WPCNR White Plains Variety. News Analysis & Comment by Don Hughes. April 14, 2007: The revised copy of the proposed Verizon franchise agreement has been posted on www.WhitePlainsOnline.com. There are also some comments on www.WhitePlainsCNR.com. The adjourned public hearing will be continued at the Common Council Special Meeting scheduled for 16 April at 5:00PM. A vote on the agreement does not appear on the agenda, so you should still have some additional time to contact council members with your concerns.
The following comments are an update of the comments that I sent out previously. Comments on the modified Verizon Cable Franchise Agreement:
The new franchise agreement with Verizon is being done in accordance with
Title VI of the Communication Act of 1934; Article 11 of the New York Public
Service Law; Title 16, Chapter VIII of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules
and Regulations of the State of New York; and Chapter 4-21 (Multi-Channel
Service Providers) of the White Plains Code.
1) The term of the franchise is 15 years (page 7).
The agreement is still for 15 years. The reason given is a feeling that the city
may have less negotiating ability in the future because of possible new state
and federal legislation, and that it is best to lock in terms now. It is admitted that
this is a judgment call. However, given the likelihood of the introduction of
significant new technology in the near future, the franchise should be limited to
the typical 10 years.
2) They have up to 5 years to provide service to residents, and they are not
required to provide service to businesses (page 8).
No changes to this section, and there is very little that the city can do if they fail
to meet even this extended deadline.
3) They are required to provide UP TO 3 public access (PEG) channels
(page 10).
Although this was supposed to be changed, it was not. They should be required
to provide a minimum of three PEG channels with the city able to request up to
two additional.
4) They are required to pay a PEG Grant of $250,000 paid in installments
over the first three years plus an annual grant of $1/subscriber/month for the first
10 years and $1.25/subscriber/month for the remaining 5 years (page 12).
The amounts have been adjusted. However, that Common Council should not
be so cavalier in imposing what amounts to a new tax. As is indicated below,
these amounts will be passed on to the cable subscribers in addition to their
other charges – in a fashion similar to your phone bills where the taxes can
exceed the charges for services. This is roughly equivalent to a 0.8% property
tax increase for the typical home.
I believe that PEG grants are critical, but they should be based on the projected
budgets of the cable TV commission, not on the maximum we can get the
vendors to agree to.
Despite promises to the contrary, the agreement still ties the payments to
CableVision´s agreeing to equivalent conditions.
5) There is still no requirement to continue paying fees in case a new
agreement has not been negotiated before this one expires. That is why
CableVision is currently no longer paying the city PEG support (page 12).
6) PEG fees can be billed separately to customers (page 13).
If Verizon is going to list as many items separately as possible in order to keep
the basic fee low, they should be required to include an estimated net monthly
charge including all fees and taxes in all local advertising.
7) Recovery of audit expenses is limited to $15,000 (page 15).
There was no change here, and this amount should be increased.
8) Enforcement (page 19)
The maximum penalties are limited to $10,000 a year, and the actual penalties
are trivial. Thus if Verizon failed to provide service to all of White Plains after 5
years, the penalty is only $100/day. If Verizon fails to provide PEG access, the
penalty is only $100/day. The total of all penalties is limited to $10,000/year
(That is about the income from 20 subscribers). The city can only seek to
revoke the franchise for substantial noncompliance, so it seems that the city has
very limited means to actually enforce this agreement.
9) Renewal of the agreement is governed by 47 U.S.C. Section 546 which
provides that “any denial of a proposal for renewal that has been submitted in
compliance with subsection (b) of this section shall be based on one or more
adverse findings …” (page 17).
It seems that White Plains will have very little negotiating power concerning
renewals. The renewal of this franchise should not be a given depending only
on Verizon not having violated any federal and state regulations. The
agreement should indicate that items such as rates, grants, PEG channels,
programming, and technology might be negotiated even in the face of federal or
state attempts at preemption.
10) The city gives up all opportunity to regulate customer service (page 23
and Exhibit E).
11) Free cable service (Exhibit A)
There was little change here. Calvary was dropped and The German School
and Solomon Schechter School were added. I still fail to see the rational for
selecting the places to receive free service.
12) They have up to 180 day to provide PEG access from the Cable TV
Access Commission studios (Exhibit D).
This was reduced from 10 months. The reasons given for the delay is the
difficulty in obtaining the required equipment. However, I am sure that it could
be accomplished in 45 days.
13) 61 sections of the White Plains Code that apply to Multi-Channel Service
Providers such as CableVision are waived (Exhibit E).
Corporation Council is providing the Common Council an explanation for each
waived section.
14) There still has not been provided a clear explanation of possible Federal,
FCC, and State regulations.
Council Schedules Special Meeting, Resumes Verizon 5 PM Monday. Verizon Reneges
WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL-CHRONICLE-EXAMINER. By John F. Bailey. April 14, 2007 UPDATED 6:15 PM E.D.T.: Within hours of receiving a revised contract from Verizon today the city scheduled a Special Meeting Monday at 5 PM to reopen the public hearing on granting Verizon a cable franchise in White Plains before it negotiates with Cablevision, with which it has just begun negotiations.
The new contract, despite assurances by Verizon to the Common Council Thursday evening that they would “unbundle” the Initial PEG Grant from any settlement lower than the Verizon contract, puts a portion of the $250,000 Public Education Grant, and $1 per Subscriber Annual Fees, at risk, if the city cannot get Cablevision to agree to the same terms.
Also on the agenda is a second reading of an ordinance approving Kensington LLC as the developer of the senior assisted living facility on Maple Avenue and Cromwell Place. Kensington LLC is a group formed by former executives with Sunrise Assisted Living, which abruptly bowed out of the project about two weeks ago by an e-mail message.
The city’s Verizon “push” comes after a Common Council meeting Thursday evening where Verizon pledged they would not link their payment of the Public Equipment Grant to Cablevision’s acceptance of the White Plains-Verizon contract. Verizon also pledged through their spokesperson Scott Parr that they would respond to Councilman Benjamin Boykin’s call for inflation protection. The inflation protection has been added to the new contract — but is still at the mercy of cablevision “going along” with it, too, and that Cablevision has vowed it will not accept.
What follows are the “teeth” paragraphs and the Common Council agenda for Monday:
According to the new contract released today, Verizon agrees after 10 years to increase the $1 a subscriber PEG fee to $1.25 (allowing for 25% inflation in ten years), but, according to the contract, that subscriber fee is in jeopardy if Cablevision, or another cable provider refuses to agree to it. The contract does not appear to contain a provision that says the full $250,000 Initial PEG Grant must be paid regardless. Verizon has contracted to pay the $250,000 PEG grant within the first three years of the agreement, but not quite the way Mr. Parr promised Thursday evening. the key paragraph denoting this reads, to wit:
Sec. 5.4.1:….The LFA (city) shall impose an equivalent obligation to the obligations contained in this Section 5.4 (including the total amount of the Initial PEG Grant, and the sliding scale amounts of the Annual PEG Grant), on all providers of cable service in the Service Area. In any event, if any new or renewed franchise agreement contains obligations that are lesser in amount or aggregate value than the obligations impionsed in this Section 5.4 (including the total amount of the Initial PEG Grant and the sliding scale amounts of the Annual PEG Grant), Franchisee’s obligations under Section 5.4 shall be reduced to an equivalent amount.
Verizon can bill back Initial Grant, and Annual Peg Grant Per Fee to Mr. and Mrs. White Plains.
It also became clear Thursday evening that Verizon is not really paying the city anything, since the giant $70 Billion company has the right to pass through all PEG grants (the $250,000) and PEG fees (the $1- $1.25 Fee per Subscriber, and the percentage of Gross Revenues on to each subscriber.
Councilman Dennis Power cleared this misconception up once and for all by asking the City’s legal advisor on the contract, appearing via conference call, if the federal government mandated that PEG grants and cable fees be passed on to each individual cable subscriber. The lawyer said “they are not mandated, but they have the right to.”
Mr. Parr continued during that meeting Thursday evening to use the term “pay” in discussing the PEG grants, when this was clearly shown by the city cable consultant to be false. They are not paying anything. They transfer cash then collect it from their subscribers, to wit:
Section 5.6: Recovery of Costs: To the extent permitted by federal law, the Franchee shall be allowed to recover costs of the Initial PEG Grant and the Annual PEG Grant or any other costs arising from the provision of PEG services from Subscribers and to include such costs as a separately billed line item on each Subscriber’s bill. Without limiting the foregoring, if allowed under state and federal laws, Franchisee may externalize, line-item, or otherwise pass through interconnection and any franchise-related costs to subcribers.
Cablevision threatens litigation.
Meanwhile, Peter Jamison, speaking for Cablevision, threatened federal court litigation, saying the $1 a subscriber fee was unacceptable to them. Jamison pointed out that Greenburgh and Dobbs Ferry which signed a similar agreement with Verizon are having problems negotiating the same agreement with his company.
Benjamin Boykin, demanding inflation protection, told Jamison that when the people of White Plains find out Cablevision has been “holding back” $100,000 from the city, that they would go to Verizon in droves. Jamison said, “Your point is well taken.”
Mr. Dunphy, White Plains City Corporation Counsel said the $100,000 that is owed the city by Cablevision from the last year of the former TCI franchise which Cablevision assumed, was in dispute, because Cablevision disputes that they were asked for the fee, and the city claims they did ask for the fee. Sources with knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the unpaid $100,000, said that the former manager of White Plains Public Access failed to notify Cablevision the fee was due in the manner spelled out by the contract.
New Contract spells out the Free Rides.
Mr. Dunphy when questioned by Rita Malmud on the not for profit groups that were to receive free wiring and cable service, were being reexamined. But he did not say whether all churches and synagogues, and schools in the city would receive free cable or not.
According to the new contract the buildings, institutions and community building receiving free cable service through Verizon are:
City buildings Provided Free Service: City of White Plains City Hall, City of White Plains City Hall Annex, City of White Plains Housing Authority, City of White Plains Public Safety Building, City of White Plains Department of Purchasing, City of White Plains Parking Authority, City of White Plains Youth Bureau, City of White Plains Sanitation Department, City of White Plains Parks & Recreation Building, White Plains Firehouses 1, 2,3,4,5, Headquarters, and 7, White Plains Water Department, City of White Plains Garage, City of White Plains Cable TV Access Commission, Delfino Park, White Plains Library
Public Schools Receiving Free Service: Mamaroneck Avenue School, Post Road School, White Plains High School, Highlands and Eastview Middle Schools, Rochambeau School, George Washington School, Ridgeway School, Eastview School, Church Street School, Board of Education Administration Building,
Private Schools Receiving Free Service:Stepinac High School, Our Lady of Sorrows School, Good Counsel Schools, Solomon Schechter School.
County Buildings Provided Free Service: Westchester County Court House, Housing Authority, Westchester County Executive’s Office.
Public centers: White Plains Senior Center, Slater Center, White Plains Hospital Center, New York Power Authority, Room 1407, Battle Hill Community Center.
The Agenda for the Special Meeting follows:
COMMON COUNCIL AGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 16, 2007
5:00 P.M.
ADJOURNED
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Public Hearing in relation to Verizon New York Inc.’s cable television franchise.
2. Second Reading Ordinance granting a non-exclusive franchise to Verizon New York, Inc., (“Verizon”) to own and operate a cable television system in the City of White Plains, and setting the terms and conditions of the franchise and granting waivers of relief of certain provisions of Local Law No. 1A of 1993 as amended by Local Law No. 3 of 1995.
PUBLIC HEARING:
3. Public Hearing in relation to the designation of “White Plains Kensington LLC”, as the qualified and eligible sponsor for the redevelopment of an assisted living facility on Disposition Parcel A, as shown on the map attached hereto and made a part hereof (“Disposition Parcel A”), including parcels shown on the Tax Map of the City of White Plains as Tax Lots 130.27.4-4 and 130.27.4-5, (together ‘Acquisition Parcel A’), a portion of the parcel shown on the Tax Map of the City of White Plains as Tax Lot 130.27.4-3 (‘Acquisition Parcel B’), a portion of the City owned Tax Lot 130.27.4-6, known as the Longview Lot (‘Acquisition Parcel C’), and all or a portion of the development rights associated with Acquisition Parcels A, B, C and D, all such parcels located in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B; listed in Exhibit C of the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan for the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B.
4. Public Hearing in relation to approving the proposed disposition of Disposition Parcel A to “White Plains Kensington LLC”, the proposed disposal price, and the “Contract for Sale of Land for Private Redevelopment by and between the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”), the City of White Plains (“City”), and “White Plains Kensington LLC” (“Kensington LDA”) and authorizing publication of the Notice of Availability for Public Examination of the ”Redeveloper’s Statement for Public Disclosure” respecting disposition of Disposition Parcel A in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B submitted on behalf of “White Plains Kensington LLC”.
5. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains (“Common Council”) (A) approving the designation by the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”) of the White Plains Kensington, LLC, as the qualified and eligible sponsor for the redevelopment of certain property in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B, and known as Disposition Parcel A (“Disposition Parcel A”), (B) granting approval of such designation; ( C) approving the proposed land disposition by the Agency of Disposition Parcel A to White Plains Kensington, LLC, (D) approving the form and terms of the proposed Disposition Agreement (“Kensington LDA”); (E) approving the disposition price; and (F) authorizing the execution by the Chairman of the Agency and the Mayor of the City of White Plains (“City”) of Kensington LDA and execution and delivery of all necessary disposition documents.
6. Communication from Executive Director, Urban Renewal Agency, in relation to the redevelopment of the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B.
7. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains (“Common Council”) approving the acquisition by the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”) of the property known as 12-14 Cromwell Place, and shown on the Tax Maps of the City of White Plains (“city”) as Section 130.27, Block 4 Lot 4, and Section 130.27, Block 4, Lot 5 (referred to herein as “Acquisition Parcel A” and shown on the “Acquisition Parcel Map,” dated March 4, 2007, attached hereto) from Cromwell Properties, LP, which property is located in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, WPUR-9B, and is being acquired pursuant to, and consistent with, the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan, originally dated January 27, 2004, as amended to date, for the construction thereon of an assisted living facility for the frail elderly.
8. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains (“Common Council”) approving the acquisition by White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”) of the property known as 10 Cromwell Place, and shown on the Tax Maps of the City of White Plains (“City”) as Section 130.27, Block 4 Lot 3 referred to herein as “Acquisition Parcel B” and shown on the “Acquisition Parcel Map,” dated March 4, 2007, attached hereto) from 90 Maple Realty Associates, LP, which property is located in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, WPUR-9B, and is being acquired pursuant to, and consistent with, the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan, originally dated January 27, 2004, as amended to date, for the construction thereon of a portion of an assisted living facility for the frail elderly and a portion of the Longview Municipal Parking Garage.
9. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains authorizing and directing the preparation and execution of a deed for the City owned parcel shown on the Tax Maps of the City of White Plains as Tax Lot 130.27-4-6, located in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-B, (which parcel is known as the Longview Municipal Parking Lot and described on the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan as “Acquisition Parcel C,” as shown on the “Acquisition Parcel Map,” dated March 4, 2007, attached hereto) for purposes of assembling certain parcels in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project Area to enable the construction of an approximately 700 space municipal parking garage and assisted living facility for the frail elderly.
10. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains (“Common Council”) approving the acquisition by the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”) of the property known as 4 Cromwell Place, and shown on the Official Map of the City of White Plains as Tax Lots 130.27-4-2, (referred to herein as “Acquisition Parcel D,” shown on the “Acquisition Parcel Map,” dated March 4, 2007, attached hereto) from Legal Services of the Hudson Valley Inc, which property is located in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, WPUR-9B, and is being acquired pursuant to, and consistent with, the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan, originally dated January 27, 2004, as amended to date, for the construction thereon of a portion of the Longview Municipal Parking Garage.
11. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains authorizing the Commissioner of Public Works, or his designee, to accept from the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”), on behalf of the City of White Plains (“City”), the deed for the property known as Disposition Parcel B in the East Post Road Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B, which Disposition Parcel is shown on the attached “Disposition Parcel Map,” dated March 7, 2007, and will be more fully described in Schedule A of the deed, for the purpose of enabling the construction on Disposition Parcel B of an approximately 700 space Longview Municipal Parking Garage, as contemplated in the East Post Road Phase II, Urban Renewal Plan.
12. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains (“Common Council”) (A) requesting the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency (“Agency”) to prepare, or cause to be prepared, the necessary documents and approval actions to enable the Common Council to (1) designate White Plains Hospital Medical Center (“Hospital”) as the qualified and eligible sponsor for the lease of a minimum of one-half of the parking spaces in the to-be-constructed, 700+ space Longview Municipal Parking Garage (“Hospital Lease”), such garage to be located on “Disposition Parcel B” in the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B, and (2) approve the Hospital Lease, the rental terms of such Hospital Lease to be consistent with the terms described in this resolution; and (B) scheduling a public hearing for May 7, 2007, on (1) the designation of the Hospital as qualified and eligible sponsor for the Hospital Lease and (2) on the Hospital Lease, and authorizing publication of the Notice of Availability for Public Examination of the “Redeveloper’s Statement for Public Disclosure” submitted by the Hospital with respect to the lease of parking spaces in the to-be-constructed Longview Municipal Parking Garage pursuant to the proposed “Hospital Lease.”
13. Communication from Environmental Officer
14. Environmental Findings Resolution (modified) in conjunction with the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Project, Project No. WPUR-9B.
FIRST READING
ORDINANCE:
15. Communication from Chairman, Capital Projects Board, in relation to Capital Project No.C5229, Longview Avenue Parking Garage – Design and Construction.
16. Ordinance amending the Capital Projects Fund by amending an ordinance entitled, “Ordinance amending the Capital Projects Fund by establishing Capital Project No. C5229 “Longview Avenue Parking Garage – Design.”
17. Bond Ordinance authorizing the issuance of $19,000,000 bonds of the City of White Plains, Westchester County, New York, to pay part of the cost of the $19,657,000 estimated maximum cost of the construction of the Longview Municipal Parking Garage on land to be acquired or re-acquired from the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency in and for said City, pursuant to the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan.
18. Ordinance authorizing the guarantee up to $4,000,000 aggregate principal amount of indebtedness of the White Plains Urban Renewal Agency, in furtherance of the East Post Road Phase II Urban Renewal Plan.
19. Communication from Commissioner of Public Works in relation to a request by Silverman Realty Group to permit the installation of a canopy at 24-26 Mamaroneck Avenue and authorizing a revocable license agreement with the City to permit encroachment into the public right-of-way.
20. Ordinance of the Common Council of the City of White Plains authorizing the Commissioner of Public Works to enter into a revocable license agreement with 24-26 Mamaroneck Ave., LLC to permit encroachment upon City right-of-way in connection with improvements to the existing building at 24-26 Mamaroneck Avenue.
RESOLUTION:
21. Communication from Corporation Counsel in relation to a request submitted on behalf of Bloomingdale Road Investors, LLC, (The Source at White Plains) for a proposed minor amendment to a previously approved site plan to establish a drop off area along Bloomingdale Road between Maple Avenue and the southern access driveway to the garage near the two existing restaurants , and directing that the matter be referred to the Common Council for review and consideration as a substantial amendment.
22. Resolution of the Common Council of the City of White Plains expressing its objection to that portion of the Acting Commissioner of Building’s determination that the amendment submitted on behalf of Bloomingdale Road Investors, LLC (“Applicant”) to the site plan approval by the Common Council on December 20, 2001, for the project known as The Source at White Plains (formerly “Fortunoff”) to provide a drop-off area to be situated along Bloomingdale Road between Maple Avenue and the Southern Access Driveway to the garage near the two restaurants within The Source at White Plains, be considered as a minor amendment and directing the Acting Commissioner of Building to refer the proposed amendment to the Common Council for review and consideration as a substantial amendment in accordance with Section 7.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of White Plains (“Zoning Ordinance”).
ITEMS FOR REFERRAL:
23. Communication from Acting Commissioner of Building transmitting an amended site plan submitted on behalf of North Street Community LLC, a Traffic Management Plan, and requested documentation for the construction of a Planned Senior Residential Development, on the former St. Agnes Property.
Do Major League Baseball Schedulers EVER look at weather History?
WPCNR VIEW FROM THE UPPER DECK. By Fastpitch Johnny. April 12, 2007: Have the geniuses who arranged the major league baseball schedule opening in the northeast the last two weeks, looked out the window lately?

Yankee Stadium the Way it Used to Be.
Why in tarnation would you schedule games in Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and Boston in the first two weeks of April? t caught up with MLB this year. A whole weekend series was snowed out in Cleveland. The Tribe and the Angels are playing games in Milwaukee (where there is a dome)…what a farce.
Could major league baseball not schedule openers in the first two weeks of the season in warm cities or domed stadium venues? They have enough of them in both leagues to do that. I once devised a schedule that did that, so it is not particularly hard.
Not only that but because the weather has been so cold, the cold-related injuries are cropping up at an alarming rate, decimating pitching staffs and position players alike.
In the 1950s, the season started April 15. There was a reason for that. Bad weather in early spring. Since MLB has shifted out of scheduled doubleheaders to maximum gates, they now schedule nothing but singletons, because it maximizes revenue. They also play games in 35 degree temperatures to keep the big gates.
MLB never does anything right for the fan. They allowed steroids. They cancelled the World Series. They will make you sit hours in the rain before postponing a game. But, next year how about teams north of the Mason-Dixon line playing south of it in the first two weeks of the season. Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Tampa, Miami, Houston, Dallas, Oakland, Phoenix, Seattle(dome), Minneapolis (dome), Milwaukee(dome), Toronto (dome), San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles are 15 cities which are better weather conditions due to domes or southern location. That’s where the season should be opened…NOT in Chicago, New York, Boston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Denver, Pittsburgh, or Kansas City.
That would make too much sense for MLB, wouldn’t it?
SuperBand Plays WPHS Stage.Michigan Grad Band Directors Unite. Music Glorious!
WPCNR STAGE DOOR. By John F. Bailey. April 12, 2007: The Cathedral City, California High School Symphonic Band and the White Plains High School Concert Band presented an impromptu concert Wednesday afternoon at White Plains High School delivering a state-of-the-arts message of sound, effort, and excellence thanks to the efforts of high school pals, WPHS Music Teacher, William Tonissen, director of the WPHS Concert Band and Gregory Whitmore, Director of Bands in Cathedral City.

William Tonissen of WPHS Music, left, and Gregory Whitmore, College friends at the University of Michigan, now with bands of their own put on a concert with their two bans at White Plains High Wednesday.
Mr. Tonissen and Mr. Whitmore went to high school together, attended the University of Michigan together, and now deep into their careers reunited with their respective bands on the WPHS stage so their bands could play together just for the fun of it.
Cathedral City High’s Symphonic Band was making an appearance in Carnegie Hall Monday and when Mr. Tonissen found out he invited his longtime friend to bring his Cathedral City students up to White Plains High School as guests to play for his students, and get the bandmembers together. The White Plains Concert Band which Mr. Tonissen directs played a series of selections first while the 55 CCHS students listened. This set the stage for the CCHS performance. The Band showcased their range of light classical to rollicking dance as their last piece, demonstrating the pieces White Plains is known for – selections highlighting the styles of each section – the palette of the orchestra effect.

Maestro Tonissen conducts the WPHS Concert Band for his guests.

And they take a Bow to the enthusiastic applause of Cathedral City’s musicians
Then to the applause of the Cathedral High Students, the WPHS musicians left the stage and CCHS took over the stage. They began with a swell of sound from brass, from woodwinds….from bassoons….from flutes….and percussions with each section warming up individually, capturing the attention of the audience even before they started to play. With their conductor Mr.Whitmore listening to each section as if in thought, the band introspected into their tone as they warmed up. The warmup, an exercise I had never seen or heard was a “scene-setter” for the music they were about to play.

Maestro Whitmore warms up the Cathedral City musicians.
Then they began to play and music lived as it was meant to live. Rich, precise canopies of colorful sounds and feelings were voluptuously and elegantly projected flowing over the audience like the sea. Those who heard their 20 minutes of three selections will not soon forget the tempos, the power and the precise control of this band – unaided by studio, but just playing music that flowed into one’s spirit.

As I listened to these magnificent high school musicians play, I was reminded of the power of a mighty express train all parts working together, starting slowly, accelerating, surging, sweeping all and impressing all who see it and it passes with its dedication and demonstration of superb achievement. The bassoons delivered poise and gravity and sensitivity. The percussion in intricate disp lay of rhythm on sticks, castenets, and sound effects especially on the last selection delivered high drama and dash. The woodwinds, flutes and brass played with the passion of stallions racing across the plains, even in their most sensitive of moments, not letting you forget their power. Rarely even in professional performances have I heard the clarity, depth, delicacy of expression, and authority in a musical statement as I heard yesterday.
The WPHS Concert Band members were highly impressed, one member said he loved the warmup that the Cathedral City Band used. To the audience member, this warmup is a concert before a concert where each section takes a star turn and gets into their zone. Another member said, “You know I thought we were good,” in appreciation of what he had just heard.
Mr. Whitmore, one of the Catherdral High parents accompanying the band on their East Coast appearance, said has built the band program in the schools in six years, involving parents – and building a dedication on the part of his students that is amazing. The parents WPCNR spoke with said the band members practice about 2-1/2 hours a day during the school week.
The Cathedral City music program bands, Marching, Symphonic and Jazz have won numerous awards since Mr. Whitmore has been supervising the programs.

Afterwards, Theresa Niss, (center) Administrator of the Art and Music Curriculum at WPHS, said the band’s articulation, rhythm and was “right on,” and congratulated them on their performance.
Mr. Whitmore presented the high school with a plaque thinking them for their hospitality. Then members of both bands mingled and talked music.
Only one thing more could have been b etter…a combined concert mingling the two bands. Someday soon.