01/27/1982 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e The commission does have the authority to set the rates. Councilors who are interested in this issue should contact either commission members or Keith Martin and let their views be known so they can be taken into consideration. The structure of the decision may make the decision on whether the council has anything to say about it. Mr. Haws stated that approving or denying the rate increase may do away with the leverage for the other things desired. Mr. Swanson agreed that the commission may not just say lIyes" or "noll on the rate increase. They could impose conditions which may require changes in the franchise. Mr. Haws asked how much leeway there is and if the commission could require, as a condition, that the council hold a public hearing. Ms. Baker stated that three things are being dealt with: goal-setting, the three-year review, and the rate increase. The rates and services will be considered in the negotiations for the rate increase. Tomorrow's report will be a large determining factor as to whether the commission approves the rate request. Conditions could be put upon the rate request approval. Ms. Miller asked if audits have been made public. Ms. Baker responded that they have. This occurred after the last public hearing. Copies have been made available at the meetings, in the City Manager's Office, and announced in the newspaper. Ms. Wooten asked what would happen if one agency did not approve the request if the rate increase is contingent upon issues dealing with the franchise. She asked if it would take two votes to deny the increase. Mr. Swanson responded that all jurisdictions must concur unanimously with any changes in the fran- chise. Ms. Wooten stated that if the negotiated package is made available tomorrow to the commission, a public hearing is held, then the decision is to be made, she sees that as a short time to get public input regarding the ser- vices and programs or justification of the rate request. Ms. Baker stated that the commission had been working on this since last May. They have formed three subcommittees: 1) Franchise fee; 2) Public Access; and 3) Programming and Services. Many citizens have been involved; all their input has been consid- ered. There has been an extensive amount of public involvement. Ms. Wooten noted appreciation for the opportunities there have been for involvement, but she is concerned that the package delivery may fall short and not merit the rate increase. She asked if there would be a greater level of funding available for public access than that proposed originally by Teleprompter. Ms. Baker said that that is one item in the negotiations. Mr. Hamel added that the commission is being "hard-nosed," and they will not be satisfied with past performances. They will be working for the dollar1s worth. This process began in January 1981. Ms. Baker stated that the commission has a history of not approving rate increases. No increases have been approved in six years. Mr. Haws stated that they seem to have nothing to lose if they vote yes. He asked what there is to be lost if they vote no. Ms. Baker responded that they might lose public access, better programming, and improvements to the system. Mr. Haws asked if Teleprompter would come back and ask for a rate increase again if it were denied. Ms. Baker responded that they probably would. Mr. MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 27, 1982 Page 3