Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 TV30 Change Funding RequestOf DU��� ,82 04LIF01Z�� STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL File # ©O❑05 0❑-©0❑ DATE: March 15, 2011. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJEU TV30 Change in Funding Request Prepared By: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider repurposing grant funds received from Comcast from TV30 capital acquisition to TV30 operating expenses. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This action would close and remove Capital Project No. 930001 Cable TV Studio Remodel from the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Program and authorize the $65,277 in appropriated funds to be paid to Tri-Valley Community Television as a Fiscal Year 2010 — 2011 Operating expense for the City of Dublin. The payment of this amount will reduce the City's general fund operational subsidy in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 by the same amount. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the budget change. Submitted Senior Administr tive Analyst Assistant City Manager /f Page 1 of 3 ITEM NO. • 9 V DESCRIPTION: In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 ("DIVCA"), which became effective January 1, 2007. In summation, DIVCA established a statewide franchising, process for video service providers to be administered by the California Public Utilities Commission, thereby, removing tlie authority of local jurisdictions to negotiate video service franchise agreements. Previous to DIVCA, municipalities would negotiate individually with cable service providers to determine the appropriate services and standards for each individual community. The switch in the focus of control from municipalities to the State is proving to have some unintended consequences. Staff provided additional background on this issue in a report at the July 20, 2010 City Council meeting (Attachment 1). Local community television stations within California have been financially impacted by the DIVCA legislation. Specifically, DIVCA mandates Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rules, which state that public, education, and governmental or "PEG" fees that are assessed on residents' cable bills can only be used for capital purposes in support of local community television. Previous to DIVCA, the City had negotiated a subscriber fee with Comcast that is passed on to Tri-Valley Community Television ("TV30") that could be used for both capital and operational expenses. Prior to DIVCA, the City had been able to negotiate consent from cable service providers to use PEG fees not only for capital but also for operational purposes. Due to the passage of DIVCA, Fiscal Year 2010-2011 will be the last year that PEG fees will be able to be used for operational expenses, with the City receiving approximately $77,000 this year. For Fiscal Year 2010-2011, PEG fees total approximately 75% of TV30's overall budget. TV30 has been researching alternative means for funding its operations in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and beyond. Long-term solutions are still being worked on, with the primary hope that federal legislation can be passed to change the FCC rule. In the short-term, the Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon have found that each has funding remaining from a capital grant received from Comcast to develop a new TV30 studio, which could be used for TV30 operational expenses within Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The TV30 Board of Directors, which is composed of the Mayors of the Tri-Valley Cities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon, have requested the release of these funds to be used by TV30 for operational expenses in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. TV30 funding requests by City are listed below. TV30 Studio General Fund City Request Grant Impact for FY for FY (FY 2010-11 ~ 2011-12 2011-12 expense) Dublin $70,000 $65,277 $4,723 Livermore $122,500 $65,277 $57,223 Pleasanton $118,300 $65,277 $53,023 San Ramon $97,602 $29,028 $68,574 Total $408,402 $224,859 . $183,543 In reviewing the request, Staff finds that building a new studio is not a high priority for the foreseeable future, especially as TV30 attempts to secure a stable funding stream to bolster its operations. PEG fees will continue to be received at least through 2018, so the studio capital reserve account could easily be replenished should the idea of studio retrofit/expansion become desirable again at some point in the future. In addition, using the studio funding for operational Page 2 of 3 expenses allows the City to continue to fund TV30 operations at its current service level for at least one more year, without a significant general fund impact. The additional year will provide time to determine viable funding mechanisms or, if necessary, appropriate service level reductions. If the City Council were to reallocate the $65,277 to TV30 operational expenses and authorize that these funds be paid to TV30 in Fiscal Year 2010-2011, the City would be asked to contribute only $4,723 from its General Fund in Fiscal Year 2011-2012 to fully fund Dublin's share of TV30's operations within, that year. For the reasons outlined above, Staff would recommend that the City Council adopt the Budget Change (Attachment 2). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. July 20, 2010 Staff Report ~ 2. Budget Change ~ Page 3 of 3 ~ ~~ G~~.~ OF DpB~ 19, • , _~ ,8,'Z `~ ~''~~~~ STAFF REPORT C I T Y C L E R K c~,,L,~~~ DUBLIN CITY COUNCEL File # 00[~~-0~ DATE: July 20, 20'! 0 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Joni Pattillo, City Manager SUBJE : Report on the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA) and Support for the Community Access Preservation Act (HR 3745) Prepared By: Roger Bradley, Senior Administrative Analyst EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive a report on the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 (DIVCA) and its impact on local access programming within the City of Dublin. In addition, the City Council will be informed about federal legislation (HR 3745 - The Community Access Preservation Act) being considered that will affect the provision of loca! cable television programming, and consider adopting a Resolution is support of this legislation. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report and adopt the Resolution supporting HR 3745,. the Community Access Preservation Act. ~ Submitte By Sr. Administra ive Analyst ;` ~ eviewe Assistant City Manager Page 1 of 5 ~;l 3-15-II Attachment 1. ~ ~ Ig DESCRIPTION: Local entities within the State of California have tratiitionally had the authority to regulate, in accordance with federal, state and local law,_ certain aspects of the provision of video service, including the authority to award franchises. In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 ("D1VCA"), which became effective January 1, 2007. The pu~pose of D1VCA was to streamline the franchising process for video service providers and to provide for the convergence of technologies. For instance, telephone companies-such as AT&T- developed integrated products that use existing telephone networks to provide cable-like services, and cable companies-like Comcast-are using their networks to provide telephone services. This technology allows telephone, cellular phone, audio, Internet, and video services to be provided by one company. Ta facilitate the provision of such integrated services,_the Legislature enacted DIVCA. - DIVCA substantially changed California law by establishing a statewide franchising process for video service providers to be administered by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), DIVCA established that the CPUC is the sole authority to award franchises for the provision of video services, which preempts local franchising authority. Further, DIVCA established limited authority for local entities to exercise control over State franchise holders. Consequently, the City is now prohibited by DIVCA from awarding new local franchises or regulating State franchise holders, except to the extent permitted by DIVCA, which amounts to monitoring and enforcing customer service standards. Presently, there are two State franchise holders operating within the City of Dublin: AT&T and Comcast. AT&T received a State franchise on March 30, 2007, and began offering its U-Verse service pursuant to that State franchise sometime after March 30, 2007. The City's incumbent cable provider, Comcast, which operated pursuant to a franchise agreement with the City for many years, received a State franchise on January 2, 2008; under DIVCA, Comcast was entitled to seek the State franchise beginning as of January 2, 2008 due to AT&T's entry into the video programming market in Dublin. Comcast's State franchise became effective in Dublin, and the franchise agreement between the City and Comcast was terminated when Comcast notified the City that it began providing video service in Dublin under the State franchise. The City received this notice from Comcast on January 14, 2008. While DIVCA constituted a sea change relative to local involvement in the regulation of video programming, it does contain a number of provisions designed to maintain operational and financial support for franchising agencies like the City of Dublin. Thus, the City will continue to receive equivalent franchise fees from State franchise holders as it received .under the local agreement, which amounts to five percent of gross revenues received for services provided within the City of Dublin. The amount of franchise fees estimated for FY 2009-10 from these service providers is $61.5,000, and those funds are General Fund revenues. State franchise holders are also required to provide public, educational and governmental channel access and support. In addition, DIVCA contains provisions designed to ensure that neighborhoods are not discriminated against on the basis of household income. DIVCA's lmpact on Tri-Valley Community Television (TV30) As part of the now-expired franchise agreement with Comcast, the City of Dublin received, in addition to the franchise fee, a public, education, and governmental ("PEG") fee in the amount of $0.50 per Dublin subscriber: The revenues from that fee were passed on to N30, which used the revenues to fund capital and operating expenses incurred by the station in producing Page 2 of 5 ~ ~ (~ locally-focused programming for the Tri-Valley communities of Dublin, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. While DIVCA allowed Comcast to opt out of its agreement with the City~, it did not allow Comcast to abrogate its responsibility to pay PEG fees. Specifically, DIVCA requires that incumbent cable operators that choose to opt out of a local agreement, as well as any subsequent providers that choose to provide service under a State franchise, to pay any and all PEG fees negotiated as part of the local franchise agreement until the expiration date of the local agreement. The City of Dublin's agreement with Comcast would have expired on June 1, 2011. Comcast and AT&T ace required to pay the $0.50 per month per subscriber fee until this date. Thus, the City is passing on this per-subscriber fee (approximately $70,000 in FY 2010- 11) to TV30 to fund local cable operations, which include the airing of City Council meetings. For jurisdictions that did not have a PEG fee in place as part of a local franchise agreement, DIVCA allows a local jurisdiction to adopt a PEG fee to fund local access programming in an amount of one percent of gross revenues received by the cable operator. Additionally, this fee can be adopted by jurisdictions that had a fee in place but have passed the date when the local franchise agreement would have expired. Previously, the City Council adopted a one percent fee for use after June 1, 2011. As a result, PEG fees will continue to flow to TV30 after what would have been the expiration date of the local agreement originally negotiated with Comcast. It is important to note that a fee of one percent of gross revenues would increase the amount of funding available for pass through to N30. Staff estimates that it would increase #his revenue by approximately 50%. While this may be a favorable situation for TV 30 operations, there is a problem with the eligible use of funds under DIVCA. While the now-expired franchise agreement with Comcast was explicitly negotiated to allow PEG fees to be used for operating and capital expenses, PEG fees under DIVCA are only alfowed to be used in accordance with the Federal Communications Commission's ("FCC") guidelines, which limits the use of PEG fees to only capital expenses. Approximately 75% of TV30's annual budget ($555,795) is funded by PEG fees received from the member agencies of Dublin, Livermo~e, Pleasanton, and San Ramon. As a result, TV30 will have to find a funding mechanism, other than PEG fees, for a significant majority of its budget after June 1, 2011. Prior to the local franchise agreement with Comcast, N30 made annual requests to the Tri- Valley cities for general fund support. If the rules for PEG fee use are not adjusted prior to June 2011, the City Council can expect to receive a similar request as part of the Fiscal Year 2011- 2012 budget cycle. Given the current economic times, the City Council may find itself in a difficult situation as it will be forced to weigh the importance of TV30's services against other General Fund services provided by the City. Currently, there is federal legislation being proposed, known as the Community Access Preservation Act of 2009 ("CAP", H.R. 3745), to change the FCC rule, allowing the use of PEG fees for operating expenses, which, if passed, would remove the need for a future general fund request from TV30. An additional difficulty with DIVCA has been experienced by subscribers of AT8~T's U-Verse service_ On January 27, 2009, AT&T began offering access to .N30 programming as part of its U-Verse service platform. In order to get access to TV30 programs on the U-Verse service, subscribers must navigate through a web application that is available on U-Verse channel 99. Viewers then have to select the City of Dublin - Tri-Valley Community Television link, after which they will be able to select the channel of'preference or the Comcast equivalent of 28, 29, and 30. Unfortunately, as this is a web application service, viewers are unable to utilize DVR services to record N30 programming. Questions have arisen about whether the provision of local access channels through a web application complies with State and federal laws and regulations. The CAP Act would clarify that such is not the case. Page3of5 '~ ~ Community Access Preservation Act of 2009 The Community Access Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3745) has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives, and if enacted, would provide for the carriage and display of PEG channels in a manner consistent with local or cable commercial channels. Current .federal law and many states' laws do not mandate even the most basic requirements for PEG broadcasts, nor do they require dedica#ed funding.for PEG programming beyond an "adequate assurance of financial support." The CAP Act seeks to close and remove many of the loopholes and obstacles that exist to pr~serve the future of access to PEG programming. Historically, funding for PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of local franchise agreements between ca61e companies and local franchise authorities as was accomplished with the now-expired local franchise agreement with Comcast. However, more than half of the states have enacted telecommunications laws that shift the franchising authority to the state level. As a result, due to a lack ofi adequate federal protection, these new statewide agreements create significant broadcast and funding obstacles for some PEG channels, and have created the problems mentioned above with DIVCA. Furthermore, the transition to digital television has allowed some franchised cable companies to carry PEG channels differently than commercial channels, whether broadcasting them in reduced resolution, displaying them in menu-only format, or simply moving them to a digital-only tier, rendering them inaccessible to the average cable customer. In the worst case, customers are now required to. pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to broadcast closed captioning for PEG channels unless a special request is made. The end result is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public as is the intention of PEG programming. Specifically, the CAP Act would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: • Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; • Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; • Requiring the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG channels, and requiring operators to provide the greater of the support required under state laws, or the support historically provided for PEG; and • Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all landline video providers. The important point to note is that the CAP Act does not assume a"one-size-fits-al!" solution for the issue of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations between franchising authorities and the local communities they serve. Letters urging support for the CAP Act were sent in October and November of 2009 and in March of 2010 to the Tri-Valley's Congressional Representatives by the Tri-Valley Mayors of Dublin, Danville, Livermore, Pleasanton, and San Ramon (Attachments 1-5). In addition, Staff is recommending that the City Council adopt a Resolution supporting the passage of the legislation (Attachment 6). NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: None. . ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter of Support for CAP Act (November 2009) - Cangressman Garamendi 2. Letter of Support for CAP Act (October 2009) - Congressman McNerney - Page 4 of 5 S ~g ~ 3. Letter of Support for CAP Act (October 2009) - Congressman Stark 4. Letter of Support for CAP Act (March 2010) - Senator Boxer 5. Letter of Support for CAP Act (March 2010) - Senator Feinstein 6. Resolution supporting the Community Access Preservation Act. Page 5 of 5 ~~ ~~ November 18, 2009 The Honorable John Garamendi U.S. House of Representatives 2459 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Garamendi: We write to you today to express our s~ 2009 (CAP, H.R. 3745), as introduced i (D-Wisc.). ff enacted, this bill would prc and government (PEG) channels in a rr channels. Community Access Preservation Act of ~f.,Representatives by Rep. Tammy Baldwin ~ar~iage and display of public, educational, tent with local or cable commercial PEG stations and channels are locally;funded; ~pEOduced, and viewed. Current federal law and many states' laws do not mandate even~the most ~asic.requirements for PEG broadcasts, nor do they require dedicated funding for PEG programming beyond an "adequate assurance of financial support." Historically, funding'sfor,PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of local franchise agreements between cable companies and Iocal franchise authorities. Fiowever, twenty-three states have enacted recently new telecommunication laws tfiat shift frarichise authorities to the state level As a result, .due to a lack of adequate federal profection, tktese`new,siate-wide agreements ~reate signifcant ti~oadcast and funding obstacles for,~sorrte PEG cFiannels. ~.-a ; ~ ;~ . Furthermore, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~ tF~e transition to digital television has allowed some fcanehised cable companies to carry PEG channef.s..differ,ently than commercial channels, whether broadcasting them in reduced resolution, displaying them in menu-only format, or simply mo`ving them to a digital-only tier, rendering them inaccessible to analog cable customers. In the wvrst case, customers are now required to pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to broadcast closed captioning for PEG channels uniess a special request is made. The end result is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public. Specifically the CAP Act would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: ~.. •`` Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; ~~ `° ~. ••,':Requiring PEG channels to be. carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; •°Requi~ing fhe FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG u ~ ., ; ::channels, ;and requiring operators'to proVicle tfie g~eater of tlie support required under ~-state,law"s; or the support historically provided for PEG; and ~~`Making~cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all landline ~ideo ' providers. ° - - The important point to note is that the CAP Act does not assume a"one-size-fits-all" solution for the isstae of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations between franchising authorities and the local communities they serve: ~~ ~8 We encourage you to examine the provisions of this bill and consider signing on as a co- sponsor. Preserving the arts, educational, and informational broadcasts provided by PEG broadcasts is important to our community and the residents we serve. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ,, J F ~ :. ~ ~~~'~~ ~~fl~`(IC~1 ~aycs~, 7'~wn oF Da~vi9l~e _ cfi ~:~~:~ H. Abr~rn V6rilson t~tayc~r, Crt~t ~of San Ftam~r~ ~ ~,~~ ~y~~ ~ ln~ L"~4~'S't' f Lg;v)-a> ~~ ~1~'71 ~E?t~1'1L6 tttlayc~r, City ~` ~Dubi~n ~~.~-r`~. , ~ity af Pl~~santon ~~~~~~~,~ r~~~n~i~ rca~~-~~ N1a~~<< city of ~,+rerm~r~ ~~ l~ October 26, 2009 The Honorable Jerry McNerney U.S: House of Representatives 312 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman McNerney: We write to you today to express our s~ 2009 (CAP, H.R. 3745), as introduced i (D-Wisc.). If enacted, this bill would pr< and government (PEG} channels in a rr channels. PEG stations and channels are locall many states' laws do not mandate eti do they require dedicated funding for financial support." imunity Access Preservation Act of ;presentatives by Rep. Tammy Baldwin ige and display of public, educational, with local or cable commercial , and viewed. Current federal law and equirements for PEG broadcasts, nor beyond an "adequate assurance of Historically, funding for`PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of local franchise agreements between cable co,mpanies and local franchise authorities. '.Hov+iever, twenty-three states have enacted recentiy new telecommunication laws that shift franchise authorities to the ~ state level. As-a Gesul~ tlu~~to a lack of adequate federal protection,_these~new:state-wide agresments create signifcant b~foadcast and funding obstacles for~some PEG cfiannels. ~; _ ;W~' , .~ .. „ E~ ~ ~% ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~:.: Furthermore, ttte transition to digital television has allowed some~~canchised cable companies to carry PEG channels differently than commercial channels, whether broaclcasfing them in reduced resolution, displaying them in menu-only format, or simply moving them to a digita!-only tier, rendering them inaccessible to analog cable customers. In the worst case, customers are now required to pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to broadcast closed captioning for-PEG channels unless a special request is made. The end result is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public. Specifically°the~CAP Act would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: . ~ : ~, ,: „ . ~ , ~ ~ ;a , •~ Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; ~..Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channets; •~Requicing the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had'on PEG ,~ , .~channels .and requiring operators to provide the greate~'of fhe support:~equired under.~ ~.N"state`.laws; or the support historically provided for PEG; and :.~_. • Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all fandline video ' _.. provi ers. The important point to note is that the CAP Act does not assume a"one-size-fits-all" solution for the issue of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations befinreen franchising authorities and the local communities they serve. ~ ~g ~ We encourage you to examine the provisions of this bill and consider signing on as a co- sponsor. Preserving the arts, educational, and informational broadcasts provicied by PEG broadcasts is important to our community and the residents we serve. We thank you for yout time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~ ~ ~ ,,. ~ ~~ f, N@W~'il ArTd+~r~Ch I'~ayt~r, Town c~f E~~~avil~e ~~~~~~ N. Abram Vb'ilson ~rl~yor, Cit}r +~f San F~arrt~n ~ ~ ~n.i.-..,. ,~+~~ ~,~`~>~ • ~ , ~~ty of Pt~asan~t~n ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~u~f~:n~~~ ~~~~-~~ ~1ay~r, c~1y ~t C.;vermore Tim Sbr2~nti M~yar, ~C~ty qf Qubl~n ~~ lg ~ October 26, 2009 The Honorable Fortney "Pete" Stark U.S. House of Representatives 239 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Congressman Stark: We write to you today to express our si 2009 (CAP, H.R. 3745), as introduced i (D-Wisc.). If enacted, this bill would prc and government (PEG) channels in a rr channels. PEG stations and channels are locally' many states' laws do not mandate evei do they require dedicated funding for F financial support." Community Access Preservation Act of . if~,Representatives by Rep. Tammy Baldwin aRiage and display of public, educational, t~nt with local or cable commercial and viewed. Current federal law and ~quirements for PEG broadcasts, nor beyond an "adequate assurance of Historically, funding°'fo~~PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of,local franchise agreements between cable companies and local franchise authorities However, twenty-three states have enacted recently new telecommunication laws that shift franchise authorities to the state level. As a resulf, ;due to a lack of adequate federal protection~ these new state-wide agreements create s~gnifcant tiroadcast and funding obstacles forsome PEG°ctiannels. g .:.. . , ,. ~ E. .. t~ . ~~ Furthermore, the transition to dvigital television has allowed some franch~sed cable companies to carry.PEG channels differen'tly than commercial channels, whether broadcasti,ng them in reduced resolution, d~splaying them in menu-only format, or simply moving them to a digital-only tier, rendering them inaccessible to analog cable customers. In the worst case, customers are now required to pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to broadcast closed captioning for PEG channels unless a special request is made. The end result is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public. Specifically the,CAP Act would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: ~ . ~. ~ ~ ~" Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; e~ .Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; . • Requiring the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have hatl".on P,EG &:~ channels gand ~equiring operators to provide the greater of the support.required under': sastate..laws; or the support historically provided for PEG; and - ~ 0 """Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all landline video providers. - --- The important point to note is that the CAP Act does not assume a"one-size-fits-all" solution for the issue of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations between franchising authorities and the local communities they serve. Il ~ ~g We encourage you to examine the provisions of this bill and consider signing on as a co- sponsor. Preserving the arts, educational, and informational broadcasts provided by PEG broadcasts is important to our community and the residents we serve. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, f., ,~'` f ,, ~, ~; ~ ~ J t~ei~v~tE A~n~ric~t P~rtayr~r; T~n o~ ~aravil~~ +~ ~~~~~~-~' H. Abr~m Wiison Ntay~-r:, City t~f San R~m~n ~~',~' ~ ,, ~' T''['' 1'-~~r+-'~'t""'~ a'~}-'s,~.~ K-...,~.'. T~T71 ~b~e~l1~~ t+rta~yc~r, City of Duk~l~n ~._---'`°' .~= , ~`rty uf Pl~as~nt~a€t ~~'~~~~~~~....~. ~fars.na~! }~amen~ Nk~yo~; Csty ~f ~,iverrt't~~e i~ ~, ig March 31, 2010 The Honorable Barbara Boxer United States Senate 112 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senato~ Boxer: We write to you today to express our support for preserving public, educational, and government {PEG) channels in our community. As you may know, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D- Wisc.) introducedrthe Community Access Preservation Act of 2009 (CAP, H.R. 3745) in the House of Representatives ~ast year. If enacted, this bill would provide'for tF~e carriage and display of PEG channels in a manner consistent with local or cable commercial channels. Our purpose in vuri#ing,Yyou fod~y is:to ask that you take steps to ensure,that a`companion biil is introduced i~j the Senate, and is acted upon promptly. ~ ~ ° ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A~ ~ ,. ~ € M. PEG stations`and channels are iocally funded, produced, and v~ewed~ Cu~rent'federal law and many states' laws~do not~:~iandate even the most basic requirements for PEG broadcasts, nor do they require dedicated funding for PEG programming beyond an "ade'quate assurance of financial support." Historically, funding for PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of local franchise agreements between cable compan+es and local franchise authorities. Fiowever, twenty-three states have recently enacted new telecommunication laws that shift franchise authorities to the staterlevel. ~Asea result, due to a lack of adequate federal protection, these new state-wide agreeinents create significant broadcast and funding obstacles for some PEG channels" ,. y ` ~~ ~ : Furtherrnore ;the transition to digital television has allowed some franchised,~cable companies:,to carry PEG~chanriels differently than commercial channels, whether broadcasting~them _in rt! reduced resolutkon, displaying them in menu-only format, or simply moving tFiem to a digital only tier rendering tkiem inaccessible to analog cable customers. In the worst case, customers; are now required'to pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to~broadcast~~°' c ose captioning for PEG channels unless a special request is made. The end res~ult"is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public. Specifically, we are requesting legislation similar to the CAP Act that would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: • Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; • Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; • Requiring the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG channels, and requiring operators to provide the greater of the support required under state laws, or the support historically provided for PEG; and • Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to a11 landline video providers. ~~~ ~g It is important that any PEG legislation not assume a"one-size-fits-all" solution for the issue of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations between franchising authorities and the local communities they serve. We encourage you to examine the.provisions of the CAP Act as introduced in the House and consider introducing a companion bill in the Senate. Preserving the. arts, educational, and informational broadcasts provided by PEG broadcasts is impb~tant to our community and the residents we serve. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~~r~ Tim Sbranti Mayor, City of Dubtin `~ ~ ~ f f~ ~`~ ....~'~.:- ,~------..~ _. J nnifer ~Grman ayor, City of Pleasanton ~~~~1C~,-s ~~-.~~ ~G~~--~ Marshall Kamena Mayor, City of Livermore ~~~~~~ H. Abram Wilson Mayor, City of San Ramon ~~~1~ March 31, 201.0 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein United States Senate 331 Fiart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Feinstein: We write to you today to express our support for preserving public, educational, and government (PEG) channels in our community. As you may know, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D- Wisc.) introduced tfie`Community Access Preservation Act of 2009 (CAP, H.R. 3745) in the House of Representatives last year. If enacted, this bill would provide for;tfie carriage and display of PEG chan'neks;;in a i~nanner consistent with loca! or cable co~nmercial channels. Our purpose m v~ir~ting~y,ou today ~~~,to ask that you take steps to ensure tFiat a~c~mpanion bill~is introduced ii~ the,Sena"te, and is acted upon promptly. ~"~ ~~ .~ ~' . f ` . ,E # , .: i ,.'. , lr e- Y ., . . rk • .~: .~~ E ~ . ~,,:: ~p ~ ?..:; '~ E ~ PEG stations'and channels,are locally funded, produced, and wewed., Current~federal law and many states' laws„do not~ mandate even the most basic requirements for`PEG~broadcasts, nor , do they require dedicated funding for PEG programming beyond an "adequate assurance of financial support." Historically, funding for PEG broadcasts has been negotiated as part of local franchise agreements between cable companies and local franchise authorities. However, twenty-three states have recently enacted new telecommunication laws that shift franchise authorities to the state level ;As¢a result, due to a lack of adequate federal protection, these new state-wide agreer'nents~c~eate significant broadcast and funding obstacles for some PEG channels: .,,, ~..< ' ~. ' ° . ~ °, rt a ~:_ Furthermore,';the transition to digital television has alfowed some franchised,cable companies to carry PEG chanriefs differently than commercial channels, whether broadcasting:them iR :~ ~educed reso,l;ut~on, displaying them in-menu-only format, or simply moving t~hem to'a digitalponly tier; rendenng;them inaccessible to analog cable customers, In the worst case,~customers ar`e now requireci~'fo pay extra fees to access PEG channels, or operators refuse to broadcast closed captioning for PEG channels unless a special request is made. TFie end resuif is an undervalued broadcast that does not benefit the public: -~ Specifically, we are requesting legislation similar to the CAP Act that would address the immediate issues facing PEG channels by: • Allowing PEG fees to be used for any PEG-related purposes; • Requiring PEG channels to be carried in the same manner as local broadcast channels; • Requiring the FCC to study the effect state video franchise laws have had on PEG channels, and requiring operators to provide the greater of the support required under state faws, or the support historically provided for PEG; and • Making cable television-related laws and regulations applicable to all landline video providers. is~~~ It is important that any PEG legislation not assume a"one-size-fits-ali" solution for the issue of PEG broadcasts. Rather, the decisions about PEG broadcasting is left to negotiations between franchising authorities and the local communities they serve. We encourage you to examine the provisions of the CAP Act as introduced in the House and consider introducing a companion bill in the Senate.` Preserving the arts, educational, and informational broadcasts provided by PEG broadcasts is important to our community and the residents we serve. We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~ ,~~a ~ Tim Sbranti Mayor, City of Dublin f~ ~ i ~: ;~ ~ ~ ~~ ~',~' .:~~~i,~ ___ J nnifer Host~rman ayor, City o# Pleasanton /~''~r~^-S G~~i~ ~,y~,,~..,~ Marshall Kamena Mayor, City of Livem~ore 4 t~~,~. #~~~~~ H. Abram Wilson Mayor, City of San Ramon l~ ~ ~~ RESOLUTION NO. XX - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ****~*****,~ SUPPORTING HR 3745, THE COMMUNITY ACCESS PRESERVATION ACT WHEREAS, public, educational and gavernment (PEG) channels play-.a significant role in the City of Dublin; and WHEREAS, PEG channels are a unique and valuable resource for local information and discourse for Dublin residents; and WHEREAS, PEG channels televise local gavernment meetings, including City Council and Dublin Unified School District Board Meetings, so that citizens are informed about the actions taken by local elected officiais; and WHEREAS, PEG channels provide a window through which residents can view the diversity of cultures, recreational activities and artistic endeavors in their local community; and WHEREAS, PEG channels reflect the unique identity of the communities they serve; and WHEREAS, it is important to preserve PEG channels and funding for PEG channels, and to ensure that the channels continue to be available to the entire community to serve the residents of Dublin; and WHEREAS, HR 3745, the Community Access Preservation Act, addresses critical and immediate threats to PEG. _ ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City_of Dublin supports immediate passage of HR 3745. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Dublin calls on its Congressional delegation to take all possible actions in support of the passage of HR 3745, including but not limited to endorsing, co-sponsori~g and voting for HR 3745, and to work for its rapid passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 2010, by the following vote: AYES: NO~S: 1~ lg ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk c~~rv o~ auB~i~a J ° ~~ _ ~ Bu~~~T cM~r~~E Fo~~ Fv za~ o ~ zo7 ~ CNANGE FORM # New Appr~priafic~ns (Gity°Council Approva!"Rec}uiretl}: Budge# Transfers:. From Unappropriated Reser~ves (k) __ From Budgeted Gontingenf Reserve (1001.1901.8110i) " General Eund Within Same Department Activity From New Ftevenues"k ` . ._ i Be#ween ~epartments (Gity Councii.Approv.al Requiced) t~ther : ,. ~ ~ ,. _ , ., v ..~a .... , , ~d ~33r1~~k , ="w~:.m y, v r.. . ~P3~i~,~' ~ • , •.. ..;,..K~ ..i ', DECREASE~':BUC7GET ACGOUi~T° ,. APt~CiU(,dl`. n...,. !hlCREASE BUD;G~T ACC~UNT ;'' Afl~tJllNT, ;,; {~ame;'EXP~NSE"- GENERAL F1.liVD -0per~ting Btiiige# - Commu..niiyTe~evision - Contract $65,277 Services Acct #`. 100'i. - 7'101- 64Q01 Name; EXPENSE - Gapita4 Improvement Project-CABLE N ' S7UD1{3 REMQpEI. - Gene~al`Fund $65,277 P~oject Accaunt;#' 9300Q1:9200.9201 1 D0'I _ G. eneral Ledger Account # 330Q.930 ~ . REASON F4R BUDGET CHAN~E ENTRY; _ _ At its meetin~ of Mareh 1`5, 2011 the Gity Cou,neil received a staff report related to tFie Qapital Projecf fVa. 930001 Cable TV Studio F2emadel. The City Council authc+rized closing the praject and making a payment of $65,277 to Tri-Valley Community Television as a 2010 - 2011 Operating expense. This will reduce the C.ity's general fund operational subsidy in Fiscal Year 2011 2012 by the same amount. 'fin Mgr/ASO: Signature Date: ~ ~- ~ $ City Manager: Date; Signature , . ' As Approved at #he ~i#y Council,Meeting on ~ : ,,. .~ ; . ,:~ < , ~~ k . ' Date ,., 3I1512011 ,. . .~ . . Mayar: Posted By: nature Date; Date: G,,!BuJgz(f)x'v~gasi3_IDIO_li123 3 A3 !1 CIP~77~3DC7xnigr.elix ~ .P°~ 1 I p''i\,sr-1~Itl~G~~ L