Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2007-4jORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 15, 2007 Action Agenda Item No. G}- SUBJECT: Final Report of the Cable Television Advisory Committee DEPARTMENT: County Manager's Office PUBIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): Letter from CTVAC Chair & Final Report of the Cable Advisory Committee INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Patrick, Chair, Cable Television Advisory Committee Gwen Harvey, Assistant County Manager, 245-2307 PURPOSE: To present the final report of the Cable Television Advisory Committee (CTVAC) and consider its recommendations, including a sunset of the existing committee and suggestions for a future committee. BACKGROUND: The first CTVAC was established by the Board of County Commissioners on December 5, 1979 to advise the Board on methods of responding to complaints about the cable television system and to advise the Board and County Manager regarding the cable television franchise and possible expansions. The cable television industry and the telecommunications environment have changed dramatically since the late 1970s. More recently, the County -with the input, expertise, and perseverance of CTVAC Chair Michael Patrick -has successfully renegotiated a 15-year franchise renewal agreement with Time Warner Cable (2005). Additionally, the NC General Assembly has enacted statewide legislation governing local franchising and the collection of certain cable franchise fees (replacing them with video programming and telecommunications sales tax revenue distributed by the Department of Revenue) (2007). Last spring, the CTVAC held a work session, attended by representatives from Time Warner Cable, The People's Channel, and Action Audits (Triangle J COG Cable Consortium consultant) and facilitated by Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center, to consider the rapidly changing technological environment, celebrate their successes, and contemplate any new or continuing business that might remain before them, specifically concerns about on-going franchise administration and the advent of Channel 265, the new government access channel. Attached are a copy of the Chair's transmittal letter and the final report of the Committee for review and reference. The Committee recommended that the Board (1) Create a new charge and (2) Direct the new charge to either the existing CTVAC or appoint a new committee to address the new charge. :County management has reviewed the report and recommendations and finds under state statutes that local franchise oversight and compliance monitoring are administrative functions with no real demands for meaningful public participation. County investment in PEG (Public, Education, and Government) channel programming and viewer ship has also not evolved to a level likely to benefit from an on-going external advisory panel. Additionally, there could be alternate avenues or functional areas within County government by which the Board may wish to involve advisory groups in studying and promoting the relation of electronic communications technology to economic development efforts and business or enterprise applications. In the future as it addresses initiatives such as updating a strategic communications plan or using technology to leverage jobs creation and economic development, as examples, the Board may in fact want to revisit the CTVAC report and reestablish a pertinent advisory committee. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with receiving the final report: County costs relative to the CTVAC have consisted of staff support and assistance. RECOMMENDATION(S): The County Manager recommends that the Board 1. Accept the final report of the CTVAC; 2. Formally sunset the existing CTVAC (Current and Former Members of the CTVAC were recognized and honored by the Board at its meeting on March 27 with the debut of live casting from Southern Human Services Center.); and 3. Defer consideration of a new charge and/or committee to address Countywide electronic information technology efforts. 3 LAW OFFICE OF MICF~A.EL W. PATRICK 312 West Franklin Street Post Office Box 16848 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 Michael QV. Patrick E-mail: mpatrick®ncproductslaw.com Hon. Moses Carey, Jr. 203 Simerville Rd. Chapel Hill, N.C. 27517 Dear Chairman Carey: Telephone (919) 960-5848 Telefax (919) 869-1348 Toll Free (866) 960-5800 August 31, 2007 Re: Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee This will transmit to you a report developed by the Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee during facilitated discussions in May concerning the future of the Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee. With the signing of a long term cable franchise; the beginnings of operation of a Government cable channel and the provision of facilities for live broadcast of the Commissioner's meeting, the members of the committee along with the staff of the Manager's office felt that it would be a good time to review the role of the Cable TV Advisory Committee in county government. Gwen Harvey was kind enough. to arrange a facilitated discussion of these issues conducted by Andy Sachs of the Dispute Settlement Center. Mr. Sachs then prepared a summary of the discussion which was reviewed and edited by the committee members. During the discussion, a general consensus emerged that changes in what might be termed the technological environment has rendered the original charge that the Board provided to the committee nearly 30 years ago somewhat obsolete. At the same time, these changes have provided new challenges and opportunities for the County in utilizing and managing available or emerging technology resources. It is unclear that my committee, or any advisory committee, has a broad enough mandate from the Commissioners to address these issues. The main recommendation to the Commissioners from the Cable TV Advisory Committee is that the committee should be either replaced with a new committee with a different charge or that the committee's charge be revised. The Board should have access to a well- functioning and well-informed group of citizens responsible for advising the Board and County staff on cable franchise oversight as well as on broader electronic information technology issues. Specifically, the committee recommends that the following be included in the charge you give to the transformed committee: 1. Advising the Board and County staff on cable franchise compliance and oversight, with these issues being of greatest concern: a. Monitoring of cable system extensions. b. Promoting PEG channel awareness and content development.. c. Conducting PEG access channel viewer surveys to assess and promote awareness. 2. Promoting access and enjoyment by all residents of unincorporated Orange County to electronic information technology, including collaboration as needed with the EDC's Infrastructure Work Group to ensure access by all County residents to high speed Internet service. 3. Identifying opportunities for assisting and coordinating with other County advisory committees, task forces,.and work groups that address information technology issues. 4. Keeping track of developments within the community and society at large, including the information technology industry and the relevant regulatory environment, that affect access of residents of unincorporated Orange County to information technology. If you or the other Commissioners would like to discuss these recommendations in greater detail, I am sure that several members of the committee would be happy to provide additional insight into the recommendations. Sincerely yours, Orange County Cable TV Advisory Committee Facilitator's Meeting Report Orange County Cable Advisory Committee May 2, 2007 Reviewed and Accepted by the Cable Advisory Committee Membership Present: Committee Members -Michael Patrick, Fred Brown, Dan Barker, Bill Boyarsky; County Staff -Gwen Harvey, Corinthia Barber; Others -Catherine Rice, Action Audits, Inc.; Cindy Ray Keene, Time Warner Cable, Inc., Chad Johnston, The Peoples Channel. Decisions The Committee adopted the following recommendations for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Ensure for as long as the current cable television franchise agreement is in effect that the following franchise compliance oversight functions will be fulfilled competently by County staff or by well-qualified consultants held accountable to the County: • Monitoring state franchises that have been filed to determine whether any affect Orange County. • Monitoring the collection of franchise fees on non-cable services and conduct audits. • Monitoring compliance with the FCC's customer service standards. • Monitoring signal quality for compliance with FCC standards. • Monitoring and promote the "free" converter program. • Monitoring cable system extensions per density requirements in the franchise agreement. • Promoting PEG channel awareness and content development. • Conducting PEG access channel viewer surveys to access and pramote awareness. • Serving as an ombudsman to accept and resolve customer complaints and consumer issues arising between Orange County residents and Time Warner. 2. Transform the Cable Advisory Committee, either by replacing it with a new citizens advisory committee or by revising CAC's charge, so that the Board will have access to a well-functioning and well-informed group of citizens responsible for advising the Board and County staff on cable franchise compliance oversight as well as a broader scope of electronic information technology issues. 3. Include the following in the charge you give to the transformed CAC: ® Advising the Board and County staff on cable franchise compliance oversight, with these compliance oversight issues being of immediate concern: o Monitoring of cable system extensions. o Promoting PEG channel awazeness and content development. o Conducting PEG access channel viewer surveys to assess and promote awareness. ® Promoting access and enjoyment by all residents of unincorporated Orange County to electronic information technology, including collaboration as needed with the EDC's Infrastructure Work Group to ensure access by all County residents to high speed Internet service. ® Identifying opportunities for assisting, improving coordination with, and avoiding duplication across other County advisory committees, task forces, and work groups addressing information technology issues. ® Keeping track of developments within the community and society at large, including the information technology industry and the relevant regulatory environment, which might impact access to information technology by residents of unincorporated Orange County. 4. Direct County staff to provide on the County website easy to find information on how residents of unincorporated Orange County should register complaints about their cable television service, and an online complaint form that will support the generation, collection and analysis of data relating to citizen complaints. Discussion Convening The Committee adopted the proposed meeting plan, which had been distributed earlier and contained the Desired Outcomes, Agenda and Ground Rules for the meeting. Committee Chairman Michael Patrick opened the meeting by noting that Ms. Harvey had suggested and he concurred with the focus of tonight's meeting. Over the fifteen years of his membership on this Committee, he said, he has seen the Committee's activity increase and decrease in intensity. As Chair, he said, I've never been one to hold meetings unless there was meaningful business for the Committee to address. The way to keep volunteers engaged is to have them doing something that is important and rewarding. With the change in the regulatory environment with respect to cable television, there is probably a number of things that can be usefully done to transmute 2 1 this committee or start another committee that would have a different charter than the one adopted for this Committee by the Board of County Commissioners in 1979 which has continued to be our charter today. The original charge for the Cable Advisory Committee came in response to the Board's recognition that in 1979 a new telecommunications service called "cable TV" had emerged and we need citizens to advise the Board on how to use this animal. But what we have is a different set of animals now. A larger menagerie. And so it would be useful, especially with respect to the use of citizen volunteers, if we took stock of what this Committee is about and what the County needs. Ms. Rice asked if the purpose of the meeting is to "sunset" the Committee or to develop a new direction for it. Mr. Patrick said that CAC does not control what will happen to the Committee. "We can discuss this and make a recommendation to the Board," he said. Context Ms. Harvey said that Mr. Patrick's opening remarks were apt: the regulatory environment with respect to cable TV has changed since the creation of the Committee, and we now have a cable TV franchise agreement. The Committee's activities have increased and decreased depending on what was happening in the franchise renewal process, especially in the past decade. So the opportunity exists now for the Committee to "transmute," or for the Board to appoint a new Committee with a new charge. This is the Committee's time, she said, to develop a statement to the Board that reflects the Committee's interests ("this is not about sta#~') with respect to what could or should happen next. Mr. Boyarsky asks how the idea of "sunsetting" the Committee arose. Ms. Harvey said that the issue "bubbled up" to her from Board members by way of the County Clerk's Office. The question appears to be, "What happens to the Committee now that we have the cable franchise in place?" Upon hearing from the Clerk that Board members had that question, she said, Ms. Harvey thought it appropriate to raise it with Mr. Patrick and then with the Committee as a whole in order to be proactive rather than reactive. The franchise is completed, and new state legislation is in place, and this convergence of circumstances has led Board members and County staff to seek an answer to these two questions. Mr. Patrick added that he has talked with Commissioner Jacobs. The context at least with respect to that Commissioner is not "the Committee has done its work and now there's. nothing left for it to do," as it is "Is this the best way to do things right now?" In reply to another question from Mr. Boyarsky, Mr. Patrick said that Commissioner Carey would most likely have a perspective on the Committee's primary function due to his past work with the committee. Others on the Board, he said, might not be paying as close attention to the Committee as .these two. Looking Ahead The Committee next turned its attention to identifying any "unfuushed business" under its charge, and any other important issues on the horizon relating to the County's role in cable TV. As a starting point, the facilitator directed the group's attention to the April 3 8 23, 2007 memorandum prepared by Action Audits for the Cable Advisory Committee with the subject "Orange County Cable TV Franchise -Post-CAC Continuing Regulatory Responsibilities: ' Mr. Boyazsky noted that the list often Continuing Oversight Matters was a "pretty good fit" with the Committee's current charge. In addition, he said, I see items on the list that the Committee has not been addressing over the past year or two. If the Committee were not terminated then we could handle them, he said. Six items that have not been addressed by CAC are (b), (c), (f), (h), (i), and (j), he said. With respect to (j), Mr. Boyazsky said that he was not sure whether any consumer complaints have_been brought to CAC's attention, nor_whether rt.would be appropriate for consumer complaints to be brought to the Committee. Mr. Patrick explained the complaint process and said that there have not been as many consumer complaints recently. "Gwen copies me on emails when questions come up," he said. Typically, when consumers email Ms. Harvey with complaints, she forwards them to Time Warner Cable and copies Mr. Patrick. In the old days we frequently had citizens coming to our meetings complaining about their cable TV service, but that has not happened recently. Ms. Keene added that in addition to the emails that Ms. Harvey forwards, Time Warner gets "a handful of calls" with complaints per quarter. Mr. Patrick said that the frequency and severity of consumer complaints is down from what it used it be. However, he said, we have not yet had enough experience with the PEG access arrangements under the new franchise agreement to determine whether there will be many citizen complaints about that or what the problems will be. Nevertheless, he said, "most of this stuff is going to be low level monitoring that should not take very much tune on any Committee's agenda." Mr. Boyarksky asked if it was easy for citizens to find the County contact for cable TV complaints. The Hillsborough town website has a form (that is tied to the Triangle J Council of Govenvnents) for citizens to use to register complaints, he said, but he has not been able to find any such form on the County website nor even information on who the County contact is, even when he uses the Seazch function on the website. Given this, he asked, is the relative lack of frequency or severity of complaints today a function of TWC's good customer service or is it a function of citizens not knowing who to contact when they are having problems? Ms. Barber said that she has never seen an online form on the County's website. Mr. Patrick said that if the County website were to have a mechanism for registering citizen complaints then cable TV would be one of several topics. Ms. Harvey said that other communities have complaint forms on their websites, and suggested that the Committee consider making this a recommendation to the Board. Ms. Harvey said that County staff is the intermediary between TWC and citizens who have complaints about their cable TV services. Mr. Boyarksy said that the advantage of Hillsborough's online complaint form is that it's tied to TJCOG and therefore gives the 4 jurisdiction the ability to develop statistics about citizen complaints. Mr. Boyarsky said that it would very important to track statistics so that the community would know if a problem was emerging from a group of random events over time. Mr. Barker asked if statistics for complaints about cable TV from residents in unincorporated Orange County could be generated for the past year. Ms. Barber said that Action Audits would be the source of any such data and analysis. Mr. Patrick said that ongoing, oversight work on cable TV services "has dwindled" for several reasons. The regulatory environment in the past generated annual oversight events that led to greater scrutiny by the local authorities of the cable operators. Under FCC regulations the County has authority to conduct certain oversight activities such as rate regulation and the review of other things such as change of ownership of the cable operator changes has not come up in recent years. Nevertheless, he said, the oversight functions that CAC is serving still need to be served. Although in his opinion the current operator has gotten better, he said, the operator can change in the future or performance could decline for any number of reasons while the franchise is still in effect. Oversight ought to be preserved. Mr. Patrick continued. "There are other matters that have come up in the context of the new franchise agreement that still should be worked on." Density issues, for one. Second, we now have a County government channel and I think citizens should have opportunities to provide input to the Board on that. We have the equipment, and citizens should be thinking and talking to the Board of County Commissioners about whether it is being used even close to its potential, to broadcast Planning Board meetings, for example, or public information announcements. Maybe also someone ought to be looking at how to promote better access to high speed internet of some sort, whether by wireless or wire line, in areas of the county that are not being served. At least one of the Board of Commissioners has an interest in this, but no group appears to be looking at it. It is this kind of recasting of our charge from a focus on cable TV to telecommunications more broadly, or public use of telecommunications in the County, could create a scope that would not abandon cable oversight but instead could create a more interesting and more invigorating role for a citizen committee than we have now with CAC. I say this because I believe this is useful way to go, but note also that I am not interested in chairing that new committee. Mr. Boyarksy asked what role the County's Technology Advisory Committee might play with respect to the unfinished business of CAC or other issues being identified tonight. Ms. Harvey said that TAC's focus is the County government's internal use of technology and noted that CAC member Mr. Brown serves on TAC. She added that the Infrastructure Work Group of the County's Economic Development Commission is looking at high speed internet in underserved areas of the County. Mr. Brown said that when he asked TAC during its last meeting whether it might play a role in some of the issues being discussed tonight "I got slapped on the hand." TAC talked about the different facilities through which high speed internet maybe delivered, he said, such as wireless, cable, personaUportable devices such as wristwatches. Mr. 5 ~o Brown said that "some say 91% of Orange County's population has access to high speed Internet," but some others question this. It depends in part upon how you define "high speed," he said. In any event, he said, TAC is not interested in addressing the issues being raised tonight. I wish now that I had not even brought it up with them, he said. So who is addressing the communication aspects of cable, Mr. Barker asked, especially the impact of having high speed Internet services in an area? Mr. Boyarsky said that from this discussion it is not clear to him whether a County advisory group is involved in addressing rural citizens' access to high speed intent, but it is clear that CAC should recommend to the Board that such involvement ought to be happening. If it is not happening elsewhere, then maybe this Committee could take it on if the Board desires that we continue to exist.- _ _ _ ._ _. _ _. . -- - .. _ _ . Mr. Patrick said that he would prefer it if a newly farmed, "recast" committee with a broader focus than cable TV take up the high speed Internet issue, but not CAC. Mr. Boyarsky continued: If Commissioner Jacobs seriously is asking a general question about whether the County can better approach technology issues than how the County is currently doing so, then perhaps all these initiatives -- TAC, CAC, EDC's Infrastructure Work Group - need to be evaluated at the same time to determine whether all of the technology issues of concern to the County, including those issues we're raising today, are under someone's scope. Mr. Patrick said that CAC has been the forum in which interested citizens have talked about current events within the telecommunications industry, and how those events are impacting the County.• An effort to grasp comprehensively what different kinds of changes in the industry mean for the County -for example, the implications of telephones having the capacity to receive video - would be different from the efforts of the Economic Development Commission to ensure that infrastructure - telecomrnunications, roads, water/sewer - is sufficient to meet the County's development interests. Mr. Boyarsky agreed, and said that at the very least the Board's 1979 charge to CAC, which focuses on cable TV, needs to be changed to include the wider range of services and technologies that are now available. Mr. Patrick noted that in 1979 County residents did not have cell phones, cable TV, satellite TV, Internet, or email. It's a different world. The facilitator asked if CAC members wanted to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that all of the items on the list generated by Action Audits be somehow tracked by the County. Mr. Boyarksky said that item (e) should be taken aff the list of recommended activities because it falls under the purview of another committee (TAC), and the technology is driven by users now. There is no need for a committee to encourage it. County employees are anxious to get more access to faster speeds, he said, and better equipment. Ms. Rice added that the I-Net ("institutional network") is an old concept under which the cable company provides a cable to different departments for data transmission. This is still an item in the local franchise, although we all use fiber now. Mr. Boyarsky said that if item (e) is still part of the franchise then someone needs to keep an eye on it. 6 Whose responsibility is it to keep an eye on the overall franchise, Mr. Boyarsky asked. Mr. Patrick said that function is within CAC's purview and, he hoped, would be included in the charge for any transmuted version of CAC that BOCC might create. In reply to a question raised by Mr. Boyarsky Mr. Johnston suggested that item (d) remain on the list independent from customer complaint issues because, for example, there have been and may in the future be signal quality issues related to channe1265 of concern to the County. Recently, the County's new government channel was broadcasting the audio but not the video portion of a BOCC meeting transmission, he said. Such an issue could be tied into PEG oversight, said Mr. Boyarsky. All ten of the items on the Action Audits list fall under contract compliance, said Mr. Barker. Who'll be responsible for contract compliance? Time Warner's refusal to provide maps to help us in monitoring service extension compliance might be a contract compliance issue, for example, he said. We need a forum for talking about this. Who would that kind of thing fall to? .Ms. Harvey said that the Action Audits memorandum identifies its franchise oversight activities relevant to Orange County. Renee Boyette is the contract compliance officer at TJCOG who works directly with Action Audits to define its compliance monitoring responsibilities. Ms. Rice said that Action Audits does not handle the day to day contract compliance for Orange County under the arrangements with TJCOG. Action Audits steps in and tries to facilitate if a situation arises that becomes too difficult for the County and TWC to work out themselves, or too technical for Orange County's staff to address. Ms. Harvey said that regardless of whether there is a CAC in the future, she will continue to be the liaison between citizens and TWC and in the compliance monitoring arrangement between Orange County, Action Audits, and Triangle J COG. Mr. Patrick said that with the exception of item (e), all of the items on the Action Audits list are franchise compliance issues. The top priority issues on the list, he said, are (g), (h), and (i). Mr. Brown asked if customer surveys could be conducted interactively, using the remote and cable boxes. Mr. Barker said that one of the rules of good compliance monitoring is that you don't have the entity being evaluated (in this case, TWC) in control of the evaluation process or technologies being used. Ms. Keene concurred. Ms. Keene said that it's important for all to understand that the franchise agreement only relates to video services. Customer complaints about Internet, for example, would not come under the franchise agreement. Mr. Boyarsky asked if there is any government oversight with respect to any of TWC's other products beyond video, and all said to him that there is not. Mr. Patrick said there is a stipulation in the cable franchise agreement with TWC that allows the County to purchase the I-Net system if the County ever wants to, but beyond that the County has no contractual arrangements with TWC other than 7 ~a what is in the cable franchise. Mr. Barker added that no other utility has the kind of local oversight exercised by the County over cable TV. Citizen Participation Mr. Barker asked who other than CAC would have the time to address the nine items on the Action Audits list (NB: item (e) is not to be recommended as an item of concern to CAC), or even the three priorities emerging from tonight's discussion (g, h, and i). Ms. Harvey and Ms. Barber have a lot "on their plates," he said, and my concern is that relative to all the other County issues they are dealing with, our concerns will not be County priorities. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, he said; and a citizens committee can play an important role in making sure compliance monitoring is not overlooked. Ms. Keene asked CAC members to note that there are four cable TV franchise agreements within Orange County. Each municipality and the County have their own agreements with TWC, she said. Mr. Barker said that as a Hillsborough resident he knows how to advocate for his needs under that franchise agreement. As a member of CAC, he said, it is his role to caze about everyone in the County, including those in the unincorporated areas. Mr. Patrick asked if a citizens advisory group other than EDC's Infrastructure Work Group is needed to help the Board. address such non-cable TV technology issues such as high speed Internet. No one present had enough knowledge about the Work Group to answer that question. "But it should be evaluated," said Mr. Boyarsky. Ms. Harvey said that she's hearing that "some group" should take a look at how high speed intemet can be made available to under served parts of the County. Mr. Barker added that even areas akeady "served" by high speed Internet might need advocates for improved services. Mr. Boyazsky said that Internet satellite services are not reliable for "high speed" Internet, and so the focus of any new group should be on wireless or wire line services. Mr. Bazker warned that all the new residential development in the unincorporated area south of I-85. will be "too far from the switch" located in downtown Hillsborough to get DSL service. They will all have to rely on cable unless Embark installs a new switch south of I-85, he said. Mr. Bazker said that BOCC needs to get advice from "techno-geeky dweebs" on information technology issues facing the County. I would not narrow it to "telecommunications" issues, he said, but instead use the phrase, "broadband" or "general media access." Telecommunications is a 1970's term, he said. It should be about all the different ways that people, receive information. Mr. Boyazsky added that the focus of any newly constituted CAC should be on residents' access to information technology, not the County government's internal IT needs. Mr. Brown asked if the County needs to come up with a different franchise with TWC to cover information technology beyond cable TV. Mr. Boyarsky said that everything else falls under a state franchise. However, Orange County citizens need to be involved in tracking how provision of those non-cable services impact our concerns about access, 8 L 'J parity, and economic development. It will not be about "control," since there is no local franchise. But it should be monitored and commented upon and explored with respect to how we can encourage the outcomes we desire as a community. Mr. Boyarsky said that a citizens committee can promote a concise, well thought out strategy for delivering a particulaz set of goals with respect to residents' access to information technology, given the myriad of options that are available. And a committee can play a role in focusing resources in the direction of community needs, whether those resources are- County funds or County incentives or private investments. Mr. Patrick added that an advisory group could help the County evaluate approaches such as tax incentives for encouraging the private sector to install fiber optics in areas most desired by the County. Mr. Boyazsky said it might be as simple as subsidizing high speed connection fees for new Habitat homes. These sorts of considerations are the next steps in the discussions that this Committee has been having over the past few yeazs. Mr. Johnston added that in Orange County we have a wealth of residents paying a lot of attention to policy and regulatory issues on the state and federal levels. That thinking should betied-in to how those issues impact Orange County and how Orange County should act in order to achieve the outcomes it wants with respect to information technology. Citizen involvement is needed to relate that knowledge to the Commissioners. For example, there are two bills in the General Assembly right now and things happening within the FCC that could impact us on the local level quite drastically. Ms. Harvey noted that public policy analysis and advocacy on the state and federal levels for matters affecting local governments akeady is a function of TJCOG, the North Cazolina .Association of County Commissioners, and the NC League of Municipalities. Those groups send out alerts to make local governments awaze of what is happening. In addition, the Manager's Office has a person who tracks all that's happening on the federal and state levels. Each yeaz the Board adopts a legislative package and holds a breakfast with our delegation to communicate its position on matters that might come before the General Assembly. In addition to this, Mr. Johnston and Ms. Rice are involved in professional associations that organize their members to communicate with local, state and federal officials. You don't necessarily have to have a citizen's advisory committee in order for the Board of County Commissioners to adopt a position on a state or. federal policy issue. However, I can also see where a citizen's advisory committee can sometimes add a little more "umph." Ms. Rice added that sometimes issues emerge from discussions among citizens directly. "Internet neutrality" -the concern about keeping the Internet free of costs to users -grew from citizens directly into a critical mass that afterwazd was picked up by local governments and our professional associations. Mr. Boyazsky added that a citizen's advisory group will be valuable for keeping alive concerns such as "how to get better services up to Schley or out to White Cross in a timely manner." 9 i~ Acknowledgement of Accomplishments and Contributions Meeting attendees offered the following in response to the facilitators' questions, "What have been the Committee's major accomplishments since its inception?" and "Whose contributions over the past years do we want to acknowledge?" • We have a new franchise agreement • We've fielded a lot of citizen complaints over the years • . We've done a good enough job that its now under consideration that we be put out of work • Channe1265 • Equpment.thatT'WC_funded._.-: ~ _=-__ __ -_ ,: .. --. ..__._, • Meeting space in Hillsborough wired for production • A mechanism in place within. the local ordinance to address density issues. • Cable services to the public schools . • 18 homes per mile standard is a huge accomplishment • Being azound, concerned and involved on behalf of the citizens since 1979 • Thanks especially to Michael (applause)! • Thanks to Bob Gwyn, who also founded Peoples Channel • Thanks to Charlene Pilkney, who gave pithy comments and a well developed sense of outrage. • Note that BOCC formally acknowledged all of CAC's members • Thanks to Dr. Sepe, who has kept us very well informed and organized the TJCOG consortium. Next-Steps Mr. Patrick said that the facilitator would generate a draft report on tonight's meeting for CAC member review and comment electronically. If necessary, we can reconvene in June 6, he said, but we would only do that if we cannot finalize the draft via email. The goal would be to submit a report to BOCC in early summer. Ms. Harvey added that the proposed timeframe would allow the Board and staff to focus right now on the budget, and flunk over the summer about when and how to act afterwazd, perhaps in the Fall. The facilitator committed to distributing the draft no later than May 18. Mr. Patrick said that he will be unavailable May 25-June 4, and asked all to respond quickly when the facilitator's draft report arrives via email. All members of the committee -even those not present tonight -- and tonight's observers are to receive the draft. Mr. Boyarsky asked if CAC will reconvene after BOCC receives the report on tonight's meeting, for example to discuss any actions that BOCC might take. Mr. Patrick said that he would talk with the Chair and Vice Chair of the BOCC after the report is submitted to the Boazd, to see what process they would like to follow. Ms. Harvey suggested that Mr. Patrick write a transmittal letter to accompany the meeting report. 10 S5 Ms. Rice said that in other communities where cable advisory groups have been "sunsetted," the elected boards took explicit and formal action (adopted a resolution) to do so. Mr. Harvey said that the Clerk would know better than she what the protocol is for terminating a committee. Mr. Boyarsky said that since CAC was created through a BOCC resolution it should be terminated through a BOCC resolution. Mr. Patrick adjourned the meeting at 9:00 PM 11