Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/01/1996 Cable TV Advisory Committee City of Apple Valley May 1, 1996 7:00 P.M. City Hall Minutes 1. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:02 by Chairperson Bible. Members Present: Dale Rodell, Victor Seavers, Rollin Bible, Scott Hugstad-Vaa, David Westbrook Members Absent: Others Present: Lisa Washa, Charles Grawe, Thomas Creighton, Tim Vowell, Jane Bremer 2. Minutes of March 14, 1996 The minutes of March 14, 1996 were approved 5-0 (Mr. Seavers motion, second by Mr. Westbrook). 3. Presentation by Mr. Thomas Creighton The City’s Cable Television Attorney, Mr. Thomas Creighton, gave a presentation about cable franchise renewal. Mr. Creighton explained the legal requirements initiated by the January Marcus Cable letter informing the City of its intent to renew the franchise. The law sets forth a formal process with many specified deadlines. This often sets up artificial timelines which don’t help the negotiating process. Mr. Creighton explained that both parties may mutually agree to use an informal process with mutually agreed upon time schedules. Generally, both parties want to allow the formal process to begin again should the informal process break down. Mr. Creighton explained that the process will be defined by the Committee. Mr. Creighton said that the first step for the City is to determine the needs of the community. This issue is more important this time than in the last renewal because the technologies allow many more services to be provided. Mr. Creighton explained that the City has two positions on which it may be able to deny renewal. The first is that the cable company fails to meet its obligations under the existing franchise. The second is that the cable company fails to meet identified community needs. Mr. Creighton said that identifying needs is difficult and is not well defined. Some communities have used focus studies and surveys, while others have identified similar needs with much lesser processes. He expects that schools and local governments will have greater cable service needs in the future. Mr. Creighton explained that identifying needs should begin now. The Committee should prioritize the needs because each need will cost the cable company money. Mr. Creighton recommended that the Committee use three broad categories for prioritizing needs. Mr. Creighton said that he did not think that the Committee should try to “find technologies” for the cable company. He explained that most companies will try to improve their technology anyway. Furthermore, when Committee members attach themselves to a particular technology, they have a tendency to ignore other solutions which may the identified needs. Mr. Creighton also advised against “drawing lines in the sand” early in the renewal process. Mr. Creighton explained that many cable companies are not good at supplying detailed proposals. Ms. Washa volunteered to make the Marcus proposal available to the City. Mr. Creighton said that the City will have to make some basic decisions about the costs that will be incurred in the renewal. He explained that the City and cable company will discuss the proposals while the larger issues are yet to be decided. Once a deal is close to being met, he will work on the actual agreement. The term of the franchise is a difficult issue. Mr. Creighton said that the cable company needs a longer to term in order to be able to borrow significant amounts of money for a system upgrade or rebuild. Mr. Creighton warned that the Committee should not ask for a short term in hopes that the cable business will be more stable by the end of the franchise. He said the market is constantly changing and franchise renewal can not simply be put off. After Mr. Creighton made his presentation, Mr. Tim Vowell of Marcus Cable made a few comments. Mr. Vowell said that Marcus Cable usually pursues the informal negotiation process. He said that the informal process typically goes smoothly, allow the recent advances in technology have made it a “bigger game to play”. He said Marcus plans to upgrade Apple Valley to a 750 MHz system. He said the system will be a fiber optic- coaxial hybrid. He said Marcus typically looks for a 15 year term and that pass throughs are generally line-itemized on consumer bills. He said he would be available to talk with the City at the City’s request and will provide as detailed a proposal as the City would like. Mr. Creighton said that the City needs to be involved early in the system rebuild process. Ms. Washa added that Marcus has an incentive to finish the renewal process quickly so that the system rebuild process can begin. Ms. Jane Bremer added that competition is a much greater factor than it was fifteen years ago and that the ability to compete effectively is the company’s highest priority. Mr. Creighton disagreed that competition is such a great factor at this time. Several members present indicated that the more dialog between the two parties, the better the end product is likely to be. Mr. Seavers asked what timelines Marcus has for completing the renewal. Mr. Vowell said that he would like to complete the process within several months, preferably by the end of August. Ms. Washa added that the first submission of capital budgets is scheduled for October 1. The consensus of the Committee members appeared to be to proceed with the informal procedure based on the information presented by Mr. Creighton. 5. Approval of 1995 Annual Cable Television Report Mr. Westbrook moved, second by Mr. Seavers to approve the 1995 Annual Cable Television report distributed at the March 14 meeting. Motion was passed unanimous. 6. Other Items Ms. Washa announced that Marcus will be adding the History Channel in place of More Music. 7. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m. 5-0 (Mr. Rodell motion, second by Mr. Hugstad- Vaa).