03/08/1982 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e Mr. Martin reiterated that two processes, the triennial franchise review and the response to Teleprompter's rate increase request, were being conducted at the same time. He noted that the commission had no control over Teleprompter's submittal of rate increase requests. He said that no one was happy with the process that had to be used or with the necessity for haste. Mr. Martin noted that the financial evaluation prepared for the commission by Touche Ross had mentioned use of asset figures as one alternative for calculating rate of return. He noted that under the proposed amendments, the commission retains the right to determine what the rate of return will be. Mr. Martin said that the commission had a great deal of trouble dealing with evaluation of "reasonable standards in the industry." He said that there did not seem to be universal or even nationwide standards, since each community's needs and circumstances are unique. He said that this language had therefore been clarified in the proposed amendments. Regarding the references to the Dubuque franchise, Mr. Martin noted that there are major differences in bargaining power for new cable systems. The council took a brief recess. e Councilor Wooten asked Mr. Martin what would happen if the Eugene City Council or the Lane County Board of Commissioners fails to ratify the amendments. Mr. Martin responded that if the Cable Commission is unable to obtain approval for the amendments from all three of the jurisdictions, the matter will go into factfinding, then mediation, and finally binding arbitration. This arbitration would require that amendments be binding on all three jurisdictions. Ms. Wooten asked if the scope of the arbitration could be limited to the issues of dis- crepancy, or whether the entire franchise would be subject to arbitration. Mr. Martin responded that the scope could only be limited if the commission and Teleprompter agree on stipulation of issues to be arbitrated. He felt that since the proposal is a package, any issue could be raised. Ms. Wooten said she was concerned about testimony protesting limits to leased access opportunites for commercially sponsored productions. She agreed that additional sources of revenue are needed for the access center. She asked how the $50,000 amount of Teleprompter's contribution to the operating expenses of the center had been derived. Mr. Martin responded that commissioners recognize that more than $50,000 will be needed for operating expenses for the center, but that this had been a compromise figure both among commission members and in negotiations between the commission and Teleprompter. Mr. Martin said that some members of the commission believe that cable rate payers should pay a portion of the costs of public access and some believe that this should not happen. Mr. Martin said that there will be additional sources of revenue for the access center, such as making charges to public bodies that use the facilities. Responding to further questions from Ms. Wooten, Mr. Martin said that the commission had not had time to research information on the budgets of other public access facilities. The commission did recognize that hiring a full-time coordinator for the center was important and felt that the $50,000 amount would permit this. Mr. Martin noted that language had been included in the proposed e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 1982 Page 8