under the cur rent franchise C434n ogi0O-ilde ace to the Comrniioi ComMent ssi o n sc ussi on of public comment v.:*trr on final language of cable commission request to B&A for cable. coriaultant to be r„sttattalted_tri,:B&A 4/25/85. AMERICAN COMMUNITY CABLEVISION PO Box 6575 ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 r: cv'1t\c- 1z - 13 GENERAL MANAGER, MARCH 10, 1985 ON FEBRUARY 14, 1985, I RETURNED ONE DESCRAMBLER/CONVERTER, UNIT TO YOUR FIRM, A RECEIPT SIGNED BY THE DESK CLERK, AMY, IS IN MY POSSESSION, AT THAT TIME, I TOLD HER THAT IF MY SERVICE HADN'T BEEN DISCONNECTED, THAT I WOULD HAVE HAD IT CANCELLED, DUE TO MY DISPLEASURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES: IN DECEMBER OF 1984, I EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH THE REMOTE CHANNEL SELECTOR. I CALLED YOUR OFFICE, AND AFTER BEING LEFT ON HOLD FOR JUST OVER 15 MINUTES, WAS TOLD THAT I COULD BRING THE UNIT IN FOR INSPECTION AND/OR REPLACEMENT, WELL, AS DECEMBER GOES, I ENDED UP. NOT HAVING THE TIME TO DO SO, AND FINALY DID GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE THE UNIT IN ON THE MONDAY OR TUESDAY FOLLOWING NEW YEARS DAY, AFTER WAITING_ IN LINE BEHIND FOUR OR FIVE PEOPLE FOR ALMOST A HALF AN HOUR, I TOLD THE GIRL AT THE DESK THAT I COULD WAIT NO MORE, THAT I WAS ALREADY LATE TO WORK, SHE WAS VERY NICE AND HAD A MAN COME OUT TO LOOK AT THE HAND HELD UNIT, I DON'T RECALL THE MAN'S NAME, I DON'T THINK -HE HAD A NAME TAG, BUT HE WAS OF AVERAGE BUILD AND DARK HAIRED, ANY WAY, HE ASKED IF I.HAD A FEW MINUTE SO THAT HE MIGHT TEST THE UNIT, I TOLD HIM THAT I HAD TO GO TO WORK, BUT THAT I WOULD LEAVE HIM MY BUSINESS CARD SO THAT LATER IN THE LAY, HE COULD CONTACT ME, HE TOLD ME THAT THAT WAS OK, AND THAT'S HOW WE LEFT THINGS, LATER THAT DAY,"NO ONE CALLED, THE WHEN I CALLED YOUR OFFICE, NO ONE SEEMED TO EVEN KNOW WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I WENT ON THE RECORD AS SAYING," I WILL NOT PAY FOR MY SERVICE IF I CAN NOT HAVE THE UNIT FOR WHICH I AM BEING BILLED $4 A MONTH," NEEDLESS TO SAY, I DIDN'T PAY MY BILL, •AND THE SERVICE WAS SHUT OFF, ON FEBRUARY 14TH, WHEN I RETURNED MY CONVERTER/ DESCRAMBLER UNIT, I RELAYED MY STORY TO AMY, WHO TOLD ME THAT THE PROBLEM WOULD BE RESEARCHED AND I WAS AGAIN TOLD THAT SOLE ONE WOULD CALL ME TO LET ME KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED, AFTER BEING TOLD THAT IN THE PAST, I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER, NO ONE' CALI FI) ME, AS I HAD BEEN. PROMISED ! INSTEAD, ON MARCH 2ND, I RECEIVED A FINAL BILLING FOR MY ACCOUNT WHICH IN- CLUDED A CHARGE OF $75 FOR " CONVERTOR DAMAGE. ! " I MUST ASSUME THAT THIS IS FOR THE`HAND HELD UNIT THAT YOUR PEOPLE LOST, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, THE BALANCE THAT I OWE AMERICAN COMMUNITY CABLEVISION IS $49,01, AND THAT IS WHAT I AM WILLING TO PAY, IF YOU INSIST ON MY PAYING $75 FOR YOUR MISTAKE, I WILL HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO CONSULT MY LAWYER, AS WELL AS MAKE THE ISSUE KNOWN TO THE LOCAL CABLE COMMISSION AND THE LOCAL PRESS. AND TO ADD INSULT TO INJURY, THE FOLLOWING PHRASE WAS ADDED TO THE BOTTOM LEFT CORNER OF MY FINAL BILL, " WE MUST REQUEST PROMPT PAYMENT TO AVOID ANY FURTHER ACTION," AND THEN YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CLOSE BY SAYING "THANK YOU ! " NOT ONLY HAVE YOU ATTEMPTED TO CHARGE ME FOR A MISTAKE MADE BY YOUR PEOPLE, BUT NOW YOU ARE TRYING TO INTIMIDATE ME TO PAY FOR IT, I'M SURE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ILLEGALITIES INVOLVED HERE, THIS TREATMENT WILL NOT BE TOLERATED, PLEASE ADJUST MY FINAL BILLING ACCORDINGLY, ANY RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MY IN WRITING, CC: MR, R. FLETCHER, CABLE COMMISSION EDITOR, ITHACA JOURNAL EDITOR, ITHACA TIMES EDITOR, GRAPEVINE PRESS REGARDS, ll - GERRY L. ANGEL 25 BEACH ROAD LANSING, N.Y, 114882 • MEMBER of • NEW YORK BAR FLORIDA BAR April 10, 1985 •NEIL T. WALLACE ATTORNEY AND COUNSELOR AT LAW ' 105 CHERRY STREET POST OFFICE BOX 339 • ITHACA, NEW YORK 14851 ;;:iCtiv rD APR 11 .1985 • American Community Cablevision P.O. Box 6575 Ithaca, New York 14851 Dear Sirs: Several months ago I discussed my concern over being forced to rent remote controls from you at $4.00/month when their retail value could not be more than $20 to $25. I again wish to indicate that I desire to purchase these controls or to pay a rental fee more reasonably related to your costs. Failing an appropriate response, it is my intent to purchase a large quantity and sell them to the public. If I am prevented from doing so I will bring a restraint of trade action against you and the manufacturer and request treble damages. Very truly yours, allace CC: Ithaca Cable Commission Robert Hines, Esq. TELEPHONE (607) 273-1222 OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 MEMORANDUM TO: Sean Killeen, Conunon Council Ray Schlather, Common Council Bob Fletcher, Cable Commission FROM: L. Richard Stumbar, Corporate Counsel DATE: April 9, 1985 RE: CABLE FRANCHISING AND REGULATION TELEPHONE: 272-1713 CODE 607 The cable franchising and regulation guidebook has.finally arrived. It will be in my office when you care to review it. The City of Ithaca Cable Commission officall g requests approval from Common Council to initiate, a Request for -Proposals for consultant services in connection with the Cable Franchise. " renewal proceedings no underway. . The functions of the consultant should be: • 1. To specify %/That modern state of the art cable systems should include. Modern systems to be considered so uld inelude one way systems with expanded channel capacity and two wag systems %dith expanded channel capacity. • 2. To provide technical specifications and estimated costs for such systems. . 3. ni mum channel capeitg for these systems should be at least 36 channels. -5-. June 12; 1974 ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY Attorney Shapiro reported on the Cerrache - T.V. Franchise. Mr. Shapiro reported that he received a letter from Mr. Cerrache's attorney who pointed to a clarification of the rules by the FCC which came out in late April 1974. It is the Attorney's position that according to those clarifications with the rules the FCC has effectively pre-empted the localities from regulating rates with respect to television cable franchise altogether, and that they did not intend to regulate them either. Mr. Shapiro said he sent?a letter to the FCC asking for further clarification. Attorney Shapiro also reported officially that Mr. and Mrs. Avery of the Home Dairy, have commenced a law suit against the City seeking to enjoin the City from constructing the project known as the Ithaca Mall. The return date is the 20th of June and 11r. Shapiro said he will take appropriate action to defend the City at that time. Mr. Shapiro also reported that there is a parcel of land behind the Southside Center that was thought to be part of the land that was. conveyed to the City of Ithaca with the Southside Center itself, but in fact, was not. This parcel of land includes land which we had contemplated using for the park, which means that there will be need to negotiate with the Southside Center to buy that parcel of land. Mr. Shapiro said he was asked to make this known to Common Council. By Alderman Jones: seconded by Alderman Boronkay RESOLVED, That the Attorney for the City enter into negotiations with the Southside.Center concerning that parcel of land behind the Southside Center immediately. Carried Alderman Slattery remarked that Mayor Conley had been elected first Vice - President of the New York State Conference of Mayors and Municipal Offices. The entire Council congratulated the Mayor by applauding. CHARTER AND ORDINANCE COMMITTEE By Alderman Meyer: seconded by Alerman Jones RESOLVED, That the resolution of May 1, 1974 be lifted from the Table regarding the returning of a track of land commonly known as 516 University Avenue, Shown on the tax maps of the City of Ithaca as 28-4, from its prior zoning of R3 to P. Carried By Alderman Meyer: seconded by Alderman Schmidt WHEREAS, The Common Council has heretofore adopted a new zoning ordinance for the City of Ithaca, and WHEREAS, Certain minor items with respect to the new zoning ordinance had not been fully resolved at the time the new zoning ordinance was enacted, and WHEREAS, these matters have not been fully considered and all proper procedures with.respect to enactment of these zoning ordinance amendments have been carried out, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That Tract or Parcel of land situate in the City of Ithaca, County of Tompkins, and State of New York, now or formerly owned by Cornell University, being the parcel on the southwesterly -corner of the --_ -intersection �f Lake Street and University Avenue in said City, Commonly known as 516 University Avenue, Ithaca, New York, and shown on the tax maps of the City of Ithaca as Tax Parcel No. 28-4-11 be returned to it's prior zoning of R3 instead of the amended zoning of P. After discussion on the Council floor a vote was. taken as follows: Ayes - (10) Nays - (1) - (Nichols) Abstain - (1) - (Boothroyd) Carried COI•1MOi? COU: TOIL-PROCE. DINGS -CITY OF IT':ACA, ,NEW YORK Regular Meeting,_ 7.:3O P•'"• April 3, 1974 _. 'PRESENT: Mayor - Conley Alderrnen..(12) - Barber, Saccucci, Slattery, Jones, Boronkay, Schmidt, Cutenberger, Brock, Meyer, Nichols, Boothroyd, Spano OTHERS-:P1;ESE TT: Attorney for the City - Shapiro Building Commissioner - Jones BPU Commissioner - Golder City Controller. -_,Daley, Fire.ghief - Weaver Urban Renewal Director - Brown Planning Director - Van Cort Police Chief,- _=lerso=_1 City Clerk - Rundle • All present were led by Acting "Tayor Schmidt in. the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. . ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: Alderman Ueyer requested that a .resolution on recycling 'be added to the Planning & Development Committee agenda. -lo'objections were made. Alderman Schmidt requested that a bill from Anton VI./ the Budget & Administration Committee agenda. 00 objections were made. MUTES!. Acting I ayor Schmidt asked for approval 1974 meeting. By .Alderman Barber: seconded. by Alderman Saccucci RESOLVED, that the minutes .of the :"Larch 6, 1974, meeting be approved as recorded J'.. , ,Igner & Associates be added. of t'ie minutes of the March 6, by . the City Clerk., COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY,CLERK: RK: . City Clerk •Rundle reported a petition from Crispell Charter Service, Inc..to .:::partially through the , City: of Ithaca, Sy Alderman Jones: seconded by Alderman Barber RESOLVED, that this petition be referred to the Charter and Development Committees. Carried that he had received operate a bus line which runs REPORT OF ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY; & Ordinance and the Planning Carried WILSON SUIT: Attorney Shapiro reported;on ,the Wilson Suit. The City cion that • suit in Article 78 proceeding brought against the city charging the Board of Zoning Appeals was arbitrary in denying the variance and that was upheld by the Supreme Court and ordered rendered. BOX OFFICE TELEVISION: Attorney Shapiro said he has conferred with Mr. Cerrache and he has informed the Attorney that his fiscal year ends April 30th. There will be additional items or amendments to ?r. Cerrache's present franchise that Mr. Cerrache would like to request and he wants to be able to rely on his end of fiscal year data when he requests these franchise changes. Mr. Cerrache has agreed to attend the June meeting to gooverthis. - R1_{P, INC: Attorney Shapiro reported on RHP, Inc., the parking_ lot matter, -on �S.ou.th_Hill. The attorney said this -is -an Article 78 -proceeding appealing to the Supreme Court from a ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals. 1973 ANNUAL CITY CHAMBERLAIN'S REPORT: By Alderman Boronkay: seconded by Alderman Jones RESOLVED, that the 1973 Annual City Chamberlain's Report be received and. accepted, Carried 1973 REPORT OF FIRE RELIEF FUND AND VETERAN VOLUNTEER FIREME T' S ASSOCIATION:- By SSOCIATION:By Alderman Barber: seconded by Alderman Slattery RESOLVED, that the 1973 Report of Fire Relief Fund and Veteran Vol nteer Firemen's .Association prepared by the City Chamberlain be received and accepted. Carried -3- May 5, 1971 • BOYNTON-CENTRAL.PROPOSAL: By Alderman Gutonberger: seconded. by Alderman Slattery WHEREAS, there is a recognized need for greater coordination of programs and services offered by community organizations, and WHEREAS, there is also a recognized need for more effective use of community physical facilities, manpower, and funds, and WHEREAS, the School District expects to vacate Central School in June of 1971; will, and has expressed a desire to make it available for use as a community activities and recrea- tion center, and WHEREAS, the building of an indoor swimming facility and renovation of Central School for community use will require a community capital fund drive, which to be successful, will need our endorsement, and VHEREA,S, there is an interest on the part of several groups in making use of the facility .or their programs, and VHEREAS, all preliminary discussion indicates this to be a wise, forward looking proposal to upgrade the local neighborhood and the programs and services offered, and WHEREAS, the Center is planned to serve a broad base of interests and needs of the community, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Ithaca agrees that: 1) This•proposal fills a basic need for more effective use of our community's physical facilities, its funds and manpower in a Way worthy of our support, and 2) Therefore, ratifies the Constitution and Bylaws of the organization and in so doing, • agrees to participate fully as a member of its Board. of Directors, and to that end " 3) Authorizes the Mayor of the City of Ithaca to appoint two qualified voters of the city to fill the present vacant terms. CBy Alderman Boronkay: seconded by Alderman Nichols RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolution be tabled. Carried. DOG ENUMERATOR: The Clerk read a letter from N.Y..S. Dept. of Agriculture & Markets advising;that if the City elects. ::to have. the .1972 -dog census made :.by:"enumerators , during October 1971, it must. make; such:°election by•. adoption: of a. resolution indicating- this before'.June 1st.• : • •' : • By Alderman . Spano: seconded •by Alderman: Jones.:. - RESOLVED, that 'the Common Council •of the "City• of Ithaca, New York, hereby elects to cause the dog.census• for the year 1972. to -be made by enumerators instead••of its.;.Po15.ce. Dept.. . during the -month of. October 1971; and that•-thie•City Clerk be.directed.to:.file a•certified copy of this resolution with N.Y.S. Dept. of Agriculture & Markets, Albany, New York, on --r before' June'.1 •;1971• t• .. .. .t • . • ..:._Carried. • .. PELEVISION RATE INCREASE: The Clerk read a petition from Ceracche Television Corp. re- --questing that its television cable • •franchise be-. amendedtoy read'.as :.follows . .. ' • "il. -. (.b)' . (1):',.Residential or-: Commercial establishments Maximum• •charges•::: _First "instalha- tion charge• ; $25.00.••' Each .additional installation - $25:00. Rental• charge for first installation - $4.50 per month. . . - • Additional• rental charge .foreach extra- setvat• same establishment; Residential $.50: per month per'. set., Commercial: $1.00 per month per set,. . .. , . :: (2): • Suspended service: No.ch.arg for _ disconnecting. and:no,rental,. ch•arge•.:while disconnected-. .• Reconnecting charge:. $5.00. ;.. (3) . Multiple dwellings.: ; .:Installation. purchased by landlord: Maximum charges: First.'insta•]l ation $25.00;:.. This •installation .shall be transferable. Each additional. installation - $25.00. Additional installation shall not be transferable to a different a:ddress: or apartment, but can be sold-with••the •property:::. Rental charge for .first installation, $4.50 per month." Clerk's Note Present: franchise: reads: ""(1)..•: $50.00, $25.00 and $3.50 • .. ... . (2):. $4,50-._ . -(3) ;.$50.00,- $25.00_and.$3.50 .. . _... . • By' Alderman-Nordheimer: ••seconded;by.:Alderman. Nichols.. •. . ; ::,.... . ;, • RESOLVED, .that -.::the ,petition requesting. a. television rate increase.be .referred to. the, • (_ Charter! •& Ordinance Committee 'for review and report. fBy Alderman Robinson: seconded by Alderman Slattery RESOLVED,.that._the •foregoing be amended by. referring the;:request:to.'.the:: Charter and Ordinance: and Finance.Committees. for. joint.: .xeview:•.and:report ::...._. , . Motion defeated. A:vote: _on the :• original.motion was -then taken. resulting in its -.being- :carried. ._ . . : Motion ccrried•... ..; COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting 7:30 p..m. April 20, 1966 PRESENT : • Payor . - Johns Alderman (11) - Clyn_es, Saccucci, Macali, Rosica, Hughes, Rundle, Hunt, Baldwin, Yavits, Barrett, Hart. 1SEiiT: Aldermen (3)-- Bangs, Baldwin, Tolles OTHERS PRESE'1V T : ( ? Attorney - Freeman Urban Renewal Director - Daley Controller - Russell Clerk - Blean �J 1 Mayor Johns announced he had called this special meeting for the following .purposes: 1) to take action on the application received from Ceracche Television Corp. for re- newal of its television cable franchise which will expire on May lst. 2) to'a.pprove a new bond resolution to finance the cost of relocating central fire headquarters in the 300 block of West State Street.. =VISION u -� L VISION CABLE FRANCHISE: Alderman Baldwin reported that the Charter & Ordinance 4 11 Cour ittee had reviewed the proposed renewal of the television cable franchise pre- sented at the last meeting and explained several changes made - some of which were merely typographical and others to clarify meaning etc. P_:! Alderman Ba1cI n : seconded by Alderman Yavits WHEREAS, the television cable franchise presently in effect expires May 1, 1966, and . WHEREAS, this Common Council at its last meeting has extended this franchise. until Jae 2, 1566 and the matter was referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee for Further study end report back to the Council at its earliest possible convenience, I OW THE'r, ORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the attached television cable franchise be approved end granted to Ceracche Television Corporation, 518 W. State Street, Ithaca, New York for a period of 25 years from May 1,•1966, its effective date; and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized and directed to sign and execute it. on beha.j.f of the City of Ithaca under its corporate seal. Alderman Parrett recommended rewording paragraph (9), subsection b of Section XI to give the Council some control over the rates. He felt it would provide no control as presented. He also expressed his concern about renewing the franchise for 25 years .which he felt was .too long a term. Alderman Saccucci felt the 25 years was too long also and•recommended a clause be in- cluded to'pro'ride that the City may reopen it for negotiation once each year, if necessary He felt there was some resentment to the proposed 50¢ rate increase and that if approved it should not•become effective until 1967- and then be frozen for a . period of five years. He recommended another clause be added to give the City the right to inspect all of the grantee's records relating to the franchise, if necessary. Alderman mart entered at this point in the proceedings. Ce=acche promised that the rate increases proposed would not be put into effect until January 1, 1967. - Mr. Kerr appeared once again on behalf of the Tompkins County Electronic Dealers' Association and urged that the grantee be prohibited from engaging in the business.of selling and repairing television sets. He felt this would provide a more equal climate for fair -competition. He opposed the term of 25. years for the new franchise because he felt it was too long. Alderman Barrett ,again stressed the need for some control over rates. He felt that costs are not the only basis for rate increases and that it should not be tied to costs. Ly Alderman Barrett: seconded by Alderman Hughes • RESOLVED, that the resolution under discussion be amended so that paragraph (9), sub- section (b), Section XI of the franchise be amended to read as follows: (9) ,Any increase of the maximum charges must first be approved by the Common Council and such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Aldc=an Macali cntcred the _croceedin s at this time. 9 y:41 en ,e.14,0 i lifter some further discussion the Mayor directed the Clerk to take a roll call on the amendment which resulted as follows: AYES: 8 - Saccucci, Hughes, Rundle, Hunt, Baldwin, Yavits, Barrett, Hart NAYS: 2 - Clynes, Rosica ABSTAINING: 1 - Macali Motion Carried. A vote was then taken on the original motion as thus. amended which resulted as follows:. AYES: 8 - Clynes, Saccucci, Rosica, Hughes, Baldwin, Yavits, Barrett, Hart NAYS: 3 - Macali, Rundle, Hunt a Carried. • 1 ru } BOND ISSUE - CENTRAL FIRE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING: Controller Russell reported that the city's bonding attorneys had recommended the amendment of a bond resolution regarding the relocation of central fire headquarters in the 300 block of W. Green Street. .The resolution was offered by Councilman Clynes, who moved its adoption, seconded by Councilman Saccucci, to wit: BOND RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 20, 1966 A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RESOLUTION ENTITLED:"BOND RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 4, 1963. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, INCLUDING ACQUISITION OF LAND THEREFOR, IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, AT A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $603,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE. OF $572,000 SERIAL BONDS AND THE EXPENDITURE OF $31,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS TO PAY THE COST THEREOF.", GENERALLY.. By Alderman Clynes: seconded by Alderman Saccucci BE IT RESOLVED, by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, as follows: SECTION 1. The title and Sections 1 and 2 of the bond resolution entitled: "BOND RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 4, 1963. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, INCLUDING ACQUISITION OF LAND THEREFOR,.IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, AT A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $603,000, AND AUTHOR= - IZING THE ISSUANCE OF $572,000 SERIAL BONDS AND THE EXPENDITURE OF $31,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS. TO PAY THE COST THEREOF.", duly adopted by the Common Council of the City of .Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, on December 4, 1963, are hereby respectively amended to read as follows: "BOND RESOLUTION DATED DECEMBER 4, 1963. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CENTRAL FIRE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING, INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION OF LAND THEREFOR, IN AND FOR THE CITY OF ITHACA, TOMPKINS COUNTY; NEW YORK, AT A TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF $560,000, AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF $529,000 SERIAL BONDS.AND THE EXPENDITURE OF $31,000 AVAILABLE FUNDS TO PAY THE COST THEREOF. Seotion 1. The following are hereby authorized in and for. the City .of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York: (a) the acquisition of land adjacent to the existing West State Street Parking Lot of said City, at a maximum estimated cost of $31,000.; and (b) the construction on said land and said parking lot of a.Central Fire Headquarters Building, including original furnishings, equipment, machinery and apparatus, and the grading and improvement of the site, at a maximum estimated cost of $529,000. Section 2. The total estimated cost _of the _aforesaid -:specific objects or purposes is - --$560;000, and the plan for the financing thereof is as follows: a) By.the issuance of $529,000 serial bonds of said City, hereby authorized to be issued pursuant to the Local Finance Law; and b) By the expenditure of $31,000 hereby appropriated therefor from Capital Reserve Fund No. 9, Public Buildings, which will be provided prior to the issuance of the aforesaid serial bonds or bond anticipation notes issued in anticipation thereof, and shall constitute the down payment required by Section 107.00 of the Local Finance Law." SECTION 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately. COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, N.Y. Regular Meeting 7:00 p.m. April 6, 1966 PRESENT: Mayor - Johns Aldermen (13) - Clynes, Saccucci, Macali, Rosica, Bangs, Hughes, Rundle, Hunt, Baldwin, Yavits, Barrett, Tolles, Hart. ABSENT: Aldermen (1) - Stallman OTHERS PRESENT: . Attorney - Freeman Chief of Police - VanOstrand 'Fire Chief - Weaver ,Superintendent of Public Works - Dingman --'Assistant to Superintendent of Public Works - Dougherty Building Commissioner - VanMarter Chairman of Housing Authority - Kiely Assistant Planner - Sinn Youth Coordinator -Director- Cutia Controller - Russell Clerk - Blean . .Deputy Clerk - Grey .�,Cb TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE: The Mayor convened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. as a public :a) hearing'to consider a request received from:Ceracche Television Corporation to renew q its television cable franchise which will expire on May 1, 1966. Mr. Ceracche appeared with Mr. Walter Wiggins, his attorney, who reviewed in detail the contents of his proposal. It included a renewal under its present general terms and conditions with • certain exceptions which included a 25 -year franchise in place of the present 10 -year one and a rate increase of 50¢ per month. Mr. Wm. B. Kerr appeared on behalf of the Tompkins County Electronics Dealers' Association and urged that the holder of the frc:.nchise be restricted from engaging in the business of selling and repairing television sets which.he felt led to unfair competition. He requested that if the franchise is •rene7;ed with the present holder that the Corporation should be required to divest it- self of these interests within a period of 3 yearc. Alderman Saccucci felt that a . clause should be included in the new franchise to provide for its reopening once each " year for negotiations if necessary. By Alderman Bangs: seconded by Alderman Clynes e-7- RESOLVED, that the proposal presented by-Ceracche Televisiin Corporation for renewal of its television cable franchise be approved as presented. r1 Aldermen Hughes., Tolles and Hunt requested a delay in action to analyze the proposal more carefully. By Alderman Hart: seconded by Alderman Tolles RESOLVED, that the foregoing resolution be tabled. AYES: 9-- Saccucci, Macali, Hughes, Rundle, Hunt, Yavits, Barrett, Tolles, Hart. NAYS: 4 - Clynes, Rosica, Bangs, Baldwin. Carried. By Alderman Tolles: seconded by Alderman Hart RESOLVED, that the Council hereby extends Ceracche Television Corporation's present 'N television cable franchise until June 2, 1966. Carried. By Alderman Bangs: seconded by Alderman Hughes RESOLVED, the request received from Ceracche Television.Corporation for renewal of its_" __ present_franchise be referred to the Charter & Ordinance -Committee for further study and 'report back to the Council at its earliest possible convenience. Carried. After five minutes of recess the regular meeting was convened. MINUTES: Minutes of the last regular meeting and the special executive session held on March 9th. were duly approved as recorded by the Clerk... PUBLIC HEARING - EASTERN GREYHOUND LINES PETITION: The Mayor opened a public hearing which'had been duly advertised for this time to hear anyone interested in a petition filed with the Council by Eastern Greyhound Lines for permission to operate an omnibus line over certain streets, roads and avenues in the City. The Clerk explained that this new franchise was sought because Greyhound had recently moved its local bus station from South Aurora Street to a new location on West State Street. No one appeared to be heard on the subject. 'FinbE4V?�4+++e`[b�r+'.�eaaM'•ur. �G'ei "'a:e��nviic3�.H.'1.�- z�i^ivc-_.��t=sunW'::�.er:.t�'�s?�..�.•�vsc�2'. Special Meeting COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, N.Y. 7:30 p.m. December 27, 1962 PRESENT: Mayor - Ryan Aldermen - Murphy, Kilby, Baidini, VanMarter, Hines, McNeill, Hagin, Baldwin, Stallman, Miller, Freeman, Schmidt, Hart - Alderman -elect - Burns Attorney - Clynes Planner - Bonner -1 Building Commissioner - Golder Police Commissioner - Sullivan !_ Police Chief - VanOstrand Asst. City Engineer - Melchen Controller - Weinstein Deputy Chamberlain - Wright Clerk - Blean Deputy Clerk - Grey 1 MINUTES: minutes of the' last regular meeting were duly approved. GREATER ITHACA REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD AGREEMENT: The Clerk read a letter from the Greater Ithaca Regional Planning Board recommending that the Town of Danby be given membership as requested by -it. Alderman Hines presented and read a proposed agreement which included the Town of Danby by giving it one member on the Board for representation and wherein it agreed to appropriate the sum of 51,000.00 as its share of the cost of the Board's operation for 1963. By Alderman Hines: seconded by Alderman McNeill RESOLVED, that the agreement as presented be approved and that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign and execute it on behalf of the City. Unanimously Carried. TRAFFIC ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: 'The Clerk reported the Board of Public Works had recommend- ed ecom :end -ed amending the traffic ordinance to -prohibit parking on the east side of Woodcrest Avenue from E. State Street to -Eastwood Avenue. By Alderman Kilby: seconded by Alderman Staliman RESOLVED, that Section 182, Schedule III of Article XX of the Traffic Ordinance, parking prohibited at all times on certain streets, be amended by adding thereto the following: Woodcrest Avenue; from E. State Street to Eastwood Avenue, east side. Effective upon publication. AYES: 13 NAYS: 0 Carried and Approved. LOCAL LAW- TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE: The Clerk reported that a proposed local law relating to a television cable franchise had laid on the table since the last meeting of the Council. Action was taken to adopt it as follows: A LOCAL LAW TO AMEND SECTION 242 OF THE .CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ITHACA - TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE By Alderman Hines: seconded by Alderman Hagin BE IT ENACTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ITHACA, N.Y. AS FOLLOWS: Section 242. TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE. Cerracche Television Corporation, of_ 518 West State Street, Ithaca,, New York hereinafter referred -to as Grantee .is hereby granted and invested with the right and authority to construct, erect, operate and maintain buildings,.machinery, and apparatus within the city limits of the City of .f Ithaca, as it now is, and as it hereafter may be constituted by revision, modifi- l cation, or addition, and which said buildings, machinery, apparatus may or shall be - i's come necessary. in the transmission of television programs, and distribution and sale of -television or radio programs for the use of the citizens of the City of Ithaca. 1. Grantee shall have the.right, further, to erect, place, operate, repair and main- tain poles, wires, transmission lines, distribution lines, and service lines in and over, and the right to use, all public avenues, streets, alleys, grounds and places in the city, and within its present limit or as it hereafter may be extended, for the purpose of furnishing the City of Ithaca and its inhabitants with television or radio service, provided always, that such poles, wires, transmission lines, dis- tribution lines, and service lines shall not interfere with, nor obstruct, the necessary or proper use of said streets, avenues, alleys, public grounds and places. ,sm+ LRLY� tit .9 Page 10 December 5, 1962 Alderman Kilby urged support of the resolution while Aldermen Baldwin and Stallman urged that bids be not taken and that the City continue the operation. Alderman Stallman then read the following letter from Cornell University: December 5, 1962 "Dear Mr. Stallman: The University Administration has been impressed by the operation of- the Community Transit System and is interested in its continued operation. We under- stand that the System may not be able to operate in the black during the period when the purchase of new buses is being amortized, It is not possible to measure our interest accurately'on an accounting basis. University employees who use the Transit System will generally be found to be residents of the City of Ithaca and taxpayers in one way or another. University students who ride the buses should generally mean business being taken to the downtown area. Of course there are many more people who use the buses to advantage -and are connected in no way with the University.. However, it would be an inconvenience to the University Community if there was not a reliable Transit System. Accordingly, the University is willing to cooperate. financially in the operation of the City bus system. We would be will- ing to pay one-third of the -City's annual deficit (including bus acquisition z..mortization) not to exceed $7,500 for the one-third. .If we make arrangements with the City for special or non-scheduled service on the.campus for our own in- -da.vidual benefit, like from peripheral parking lots to the center of the campus,; this service would be paid for by the University outside of this proposed one- third arrangement. Very truly yours, (Sgn) John E. Burton Vice President -Business", Alderman Kilby criticized Mr. Stallman's authority to negotiate with the University in this -respect. He urged the taking of bids and the running of the busses by private•enterprise. After'some'further discussion the matter was put to a.roll call vote. AYES.:'3•-. Murphy, Kilby, Rosica NAYS: 11- Baldini, VanMarter, Hines, McNeill, Hagin, Baldwin, Stallman, Miller, - Freeman, Schmidt, Hart. Motion Defeated. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT:, Alderman Hines reported that the Planning Board had held a.public hearing on November 29, 1962 to determine proper 'zoning of the -area on :Co'ddington Road which will soon be annexed to and become a part of the City. As a result of 'this hearing the Board recommended that the area be zoned "R-2" except for a smallportion in the northeast corner wh.ich,is presently zoned light in- dustria.l and which should be reclassified as an "I.-1" district under the City's zoning ordinance. Amendment of the zoning map as recommended by the Planning •Board was --postponed until after--final=annexation takes- place: __- -- »CAL-LAW - T.V. CABLE RATES: Alderman Hines presented a proposed T.V. rate ;acrease requested by Ceracche Television Corp. under its. franchise. Mr. Ce-acche and Walter Wiggins, his attorney, appeared before the Council and ex- . plaine.d it was the first,.increase requested in over six years and is necessitated, nowby a large expansion program, estimated to cost $200,000.00, to.keep up with modern equipment and techniques. ,'Aldel-man Hines then presented a:proposed local law.granting law granting the increase in rates requested. ' fir; Alderman Hines seconded by Alderman Rosica RESOLVED, that the.following local law be received and - laid. on the table at this time. as required by law: Page 5 November 7, 1962 Ey. Alderman Miller: seconded by Alderman Murphy RESOLVED, that the requests for salary increases.for patrolmen and firemen and all related letters be referred to the Public Safety Committee for review with the Police Commissioner, Fire Commissioners, representatives of the PBA and ?aid Firemens' Assn. and subsequent recommendation to the Finance Committee. AYES: 13 - NAYS: 1-VanMarter Carried. FAIL CREEK PTA: The Clerk read a letter from members of the Fall Creek PTA Safety Committee thanking city officials and particularly Edward Melchen, Asst. Traffic Engineer, for cooperation extended its members in trying to better traffic conditions in and around Fall Creek School. CIVIL SERVICE•EMPLOYEES' ASSN: The Clerk read a letter from the Tompkins County Civil Service Employees Assn. urging the Council to increase car mileage allowance from the present 07¢ to 10¢ per mile for city employees using their cars for city business and providing one week of paid vacation and five paid holidays per year for part time city office employees working more than twenty hours per week. By Alderman Stallman: seconded by Alderman Kilby RESOLVED, that the requests be referred to the Finance Committee for study and report. Carried. HOLT $ DOWNING: The Clerk read a letter. from Holt $ Downing, Architects, offering to the City of Ithaca the necessary professional services pursuant to the pre- paration of detailed plans for an Urban Renewal Program in accordance with all Federal, State and City regulations. By Alderman Stallman: seconded by Alderman Baldwin RESOLVED, that the Urban Renewal Committee of the Council be authorized to continue to function until December 31, 1962; and that the:letter received from Holt $ Downing be referred to this Committee for its consideration. Carried. TELEVISION FRANCHISE: The Clerk read a letter from Ceracche Television -Corp. requesting an increase in the maximum rate for television service under its franchise. By Alderman Hines: seconded by Alderman Murphy RESOLVED, that the request be referred to the Charter $ Ordinance and Finance Committees for joint study and report. Carried. TEMPORARY HELP - CLERK'S OFFICE: The Clerk reported he had hired Mrs. Madeline Ryan as an Account Clerk -Typist on November 1, 1962 to work on a temporary basis while. Mrs. Chapman, a regular office employee, recovers from an operation. He estimated that Mrs. Chapman may be absent from the office for approximately 6 weeks. He requested approval of his action. By Alderman Freeman: seconded by Alderman Baldwin RESOLVED, that the provisional appointment of Mrs. Madeline Ryan to serve on a temporary basis as an Account Clerk -Typist,. at an annual salary rate of $3,079, the minimum of Grade #11 in the Compensation Plan, be approved effective as of November 1, 1962. Carried. LOCAL LAW - VACATIONS: The Clerk reported that a Local Law pertaining to vacatio- for certain city employees had laid on the table since the last meeting. Action was taken to adopt it as follows: A LOCAL LAV PERTAINING TO VACATIONS FOR CERTAIN EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY -OF ITHACA By Alderman Miller: seconded by Alderman Stallman BE IT ENACTED BY THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ITHACA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Paragraph 219 C of the Ithaca City Charter entitled "Vacations for certain employees" as last amended by Local Law No. 2 of 1955 is hereby amended to read as follows:. Section 2: Purpose The purpose of this local law is to establish uniform provisions for vacations, applicable alike to employees of all departments of the City of Ithaca. These provisions shall not applyto the uniformed members of the Police Department and Fire Department. Section 3: Definitions The term "city employee" shall include all employees of the city except elected officials, members of the various city Beards and. Commissions, and seasonal, March 6, 1957 T.V. Cable Rates (Con't.) The final step is the transfer of the individual lines from each user's T.V. receiver. These have to be connected to the new lines on the poles. This is al- ready under xray, but may require part of 1958 to complete. I have a letter. from Mr. Ceracche of the Television Shop stating the above and setting forth the completion of the feeder lines this year and the completion of the individual transfers which may tajce part of 1958. I will place this letter on file and ask that it be made a part of the Minutes of this meeting. Because of the fact that all equipment, amplifiers and the main cable lines are now installed on telephone poles and because at a substantial cost to the holder o the franchise the completion of transferring the feeder lines from trees to poles will be completed this year and further because it is more workable to have all customers paying the same rate,we feel that a charge of $2.75 is fair and reason- able. I would like to state this is the consensus of the committee as a whole, except for Alderman Stimson, who disagrees." Nr, Kenneth C. Johnson, Atty. Savings Bank Building Ithaca, New York Dear . Johnson: 1 arch 4,' 1957 This letter is in answer to your request, regarding the twenty-five cents increase to some of our customers. In the Franchise, it states we may charge twenty-five cents additional where in- stallation is on a Neu York Telephone Co, pole. We feel this increase covers all of our customers now. During 1956 all equipment and new, main cable lines were installed on New York Telephone Company poles from our antenna site - Snyder Hill to the farthest cable amplifier in the down -town area. As evc,ryone should be able to realize, we are now renting hundreds of New York Telephone Company poles even though all of our customer installations are not on the new lines; all the equipment supplying service are on poles. This year will show the complete replacement on poles of the remaining cable lines in the city presently on trees. This means that all cable lines covering every street in Ithaca will be entirely on,telephone poles before the end of this year. The only remaini-'g job is the transfer of the ildividual lines from each users TV receiver to the street. These have to be connected to the new lines on telephone poles. This is being done daily and as rapidly as possible, but will not be en- tirely completed this year. Very truly yours Anthony Ceracche Alderman Stimson reserved his right to make a minority report on the cable rate increases at a later meeting to clarify his objections to the Committee's report. PARKING AUTHORITY: Alderman Johnson presented the following report of the Mayor's recommendation to establish a Parking Authority: "In looking into the matter the Committee found that about six Authorities had been established in New York State. Those of White Plains, Elmira, Syracuse, Binghamton, Peekskill and New Yorl: City, The Binghamton Authority operated for a short time only and was discontinued in 1952. The New York Authority terminated in 1955. Syracuse began operations but then became inactive. These authorities terminated presumably because these cities determined that the parking problem, acquisition of lots, maintenance, financing, �� establishing of rates, etc. could be taken care of by the regular departments in their local governments. It is the consensus of opinion of this committee that the various departments of our Government can also handle the problem. Since the request for the creation of a Parking Authority by the Mayor was brought to the Council, a Parking Committee has been set up on the Bd. of Public Works as a stand- ing committee of the Board. If this committee has the cooperation of the Council, Planning Board, Engineer's Dept., etc. and their efforts are coordinated,.there should be no reason why an Authority is necessary. We are still following this matter to see if there can be a procedure adopted in order to accomplish this coordination." h February 6, 1957 Urban Renewal (Can't.) By Alderman Horn: seconded by Alderman Porter RESOLVED, that permission be granted to the local radio stations to use their dis- cretion and delete any portion of the resolution concerning urban renewal, deemed . desirable from their rebroadcast of these proceedings. Carried. AUDIT: By Alderman Stimson: seconded by Alderman Wilkinson RESOLVED, that the bills approved and audited by the Finance Committee be approved and ordered paid. Carried. Alderman Stimson reported that the Finance Committee expects to have a report at a subsequent meeting on other matters including approval of the TJater & Sewer Dept, budget, installation of parking meters and Attorney Dahmen's bill for services as special Counsel in the condemnation proceedings. T V CABLE RATE INCREASE: Alderman Johnson reported that the TV cable rate increase CD is being studied by the Charter & Ordinance Committee and stated that he expected to have a final report thereon at the next meeting.CO PARKING AUTHORITY: Alderman Johnson reported that the Charter & Ordinance Committer, e3 is continuing its study of a parking authority and that the City Attorney has sub- mitted/a tentative draft of a proposed bill for the creation of such an authority. PERMANENT PERSONAL REGISTRATION:. Alderman Johnson reported that the Charter and Ordinance Committee, in cooperation with members of the League of Women Voters, had studied the Permanent Personal Registration Law, the cost of its operation in other counties and the estimated cost of its operation in Tompkins County and in general favors PPR. However, there are some amendments to the law now before the State Legislature aimed at sithplifying the procedures under PPR and saving on the cost of operation. By Alderman Johnson: seconded by Alderman Osborn RESOLVED, That the Board of Supervisors be requested to go on record favoring the adoption of the amendments now before the State Legislature which would simplify the procedures and provide for more economical operation of PPR by eliminating in part the five day check by the Police and Sheriff Departments of all new registrants by reducing the number of days, hours, and places of registration; and by providing a more flexible system of House to House Canvass rather than a biennial personal canvass by two persons in all districts. That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for communication to the Board and also to Senator Metcalf and Assemblyman Ashbery. Carried. CHARTER REVISION: Alderman Johnson reported that under Section 20 of the City Home ./ Rule Law the Common Council can provide for a new City Charter by adopting a Local Law providing for the submission to the electors of the City at the next general election the question: " Shall there be a Commission to draft a new City Charter?" Such Local Law shall provide for the number of members on the Commission, whether the members shall be elected or appointed, and the manner of appointment. He reported further that the Charter & Ordinance Committee had the benefit of con- sulting with Professor Dotson of the Government Department of the Arts & Sciences School at.Cornell who has done quite a bit of Charter Revision work throughout the Country. A good deal of time was spent considering the number, makeup, and process of choosing such a Commission and finally agreed that to obtain the best workable, unbiased Commission, it should consist of nine members, none of whom should be city officials or city employees. To get the best cross-section of citizens to determine how they should be governed, the Committee believes that the Commission should be chosen in the same manner and process that is used in providing candidates for the Board of Education by a Convention made up of delegates of the Ithaca Community Organizations list now on file with such Board.. Your Committee therefore recommends the following Local Law: Local Law providing for the. -submission to the electors of -the City of Ithaca, ••ew York, at the next general election held in the City the question: "Shall ther-e be a commission to draft a:netr City Charter?" . Section 1. There shall•be submitted to the electors of the City of Ithaca, i?ew Yor17, at the next F,eneral election held in the City of Ithaca the question: • "Shall there be a commission to draft .a new City Charter?" -5 January 2, 1957 CASCADIV,A AVENUE CLOSING: By Alderman 1,lilkihson: seconded by Alderman Osborn RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Works be directed to close the 200 block of Cascadilla Ave. to through traffic with accest thereto to be available to residents, fire, police and garbage collection crews of the Dept. of Public Works. Carried. pfr DEED - TOMPKINS COUNTY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: By Alderman Visnyei: seconded by Alderman.Komaromi . RESOLVED, that the Mayor and City Attorney be and hereby are authorized to deed to Tompkins County al]. the right, title and interest that the City may have in the Tompkins County Memorial Hospital located on S. Cuarry St. in accordance with the request presented at the Dec. 5th meeting. Attorney Clynes advised that the Tompkins Co. Board of Supervisors had adopted a resolution authorizing the use of any money realized from the s ale of the hospital for improvements at the new hospital at the Biggs site on the Trumansburg Rd. Motion Carried. YOUTH BUREAU,: Alderman Gibson presented a resolution authorizing the continuation of the Youth Bureau which was acted upon as follows: By Alderman Gibson: seconded by Alderman Gee WHEREAS, the City of Ithaca is about to submit an application for continuation of the Youth Bureau to the N.Y.S. Youth Commission for it's approval, and if app- roved, to apply subsequently to the State of New York for partial reimbursement of -funds expended on said project, as provided by Chapter 556 of the Laws of 1945, as amended, NOW THEREFOEE BE IT RESOLVED, that such application is in all respects approved and John F. Ryan, Mayor, is hereby directed and authorized to duly execute and to present said application to the N.Y.S. Youth Commission for it's approval. This resolution shall take effect immediately. Adopted by the following vote: AYES: 13 NAYS: 0 Unanimously Carried. PERMANENT PERSONAL REGISTRATION; Expressing a feeling that the Aldermen be better informed on personal permanent registra£ion as it affects the City and County, Alderman Wilkinson recommended that a study of this matter be undertaken by the Charter & Ordinance Committee for proper consideration and adoption if deemed ad- visable. By Alderman Wilkinson: seconded by Alderman Osborn RESOLVED, that the Charter & Ordinance Committee be requested to make a study of permanent personal registration as it affects the City and County and report back with a recommendation thereon as soon as possible. Carried.' v TELEVISION RATE INCREASE: Alderman Stimson reported receipt of complaints regard- ing a 25¢ increase in the monthly rental charge for television cable service, effective Jan. 1, 1957. He expressed the feeling that this may be in violation of/ the Television Franchise in cases where poles are not being used. By Alderman Stimson: seconded by Alderman Johnson RESOLVED, that the matter be referred to the Charter & Ordinance Committee for study and report. Carried. On motion the meeting was adjourned. Geo. A. Blean City Clerk Regular Meeting PRESENT: Mayor- Ryan Aldermen - Johnson, Murphy, Wilkinson, Stimson, Bradley, Sullivan, Porter, Bly, Komaromi, Visnyei, Horn Bd. of Pub. idks. Corm.-,Saperstone Attorney`- Lee Chief of Police - Simmers City Prosecutor - Clynes Director of Planning Thorne Deputy Chamberlain - Wright Chairman of -Planning Board - Fabbricatore Clerk - Blean Deputy. Clerk - Sinsabaugh. MINUTES: .Minutes of the last regular meeting and the special meeting held March 21st were duly approved. PUBLIC HEARING - TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE: Mayor Ryan announced that 'a public hearing had been duly advertised for this time on a proposed local law governing 00 a television cable franchise.' No one appeared to be heard and the Mayor declared .the hearing closed. The Local Law was acted upon as follows: • 7 A LOCAL/ LAW AMENDING. THE CITY CHARTER BY ADDING THERETO TITLE XI, SECTION 242, TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE 'COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDIZS CITY OF ITHACA, N.Y.. April 4, 1956 By Alderman Sullivan: seconded by Alderman Porter . • BE IT ENACTED by the Common Council of the City of Ithaca as follows: There shall be added to Chapter 503 of the Laws of 1908 a new Title, to be known as Title XI and to read as follows: - Section 242 - TELEVISION CABLE FRANCHISE.' SECTION Ceracche Television Corporation, of 518 West State Street, Ithaca., New York hereinafter referred to as Grantee is hereby granted and invested with the right and authority to construct, erect, operate and. maintain buildings, machinery, and apparatus within the city limits of the. City of Ithaca; as it now is, and as it hereafter may be constituted by revision, modification, or addition, and which, said buildings, machinery, apparatus may or shall become necessary in the trans- mission of television programs, and distribution and sale oftelevision or radio programs for the use of the citizens of_the City of Ithaca. SECTION II Grantee shall have the right, further, to erect, place, operate, repairand maintain poles, wires, transmission lines, distribution lines, and service lines. in and over, and the right to use, all public. avenues, streets, alleys, grounds and places in the city, and within its present limit or as it hereafter may be extended, for the purpose of furnishing the City of Ithaca and its inhabitants with television or radio service, provided always, that such poles, wires,trans- mission lines distribution lines, and service lines shall not interfere with, nor obstruct, the necessary or proper use of said streets, avenues, alleys, public grounds and places, SE_ ON III, Grantee shall have the right and permission of the City of Ithaca to use exist ing poles, wires, transmission lines and service lines now erected and in existence and owned, controlled or operated by the New York Telephone Company or New York State Electric & Gas Corporation within the City of Ithaca, upon the condition that it.shall first obtain the written permission of the New York Telephone Com- pany or New York State Electric & Gas Corporation for such uses. - SECTION IV Grantee shall be permitted to extend its poles, wires, transmission lines, distribution lines and service lines, and to give service to the City of Ithaca and to its inhabitants in accordance with the permissive rules, regulations, and statutes as ,the same may be amended from time to time, of the Public Service Com- mission; Federal Communications Commission, and other regulatory bodies of the State of New York or the United States of America and subject at all. times to the applicable laws of the State of New York and of the United States of America.- SECTION V Grantee is hereby empowered, and subject always to the approval, if necessary, of. the Public Service Commission of the State of New York, and the Federal Com- munications Commission, to use proper practices and procedures within the spirit of this franchise and appropriate to the`s ervice within the geographical limits of this franchise. SECTION VI Grantee upon the adoption of this Local Law, shall, if required, be allowed to. proceed to petition the Public Service Commission of the State of New York and Federal Communications Commissions for any approval required to be had in the premises, and upon such approval, he shall notify the Mayor of the City of Ithaca in writing. SECTION VII No poles are to be erected upon the public streets, alleys, avenues and public grounds and no excavation of any type shallbe done or caused to be done unless permission in writing is first obtained from the Department 6f Public Works•of the City of Ithaca,.Nek York. 1 SECTION VIZI In thsrr event that.a change is made in the grade of public streets, alleys, avenues,/ and grounds by authority of the City, which shallnecessitate the re- moval of any poles, wires, transmission` and distribution lines., to conform to the change of grade, Grantee shall make the necessary changes in its lines, at its own expense, upon due notice from the Board of Public Works of the City to do so. SECTION ZX I All work in any way necessitated by the business of the Grantee which may in- volve the nvolvethe opening, breaking or tearing up of a portion of a street, sidewalk or other part of any City -owned or City -controlled property shall be done: by the City at the expense of Grantee. Grantee shall save and keep the City harmless against all loss or damage to person or property: caused by the construction, laying, main- tenance or operation of any of its lines or other undertaking under the authority of this Franchise. SECTION X During the term of this Franchise, Grantee shall furnish to all persons de- siring the service offered, and paying for the same, a wire service capable of pro- ducing as good a quality of Television picture signal or.reception as may be prac- ticable from time to time, and shall make all reasonable and practicable better- ments or improvements of said service as improvements in the science of the carry- ing of arryingof television signals shall warrant, as well as in the elimination of radio interference. • SECTION XI This franchise does not in any manner grant to the Grantee,: his successors or assigns, the exclusive right to the sale and service of television sets or accesaor-. ies within the City of Ithaca, and it, is expressly understood that the right to sell such sets or accessories is - reserved to any and all legitimate. dealers. By acceptance of this Franchise , the Grantee, his, su ccessors- or ,assigns , shall be deemed -to -have accepted -the following- conditions: (a) Any person, individual or corporation may purchase television sets from any source without any liability to the holderof the Franchise herein granted. (b) The holder of this Franchise shall.: be required to permit any individual or corporation to have access to the services of theholder of this Franchise, subject only to the payment of regular installation fee and monthly charges which are hereby established as follows: (1) Residential or Commercial establishments: First Installation charge -$100.00. Each additional; installation $25.00. If installation. involves over. 250 feet from main line, an ad- ditional reasonable installation charge may be made. Rental charge for. first installation: $2.50 per month, plus •.25 additional where instal lation is on a New York Telephone Co. pole. Additional rental charge for each extra set at same establishment: Residential - $..75 per month per set. Commercial,- $2.75 per month per set. i . April 4, 1956 (2) Suspended service: No charge for disconnecting and•no.rental charge while disconnected. Reconnecting charge - ^2,75. (3) Multiple dwellings: Installations purchased by landlord: First installation $100.00. This installation shall be transferable. Each additional installation $25.00. Additional installations shall not be transferable to a different address or apartment, but can be sold with the property. Rental charge for first installation and any additional installations $2.75 per month, Subdivision (2) applies for suspended service.. (4) In the event that the user shall cancelihe service during the first twelve months $25.00 will be refunded forsach complete un -used quarter of the first twelve months. . (5) The user shall have the privilege of selling and transferring the'ser- vice once only to a different party at a different address for a. $10.00 transfer charge, where the service is available, at the time. 6) Changing location of cable: $3.50 charge for moving to another location in the same room; $5.00 charge for moving to a different room in same apartment or living quarters. 1(7) Any user that has paid the regular established residential installation fee who moves to another residence within the city. where service is available may have this service transferred for a $10.00 charge. • .(8) Cable Service may be disconnected when r ental or installation charge is sixty days past -due. .If service is disconnected because of non-payment a charge of $3.50 is made for reconnection after past -due account is paid. (9) Installations may be disconnected if user attempts to run more. than one set at one time on each.installation, or permits anyone else to do the same; or tampers with the. lines in any way. (10) Any increase of the maximum charges must first be approved by the. Common Council and will be permitted if increased costs show it to be reasonably necessary. (11) All installation and other charges include applicable Federal, State and Local taxes, if any. (c), Grantee of this franchise shall not directly or indirectly reflect the cost of installations in the price of sets sold by it. SECTION XII • If the trees in the City Streets interfere.with the erection of poles or the stringing of wires, or cables, in accordance with the terms of this Franchise, written permission for removing_said.trees, or any nart.:thersof,__must be -obtained from the Department of Public Works, for trees on City Property, and -from the- owners of private property. SECTION XIII In all street installations, the cables or wires erected shall, in.ali respects comply with the provisions of all existing Codes pertaining to the'extension of wires across streets, and all applicable provisions of the Electrical Code of the City of Ithaca. Co -axial cable shall be used to carry the television signal throughout the street installatons. Messenger cables shall.be used to carry the co -axial cable across streets. April 4, 1956 SECTION XIV The holder of this Franchise_ shall, at all times, keep in effect the: following types of insurance coverage: 1. Workments Compensation upon its employees engaged in any manner in the in- stallation or servicing of its plant and equipment within the City of Ithac2, 2. Public Liability Insurance in a total over-all amount of not less that $50,000.00, insuring the holder of this.. Franchise and the City of Ithaca against liability for property damage and $100,000 to 5300,000 for persona/ injury or death by reason of the installation, servicing or operation of its plant and equipment or installations within the City of Ithaca. SECTION XV • The term of this Franchise shall be ten years from the effective date of this law. SECTION XVI This franchise is personal to the Grantee, and may be transferred only on appli- cation to and approval by the Common Council of the City of 'Ithaca. No permit or grant of similar privileges and powers as are covered by this franchise shall be allowed during the period hereof except upon a franchise applied for and ap- proved by the Common Council. SECTION XVII The Grantee shall pay to the City Chamberlain annually a sum equal to one per centum (l%) of its gross income from its cable service operations within the City, in the manner and in accordance with the terms of Local Law No. 2 for 1950, effec- tive June 6, 1950. Such fees shall be and constitute a lien upon the property of the Grantee•within the City prior and superior to all othqfdebts, obligations,. taxes, mortgages or liens of whatsoever nature regardless the time of the creation thereof. Failure to make the required.quarterly report or pay such franchise fees shall be grounds for revocation of this franchise. SECTION XVIII .Violation of any Section or provision of this Local Law shall be an offense punishable by a fine not in excess of $50.00 for the first offense, and. not in excess of $100.00 for the second or any subsequent offense, and continuous and wilful violation shall be grounds for cancellation of the franchise, after due notice and public hearing. The right is reserved to the Grantee to prosecute, in any -lawful manner in Court or otherrise, any stealing, pirating or unlawful uses of the services covered by this franchise. SECTION XIX If any section of this law or any clause or any phrase thereof shall be held to be -unconstitutional or void, all other portionsnot so held shall be and remain in full force and effect. SECTION XX The ordinance entitled, "CITY ORDINANCE TELEVISION CABLES", passed at a regular meeting of the Common Council of the City of Ithaca held on March 4, 1953, and dated March 13, 1953, is hereby repealed. SECTION XXI This Local Law shall take effect on May 1, 1956. AYES: 11 NAYS:.. 0 Motion carried.: Approved by me this .4th day of April 1956 and designated Local Law 1L2-1956. !\ 1 115 Alderman Sullivan thanked members of the Charter & Ordinance.Committee,.the City.' Attorney and all others who helped in preparing this local law,for their time and effort given. Mayor Ryan. commended Alderman Sullivan, Chairman of the Charter & Ordinance Committee for his work on this matter and thanked Attorney Lee, Mr. Lo- Pnto, attorney for Mr. Cerrache, and all others who participated. ' cQtc4ON mum= P ROC DINGS • Page 2 Larch 4, 1953 AIfl'T AL REPORTS CITY CIIAirBERI A,IN - Chamberlain Lull presented and re as her annual report for the year ended December :31, 1952. She a? ao presented her annual repot of the Fire Relief Fund for the. same period, By Alderman Porter, Seconded by Alderman Adams RESOLVED, that the reports be accepted and ordered -flledo Carri ed .'.LIT By Alderman Scott,, Seconded. by Alderman Gibson RESOLVED, that the bills approved and audited by the Finance Comittee be and the same hereby are approved for payment, Carried ORDINANCE . TELFVISION CABLE8 Alderman Porter presented an Ordinan- ce regulating the installation and maintenance of television cable- in the City of Ithaca, N . Y4 Action was taken as follows: By A `derman Porter, Seconded by Alderman Benson IT I8 ORDAINED BY THE COYMON COUNCIL. OF THE• CITY OF ITHACA, AS FOLLOWS; - (1` That the use of the City streets, highways and other proper'v oyrr:led by the. Clty of Ithaca for the purpose of installing and rur:::ag a cable to carry television signals and to connect such insta"1latiena or other apparatus as may be necessary to permit the connection 1Yim the cable to private property in the said City of Ithaca, is hereby placed under the supervision and control of the Board of Public. - 1 orksb - - (2) It shall be unlawful far any person, firm or corporation to construct, maintain or operate upon or over the public -streets and highways and public places in the City of Ithaca a line' or lines of wire or other conductors or feeders or service -Tires,.or attach said line or wires or cables to any trees owned by the City of Ithaca, or to maintain and- keep the same in repair without the express permiss. ion of the Board of Public YTorkst (3) I,f permission shall first be obtained from the Board of Public -Works or the Superintendent thereofs permitees may be permitted to enter into agreements with persons. or corporations already holding -licenses with the said: City of Ithaca for the erection, maintenance and use of poles and•cables in the city streets so as to avoid the necessity of encumberi-ng.the public -streets with additional poles and wires, In addition to the above provisions, express permission shall: be obtained from the Board of Public W rks for all street crossings of such service, the erection of privately owned pole`, and all poles to be used in such service shall be sightly in appearance and emplaced so, as not to obstruct traffic A charge of tizO,OC for each street crossing shall be made by the Bo?.rd of Public Works before permission -%s. granted to_ cross_each ---street,- wrhi-dh- harge spall be payable in advance. (4) Any person, firm or corporation permitted by the said Board of Public Works to engage in the supplying of television cable reeeption shall furnish service to all persons desiring the service offered, upon paying for. the same at the standard rate, in any are: a of the City where said cable is installed-. • (5) Any person, firm or corporation may purchase television se -+_e from any source, and need not purchase such. set from the operators ca.' the said cable., (6) In all street installat4ong-,hs cables or wires erected shc.:': be no:less than fifteen (15) feet above the ground. surface, Coaxi_a.i cables shall be used to carry the.television signal along. all stre=- b $une 6, 1951 C01ON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS Page 3 TELEVI SI2N SYSTEM FRANCHISE It was reported that the Board of Public :forks agreed that no action should be taken on the request for permission to install a Television System until the petitioners show they have authorization to use the Telephone Company facilities. By Alderman Dickens, Seconded by Alderman Button RESOLVED, that this Council Concur in the decision of the Board.. Carried LOCAL LA:T -. SE.TT R RENTAL rLAN A proposed Local Law as set forth in the Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Public ''corks held May 23, 1951, relative to a Sewer Rental Plan, and approved by the Board, 'ras presented for Consideration. By Alderman Jilkinson, Seconded by Alderman Adams RESOLVED, that the Local Law be referred to the Finance and Charter and Ordinance. Committees for Consideration and recommendation. Carried LOCAL LAST - RE EL7CTION OF ALDEPMEN AND SUPT+'RVI^OPS The proposed Local Lair relative to the election of Aldermen and Supervisors as set forth in the nnutes of the ?-eeting held -.ay 2, 1951, was presented for Action by the Council. By Alderman Hulse, Seconded by Alderman Wilkinson RESOLVED, that the. Local Law be approved Nays 9 .MacDaniels, Gallagher, Holman, Dickens, Gibson, .. Carlyon, Hall, Little, Parsons. Ayes 4 Wilkinson, Button, Hulse, Adams. Motion Lost VETERANS MEMORIAL Alderman Dickens reported that through the efforts of Mayor Shaw, funds with which a Yernorial to the Yen T..►ho lost their lives in World ..Tar II, have been secured and he presented the following resolution By Alderman Dickens, Seconded by Alderman Holman RESOLVED, that the Common Council of the City of Ithaca hereby,approve a 'Tar i;emorial dedicated to the memory of the young men of Tompkins County who gave their lives in World. `Jar II, and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that'suitable space on City Hall property be made available for it's erection. Carried Alderman Adams expressed the opinion that the iemorial should be placed in De`Titt Park facing the present Femorial, an opinion also endorsed by other Members of the Council. - AUDIT By Alderman -Tilkinson, Seconded -by Alderman Hulse RESOLVED, that the bills audited by the Finance Committee -be -and -they hereby _-are -Appr_oved-_ anc orderer paid.`, Carried -MAYORS SALARY Alderman ''Ti17:inson called attention to the expenses in connection with holding the office of ;Mayor and he recommended and moved that the salary be increased to ;5000,00 effective.January 1, 1952, and he invited discussion of the matter. Mr. E. Y. Carhart of 309 North Aurora Street stated that the present salary restricts the possibilities of securing satisfactory candidates for the office and if necessary the vo;,rs should be given an opportunity to express an opinion. Since . opinions were varied, the lotion was withdrawn. LOCAL LA -S RE OFFICERS OF CITY AND ELECTION OF ALDr PI`T,iT The following proposed Local Laws as prepared by the City Attorney relative to the Officers of the City andthe election of .Aldermen were presented COMMON COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS City of Ithacan N,Y„ Regular Meeting 5 P.M, May 2, 1951 PRESENT May o r - Shaw Alderman - Wilkinson: Gallagher, Holman, Button., Dickens Hulse, Gibson, Carlyon, Hall, Little© Parsons Attorney - Dahmen Chamberlain - Lull Clerk Springer _ MINUTES After inserting the name of Alderman Hall as first to second the resolution adopted April Li,, 1951, relative to vacations . and hours -of duty in the Police Department,. the minutes of the pre- ceding meeting were duly approved. • UNION REQUEST . WAGES AND VACATIONS Mr© Doi', O'Connor, Business Representative of the MachinistG Union, together with a number of City employees were presents Mr, OtConnor stated that it is felt that wage increases and fringe benefit are- totally inadequate as ' they are not realistic or in keeping with cost of living increases and that he feels that employees are entitled to at least an additional 0100.00 bonus and three weeks vacation for all employees, and that an increase in the tax rate is justified for this purpose© Alderman Wilkinson stated that granting three weeks vaca- tion to the Police and Fire Departments simply brought those depart- ments in line with other departments who have various holidays throughout the year, REQUEST FOR FRANCHISE m TEL 'V SIOht �E�' Mr. Robert T. Dean, representing a group of citizens who wish to install a Community Television System in Ithaca, was present, and explained that the group desires a franchise and such building permits as may be re- quired for use of streets. A petition signed by 5 individuals was presented, which des- cribed the installation. By Alderman Wilkinson, Seconded by Alderman Gallagher RESOLVED, that the petition be accepted and referred to the Board of Public Works for consideration and recommendation. Carried. ALDER COMPERE ICE A letter from City Sealer E. Paul Nedrow was presented, requesting permission to attend a regional meeting of the Central New York Sealers Association to be held in Syracuse on May -3, 1951. By Alderman Hulse, Seconded by Alderman Holman RESOLVED, that i:ro Nedrow be authorized to attend the confer- ence+ Carried, BOARD OF PUBLIC WORYS FINANCE CDMYITTEE RECOMTMDATIONS The following letter with recommendations from the Finance Committee of the Board of Public Works was presented, T6the Common -Council - Ithaca, New York Gentlemen: -April -30 , X951--- _ The Board of Public Works desires to make the following recommendations to the Common Council, • le The payment of the cost of living bonus to employees on an hourly wages rate, who work in excess of 48 hours per week may exceed the X500 annual bonus, On Dec. 27, 1950, the Council approved a bonus payment of 20¢ per -hour, The Board of Public Works recommends the payment of this bonus on all hours worked, and the• Council is requested to approve this policy. 2, The Board also wishes to recommend the following disposition of surplus funds, Special Meeting COMMON COUNCIL. PROCEEDINGS City of Ithaca, N. Y. 7:30 p.m. July 30, 1975 PRESENT: Mayor - Conley Aldermen (12) Barber,. Boothroyd, Boronkay, Dennis, Gutenberger, Hamlin, Jones, Meyer, Nichols, Saccucci, Slattery, Spano OTHERS PRESENT Controller - Daley Coordinator -Youth Director - Cutia Attorney for the -City — Shapiro PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Planning Director - Van Cort Deputy Bldg. Comm. - Jones City Clerk - Rundle Mayor Conley lead all. present in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag. CANDIDATES Mayor Conley introduced the candidates that are running for office this coming election. Running for Aldermen: First Ward: Alderman Donald Barber Alderman Donald Slattery Second Ward: David. Fuller Third Ward: Clark Hamlin James Dennis .Fourth Ward: Alderman Nancy Meyer Fifth Ward: Alderman Spano Joan Bodine and Alderman Anne Jones and Mayor Edward Conley as candidates for Mayor. Mayor's Appointments Mayor Conley. appointed Peter J. Rodgers of 806 N. Tioga Street as Police Commissioner. His term will expire December 31,1977. Mayor Conley commented the next appointment required Council approval. Mayor Conley said there was a.resignation in the Ithaca .Urban. Renewal Agency and remarked that as the Urban Renewal members are replaced, they would b e -r e -p -1 aced-- -w i i= h -=p -e -o p 1 -e --w h e -are - n -o w--s.e r --v i n g- o n the C•amm-u n+ y Development Commission. Mayor Conley then requested Council approval on the Mayor's appointment of Stuart Stein to the Ithaca Urban Re- newal Agency, of 1018 East State Street for an indefinite term replac- ing Richard Hirlemann who resigned because he moved from the City. By Alderman Boothroyd: seconded by Alderman Nichols RESOLVED, That the Mayor's appointment of Stuart Stein to the Ithaca Urban Renewal Agency be approved. • Carried Television Cable Commission Mayor Conley appointed the following to the Television Cable Commission: Danna Ulloth - Professor of Television Communication at Ithaca College as Chairman, Ann Martin of 608 East Seneca Street, 2 July -30, 1975, Peter J. Potorti of 205 Washington Street, Morris Angell of 203 Ithaca Road, Ray Bordoni, Jr. of 415 Utica Street. County Bicentennial Commission Mayor Conley commented that there was also a resignation in the Bicentennial Commission where the City was asked to appoint to the County Bicentennial Commission. Elizabeth Malhullen was the repre- sentative and D. Boardman Lee who is the City's historian, will re- place her as the City's representative on that commission. By Alderman Nichols: seconded by Alderman Slattery RESOLVED, That the Mayor's appointment of D. Boardman Lee to the County Bicentennial Commission be approved. Carried Special Order of Business Public Hearing to consider the Mayor's salary for the next term effective, January 1, 1976. By 'Alderman Slattery: seconded by Alderman Saccucci RESOLVED, That the public hearing be opened. Carried Alderman •Boronkay asked if a public hearing had to be advertised in the paper. Attorney for the City, Martin Shapiro, commented that on the basic question there was no requirement of a public hearing whatsoever. It was felt in the Charter and Ordinance Committee last Wednesday that perhaps i;t would be. beneficial to have an open hearing and advertise it as such, that any member of the community that wished to address himself to this point would have the opportunity to do so.. It was felt by the committee members that the time was somewhat important so as a result they set both public hearings for that night. Mr. Shapiro said he believed there was an ad placed in the paper. Mr. Elmer Blomgren appeared at the public hearing and asked if the Mayor's job was part time or full time. Mr. Blomgren said he felt with his experience in personnel work, working out of a job de- scription, it was generally necessary to list the requirements for a good job description, and then you determine how many hours a week it is going to take to do the job. So far he has not been able to. find out i.f the Mayor's job is a full time job or a part time job: In his observation around City Hall and around the City, he thinks there -is plenty -of -work-- -for the Mayor to have a tui l time �o"b. Mr: Blomgren commented that the question. in his mind is to decide whether itis a full-time or part-time job, and then he believed the Common Council.would then determine the salary of such a position. Mr. Alv.in Knepper appeared at the public hearing and commented that in relation to the salary for Mayor,. he felt that one of the diffi- culties lied here, although the present Mayor may be doing an adequate job, there was no guarantee that later Mayors who will appear will be able to do a job which will be commensurate with the salary for a part-time position which is $18,000, and this is something to take into consideration. In relation to this item, he said due to the fact that we do have an economical situation which is rather embar- rassing for our aggrieved nation. Bearing in mind what •Congressman MattMcHugh said he said when he voted against the salary raises today, this also should be taken into account. • Mr..,Knepper. stated the kind of work the present Mayor has been doing has been really good, and that he has been•doing the job which most Mayor's find very difficult to do, but he said there was no guar- antee that there will be other'who will do the same ki n'd of job. L• -10- March -5, 1975 we are ready for it, and address you all on the subject_of--love rather than lust. We are human b eing5in this room. If we are not young now, we all were at one point, each of us has fallen in love With a man or woman or both. All I'd like to do is ask you all when you are thinking about this is recall your adolescence and remember what a positive force it was in your life when you were in love. How you felt you could do anything, how you felt you were going to reform society I am a product of love, my mother and father love each other very much, I think their love is sacred and. - I don't wish to in any way defile that sense of love, so to be true to myself I am seeking it with women, and it is as sacred tome as•the love they expressed twenty-four. years ago, and each of you know that. So please keep in mind other things other than lust it's that wonderfulprecious human gift of human -love:we are all seeking. for and I'm no different than the rest ofyouu. MICHAEL '(no last name given or address) Michael gave the following' comments: I'd like to make the point that this is not just a student' movement, there are many of 'us here in Ithaca, I for one have grown up in Ithaca and work in Ithaca, and there are many ofus here in this room who are not students, and haven't been. students for a long time, or don't intend to be that are contributing money to your community, are working in it as functioning. citizens, not just students. I also wouldlike to bring up the point that, I'm not sure if I have a God, but if I .do I'm sure he will smile on me, because my God.is gay and he supports me. By Alderman Jones: seconded by Alderman Boronkay . RESOLVED, That this matter be referred to the Charter and Ordinance Committee for consideration. AYES: 10 NAYS: 2 - Barber, Slattery Carried Mayor Conley called a recess. from 8:50 .to 9:00.p.m. STAN TSAPIS: Stan Tsapis made the following comments: - I am here to speak as'attorney for Anthony Ceracche and the application that is before you for the purpose of increasing the cable rates. There has been a lot of discussion on this subject matter already and I'm not going to rehash everything you people have heard. There has been extensive work done by the Charter and Ordinance Committee and I know that they have had a substantial input at a number of meetings they have had both pro and con, you know as I know that they made a recommendation to the Council with regard to their studies on the issue. The contract under which ij the Ceracche Television Corporation operates the.cable franchise in the city has a couple of clauses in it, which I believe are very relevant, and because we feel that the corporation is at a crossroads with regard to its ability to perform in this community I will take two minutes and read to you those clauses I think are relevant Paragraph 10, on page 3 of the franchise provides that during the term of this P . franchise, the grantee shall furnish all persons desiring the service offer, and paying for the same, a wire service capable of producing as good a quality television picture signal reception as may bep?ru:Iicble from timeto.time, and shall make all reasonable &:practicable bettermentsor improvements of said service as improvements in science, that carry on of television signals shall warrant as well as the elimination of radio i.rttcrference. I respectfully submit to you, that our corporation has done It has been the leader --in the cable franchise_ field.,__and not oni ..in this area, not only in the-Tstate, but I believe in this country. 1 respectfully submit that Mr. Ceracche has continually strived to improve his system so that the system in this community is the best that can be offered. Cable Channel 2 is a primrary • example of the kind of service that this corporation gives, since it is not required by law, it is not a profit making 'organization at this point, it is a service to the community which we feel is a valuable service, which we feel actually completes the • service for the community. On your part, as members of the Common Council, you also have a role to play in this franchise agreement anal would like to express that to you at this time, on page 5 subparagraph 9,- reads as follows: Any increase in the maximum charges must first be approved by the Common Council. Such approval shall not be,unreasonably withheld,.I know that you Ieople have been struggling with your budget, I know that -you have had the ravages. of inflation put upon your budget, I know what . the tax structure of the community is and I think you all are aware of the costs 4' of doing business in this community or anywhere in the United States today, and those have increased very substantially, 1, The last increase voted by this Council to -the franchiGP holder, was, more -than three years ago. Utility rates, telephone rates, any rates that you can possibly think of has increased substantially since that time. We do not want to belabor that point because the Charter and Ordinance Committee has reviewed our financial structures. However, our company is at a crossroads in this community, for the first time in the history of Mr. Ceracche's operation, he does not feel free to do all of the things he has done the past because of his cost structure. The increase that is being requested and the increase which has been recommended by the Charter and Ordinance Committee is conditional it is not final, it is conditional. We must again under the new system of accounting the State has required, produce before this Charter and Ordinance Committee our accounting system, that is being imposed by the State. -'It is to be presented before this new committee which is being formed to oversee this legislation and oversee this franchise.which is being asked to be formed. We respectively submit at that time when we submit this additional information under this new form of accounting, the conditional rate which we are asking for tonight, will be permanently approved. Because we feel our request is justified, we feel '-t it is fair, we do not feel you can withhold it unless you are being unreasonable. 1 We think that we have done everything that the franchise has called upon us to do. We would ask you to carry out your part of the agreement. Mr. Ceracche is here, ready willing and ableto answer any questions you may have, Mr. Carpenter is here Ito answer any questions you might have also. JACK PYLE, CHANNEL 2: Jack Pyle made the following statement: /I am speaking on behalf of Channel 2 in I:thace, which employs seven full-time and two ,f . part-time people. We have been in operation five years now, and we feel we have r provided a service to the community which is unlike any that a community of this. I size normally receives from.a television standpoint. A service which we try very hard to improve as best we can, and a service which I would hope that the Ithaca f community and the Council members are appreciating ... .We cover many different types ! of programming, news programming, public affairs programming, sports programming, I quite extensively, we even cover Common Council meetings. I would ask you that' tonight when you.vote yes or no for this rate increase that you will be more or less 1 voting whether you appreciate the service from the Channel 2 standpoint, whether you appreciate the service that has been provided to you over the last four or five t -years. A positive vote tonight will allow us to continue to provide you with this lservice. 1 By Alderman Nichols: seconded by Alderman Boothroyd RESOLVED, That Local Law No. 7 be lifted from the table. Carried By Alderman Nichols seconded by Alderman Gutenberger LOCAL LAW NO. 7 OF THE YEAR 1975 CITY OF ITHACA A Local Law Amending the Franchise Granted to the Ceracche Television Corporation. -Be It Enacted by the Common -Council- of --the City of Ithaca, --New York, as follows: Section I. AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THE CERACCHE TELEVISION FRANCHISE. That the Ceracche Television Corporation. is permitted to increase the basic charge to residential users in the. City of Ithaca from $450 to $5.50 per month for the period of one year from the date of final approval by the New York State Commission on Cable Television; and That.said increase is granted pursuant to the employment of a uniform system of accounting for the Ceracche Television_ Corporation, and That the continuance of said increase. will depend upon adequate indication that the income is needed for the satisfac- , tory operationof cable television servicesin the City of Ithaca, said indication to be furnished to the Charter and Ordinance Committee of the Common Council no I -12- later than July 31st -of the .cal ndjr-yea' -far -rhi ch the .IS TO BE. granted. _ nnntimance of tho inc.reRso That no change will be made in the pre- sent chargeof fifty cents monthly for additional hookups to the same subscriber at.the same address that are in operation as of March 1, 1975, such'%additional hookups to be billed at the price of one dollar monthly per additional hookup installed after March 1, 1975. swinnoN II. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Local Law shall take effect immediately after filing in the Office of the Secretary of State. Alderman Meyer felt that a more definite response to the time alloted for public access cable concept... Mr. Ceracche stated that when local origination was required by the FCC he came out with it well in advance of the deadline and it was his intent to do the same with public access. Alderman Meyer stated that the studio is still in a position to say yes, or no to programs. Mr. Ceracche asked Mr. Pyle if they could open the.public access to the facilities now for'one hour a week; first come, first serve basis and not wait until January.. Mr. Pyle answered in the affirmative. Mr. Ceracche said that starting April 1, 1975 we will make one hour a week avail- albe on a first come, first serve basis. Aldeeman Saccucci asked if Ceracche would have a 24 hour answering service. Mr. Ceracche said he subscribes to a doctor's answering service which is on a 24-hour basis. Mr. Ceracche answered that they send people out if there is a large cable problem, but if it is just one persons set or problem, they don't go on weekends, holidays or at night. Alderman Slattery asked if the 50 cent additional. charge in a house is going to a dollar after March lst, 1975. Mr. Ceracche stated that only new additional installations. Alderman Slattery further asked if a customer hooked up the addition.. themselves if they would be responsible to pay the additional 50 cents. Mr. Ceracche stated that the franchise should be the one to put the additional splinter on the line because the signal strength is reduced and they usually have to increase the signal level on the line out in the street. The charge for the additional outlet is $10.00, which covers all materials`and sending a man out. J Alderman Hamlin stated that he is satisfied with the cable system but hehas some �{ questions. He had some questions on some of the reports that he has, and that in t Auguat they would be better able to access the raises warranted. The information that -they.,have now does not indicate what -profit margin--Ceracche should_ be receiving..: He would rather "not give the raise now and say adjust it later. It would be .better to give the raise when they are certain in August exactly how much Ceracche is entitled. to and increase the raise to adjust for the past delay. Alderman Harlin suggested that this be laid on the table until August when we know. Mr. Tsapis.commented that the Charter and Ordinance Committee decided to give the increase if they.felt that it was fair but if after we have this simplified State mandated accounting system and we feel that we did not do the proper thing then they would. adjust it at that time. Ceracche's profit and. cost structure is such that they need, the increase .now. Alderman Saccucci commented that a cable system of this size is bound to have problems and these problems should be solved periodically, and not wait until it is time to renegotiate a new franchise you will always have diss at is f act i. o n . Alderman Jones felt that the increase is a sizable increase at the present time and offered the following amendment:- . O -13- March 5, 1975 By Alderman Jones: seconded by Alderman Boronkay RESOLVED, That the main motion be amended to read that the increase be from $4.50 to $5.00 instead of $5.50• Attorney Shapiro stated that a local law has to be in final form on the Aldermen's desks seven days before passing and if you amend it you will have tcc lay it on the table again for a period of seven days in final form with passage at a later date. Alderman Boothroyd first questioned the legality of such an amendment, and secondly he wanted to give Ceracche Television Corporation definite answer at this meeting. Attorney Shapiro commented that a local law '•cannot be amended; it has to be defeated and then a new one made up. Mayor Conley commented that he was not entertaining the amendment, we have a local law that cannot be amended. Mayor Conley said he was doing this on the advice of legal consul. A roll call vote was taken on the main motion, which resulted as follows: AYES: 5 - Gutenberger, Boothroyd, Dennis, Nichols, Slattery NAYS: 7 - Saccucci, Jones, Meyer, Hamlin, Barber, Boronkay, Spano The motion was defeated r. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE MAYOR ENVTRONMENTAL COMMISSION: Mayor Conley asked for any nominations from Council for two members to the Environmental Commission. By Alderman Meyer: seconded. by Alderman Barber RESOLVED, That Alderman Boothroyd be nominated to the Environmental Commission. By Alderman Spano: seconded by Alderman. Barber RESOLVED, That Alderman Meyer be nominated to the Environmental Commission. By Alderman Barber: seconded by Alderman Boronkay RESOLVED, That the nominations be closed. BICENTENNIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS: people to the Bicentennial Committee: Mayor Conley appointed the following Mr. Allen Treman Mrs. Carol Kammen Mr. Boardman Lee Dr. Gould Coleman Mrs. Florence Hoard Mr. William Schmidt Mr. and Mrs. Donald Moore Mr. Jonathan Burnstein Mr. John Ware Mr.,. Allen Rich .::= Mayor Conley commented that at the next Council meeting, Council will be asked to appoint two members from Council to serve on the Bicentennial Committee. Carried MAYOR'S BUDGET MESSAGE TO COMMON COUNCIL: parts of his recommendations with Council. his 'budget message over to the Budget and the Mayor's budget message is attached to Mayor Conley went over a few important :Mayor-Conley—remarked than he was -turning Administration Committee. (A -copy of the minute book) .COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE CITY CLERK • City Clerk -Rundle read the following letter from the Commons Advisory Board: Dear Mr. Rundle: Submitted herewith is a recommended Ithaca Commons Ordinance which the Commons Advisory Board has approved and submits to the Mayor and Council for consideration. Because the Commons is a unique part of the City we feel that special ground rules and regulations related to its general use should be enacted. Please note that this proposed Ordinance is to be supplemented by an Operational Manuel NEW BUSINESS DRAINAGE ON MEADOW STREET: Alderman Barber wanted the Council to get in touch with State DOT about the drainage -problem on Meadow Street, This has been an annual problem every time it rains or when..the snow.melts. . Mayor Conley remarked that both he and the Department of Public Works ave written to the DOT, but the problem is drainage in that area. Mayor Conley agreed. to write a letter to DOT.. -17— March 5, 1975 REZONING 100 WEST BUFFALO STREET: Alderman Boronkay stated that a constituent on 100 W. Buffalo Street, Thomas Jones, has a problems When the last zoning map was published, a mistake was made on the zoning of his property. By Alderman Boronkay: seconded by Alderman Dennis RESOLVED, That this matter be referred to the Charter & Ordinance Committee. i NEW LOCAL LAW NO. 8: Alderman Boronkay proposed new Local Law No. 5. Carried By Alderman Boronkay: seconded. by Alderman Barber SECTION 1. Amendment to the franchise granted to the Ceracche Television Franchise. That the Ceracchi Television Corporation is permitted to increase the basic charge to residential users in the City of Ithaca from $4.50 to $5.00 per month for the period of one year from the date of final approval by the New York State Commission on cable television, and that said increase be granted pursuant to employment of a uniform system of accounting in Ceracche Television Corporation. Alderman Boronkay stated that he would like to have the rest datedthe asked the City Attorney if he should read it. Attorney Shapiro stated be as it is the same local law that was voted the exception of_ a change of a dollar to fifty cents.. same, he then on before with Alderman Boronkay stated, right and also the due date from March 1, 1975, to April 1, 1975, and he would like that to set on the table. Mayor Conley stated that as a prerogative of the chair he was getting the first shot at the discussion of this one. Mayor Conley said tonight is one of the first times that I've seen the politics being played on, at the Council level in this fashion. Here is a resolution that is written out and typed out, was not taken to the committee chairman. The committee has a unanimous recommendation of making a recommendation to this Council. Now we get a surprise at the Council meeting after public hearings, after much discussion much expense to the applicants of going through this whole rigorous ridiculous process that this Council set up and ask for information, and got and worked with it and had every opportunity to deal with. Then to sit there and to come up with a typed up resolution. Alderman Boronkay interrupted to say that this resolution is the same as Alderman Nichols had; it is. the same one that was given to us; it is not a new resolution. Alderman Nichols stated that as an additional addition I feel that this was..a total vote of no confidenceinthis committee and I feel that every member of Charter and Ordinance Committee should resign and I willlead the resignations, and I hereby offer my resignation. Mayor Conley said he really feels that if everybody is talking about preserving the committee system and we are going to deal in this matter he would rather deal as a committee as a whole have the whole Council meet: on every issue and hammer them out Mayor Conley said he doesn't on the .Council floor if they are going to be doing this. think that we can tolerate that type of thing. Alderman Boronkay stated that he wanted to make an amendment at the time and it wasn't allowed. L• -18- March 5, 1975 Mayor Conley commented you've got a motion on the floor and you've got a second now it's open for.discussion, now go ahead Councilmen, go at it. I am also offering an opportunity for Ceracche and his representatives to get•into this discussion and we owe them that prerogative. Attorney Stan Tsapis commented that, first off; feel like I owe the Council an _ apology for the. crack -1 made,. • Alderman Hamlin stated, I do too, you changed my vote very quickly.:. Attorney Tsapis commented, I didn't sir, you'd already made:your vote sir. In good spirit I came and I apologized,. you can accept it sir - or reject it, that's. your prerogative. •• • Alderman Hamlin stated, you get up and say that if you don't vote with me you're being. politically expedient, you ,changed my vote. Attorney Tsapis stated that that's 'fine sir, that's your prerogative and if that's what did it, then that's what did it. That's all I can say, I apolagize for tkit=erack I made as I walked out.and you can accept it or reject it I can't handle that. With regard to this situation he spoke with the Attorney for .the City for just a moment 1 and he''s indicated to me that if in any event if one of the persons who voted against this resolution originally or this- local law originally would ask that it be restored to the floor, it could be restored to `the' floor and' revoted on. A lot of hours went 1 into this Mr. Hamlin and members of the Council from all points of view. We respect- fully submit that the consideration givefi here, maybe we `should of come here making the kinds ' of threats that you've dicttedto us by your course of action. For instance, 1 Mr. Ceracche has announced that he cannot -continue Channel 2 any longer and we didn't'' come here threatening to cut off Channel -2 because we hoped that it did not have to i be. The access channel will not be instituted until the very last minute and'if we'' have to buy new equipment for it: we May have to, there is' no choice Nancy, What are you asking him to do? There are a dozen jobs that are going to be lost. We would'only ask that one of you persons who voted against it would really think about it and if it is really in your hearts and in your minds it's a possibility that you can reconsider'this. The fifty cents can be reduced, you can at the August meeting when the new form is filed if it seems that fifty cents. is all this corporation is entitled. to then you can say for five months that you receive no benefits that you receive no additional amounts so'that you can make up the fifty cents for the five months that they have been paying it and there 1 after increase it to fifty cents. That's a possibility.. Mr. Ceracche.-stated that even if the'increase were granted this evening there is going to be a lengthy period before the New York State Cable Commission gives us the approval before we do what's necessary to incorporate the rate increase, the computer billing that has to be done, the new:coupon books.and so forth; there is a very substantial period of time that's going to expire. This' was a conditional approval that we were getting.. It wasn't a permanent approval, it was going to be reviewed with the idea that if it wasn't Warranted you could take it all'awayi you can reduce our $4:50 rate as far as I'm concerned, if you feel it its unwarranted at a later date. Alderman Gutenberger commented, I wasn't going to say anything but since it's oh 'the 1 floor again.. The two years that I've served on this Council, I think we've argued and I've been mad -and'I've disagreed but I've never been ashamed of this Council, tonight I am ashamed to be a member of this Council. I am dead serious that for \, anybody,"in good faith or whatever to have suggest that -_fifty cents reduction in- a unanimous committee -recommendation is nothing but a cop-out. -It is to -make ourselves !look good. . Alderman Boothroyd commented that he would like to say in regard to Mr. Hamlin's objection to voting for this particular referendum that Mr. Hamlin has the best interest of the tax payers at heart and if Mr. Hamlin is really interested in the tax payers then he would have seen that he understood those financial statementsand he would have gone to those committee meetings. - Alderman Hamlin remarked that he would like to say that he spoke earlier this evening on'this thing and expressed the thought that, to me, it was not based on a proper analysis to determine what profit margin should be given to Ceracche Television. I also expressed at that time that I thought that Ceracche Television was entitled to an increase. •. - a March 5, 1975 /But I do feel too, that the people of the City of. Ithaca also have some rights in this thing. When I am not'sure that that profit margin is correct I think I quite ' legitimately can question it and I lon`t need it rammed down my throat and I don't need / the implied remarks made here tonight, that if I didn't do something it would be I politically expedient; I don't like that at all. Now, I am perfectly willing and have • I been from the start, to award•to Ceracche .Television, a proper and sufficient profit i margin for his service. I do think, and I have thought all along, that it is a great t service and an excellent service. But I think that tonight there has been more said because of the disappointment here then should have been said and I agree Mr. Gutenberger that I am ashamed of the. Council too. - i 1 i Alderman Meyer commented that she thought that it has been a serious unfortunate situation and I also agree that they deserve a just increase. I also think that Mr. Ceracche has been agreeable tonight particularly to agree to the open access, which I felt right from the start should be one of the things which should have been handled with more consideration. I think it was slighted and it was abused. Secondly, I felt, I did go to committee meetings, I felt that certain issues were not dealt with at the committee level. When certain things were said of such they were slighted, issues were slighted. I don't want to go into the details of this. I also felt, I was very offended when I received in the mail the other day, it included the statement by Mr. Fish. I do not think that Mr. Fish's position in this had nearly the significance or the importance or the relevance that Mr. McNeil's questions had. I felt that I was trying to be persuaded by the letter from them I think that was an unfortunate mistake. In other words, I think there has been a comedy of mistakes and I think that it is clear tonight that no one is objecting to a rate increase. I don't think the rate increase is the issue at all. I think the process of the rate increase is what we are trying to talk about. Whether we give a dollar now, or whether we give fifty cents now and fifty cents later, the fifty cents rate is possibly J being, just that other obligation that we have and I think if we could speak to the issue of what we are about rather than throwing names back and forth. We would feel much better about the situation. Alderman Spano spoke: Mr. Mayor,'I.voted.against it and does that mean that I am doing a lousy job or that the people that voted didn't know what they.were doing. Mayor Conley spoke that, no, you do not serve on the committee, you've sat there, you've expressed your vote tonight. . Alderman Spano went on to say, is it wrong to vote against something. Mayor Conley said, I don't think it is, I don't think it is at all. Alderman Spano said, everybody is implying that we've done a lousy job. Mayor Conley said that I'm only implying that the committee system has failed. That the committee system coming in with a unanimous vote and three members of the committee voted against it on the floor of Council. I just don't think that that serves the committee system of Common Council. I don't think it does any justice, and to come out with a surprise that way, I think, is unfair to the Chairman and I don't blame the Chairman for being pretty dang upset about it. I don't think in the committee "system, you;are supposed to work those things out. The committeecertainly had an opportunity to ask of Mr. Wiggins or Mr. Ceracche of any information they felt they needed, they got everything they asked for, they bathed it in the public, they bathed in the press, they had open committee meetings, they did every possible conceivable think they could possibly do and the indication was that they were coming in for the rate increase. I think that does not speak well for the committee system. -That's what I'm upset about, is -the way the committee functions. Alderman Spano stated that we caucused last•night and we come out of the committee meeting voting the way we did, now what's wrong in that. Mayor Conley said that I don't say there's anything wrong with it, but I'm glad you • said it. You've come out of caucus with those votes. I would never have said that. Alderman Boothroyd stated, just a brief comment on what Alderman Meyer had to say. I am not throwing rocks at either one of•our institutions because we don't run this '-thing as a debating society down here. We are supposed to come to decisions. This thing has been going on since November, if you don't have enough information, it's your own fault. P -20- March 5, 1975 Mayor Conley said, is there any thing else that needs to be said. I am not hearing from anybody who wishes to, who voted in the majority to put it back on the floor I do want to say though, that cable Channel 2 is now not in existence and he has 'indicated that and I think, that we'll have to wait and see what ycvur constituents ;feel about it. .I'm certainly not arguing against anybody taking a position. I am /only upset about the way that position was arrived at. That is not fair for playing straight with the Council, the Mayor, or the system. Mr. Ceracche said, this evening I mentioned the fact that within a.year there will be six additional channels available to people. I also stated, I wasn't going to say it, it was something that I have reserved to state afterwards which would show some of the. future improvements that people in the community were going to get as far as C Able tv was concerned, and that is something that they don't have in these other places. We will have an 18 channel system. I can't proceed in that direction now.. It's jsut impossible. I had to tell our boys tonight that they had no job. Mayor Conley asked if there were anything else or any other reason to keep this meeting going. Alderman Boronkay stated that there was a motion on the floor. Alderman Slattery asked to hear the motion. Alderman Boronkay read the motion over again. Alderman Meyer asked to offer a friendly amendment to the resolution and that is that it be raised to a dollar. Alderman Slattery commented that Alderman Meyer is bringingback the.original local law. Alderman Slattery stated that, the thing that .bothers .me about this, after many months of consideration by the,Charter and Ordinance Committee it was a unanious decision to raise itto a dollar and now we've all changed our minds, or some. of us have. • Alderman Nichols stated, last Monday night when I said should.I withdraw it and not one person, not one, said withdraw it. Alderman Gutenberger said, do you know what's happening here. A committee recommendation. was voted down but these people are right now ready to pass on a local law with no committee recommendation, and that makes a lot of sense. Alderman Slattery said, and to bring up profit margin at this late date is ridiculous. I don't think that had any bearing or should have any bearing onthe rate increase it's what his overhead costs are, what services he's providing this community. I could .care less if he makes that profit, I admire him for making a profit, I think he should make a profit, he wouldn't be in business if he wasn't. Mayor Conley said, that's the same old thing. The Journal had two rate hikes in the last year and outside of a few mumbles and grumbles and the threats of canc elling subscriptions and the newspaper boys take it in the head. That was the responsibility of this Council, is to make those determinations.. I don't mind them saying no, if theyfeel it's unwarranted. But that's not what I am, getting here tonight. I don't even think the whole issue of open channel cable television.is something that should be part of the decision.. The decision was the question was, is he entitled to, does he have increase cost, is he entitled to a rate increase. That was the question that was the recommendation. He has previously stated and it wasn't just tonight, I heard him state earlier that he would open that open access channel. He said that months ago, if anybody would sit and pay attention to people when they talk and listen to what they say. Alderman Slattery asked if reconsideration of the original local law 'is• out o'i^der. Mayor Conley stated only from someone who voted in the majority. Alderman Slattery said,.. reconsideration of the original local law would be in order if a voting member of the majority, anybody who voted no and I would ask Alderman Meyer to do that. . -21 - 'March 5, 1975 Alderman Meyer stated., L.feel that I would like to make this comment before I am put -in this position. I do think_that open access is part of the issue. It is part of the issue because it has to do with the relationship of services rendered for money given. I find that the fact that this has been slightedand overlooked and you don't think it has because he has. to do it anyway. The fact that he has to do it anyway is irrelevant, because that's part of the states demands. Mayor Conley said, put it in a resolution if you don't trust the mans word. AldermanMeyer, said, I ask at every committee meeting that this be included as a part- of that rate increase, because I felt that this was an important consideration for a great number of people in this community. I found myself in the position of having to ask again tonight and then Mr. Ceracche finally, he had said yes in other ways before and then he asked Jack Pyle tonight and Jack said well yes maybe we could find out. Mr. Ceracche said he promised it tonight effective April 1st. I can no longer meet that promise based : on what's happened. here. Alderman Slattery said, Mr. Ceracche gave the committee every assurance that that would be'implemented just as soon as it was physically possible to do so. Mr. Ceracche said, I have always kept my word in the last 23 years haven't I. Alderman Meyer stated that it is no distrust of you,'I am not saying that. I'm saying that these are the kinds of considerations .that have to be taken seriously. Alderman Boothroyd commented it is obvious to me that we are, if we are not already, there are at a rather emotional state on this issue. I don't like in any way to see' this delayed anymore, Mr. Ceracche or Mr. Tsapis, but I.think it would be best if we could leave the vote open .for somebody to change their mind if they want to. If that is legally possible, Mr. City Attorney, that we sleep.on this for a few days.. That would be my suggestion. Now look, my:reasoning is this, I don't want the people on Council to feel that they have been pushed into a position that they don't think is reasonable. I don't want the publia'to.think that we've been pushed intone. position that is unreasonable. .I just think that the emotions are running too high.. Thatwe are getting into areas .that we really shouldn't be getting into when we are talking to. each.other, if we -haven't already., It. is just my experience that these kind of things are better 'decided in a.more rational light, like when you start .drinking the coffee the next day perhaps. Alderman Meyer asked, if 3 bring it up as a motion to bring it back on the table and it's -tabled, I guess I have to talk.about this as a process; til'let's say tomorrow.: The original motion would be tabled. .Mayor Conley asked her if there was information that Mr. Ceracche has that you don't now have. Alderman Meyer asked, am I to assume that I am the only one to reconsider this. Mr. Ceracche asked if the seven that voted no had any questions to ask, because I'ni here to answer them. Do you feel that it's not warranted, there's no- need for it. It was conditional, it wasn't a definite prominent finality. Alderman Barber commented that the statement they sent to us which we all got when he looked over the expenses. I changed my mind for the simple reason that $300,000 plus miscellaneous expenses more then all the rest expenses with no explanation. Mr. Ceracche stated, I'm sorry you didn't ask for it. Our accountant was here this evening to answer those kind of questions. Alderman Barber asked, why did you put it in miscellaneous, what are you trying to hide. Mr. Ceracche said, our books are going to be open at all times from here on out including in the near future. . a -. -22- March 5, 1975 Mayor Conley .commented that he has hired an attorney. -an& -accountant to be at all the meetings, they were here at all the public hearings, they were here avail ahi.c tonight, and announced tonight that his accountant was sitting right behind you. You could have asked any questions you wanted to ask. Mr. Ceracche said, lower the rate at a later date if you find it unfit. Lower it below the $4.50 if the $4.50 is deemed too high but don't put us - in a iposition where we can't provide this community with the kind of service they have, been receiving. I have to go back now and do the opposite, undo what I have been trying to do in all these years. That is the directive I've been given here this evening. Jack Pyle commented, I appreciate Mr. Boothroyd's position, logically speaking. Emotions are very high here right now. But I am going to speak from a very selfish point because I'm unemployed right now and so are eight other people at Channel 2. If you reconsider this at a later date, tomorrow, next week, next month what are we supposed to do. Those os us who have families, etc. what are we supposed to do in the interim period. Those of us who want to provide a service for you. I'd ask from a very selfish standpoint_ that one of you who voted no reconsider that. Alderman Meyer said, I just want it clear that some things ought to be taken more seriously then they have been and don't feel that they have been taken serious. I ask again, I respect what Alderman Boothroyd said, emotions are very high and that's`why I ask if it's possible to have process where the defeated. . motion brought up for reconsider- ation but we don't vote on it tonight we vote on it:tomorrow . Jack Pyle commented, okay, I've got a show to tape tomorrow morning what do I tell the. people involved in that come down and tape it, come down and don't"tape it. Mr. Hamlin asked Mr. Ceracche, Mr. Tsapis said that .50 cents was completely unacceptable. The question here is not whether a raise is warranted but the question is what raise is deserved. What is acceptable less than a dollar. Mr. Ceracche commented, first of all, most cable system will have one rate for the whole area that they provide service in. In the case of Ithaca, I felt it was not just .: forte city residents to have to pay the same as the people pay outside the city. Because we do have more subscribers, more density in the city. So we have had a differential of fifty cents a month. To change that differential to maybe a dollar differential between the city and outside the City, .I think it is just unfair to the other users in Tompkins County. Why should they have to pay a dollar more than the City. Fifty cents I consider reasonable. There again, in these out lying areas they have agreed to pay this $6.00 rate and there again what rate are we asking for. here in the City. Weare asking for a rate that's been in existence in Cortland, New York, for five years. Now they are in the process of asking for an increase over and above that. It is certainly reasonable. Maybe they can show more expenses the way they manage and operate their system. But they don't provide the local origination channel that we have here in Ithaca, yet they charge -more money for their service. Should I attempt to run this business in the most efficient manner that I know how and provide the maximum amount of service and do what I stated this evening that I was doing like, you can push six buttons on yoirhome box office converter within a year and get sixadditional channels. Put this access channel into existence April 1, 1975, aren't I doing what you would want a cable system to do. How many of these systems are locally owned and operated. The Cortland system is owned by.a company in Texas, a very large firm. The Corning system is owned by New Channels which is New House up in Syracuse, they also recently bought the Binghamton cable system that was originally owned by the television station there. The Elmira system is opened by another big firm, Teleprompter. This is one of the few remaining locally owned and operated services left of any size in the country. It is being run by somebody- that cares what people get. I don't have to put additional channels on, I'm not going to be able to. charge more for those channels. I'm doing it because I'm trying to provide the maximum service so that when I talk to other associates in this business, I can tell them what we've got here. They've all told me that this service here is tremendous and so have many other people that have come to other cable areas that have come to Ithaca, and when they get onthe cable they rave about what they get. Getting back to your question, I think the fact that our dollar increase is contingent on our cost. You can come back to me and tell me I'm making too much money and reduce it. But you had a public hearing, the committee approved it in full, it is contingent on what kind of earnings we show. Council recessed for five minutes at 11:30 p.m. Council reconvened at 11:40 p.m. -23- March- 5, 1975 Mayor Conley requested to first have tho attorney for the City give a ruling, we also have a resolution on the floor. Attorney Shapiro commented in answer to the question of whether or not the local law can be reconsidered, two local laws with respect to Ceracche rate increase, yes, it can be reconsidered by Council tonight. It will take a majority vote to reconsider it, which is necessary anyway because if it wasn't a majority vote tcl reconsider it obviously there wouldn't be a majority vote to pass it. It can be reconsidered tonight. Mayor Conley said, we have a resolution on the floor that we have to do one of two things we have to dispense with it or retract it or vote on it. Alderman Boronkay withdrew his motion for Local Law No. 8. Alderman Barber withdreww his second to the motion. Alderman Jones asked, if it possible at the present time to review the states accounting system procedures as it relates to Mr. Ceracche television procedure. Is it possible that in August of 1975 this information will be available to the Councilmen. Is it possible that when the new accounting system goes in has figures that Mr. Ceracche can produce for us. Attorney Shapiro stated that that is his understanding. If your question. relates to the possible ambiguity that Alderman Boronkay just raised. It is the intent of that Local Law, when we talk about the July 31st date we are talking about 1975, roughly four or five months from now. Depending upon how you read those two paragraphs there might be an ambiguity. Attorney Tsapis stated, as soon as that is completed and I believe that the deadline is July 31, 1975, they will be submitted to your Council when we so represent. Alderman Boronkay asked, in the meantime would Mr: Ceracche get these new booklets all made up or what would he do in that time. Mr. Tsapis said, as he tells me -now, it's going to take, if you approve it tonight it would very likely take a couple months because he has to get state aprroval also. That he estimates will take a couple of months. We are tang about a couple of months from now, we don't know but it will probably be two or three months. That means that we would be out or near that time and I assume he would make no changes until after all that has been done. He probably will have all the booklets printed saying a dollar but that's his expense if it has to be changed, that's his problem and not yours. By that I mean that at the time you reconsider this you felt that a fifty cent rate would be justified and not a dollar rate then it is his problem to change the books and not yours. Alderman Hamlin remarked that this local law says that it will be a contract for a year from the date of approval, how can be reconsider it on July 31st. Attorney Tsapis remarked as he understandsit, it is conditional on his being able to ±• -justify it under this new accounting system. Alderman:Hamlin said that you are saying that it can be reconsidered on July 31st. 1 Mr. Ceracche stated that we agreed to that at that time. Alderman Meyer said she will bring- it up for- reconsideration but -before that 1 would like to present another resolution as a contract formality. ONE HOUR PUBLIC ACCESS ON CHANNEL 2: By Alderman Meyer: seconded.by Alderman Boothroyd RESOLVED, That this Common Council request the Ceracche Television Cable Service to provide on Channel 2 one hour of public access every week. RESOLUTION TO RECONSIDERING LOCAL LAW NO. 7: By Alderman Meyer: seconded by Alderman Gutenberger RESOLVED, That the Local Law No. 7 be reconsidered. AYES: (9) Carried NAYS: (3)..- Srano, Barber, Saccucci. Carried t • -24- Merck 5, 1975 Attorney Shapiro._statedthat the .date in the local .law, July 31, is for the year 1975. LOCAL LAW NO_. 7: A roll call vote was taken__on the Local Law No. 7 as reconsidered as follows: AYES: (7) - Slattery, Boronkay, Meyer, Dennis, Nichols," Boothrnyd, Gutenberger NAYS: (5). - Saccucci, Hamlin, Barber, Spano, Jones The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m. eaae,� CC. ec •'Jose:h A. Rundle, City Clerk Carried .COMMON COUNCIL PRQ;SEEDINGS CITY OF ITHACA, NEW YORK Special Meeting PRESENT: Mayor - Conley. Aldermen (9) - Boothroyd, Boronkay, Saccucci, Spano 5:00 p.m. February 24, 1975 Dennis, Gutenberger, Jones, Meyer, Nichols, ABSENT: Aldermen : (3) - Barber, Hamlin, . Slattery OTHERS PRESENT: Attorney - Shapiro Controller - Daley • Deputy Building Comm. - Jones City Clerk Rundle PUBLIC HEARING -_PARTIAL TAX, EXEMPTION FOR THE ELDERLY: 1By Alderman Nichols: seconded. by Alderman Saccucci RESOLVED, That the public hearing on partial tax exemption for the elderly be. openedJ Carried Alderman Nichols reported that the school district Has raised the income limit given it for partial tax exemption for the elderly to -$6500. This morning the County:Board of Representatives raised the income limit for partial tax exemption for the elderly.. to $6500. Common Council is asking for resolution amending the present lay to raise the partial tax exemption for city taxation for elderly persons over 65 to $6500. PERSONS APPEARING AT THE PUBLIC HEARING MRS. HELEN VANDERVORT ='45 SHERATON DRIVE: Mrs. Vandervort who has paid taxes in the City'of 'Ithaca t"for "27 years is ' currently legislative' chairman of the Tompkins County Senior Citizens Council:-` Mrs. Vandervort made the following comments: Since November we have been working on this, as soon as we found that the state legislature had made this amendment raising the limit"to $6500.. We have been working hard in the townsand"the, villages' the city and the county- and the different school districts to urge the honorable bodies.: to make this change and we are very 'delighted that it has gone this far. I believe that almost every town has worked on it except Enfield and Lansing expects next month. This will be very helpful to the elderly who have had a raise in their Social Security making some of them ineligible for the previous limit. It doesn't make any sense to give people more money in Social Security and make it possible to help them with inflation and then to take it away if this tax exemption isn't arranged. I hope that the Common Council will pass this; I am. sure it will be greatly ' appreciated. I :under -stand that in the state ;legislature there is a bill that if passed will reimburse the different municipalities who do pass it, By AldermanGutenberger: seconded by Alderman Boothroyd RESOLVED, That the -public -hearing be closed. Carried , By Alderman Nichols: seconded by Alderman Spano PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO. 75-2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 81 ENTITLED "PARTIAL TAX EXEMPTION" OF THE CITY OF ITHACA MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT ORDAINED AND ENACTED -by -the -Common-Council-of-the-City of Ithaca, New -York,_ as follows: Section I. That Chapter 81 entitled "Partial Tax Exemption" of the City of Ithaca Municipal Code Section 81:2 Paragraph A is .hereby amended to read as follows: A. No exemption shall be granted if the income of the owner or the combined income of the cwners of the property exceeds the sum of Six Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($6,500.00) for the income tax year immediately preceding the date of making application for exemption. Income tax year shall mean a twelve (12) -month period for which the owner or owners filed a federal personal income tax return, or if no such return is filed, the calendar year. Where title is vested in either the husband or the wife, their combined income may not exceed such -sum.. Such income shall include social security and retirement benefits, interest, dividends, net rental income, salary ;„. ) - . February 24, 1975 or earhingslv and net income from self-employment, but shall not include gifts or inheritances. Section II. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately and in accordance with the law upon publication of a notice as provided in'#311 (b) of the Ithaca City Charter. Alderman Saccucci commented that several senior citizend:of:the community are asking that this Council review the partial. tax exemption law. fOr the elderly on a 'yearly .. basis, in order that the exemption be brought up to date according to the state law and hesaid he wOuld;like to'atend the resolution so this recOmMendation be.included in the proposed resolution. Alderman Saccucci asked if the state sets the.goal..• Mayor Cqhley said the state, sets. the legal limit. AlderMah Saccucci said,it is-upto the municipality to'consider:the.raiie in: the exemption, and asked what is wrong to. review the exemptiOn, ,Last year. when .he:brought. this up no one, ever aeted, on it until he,had to write to.Aibany and find • Mayor Conley commented that the only way to alter it would be to alter it ddynwards and. Council woula always have the4erogatiVe of bringing. it up. . . - . . Alderman Boothroyd asked if the ,Controller can give them any idea what this meani, in revenue• loss. .1 • Controller Daley replied he cannot because they don't know how many people will fit in this category within the City. Mayor Conley felt that the situation is if he understands to what Mrs. Vandervort is telling them, that in the event they do not act upon this a lot of peoplewill not be eligible to maintain what they have now, By raising it we keep them eligible, there might be a few more people that fall into that category but still we are dealing with people whose income is $6500 or less. Alderma Dennis said in response to Alderman Boothroyd's question his personal feeling is that regardless of what it costs us, he thinks.yeare obligated to pass'this particular ordinanceo, because those people hav-e paid for "at least 45 years. He wouldn't mind it as a person paying extra. A vote was taken oh the motioh Which resulted as follows: Carried Unanimously By Alderman Saccucci: seconded by Alderman Boronkay - RESOLVED, That this, Council review the partial tax exemption law for the elderly on a yearly basis, to be discussed during the month of January, Mrs. Vandervort commented that When she brought this to the attention of the school board,.the Ithaca City Schbol District, they have a permissive resolution which lets them change it aUtonatically. Last year it was $6,000 and they didn't change it because they didn't know about it. Mrsi Vandervort didn't think the bill is signed by the governor Until JUly at making ihe dhange., Alderman Boothroyd agreed with the idea but it appears somehow out of order to review something that is already at the possible highest limit it could be. Mayor Conley commented that he would like to be able to review it on an annual basis to see if'there is anything that Council would like to do with it. A vote was taken on the motion which resulted as follows: • Carried PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO THE CERACCHE TELEVISION FRANCHISE: By Alderman Meyer:. seconded by Alderman Boothroyd RESOLVED, That the public hearing be gpened, Carried PERSONS 'APPEARING AT THE PUBLIC HARING ' LAWRENCE REVERBY - INTERLAKEN, NEW.YORK: Mr. Reverhy made the following comments: -3_. February 21,1, 1975 l• am'' employed by the Ituaan- Affairs;::program..,:at Cornell University: ,, but .he was spewing ••,on`his• •own behalf., • I don't happen to have ,a television and I am not particularly:• ,• •concerned about it .that.. way:: There- is• -;a• resolution before. the Council apparently to: set up a board to review the question `of.' rate .increases'.upon.a•presentation of new data.. When .the, accounting system of -the state ,comes. through•_as. applied, and the data:. • that is submitted- pursuant to, that -is,- sent•rto the,. state and to. this ;body, I would, ask to be..consistent With the request 'that :I have made!all.'along;:that the application - be given .the .upmost scrutiny by people -who ,understand it, and the • questions • involved. I would ask that :if you -.are going to.. set up a -*board *pi -look at this -issue in ? 1/2.• months that • is.'presumably, :made ,up -.of qualified, people ,and that, if ,the ,issue •warrants . . that, at .that.time the. question of rate .increases • be . considered.: and.that if the board is to 'have any power at all or,to_have any -Meaning at:..: -all it should. not: be. set up :with: a rate increase -passed before •hand.. There..was: a ,discussion here one - night wt}ich was • the : time. that -I mentioned, that I. -didn't have a •'television:-.- L was , troubled •when I • mentioned it because Iffr. McNeilh• of the, un versity was ,..h'ere,, he also doesn't:= .ive.' in Ithaca•. and: that .impugns his motives:. ,• iHe.:.was- here..and had. theopportunity • to look-, •• at Ceracche's books for, --about, thirty minutes. and',I.:don't want:to get -into,Ith.fli details, of whether or not _ this or - that was true • or What the - implications •are but he..Was 1 , looking •at,the;.books,••he;has...;: represeinted'.utilities.; he. teaches _on'the' faculty and he raised the question as . to whether or•r not :.the. -.percentage profits•statement; was • correct or should be•viewed.;in the•way it •was presented..because two_: of the.cooapanies that Mr:..Ceracche.-pays money .to were phis Own 5Companies and I .believe.:this .waS:•to the tuneto•.a couple hundred:thousand__,dollars.. .*::,Ceracche raised the, point. that he;• would., Just like • to . provide his • television' service: and he hopes that.; he wouldn't • have to come_ here too often and. he -would, like to 'continue .on:; • That was . raised :in i the application that he might have to discontinue the service which was a point about ten- minutes after that when I _sort of _di'gested all of -that'••and.L, sort "iof wondered why we are all thrown into the pit when somebody says they don't Want 'to continue'television service and I raise the issue that I don't have a television. , The motives ..of people who are :opposed -to $1;00 r -a month Increase.:seem-to •. have 'bpen impugned, I - don't. about too • many other people -I and •. don.'. t have a :.tehevision. As somebody •who • has been _forced.. or who is 'adopted voluntarily some kind •of legal'.; logical thinking -and .can':t get out of it -:unfortunately .it has'_bothered me; .for* a long •time that somebody comes ,to a •-body with a particular. amount, of • data' -'and` that body shoul4: look - 'at it as -critically: as'they.,-can , :appoint somebody to ,_look at, .it:. -:;.Since that time since there has been..a board appointed` now•. to examine it, it has,. bothered the rate increase :has _been -igranted in the interim -:or suggest that be -true. V would • ask that the "motion b:e•,adopted without .temporary `rate increase and,that the board=; that is set .: up be : a real ,board -and have ••the .-power • to look . at the -:accounts .at that time .and take whatever ;measure that Iti:wants ;to take at:cthat''point:'when it' has -the data, when it has •examined the- data. _If ..it `wants to pass the• rate increase,"ine,. I would suggest that is the time to:.do*-it: ' :. • . • LINDA CAMP - 120 OAK AVENUE:. "-Ms. Camp : made :the • •following comments : , I am currentlyemployed by Cornell University as, a• media specialist. I have :particular interest in cable. television. • The portion,of:this local. Law No. 7 that I would I like to address-myself•:to is the section that deals with the advisory committee that is going: to be appointed= by the Mayor:.: As itreads here that committee `will consist of only, five people and will•:only==have the power to'deal' with, the problems ofrate increases adLI.•understand<.it. I would like to`suggest"that it might be • more: appropriate to put: down here that this committee would have :the power to :`deal,, , with other ,issues includingrate increases and also the question of public acqess, in another ;year -from now public access may*beestablished in this city. I would ' like to say that it would .b be pretty important to'have an advisory committee ttiat could deal.. with that also:. I would .also•.like *to -suggest that the' 'five -man committee may be too small.. to appropriately deal.. withall*-the.issues that are likely to come up. Perhaps the -number should not be -established: now ,but =maybe this five -man board could. be . a temporary .committee:.tosearch ::out and discover the kinds of people- that ought to be represented and -the number of people that: ought tobe represented:,- .I would think that there would be a lot of_people=in this community that might be'. willing to spend. the time advising .on,the question of public access and rate: increase and that thisfive-person committee :will be too • narrow. -. 'I: would just ask you to ' consider the :possibility of. rewording that portion of the: amendment: -�+- February 24, 1975 JOHN 'SADWITH`:-:206 W. COURT STREET:Mr. Sadwith made the following comments: I just want to reiterate a point that I made twoweeks ago. What I was talking about was that the. Ceracche Television -Corp. does not fall within what we know is the laws of supply and demand. •They arenot asresponsible to the consumer as a business where one dight be able to choose between two businesses to go to for. certain. services or goods. I would like to ask that you reject the full rate increase until services 'and business practices performed by the •Ceracche Television • Corp. become . consumer oriented. What I am saying' is -that you people have theonly leverage in this. community to •put pressure"on the corporation -to recognize its responsibilities to the consumer. As 'a consumer =I .have other than•this say .and this: input righthere absolutely no other recourse to be able to. have the Ceracche. Television. Corp. recognize that when I call them•upron the telephone -and mention to-them'that they shut off my cable by'mistake which -has happened three times in'the past six years that 'they should .'• somehow try to treat me with some kind ofdignity and respect and hopefully••try to. solve my problem.- You: have soine kind of responsibility'. to the consumer right now. in exercising your votes, not in a political sense but in 'a consumer oriented sense.. I think that as I said before that the corporation must recognize that it has to • treat its ,customers .•with: respect 'and dignity::::... To vote the =full increase now would - only permit. the same te :�f' disdainful and:condescending attitude that the Ceracche-.. Television Corp. has towards thepublic :right :now, to -continue .for one more year.: Aside to this is that .a• •group of:us have :collected .over 700, signatures on a •petition and as I mentioned,twoweeks ago again, the•kind of response that:I saw when asking: people to sign the petitions. that.I carried overwhelmed' me. I thought I might be a little-_craekpot, I have had troublemaybe nobody else. had.. PAUL SMITH - REPRESENTING. WICB TV; ITHACA COLLEGE: Mr.' ,Smith made the following comments: - i I would like ••to go . on reccord as. being ~in favor 'of the interim -.rate hike.' Perhaps this has come .out • in these past few years,: maybe: you :are aware of it. The. cost .. of laying cable has . increased incredibly. I • was'' ata conference -:last year,;:• educational leaders and cable . community leaders, people • from Rochester; people from Buffalo. and • some of the. figures, that :I got. were -absolutely astronomical... If you are aware of • : . the state of inflation nowadays you 'are also: aware that the • cost. of .copper.. has gone • . up enormously. - - : It i s . a ..problem for cable operators, they. simply cannot :get . the materials they want and for those:that_they can get they have•to-pay through -the J nose. I :am in.favor. of:granting this_:interim hike... Just .for .the- sake of getting the air cleared, the. idea of having 'a committee; which would look into this matter is a good one because I lam sure that when all ;of the:information finally • is •unearthed;• ‘: e the Ceracche system is going to come out smelling. pretty good. My 'distinguished . j! colleague said that he had his cable shut off by accident 3.times in the last•6•years I would like to ask him how many times the power company has shut off his power. I think that, three times .in six-year .is a. pretty goodrate. • •There, is: another thing that is, important, to Say. I understand that it has been one of these sort of hidden expenses a:thing that is ,:not put on•the books -for some reason. •The.fact that,.Ithaca College is completelywired. for.'the-•Ceracche- system,. I don't believe •Cerac che ever • charged the- college. -one .Gent for that... The. fact that. the elementary schools around here are wired • for the.,.Ceracche 'system, I don't believe one• cent .was ever ;charged .• for that.. ;I . could ,be wrong,. but. this ,is uny understanding. • That to; me .is good public service. That to ine represents community aspect which -"I':think:•is laudable' and deserves , to be recognized..' For the,:.sake' of those things ,1 think that the Ceracche system ( definitely does deserve at least" the interim rate hike: .-2 think that when. all. the - i chips are.. down investigation is over; the-_Ceracche system., is going to.•come.out: in -a eery favorable: light: I -.-can't. : Speak -AA' the college but; I .certainly • do speak for WICB TV, Cable Channel _7:.• I: want to thank. the :Cera.cche.:system and 'I want to• thank Mr. Ceracche:.•for giving us. the access. Not one cent .has ever .changed hands. You talk:- aboutpublic 'access our .cable.cchannel_ has ,, given access td near every organizatidn. in this .city at one time or another over the last few years and we -are• open •to those . people who want• to have something to. say. One. final ',thing 'about. community. 'cable access. ,By enlarge it is ,a myth.. -Many, many cable stations have gone in •with community access•; they have. made. their studios -available at some cost to themselves•... and they have found over, the large .aggregate. that .what you ' get over• community .cable.• access is junk. It is.the .local:=barbershop•_ quartet or some guy who:figures. he. is the great soap box speaker. I am not saying that those people don't have a right to be g heard. but this is a commercial business and it ought to be run commercially. Every f'1 time that a cable operator opens his station, open his studio, that is time that he � t, has to have lights on and with the power bills that we have nowadays you should know what that will cost. He has to have people to run cameras and he has to have somebody • in the control room. It doesn't come free, it is something that costs money. .If 4 -5- February 24,, 1975 you are trying to force this down the throat of the local cable operator for the kind of outcome that you are' likely to get =S. think you are going to be sadlyt dismayed. John Sadwith presented petitions signed -with over 700 signatures which, stated as follows. We, the undersigned', oppose the Charter and lOrdinances Committee's ' recommendation to grant Ceracche Television Corporation a 22% increase in monthly subscription rates without 'requiring an, audit. We request'the Common Council :td vote dawn -this unjustified hike ';on '"the: following 'grounds :' 1. We cannot afford this inflationary rate increase of $12 per year. 2. The Ceracche TV Corporation already makes over 20%'profit; twice' what: the ordinary American businessman made last year. 1n== " 3. The Common Council should not give Ceracche $100,000 just because he asks for it: 'Ceracche should have'to-justify his' request like anyone else who holds 'a'publicly regulated monopoly: Alderman Boronkay asked if the people who signed the petitions were subscribers to Ceracche TV. Mr. Sadwith' replied 'that 'as far as when he carried his petitions that waseone of the things he requested;, that they live within .''-the, City of ,Ithaca and subscribe to Ceracche Television. • Alderman Boronkay asked if the people who signed live inside the City and were they• collected inside the City. Mr. Sadwith said his were collected at Ithaca College. It was mostly faculty administration that live within .the city. Some were petitioned. downtown and the various shopping centers. ' Alderman Dennis asked Attorney Shapiro if this 'is passed isit subject to a referendum. Attorney Shapiro : replied no it isn't, :.. Alderman Saccucci asked Attorney Shapiro if the Mayor has the perogative of vetoing it or signing it. Attorney Shapiro said yes. Technically thereisalso the requirement of' additional public hearing,for the' mayor, . should Common Counciladopt this as ra local law. - Mayor Conley said this is a local law and he would also -have) to have .a'public hearing twenty days after. ATTORNEY WALTER WIGGINS :- ATTORNEY FOR CERACCHE_TELEVISION CORP: Mr. Wiggins made the following comments: is Mr. Wiggins said he does not want his silence to indicate acceptance of some of the charges made by the first two speakers. I think 'our position is clear. I think that. the company and the charges made by the cable awareness committee has been an object _ of some political_ effort s_on__the -part__-of__some youngpeople_ whohave-cone erns ._about _. - many things. Ceracche Television Corp. happened to be in their way in the course - of their concerns. With respect to the first gentleman who spoke I would suggest th?t indeed he has indicated .he is not a resident of the: City of Ithaca, he • doesn't • have a -television set, he is an attorney or is acting as an attorney and_I-would:suggest that the, Councilconsider his rexnarks within the framework of his appearance before you. ' There is, 'a. very - substantial degree of urgency as I have indicated to the Council _ by this fiscal year end, - all .of last years -'profits for ;this :company will have been consumed in increase in. salaries. The company cannot truly operate unless it can • operate : as.: a viable' concern as I -. • ask 'you expeditious ' consideration .of the resolution. By Alderman Gutenberger i ''seconded by, Alderman Boronkay �,� • . RESOLVED, That the public hearing be closed. Carried 1i c -6- February 24, 1975 LOCAL LAW NO. 7: By Alderman Nichols: seconded -by .Alderman Gutenberger The following changes are .incorporated in Local Law Nb. They do' not alter the substance of the original draft. 7,for clarity. SECTION I. AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE GRANTED TO. THE CERACCHE TELEVISION FRANCHISE That the Ceracche Television Corporation, ispermitted to increase the basic charge to residential users in the City of Ithaca from $4.50 to.$5.50.per month for the. period of ohe year from the date of final approval by the New York State Commission on Cable Television; and That said increase is granted pursuant tothe employment of a uniform system of accounting for the Ceracche Television Corporation,. and That the continuance of said increase will•depend upon adequate indication that the income is needed for the satisfactory operation of cable television services in the City of Ithaca, said indication to be furnished: to the Charter and Ordinance Committee of the Common Council no later than July 31st of the calendar year for which the continuance of the increase.TS,TO :BE granted. That no change will be made in the present charge of fifty cents monthly for additional, hookups to the same subscriber at the same address that are in operation as of March 1,-1975, such. additional hookups to :be billed at the price of one.dollar monthly per additional hookup installed after March 1, 1975. FINAL PARAGRAPH TO BE•INCORPORA.TED IN A SEPARATE RESOLUTION SECTION II.. EFFECTIVE DATE This Local taw.shall take effeCt`immediately.after filing. in the'Office.of the. Secretary of State. Alderman Meyer asked Alderman Nichols if there was any kind of questionable discrepancies after the audits then what are you suggesting? Alderman Nichols replied that I at sure that if such should occur that the rate increase would be discontinued. Attorney Shapiro Commented that the way the local law is written now this is an interim increase so to speak and at one of the Charter and Ordinance Committee meeting we did diecuas this subject with Mr: Wiggins and. Mr. Ceracche and it is with that understanding they both assured us of. that , that itis withoutunderstanding that if the commission felt and showed that the rate increase is not justified that it will be discontinued at such time. Alderman Saccucci felt that when we deal with a city wide issue if possible the aldermen should be present at the meeting or vote by proxy. I think that .an alderman. or a councilman owes that to his constituents. Out of twelve people we only, have a few here at the meeting to decide on a city wide issue. Mayor Conley explained to Mr. Saccucci that there are 9 o the 12 which is _a quorom.. Alderman Saccucci asked Attorney Shapiro is .it possible tovote by proxy.. . Attorney Shapiro said it certainly'smacks of some in propriety is to:the fact that to .whether or not the people.were here to hear the comments made at the public hearing. That is 'exac't'ly why you have .a public hearing before Council so they can then voteon it.I willsay. that aldermen are generally under an obligation and a duty to attend Common• Council meetings and.I think basically the aldermen. have ,certainly performed their duties. We have had a number:of Council meetingsthis month and will be continuing to have a number of Council meeting; and sometimes 5 o'clock council meetings are just impossible for certain people to make. As far as proxies go, no, it would not be proper. -7- February 24, 1975 Alderman Saccucci commented I only meant to stress only when it deals with a city wide issue,. Before I begin to speak, I want to stress that this isnot my feeling, it is merely the feeling of the peopb which I represent. Aside from the several telephone calls that I have received from several local citizens, I also have a petition from some lodal residents, objecting to the cable rate increase of $5.50 per month, requested bY the Ceracche Television Corporation. These residents claim, that the present cable rateof$4,50 per month, is not even justified to be paid today, since the television corporation has, never produced the 3 channels previously. promised, namely: Buffalo; Scranton and Toronto station but merely supply the viewers with only repeats and station duplications. These residents feel, that they have been paying for services that they have never received, therefore, Mr. Mayor, they are asking the Corporation to provide the public with the above mentioned channels before they can even begin to consider any rate increase. May I also add, that the cable rate ihcrease requested by the Ceracche Television Corp. is being asked, when several senior citizens of this community, were contem- plating on asking the Corporation, for a special cable rate. Therefore, on their behalf, I am asking the corporation to consider their request. In view of this petition, I don't see how Mr: Mayor, I can support the proposed resolution (local law) amendment. Alderman Dennis felt that this should be tabled until the regular March Common Council meeting. He felt everyone should be here to vote on it. By Alderman Dennis:- seconded by Alderman Saccucci RESOLVED, That Local Law No. 7 be tabled until the next regular March.Common Council meeting. AYES: 8 - Boothroyd, Boronkay, Dennis, Jones, Meyer, Nichols, Saccucci, Spano NAYS: 1 - autenberger ABSENT: 3 - Barber, Hamlin,,Slattery Carried By Alderman Nichols: seconded by Alderman Spano Resolution of the Common Council Establishing an Advisory Committee on Cable Television The Mayor shall appoint an advisory committee on cable television. The committee shall consist of five local residents, three of whom shall be required to live in the City of Ithaca, and shall include at least one trained accountant and one electronics engineer. The Mayor shall appoint the five members so that one term shall expire each year, so that one appointment will be made each year after the initial group of five shall be selected. The duties of the committee will be to hear and review citizens' complaints and suggestions regarding cable television service; to advise the Ceracche Television Corporation regarding access to the cable television system by local individuals, groups, and public bodies; and to supervise the preparation of the annual report _ _of the televi.sion_cor-por-ation to- the__Common-Councll.__-They.-_shat-l- also -make -recommenda- tions to the. Common Council concerning changes to be incorporated in the future renegotiation of the cable television franchise. Carried Alderman Jones asked why the number of people on the committee was five as opposed to seven. J Alderman Nichols ,said-. if a committee is large it is very difficult;to have any effective general meetings. This committee would be able to call upon any number of other people for advice and suggestions, a committee of more that pwould be so unwieldy. On a motion the meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m. I P-j/ff" R.Ait'vvd ,Ioseph A. Rundle, City Clerk Edward J. Conley, Mayor I i