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

Home Browse Search

e amendments that would require evaluation of funding for public access in September 1983 and that the adequacy of the operating budget could be reviewed at that time. Ms. Wooten said she understood that Teleprompter's subscribers had been surveyed for their views on public access and that the majority of subscribers had expressed interest in public access. Mr. Martin said that this was the case, but noted that the survey had not included questions on whether the subscribers would be willing to pay for public access. Councilor Lindberg was concerned with elimination of meeting industry standards as a tool for evaluating Teleprompter's performance. He was also concerned with the proposed method for calculating rate of return. He asked if there were any way to bring the Eugene system up to the level of more recent franchises. Mr. Martin responded that the commission retains the right to determine what is a fair rate of return. He said that under the terms of the franchise, the commission cannot be arbitrary in its evaluation of Teleprompter's meeting of industry standards, but that it can compare Teleprompter's offerings with new developments and new technologies being offered in other areas. He added that the commission has the right to evaluate Teleprompter's performance at any time, not just during required triennial review periods. Mr. Lindberg asked whether location of the access center was already determined. Mr. Martin responded that provision of the access facility is up to Teleprompter, that Teleprompter had already signed a lease for a facility, and that he did not know if the lease could be broken. e Mr. Lindberg asked about implementation of the 1981-plus funding for cable activities. Mr. Martin responded that this would have to be addressed through the jurisdictions' local budget committees. He said that the franchise revenues currently go into the general funds of the three jurisdictions. He said that if all three jurisdictions agreed to the 1981-plus concept, funding of $18,000 to $20,000 would be available for cable activities in FY1982-83. He noted that the commission had discussed the possibility of raising the franchise fee amount from 3 percent to 5 percent, but that if this is done, the full amount would have to be used for cable regulation activites, and none of the fees could be used for general fund purposes. Responding to a further question from Mr. Lindberg, Mr. Martin said that Eugene's portion of the distributed franchise fee revenues is approximately 55 percent. Councilor Smith noted that she had previously requested an oplnlon from the City Attorney as to whether she might have a conflict of interest in this matter and had been advised that no conflict existed. She asked if the Cable Commission had discussed the possibility of having the public access facility be self-supporting. Mr. Martin responded that the commission had considered a number of possible budgets for the access center. He noted that the Public Access Advisory Committee had submitted a recommended budget, but that the commission had not adopted this budget. He reiterated that the amount of funding for public access was a matter of compromise among members of the commission. He said that the commission had made the decision not to involve the center in commercial leased access. He said that the Public Access Advisory Committee was now working to come up with a budget for operations within the negotiated funding amount. He noted that under e MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 8, 1982 Page 9