Loading...
07/13/1982 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JULY 13; 1982 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE'&;ROLL CALL. 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3: CABLE TELEVISION/RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION' 4. OTHER. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING A special City Council meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tues- day, July 13, 1982, at the City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a public hearing for consideration of a water treatment plant. The revised summary report on the water treatment project as prepared by the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates was enclosed as pages 185 through 214 of your last City Council packet. For your convenience, another copy is enclosed with several additional attachments in a special folder. Included in the folder with the revised summary report are copies of the survey that was mailed out as a part of a newsletter in the fall of 1981 and the survey results. Also enclosed are a copy of the minutes of the January 28, 1982 water treatment hearing and copies of minutes with City Council action that was taken on March 16, 1982 regarding the water treatment project. Since a public hearing was held in January and considerable public input and debate was allowed again in March, this hearing will be pre- sented in twenty to thirty minutes which is somewhat streamlined from the time taken for the first public hearing by the City staff. The public hearing will, however, be close to a full presentation similar to the hearing that was held in January. There will be handouts available. A copy is enclosed in the attached folder. There will be a slide presentation wbich will be shown on the wall above the City Councilmembers to accommodate the audience. It should be announced at the beginning of the meeting that a decision is not scheduled for that evening due to the fact that the public hearing was scheduled to provide an opportunity for input, questions and answers and an opportunity to study all the facts and issues by both the public and the City Council. That decision is to be reached at a regular City Council meeting in the near future. That meeting date is to be scheduled for July 20, August 3 or August 17. It is difficult for the City staff to determine how many people will be present for the public hearing; however, extra chairs are being planned for the City Hall, the windows will be open for over- flow outside the facility. If there are more people in attendance than the City Hall has capacity for, the City staff will do the best they can to accommodate everyone in the presentation. If any member of the City Council has any questions or would like additional information about the public hearing and special City Council meeting as it pertains to water treatment, please feel free to contact the City Administrator at any time prior to the meeting. Bob Rosene is on vacation and an associate with the con- sulting firm, who actually wrote the report, will be present to participate in the presentation with the City Administrator and Director of Public Works. Special City Council Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Two Cable Television Resolution At the last Joint Cable Commission meeting held on Thursday, July 8, 1982, the consultant presented an action alert from the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers entitled, "Substantial Revi- sions of Coldwater Cable Bill Threaten Local Access Efforts and Curtail Local Regulatory Controls". Enclosed is a copy of that document. The newly amended cable bill proposed in the Senate will severely limit local regulatory authority, threaten existing franchise agreements and deal a crippling blow to non-commercial access to cable according to the document. The Joint Cable Commis- sion did take unanimous action directing the consultants to prepare a letter of opposition to be mailed to the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on telecommunications and Senators Boschwitz and Duren- berger opposing the proposed legislation, claiming that cities wish to retain local regulatory authority as it relates to cable communications within their respective communities. City Council - member Smith, the Council's representative on the commission, has asked that this handout be copied to the entire City Council and that similar action by the City Council be taken at the special City Council meeting. The action is required as soon as possible due to the fact input must be received prior to July 19, 1982 when the draft bill will be submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee for markup and amendments. The City has not received a copy of the correspondence from Tom Creighton as of this date. However, if it is available, copies will be handed out to the City Council tomorrow evening and it is suggested that that position be taken by the City Council with certain revisions. Other Business Once the public hearing is finalized on the water treatment plant and action has been taken on the cable resolution, it is recommended that the City Council take a break and reconvene in the council chamber area to meet with Jack Boarman of Boarman Architects to further discuss the City Hall project. As a reminder, the Citizen's Advisory Committee has scheduled a meeting for 8:00 p.m. and will be meeting in the general office area and should be completing their meeting at approximately 9:00 to 9:15 p.m. in time for the City Council to meet with Jack Boarman. If the committee meeting is not completed by that time, the Council should feel free to join the committee meeting in the general office area. At the last City Council meeting, there was action taken to approve a private placement for the Yankee Square office project. There was discussion previous to that action that gave some consideration to a letter of credit if the City Council would consider a modified Special City Council Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Three public offering with an acceptable letter of credit offered as additional security to the project. There was not official action taken as to whether the Finance Committee should or should not investigate the letter of credit in any further detail. The City Administrator has requested a letter from Miller & Schroeder that provides more details as to the mechanics of a letter of credit if such a method is considered for future industrial revenue bond offerings. A copy of that letter is enclosed as an attachment to this packet. If the City Council would like to discuss the issue, action should be taken to direct the Finance Committee to study in further detail the letter of credit. Or if the City Coun- cil feels they have had an opportunity to review the same facts, it is possible if time permits that a discussion could transpire at tomorrow night's meeting. s/Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Special Note: As of late this afternoon, the City Administrator received a call from M & S that the letter is approximately five pages in length and required final review by a representative of Miller & Schroeder and would not be available for distribution until tomorrow. Copies will be available at the meeting. nauc^dtt,--.ZC1L-8^,n (� (ON ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION A SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS OF GOLDWATER CABLE BILL THREATEN LOCAL ACCESS EFFORTS AND CURTAILS LOCAL MARKUP: JULY 19 REGULATORY CONTROL The staff of the senate subcommittee on telecommunications has prepared an amended version of 5.2172, the cable bill introduced by Senator Goldwater (R -AZ) on March 4. The newly amended cable bill severly limits local regulatory authority, threatens existing franchise agreements, and deals a crippling blow to noncommercial access to cable. Should the bill pass in its present form, local governments would have 60 days to bring their existing franchise agreements into compliance with the bill's terms. ACCESS CHANNEL CEILING MANDATED The amended bill will set a ceiling on all types of access channel requirements, allowing local governments to require no more than 10% of available channels to be set aside for noncommercial access. An additional 10% of channels may be set aside for leased access. However, • the"10% of available channels" may be figured only on the total number of technically equipped channels less the number of channels carrying "must -carry" signals. Systems with less than 20 channels would be exempt from access requirements. Existing franchises with higher access grandfathered until the franchises expire or any system may petition the FCC to waive the there are "reasonably available alternatives provide programing service to the public..." put all access programming onto a composite programming if the level of demand does not FEDERAL PREEMPTION requirements would be are renegotiated. However, access requirement, if for persons desiring to The operator may also channel, with commercial require a dedicated channel. The bill gives exclusive jurisdiction over cable systems to the Federal Government, except where the bill allows local jurisdiction (i.e. over basic rates and non-commercial access rates). Any law in effect which is in conflict with the provisions of the bill would be superseded by the cable bill. UNRESTRICTED CROSS OWNERSHIP The bill prohibits the Federal government, state and local governments from in any way prohibiting ownership of cable systems,"by reason • of ...ownership in any other media interests" including networks, broadcasters, newspapers, phone, etc. In effect, the bill does away with any cross ownership restrictions now in existance on the Federal and State levels. NATIONAL OFFICE 906 Pennsylvania ?venue. SE 2 MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP PROHIBITION UNLESS FAIR MARKET VALUE The bill prohibits municipal ownership of cable systems unless the • city has "aquired" the system at "fair market value," defined as the ongoing value of the business plus "goodwill", which generally means the value of the franchise or license rights. It is still unclear, as it was in the first draft of this bill, whether or not cities must "buy back" their own franchise rights if there is no system constructed yet, and no franchise awarded. FRANCHISE FEES LIMITED The ameded bill requires the FCC to set a franchise fee ceiling limited to covering only the cost of local regulation. However, since the bill also limits local regulatory authority, and since local governments are presumably prohibited from using franchise fees for local programming support, the ceiling may be set lower than the present 3%. A city would be allowed to petition for a fee increase, but it would have to show that it needed the extra monies to cover the costs of local cable regulation. No franchise fees would be available for general funds or for programming support. AUTOMATIC FRANCHISE RENEWAL The bill madates automatic franchise "renewal, provided that 1) the system operator has not defaulted on the'franchise agreement, 2) there has been material change in the operator's qualifications, and 3) the services provided are "reasonable" in light of the size, nature, needs and interests of the community, the age and status of the syste, and the comparabil- ity of the system to others in similar size communities. RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CURTAILED Local governments would be prohibited from all rate regulation of cable, except for the rates for basic service, and the rates for public, educational and government access channels. Basic service, however, is redefined in the bill to include only retransmission of broadcast signals and noncommercial access signals. NO GRANDFATHERING Except for the access channel ceiling, and the foreign ownership provision, no local franchises would be grandfathered from the effects of the bill, and must be brought into compliance with the bill's provisions within 60 days. Although it may be that the 60 day period can be extended, the agreements negotiated locally would still be subject to renegotiation as a result of the no grandfathering intent of the bill. OTHER PROVISIONS The bill also deals with signal piracy, privacy, and exempts cable from equal time provisions and the fairness doctrine. It requires reciprocity from foreign countries to allow their companies to operate cable systems here. 3 NFLCP urges its members to contact the Senate Commerce Committee, local senators and other elected officials informing them of their strong opposition to this; bill. The NFLCP believes that this bill must be stopped. Moreover, it is the position of the NFLCP that any cable legislation that curtails access or local authority is inappropriate. REASONS WHY WE MUST "KILL THE CABLE BILL" 1. The redraft of S 2172 is so altered from the original bill as to change the prinicpal intent and substance. Therefore, we recommend this bill be halted until these new issues are properly addressed. While the original sought to guide cities, this draft intends to preempt control of cities over cable. 2. This draft would force communities and companies who have negotiated substantial access provisions in good faith, to drop franchise requirements which exceed the capacity levels in the bill. Moreover, programming support from franchise fees would be eliminated. Communities who have awareded franchises, based in part on the level of operator support of community access, face renegotiating far more limited access support after the fact of competitive franchising. 3. The bill damages local efforts to effectively regulate and oversee cable television. In. fact, the draft removes all regulatory power from the local and state level, except for authority over the rates charged for basic retransmission (local broadcast) services. Local communities who have finished the competitive franchising process will be forced to renegotiate a less effective franchise with the cable operator, and to automatically renew. -that company's rights unless default on the scaled down franchise agreement occurs. 04. Moreover, with the elimination of all cross -ownership restrictions, local governments will not be able to insure against local monopoly control of mass media. Nor will the Federal government be able to control the increasing concentration of ownership of media among a few, ver large media conglomerates. 5. The automatic renewal clause completely kills competition for franchises which will expire in the 1980's and beyond, and will force cities to litigate any noncompliance issues. 6. Local governments will lose most of their franchise fee revenues, and may only use those they have for regulation. No administrative or programming support can continue using franchise fees. 7. This bill ignores the public's First Amendment rights. For three years, in HR 3130, S 898, S2172 and S2445, attempts have been made in Congress to protect the industry's rights over those of the public. NFLCP is outraged that the publicls rights of access to media are superseded by the rights of businesses to control what the public will see and hear. 8. This bill has been written by the industry. There has been no real attempt on the part of the Senate staff to respond to repeated presentations of evidence by local officials and cable access users. 9. The bill raises several constitutional questions: 1) whether primary First Amendment rights lie with the people or the cable company, 2) whether the Federal govern- ment can force local governments to'renew franchises, and 3) whether the Federal government can preempt existing contracts between cities and wheth companies. 10, Finally, all franchises must be brought into cc--Dliancs, i.e., renegotiated, with the bill within 60 days. An extension of this time period will still subject local franchises to renegotiation. The draft of S. 2172 will be submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee do for markup and amendments o Monday, July 19, 1982. We have approximately 6 working days to communicate our dissatisfaction to the Senate. Any of the following actions you take will help. HOW TO OPPOSE THE CABLE BILL 1) Send mailgrams or letters this week to the members of the Senate Commerce Committee and to your senators asking that they vote down or "kill" this bill. Mention two things: a) your opposition to specific provisions (use the points on P. 3) b) your current involvement in and commitment to access programmes. 2) Call your Senators and the Subcommittee Senators at their local or Washington office to reiterate your position. Most offices keep tallies of the calls and letters they receive on specific issues. 3) Send a copy of your letters or mailgrams to your mayor and other local officials. Ask them to contact the Senate and reinforce -your position. 4) Copy the Action Alert and distribute it to your mailing list and others in your area involved in access. Urge them to take all the steps above. 5) Send letters to editors of the local press. Get your press involved • in this as a local political issue. 6) Use your cable system to discuss the bill and its impending effects. Involve local, state and federal officials in access programs via Interviews, debates, etc. Make them aware of access in their areas. PLEASE DONIT DELAY IN TAKING THESE ACTIONS. YOUR LETTERS AND CALLS HAVE WORKED IN THE PAST. • WHO'S WHO ON THE HILL SENATE COMMITTEE ON COERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION SUBCOK41TTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS `[ember/Room/Telephone Telecommunications Legislative Aid Barry M. Goldwater (R -AZ), Chairman Chris Courson 427 RSOB, 224-2235 Harrison H. Schmitt (R -%N) Pat Rogers 248 RSOB, 224-5521 Larry Pressler (R -SD) Mary Bierle 2104 DSOB, 224-5842 Ted Stevens (R -AK) ;lark Snyder 260 RSOB, 224-3004 Ernest F. Hollings (D -SC) Ranking Minority Member Tom Cohen 115 RSOB,-224-6121 Daniel K. Inouye (D -HI) Eric Lee 105 RSOB, 224-3934 • Wendell H. Ford (D -KY) Martha Malony 4107 DSOB, 224-2541 Bob Packwood (R -OR) Ex -Officio Chris Coursen 1321 DSOB; 224-5244 Slade Gorton (R -WA) Cliff Webster 3326 DSOB Howell Heflin (D -AL) Mike Gillard 3107 DSOB J. James Exon (D -NE) Rich Fitzimons 3313 DSOB Russell B. Long (D -LA) Curley Dossman 217 RSOB Bob Kasten (R -WI) Bob Ziemer 328 RSOB Donald W. Riegle (D -MI) Steve Harris 6300 DSOB - 2 - Howard W. Cannon (D-Nev.) 5102 DSOB John C. Danforth (R -MO) 460 RSOB Gordy Fink Walter McCormick Jerry Cox RSOB = Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 DSOB = Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 i • SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY JULY 13; 1982 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE'&;ROLL CALL. 2. PUBLIC HEARING FOR CONSIDERATION OF WATER TREATMENT PLANT 3: CABLE TELEVISION/RESOLUTION TO CONSIDER PROPOSED CONGRESSIONAL LEGISLATION' 4. OTHER. MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES DATE: JULY 12, 1982 SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING A special City Council meeting is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tues- day, July 13, 1982, at the City Hall. The purpose of the meeting is to hold a public hearing for consideration of a water treatment plant. The revised summary report on the water treatment project as prepared by the consulting engineering firm of Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik & Associates was enclosed as pages 185 through 214 of your last City Council packet. For your convenience, another copy is enclosed with several additional attachments in a special folder. Included in the folder with the revised summary report are copies of the survey that was mailed out as a part of a newsletter in the fall of 1981 and the survey results. Also enclosed are a copy of the minutes of the January 28, 1982 water treatment hearing and copies of minutes with City Council action that was taken on March 16, 1982 regarding the water treatment project. Since a public hearing was held in January and considerable public input and debate was allowed again in March, this hearing will be pre- sented in twenty to thirty minutes which is somewhat streamlined from the time taken for the first public hearing by the City staff. The public hearing will, however, be close to a full presentation similar to the hearing that was held in January. There will be handouts available. A copy is enclosed in the attached folder. There will be a slide presentation wbich will be shown on the wall above the City Councilmembers to accommodate the audience. It should be announced at the beginning of the meeting that a decision is not scheduled for that evening due to the fact that the public hearing was scheduled to provide an opportunity for input, questions and answers and an opportunity to study all the facts and issues by both the public and the City Council. That decision is to be reached at a regular City Council meeting in the near future. That meeting date is to be scheduled for July 20, August 3 or August 17. It is difficult for the City staff to determine how many people will be present for the public hearing; however, extra chairs are being planned for the City Hall, the windows will be open for over- flow outside the facility. If there are more people in attendance than the City Hall has capacity for, the City staff will do the best they can to accommodate everyone in the presentation. If any member of the City Council has any questions or would like additional information about the public hearing and special City Council meeting as it pertains to water treatment, please feel free to contact the City Administrator at any time prior to the meeting. Bob Rosene is on vacation and an associate with the con- sulting firm, who actually wrote the report, will be present to participate in the presentation with the City Administrator and Director of Public Works. Special City Council Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Two Cable Television Resolution At the last Joint Cable Commission meeting held on Thursday, July 8, 1982, the consultant presented an action alert from the National Federation of Local Cable Programmers entitled, "Substantial Revi- sions of Coldwater Cable Bill Threaten Local Access Efforts and Curtail Local Regulatory Controls". Enclosed is a copy of that document. The newly amended cable bill proposed in the Senate will severely limit local regulatory authority, threaten existing franchise agreements and deal a crippling blow to non-commercial access to cable according to the document. The Joint Cable Commis- sion did take unanimous action directing the consultants to prepare a letter of opposition to be mailed to the chairman of the Senate subcommittee on telecommunications and Senators Boschwitz and Duren- berger opposing the proposed legislation, claiming that cities wish to retain local regulatory authority as it relates to cable communications within their respective communities. City Council - member Smith, the Council's representative on the commission, has asked that this handout be copied to the entire City Council and that similar action by the City Council be taken at the special City Council meeting. The action is required as soon as possible due to the fact input must be received prior to July 19, 1982 when the draft bill will be submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee for markup and amendments. The City has not received a copy of the correspondence from Tom Creighton as of this date. However, if it is available, copies will be handed out to the City Council tomorrow evening and it is suggested that that position be taken by the City Council with certain revisions. Other Business Once the public hearing is finalized on the water treatment plant and action has been taken on the cable resolution, it is recommended that the City Council take a break and reconvene in the council chamber area to meet with Jack Boarman of Boarman Architects to further discuss the City Hall project. As a reminder, the Citizen's Advisory Committee has scheduled a meeting for 8:00 p.m. and will be meeting in the general office area and should be completing their meeting at approximately 9:00 to 9:15 p.m. in time for the City Council to meet with Jack Boarman. If the committee meeting is not completed by that time, the Council should feel free to join the committee meeting in the general office area. At the last City Council meeting, there was action taken to approve a private placement for the Yankee Square office project. There was discussion previous to that action that gave some consideration to a letter of credit if the City Council would consider a modified Special City Council Meeting July 12, 1982 Page Three public offering with an acceptable letter of credit offered as additional security to the project. There was not official action taken as to whether the Finance Committee should or should not investigate the letter of credit in any further detail. The City Administrator has requested a letter from Miller & Schroeder that provides more details as to the mechanics of a letter of credit if such a method is considered for future industrial revenue bond offerings. A copy of that letter is enclosed as an attachment to this packet. If the City Council would like to discuss the issue, action should be taken to direct the Finance Committee to study in further detail the letter of credit. Or if the City Coun- cil feels they have had an opportunity to review the same facts, it is possible if time permits that a discussion could transpire at tomorrow night's meeting. s/Thomas L. Hedges City Administrator Special Note: As of late this afternoon, the City Administrator received a call from M & S that the letter is approximately five pages in length and required final review by a representative of Miller & Schroeder and would not be available for distribution until tomorrow. Copies will be available at the meeting. nauc^dtt,--.ZC1L-8^,n (� (ON ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION A SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS OF GOLDWATER CABLE BILL THREATEN LOCAL ACCESS EFFORTS AND CURTAILS LOCAL MARKUP: JULY 19 REGULATORY CONTROL The staff of the senate subcommittee on telecommunications has prepared an amended version of 5.2172, the cable bill introduced by Senator Goldwater (R -AZ) on March 4. The newly amended cable bill severly limits local regulatory authority, threatens existing franchise agreements, and deals a crippling blow to noncommercial access to cable. Should the bill pass in its present form, local governments would have 60 days to bring their existing franchise agreements into compliance with the bill's terms. ACCESS CHANNEL CEILING MANDATED The amended bill will set a ceiling on all types of access channel requirements, allowing local governments to require no more than 10% of available channels to be set aside for noncommercial access. An additional 10% of channels may be set aside for leased access. However, • the"10% of available channels" may be figured only on the total number of technically equipped channels less the number of channels carrying "must -carry" signals. Systems with less than 20 channels would be exempt from access requirements. Existing franchises with higher access grandfathered until the franchises expire or any system may petition the FCC to waive the there are "reasonably available alternatives provide programing service to the public..." put all access programming onto a composite programming if the level of demand does not FEDERAL PREEMPTION requirements would be are renegotiated. However, access requirement, if for persons desiring to The operator may also channel, with commercial require a dedicated channel. The bill gives exclusive jurisdiction over cable systems to the Federal Government, except where the bill allows local jurisdiction (i.e. over basic rates and non-commercial access rates). Any law in effect which is in conflict with the provisions of the bill would be superseded by the cable bill. UNRESTRICTED CROSS OWNERSHIP The bill prohibits the Federal government, state and local governments from in any way prohibiting ownership of cable systems,"by reason • of ...ownership in any other media interests" including networks, broadcasters, newspapers, phone, etc. In effect, the bill does away with any cross ownership restrictions now in existance on the Federal and State levels. NATIONAL OFFICE 906 Pennsylvania ?venue. SE 2 MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP PROHIBITION UNLESS FAIR MARKET VALUE The bill prohibits municipal ownership of cable systems unless the • city has "aquired" the system at "fair market value," defined as the ongoing value of the business plus "goodwill", which generally means the value of the franchise or license rights. It is still unclear, as it was in the first draft of this bill, whether or not cities must "buy back" their own franchise rights if there is no system constructed yet, and no franchise awarded. FRANCHISE FEES LIMITED The ameded bill requires the FCC to set a franchise fee ceiling limited to covering only the cost of local regulation. However, since the bill also limits local regulatory authority, and since local governments are presumably prohibited from using franchise fees for local programming support, the ceiling may be set lower than the present 3%. A city would be allowed to petition for a fee increase, but it would have to show that it needed the extra monies to cover the costs of local cable regulation. No franchise fees would be available for general funds or for programming support. AUTOMATIC FRANCHISE RENEWAL The bill madates automatic franchise "renewal, provided that 1) the system operator has not defaulted on the'franchise agreement, 2) there has been material change in the operator's qualifications, and 3) the services provided are "reasonable" in light of the size, nature, needs and interests of the community, the age and status of the syste, and the comparabil- ity of the system to others in similar size communities. RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CURTAILED Local governments would be prohibited from all rate regulation of cable, except for the rates for basic service, and the rates for public, educational and government access channels. Basic service, however, is redefined in the bill to include only retransmission of broadcast signals and noncommercial access signals. NO GRANDFATHERING Except for the access channel ceiling, and the foreign ownership provision, no local franchises would be grandfathered from the effects of the bill, and must be brought into compliance with the bill's provisions within 60 days. Although it may be that the 60 day period can be extended, the agreements negotiated locally would still be subject to renegotiation as a result of the no grandfathering intent of the bill. OTHER PROVISIONS The bill also deals with signal piracy, privacy, and exempts cable from equal time provisions and the fairness doctrine. It requires reciprocity from foreign countries to allow their companies to operate cable systems here. 3 NFLCP urges its members to contact the Senate Commerce Committee, local senators and other elected officials informing them of their strong opposition to this; bill. The NFLCP believes that this bill must be stopped. Moreover, it is the position of the NFLCP that any cable legislation that curtails access or local authority is inappropriate. REASONS WHY WE MUST "KILL THE CABLE BILL" 1. The redraft of S 2172 is so altered from the original bill as to change the prinicpal intent and substance. Therefore, we recommend this bill be halted until these new issues are properly addressed. While the original sought to guide cities, this draft intends to preempt control of cities over cable. 2. This draft would force communities and companies who have negotiated substantial access provisions in good faith, to drop franchise requirements which exceed the capacity levels in the bill. Moreover, programming support from franchise fees would be eliminated. Communities who have awareded franchises, based in part on the level of operator support of community access, face renegotiating far more limited access support after the fact of competitive franchising. 3. The bill damages local efforts to effectively regulate and oversee cable television. In. fact, the draft removes all regulatory power from the local and state level, except for authority over the rates charged for basic retransmission (local broadcast) services. Local communities who have finished the competitive franchising process will be forced to renegotiate a less effective franchise with the cable operator, and to automatically renew. -that company's rights unless default on the scaled down franchise agreement occurs. 04. Moreover, with the elimination of all cross -ownership restrictions, local governments will not be able to insure against local monopoly control of mass media. Nor will the Federal government be able to control the increasing concentration of ownership of media among a few, ver large media conglomerates. 5. The automatic renewal clause completely kills competition for franchises which will expire in the 1980's and beyond, and will force cities to litigate any noncompliance issues. 6. Local governments will lose most of their franchise fee revenues, and may only use those they have for regulation. No administrative or programming support can continue using franchise fees. 7. This bill ignores the public's First Amendment rights. For three years, in HR 3130, S 898, S2172 and S2445, attempts have been made in Congress to protect the industry's rights over those of the public. NFLCP is outraged that the publicls rights of access to media are superseded by the rights of businesses to control what the public will see and hear. 8. This bill has been written by the industry. There has been no real attempt on the part of the Senate staff to respond to repeated presentations of evidence by local officials and cable access users. 9. The bill raises several constitutional questions: 1) whether primary First Amendment rights lie with the people or the cable company, 2) whether the Federal govern- ment can force local governments to'renew franchises, and 3) whether the Federal government can preempt existing contracts between cities and wheth companies. 10, Finally, all franchises must be brought into cc--Dliancs, i.e., renegotiated, with the bill within 60 days. An extension of this time period will still subject local franchises to renegotiation. The draft of S. 2172 will be submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee do for markup and amendments o Monday, July 19, 1982. We have approximately 6 working days to communicate our dissatisfaction to the Senate. Any of the following actions you take will help. HOW TO OPPOSE THE CABLE BILL 1) Send mailgrams or letters this week to the members of the Senate Commerce Committee and to your senators asking that they vote down or "kill" this bill. Mention two things: a) your opposition to specific provisions (use the points on P. 3) b) your current involvement in and commitment to access programmes. 2) Call your Senators and the Subcommittee Senators at their local or Washington office to reiterate your position. Most offices keep tallies of the calls and letters they receive on specific issues. 3) Send a copy of your letters or mailgrams to your mayor and other local officials. Ask them to contact the Senate and reinforce -your position. 4) Copy the Action Alert and distribute it to your mailing list and others in your area involved in access. Urge them to take all the steps above. 5) Send letters to editors of the local press. Get your press involved • in this as a local political issue. 6) Use your cable system to discuss the bill and its impending effects. Involve local, state and federal officials in access programs via Interviews, debates, etc. Make them aware of access in their areas. PLEASE DONIT DELAY IN TAKING THESE ACTIONS. YOUR LETTERS AND CALLS HAVE WORKED IN THE PAST. • WHO'S WHO ON THE HILL SENATE COMMITTEE ON COERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION SUBCOK41TTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS `[ember/Room/Telephone Telecommunications Legislative Aid Barry M. Goldwater (R -AZ), Chairman Chris Courson 427 RSOB, 224-2235 Harrison H. Schmitt (R -%N) Pat Rogers 248 RSOB, 224-5521 Larry Pressler (R -SD) Mary Bierle 2104 DSOB, 224-5842 Ted Stevens (R -AK) ;lark Snyder 260 RSOB, 224-3004 Ernest F. Hollings (D -SC) Ranking Minority Member Tom Cohen 115 RSOB,-224-6121 Daniel K. Inouye (D -HI) Eric Lee 105 RSOB, 224-3934 • Wendell H. Ford (D -KY) Martha Malony 4107 DSOB, 224-2541 Bob Packwood (R -OR) Ex -Officio Chris Coursen 1321 DSOB; 224-5244 Slade Gorton (R -WA) Cliff Webster 3326 DSOB Howell Heflin (D -AL) Mike Gillard 3107 DSOB J. James Exon (D -NE) Rich Fitzimons 3313 DSOB Russell B. Long (D -LA) Curley Dossman 217 RSOB Bob Kasten (R -WI) Bob Ziemer 328 RSOB Donald W. Riegle (D -MI) Steve Harris 6300 DSOB - 2 - Howard W. Cannon (D-Nev.) 5102 DSOB John C. Danforth (R -MO) 460 RSOB Gordy Fink Walter McCormick Jerry Cox RSOB = Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 DSOB = Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 i •