03/22/1993 - City Council Special AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Burnsville City Hall
Monday
March 22, 1993
7:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
II. JOINT MEETING WITH BURNSVILLE CITY COUNCIL AND
CABLE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS CABLE-RELATED
MATTERS
III. OTHER BUSINESS
IV. ADJOURNMENT
MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: MARCH 19, 1993
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP/MONDAY, MARCH 22, 1993
As a reminder, a joint meeting of the Burnsville and Eagan City Councils and their Cable
Commission will be held at the Burnsville City Hall on this coming Monday, March 22 at
7:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the data processing in the lower level of the City
g
P
g tY
Hall. Enclosed as an attachment is a memo with support data prepared by Mike Reardon,
Cable Coordinator.
This meeting is open to the public. Any Eagan resident that would like to attend is more
than welcome.
The City Administrator is coordinating a tour of the Burnsville City Hall immediately
following the joint work session. It is expected that the joint work session will last
approximately one hour.
/S/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
TLH/vmd
illitEAGAN
At
LW A
cr, COMMUNICATIONS
Z COMMISSION
3830 PILOT KNOB ROAD, EACAN, ,MN 55122-1897
612 681-4608 • EAX 681-4612
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: DEPUTY MANAGER HAN SEN
ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HOHENSTEIN
BURNSVILLE/EAGAN CABLE COMMISSIO
FROM: MIKE REARDON, CABLE COORDINATOR
DATE: MARCH 17, 1993
SUBJECT: MARCH 22 JOINT MEMBER CITIES COUNCIL/COMMISSION MEETING
•
As you know, there is a joint meeting of the Burnsville and Eagan
City Councils, and the Cable Commission, at the Burnsville City
Council 's March 22 work session. The meeting will start at 7:00
PM, and is scheduled for approximately an hour. It is tentatively
planned to be held in the Data Processing Area in the lower level
of the City Hall.
Staff has prepared, in consultation with the Commission and Cities'
staff, the following agenda for the meeting:
1) Cable Commission's Role and Activities
2) 1992 Cable Act - Impact on the Cities & Commission
3) Public Access Transfer Update
4) Councils' & Commission's Communication
The first three agenda items will be presented by:
1) Cable Commission - Doug Dahl, Vice-Chair
2) Cable Act - Mike Reardon, Coordinator
3) Public Access - Jerry Hanson, Chair
The fourth item will be open for discussion. It is anticipated
that each of the first three agenda items will take about 15
minutes each.
Attached are separate reports highlighting the background for the
first three agenda items.
CABLE COMMISSION'S ROLE & ACTIVITIES
Joint Powers Agreement
In 1983, the Cities of Burnsville and Eagan (Member Cities)
entered into a joint powers agreement establishing the
Burnsville/Eagan Cable Communications Commission.
The Agreement established the general purpose of the Commission
as:
- To monitor the operation and activities of cable
communications, and in particular, the Member Cities' system;
- To provide coordination of the administration and enforcement
of the cable franchise; and,
- To conduct other activities as may be necessary to provide
equitable and reasonable rates and service levels.
Commission Member Responsibilities
- The Commission normally meets on the second Thursday of
the month. Meetings alternate between the two city halls.
- Each Commission member serves on one of its two very active
committees:
- Local Programming Advisory Committee
- Citizen/Company Relations Committee
Commission's Activities
Some of the Commission's activities during the last several years:
- Franchise Monitor/Enforcement
- 1992 Cable Ownership Transfer
- Cable Legislation
- FCC Proceedings
- Local Programming Equipment Review & Replacement
� g P
- Local Programming Equipment Audit
- Technical Standards & Performance Audit
- Cable an Com P Y Gross Revenue Audit
- Subscriber Survey
- Citizen Cable Complaints
- Public Access Promotion
- Local Programming Grants
- Public Access Volunteer Recognition Event
- Burnsville Center Public Access Promotion Event
Commission Composition
The Commission is comprised of five citizens from each Member
City (four regular members and one alternate). The current
Commission roster is:
Burnsville Eagan
Jerry Hanson, Chair Doug Dahl, Vicechair
Roger Franke Susan Shaffer, Sec./Tres.
Jerry Sterns Nick Choban
Pa ul Wood Pat O'Malley
e
y
Patrick Galazen, Alt. Ken Pirkl, Alt.
Commissions 1993 Goals & Objectives
The Commission has established the following 1993 goals/objectives:
Goal 1: To continue monitoring/enforcement of the franchise.
Objective 1: To write a summary and historical perspective of the
franchise and commission to serve as orientation
information for new commission members.
Objective 2: To continue the administration of the day-to-day
operational tasks of the Commission.
Goal 2: To develop recommendations for the transition year 1993.
Objective 1: To research and develop, by April 30, 1993, a
business plan which will explore the feasibility of
non-company managed access.
Objective 2: Develop understanding of new implications to
Commission of recent cable act/new technologies.
Objective 3: To take a proactive stance and participate in FCC
proceedings, 1992 Cable Act, etc.
Objective 4: To interpret, clarify and transmit 1992 Cable Act
implications to member cities.
1992 CABLE ACT:
IMPACT ON THE CITIES & COMMISSION
Historical Perspective
Congress passed the "1984 Cable Act" which established the
relationship under which the Cities and its cable operator would
exist for the next nine years. The Act deregulated, among other
things, the Cities' ability to regulate subscriber rates effective
January, 1987. Since December 1986 the Cities' subscriber rate for
the basic/preferred service tier has increased 123%, from $10.95 to
$24.45.
On October 5, 1992, Congress overrode the presidential veto and
enacted into law the "1992 Cable Act". The Act became effective
December 4, 1992.
A Summary of the Act's Provisions
The new legislation amends the 1984 Act in numerous sections of
which the following will or may impact the Cities:
- As defined by the FCC, the subscription rates to the basic
service tier must be "reasonable" and are regulatable as such;
- The basic service tier will be comprised at a minimum of all
local broadcast and access channels;
- The Act establishes a procedure by which the Cities can be
certified to "enforce" the administration of the FCC's basic rate
regulations.
- The FCC is given the authority to ensure that rates/fees for
other programming services are not "unreasonable", i.e., other
service tiers, installation, remote control, additional outlets, but
not premium or pay-per-view services.
- As defined by the FCC, the federal adoption of customer
service standards, with the Cities allowed to adopt different or
stricter standards;
- The Cities are granted immunity from monetary damages in
most federal, state and local lawsuits challenging the regulation
of the cable system;
- As defined by the FCC, the federal adoption of minimum
technical standards;
- The requirement that the FCC issue regulations that assure
compatibility between consumers and cable system's electronic
equipment;
- Renewal and transfer provisions of the 1984 Act, including the
prohibition of a cable operator from selling its system within
36 months following an acquisition, and
- Allowance of cable operators to itemize on cable bills costs
attributable to franchise fees, access requirements, taxes and
other costs imposed by local governments.
Summary of the FCC's Mandates
In connection with most of the above provisions and others, the
Act mandated the FCC to conduct 24 rule-making proceedings, and
as applicable, to adopt regulations, standards, and procedures. The
majority of the proceedings are to be completed by April 3,
including rate regulation. Not until the FCC has completed the
proceedings and has issued its rulings, will the full extent of the Act
be known.
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors (NATOA), in conjunction with the NLC, USCM, and
NACo, has been very involved with all proceedings that will effect
franchising authorities.
Rate Regulation
Pending the FCC's issuance of its rate regulation rulings, it would
appear that the Cities will be able to regulate the cable company's
subscriber basic service rates. Not all of the regulation procedures
are known at this time; however, the Act does state the following:
- To regulate, the Cities need to apply for FCC certification;
- The certification becomes effective within 30 days of
application, unless the FCC acts to disapprove, and;
- The Cities will have only 180 days after the FCC's rules take
effect to seek a reduction in existing rates.
Cities'/Commission's Role in Cable Act Implementation
Pending the FCC's rulings of the Act's various provisions, the Cities
will need to determine how it will implement the Act. Based on
discussion at the joint meeting and any subsequent direction
received, the Commission is ready to assist and advise the Cities as
necessary.
PUBLIC ACCESS TRANSFER UPDATE
Access Franchise Requirement Provisions
In Group W's original 1983 franchise proposal, the proposal
contained the following commitments to public, educational and
government (PEG) access:
- Total responsibility to manage, operate and fund a staffed
public access facility in Burnsville/Eagan, including an equipped
production van, studio, control room, edit suite, master control,
and portable production, and;
- Access channel allocations for each of the following:
g
government, public (2), educational, library, religious,
community bulletin board, and local origination.
Subscribers' Views on Access
In November 1991 the Commission conducted a subscriber survey
which included uestions on access viewership and related issues.
q P
The following represents some of the findings:
- 79% deemed public access as very or somewhat important;
- 37% had watched public access within the last month;
- 26% had watched government access within the last month;
- 35% had read the community bulletin board messages:
- 47% were very/somewhat interested in local community news;
Request to Transfer Access Responsibility
In 1986, as part of the Group W cable ownership transfer to Cable
TV North Central (CTVNC), CTVNC requested the Cities grant
the company relief of its access responsibilities and to transfer them
to another entity, ie: cities, commission, non-profit corporation, etc.
Since that time, the following has transpired:
- The Cities/Commission informed CTVNC that they would not
consider the request for at least one year;
- In spring of 1988, CTVNC submitted a transfer proposal which
was rejected by the Cities;
' Councils concluded, in a joint
In October 1988, the Cities Coun it joint
that:
- local access should be retained on the system,
- the Cable Commission should continue to explore access
operation options,
- franchise fees are not to be used for such operations, and
- staff would be responsible for any negotiations;
- In 1989, staff reared access transfer negotiation scenarios,
P P g
reviewed by the Cities' mayors, and determined that the Cities
should wait for CTVNC to commence negotiations;
- In 1992, as part of CTVNC/Meredith cable ownership transfer,
the Cities were approached again regarding an access transfer,
with the Cities/Commission informing the company that they
would not discuss access transfer as part of the system transfer;
- In 1992, during the cable system transfer informative meeting
process with the Cities, staff informed the Councils of
Meredith/New Heritage's access transfer request, and the
Commission's discussions regarding the need to address the
issue and bring closure to it in the near future, one way or
another.
1992 Commission Work Session on Access
In October, 1992, the Commission conducted a seminar/discussion
on alternative access operations. The Commission concluded:
- Public access might be better managed by an entity other than
the cable company;
- A non-profit corporation is a "good idea";
- Staff would prepare a business plan thoroughly exploring non-
company managed public access on which to base a decision.
Next Steps for Action
Based on the Commission's reaction to the business plan, the
Commission will develop recommendations for the Councils'
consideration. It is recommended that a future joint meeting of
the Councils, or its designees, should be conducted to review and
discuss the Commission's recommendations.