Laserfiche WebLink
1 When Councilmember Ranallo indicated he would only vote for the non- <br /> 2 profit organization if the cable company promised not to raise their <br /> 3 rates because "the subscribers were not getting any more for $14 .95 than <br /> 4 they got for $7_. 95 before" , Councilmember Marks told him he would be <br /> 5 "very suspicious" of that promise being kept any better than previous <br /> 6 promises made when the franchise was first granted. <br /> 7 Ms. Anderson indicated she didn't see it was a rate issue which was <br /> 8 involved but rather the Cable Commission was reminding the Council that <br /> 9 "the cable company owner wasn't honoring the agreement he signed when <br /> 10 he took over the franchise. " She told Councilmember Enrooth the cable <br /> it Commission was not yet at the point where it was recommending litigation <br /> 12 to force them to honor those agreements but was still negotiating for <br /> 13 a better proposal from Mr. Hauser. However, if the cable company <br /> 14 continues not to fulfill those agreements , the Cable Commission would, <br /> 15 in all probability, be returning to the various north suburban City <br /> 16 Councils requesting their "blessings" on that action. The Cable <br /> 17 Administrator reminded the Councilmembers that provision of "Public <br /> 18 Educational and Governmental Programming" was clearly mandated in the <br /> 19 federal bill. Ms. Anderson added that by the large, most other <br /> 20 community cable franchises have independent corporations running their <br /> 21 community access programs because they realized the cable companies <br /> 22 were not in the business to run non-profit programming but had only <br /> 23 offered it as an incentive for getting the_ franchises in the first <br /> 24 place. She said the North Suburban Cable TV franchise proposal says the <br /> 25 cable company had to spend over $700,000.00 on community access <br /> 26 programming in 1987 and $800,000.00 in 1988 for marketing, promotion, <br /> 27 classes, etc. and should have spent about $3 ,000,000.00 over the last <br /> 28 five years. The Cable Administrator said she would be very surprised <br /> 29 if they spent more than $1,500,000 .00 during that time but perceived the <br /> 30 actual figures could only be determined by an independent audit. <br /> 31 Mayor Sundland indicated he perceived that by telling Cable TV North <br /> 32 Central they should keep the entire system, the City would be just <br /> 33 giving the company further reasons for claiming the community access <br /> 34 programming costs were. raising their budget to levels which required <br /> 35 higher subscription rates. Instead, he was going to vote for the <br /> 36 resolution which is intended to make them honor the agreements they <br /> 37 made with the City when they took over the franchise and to get back the <br /> 38 money the franchise required the-cable company to spend, but which they <br /> 39 did not spend, on community access. The Mayor said he thought <br /> 40 "somewhere down the line someone had to stand up and make the cable <br /> 41 company keep its agreements." He also perceived that by correcting the <br /> 42 disinformation the company put out, the City might also help to put the <br /> 43 responsibility for raising rates back on the cable company where it <br /> 44 belonged. <br /> 45 Councilmember Makowske agreed, saying she perceived the cable company's <br /> 46 refusal to keep original agreements related to pornographic programming <br /> 47 was symptomatic of their lack of intent to keep the rest of the <br /> 48 agreements they signed when they took over the franchise. Mr. Anderson <br /> 10 • <br />