CCMinutes - 04/21/04 WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

prevailed; Comcast does not receive compensation if it prevailed, but under Oregon statutes Comcast could attempt to collect those costs. Ms. Berrian recommended the council proceed with binding arbitration as being in the public interest. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to approve that binding arbitration be initi- ated as provided in the franchise, that the decision be relayed to the Metropolitan Policy Committee, and that arbitration costs be proportionately split between participating juris- dictions. Mayor Torrey called on the council for questions and comments. Ms. Bettman expressed appreciation for the background materials. She asked if Springfield would take action before the next MPC meeting. Ms. Berrian did not think so. She said that Springfield held a work session without providing specific direction to its representatives on the MPC. No motion was presented. Ms. Bettman determined from Ms. Berrian that the costs of binding arbitration would be divided proportion- ately between the three jurisdictions on the basis of franchise revenues received. Ms. Bettman did not think the legal costs should be predicated on proportionality, but because the amount was relatively small would not oppose the motion on that basis. She was prepared to support the motion because she thought the City should be a strong advocate for its contracts and its citizens. Ms. Taylor supported the motion for the reasons stated by Ms. Bettman. She asked if future franchise agreements could include the option of franchise termination. Ms. Berrian said yes, noting the franchise agreement sunsets in 2008 and renegotiations could begin as early as 2005. Ms. Taylor favored the inclusion of such an option in future agreements. Mr. Pap~ determined from City Attorney Glenn Klein that legal counsel supported the staff recommenda- tion. He further determined from Ms. Berrian that all three jurisdictions would participate in a single arbitration, as they hold identical but separate franchises. Responding to a question from Mr. Pap~, Ms. Berrian said Comcast assumed the agreement negotiated with the former franchise holder, AT&T. Federal law dictated the revenues earned in the service category, and that included launch revenues and advertising commissions. Comcast disputed what a third party received, but that third party is wholly owned by Comcast, which was the root of the dispute. She indicated there was some cross-over of underpayment between the current and previous franchise holder. Mr. Pap6 indicated support for the motion. Mr. Meisner indicated agreement with the remarks of Ms. Bettman and support for the motion. Responding to a question from Mr. Meisner regarding what recourse Comcast had under State law to pursue compensation for its legal costs, Mr. Klein said Oregon had a statute stipulating contracts which provide for prevailing fees to one party must also provide them to the other party. Mr. Poling determined from Ms. Berrian that staff recommended the three jurisdictions divide the legal costs in the event they did not prevail. Mr. Poling asked if the decisions reached in other arbitration cases could MINUTES--Eugene City Council April 21, 2004 Page 2 Work Session