HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/13/1982 TENTATIVE AGENDA
SPECIAL SESSION SHAKOPEE , MINNESOTA JULY 13, 1982
-- WORK SESSION --
1] Roll Call at 7 :00 P.M.
2] 7 :00 P.M. - Review of 1983 Goals and Objectives - please feel
free to make notes, changes or additions
3] 7 :45 P.M. - Review of the draft of the 1982-1987 Six Year Capital
Improvement Plan - bring a copy of your material from
the June 22nd work session!
4] 9 :00 P .M. - Review of City Administrator' s Tabulated Evaluation
Forms, attached - I will hand back your individual
copies on Tuesday, so you can use it as a reference for
discussion
5] Other Business:
6] Adjourn to Tuesday, July 20, 1982 at 7 :00 P.M.
John K. Anderson
City Administrator
Xl&
NC ;1.1....,-....
CITY OF SHAKOPEE 4 \G,
INCORPORATED 1870
129 E. First Ave. - Shakopee, Minnesota 55379-1376 (612) 445-3650 14911
6� :
r
July 9 , 1982
The Honorable City Council
City of Shakopee
Shakopee , MN 55379
Mayor Eldon Reinke has notified me , John K. Anderson, City
Administrator of Shakopee , that a Special Meeting of the City
Council will be held at 7 :00 P.M. on Tuesday, July 13 , 1982 , in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall for the purpose of 1 )
review of the 1983 goals and objectives , 2 ) review of the draft
of the 1983-1987 Six Year Capital Improvement Plan, 3 ) review
of City Administrator' s tabulated evaluation forms , and for any
other business which may come before the Council .
If you are unable to attend at this time , please let mc
know.
Sincerely, /t4(o
1\ 41 (..v Aktr------
1110 John K. Anderson
City Administrator
JKA/jms
cc : KSMM
Shakopee Valley News
The Heart of Progress Valley
An Equal Opportunity Employer
COUNCIL WORKSESSION GOALS & OBJECTIVES 1983
Communications
1 .0 GOAL - It shall be the goal of the City of Shakopee to foster effec-
tive , two-way communications between the City Council members , City
employees , citizens , other governmental agencies and interest groups .
1 . 1 SUBGOAL - The betterment of public relations and improvement of
existing conditions on all aspects .
1 . 11 Objective - Help staff interface with the public to better
show the public that we , as a city government entity ,
realize that we are here to serve , and minimize procedures
citizens must go through to get information.
Action - On going. Streamline response to citizen' s re-
quests so they don' t get passed from one department to
another.
1 . 12 Objective - Encourage department heads to get out press
releases on positive , more routine items to improve
public knowledge of City operations .
Action - On going. Systematically review services/issues
that lend themselves to publication, etc .
1 . 13 Objective - Follow-up on telephone by receptionist when
people are put on hold.
Action - The City Administrator should periodically review
this to insure all receptionists understand the problem.
., - '83 1 . 14 Objective - Improve handling of citizen complaints by
personnel initially answering the phone.
Action - On going. Review telephone courtesy with Police
and Public Works where recently good procedures have been
lax. Stress friendliness and helpfulness until proper
personnel can be notified.
1 . 2 SUBGOAL - Increase information regarding routine problems/infor-
mation from the Police Department , Public Utilities and Finance
Department and Council .
1 . 21 Objective - The Police Department should keep the Council
' '•''tu' 2,eo up-to-date on problems , eg. unusual traffic problems , etc.
Action - The department should continue its annual report ,
its liaison program with the school and use the Council
informational items for routine problems .
1 . 3 SUBGOAL - The City Administrator should undertake steps to
resolve personnel problems in a timely manner and improve
employee morale .
-2-
1 . 31 Objective - Council would like more feedback on potential
problem areas .
Action - Keep Council posted through informational items .
1 . 32 Objective - Address the morale problems in the Public
Works _Department caused by salary ( job classifications )
and benefit discrepencies with other departments .
Action - The first problem will be addressed in the posi-
tion classification review and 1983-84 union negotiation.
The benefit issue was resolved January 1 , 1982 .
',, 1 . 33 Objective - Investigate incentive programs designed to
encourage City employees to look for money and time
saving ways to run city operations .
Action - Prepare a report on possible alternatives by
May 1 , 1983.
,, eL. 3 1 . 34 Objective - The City should consider a formal program to
make available personal support/counseling type service
to City employees who are experiencing stress through
family problems , drinking , etc .
Action - Prepare a report on possible program alternatives
by May 1 , 1983 .
/w6,-- '$'3 1 . 35 Objective - Continue annual evaluation of the City Admin-
istrator.
Action - Conduct evaluation in late May of each year.
Government Structure
2 .0 GOAL - Continually strive for effective and efficient municipal
government .
2 . 1 SUBGOAL - Recommend the establishment and improvement of pro-
grams and department function to insure a smooth running,
efficient and more effective municipal government .
413 2 . 11 Objective - Broaden goal setting process by including
the department heads in the 1984 goal setting process
and create a better atmosphere (setting) for the process .
Action - Locate an acceptable site within 30 minutes
of Shakopee for a day long session with Council and
department heads by November 1982 .
2 . 12 Objective - City Administrator should make more decisions
without Council approval when covered by resolution ,
standard procedure , ordinances .
/, Action - Improving. Continue to look for routine functions
/ �? O7,?,
p-24ec�' '8.3 that need not come before Council .
-3-
2 . 13 Objective - Review management of Public Works services
for possible changes .
Action - Department head to hold "open ending" depart-
mental meeting to get ideas , etc . in the 2nd quarter of
1982 .
2 . 14 Objective -- Establish a pray plan for all positions with
a cap:
Action - Staff report due by June 1 , 1982 .
2 . 15 Objective - Survey City services to determine if they are
all being used to the optimum.
Action - On going. Systematically question services to
determine if they are being used or if they are being
provided at the proper level . Do through quarterly
department head meetings and budget cycle .
2 . 16 Objective - Secretaries should refer technical questions
to department heads .
Action - Improving. Department heads should review with
secretary what should be answered by secretary and make
clear that people who wish to talk to department head may
after secretary gives out information.
2 . 17 Objective - City Administrator should continue to insure
Council that their directives are followed by the depart-
ment heads .
Action - Improving. On-going.
2 . 18 Action - Emphasize use of in-house engineers vs . the use
of consultants .
Action - Continue this new policy.
2 . 19 Objective - After codification is completed , re-evaluate
City Code .
Action - Council will review ordinances going to the codi-
fier , modified by the codifier and/or recommended by the
codifier. Council would also like a cover page listing
the Council and staff when the codification was completed.
2 . 2 SUBGOAL - To strengthen the Council and to improve the efficiency
and workability of this form of municipal government .
2 . 21 Objective - Become active not reactive .
Action - Improving. Keep Comprehensive Plan , Five Year
Equipment Plan, Five Year Capital Improvement Plan, Five
Year Park Plan and Council Coals and Objectives up-to-
date .
-4-
2 . 22 Objective - Encourage continuation of effective use of
the Industrial Commercial Commission.
Action - On-going.
2 . 23 Objective - Encourage close coordination between City
and Utilities .
Action - Improving. Need to continue to work on it and
get SPUC and Council in a worksession.
2 . 24 Objective - Staff memos should include reasons for both
approval/denial when recommendations come to Council .
Action - More improvement needed. Staff memos should
cover the "what if" question as they relate to all
alternatives .
2 . 3 SUBGOAL - The Council members should understand the procedures
of the Council meeting so that they can serve the best interests
of the governing system.
2 . 31 Objective - Re-examine the council policies and procedures
regarding "Roberts Rules of Order" , City Council proce-
dures , agendas , city staff.
Action - Review annually at organizational meeting.
'83 2 . 32 Objective - Improve Council members ' s attendance at
non-regular meetings .
Action - Provide a courtesy reminder to Council for all
non-regular meetings .
Action - Up-date mailing lists for all agencies/programs
so that new Council members get notified.
2 . 33 Objective - Council members and Mayor should get themselves
up to speed if they miss meetings by getting background
information before the next meeting.
Action - On-going.
2 . 34 Objective - Desire fewer Council meetings .
Action - Improving. On-going.
Government Services
3.0 GOAL - To provide the most effective and efficient level of service
possible to meet the needs of the citizens of Shakopee .
3 . 1 SUBGOAL - To develop and improve the efficiency and safety of
the City ' s transportation plans .
3 . 11 Objective - Bridge and bypass needed.
Action - Continue to follow-up and push for project ( s ) .
-5-
3 . 12 Objective - The Valley Mall traffic control circulation
situation is to be corrected.
Action - Engineer' s Twelfth Street report due in 2nd
quarter of 1982 .
/1717-07-a6,216, 3'3 3 . 13 Objective - Traffic leaving Valleyfair should be
corrected to prevent unlawful U-turns .
Action - Staff to contact Mn/Dot and/or Valleyfair
about alternative solution to the problem 2nd quarter
of 1982 . Staff should seek to increase enforcement
of "no turn" signing.
3 . 14 Objective - Intersection signals of CR 83 and Highway 101 .
Action - Scheduled 1983 CII'.
3 . 15 Objective - Railroad signals needed at CR 83 crossing.
Action - Scheduled 1982 CIP - Engineering to follow
Mn/Dot bidding 2nd quarter.
3 . 16 Objective - Establish a street maintenance policy that
classifies how the City will finance maintenance for
all streets .
Action - Report from staff on alternative approaches by
October 31 , 1982 .
Action - Complete schedule for systematic street maintenance
based—upon pavement and traffic analysis study being done
by Engineering and the above mentioned policy due October
31 , 1982 .
3 . 17 Objective - Hospital/county parking lot developed accord-
ing to timetable need flexability for private development .
Action - Parking lot development under two party contracts .
Engineering doing storm sewer alternatives for 1982 .
�Ylltt� ;�3 3. 18 Objective - Reduce street maintenance costs/responsibilities
by systematically vacating unneeded streets .
Action - Based upon the reports from 3 . 16 above, outline
streets to be vacated and then try a street vacation
public hearing on the least needed street ( s ) .
Action - Encourage residents and businesses to initiate
vacations of unnecessary streets .
Action - Investigate a turn-over program whereby residents/
businesses would agree to return vacated streets R-O-W to
the City if the City would clean-up the street and create
a marketable lot ( s ) .
3 . 2 SUBGOAL - Improve management of City owned property and regula-
tions relating to property within the City.
-6-
/y'. t,, '83 3 . 21 Objective - The City should prevent the construction of
structures within. a zone that is clearly of lower
exterior and roof quality than adjacent structures .
Action - Report on the feasibility of some exterior and
roof architectual controls that will protect the quality
of building exteriors like the UBC does the structural
and safety components of a structure by January31 , 1983 .
3 . 22 Objective - Hold back on park acquisition.
Action - Doing as per Six Year Park Plan.
3 . 23 Objective - City golf course .
Action - Could one be included in drainage ways?
3 . 24 Objective - Park development should occur as money is
abailable within the City ' s built-up areas .
Action - Doing. As per Six Year Park Plan major efforts
are on the eastside park with neighborhood LAWCON grant
assistance .
3 . 3 SUBGOAL - Monitor appropriate level of Community Services
Department programs .
3 . 31 Objective - Other cities are cutting back on some services ;
evaluate our Community Services Department ' s present level
of services and user fees required of the people partici-
pating in the activity.
Action - Community Services Board should clarify a policy
on the level of student/adult user fees and their contri-
bution to departmental overhead.
3 .4 SUBGOAL - The City should maintain sound fiscal management pro-
cedures to insure that needed services can be provided.
4"24(t— '837 3 .41 Objective - Establish a process by which annual revenue
and expenditure patterns are forecast annually for at
least a five year period to better anticipate potential
future City financing problems .
Action - Incorporate five year revenue and expenditure
trends with the 1984 budget process .
3 .42 Objective - Review capital equipment budget for parks and
streets . Are we buying too much equipment without enough
analysis?
Action - The 1983 Capital Equipment List should be studied
carefully.
3 .43 Objective - The Council committee on equipment purchases
needs to be appraised of all equipment purchases .
Action - Council needs to establish a threshold , e .g. every-
thing over $2000 will go to the committee .
-7-
3 .44 Objective - Fiscal disparities .
Action - The City lost the case in the State Supreme
Court and should press the issue legislatively.
3 .45 Objective - Acquisition of REA finalized.
Action. - Condemnation decision unfavorable and SPUC is
considering next course of action.
3 .46 Objective - Acquisition of NSP by 1981 or early 1982 .
Action - SPUC - NSP negotiations still underway.
3 .47 Objective - Review use of charges for services and users
fee .
Action - Completed for 1982 , review again for 1983 with
Budget .
3 .48 Objective - Review size of Sewer Fund operating cash
balance .
3 .49 Objective - Follow-up on K-mart tax increment project
financing.
Action - CR 83 widening from Hwy 101 to CR 16 plans are
complete and bids have been authorized .
3 . 5 SUBGOAL - To improve and make more efficient park services to
the public .
3 . 51 Objective - Need to restore park regulations part to the
City Code.
Action - Staff reviewing conflicts with present ordinances .
3 .6 SUBGOAL - Follow-up on assessing services transfered to the
County .
3 . 61 Ob,jective - Need to answer the assessment questions on
brick veneer, the outcome of various tax cases , and the
new court ruling on assessed value of specialized
buildings .
Action - Report by December 1 , 1982 .
3 . 7 SUBGOAL - Make more efficient legal services .
e" '83 3 . 71 Objective - Evaluate the role of the City Attorney and
Assistant City Attorney in terms of workland , production
and cost to the City.
Action - On-going. Remind staff about when its appropriate
to use the Assistant City Attorney.
Action - Begin to plan for replacing the City Attorney
when he retires .
-8-
% 7diii- 3.8 SUBGOAL - Improve the current "perspective" citizens have of
police officer' s overall concern for the citizens .
.i '- 3 . 81 Objective - Insure prompt , courteous follow-up when
a citizen calls the department .
Action - Staff meeting with all personnel explaining
that follow-up is an absolute , underscoring the point
that officers themselves must do the same when answering
the phone after hours .
r" ,813 3 .82 Objective - Improve the miscellaneous non-criminal code
enforcement efforts by police officers .
Action - Clearly establish the level of expected working
knowledge of these City codes ( junk cars , park rules ,
parking rules , junk ordinances , etc . ) and the level of
expected enforcement after discussing this with City
Council .
fie," '3'3 3 . 83 Objective - Improve the daily condition and life of police
vehicles .
Action - Clearly establish, or restate , the expected level
of cleanliness of the vehicles and driving habits ( i .e .
eliminate jack rabbit starts , etc. ) and enforce them.
"221Gr" 2r3 .84 Objective - Improve traffic safety through more surveil-
lance of problem intersections , etc .
Action - Establish, through discussion with Council , what
can be provided and then establish an acceptable program
of periodic surveillance and enforcement by ticketing.
e- 'g3 3 . 9 SUBGOAL - Improve the working relationship between the Volunteer
Fire Department and the City Council and Administrator.
3 .91 Objective - Clarify the role of the City Council and
Administrator visa vie the Volunteer Fire Department to
insure a smooth day to day working relationship.
Action -
Physical Development
4.0 GOAL - To provide a consistant and constant plan to enhance the
resources , and strengthen the economic base of the area and provide
for the enjoyment and well-being of the citizens of Shakopee .
4. 1 SUBGOAL - Develop and use capital improvement and capital equip-
ment programs on a 6 year basis to increase the coordination of
service and the economic well being of the community.
4. 11 Objective - Upper valley drainage plan.
Action - Engineering following up on joint powers agreement
with Jackson Township, drainage analysis for the joint
powers agreement and a letter from Mn/Dot combining the
drainage with the by-pass .
-9-
4. 12 Objective - Drainage problems ( 1 ) Horizon Heights , ( 2 )
2nd Avenue and ( 3 ) 4th and Minnesota.
Action - Grant application submitted for No. 1 and
approved for 1983 . No action scheduled for 2 and 3 in
1982 .
4. 13 Objective - New City Hall .
Action - Dropped from 1982 Budget listed in 1982-87 Six
eY ar Capital Improvement Plan.
4. 14 Objective - Sell /clean-up old sewer treatment plant .
Action - In process awaiting developer. and MWCC.
4. 15 Objective - There is a need for a better method of select-
ing vehicles .
Action - Review by purchasing committee.
4. 16 Objective - ( 1 ) Improve and update fire hydrants , and ( 2 )
waterline looping should be continued.
Action - No. 1 is done and No. 2 is on-going job of SPUC.
4. 17 Objective - Completion of O'Dowd Lake Trail .
Action - Establish a year in which the project will be
completed.
4 . 18 Objective - Complete needed storm sewer system throughout
the City.
Action - Follow-up only when there is a clearly critical
need and/or when residents are interested in it .
4. 19 Objective - Complete construction for railroad parking lot .
Action - This project is not budgeted for 1982 and should
be coordinated with the Downtown Committee ' s program for ' 83 .
83 4. 19A Objective - City wide sidewalk program.
Action - Scheduled 1982 CIP.
mfr- '83 4. 19B Objective - Reduce street maintenance cost by completing
curb section on all streets .
Action - Report on needed curbing throughout town and
determine if it is practical to install it where the need
is the greatest .
Economic Development
5 .0 GOAL - Have an economic development plan that will create jobs and
diversity the City' s economic base .
-10-
5 . 1 SUBGOAL - Continue with the advances made by the Downtown
Committee to redevelop the downtown area.
5 . 11 Objective - Include a new City Hall in the downtown
redevelopment plan.
Action - The Committee is considering this .
5 . 12 Objective - The City should continue to be involved with
some of the funding tools for the downtown on both sides
of 1st Avenue but , the private sector must take the
lead and do it .
Action - The City has mailed letters to developers stating
we would consider IRB ' s and Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
and have established a Redevelopment Plan and TIF district .
Action - Design the funding tools used in TIF la so that a
4241,!-- '83 strong revolving commercial loan program for rehabing
commercial businesses can be established.
�l�' ,�3 Action - Continue efforts to insure that local citizens
and potential developers understand TIF and to what
extent it is available in Shakopee .
5. 13 Objective - Establish a Chamber/City plan to get a more
consolidated and stronger retail core to Shakopee downtown.
Action - Work the the Chamber to establish a plan to relocate
existing retail/office businesses near a Second Street core
area to make a stronger retail center.
5 . 14 Objective - Complete Levee Drive ; Lewis to Sommerville
and Atwood to Scott .
Action - Scheduled 1982 construction, R-O-W acquisition
underway , for Atwood to Scott . Lewis to Sommerville tabled.
5. 2 SUBGOAL - Create economic development opportunities for new
jobs and expanding tax base .
5 . 21 Objective - Create a shopping list of state and federal
grant programs shall be made available along with what
other cities are doing.
Action - First draft present , will be revised and re-
submitted.
/neeel- /e.3 5 . 22 Objective - Promote hospital and county expansion plans .
Action - Assist St . Francis Hospital in its efforts to
establish a clinic for hospital based doctors through
the vacation of Atwood Street and the use of financ;ng
tools if appropriate .
Action - Assist Scott County in its efforts to bring
Human Services back to the courthouse.
-11-
/lz..GC{/ '83 5. 23 Objective - Strength the public private partnership in
Shakopee.
Action - Work with the ICC, Chamber, individual developers
and existing businesses to cement a strong relationship.
Action - Develop privately financed programs to advertise
and promote the City and its businesses .
Environmental
6.0 GOAL - To protect and preserve the natural environment of Shakopee ,
including land, air and water.
6 . 1 SUBGOAL - To insure the well being of the community ' s environment
and to effectively monitor and manage its resources .
6 . 11 Objective - Review status of City' s Nursery and Forestation
Programs.
Action - Staff expanded the nursery when free trees became
available from MWCC.
6 . 12 Objective - Monitor development of the Shakopee sludge
farm.
Action - The site has been found to be intrinsically suit-
able by the PCA hearing examiner for land spreading at
agronomic rates . Staff is continuing to monitor this
issue and is seeking more information.
6 . 13 Objective - Make Shakopee a cleaner community in which
to live .
Action - Keep the 1982 "Clean-up America Week" program
go ni g all year and repeat the reminders again in 1983 .
6 . 14 Objective - Zoning is not always consistent with uses
in the area.
Action - Periodically review existing uses in various
zones to see if the zoning is accurate .
//i& ' '83 6 . 15 Objective - Eliminate tractor trailor trucks from resi-
dential areas .
Action - Rework present ordinance to eliminate loop holes
by January 1 , 1983 .
Housing & Redevelopment Authority
7.0 GOAL - Have a Housing and Redevelopment plan that provides and pro-
motes the creation of needed housing units for Shakopee ' s growing
population.
7 . 1 SUBGOAL - Monitor appropriate level of HRA activities for the
City of Shakopee .
-12-
7 . 11 Objective - Follow-up by HRA in a timely manner .
Action - The HRA Director should seek the assistance of
the City Administrator if the assistance of another
department is needed on a priority item.
7 . 12 Objective - Determine the future status of the HRA programs .
Action - The 1982 HRA budget calls for 1/2 time staffing.
Tri 3982 the HRA will review all grants available to evalu-
ate 1983 status .
7 . 2 SUBGOAL - An indepth look and attention by the HRA Department
for improved community service to housing developments .
7 . 21 Objective - Could the City provide more types of housing?
Action - Staff to list - mortgage revenue , Scott County
HRAefforts , 235 programs , section 8 programs available ,
etc .
- - ,-- '675 Action - Staff should actively contact potential residential
developers and show them the community.
Action - Staff should take the County HRA rehab program
znee�,-' g,5' referral calls and list them for follow-up purposes to
insure Shakopee residents benefit from the program.
Staff should also check the percentage of rehab loans
to insure that Shakopee gets a fair percentage.
.4-ye-v.- '8'3 Action - HRA staff needs to put together a program
that can be used to build moderate income housing units
on the vacant lots around the City.
7 . 22 Objective - Consider declaring "Roberts Pit" a blighted area
and use it for a TIF project for housing.
Action - Reconsider after 1985 when sanitary sewer is avail-
able .
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Gregg Voxland, Finance Director
RE: 1982 Improvement Bonds
DATE: July 12, 1982.
Introduction
The City is proceeding with the improvement project for Valley
Industrial Boulevard South and needs to provide funds for it.
Background
Earlier this year it appeared that there would be several improvement
projects that could be combined to produce a larger bond issue and thereby
save on issuance costs. However, it is now apparent that Valley Industrial
Boulevard South is the only project going this year that needs to be funded by
a bond issue. Council did select bonding rather than P.I.R. funding on
6/15/82. This is a small issue and can be sold through negotiated sale as
was the last issue.
Request that staff and fiscal consultant be authorized to proceed with
the issuance of bonds for Valley Industrial Boulevard South.
Action
Move that City staff and Springsted, Inc. be authorized to proceed with
preparations for the issuance of bonding for Valley Industrial Boulevard South
by negotiated sale.
GV/ljw
MEMO TO: John K. Anderson, City Administrator
FROM: Jeanne Andre , Administrative Assistant
RE: Cable Communications
•
DATE: July 13 , 1982
Introduction
A number of issues came up at the July 8 , 1982 , meeting of the Cable
Communications Committee that should be addressed by the City Council .
Background
1 . The attached action alert by the National Federation of Local
Cable Programmers outlines opposition to a cable communications bill
currently under consideration by the U. S. Senate. The Committee
has requested City staff to send a letter to the 16 Senators
listed in the memo, stating the Shakopee Cable Committee ' s
opposition to the bill . As the Committee is advisory to the
City Council , any correspondence drafted may have greater impact
if sent at the request of City Council . Staff recommends letters
be sent only to the Senate Committee Chairman and bill author,
Barry Goldwater, and the two Minnesota Senators . Letters have
been sent out previously on similar cable legislation, but it
appears the legislation has been revised and a new letter is in
order. The letter should be mailed by July 15th to have the desired
impact .
2 . Mr. Herbst prepared the attached memo regarding obscenity pro-
visions proposed to be added to the cable ordinance and members
of the audience spoke to the issue . Mr. Herbst commented that
it is a complicated issue and he would need to research the
issue further in order to make a recommendation. The Committee
deferred the question of further research by Mr. Herbst or the
adoption of an obscenity provision in the ordinance to the City
Council .
3 . The Committee expressed an interest in having Mr. Herbst attend
all of their subsequent meetings . At least one additional meet-
ing is planned for July 20 , 1982 . According to the contract
with Mr. Herbst he would write the preliminary and final ordi-
nance and attend one meeting for a fee not to exceed $5000 (based
on a $55 per hour fee and expenses ) . The $5000 limit was expanded
to allow him to attend two additional Committee meetings and pre-
pare the findings of fact . The Council authorized up to 30 addi-
tional hours for a new limit of $6650. Mr. Herbst has been paid
a total of $5187 .40 for his services through May, and his bill
for June exceeds the expanded limit by $84. 53 . This bill does not
include Mr. Herbst ' s services regarding the obscenity issue or
his attendance at the July 8th meeting (which was to be included
in his contract price) . Approximately $500 remains unexpended
of the franchise fee of $20 ,000 to be paid by the cable company.
This $500 must cover any additional staff time , publishing costs ,
etc . All of the $12 ,000 received for application fees has been
Re : Cable Communications
Page 2
July 13 , 1982
expended. Therefore any additional expenditures authorized
should be budgeted from the City' s general fund.
The issues to be addressed by the City Council include :
a. Is staff authorized to pay Mr. Herbst ' s June bill which exceeds
his previously authorized maximum by $84. 53?
b. Does Council request Mr. Herbst ' s attendance at any additional
Committee or Council meetings , and if so how many hours are
authorized?
c . Does City Council authorize payment to Mr. Herbst for hours
expended beyond the new limit which are within the scope of
the original contract?
Action Requested for July 13 , 1982
1 . Direct staff to send letters to Barry Goldwater, Dave Durenburger
and Rudy Boschwitz in opposition to the pending U.S . Senate bill
on cable communications .
2 . Authorize expenditure of $84. 53 above contract limit previously
established for Mr. Herbst , allowing staff to approve bill for
June services .
3 . Determine if Mr. Herbst ' s attendance should be requested at
additional Committee or Council meetings , and if so, the extent
of additional authorized expenditure from the general fund .
4. Determine if additional payments above the approved maximum
expenditure should be made to Mr. Herbst from the general fund
(eg. July services ) and the amount now authorized for such
payments .
Action Requested for July 20 , 1982
1 . Acknowledge that the Cable Committee has deferred this issue
to the City Council , that additional research would be costly,
and based on the July 8 , 1982 , memo from Mr. Herbst , make a
decision on whether to handle all obscenity issues under the
current Section 10. 75 , or to adopt special obscenity provi-
sions in the cable ordinance.
JA/jms
t.
E461) nctic cl f rct'cn cf lel ccbprc;rcrrrners
O
i, (ON ALERT ACTIO! ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT ACTION ALERT
(A.::::2L____....1 0
SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS OF GOLDWATER CABLE BILL
THREATEN LOCAL ACCESS EFFORTS AND CURTAILS LOCAL
REGULATORY CONTROL
MARKUP: JULY 19
The staff of the senate subcommittee on telecommunications has
prepared an amended version of S.2172 , the cable bill introduced by
Senator Goldwater (R-AZ) on March 4. The newly amended cable bill
severly limits local regulatory authority, threatens existing franchise
agreements, and deals a crippling blow to noncommercial access to
cable.
Should the bill pass in its present form, local governments would
have 60 days to bring their existing franchise agreements into compliance
with the bill ' s terms .
ACCESS CHANNEL CEILING MANDATED
The amended bill will set a ceiling on all types of access channel
requirements, allowing local governments to require no more than 10%
of available channels to be set aside for noncommercial access. An
additional 10% of channels may be set aside for leased access. However,
the"10% of available channels" may be figured only on the total number
of technically equipped channels less the number of channels carrying
"must-carry" signals. Systems with less than 20 channels would be exempt
from access requirements .
Existing franchises with higher access requirements would be
grandfathered until the franchises expire or are renegotiated. However,
any system may petition the FCC to waive the access requirement, if
there are " reasonably available alternatives for persons desiring to
provide programing service to the public. . ." The operator may also
put all access programming onto a composite channel , with commercial
programming if the level of demand does not require a dedicated channel .
FEDERAL PREEMPTION
The bill gives exclusive jurisdiction over cable systems to the
Federal Government, except where the bill allows local jurisdiction
(i .e. over basic rates and non-commercial access rates) . Any law in
effect which is in conflict with the provisions of the bill would be
superseded by the cable bill .
UNRESTRICTED CROSS OWNERSHIP
The bill prohibits the Federal government, state and local governments
from in any way prohibiting ownership of cable systems "by reason
of . . .ownership in any other media interests" including networks,
broadcasters , newspapers, phone, etc. In effect, the bill does away
with any cross ownership restrictions now in existance on the Federal
and State levels.
NATIONAL OFFICE
906 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
2
MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP PROHIBITION UNLESS FAIR MARKET VALUE
The bill prohibits municipal ownership of cable systems unless the
city has "aquired" the system at "fair market value ," defined as the
ongoing value of the business plus "goodwill ", which generally means the
value of the franchise or license rights. It is still unclear, as it
was in the first draft of this bill , whether or not cities must "buy back"
their own franchise rights if there is no system constructed yet, and
no franchise awarded.
FRANCHISE FEES LIMITED
The ameded bill requires the FCC to set a franchise fee ceiling
limited to covering only the cost of local regulation. However,
since the bill also limits local regulatory authority, and since local
governments are presumably prohibited from using franchise fees for
local programming support, the ceiling may be set lower than the present
3%. A city would be allowed to petition for a fee increase, but it
would have to show that it needed the extra monies to cover the costs
of local cable regulation. No franchise fees would be available for
general funds or for programming support.
AUTOMATIC FRANCHISE RENEWAL
The bill madates automatic franchise renewal , provided that 1 ) the
system operator has not defaulted on the franchise agreement, 2) there has been no
material change in the operator's qualifications, and 3) the services
provided are "reasonable" in light of the size, nature, needs and
interests of the community, the age and status of the syste, and the comparabil -
ity of the system to others in similar size communities.
RATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY CURTAILED
Local governments would be prohibited from all rate regulation
of cable, except for the rates for basic service, and the rates far
public, educational and government access channels . Basic service,
however, is redefined in the bill to include only retransmission of
broadcast signals and noncommercial access signals.
NO GRANDFATHERING
Except for the access channel ceiling, and the foreign ownership provision ,
no local franchises would be grandfathered from the effects of the bill , and must be
brought into compliance with the bill ' s provisions within 60 days . Although it
may be that the 60 day period can be extended, the agreements negotiated locally
would still be subject to renegotiation as a result of the no grandfathering
intent of the bill .
OTHER PROVISIONS
The bill also deals with signal piracy, privacy, and exempts
cable from equal time provisions and the fairness doctrine. It
requires reciprocity from foreign countries to allow their companies
to operate cable systems here.
3
NFLOi urges its members to contact the Senate Commerce Committee, local senators
and other elected officials informing them of their strong opposition to this
bill. The NFLCP believes that this bill must be stopped. Moreover, it is the
position of the NFLCP that any cable legislation that curtails access or local
authority is inappropriate.
REASONS WHY WE MUST "KILL THE CABLE BILL"
1. The redraft of S 2172 is so altered from the original bill as to change the
prinicpal intent and substance. Therefore, we recommend this bill be halted
until these new issues are properly addressed. While the original sought to guide
cities, this draft intends to preempt control of cities over cable.
2. This draft would force communities and companies who have negotiated substantial
access provisions in good faith, to drop franchise requirements which exceed the
capacity levels in the bill. Moreover, programming support from franchise fees would
be eliminated. Communities who have awareded franchises, based in part on the level
of operator support of community access, face renegotiating far more limited access
support after the fact of competitive franchising.
The bill damages local efforts to effectively regulate and oversee cable
television. In fact, the draft removes all regulatory power from the local
and state level, except for authority over the rates charged for basic retransmission
(local broadcast) services. Local communities who have finished the competitive
franchising process will be forced to renegotiate a less effective franchise with
the cable operator, and to automatically renew that company's rights unless default on
the scaled down franchise agreement occurs.
4. Moreover, with the elimination of all cross-ownership restrictions, local
governments will not be able to insure against local monopoly control of mass media.
Nor will the Federal government be able to control the increasing concentration of
ownership of media among a few, ver large media conglomerates.
5. The automatic renewal clause completely kills competition for franchises
which will expire in the 1980's and beyond, and will force cities to litigate any
noncompliance issues.
6. Local governments will lose most of their franchise fee revenues, and may
only use those they have for regulation. No administrative or programming
support can continue using franchise fees.
7. This bill ignores the public's First Amendment rights. For three years, in
HR 3130, S 898, S2172 and S2445, attempts have been made in Congress to protect
the industry's rights over those of the public. NFLCP is outraged that the public's
rights of access to media are superseded by the rights of businesses to control what
the public will see and hear.
8. This bill has been written by the industry. There has been no real attempt on
the part of the Senate staff to respond to repeated presentations of evidence by
local officials and cable access users.
9. The bill raises several constitutional questions: 1) whether primary First
Amendment rights lie with the people or the cable company, 2) whether the Federal govern-
ment can force local governments to 'renew franchises, and 3) whether the Federal
government can preempt existing contracts between cities and calle companies.
10, Finally, all franchises must be brought into compliance, i.e. , reneootia;e ,
with the bill within 60 days. An extension of this time period will still
subject local franchises to renegotiation.
The draft of S. 2172 will be submitted to the Senate Commerce Committee
for markup and amendments o Monday, July 19, 1982. We have approximately
6 working days to communicate our dissatisfaction to the Senate. Any of
the following actions you take will help.
HOW TO OPPOSE THE CABLE BILL
1) Send mailgrams or letters this week to the members of the Senate Commerce
Committee and to your senators asking that they vote down or "kill" this bill.
Mention two things:
a) your opposition to specific provisions (use the points on p. 3)
b) your current involvement in and commitment to access programming.
2) Call your Senators and the Subcommittee Senators at their local or
Washington office to reiterate your position. Most offices keep tallies
of the calls and letters they receive on specific issues.
3) Send a copy of your letters or mailgrams to your mayor and other local
officials. Ask them to contact the Senate and reinforce your position.
4) Copy the Action Alert and distribute it to your mailing list and others in
your area involved in access. Urge them to take all the steps above.
5) Send letters to editors of the local press. Get your press involved
in this as a local political issue.
6) Use your cable system to discuss the bill and its impending effects.
Involve local, state and federal officials in access programs via
interviews, debates, etc. Make them aware of access in their areas.
PLEASE DON'T DELAY IN TAKING THESE ACTIONS. YOUR LETTERS AND CALLS HAVE WORKED
IN THE PAST.
WHO' S WHO ON THE HILL
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS
Member/Room/Telephone Telecommunications
Legislative Aid
Barry M. Goldwater (R-AZ) , Chairman Chris Courson
427 RSOB, 224-2235
Harrison H. Schmitt (R-NM) Pat Rogers
248 RSOB, 224-5521
Larry Pressler (R-SD) Mary Bierle
2104 DSOB, 224-5842
Ted Stevens (R-AK) Mark Snyder
260 RSOB, 224-3004
Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) Ranking Minority Member Tom Cohen
115 RSOB, 224-6121
Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) Eric Lee
105 RSOB, 224-3934
Wendell H. Ford (D-KY) Martha Malony
4107 DSOB, 224-2541
Bob Packwood (R-OR) Ex-Officio Chris Coursen
1321 DSOB, 224-5244
Slade Gorton (R-WA) Cliff Webster
3326 DSOB
Howell Heflin (D-AL) Mike Gillard
3107 DSOB
J. James Exon (D-NE) Rich Fitzimons
3313 DSOB
Russell B. Long (D-LA) Curley Dossman
217 RSOB
Bob Kasten (R-WI) Bob Ziemer
328 RSOB
Donal& W. Riegle (D-MI) Steve Harris
6300 DSOB
Howard W. Cannon (D-Nev.) Gordy Fink
5102 DSOB
John C. Danforth (R-MO) Walter McCormick
460 RSOB Jerry Cox
RSOB = Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
DSOB = Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeanne Andre
FROM: Adrian E. Herbst, Attorney
DATE: July 8 , 1982
RE: Regulation of Obscene and Indecent Cable Programming
This memorandum is in response to the City Council ' s
request that I review an ordinance provision that would
prohibit distribution of indecent or obscene cable programming.
Unfortunately, there are many unanswered legal questions in
this field that will not be resolved until further action is
taken by the MCCB, the State Legislature, or the Courts .
The United States Supreme Court has defined obscenity
in terms of "community standards . " Therefore, a local
community has some discretion to determine for itself what
is obscene and will be prohibited. However, local authority
must always be exercised with a view to federal and state
pre-emption and with a regard for freedom of expression
protected by the First Amendment.
I have done some preliminary research on the topic and
have prepared a summary in answer to your questions .
In this state, there are state laws and MCCB rules that
apply to obscenity. The state has a obscenity law that
governs- both obscenity in general and the liability of cable
companies in particular. Additionally, the state has authorized
the State Cable Board to adopt rules regulating obscenity and
defamation. Pursuant to this authorization, the State Cable
Board has promulgated a rule which sets forth the standard
for what is an obscene program and exempts from liability any
person who did not produce or originate an obscene program.
These state rules and laws offer some protection for local
communities . At the same time, they also limit the extent
to which local communities can regulate obscene and indecent
material .
Your first question is , is it appropriate to put a
provision regulating obscene cable programming in the Franchise
Ordinance or in the City' s Obscenity Ordinance.
At this point I would say that it would be acceptable
for the City to add a provision dealing specifically with
cable programming to the existing Obscenity Ordinance. Such
_
a provision would make it clear that existing obscenity standards
apply to cable programming, and would provide for local enforce-
ment of these standards.
Including an obscenity provision in the Franchise Ordinance
would also be acceptable , but the City must keep in mind that
state law protects the cable company from liability from
programming that it does not produce or originate. Also, a
provision in the Franchise Ordinance would be binding on the
company but not on all the persons , such as users of access
channels , who may be responsible for distribution of obscene
programming. One alternative that may be worth researching
further is to include a provision in the Franchise Ordinance
that would provide for a Citizens' Committee that the cable
company would agree to work with. The Citizens ' Committee
would formulate community standards that the cable company
would agree to observe when making decisions as to what
programming it will make available to subscribers.
An approach that some communities have used to deal
specifically with obscene access programming is to establish
rules that apply to users of access facilities . These rules
could establish specific standards for material that is not
permissible for distribution on access channels .
The Council may wish to consider variations of these
alternatives or a combination of these alternatives . I
recommend that additional research be done on these matters
before any action is taken on them.
The second question is, is the language of the proposed
ordinance in the Morality in Media publication legally defendable .
There appear to be no problems with the language of the proposed
ordinance. It does not seem to include anything more restrictive
than existing state statutes. As the alternatives outlined
above indicate, the language of the ordinance might not address
all the potential problems the City wishes to avoid.
The third question is , what do I recommend based on my
experience. As I have indicated above, there are many unresolved
legal issues. Based on my experience, I would recommend that
the City try to enact measures that will effectively deal with
both the programming distributed on the regular cable channels ,
and programming distributed on the access channels . In any event,
if the City wishes to enact measures that will offer protection
beyond existing protections afforded by general state law and
the State Cable Board Rules , it should authorize me to expend
the time necessary to research these complex legal issues more
thoroughly.
AEH: nnl