03/18/1981 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e Mr. Lindberg said that the written material indicates the specific types of rates which are being charged to specific evaluations and the other charges are a monthly service fee. He wondered if the service charge should be increased. He asked if one accepts the other parts of the information presently whether the monthly charge has to be increased. Ms. Baker responded that she does not think it has to be a package. Mr. Lindberg stated that other cities have been catching up in the area of public access. The City of Eugene should ask for everything it wants now. Ms. Baker indicated that the City already has a franchise but when the state of the art changes, it can be reviewed in that light. Mr. Lindberg asked for clarification on Portland's fantastic package. Ms. Baker responded that one big difference is the inclusion of the public access studio with equipment and staff to instruct, assist with production, and help with the equipment. Mr. Lindberg asked what are the requirements for community access in the Portland franchise. Ms. Baker responded that they provide five minutes free time. If someone feels strongly about a subject, one could walk in and have five minutes free time'to present one's views. She noted, however, that the five minutes free time is from the beginning of the set-up, not from the beginning of production. They also have a black-and- white camera available for a $100 refundable deposit to produce programming. Ms. Wooten noted that the Teleprompter model is not of the latest technology. Ms. Baker stated that Teleprompter will make studio time available at $40 per hour with color equipment and staff. She said that the Library has done some programming at KLCC which was aired on KOZY. Mr. Lindberg stated that this seems to be a growing business and many new channels are being offered. The franchise essentially provides monopoly rights. Ms. Baker stated that this is not an exclusive franchise. Another company could come in but so far everyone has declined to compete. Mr. Lindberg stated that he would advocate at least one community access channel and that rate revenues go to making community access a reality rather than a hollow promise. Mr. Hamel feels that this resolution would be putting the cart before the horse. He does not feel the council should take action prior to the commission's public hearing. As long as Teleprompter is current with their franchise, these provi- sions should be included at the time of the franchise review. Ms. Schue stated a concern about having the two issues tied together. It would be difficult to justify a rate increase at this time according to the report. She supports public access but that is a separate issue and should be discussed at renewal time. Ms. Wooten said that the resolution only suggests that discussion about public access begin, since there has been no demonstration of proof that the rate increase is necessary. She indicated that she could withdraw the motion including the resolution but she would like some indication that the Cable Commission will not approve the increase without evidence demonstrating a need for the increase from Teleprompter and an agreement for additional amenities. Mr. Obie noted that he would find that acceptable. However, he does want to use additional amenities as a rationale for the rate increase. He would like to know what the increased costs of Teleprompter will be and who will pay them. There is a need to have all that information. Ms. Wooten stated that she could reword her motion to state that public access should be available for Eugene for the same costs Teleprompter is charging other communities where they provide a similar service. Vancouver has seven access channels with the same fee. MINUTES--Eugene City Council March 18, 1981 Page 12