Members Present: Dale Rodell, Rollin Bible, Jerry Brown, David Westbrook, John Magnusson

Members Absent: Scott Hugstad-Vaa

Others Present: Tom Creighton, John Erar, Tom Burt, Charles Grawe, Karen Sanderson, TonyTaschner, Dennis LaComb, Bruce Sandberg (arrived at 7:30 p.m.)

Those present introduced themselves.

Mr. Bible announced the purpose of the meeting is to discuss options for PEG programming. He said that Marcus wants to turn public access to the cities. He said this provides the cities with the opportunity to discuss options for providing this service. Mr. Bible asked Ms. Sanderson if one option is for each city to have its own public access channel. She confirmed that this was one option. Mr. Creighton clarified that a second option is for the cities to make Marcus provide public access programming, although federal law is not clear as from where funding for the operations would come.

Mr. Creighton explained that Public, Education, Government (PEG) programming is in federal law. He explained that traditional public programming is produced by local residents using cable company equipment. Legally, the cable company must continue to provide a channel for this programming. He further explained that government programming is traditionally supported by franchise fees. In some cases, the local cable company may provide additional equipment and other support for this government programming. He explained educational programming may be little or nothing or may be very sophisticated. He said a major challenge is that school district boundaries do not match municipal boundaries, often preventing the interconnection of buildings due to differences in cable systems.

Mr. Creighton said Lakeville has a strong interest in public access. Farmington and Rosemount currently have no government programming and have a lessor franchise fee than Apple Valley. Mr. Creighton said he believes the cable company is hoping the four cities can take over public access, even though there is not an existing partnership for programming among them. The third option is for the four cities to cooperate and operate a joint facility, possibly in the existing studio.

Mr. Creighton said the cities could adopt a PEG pass through fee to support PEG programming. He estimated a $1 monthly fee would raise about $130,000 for Apple Valley annually, and roughly $30,000 each for Farmington and Rosemount. He advised that the City carefully consider the issue before turning such large amounts of money over to Lakeville to provide public programming. He said he believes government and educational programming to be found most popular among viewers, with public programming a distant third, which he considers to be an expensive subsidy for people’s hobbies. He also added the demographics of the three cities are not similar to those areas with high interest in public program production.

Mr. Creighton said the cities need to decide what cooperative efforts they will make, how these efforts are to be funded, and what capital requests will be made of the company. He said if the cities identify a need, the cost for equipment can be negotiated in the franchise. He explained one means in federal law to deny a franchise is to show the company failed to meet an identified community need. He said community programming commitments are much less in the Marcus system than in other Metro systems.

Mr. Bible asked for reactions. Mr. Brown asked for a general cost parameter. Mr. Creighton provided several examples, citing a north Metro system with $200,000 operating expenses and $25,000 annual capital grant matched by the cities. He also cited a consortium of cities with $600,000 annual budget and $75,000 annual capital grant which requires a $2.80 PEG fee. He said Burnsville/Eagan spends over $300,000 annually for operations and $100,000 in capital equipment in public access with a $1.30 PEG fee. He noted these cities also supplement the PEG fee with franchise fees. He also noted the cable companies in other cities made a much larger initial investment in public access than the system inherited by Marcus.

Mr. Rodell asked if the school uses the public access facility. Mr. Taschner said all programming is done with school resources at the schools. Mr. Westbrook asked if the City uses the public access facility. Mr. Grawe responded one quarterly news show uses the studio for interviews.

Mr. Taschner said Eastview was built with a studio. He also said the school can not cover games because Marcus does not have a van. Mr. Bible noted Mr. Taschner is the first school district representative to attend the Committee’s meetings. He also noted that the reason there is not more public programming is that there is no demand for it. Mr. Creighton asked if there is demand for school sports programming. Mr. Bible said the school had resisted sports coverage in the past. Mr. Taschner responded that he understands the demand for public programming will be low, while the demand for government and educational programming will increase. He said the high schools offer video production courses and have video specialists on staff. He said the school district could use a high speed video link connecting Eagan. He said he thought the school could piggy-back with public access, provided that the school’s financial concerns were met. He emphasized the school district would not accept the financial burden of public access on its own. He expressed the school would want a portion of the PEG fee and the franchise fees.

Mr. Bible explained the franchise fees are part of the City’s General Fund. He said the Committee would need a strong justification for taking franchise fees away from the General Fund. He also emphasized the need to show that there is demand for a service costing $130,000 annually or more. Mr. Creighton noted there is an ethical question about using a franchise fee or subscriber tax for spending that benefits the general population. Mr. Bible said it would be helpful to see ISD 196’s master plan for video production.

Mr. Creighton said Burnsville and Eagan are in the process of taking over public access. He identified a third option of joining with them. Mr. Bible asked for Rosemount and Farmington’s opinions on public access. Mr. Burt said it is difficult for Rosemount to commit money for public access when no money is committed for government programming. He said he is only aware of 4 programs generated by Rosemount residents. Mr. Erar said he can see economies of scale from a joint effort, but is concerned about allocating staff time. He said he can see the demand for government programming.

Mr. Bible asked if ISD 196 would support designating one school studio for public access use with a portion of the PEG fee for support. Mr. Taschner said it seemed like a good idea if it makes financial sense to the district. He said he could understand how it could provide the students with better equipment, but was not familiar with the day-to-day issues such as security that would be involved. Mr. Creighton said it is not uncommon for schools to share the facility. He noted the City could finance editing equipment and cameras, and a studio would not be necessary. Mr. Taschner noted there may be internal political issues for equipping both Apple Valley high schools equitably.

Mr. Erar said he doesn’t want to hire a staff just for Farmington and believes pooling resources will lower the subscriber fee. He said he expected the Marcus rate to decrease if a PEG fee were added. Mr. Erar also clarified he could support sharing staff that would do programming for government, public, and educational uses.

Mr. Creighton asked if the Committee wants to pursue a joint studio with Lakeville at this time. The general consensus of the Committee was not to pursue a joint effort with Lakeville at this time. Mr. Creighton asked if the Committee would explore a proposal with staff that were used for public, education, and government uses. Mr. Bible referred the question to Mr. Taschner. Mr. Taschner said he did not see a problem with it. Mr. Creighton asked if the Committee was comfortable with a $1 PEG fee. Mr. Erar said he wanted to know how the current Marcus rates compare with other cities in which the cable company has made a significant investment in public access. Mr. Creighton said he would need more information, but suspects Marcus will generally charge what the market can bear. He said other communities have found residents willing to pay $1.40 to $1.60 for public programming. He recommended the City negotiate the right to increase the PEG fee at it’s discretion over time.

Mr. Creighton said he can create a zero-based budget proposal or he can take a budget and propose a level of service. Mr. Taschner said if the school were to become involved there would need to be a commitment from the City to increase the level of service. Mr. Creighton said there are several issues for the school. First, part of the curriculum may involve training students in video production. Second, the school can promote itself through video. He noted the school can gain use of better equipment if facilities and equipment is shared. Mr. Taschner asked what would be required of a facility to house public access. Mr. Bible said an editing suite is the biggest expense, with a few cameras. Mr. Creighton added a mobile van may also be very expensive. Mr. Erar said he is not concerned with the location of the facility but with the equipment that is available and the cost to subscribers.

Mr. Creighton said he can make a proposal that is sensitive to the staffing issue. Mr. Bible asked for volunteers to help staff draft a proposal. Mr. Magnusson and Mr. Rodell volunteered to help Mr. Creighton and Mr. Grawe draft a proposal.

Mr. Brown moved, seconded by Mr. Rodell to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 P.M..