04/09/1996 - City Council Regular 10 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
EAGAN CITY COUNCIL
Eagan, Minnesota
April 9, 1996
A Special City Council meeting was held on Tuesday, April 9, 1996 at 6:30 p.m. This was a joint
meeting involving the Eagan and Bumsville City Councils and the Burnsville/Eagan Cable Commission. Present
were Mayor Tom Egan,Mayor Elizabeth Kautz,Councilmembers Pat Awada,Shawn Hunter,Sandy Masin,Deb
Moran, Glenn McKee, Charlie Crichton and Charlotte Shover, Cable Commission Chair Pat O'Malley,
Commissioners Nancy Thompson, Jim Blair, Bob Cooper, Maggie Jensen, Charles Bird and Jeff May. Also
present were City Administrator Hedges,City Manager Konat,Cable Coordinator Reardon,Assistant to the City
Administrator Hohenstein and Deputy City Manager Hansen.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ISSUES
Reardon overviewed the telecommunications changes and issues discussed in the staff memorandum
which is attached. He noted that a significant aspect of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 is its affirmation
of local authority over public rights-of-way. He stated the control of public rights-of-way will be a major
battleground in the next several years. Awada asked for clarification on the goal related to PEG access.
Reardon indicated that the Commission's goal was to address ownership issues for public, educational and
government access in the near future. Kautz asked what the changes to PEG access would mean. Reardon
stated that the Commission and Cities need to assess whether to create a non-profit management company
for PEG access or not.
Awada stated that she believes cable as it exists now will go away and be replaced by a combination
• of satellite, cable and over-the-air competitors. She asked if there was a way to provide PEG access in that
revised environment. Reardon responded that PEG access is protected in the Telecommunications Act, but
that the means of protection has not yet been defined. He stated that the Act requires that anyone who
provides video signal needs to provide PEG access.
Thompson stated that another issue was the need for cities to protect themselves in areas that affect
land use. She said that it was important for cities to identify what's important to customers to ensure that
service goes where you want it to. Hunter stated that there is a need for a telecommunications plan because
regardless of the format which is most competitive, it will involve a cable connecting services to customers. He
said it may be a telephone line or a cable line, but it will be a two-way communications line in any case.
O'Malley stated that personal communications systems are somewhat limited in their abilities and that satellite
communications also have limitations. He said that the highest quality telecommunications will likely always
require some type of cable.
Mayor Egan stated that what should define a telecommunications plan is what the consumers and the
market want. He said that the cities need to preserve opportunities in the areas of PEG access but that he
would like more discussion on what would actually be accomplished by a telecommunications plan. McKee
stated that the history of the Cable Commission has been to regulate. He said that the conservative philosophy
suggests less regulation and that we should be advocates of installation of communication opportunities. and
that our focus should be on reducing barriers rather than creating regulations. Egan stated that the need
remains to retain opportunities of all kinds. Awada asked if it was appropriate for cities to be doing any sort
of telecommunications planning. She asked whether the market should determine the shape of the
telecommunications future. She said that the cities already have ordinances on such things as tower heights
which should address land use issues. O'Malley stated that the issue is also one of limited space in rights-of-
way. Reardon stated that telecommunications attorneys are suggesting that cities establish certain basic
policies to ensure that the rights-of-way are managed. Kautz indicated that it is not an issue of regulation
• versus control. She said the cities can simultaneously encourage opportunities for service,support opportunities
for PEG access and manage rights-of-way and other land use issues. Hohenstein indicated that the issues
®012
•
most often noted by people in the telecommunications area are management of the rights-of-way, the cost of
• administering multiple uses in a finite space and costs of damage to public improvements from street openings,
service cuts and so on.
Kautz stated that businesses want cities that are well planned,well managed and know where they're
going. She indicated that a telecommunications plan could be seen by the industry as a benefit rather than a
restriction. Shover stated that if we go through the planning process,we need to involve the many disciplines
identified by staff including planning, public works, engineering, zoning restrictions, cable communications and
telecommunications. Crichton stated that he feels we need to plan for telecommunications and that we need
to control the rights-of-way. He stated that we may or may not choose to charge for it but that we do need to
control and manage it. Hedges stated that the City of Eagan is planning to address these issues with all of its
utilities in its upcoming franchise renewals.
Awada suggested that the group discuss the plan itself and what issues they had consensus on. She
said that everyone seems to be able to agree on the need to control land use issues. Kautz stated that the
Councils ought to outline and scope out the report they expect the Commission to prepare. McKee indicated
that he feels the market is doing the planning and that should be taken into account in any city plans. Shover
stated a belief that all plans need to be based on a needs assessment. Hohenstein indicated that one aspect
of a plan will be to ensure access to users to promote competition and the best services possible to Eagan
residents. He said that a plan should also address land use issues and desirable services for consumers and
service providers.
Masin stated that the Commission should do a needs assessment and start the planning process.
Crichton indicated the cities should not wait for a plan to be completed to do a right-of-way ordinance. Staff
indicated that the right-of-way ordinance could be forwarded to the Councils ahead of an overall plan. Kautz
summarized the responsibilities of each party that had been suggested by the discussion. She said that the
role of the Councils would be to confirm to Congress and the Legislature the authority of cities over public
• rights-of-way, to determine the use of franchise fees to cover costs and promote telecommunications
opportunities, to determine whether fees should be charged for the use of rights-of-way and to approve a
telecommunications plan including design parameters and minimum standards for users entering the community.
She indicated that the role of the Commission was to continue with the franchise renewal process, to present
an outline and methodology for a telecommunications plan,to begin the needs assessment associated with the
telecommunications plan, to continue to be educated regarding emerging technologies and communication
needs and to plan in a way which preserves consumer and provider opportunities. She indicated that the role
of staff was to develop a plan to manage telecommunications and other utilities in the rights-of-way, to assist
in the needs assessment, to implement the plan developed by the Commission and approved by the City
Councils and to control the costs for providers so that opportunity is maximized.
Hunter agreed that the Councils should get an outline and methodology from the Commission before
a plan is begun. Shover stated that the approach with the consumers and providers should be one of
partnership rather than regulation or control. Awada stated that the Commission should ask companies what
they need to ensure the best available services. May indicated that the Commission and Councils need to focus
on the outcome and not necessarily the medium by which a plan is developed. Masin stated that she believes
a telecommunications plan is essential and said that is analogous to planning a city with or without transit. She
said many suburbs have been planned without transit in mind and that it is very difficult now to reintroduce other
means of transportation after the fact. The Councils also reiterated the direction to staff to bring a right-of-way
ordinance back to the Councils in the near future. The Councils then indicated by acclamation that the name
of the Commission should be changed to the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission. The Mayors
thanked all participants for their work in the meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
• JDH
April 9, 1996
Date Z. y Clerk