Loading...
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.