Laserfiche WebLink
, h � <br /> , LEGAL DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM <br /> No. 98-20 <br /> October 27, 1998 <br /> TO: Honorable Mayor an City Council Members <br /> FROM: James L. Williams ., City Manager <br /> John W. Couter, Corporation CounsG�f/�/ <br /> �•- <br /> RE: McLeod Franchise <br /> The City of Decatur currently has a telecommunications franchise with Consolidated <br /> Network, Inc. ("Consolidated"), under the provisions of which Consolidated is permitted to <br /> maintain fiber optic cable in the City's right-of-way in exchange for a fee of a certain sum per <br /> year per lineal foot. Recently, both Consolidated and the law have changed, necessitating a <br /> modification to the existing franchise. <br /> First, effective earlier this year, pursuant to newly enacted state legislation, the City <br /> adopted Chapter 71 of the City Code, entitled Telecommunications Infrastructure Maintenance <br /> Fee (or, "IMF"). This fee, based on a percentage of receipts for calls made in the relevant , <br /> jurisdiction (here, the City of Decatur), is now the only fee which may be charged to a ' <br /> telecommunications provider. Other fees in existence at the time Chapter 71 was adopted, <br /> such as that in the Consolidated agreement, could have continued (although the City had <br /> already waived the Consolidated fee in favor of the IMF), but the statute (35 ILCS 635/30) <br /> expressly prohibits such other fees for new providers. And that brings us to the other change, <br /> involving Consolidated. <br /> In September, Consolidated was merged with another corporation, and a new � <br /> corporation was formed - McLeod/USA Telecommunications Services, Inc. ("McLeod"). This <br /> requires that the City and McLeod enter a new franchise agreement, since the former <br /> Consolidated agreement is no longer valid. And, of course, the fee provisions of the McLeod ', <br /> agreement will reflect Chapter 71 of the Code, unlike the earlier Consolidated agreement. 'I <br /> Staff has reviewed the proposed agreement with McLeod, which is submitted herewith. ' <br /> It is substantially similar to the previous Consolidated agreement, except as noted above. I <br /> Cities in Illinois cannot prohibit telecommunications providers such as McLeod from using i, <br /> public right-of-way, and the proposed franchise provides the City with adequate protections ', <br /> and safeguards. <br /> Staff recommends approval of the agreement as proposed. ; <br />