Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/05/1996 Cable TV Advisory Committee City of Apple Valley February 5, 1996 7:00 P.M. City Hall Minutes 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:05 by Chairperson Bible. Members Present: Dale Rodell, Victor Seavers, Rollin Bible Members Abscent: Scott Hugstad-Vaa, David Westbrook Others Present: Gary Humphrey, Tom Goodwin, John Gretz, Randy Johnson, Charles Grawe, Dennis LaComb 2. Approval of the Agenda. The agenda was approved 3-0 (Mr. Rodell motion, second by Mr. Seavers). 3. Channel 21 Programming Proposal A draft copy of the recommendations from the Committee to the City Council was distributed. Mr. Gretz gave a brief presenation regarding Cable TV staffing. The draft memo is a proposal for new direction for Cable TV Channel 21. The proposal separates Cable Channel 21 maintenance activities from video tape production activities. Mr. Gretz explained that it is his intent to first produce a Police video under the new structure and then present it for the Committee’s review. Mr. Seavers expressed concern over the proposed $35 per hour rate. Mr. LaComb said that $35 to $50 per hour was the going rate for companies to write scripts, shoot film, and produce programs. Mr. Rodell asked if Mr. LaComb’s productions would be similar to professional productions produced for the City in the past. Mr. Bible explained that the past productions were one-time promotional pieces. Mr. LaComb will bring a professional approach to programming, raising the level of Channel 21 programming, but will not be producing the promotional pieces. Mr. LaComb added that he has 25-30 years experience with production studio direction and management. Mr. Bible said that he had no problem with the proposal but would like Council input. Mr. Goodwin said that he liked the idea of separating video production from the technical maintenance. He has seen many good cable productions in other cities and did not want to limit video production to the four areas receiving grants. He also had no objection to interviews with the Mayor and Councilmembers, provided they were done professionally, were objective, and were not political. Mr. Humphrey said that he thought this was a good way to increase professionalism of Channel 21. He raised concerns over the shelf life of the productions and wanted the City to retain ownerhip of the productions since the City was paying for it. He also said that he thought the City Administrator should have latitude to contract with other production firms if necessary and that the current cable technicians should be used for more techinical help if necessary. Mr. Seavers asked about current cable technicians. Mr. Humphrey explained that technicians currenlty tape Council meetings. Mr. Seavers asked how other City staff time had been used in the past. Mr. Goodwin explained that one production had used City Planners while the City was also contracting for planning services. Mr. Gretz explained that the City Administrator would take the responsiblity of deciding on appropriate programming. Mr. Bible expressed that he wanted the Advisory Committee to remain an active participant and that the new staff liaison should keep them informed. Mr. Humphrey requested that City staff and Mr. LaComb formulate a production policy to be considered at the next Advisory Committee meeting. Mr. Bible also requested that a quarterly plan be submitted at each quarterly meeting. Mr. Seavers expressed an interest in seeing a finished product from Mr. LaComb. Mr. LaComb said that he could provide a tape, but it was produced at a greater cost than Apple Valley would likely want and thus may not be of the same quality that an Apple Valley production would be. Mr. Bible asked that Mr. LaComb bring a tape to the next meeting and provide a production plan at that time. Mr. Gretz said that upon approval, he and Mr. LaComb would talk with the Police Chief to establish goals for the production. Mr. LaComb would then present a plan for the production which would be presented to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Seavers said that he wanted to have the first tape set a standard which the Committee and Council could agree on for expectations of the productions. Mr. Bible asked if the City was limited to using Mr. LaComb’s services. Mr. Gretz said that the City could contract for professional services with multiple contractors. If the City chose to contract with Mr. LaComb the City could still contract with other providers or terminate the contract with Mr. LaComb. Mr. LaComb stated that he had no problem with a nonexclusive environment. Mr. Seavers asked if there would be additional costs beyond Mr. LaComb’s time. Mr. LaComb resonded that additional costs may be necessary, but that it would vary greatly depending on the requirements of each production. Mr. Bible said that he was open to purchasing new equipment if necessary. Mr. Goodwin suggested that Mr. LaComb examine the City’s equipment and the equipment available through the Marcus studio. The Committee voted to accept the February 5 memo regarding Cable TV Channel 21 Programming ammended to include that the City may contract with other companies and that the City staff will provide quarterly reports to the Cable TV Advisory Committee 3-0 (Mr. Rodell motion, second by Mr. Seavers). 4. Other Business A. A summary of the Federal Telecommunications bill from NATOA was distributed. B. A copy of the letter from Marcus Cable informing the City of Marcus’ intent to be renewal of the franchise agreement was distributed. Mr. Bible instructed City staff to contact Tom Creighton. There was general discussion of the franchise renewal and relations with Marcus. There was brief discussion of the types of programming that may be offered by other cable providers. 5. Next Meeting Next meeting was set for March 4, 1996, 7:00 p.m. at Marcus Cable. 6. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 3-0 (Mr. Rodell motion, second by Mr. Seavers).