HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-06-05 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting June 5, 2000
SPECIAL MEETING..........................................................215
1. Study Session re Storm Drainage Fee Increase Public Education Program..........................................................215
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m...........................................................215
1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Utilities Advisory Commission..........................................................216
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..........................................................216
2. Resolution 7969 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program”..........................................................217
3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Setting Forth Technical Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code”..........................................................217
4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for..........................................................217
06/05/00 90-211
5. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0118136 with Asplundh Tree Expert Company in the Amount of $45,000 for the 1999-2000 Tree Maintenance Project..........................................................217
6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Cities and Towns of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale for a Countywide AB939 Waste Reduction Implementation Fee..........................................................217
7. Item Deleted...........................................................217
8. Item Deleted...........................................................217
9. Item Deleted..........................................................217
10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation..........................................................217
11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Planned Community (PC) Zoning amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by Winstar Communications to allow building-mounted telecommunication facilities subject to design approval by the Architectural Review Board..........................................................218
12. PUBLIC HEARING: Identification of Future Community Cable Related Needs and Interests..........................................................218
13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..........................................................229
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. to a Closed Session...........................................................229
06/05/00 90-212
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m...........................................................229
06/05/00 90-213
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:45 p.m. PRESENT: Burch, Eakins (arrived at 5:55 p.m.), Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Public Art Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
06/05/00 90-214
Special Meeting June 5, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle (arrived at 6:35 p.m.), Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino, Kniss SPECIAL MEETING 1. Study Session re Storm Drainage Fee Increase Public Education Program Staff made a 20-minute presentation outlining the public outreach program for the proposed storm drainage fee increase election. The presentation described the rationale for the fee increase, the benefits of the proposed storm drain improvements to be funded by the fee, the key messages to be conveyed by the public outreach program, the program timeline, and the communication mechanisms that staff will use to educate the public. Staff also addressed several specific questions raised by Council Members and the public regarding the fee increase. An action item would be on the June 12, 2000, Council agenda seeking Council approval of ordinances and resolutions authorizing staff to proceed with the storm drainage fee election process. The Council was generally supportive of staff’s proposed public outreach program. Concerns were expressed regarding the timing of the storm drain fee election as it related to the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s upcoming special tax election and other future City and regional tax/fee elections. Staff noted its belief in the importance of proceeding with the storm drainage fee election in a timely manner to avoid the continued need for the General Fund to subsidize the storm drain program. Staff agreed that the District’s tax election was also important for the City and noted there was a resolution of support for the District’s measure on the regular Council agenda later in the evening. Staff also pointed out there would be a detailed discussion of the City’s long-range financial plan at the June 6, 2000, Finance Committee meeting. The meeting would provide the opportunity for the Committee to discuss some of the other projects under study that will require supplemental funding sources. The Council received comments and questions from members of the public regarding the storm drain fee increase. In response, Council Members and staff provided clarification of issues or answers to questions. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
06/05/00 90-215
Regular Meeting June 5, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for Utilities Advisory Commission MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, not to interview any applicants for the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) and recommended the appointment of Rick Ferguson, Dexter Dawes, and Dick Rosenbaum at the regular Council Meeting scheduled for June 26, 2000. Council Member Kleinberg agreed with the motion but thought the other applicants were very impressive, and she encouraged the applicants to reapply in the future. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Kleinberg about the quality of people who came forward to offer services to the City. The motion was efficient and made the most sense at the current time. Mayor Kniss opposed the motion primarily because the selection of the UAC was so important to the City, and the amount of revenues received from a well-run Utilities Department was critical to the City. MOTION PASSED 7-1, Kniss “no,” Fazzino absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding Ordinance 4634 for leaf blower/public limits. Elsie Begle, 501 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding new schools. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-6.
06/05/00 90-216
2. Resolution 7969 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Supporting the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Clean, Safe Creeks and Natural Flood Protection Program” 3. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Setting Forth Technical Amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code” 4. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Mitchell Park” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Bol Park” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving and Adopting a Plan for Improvements to Eleanor Park” 5. Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0118136 with Asplundh Tree Expert Company in the Amount of $45,000 for the 1999-2000 Tree Maintenance Project 6. Agreement Between the City of Palo Alto and the Cities and Towns of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Monte Sereno, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale for a Countywide AB939 Waste Reduction Implementation Fee MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 7. Item Deleted. 8. Item Deleted. 9. Item Deleted. 10. Conference with City Attorney -- Existing Litigation Subject: Ione Breyer v. City of Palo Alto, SCC #CV783468 Authority: Government Code section 54956.9(a)
06/05/00 90-217
PUBLIC HEARINGS 11. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Planned Community (PC) Zoning amendment and Environmental Impact Assessment applications by Winstar Communications to allow building-mounted telecommunication facilities subject to design approval by the Architectural Review Board. Winstar’s specific proposal would allow a telecommunications facility consisting of up to 50 dish-type antennas and associated equipment, attached to the roof-top of an existing 10-story, commercial-office building located at 3000 El Camino Real in the Palo Alto Square office park. The ARB recommended approval of Winstar’s design (File 99-ARB-127) at the April 6, 2000, meeting. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Zoning District: PC-2523 BY A CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL, the item was removed from the agenda and scheduled for the Regular City Council Meeting of June 12, 2000. 12. PUBLIC HEARING: Identification of Future Community Cable Related Needs and Interests Council Member Mossar announced she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest because of AT&T stock in the family. Administrative Services Director Carl Yeats said the identification of future community cable related needs and interests was another step in the process on which staff had embarked in the transfer and renewal of a new franchise agreement for cable television in the community. Staff had conducted a financial audit, a technical audit, and needs assessment sessions with the public. The public was given the opportunity to directly address the Council and provide comments about their desires for the future needs of the cable system. Mayor Kniss declared the public hearing open. Marie Scigliano, Director of Educational Technology, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), 25 Churchill Avenue, spoke on behalf of the PAUSD’s interest in public education and government access opportunities, which were possible with the cable television franchise policy. The PAUSD was experiencing difficulty providing traditional face-to-face training opportunities due to resource and time constraints. An institutional network, provided by the cable
06/05/00 90-218
provider, would greatly assist the PAUSD and add value to the education of the community. Ruth Lacey, 2340 Cowper Street, representing MidPeninsula Access Corporation (MPAC) as a producer and crew member, encouraged the Council to ensure the valuable programming provided by MPAC was protected. William Byron Webster, 480 E. O’Keefe #307, East Palo Alto, said maintaining the vitality of public access to the mid-peninsula area via Cable Co-Op and MPAC was extremely important to the East Palo Alto community. MPAC and Cable Co-Op supported East Palo Alto by providing encouragement to people who were displaced as East Palo Alto was developed. The City was encouraged to ensure that Channel 6 remained available for public access television. Jean McFadden, 407 Ferne Avenue, supported FM radio and expanded local public programming for government and the public. The City was encouraged to keep a critical eye on how the cable company worked in the future. A letter from Bill VonOrsdale was read (letter on file in City Clerk’s Office). Arthur Snyder, 473 E. Meadow Drive, cautioned the Council not to rush into a franchise agreement because of the complexity of the process. Although AT&T was donating $17 million to Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. (SVCC) for local origination, a studio, etc., he questioned whether more should be requested. The $17 million was not a true donation but should be considered part of the purchase price. The City could still receive rent for the use of its right of way. Margaret Snyder, 473 E. Meadow Drive, spoke about the process, which was very murky and confusing even though she attended all the meetings presented by Busky[?]. The City was urged to charge adequate rent to AT&T for the system; the $17 million given to SVCC should not be considered part of the purchase price. Re-openers should be written into the contract as a structured mechanism for revisiting the franchise during its term on various issues such as upgrades, PEG access, Internet access, and FM broadcast radio to ensure the purchaser was doing as promised. Louise Herring, 3945 Nelson Drive, spoke about Palo Alto’s reputation and the need to ensure classical stations were included in the program offerings of the new cable franchise. The City’s reputation was the result of the combined efforts of the people living in the area for 50 years, most of whom were elderly and confined to homes or senior residences. Radio and television were among the few sources of entertainment.
06/05/00 90-219
Liza Loop, 760 Homer Avenue, asked the Council: 1) why the City was considering an organization other than MPAC; 2) why there was a question about making open access to the Internet part of the franchise agreement; 3) why legislation of the cable, which was no longer concerned only with television access and the control of major source of communication to the home, was so inadequate; and 4) why the City was allowing itself to be railroaded into making a quick decision. At the very least, the franchise should be made for a very short time, if at all. Elliot Margolies, 3205 Emerson Street, supported MPAC which was recently selected the best public access channel in the country. The goal was to make MPAC more useful for groups to obtain information to the community. More programming vehicles should be created. MPAC had many needs in areas such as equipment, teaching spaces, satellite facilities. Mary Sause, 20 Kent Place, said Palo Alto had a great opportunity to incorporate diversity to include the types of services requested by the PAUSD, the cost of which could be covered. The Council was urged to carefully examine the franchise agreement and request a short franchise period in order to monitor the services. Christine Shambora, 236 Tennyson Avenue, said MPAC served an important role in the community as evidenced by the recent award. Resources were constrained, and the City was urged to enable MPAC to increase its programming to assist the schools through additional funding. Cheryl Zaslawsky, Menlo Park, supported MPAC, a wonderful community resource. She urged the Council urged to be vigilant about the preservation of what was a boon to the community and enhance MPAC’s capability, funding, and resources as much as possible. J. R. Prohaska, 1048 Menlo Oaks, Menlo Park, MPAC Board Member, addressed the opportunities the sale of Cable Co-Op to AT&T would provide. He urged the Council to allow MPAC’s mission to go forward and build on the success of the past 10 years. Bill Copeland, 3835 Carlson Circle, said he worked with Sue Busky to gather information from the community about its needs for the new franchise. Cable Co-op provided a wide spectrum of information to the community. The loss of local control of the video and audio cable to the multi-national corporation, AT&T, meant the choice of information sources was made in AT&T’s sole interest, profit. The City was urged to ask AT&T to set aside channels for community use so citizens could obtain a good view of the reality of what was happening and make good decisions.
06/05/00 90-220
John Kelley, 1868 Mark Twain Street, supported staff’s diligent work in evaluating the franchise agreement proposed with AT&T. The sale would provide a great opportunity for members who had effectively set aside equity in the amount of $17 million from the system to develop further local community programming. The channel capacity would increase, the system would be more reliable, and AT&T would be able to deliver meaningful cable telephany in the long term for video services. The Council was urged to move forward with the transaction and complete the needs assessment. Tom Passall, 766 Bryant Street, opposed the sale to AT&T because significant influence would be lost over the channel offerings, local origination, and other services. Many of the benefits of the sale were the result of his opposition to the 1997 sale. The Council was urged to leverage the franchise transfer process to extract commitments from AT&T to keep Palo Alto’s channel lineup improved and different from other Bay Area cable users. Andrew Mellows, 791 Coastland Drive, encouraged the City to consider the position AT&T was in, which was more competitive than a few years ago. The Council was urged to move forward quickly because of concerns that AT&T was challenged by the purchase. Bob Smith, 2291 Greer Road, supported moving forward with the proposed franchise and transfer agreement with AT&T as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Cable Co-op had significant financial needs that would be resolved by the sale. The issue of an upgrade was critical; the current system was obsolete. Mr. Kelley said no other system in the country had given its entire equity to the community, which was not true. Sue Buske indicated Davis, California, had done so, but Davis was a co-op. The City needed to find a way to move from regulation to enhancing and increasing competition. The Council was urged to move forward quickly so it would not lose a window of opportunity. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, said after spending 13 years talking about cable television in Palo Alto, the City finally installed cable in 1987; the current process had already taken over two years, which was not an unreasonable acceleration. Adequate competition would be seen, since RCN and PacBell had indicated interest. The $17 million endowment from AT&T involved video, as well as every form of communication, including data services. He saw MPAC and SVCC working together in the future. The City could require AT&T fund local access. The future of MPAC was secure, but the City had the responsibility to ensure funding was adequate. The Council was urged to move forward quickly. Ken Allen, 3784 Grove Avenue, said the City should be careful about what it asked for because it might get it. AT&T’s offer should be
06/05/00 90-221
recognized as something unique. Subscribers were happy to proceed with the transaction and sale of assets to AT&T. The effort being made to determine community needs was appreciated. Anything the City asked for would actually cost something, and that should be kept in mind. Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Burch asked Mr. Kelley to address the current state of the negotiations between MPAC and Silicon Valley Community Communications, Inc. (SVCC). Mr. Kelley said there were three parties to the discussions: Cable Co-Op, MPAC, and SVCC. When the sales agreement was negotiated with AT&T, Cable Co-Op attempted to structure it with two things in mind: 1) the opportunity for SVCC and MPAC to collaborate in the future; and 2) that the collaboration remain an option for MPAC. In negotiating the sales agreement, the two principles were kept in mind. Both Cable Co-Op’s and MPAC’s boards adopted a statement of principles in September 1999. MPAC’s board had not officially indicated a desire to see the merger move forward. Cable Co-Op required no merger of the two organizations. MPAC had done an outstanding job and should be commended. If MPAC wanted to proceed on its own or wanted to merge with SVCC it would be encouraged and supported. Council Member Ojakian said if MPAC chose to meld with SVCC, that was fine; but if not, would SVCC provide its own public programming. Mr. Kelley said he was not a member of the SVCC Board of Directors. In terms of funding, Cable Co-Op negotiated a purchase price with AT&T for the fair market value of the system. Cable Co-Op’s members decided to use a portion of the proceeds to be returned to the members and set aside another large portion of the proceeds for community programming. Mayor Kniss asked whether “community programming” included MPAC. Mr. Kelley said yes. SVCC was the recipient of the donation, as indicated in the sale agreement. Mayor Kniss asked Seth Fearey, Director of SVCC, to speak on the subject. Seth Fearey, Director of SVCC, said SVCC had an obligation to MPAC to provide space both immediately after the deal was closed and in the long-term. The dream was to build a new facility to house MPAC plus other opportunities, such as a new kind of community center
06/05/00 90-222
for people to produce video, internet, web-related items, audio, etc. Space would immediately be provided to MPAC. The goal was for additional monies to fund more local origination and programming, and work with schools and community organizations. At the current time, SVCC was unsure whether a merger made sense; which was why Co-Pac, a joint committee of people from Cable Co-Op, SVCC, and MPAC, was being formed. The committee had been meeting for almost a year and wanted to work together but the AT&T negotiations made it tricky. The desire was to build something that would be around for 100 years. If the organizations merged in the future, the organization would be called MC² (MC squared) or “Midpeninsula Community Media Center.” Vice Mayor Eakins said at least seven speakers asked the Council to make sure MPAC was funded. She asked Mr. Yeats whether it was up to the Council. Mr. Yeats understood the asset purchase agreement put the $17 million in the hands of SVCC. The City had just over two weeks to finish negotiations on the franchise agreement, and the City had to designate a community access organization, currently MPAC. MPAC was funded out of the fees returned to them by the franchisee. Therefore, the City was obligated to negotiate to continue to fund MPAC because SVCC or MC² currently did not exist. He was unsure how MPAC accessed the $17 million SVCC had. AT&T would be asked to provide funding for MPAC. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether negotiations were at the same stage as the earlier interrogatories. Mr. Yeats said yes. Staff continued to meet with AT&T to negotiate. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether staff sought direction from the Council. Mr. Yeats said any direction the Council provided was useful. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Lytle, to direct staff that Mid-Peninsula Access Corporation was protected and kept whole in negotiations with AT&T. Mayor Kniss asked whether the motion was sufficient for staff. The lion’s share of the $17 million was going to SVCC, and the Council was puzzled about where MPAC played into the process. Mr. Fearey’s letter indicated SVCC would sublease the space from AT&T that would in turn be used by MPAC and Cable Co-Op, which sounded like one group would move into another group’s territory.
06/05/00 90-223
Mr. Yeats thought Mayor Kniss’ assessment was correct. Once the transaction was complete, SVCC would occupy Cable Co-Op’s studios and allow MPAC to use space in the studio. Mayor Kniss questioned the percentages of use by MPAC. Mr. Kelley said Cable Co-Op had an existing agreement with MPAC. The current franchise between Cable Co-Op and the City contained two parts, one of which was a franchise agreement and the other negotiated in conjunction but was a separate document. It provided guaranteed channel capacity for the community access organization. The Council had already designated MPAC as the community access organization. SVCC had no intention of becoming the community access organization. In fact, as part of the sale agreement with AT&T, it was negotiated that SVCC would have its own channel capacity. MPAC could remain the community access organization, program the PEG channels over which it had jurisdiction, and continue to receive funding from AT&T. The only area SVCC and MPAC directly interfaced was the studio itself. SVCC would step into the shoes vacated by Cable Co-Op under the current contract so all of the current obligations of Cable Co-Op to provide studio space would continue. Beyond that, SVCC was committed to sharing a future studio, as MC². Mayor Kniss asked whether something was evolving or agreed to as far as future interaction between the SVCC and MPAC. Mr. Kelley said discussions had been ongoing for at least a year. Mayor Kniss said there were discussions but no definitive answer. Mr. Kelley said both boards adopted a statement of principles and the Co-Pac committee endorsed a proposed governing structure. But as far as he knew, the MPAC board had not endorsed it and might decide it wanted to continue doing what it was doing and pursue its public access mission. From Cable Co-Op’s perspective, that was fine. If, on the other hand, the two organizations continued discussions and ultimately decided to merge, that would also be fine. The MPAC Board had to make the decision independently. MPAC should preserve its autonomy and sovereignty at the current time and decide what it wanted to do. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the mission of SVCC, why it incorporated as a nonprofit, and what its objective was. Mr. Kelley said one of the things missed in the discussions was that for over 12 years, Cable Co-Op also produced local origination programming. Some people had difficulty discerning that from community access programming. Cable Co-Op had worked very hard
06/05/00 90-224
with MPAC to have essentially a joint-operating agreement for Channels 6 and 77. Studio space and channels were shared. There was a question about whether there was a local news channel. “News Watch” had been hosted by Mike Cobb for a number of years. A number of other shows were produced by Cable Co-Op including “Sports Action.” Hundreds of hours of programming had been produced and recognized on the national level for the local origination programming of Cable Co-Op. One of the missions of SVCC, as he saw it, was to continue the strength, diversity, creativity, and innovation of the local origination programming of Cable Co-Op. SVCC also had a broader mission to seize the opportunity of the congruence and merging of broadband, internet, video, etc., to use some of the unique resources in the community to find out how to create innovative and dynamic ways of communicating with one another. A third focus for SVCC was to see how to use the tools to support education and training. The group worked hard to develop the ideas through the Co-Pac ideas and develop them with MPAC. Ultimately, even if the organizations were not merged, they could complement one another just as Cable Co-Op’s local origination programming complemented MPAC’s public access programming. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the $17 million from AT&T to SVCC, for example at what point, if any, was MPAC considered as a potential recipient of some of the largess of AT&T. Mr. Kelley said the $17 million was part of the consideration being paid by AT&T for the acquisition of the assets. Cable Co-Op’s consideration to MPAC was to support the notion of going forward and merging the two entities. Discussion of a merger of the two had been ongoing for several years. Council Member Kleinberg asked at what point, if any, some of the money that was part of the consideration for the transaction was considered for MPAC, the already-existing local access group so that it might be able to continue to explore and expand on some of the opportunities; or whether MPAC was offered the money but indicated it was not interested. Mr. Kelley said the discussion within Cable Co-Op when the Board voted on the proposal and subsequent discussion at the annual meeting focused on a different question, that is, whether all the money should go back to the members of Cable Co-Op. Some tried to make the point that it would be better for the community if a large portion of the money was set aside and focused on community programming. He felt to continue the tradition of the local origination programming was important and that the best way to support access was through the Co-Pac process, which had started before the purchase issue had risen. In supporting and voting for SVCC, the Cable Co-Op board and membership supported and endorsed
06/05/00 90-225
the joint set of principles previously arrived at in negotiations between representatives of MPAC and Cable Co-Op. No separate vote was taken to give the $17 million to MPAC. Instead, the ongoing process that lead to the joint vision statement was supported. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether SVCC was already being considered or Cable Co-Op was considering something and SVCC was a vehicle. Mr. Kelley was unsure whether SVCC had already been created at that time or not. Council Member Kleinberg asked at what point MPAC was brought into the possible opportunity which money made happen. Mr. Kelley said a committee of designated Cable Co-Op board members spoke with members of the MPAC board in June or July of 1999, but even more discussions went back three years. Council Member Kleinberg said for many people in the public, it was unclear that MPAC, which was the organization that most people assumed was producing the local programming, was going to realize longevity and stability and how it might or might not be put in jeopardy by the sale. Mr. Kelley said if anything, it was exactly the opposite. Cable Co-Op was currently providing approximately $125,000 to $150,000 to MPAC per year. AT&T would be able to match or exceed that amount in terms of support. From Cable Co-Op’s perspective, the question the Council should ask was if the transaction was not approved, would Cable Co-Op continue to be able to provide that level of support; or instead, if the transaction was approved, whether AT&T would be able to increase the level of support. AT&T would at least meet, if not exceed the support, but it depended upon further negotiations between the City and staff. In terms of the long-term viability of Cable Co-Op, because of consolidations of the industry and regulatory changes, there were many reasons the sale was appropriate. Membership had ratified the decision. AT&T was a much stronger financial player and would be better able to provide long-term financial stability for MPAC. Vice Mayor Eakins said it sounded like the Cable Co-Op organization was morphing into SVCC. Mr. Fearey said Cable Co-Op was not and could not go away. Cable Co-Op would be around for several years, winding down its affairs and existing as a legal entity. SVCC was an entirely separate organization with three board members, him, Ted Glasser, and Peter
06/05/00 90-226
Carlson. The desire was to expand SVCC and get it out of the Cable Co-Op area. Vice Mayor Eakins said one of the reasons for her motion was that it sounded as though there was going to be another entity holding onto the purse strings. Mr. Fearey said SVCC was a separate entity. When the transaction closed with AT&T, SVCC would receive the $17 million. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether SVCC would then have such control over the money for which MPAC would have to petition SVCC. Mr. Fearey said SVCC would be signing a lease agreement with AT&T and subleasing. SVCC would then provide a third-party agreement with MPAC to provide MPAC access to the property. SVCC would manage and own the equipment, but SVCC had not decided what monies would be transferred to MPAC for other things. Vice Mayor Eakins clarified SVCC would be holding the purse strings on the money. Mr. Fearey said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins said the general direction of her motion was still correct, but the issue was so complicated with entities not fully in existence, that to specify anything would unnecessarily complicate things further. Council Member Burch, SVCC was a legal entity at the present time. Mr. Fearey said yes. SVCC was in the process of submitting its 501(C)3 application. Council Member Burch clarified at the present time, three people on the SVCC Board of Directors had the power to determine how the $17 million was spent. Mr. Fearey said yes. Mr. Kelley was unsure the Council was clear that SVCC was not intended as a gatekeeper of AT&T’s funding to MPAC. Council Member Burch said there was no way SVCC could be anything but the gatekeeper of the funds, since it had $17 million, not MPAC. The one who held the money held the control. Mr. Kelley said operational support had historically been made to MPAC from Cable Co-Op, which AT&T offered to negotiate with MPAC
06/05/00 90-227
and was currently negotiating with City staff. Support was also being considered for equipment. That support was entirely separate from the $17 million, which was the result of the generosity of Cable Co-Op’s members, separate and apart from and in addition to whatever operational and equipment support AT&T offered to provide to MPAC or the community access organization. Council Member Burch asked whether at the time the agreement was made with AT&T, the $17 million to another entity was not part of the negotiation, that is, AT&T bid $70 million and at a later time Cable Co-Op decided that $17 million would go to SVCC. Mr. Kelley said the contract between Cable Co-Op and AT&T had as an element that a charitable donation would be made by AT&T to SVCC. The contract clearly stated that the only thing that had to do with MPAC directly was studio space, leaving open the possibility for AT&T to negotiate directly with MPAC for additional support. Mr. Fearey said normally when cities negotiated franchise agreements with carriers, it was for a franchise fee, typically 5 percent. Of the 5 percent, 3 to 5 percent went to public access. The City was anticipated to negotiate a franchise fee. It was hoped the City would take some of the franchise money and put it into public access like most cities. The $17 million was hoped to be something contributed to community programming over and above what the City negotiated with AT&T. The City was looked upon to provide MPAC with a stable, steady source of funding through the franchise fees. Council Member Burch asked Mr. Prohaska to comment. Mr. Prohaska said there was some complexity. The Board of MPAC had taken some time to try to understand all the moving parts of the process. Mr. Kelley’s initial comments were fair that there were two boards, Cable Co-Op and MPAC, from which came the idea of a possible joint entity. Both boards appointed a number of people to form the joint committee to hold regular meetings to discuss the possibility of the joint entity. The meetings had proceeded well, good communication, etc. The Board of MPAC had not come to any decision about its position and what was best for advancing its mission. Members of Cable Co-Op planned to appear at a special board meeting the following evening to speak to MPAC, after which time MPAC would make a decision. Council Member Beecham thought there was confusion over what money belonged to whom. AT&T had made a purchase offer to Cable Co-Op who in turn accepted, as approved by the Cable Co-Op members. The offer was being divided up by members of Cable Co-Op which included $17 million to a new organization Cable Co-Op set up. Cable Co-Op
06/05/00 90-228
hoped to set things up with MPAC, and SVCC currently had three board members from the community who would determine what other board members would be in the future including members from the community and other cities, etc. At the current time, the three people controlled SVCC and the $17 million. It appeared SVCC was in a process of negotiating with MPAC as how to best use the funds in the community. The $17 million did not belong to the City, but would belong to Cable Co-Op, who should be applauded for what they were doing. As the City moved forward and negotiated with AT&T, it should ensure MPAC was funded, which was separate from the $17 million. Vice Mayor Eakins clarified the motion was to keep MPAC whole as the City moved forward in negotiations with AT&T. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar “not participating,” Fazzino absent. Vice Mayor Eakins asked staff to continue negotiating for the FM radio service. Council Member Lytle asked staff work with the PAUSD to secure education access in the negotiations. COUNCIL MATTERS 13. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Kniss was troubled by the attack on the streets by the telecommunications industry. She asked the City Manager to secure more information on the issue. Council Member Lytle requested the meeting be adjourned in memory of Anne Desposito. Council Member Beecham updated the Council about a press conference by Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) on June 6, 2000, regarding blackouts this summer. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 10. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 10. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:48 p.m. in memory of Anne Desposito, a community leader and volunteer, president of the
06/05/00 90-229
Palo Alto Family YMCA, and former long-time City employee who passed away. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
06/05/00 90-230