Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutTime Warner Cable Franchise Information TO: File FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort Director of Planning and Development RE: CABLE REFRANCHISING DATE: January 15, 1997 The following are my notes on a meeting concerning the cable refranchising held on December 18, 1996 in the Attorney's Office. In attendance were: Rick Gray, John Efroymson, Mariette Ueldenhuys and Thys Van Cort. We discussed the possible composition of a negotiating committee which would represent the City in refranchising negotiations with Time Warner. It was suggested that Rick Gray be the liaison member from Common Council Representation should also be sought from Cornell University, Tompkins County, Tompkins County Electronic Futures Committee, Cable Commission and the Ithaca Net. Names of possible negotiating committee members included Jean Curry, Bill Kaupe, Ray Schlather and David Lytel who were on the committee the last time the franchise was negotiated. Van Cort briefly spoke to Schlather after the meeting. Schlather stated that he may be interested in serving on this committee. The members who served on the last committee were David Lytel, Ray Schlather, Ralph Nash, Carl Dunnane,Thys Van Cort and Jean Curry. s s-4�memoNmi s6cable 1 c�q�kATEO CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 607/272-7348 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: Ad Hoc Cable Franchise Committee FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort,Director of Planning&Development/ U SUBJECT: Consultants Proposals for Refranchising DATE: May 30, 1997 I've been able to contact all of you by phone, with the exception of Ray Schlather. I will keep trying to reach him before the meeting. The time that most of us are available is Wednesday,June 25th at 9:00 a.m. At that time we will meet in the Second Floor Conference Room in City Hall to discuss the selection of a consultant for refranchising. We will be receiving the materials from the consultants on June 13, 1997. They will undoubtedly be voluminous; therefore, I am reluctant to make copies. Please make every effort to come to our office and take a look at them before our meeting on the 25th. We could probably arrange to have you take them home overnight if you come at the end of the day. If they are out longer than that,it would interfere with other committee members' ability to get at the materials. I look forward to meeting with you on Wednesday,June 25th. Thanks again to all of you for your offer to participate in this process. rt CblMemo A Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" SOUTH CENTRAL RESEARCH LIBRARY COUNCIL 215 North Cayuga Street Ithaca,New York 14850 January 14, 1997 607/273-9106 Partnership for an Electronic Future c/o Dean Eckstrom Tompkins County Information Technology Services 128 E. Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dear Dean: The South Central Research Library Council has been informed of the Tompkins County Electronic Future Committee's (EFC) Progress toward the formation of a cooperative regional organization called the Partnership for an Electronic Future (PEF), Phase 1. The EFC anticipates participation by a wide range of public and not-for-profit organizations. The outcome of this initiative will be a low cost, high-speed Internet connection for participating organizations. This plan may also offer opportunities for further savings in the areas of support and service by reducing the duplication of effort and services throughout the region. The EFC is ready to move forward with this plan and the South Central Research Library Council is interested in continuing its participation in the next phase of this project. We state our good faith intention to participate in the planning of this project such that the needs of our organization may be factored into the technical design as well as financial and contractual agreements. It is understood that this letter of intent does not obligate the South Central Research Library Council for any expenditures nor does it require our future participation in the project beyond participation in the planning phase. Sincerely, Jean Currie Executive Director Serving the reference and research needs of libraries in Allegany,Broome,Cayuga,Chemung, Chenango,Cortland,Delaware, Otsego,Schuyler,Seneca,Steuben, Tioga, Tompkins,and Votes counties. Sharing of Institutional Computing Resources Summary - This document describes a new opportunity for major not-for-profit institutions in Tompkins County to join together and collectively procure Internet services which are currently being separately procured and managed. By combining the resources of the institutions and developing shared communication channels the collective costs can be sharply reduced. At the same time the quality of the service would be substantially enhanced. These savings are afforded by bulk purchasing of services and by sharing existing and planned electronic infrastructure. The institutions participating in this project would potentially include, but not be limited to: Cornell University Ithaca College Cayuga Medical Center Ithaca City School District Lansing School District Tompkins County City of Ithaca TST BOCES Finger Lakes Library System Cooperative Extension South Central Research Library Council We are asking each of the interested institutions to execute a Letter of Intent to enter into negotiations regarding the technical, management and contractual mechanisms needed to achieve this objective. Pending successful negotiations, institutions would be presented with contractual agreements and technical plans detailing each institution's costs and responsibilities for approval by each of their governing boards. Background - The development of information networks has become widespread through many educational, public, and not-for-profit institutions. In most of these institutions their internal networks have become a vital part of day to day operations. Increasingly investments are being made to integrate core information systems with Internet based resources in order to extend the scope of their investments in systems as broadly as possible. As these .networks__..ared,epLgy_ed, these institutions facemany common c a lenges._ Among the__.. most._ gn�fcant , are', .establishing ,hags sp�Ed communication etween, geographically—disparate- Locations, purchasing a connectiomuto..the. Internet, and the ability.,to. absorb and- utfMe-the padly �._ evolv__ing Je chnical-environment. Each institution is facing these challenges in different ways and often with little coordination with their peer institutions. This means that similar technology is re-developed in several neighboring institutions, 1117 and the opportunity to reap cost savings through combined procurement and shared technology is being lost. In response to this problem, the Tompkins County Electronic Future Committee has been working to identify joint projects where institutions could realize cost savings through collaboration. The EFC already includes technical and administrative staff from many of the local institutions that would potentially become partners. We foresee many areas where collaboration and cost savings are possible inclu Ing; nternet-services, I�Qgq coffimnlit" 6ri inka;-equtpment peter along the way, i ensing, outsourcing, training and `voice e e( l e rocurement, software lice �! plan to share our technology and expertise and to develop methods of sharing administration, operations, and maintenance of various elements of the information infrastructure. The EFC is now recommending the establishment of the,." (q!t rship for an Electronic Future" to establish the framework within which mutual computing and communication needs can be met through collaboration in procurement and technology deployment. We anticipate that if this Partnership is successful, many `computing and communications projects of mutual interest can be fostered and that substantial cost savings can be achieved over time. Ultimately it is possible that this partnership may evolve into an organization to facilitate broader objectives consistent with the vision of the Electronic Future Committee, while accomplishing projects of direct interest to the institutions. Shared Internet Services - As a demonstration of the potential for savings the initial pilot project that has been selected is shared Internet access. As part of this effort, high speed Internet access would be jointly procured and distributed over a variety of radio and cable system communication links. This project would include administration of joint procurement and technical development of the necessary interconnections. Currently Cornell, Ithaca College, Ithaca City School District and Tompkins County are spending approximately $123,000 per year to be interconnected to the Internet. Each of these institutions separately purchase and manage their own Internet services scaled to meet only their own institutional needs. Consequently each pays a very different cost per unit of interconnection performance (measured by kilobits per second (Kbps)). The County currently has the slowest interconnect, at a rate of 384 Kbps and pays $32.56 per Kbps per year; Cornell the fastest, at 45,000 Kbps and a cost of $1.78 per Kbps per year. Many other institutions also desire interconnection to the Internet and are in the process of planning and developing Internet connections. Many of these institutions have less performance demands (typically less than 100 Kbps) than the larger institutions which already maintain Internet connections. The fee structures of most Internet service providers weigh heavily on these slower speed circuits and the equivalent cost per unit of performance can be as high as $90 per Kbps. It is this margin, between $90 per Kbps versus $1.78 per Kbps, that is the basis of this proposal and potentially results in a community savings on the order of the tens of thousands of dollars per year. Moreover as performance demands expand over time, the difference in the incremental cost per additional unit of performance decreases even more dramatically. While it is important to capture cost savings, this proposal has an equally significant added benefit. Each institution connecting to a common service would get the maximum speed that their interconnection would allow. For most institutions, this would mean either a 4,000 Kbps or 2,000 Kbps connection speed. This speed would exceed most institutions' present needs and provide significant growth capacity for the future at less cost than purchasing separate low speed services only meeting current needs. Most of the needed interconnections already exist and have been successfully demonstrated. Figure I shows the existing and planned connectivity which makes extensive use of the Ithaca City INET cable system combined with appropriate radio communication links. Although this infrastructure has been independently developed by each of the partners over the past 18 months to meet their own internal network needs, by making modest changes to this infrastructure it is possible to bring all affiliates together into a consolidated network so they may share Internet services. At the same time this also creates direct high speed communication paths among all the partners and provides an infrastructure that encourages further sharing of system resources. Greater Ithaca Institutional Network Cable System NYSERNET ornell University Intem 45Mbps -Science Center ST BOCES outh Central Research Libra Im EMI rY Council nte 256-512Kbps ompkins County Public Library Radio om kins Count Courthouse Biggs Center +Cayuga thaca City Hall (2Mbps) Mental Health Medical Solid Waste Center Cooperative Extension Highway Garage Ithaca College— NYSERNET +Public Safety Intem 1.5Mbps +Airport Ithaca City School District Alternatives Ithaca High Boyton Jr. High Dewitt Jr. High Northeast NYSERNET South Hill Intem 512Kbps Fall Creek Beverly J. Martin ISDN ICSD Adminstration (128K) Enfield Caroline +Planned or under development Cayuga HeightsBelle Sherman Current Connectivity - Figure I Development Process - There are many contractual and technical details to work out in order to make this proposal feasible. Equally important is the establishment of a mutually agreeable governance structure to provide oversight, manage the services, and to make decisions which affect all institutions collectively. Internet services will remain a highly dynamic marketplace, as will the information system needs of the participating institutions. It will be necessary to adjust operating conditions, renegotiate contracts, and reapportion costs over time. In order to provide this oversight, a committee comprised of representatives from each institution will be created. This committee would make decisions and determine the best mechanisms to achieve them. In most cases, the changes would be executed by one of the institutions as the partnership itself would have no permanent staff and no ability to execute contracts with outside vendors. Adjustments would be made in the bilateral agreements to compensate institutions for the changes in services and the expenses associated with them. The committee would also maintain a reporting relationship to the EFC such that its activities can be more broadly coordinated. This agreement is modeled after the Transit Center which has operated successfully on a bilateral contractual basis for several years. In order to develop a complete proposal, research and negotiations with current suppliers must be undertaken to explore what possibilities exist and what options these suppliers may be willing to grant such a consortium. Firm pricing information must be collected to assure that savings will indeed materialize after reaching a common understanding of the terms and conditions of service. Pending successful negotiations with suppliers, technical and administrative responsibilities between each of the partners will be identified and contracts drafted which will form the basis of the consortium. The first step in this process is for each potential partner to execute a 'Letter of Intent'. The purpose of this is to provide clear indication from each institution that if contract, technical, and financial arrangements can be satisfactorily developed, that the institution would be willing to enter into such agreements and pursue implementation of this initiative. These letters will form the initial commitments needed to establish the level of service that is needed, define technical requirements, determine the funding needs, and create the responsible points of contact within each organization. Based on this, contracts among all partners will be drafted as well as contracts between the preferred suppliers and the consortium. These final versions will then be brought back to the governing boards of each partner for final ratification. Future Activities - If we are successful in this first phase of the Partnership for the Electronic Future, the precedent will be set for further collaboration. Cooperative procurement of a variety of products and services is possible as well as widespread sharing of technological and administrative approaches. Technology sharing is a major focus of this initiative. There are many aspects of the handling of Email, configuration of servers, security, and end-user services that individual partners have developed that are of general interest to all institutions. There is no need for each to recreate these environments and there are many mutual experiences to be shared. By establishing contacts at all levels between the partners and encouraging open dialog between institutions' ongoing practices and projects, the opportunities for joint development can be thoroughly explored. r ycoAPo��Q`� CITY OF ITHACA 10B EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 607/272-7348 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO Cable Refranchising Committee "ROM: H. Matthys Van Cort Director of Department of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Meeting Notes DATE: June 26, 1997 The following are my notes of our meeting of June 25, 1997. In attendance were: Judy Boggess, John Efroymson,Jean Finley,Mariette Geldenhuys,Rick Gray,Ray Schlather and Matthys Van Cort. Van Cort said that he had talked with Dick Cogger,David Lytel and John Marcham. Coggers will be at an out-of-town conference all this week and therefore will not be able to attend this meeting. Lytel and his wife have decided not to move back to Ithaca,and, therefore,he will not be able to serve. Marcham declined our invitation to be part of the City's Refranchising Committee. Efroymson said he would call Marcham to see whether he might be able to convince him to join us. It was suggested that Rick Entlich be invited to be part of the Committee. Whoever volunteered to call him should do so, and let us know what he says. It was decided that our best meeting times would be Wednesday mornings at 8:30 as needed. An address list will be sent to the Cable Refranchising Committee. Boggess said that each of the proposals had different strengths. She volunteered to prepare a matrix of all the work items in each of the proposals so that the best of each could be incorporated into the final contract. The matrix will also be used to compare the proposals from Rice,Williams and Spiegel&McDiarmid. After some discussion,it was determined that the City's franchise with Time Warner will expire in February 1999. Boggess will see what she can find out about the County Cable Commission in hopes that we can get a member of that Commission to join the Refranchising Committee. Boggess will also talk with Charlie Evans about the work of the Cable Commission. Geldenhuys will talk with Ben Curtis and Mike Lane about their model franchise. CbiMinJn i,Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" Schlather suggested that we form a partnership with the Town of Ithaca. The City and the Town have a majority of cable users in the County. Van Cort said that he will call Cathy Valentino, Jonathan Kanter and John Wolf to see whether such a partnership could be formed. There was consensus that such a partnership would be of benefit to both the City and the Town. There was agreement that the proposals Rice,Williams and Spiegel&McDiarmid were by far the best of those submitted. It was clear,however,that Spiegel&McDiarmid's proposal, as submitted, was far beyond our budget. It was suggested that we ask both firms to come up to make a presentation. Before doing so,however,it was decided that Jean Finley should call Jim Horwood at Spiegel &McDiarmid to ask whether they would be able to submit a proposal that would be more in line with our budget of$100,000. If not,that would leave Rice,Williams as the obvious choice. The Committee was reminded that Common Council had voted its commitment to funding of roughly$100,000 for this effort. It was decided that if needed, we would meet again on July 9th to discuss the matrix and the possibility of Rice,Williams and Spiegel&McDiarmid. Van Cort said that he would write up minutes of today's meeting and transmit them to Committee members. Cb1MinJn Cable Refranchising Committee Members Phone Name and Address Work Home Fax E-Mail Judy Boggess 274-5407 274-5417 jdbl3@comell.edu TC Information Technology Services - 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dick Cogger 255-7566 273-5256 RC19@CORNELL.EDU 14 Dove Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 John Efroymson 277-4545 272-1034 efroymso@clarityconnect.com 435 North Geneva Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Jean Finley 272-3081 211 Schuyler Place Ithaca,NY 14850-4405 Mariette Geldenhuys 274-6504 274-6507 City Attorney's Office 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Rick Gray 272-2628 274-6508 None rcgray@col.com 302 Utica Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Ray Schlather 273-2202 273-4436 P.O. Box 353 200 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 H.Matthys Van Cort 274-6550 274-6558 thysvc@ci.ithaca.ny.us Department of Planning&Development 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 cblmbrs CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14BSO DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 607/272-7348 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: Cable Refranchising Committee Judy Boggess,DickCogger,John Efroymson,Jean Finley,Mariette Geldenhuys, " Rick Gray and Ray Schlather FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Miscellaneous DATE: July 14, 1997 I have a few items to report to the Committee. First,this morning I spoke with Jean Finley. She had spoken with Rich Entlich and he is interested in joining the Negotiating Committee. We had discussed this at our June meeting and agreed that his participation would be useful. I asked her to invite him to the meeting on July 16th. She also asked whether Harvey Gitland could be a member of the Committee. I told her I felt it was more appropriate for the Committee to decide that. Jean said that Jim Horwood called her to reiterate that he was interested in making a proposal in the $100,000 range. Secondly,Judy Boggess prepared the matrix comparing the various proposals. Copies are enclosed. Finally,I spoke with Kathy Valentino,Town of Ithaca Supervisor. She is very interested in having the City and the Town become negotiating partners in the franchise renewal. She will try to make the Wednesday meeting. She has given me her schedule for the next several months so that she can come to our future meetings. I would like to borrow the Spiegel&McDiarmid and Rice Williams proposals from one of you so that Kathy can read them over the weekend. Please bring those two proposals with you to the meeting on July 16th. Enc. cblmemo i,Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" • 1 s• CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR 607/272-7348 HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR REMINDER CABLE REFRANCHISING COMMITTEE MEETING WEDNESDAY, JULY 169 1997 8:30 A.M. Thys's Office Department of Planning & Development City Hall - 108 East Green Street Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" r� CABLE NEGOTIATION TEAM SUMMARY OF CONSULTANT IDEAS 3-Tut-97 Frederickson and Byron Monroe Rice Spiegel and McDiarmid Legislative Review Identification of a cable Review provisions of the Review of Cable Act and communications system and Cable Communications Policy Telecommunications Act overlap with Act,Review of telecommunications Telecommunications Act and FCC decisions PEG Terms of PEG access PEG analysis Customer Information Customer service standards, Identification of potential Survey of customers,focus subscriber surveys applications(comprehensive groups to identify community list) needs Municipal Ownership,Strategy Municipal ownership study Strategic and long run plans of including use of fiber optics the community,assess municipal ownership I-NET Institutional network and Negotiation for installation of Institutional network expanded community needs fiber optic institutional networks Plant Rebuilding of plant: schedule, Technical and safety inspection Updating of relevant Technical audit changes to programs and ordinances services Accounting,Financial Review Accounting to assure Protection of franchise payments Financial analysis Financial projections,franchise compliance in payment of to the city,interest paid if fee is fee payment review franchise fees not paid monthly,deduction of local property tax in need of review New Agreement Drafting new agreement and New franchise and agreement, evaluation of renewal proposal franchise renewal negotiation Other Review of definitions Defense of findings Periodic review through Review for compliance with Not for profit access franchise or agreement period existing franchise management organization Preventive maintenance agreement Cable Refranchising Committee Members Phone Name and Address Work Home Fax E-Mail Judy Boggess 274-5407 274-5417 jdbl3@comell.edu TC Information Technology Services 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dick Cogger 255-7566 273-5256 RC19@CORNELL.EDU 14 Dove Drive Ithaca,NY 14850 John Efroymson 277-4545 272-1034 efroymso@clarityconnect com 435 North Geneva Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Jean Finley 272-3081 211 Schuyler Place Ithaca,NY 14850-4405 Mariette Geldenhuys 274-6504 274-6507 City Attorney's Office 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Rick Gray 272-2628 274-6508 None rcgray@col.com 302 Utica Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Ray 5chlather 273-2202 273-4436 P.O. Box 353 200 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 H.Matthys Van Cort 274-6550 274-6558 thysvc@ci.ithaca.ny.us Department of Planning&Development 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 cblmbrs t Nr f Ga 6 a't S. CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 607/272-7348 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: Cable Refranchising Committee FROM: H.Matthys Van Cort Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Meeting Notes DATE: July 29, 1997 The following are my notes on our meeting of July 16, 1997. In attendance were: Judy Boggess, John Efroymson,Jean Finley,Mariette Geldenhuys,Rick Gray,Ray Schlather,Thys Van Cort • Report by Members • Committee Membership • Matrix prepared by Boggess • Meeting Schedule • Cable Company Property Taxes Reports by Members Van Cort reported that he had talked with Cathy Valentino, Supervisor of the Town of Ithaca, regarding the possibility of the City of Ithaca and the Town of Ithaca fornling a partnership for the negotiation of the new Cable Franchise. Van Cort said that Valentino had expressed strong interest in forming such a partnership and that she would try to come to our future meetings. Van Cort has her schedule and said that he would set meeting times in the future when all members could attend. Finley said that she had talked to Richard Entlich as had been requested at the June 26th meeting of the Committee. He is interested in joining us, and it was agreed that he would be a good addition. Finley said that she had talked with Van Cort about adding Harvey Gitlin to the Committee. Van Cort said that he felt it would be more appropriate to leave the Committee composition as it is now,at least until we know whether the Town of Ithaca is willing to join us as a partner in negotiations. If the Town does join the City,there should be room on the 40 Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" t_v Committee for their representation from the Town as well as the members who now serve. The Committee agreed to this approach,leaving the Committee with its present composition until the issue of Town/City Partnership has been resolved Boggess said that she believed new members of the Committee should be added if they have skills or knowledge which would be of use during the upcoming refranchising process. Therefore, the consideration of new members should be `content driven'. The Committee concurred with this suggestion. Matrix Boggess walked the Committee through the matrix of proposals which she had prepared. After some discussion,it was decided that one List of Tasks should be prepared and that the two finalist consultants should be asked to make a presentation to the City,including the cost for carrying out each of the listed tasks. Boggess agreed to prepare a revised list of tasks which Van Cort said he would distribute to Committee members for their comment. Schedule Van Cort said that Cathy Valentino is available on alternate Wednesdays and he said he would circulate a schedule to all Committee members to try to choose a day of the week which would be convenient with all. This could be distributed with the List of Tasks which is to be sent to the consultant. Comments on the list of Tasks should be returned to Van Cort at the Planning and Development Department by fax or Email. Van Cort said that he would send a letter to the consultants explaining the Committee's next steps. It was decided that Van Cort should ask Cathy Valentino to bring any other people she wished to include in the process to the meeting when the consultants are interviewed. The date for the consultants' interviews will be scheduled by Van Cort. Schlather suggested that the members of the Inter-Municipal Cables Commission be invited to join us. It was decided that an invitation should be sent to Ben Curtis, all Town Supervisors in Tompkins County,the Mayors of all villages and Barbara Mink as Chair the County Board of Representatives so that they will be given an opportunity to become partners with the City (and hopefully the Town)in the upcoming Franchise Negotiations. Van Cort said that he would talk with Cathy Valentino in the hope that the City and the Town could reach an agreement on partnership before the presentation by the consultants and the City and Town could jointly invite the other jurisdictions to become a part of the negotiation team. Schlather said that it was his understanding that some members of Common Council had reservations about his serving on this Committee because of previously having represented a cable access user in a criminal proceeding who might now sue the City. Schlather said that if it were the wish of Council that he not serve, he would be more than happy to resign from the Committee. Efroymson said that there was a strong majority on the Council who wanted Schlather on the Refranchising Committee and all members of the Refranchising Committee reiterated their wishes that he remain on the Committee to assist the City in this effort. 61716 2 O� i` CITY OF ITHACA 106 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14950 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 607/272-7348 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR DICTATED--NOT PROOFED TO: Alan J. Cohen,Mayor FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Cable Refranchising DATE: August 6, 1997 Cathy Valentino and I spoke today regarding the Town of Ithaca joining with the City in a Partnership to negotiate a new cable franchise for both the City and the Town. When Cathy and I previously discussed this, she was very enthusiastic about joining us. Today,she was discouraging. She had discussed this with the Town Board When the Board realized the consultant fee was $100,000,they had a serious case of sticker-shock. I suggested the following to Cathy: 1. There is a possibility that we will be reimbursed the entire amount of the consultant's fee. There is no guarantee of this. The last time we were reimbursed,even though the cable company said they would absolutely refuse to cover that expense. 2. Cathy informed me that the people in the Town are very interested in line extension, which is perhaps their biggest issue. They are not very interested in access. I stated that they would be in a far better position to negotiate expansion of the system if they were in partnership with the City. I stated we would back them completely if that were made part of our joint negotiations. twncbl Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" I I suggested the possibility of the City and the Town splitting the cost of the consultant's fee in proportion to the number of cable customers in each jurisdiction. I stated that Common Council will obviously have to approve any such agreement, but there might be some possibility for us to be flexible on the issue of division of cost. Cathy mentioned that you will be at the Town Board meeting on Monday evening concerning another matter. She thought that might provide you with the opportunity to address this issue. She doubts that the Town Board would be willing to put in anywhere near the amount of money we are talking about. She suggested an amount of$15,000. I said that was really not enough. If you need to speak with me about this,call me at home at 272-1531. twncbl I ycogPo��o`� CITY OF ITHACA 108 EAST GREEN STREET ITHACA, NEW YORK 14850 DEPARTMENT OF TELEPHONE:607/274-6550 PLANNING&DEVELOPMENT FAX:607/274-6558 H.MATTHYS VAN CORT,DIRECTOR 607/272-7348 HERMAN SIEVERDING,AICP,DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO: Cable Refranchising Committee Members Judy Boggess Dick Cogger John Efroymson Richard Entlich Jean Finley Mariette Geldenhuys Rick Gray Ray Schlather I FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort lkk47� SUBJECT: Consultant Interviews DATE: August 29, 1997 This is to confirm that we will be interviewing Jean Rice of Rice,Williams Associates on Wednesday, October 15,1997 at 9:00 am and Jim Horwood of Spiegel McDiarmid on Wednesday, October 22nd at 9:00 am. Both sessions will be held in the 2nd Floor Conference Room of City Hall. Please make every effort to attend these two important meetings. Also enclosed for your information is the Cable Consultant Topic List prepared by Judy Boggess. Prior to these meetings, please give some thought to the questions you would like to ask each consultant. If you have time,jot down a few notes and send them to me. I'll try to put them altogether before the meetings. Thanks again for your participation. I look forward to meeting with you on the 15th. Enclosure Copy: Alan J. Cohen, Mayor q:\planning\stafAthys\memos\1997\consmtg.doc 0 n Printed on Recycled Paper "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" July 17, 1997 Cable Consultant Topic List Legislative Review Review provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act, review of the Telecommunications Act and related FCC decisions. Customer Information Survey of customers and focus groups to identify community needs. Plant Technical audit, planned changes to plant and changes to programs and services. Accounting, Financial Analysis Financial analysis, franchise fee payment review and review of local property tax deduction. Compliance Review Review for compliance with existing franchise including payment of all tees. PEG PEG analysis, development of not for profit access management organization. I-NET Institutional network and expanded community needs. New Agreement New franchise and agreement franchise renewal negotiation. Municipal Ownership Strategic and long-run plans of the community, competitive options. Consultant Fee Payment of consultant fee by Time Warner. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (Draft 3/9/97) CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL/REFRANCHISING CONSULTING SERVICES ITHACA,NY The City of Ithaca,Ithaca,NY,is seeking professional services to aid in its process of obtaining a favorable broad-band television/radio/dat em o ' i o Ithaca, Y. Proposals are April 15, 7[,noSl�ter th`�j`4:30,pm,at the City Planning Department,.Ithaca City Hall, 108 East Green St.,Ithaca,NY 1 50. PROJECT DESCRIPTIO The City of Ithaca(hereafter"the City")currently has in effect a franchise for the operation of a cable televis /FM radio service and institutional network within its corporate limits. The franchisee is Time Warner Cable, Inc.��`The current franchise expires on Dec. 31, 1998. Time Warner Cable has requested a franchise renewal at the expiration "of the current franchise. The City of Ithaca wishes to employ the services of a consultant or team of consultants to assist the City's professional staff' in: • evaluating cable service under the current franchise • assessing corrrnunity needs with respect to cable service,data service,P.E.G.Access,local origination, leased access,and Institutional Network communications • assessing the possibility of bringing in competitive options or a municipally owned system to provide broad-band television/data/FM radio/mternet/voice telephony services for city residents,businesses,and institutions • developing a detailed plan for refranchising or franchise renewal that does not preclude bringing in competitive options on a level-playing-field basis as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 • evaluating the need for a public right-of-way ordinance and/or a not-for-profit access center and, if necessary,developing local legislation needed to support the recommended plan; • providing strategies for the implementation of the plan • participating in the negotiation of the new franchise agreement • developing a local cable ordinance to aid in enforcing the franchise • aiding and advising on the possible set-up of a not-for-profit community access center This plan and related strategies will encompass several broad areas in which the City will require professional:consultation. These are listed below in the subsection entitled"Scope of Services". It is anticipated that the successful proposal will involve a"team"approach,with all work being coordinated by one person or firm. The Principal Consultant will further coordinate with Ithaca City Cable Commission,the Tompkins County Intermunicipal Cable Commission,the Tompkins County Electronic Futures Committee,the Ithaca City Attorney and other appropriate City staff members,and the Ithaca City Common Council. The successful completion of this project will result in one of several possible outcomes which may involve: a. Successful franchise renewal with Time Warner Cable or Time Warner/Advance/Newhouse. b. Successful refranchising with a different cable vendor. C. Creation of a municipally-owned and operated cable system. d. Successful franchising with several vendors to cover different aspects of the documented community needs. 1 A history of cable television in Ithaca is included for your information and reference. L HISTORY Since the valley the City of Ithaca sits in does not receive over-air broadcast signals,the City of Ithaca had one of the first franchised community antenna systems in the country. In the late 70's,the City's franchise with the original franchisee, Ceracci Cable,expired and the City negotiated a new franchise with ATC. The current franchise with ATC took effect Jan. 1, 1989. Rice Williams Associates was hired to assist the City with the process and a team of talented people worked to ensure the best possible franchise and ordinance. Through restructuring and refinancing,ATC has since become American Community Cablevision and then TimeWamer Cable. In a final move,in 1995, Time Warner,Newhouse,and Advance merged in this area to become TimeWarner/Newhouse/Advance. Ithaca refused to approve this final transfer on the basis of outstanding unresolved franchise disputes. As of this date,one of these disputes is still awaiting action by the New York State Public Service Commission. The cable system is constricted so that it actually serves 16 communities in Tompkins County:the City of Ithaca, e, wn of Ithaca,the Village of Cayuga Heights,the Town of Newfield,the Town of Ulysses,the Village of Jacksonville,thk V lage of Trimansburg,the Town of Danby,the Town of Caroline,the Town of Dryden,the Village of Dryden,the Town of Groton, the Village of Groton,the Village of Freeville,the Town of Lansing,and the Village of Lansing,as well as a small portion of the Town of Enfield Currently approximately 26,000 residences subscribe to the cable system--approximately 8,500 of which are City residents. The Town of Ithaca has about 4,000 subscribers,with fewer in each of the other 14 municipalities served by the system. However,each of these incorporated municipalities has entered into or is preparing to enter into a separate agreement with the cable vendor. These municipalities have traditionally shared access facilities with the City of Ithaca. This has become problematic since the Cable Act of 1992,when Time Warner Cable started listing a P.E.G.Access Fee($1.26/month)on the subscriber bills of City subscribers only(see P.E.G.Access below). The Ithaca City Cable Commission oversees the Ithaca City franchise. It is a five-member volunteer body appointed by the Mayor with consent of the City of Ithaca Common Council. In addition,a member of Common Council sits on the Cable Commission ex-officio and acts as liaison with Common Council. Commissioners are appointed to five-year overlapping terms. ,Q ._J � Ithaca also has one seat,as do the other municipalities in the county,on the Inter cipal Cable C mmission. a IMCC has been actively working to prepare a draft franchise for all municipalities in county. At this ' t in time,the IMCC has submitted this draft franchise to the municipalities. Many of the municipalities �gnificant number o are operating on expired franchises,have agreed to joint negotiations with Time Warner on the CC's newly developed model franchise. As drafted,the model agreement does contain a clause retroactively granting whatever Ithaca negotiates to the other in-county franchisers if they so desire. The Ithaca City Cable Commission meets monthly. It attempts to resolve subscriber and citizen cable-related-. complaints/issues,advises the Common Council on cable related issues,advises the cable company on the operation of P.E.G. access,promotes the development of all access channels:and the I-Net into a viable local communication system, monitors franchise compliance, and issues notices of non-compliance when appropriate. ICCC also handles matters involving the NYS Public Service Commission and the FCC,monitors-legislative and judicial developments affecting the Ithaca cable system,and advocates on the federal and state level,on behalf of local franchise control and the continuance of public"goods." ') The Ithaca cable system has a 62-channel capacity. It is currently a 440 MHZ system with a separate 440iidsplit I-Net. All buildings within the Ithaca ' limits have TWC cable TV service available. There are,however,areas in most of the surrormding municipalities tha -.re of wired for cable. The Town of Ithaca contains Cayuga Medical at Ithaca,which is served by its own cable system an contracts for programming with a satellite distribution service. The municipalities in the surrounding hills are in general able to receive a limit !, umber of over-air signals from Syracuse or Binghamton. Small-dish satellite systems are reportedly enjoying brisk es, especially in areas of the municipalities that are not 2 connected to cable service. P.E.G.Access is well establi hed,although sometimes controversial,in the City. It is operated by TWC,which provides a central studio and four full-' loyees,as well as several mobile studio units. TWC currently provides for two public, one governmental,and two educational access channels. Four more channels have been designated as access channels,but _,&je never activated. The current City franchise provides for 2%of the gross revenues within the City to be spent on access production equipment. No other municipalities in the county have required such a provision in their past contracts. In addition,the City franchise provides for an I-Net system connecting 15 of the public buildings within the City limits. This system is used for some cablecasting as well as data transfer between City and County Departments. This year a pilot internet program,which made the Internet available to students and the public on a first-come,fust-served basis,was started at the Tompkins County Public Library. A high priority for the City will be to secure continuing support,with annual increases correlated perhaps with the Consumer Price Index,for the access operation at a level determined by the needs assessment. If funding remains available the City may wish to turn over control of the access operation to an independent not-for-profit corporation--yet to be formed. The City is also extremely interested in negotiating for high speed internet capability for Ithaca businesses and residents. IL PROJECT BUDGET Cost estimates are requested as part of the Request for Proposals and these will be considered,along with various other l� factors,in evaluating each It is expected that cost estimates will be divided so that work for distinct ca ries such as"public right of way or an unicipal owners ", sting in setting up a not-for profit access cen o entities can be evaluated in . In all cases a not- xceed cost is preferred. However,final selection ll not be based solely on estimated cost and the su�'iil proposal will not necessarily be the one containing the lowest cost estimate. III. SCOPE OF SERVICES It is the City of Ithaca's desire that one consultant or respondent coordinate all franchise renewal-related work. While the City of Ithaca has outlined the areas of consideration believed to be of importance below,the City seeks input from each respondent concerning the full scope and depth of work that may be entailed, as well as an areas the consultant or respondent believes the City may have omitted or are superfluous. Please consid this' yo al estimate. c,ty�. A. TECHNICAL AUDIT 'd*h The consultant will conduct a technical audit of an adequate portion of the City cable system to determine the nature,level,and frequency--if any--of technical problems. (The NYS Public Service Commission conducted a OLZ//I county-wide technical audit in 1995). v�Y Gi. G This may include,but not be limited to:checking for cable radiation,quality of reception,interference,and power S� back-up systems;determining if and why variable channel volume levels occur,what those levels are,how they (� can be corrected, and whether those variations are legally acceptable, reviewing technical reports the cable company supplies to the City and NYS Public Service Commission and determining whether these reports are c�f/ accurate and sufficient;identifying what system maintenance program the cable company applies and determining "E-I whether this is adequate(and if not,what standards should be applied). The consultant or respondent will determine the extent of technical audit needed and propose,in significant detail I for comparison,what the consultant/respondent would advise for negotiating effectiveness and thereby do. B. STATE OF THE ART �� We are seeking a consultant capable of identifying what state of the art tec ologies/practices are available or likely Aef to be available for upgraded cable system infrastructure and providing d ced communications services of all types. In particular, we are interested in technologies employed b �s ompany or other companies and technologies becoming available to the cable industry in the near future which may be of value to the City. The County's Electronic Futures Committee (EFC) has developed a broad vision of future communications infrastructure for the greater Ithaca area,compiled of the following elements, all of which are potentially well served by an upgraded cable infrastructure,and which are the City's concerns also: Broadly,there are four areas where technical state of the art is a concern: (1)the general subscriber syste( Institutional Network(I-Net)infrastruc )the need for a commercial backbone infrastructure and services, technically similar to the I-Net,needed o� pport area economic developme(t; d(4)provisions needed in a franchise to be sure the system can track and document technological advancesafid increased community needs through the life of the agreement. The final franchise should also include clear criteria for expanding the plant to provide advanced technology and to meet community needs in areas 1),2),and 3). A primary concern is that construction entailed to upgrade the entire plant can economically include extra facilities, such as extra fiber which will be prohibitively expensive to retrofit if this opportunity is lost or only partially realized. 1. General Subscriber System--The part of the overall cable system which provides entertainment and other TV is to be rebuilt or upgraded,presumably as a Hybrid Fiber/Coax(HFC)plant,capable of carrying,in addition to TV, a broad range of two-way data and other services (e.g. Internet)which are increasingly important to individuals and businesses, These new services are at the heart of the EFC agenda and very important to the City as well. 2. Institutional Network(I-Net)--The current,mostly coax,I-Net system needs to be extended,to provide inter-and intra-institutional backbone conductivity for data as well as TV feeds. The I-Net,although it carries �0 some television signals from an increasing number of community events and government meetings held at institutional sites,specifically does not need to cant'large quantities of entertainment and other TV as does the system. Extension and rebuild should contemplate introduction of new fiber-based technologies, ' 1 suc SONE a would expect to negotiate for an agreement that makes clear that the focus of the I-Net is pro ' (rather than services)needed for public,governmental,educational,and other non-profit t� institutions. Experience with the current City franchise suggests that how much of the needed infrastructure should be provided by the cable operator as part of it's public responsibility in return for the franchise needs to be very carefully defined,particularly with respect to bringing the I-Net to future structures. The I-Net law allows the provision of an I-Net as a condition of franchising as long as its costs are consistent with benefits. At the very least Ithaca needs to ensure that the cable operator is required to provide future facilities deemed to be needed by the community by a defined procedure agreeable to the City. 3. Commercial Backbone Network(CBN)--In the future,access to very high-speed data will be critical for economic development of the area. For some businesses, the HFC general subscriber system will have sufficient data carrying capacity, but a high-speed backbone will be essential for many others. This need is technically very similar to that of the institutions for the I-Net,focusing on high bandwidth and not needing general TV. In fact,the same cables can cant'both the I-Net and CBN traffic,possibly on different fiber strands. How such facilities should be provided to the commercial sector and their costs recovered and who shall profit how much are important questions,and we are especially interested in any examples or other experiences a consultant may be able to bring. In any case,a primary concern is in making certain that the necessary infrastructure be installed during the system upgrade. This will be far less expensive than doing so at a later time. 4. Future Upgrade and Extension--The likely term of the agreement represents a very long time in terns of technical advances,so it is essential that provisions for upgrade be carefully framed. As I-Net and CBN cables traverse only a fraction of the whole system,the means(technical,legal,financial)of extending them to future sites of new activity and need are especially important. Additionally,we are interest other technologies which might be applicable such as Digital TV,High Definition TV,"wireless ca e"DBS/, d�w.haat impact they might have on a cable system for the City of Ithaca. 4 Under the Social Contract between Time Warner and the FCC,TimeWarner Cable is required to update its systems within the next five years. However,in Ithaca,there is a significant number of potential subscribers,especially in • tho ,.are where Cornell University faculty and students reside,who are demanding the expanded high-speed in rnet d data communication access which could be provided by a new broadband cable system. A HFC architecture is proposedynd Ithaca would like to have the engineering expertise of the consultant in the planning of node location,etc.,in order to minimize the cost of"public goods"such as I-Net sites,etc. We certainly hope that the consultant's engineering staff will work closely with TimeWarner in order to maximize the number of I-Net sites at reasonable cost. C. NEEDS ASSESSMENT The City of Ithaca believes a needs assessment of subscribers and PEG channels/constituencies,including data users such as governmental,educational, and not-for-profit institutions(I-Net)and commercial entities(CBN)is important for the refranchising assessment and direction. Proposals should state whether a one-time needs assessment is being proposed or whether several are proposed to backup needs-based expansion of services or technology as defined in the franchise. The City desires that the needs assessment/survey be a combination of problem identifying and proposing the most likely and feasible solutions. Various areas should be addressed in this assessment including but not limited to customer service, consumer protection,consumer rates,cable programming,and impact of new technologies. Additional examples of what this needs assessment may include: • what access services the community needs • what equipment/staffing/bandwidth needs the access system should provide • whether a not-for-profit access center is desirable and so, should it be an integrated facility for all P.E.G.channels�or whether the P.E.and G.should organizationally separate • what the City can require from the Cable operator to meet access and I-Net needs • assessing the need for an expanded updated I-Net that can serve the municipalities,the not-for-profit institutions that they deal with,and the educational institutions in the county in both cablecasting and cable transmission • what the TWC has offered in other communities then cable co offeror, sin communities of similar siz in the nation W i �vw. Gb'a^�t'n�i�4 • assessing th lan f the cable company's signal a�� • assessing the clarity of subscriber billing statements and,if subscn are aving trouble em, ow they could be made more clear or understandable • assessing customer service--i.e.What kind of response time does the cable company have for customer service calls, repair calls, and, what is the response time to cure an outage or to provide service to someone who does not have service or to satisfy requests(Some of the appropriate solutions are available from the proposed IMCC franchise agreement which has expanded sections on customer service, unacceptable actions,and penalties) • sessing the feasibility of a true life-line community communications subbasic system going free in o every household with a component for contacting emergency service(Ithaca does not have a 911 syst through the cable and free PEG access channels • assessment of the data and access radio needs of the community and the institutions(Cornell has done an extensive survey on high speed data transmission and where these are needed; the TC EFC has accumulated much data about I-Net data transmission needs which is in very usable shape. It does not cover cablecasting needs for these same I-Net sites.) ' • survey of sales methods and accuracy of information presented to customers D. FINANCUULEGAL v. The City of Ithaca wishes to ensure that the next franchise be specific and enforceable with regard to acquiring the necessary financial information and other information and other required reports from the cable company to assess the accuracy of revenue reports and franchise fee payments. 5 U The cable company has been sold/transferred since the start of the 1989 contract. We have not seen the documentation for any of these changes. Before refranchising,we need to ascertain with whom we are dealing. We may wish to examine realistic options regarding municipal ownership,including where it has been done successfully in a City the size of Ithaca,and what kind of rates could be offered by such a scenario. We will want to examine the need for a public right-of-way ordinance and,if needed, to develop one for the City. We will need to develop a local cable ordinance to parallel the new Franchise while allowing equal treatment for any competitors which enter the field. We wish legal assistance in setting up a not-for-profit access system ifLitis decided th n�p��Ary Andre. Since the last franchising of the Ithaca cable system in 1989,there have si cant changes in the law regarding cable tv. Among these,for example, are the Cable Act of 1992 and cations Act of 1996. Ithaca wants to 7 incorporate all the necessary and appropriate changes into the ne rdinance an anchise in such a way as to withstand court challenge to any of the public "goods" or services or payment procedures required under the franchise. The ' consultant/respondent should be capable of addressing this need and be available to the City in defending a court challenge in the future. This is especially relevant in the maintenance and expansion of our current level of payment for use of the public right-of-way and operator support of public "goods". The City currently receives a 5%franchise,fee on gross ---revenues a 2%P.E.G.Ac2=equipment fund,support of 4 access staff persons,5 activated channels,and an access facility, and Rovision_ora—HVMRQ support of the staff and facility on the subscriber bills is broken out as"P.E.G.Access Fee"--a separate line item. We would like to find a legal way to prevent this break-out on future bills. IV. CONSULTANT/RESPONDENT QUALIFICATIONS Please provide complete information pertaining to: A. Size and scope of similar projects which your firm has successfully completed (with references and contact information). B. A complete list of each municipally-owned system you have worked to set up,where,and when(with references and contact information). C. List personnel who will be assigned to this project,their specific responsibility(s)and professional biographical information on each individual. Include any subcontracting firm's personnel. D. A history of your firm to include office locations,years in business,and owner(s)of your firm. E. Methods since 1992 municipalities have used to pay for your services,especially if the cable operator agreed to pay for such. We are especially interested in instances where Time Warner was the Cable operator(with references and contact information). G. An account of your experience in responding to any legal challenge your conclusions,recommendations, and/or terms and conditions put forth on behalf of any client in the negotiation or recognition of a Cable TV franchise,including whether or not you were successful in these efforts. H. A list of references(at least three)including related projects,contact person,and telephone numbers. I. Provide information as outlined in A.,B.,C.and D.above for all team members and/or subcontractors who will be involved with this project. Please indicate whether these team members have worked before and on what projects. J. Provide a total cost estimate or range of costs,including hourly rates for various personnel,if applicable. This cost 6 estimate will include all services of both the principal consultant and subcontractors and/or team member funis. Where possible,break out cost by project area(i.e. cost of technical audit,cost of state of the art construction assessment,needs assessment(s),financial assistance(noting what may be able to be paid by the cable operator or covered by increased City revenue in the new franchise),legal assistance,investigation of a municipally-owned system,assistance on a public right-of-way ordinance or in setting up a not-for-profit access center etc. V. SELECTION CRITERIA The City desires to award a contract to a proposer who demonstrates the ability to provide the highest quality service at the best cost. To accomplish this goal,the City's criteria for selection will include but not be limited to: A. Ability to provide the type and quality of services that will best meet the needs of the Cit. B. Quality and extent of experience with municipal franchising/refranchising with cable tv service vendors and demonstrated past performance in this area C. Ability to complete the project within time and budget constraints D. Demonstrated understanding of the state of thert„ th technically and legally E. Cost of services to the City ��(,� VL SELECTION. Based on evaluation of proposal submitted,the City may select finalists who will be required to make formal presentations before a selection committee regarding their qualifications, approach to the project, and ability to furnish the required services to best serve the needs of the City. After evaluations,discussions,and/or formal presentations are complete,the committee will make a recommendation to Ithaca Common Council for final approval. The City reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. VIL CONTRACT FOR SERVICES The chosen firm will be requested to enter a formal contract with the City. The contact will provide for a retainage of • 1 Any agreement of contract resulting from the acceptance of a proposal shall be on forms either supplied by or approved by the City and shall contain,at a minimum,applicable Provisions of the Request for Proposals. The City reserves the right to modify any agreement that does not conform to the request for proposal and the City requirements for agreements and contracts. Q '� �/ VIII. INSURANCE 4— ( • Insurance coverage as outlined in section????shall be required and an additional coverage for errors and omissions in the amount of$250,000 per occurrence shall be part of this contract. VL RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS It is requested that you send eight copies ofyour proposal. All copies should be addressed to,H.Matthys VanCort,Director of Planning,Ithaca City Hall, 108 E. Green St.,Ithaca,NY 14850. Questions should be addressed Ithaca City Planning Department, H.Matthys VanCort,(607)274-6550. .. A /� i � 'r/`'t tel! zi 4e CITY OF ITHACA 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 a _� •/�� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR gPo1�A�0 Telephone: 607/274-6550 Fax: 607/274-6558 TO: Cable Refranchising Committee Judy Boggess Jean Finley Dick Cogger Mariette Geldenhuys Ben Curtis Harvey Gitlin John Efroymson Rick Gray Richard Entlich Ray Schlather FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort a+"V��t7 Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Cable Consultant Selection DATE: November 21, 1997 The following are my notes on our meeting of November 12, 1997. In attendance were: Judy Boggess,Dick Cogger, Ben Curtis, John Efroymson,Rick Entlich, Jean Finley, Mariette Geldenhuys, Rick Gray,Ray Schlather, Matthys Van Cort. The Committee discussed the difference in fees between Rice,Williams and Spiegel & McDiarmid. It appeared that while Spiegel &McDiarmid are more expensive, the price difference between the two consulting contracts might not be that great. The Committee spent some time discussing the idea of forming a consortium of all or most jurisdictions in the county to negotiate with the cable company. It appeared that there might be a equitable and not too burdensome way of distributing the costs of such a consortium among the various jurisdictions. It was suggested that each jurisdiction would be asked to contribute an amount up to one year's franchise fee. Ben Curtis and Judy Boggess agreed to discuss such a proposal at a December 10th meeting of the county cable consortium. There was consensus, at least in our group, that it would be a win/win situation if all jurisdictions approached the cable company as one. The City would benefit by the increased number of subscribers who are represented by the coalition. The outside jurisdictions would be strengthened because the City could lend it's weight their desire to increase line extensions and expand the I-NET to all schools in the County. Van Cort agreed that he would ask that this be put on the agenda for the Common Council's Planning and Economic Development Committee for information. q:\planning\staff\thys\memos\1997\cblrev.doc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." �a The Committee then ran through a list of criteria about which to evaluate Rice,Williams and Spiegel&McDiarmid. They are as follows: Franchise Fee It was assumed by the Committee that Spiegel &McDiarmid will be somewhat more expensive than Rice,Williams. The exact amount was hard to judge since Rice, Williams did not include the franchise negotiations in their estimate. Knowledge of the Cable Industry Both firms were thought to be about equal. Vision for Future Capacity Spiegel &McDiarmid was judged to be somewhat better. Knowledge of Telecommunications Generally Spiegel & McDiarmid was thought to be somewhat better. Knowledge of Law and Reeulations Spiegel &McDiarmid was thought to be somewhat better in Federal regulations. Rice, Williams was thought to be somewhat better in New York State regulations. Knowledge of the Relevant Technology Both firms were considered to be very strong. ExRgrience with Cable Operators Roughly similar Experience with TimeWarner Roughly similar Experience with Small Cities Roughly similar Experience with New York State Small Cities Rice, Williams was judged to be somewhat better. Experience with Consortia Spiegel &McDiarmid was judged to be somewhat better. Experience with PEG Spiegel&McDiarmid was considered to be somewhat better. Knowledee of Ithaca Rice, Williams was considered to be better. q:\planning\staftithys\memos\1997\cblrev.doc Quality of Subcontractors Both firms were considered to be roughly equal. The City's Knowledge of the Firms Rice, Williams was considered to be better. After having gone through the list of criteria, it was apparent that no firm was clearly better than another. It was decided that the group would do reference calls. Van Cort said that he would call consulting firms to ask them both for references,particularly areas where they had formed consortia which had recent franchise agreements including PEG and NET access. Also, each firm would be asked to provide the name of a client from several years ago where the franchise was felt to have worked really well. Van Cort will request copies of franchises and ordinances from the referenced cities. Rick Entlich agreed to search the proposals for apparent duplication in which both consultants claimed to have done the same work in the same city. Entlich would try to sort out who had done what in these situations. Once the names of the cities had been received from the two consultants, our Committee will call the contacts in those cities for reference check. The reference questions developed by this Committee are as follows: • What was service provided by the consultant was most useful? This might involve quickly going down the list of services which is attached. • How much did these services cost? • Was the consultant on budget? • Was the contract amount recovered from the company? • What do you wish you had done differently? • Does the consortium, formed by the consultant, work as expected? • What is the operating plan for your I-NET? • How was your working relationship with the consultant? • Would you hire the consultant again? If not,why not? • What would you drop from a future consultant contract'? Boggess, Curtis, Finley and Cogger volunteered to do reference calls. Van Cort said he would divide up the cities and provide them to those who volunteered after receiving them from the consultants. Boggess was especially interested in calling Santa Rosa,California. Curtis said he would call Morganton,North Carolina. Van Cort said that he would ask Rice,Williams what a financial analysis, such as that suggested by Spiegel&McDiarmid, would cost. (Note: Van Cort spoke to Don Williams on November 13, 1997. Mr. Williams said the financial analysis is included in their proposal.) q:\planning\staff\thys\memos\1997\cblrev.doc Cable Refranchising Committee Members Phone Name and Address Work Home Fax E-Mail Judy Boggess 274-5417 274-5407 274-5420 jdbl3@comell.edu TC Information Technology Services 128 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Dick Cogger 255-7566 273-5256 255-9086 RC19@CORNELL.EDU 14 Dove Drive 110 Maple Avenue Ithaca,NY 14850 Cornell Univ. Ben Curtis 257-8363 257-3230 vlansing@clarityconnect.com Zoning&Code-Enforcement Officer Village of Lansing-2405 North Triphammer Road Ithaca,NY 14850 John Efroymson 277-4545 272-1034 efroymso@clarityconnect.com 435 North Geneva Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Richard Entlich 272-6196 272-6196 255-0318 RGEl @CORNELL.EDU 320 Linn Street message 275-0558 Ithaca,NY 14850 Jean Finley 272-3081 211 Schuyler Place Ithaca,NY 14850-4405 Mariette Geldenhuys 274-6504 274-6507 City Attorney's Office- 108 East Green Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Harvey Gitlin 539-6203 539-6203 harvo@lightlink.com P.O. Box 39 Slaterville Springs, NY 14881 Rick Gray 272-2628 None rcgray@col.com 302 Utica Street Ithaca,NY 14850 Ray Schlather 273-2202 273-4436 P.O.Box 353 -200 East Buffalo Street Ithaca,NY 14850 H.Matthys Van Cort 274-6550 274-6558 thysvc@ci.ithaca.ny.us Dept.of Planning &Development- 108 East.Green Street Ithaca, NY 14850 y:WNCIS u USCI WdDIC C01❑01 sUVC 1\C v 1JIYl. 1 1l l I l'l M1 v t i July 17, 1997 Cable Consultant Topic List Legislative Review Review provisions of the Cable Communications Policy Act, review of the Telecommunications Act and related FCC decisions. Customer Information Survey of customers and focus groups to identify community needs. Plant Technical audit, planned changes to plant and changes to programs and services. Accounting,Financial Analysis Financial analysis, franchise fee payment review and review of local property tax deduction. Compliance Review Review for compliance with existing franchise including payment of all fees. PEG PEG analysis, development of not for profit access management organization. I-NET Institutional network and expanded community needs. New Agreement New franchise and agreement franchise renewal negotiation. Municipal Ownership Strategic and long-run plans of the community, competitive options. Consultant Fee Payment of consultant fee by Time Warner. I S CITY OF ITHACA Gi{ te 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850-5690 t 1 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT • H. MATTHYS VAN CORT, DIRECTOR Telephone: 607/274-6550 Fax: 607/274-6558 TO: Mariette Geldenhuys FROM: H. Matthys Van Cort A44�Q� Director of Planning and Development SUBJECT: Franchise Negotiations DATE: December 2, 1997 The City will soon be entering into negotiations with Time Warner regarding the franchise for cable service in the City. The last time we did this we treated all franchise negotiations sessions as public meetings. In re-thinking this issue, it comes to mind that those meetings may not actually be meetings, and, therefore,might not be subject to the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). I guess this might depend on whether the group that is doing the negotiating is an official body. It is my understanding that the Mayor intends to name/appoint/select some people to serve in this capacity. Maybe it depends on which verb he uses. Could you please advise me on this matter. q:\planning\stafAthys\memos\1997\cbineg.doc "An Equal Opportunity Employer with a commitment to workforce diversification." b CITY OF ITHACA V~" et 108 East Green Street Ithaca,New York 14850-5690 s OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Mariette Geldenhuys,City Attorney Telephone: 607/274-6504 �PoRA?EO Patricia M.Kennedy,Assistant City Attorney Fax: 607/274-6507 MEMORANDUM TO: H. Matthys van Cort Director of Planning & Development FROM: Mariette Geldenhuys City Attorney /Y�1 RE: Franchise negotiations DATE: December 15, 1997 --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Open Meetings Law (Public Officers Law section 100 et seal.) defines a"meeting" as "... the official convening of a public body for the purpose of conducting public business." Public Officers Law section 102(1). "Public body" is defined as "... any entity, for which a quorum is required in order to conduct public business and which consists of two or more members, performing a governmental function for the state or for an agency or department thereof... or committee or subcommittee or other similar body of such public body." Public Officers Law section 102(2). The courts have held that, where an entity has advisory powers only, and the final decision will be made by a public officer or governing body, meetings of the entity are not subject to the provisions of the Open Meetings Law. For example, in Goodson Todman Enterprises, Ltd. v. Town Board of Milan(2d Dep't, 1989) 151 A.D. 2d 642, 542 N.Y.S.2d 373, app. den. 74 N.Y.2d 614, 547 N.Y.S.2d 848), the court held that a zoning revision committee, which had a purely advisory function and did not involve exercise of sovereign power, was not an entity to which the Open Meetings Law applied. The Cable Refranchising Committee does not have any final decision making power, and therefore does not conduct public business or perform a governmental function under the Open Meetings Law as interpreted by the courts. Therefore, meetings of the committee and negotiation sessions with Time Warner Cable are not public meetings, and need not be open to the public. I have reviewed this issue with Robert Freeman of the Committee on Open Government at NYCOM, and he agrees with my analysis. If you have any further questions, please let me know. "An Equal Opportunity Employer with an Affirmative Action Program" ��