John Jordan has a plan. A plan that gets Public Access out of the City, off the books, and over to the University. Times are tough, and as such the University cannot fund it. So, he must raise the $40,000 to do that very thing. But it might be just the solution this problem calls for.
On December 21st, Mayor Jim Tipple announced that the City of Wausau would stop funding Public Access television. This elimination of Public Access, and the staff housed there, would save the city roughly $90,000. The Mayor said that the City had to make this cut based on the fiscal needs of the city, and that Public Access would cease operation on January 31, 2010 — roughly 40 days later.
The timing of this action by the Mayor could not have been worse given the proximity to Christmas and by connection the amount of available funders in their offices, and as more than one city council member stated, the action was totally unilateral, since it appears in no committee minutes, or agenda items. But, this issue is incredibly complex, and some of it is very much in dispute.
I spoke to John Jordan, and he seemed positively hopeful about a plan and a tentative budget that he has put together, and the future of his station. Clearly community media can bring out the best in people, and, in fact, build community.
Jordan, who appeared on Glenn Moberg’s Wisconsin Public Radio show “Route 51″ on January 7, said that he has spoken to UWMC in regards to creating a home for the station at UWMC. This moves it out of the City, and Jordan thinks he needs to raise about $40,000 to get the station moved and keep it operational for six months. During this time he would even move himself to a part-time employee to save funds. He seems in high spirits about this challenge.
There is an ongoing court case between the City of Wausau and Charter. The scope of the case is in regards to what are called “PEG funds” and “franchise fees”. The source of the lawsuit is the refusal of Charter to pay PEG fees, and instead pay franchise fees. It is all very confusing. There are federally mandated dollars called PEG funds. PEG stands for Public, Education, and Government. These are federally mandated dollars that are used specifically to fund Public Access programming and operations with the intent of making those types of programs available.
These funds that are in dispute are not directly related to the franchise fees that are being discussed by Barbara Morgan later in this article — they are PEG fees. These fees are specifically allocated by the state from companies like Charter for the support of public access television stations and programming. This money is from a previous agreement that Charter says it no longer needs to pay, since a new franchise agreement was made.
This conflicts with the city’s position, which seems to be that this money was agreed upon for three years, and Charter should pay it. The current franchise agreement states that Charter has to pay a percentage of its billing to the municipality, but this number should not exceed a specific percentage. Charter believes that the franchise fee, combined with the PEG fee, would exceed the maximum percentage, and as such Charter has chosen not to pay the PEG money.
Jordan said that this matter did not help the budget process in regards to the Public Access station. Maryann Groat said that while the disputed money has not been paid to the city; the City has paid for Public Access out of franchise fees. But, with a tight budget, and rising costs of Public Access, the Office of the Mayor had to make a choice.
Along the way there has been talk about streaming the meetings online, or like the Village of Weston, creating a podcast that is available for download. Obviously we believe more transparency is better, and city government should be as open as possible. Consider Internet usage in our town. Sure, you’re a reader of Citizen Wausau, so you are an Internet person, but studies have shown that the rate of broadband penetration in rural areas (most of the area) has diminished from a 40 percent growth in 2005/2006, to a dismal 12% in the last year. So fewer people get the Internet, and fewer people have broadband than we thought. Streaming is out.
Creating podcasts, while part of most of our daily lives, is also something that is technologically forward. My mother does not subscribe to any podcast (not even the two that I am a part of). So that is the standard I apply. It would be hard to convince me that the elderly population who have spoken out about seeing church services, or city meetings, are going to be the first to download iTunes, and find the RSS link to the city podcast (the city makes things so easy on their website), and then download and listen. I mean, I can do that, but not sure that my mom can.
Clearly, the importance of community media cannot be overstated. These are voices of our community, voicing, often times, issues that are not covered by other media outlets. With our daily newspaper being owned by Gannett, and our talk/news radio station being owned by Midwest Communications, we are losing local media. And as such, a resource such as Public Access television is important and something that should be saved.
Wausau is developing itself into a progressive media city in some regards. The existence of the only Hmong-operated radio station in America in WNRB-LP FM is part of this story. As are the municipalities that use things like podcasting to communicate the business of their municipality with their residents.
In the Wausau Daily Herald Barbara Morgan wrote a passionate column about how Public Access is the one utility in this area that pays for itself. She makes this point, “Every month there is $2.60 on the Charter cable bill for “franchise fees.” This totals $330,000 per year collected from cable subscribers and paid to the city.
That lump sum goes toward some additional city expenses. When I spoke to Maryann Groat she said that the dollars are for various things like utility pole right-of-way, licensing, underground cabling, etc. But, at the same time, it all ends up in the general fund, so I am not exactly sure how this works.
Groat confirmed that the money does in fact all end up in the general fund. This fund is used for the run of the mill operations of the city. One of them being Public Access of course. But, like I stated before, this is not as simple as it seems. These are two agreements, and one of them seems to cancel the other out. At least that is Charter’s position.
Morgan further states: “Another disappointing aspect of the demise of public access is that it was done under a cloak of secrecy. Not one word of discussion, not one opportunity for Charter subscribers, who fund the channels, to state their case.”
Clearly, this is an issue that this administration has struggled with; the perception that transparency is not very high on the list of operating principals. No one is entirely sure as to the way the cut was made by the Office of the Mayor. Clearly there are differing accounts, and lots of people are assigning blame. The timing though, is not in dispute.
For more information about Jordan and his attempt to save Public Access television, go to Glenn Mobergs radio show and listen to what John Jordan had to say about his plan to save Public Access.
Barbara Morgan
7:32 pm on January 11th
First let me say I applaud the efforts of those trying to keep Public Access up and running because there are many people in this community that depend on it. It will be years before you can say that everyone can just get stuff over the computer. There is a population/generation of people that just do not have computers.
Below I will explain why I question the need to raise $40,000 to cover the cost of PA for 6 months.
Maryanne Groat indicated to you that the franchise fees ($330,000 per year) pays for the associated expenses of cable such as; utility pole right-of-way (who does the City pay this to), licensing, (what licensing) and underground cabling (really, doesn’t Charter install their own cable?). If the money for all of this is coming from the Charter cable subscriber, it would only make sense then that a portion of the $330,000 should go to pay for Public Access.
So, I am left with questions. Perhaps you can find the answers with itemized, line by line, dollar amounts not generic answers. Here they are:
1) Who does the City pay utility pole right-of-way to and exactly how much? The City does not own the utility poles and I believe Charter pays rent to the people that do own them.
2) What licensing does the City purchase and exactly how much is it?
3) What underground cable is the City paying for and exactly how much is it?
4) What did the $90,000 that was cut cover exactly? How much were devoted to wages, how much and what are the other expenses included in the $90,000.
5) Why doesn’t Verizon and Wisconsin Public Service, both for-profit companies, get treated the same as Charter Cable?
After we have the answers to these questions and we see exactly what cable related expense is paid with the $330,000, maybe everything would make more sense. If the City is over-collecting from cable subscribers in order to cover non-cable expense, which is the way it sounds, it is downright dishonest.
I wonder if Mayor Tipple has considered where the money will come from to fund the general fund if people start dropping cable TV for the competition. (We are currently checking out a different provider.) I don’t think the City can charge a right-of-way fee for the air, so they will just come up short. Then they will have to raise taxes and everyone can subsidize the general fund and not just the cable subscriber.
Just FYI. To change to Dish, Direct TV, or install an antenna you will have to get a permit from the City for a onetime charge of $39.00. A much better deal than $31.20 for the life of your cable subscription.
thedbc
12:22 pm on January 12th
The $39 is a building permit fee, not a one time fee. If they move the dish, they are supposed to get another permit.
Now, in reality, I’m willing to guess that 99.9% of all dishes, TV antennas installed in Wausau have never bothered to buy that permit and that Wausau rarely enforces it at all.
Call the satellite installers, they don’t even mention a permit and if they were buying one, trust me, the “free installs” would have a $39 permit fee attached because they aren’t going to absorb that and the inspection, etc.
What it boils down to is what you’ve said all along Barbara, the Charter customers hand the city a nice gift of $330,000 each year and get nothing to show for it. Nothing.
And you can bet in the next few years, City Hall will be bumping it up to $3, $4 and so on as they decide they want more cash.
Imagine now, what would happen if the city inspections dept actually drove around and enforced the satellite dish permit and fined (fines are double permit fees or more if an installtion is foun to be in violation) all those that never got one…. those charges would probably come near to one year of Charter customer’s contributions.
Dino Corvino
2:57 pm on January 12th
DBC, I am very unclear as to what you mean. You said..
“What it boils down to is what you’ve said all along Barbara, the Charter customers hand the city a nice gift of $330,000 each year and get nothing to show for it. Nothing.”
The City does get something for it, $330 thousand dollars. That is not nothing.
That is payment to use those things the city makes available to it. The poles, the whatever.
The money, like say, a bartender liscense, goes into a general fund, and what does the city get for that? I think it is a misguided question.
Also, the cost of that, the 3 or 4 dollars as you say, is not up for review. This is a set number, and the city does not dictate it.
Other utilities do pay this sort of fee. It is named differently, and determined differently, but it is a real thing.
This is a scary alternative for you to consider. Let us postulate that the State decides that it will collect that revenue through the contract, instead of the city. Then that money can all go into shared revenue. And that does not seem to work out so well.
This is a complicated issue, and I do think the Mayor dropped the ball (along with many other balls). But, I think you are simplifying in the wrong direction.
thedbc
9:11 am on January 14th
What I’m trying to say Dino is that the Charter customers are paying a special tax that no other citizen is paying. In return for that special tax, we at least got public access provided.
Now, we’re still paying that special tax and we aren’t getting anything back for it.
I understand it all now goes to the “general fund”. So in effect, every cable customer is giving every other citizen of Wausau a tax break out of their own pocket.
As far as the franchise fee not being up for review, I’d like to hear from Mr Rosenberg or someone in the city could tell us if the city sets that fee or if the state does. I think the city does and I think they can adjust it as they feel the desire to. But, I’d like a real world confirmation of that.
John H. Fischer
9:39 am on January 14th
At the last council meeting, Gale had requested that the Mayor take some time at the next council meeting to explain the exact situation and to clarify these answers…. and to also explain how the decision came about to cut this service as no decision of this nature comes easily and without much consideration.
The Mayor did agree to do this at the next council meeting.
Dino Corvino
11:01 am on January 14th
DBC, The City does not set the access fees.
1. You are right, the Mayor CHOSE to eliminate Public Access television, while in one way the company has paid its version of its responsibility.
2. Charter is not a person, and this is not a TAX. No more than a bartender liscense or a parking ticket is a tax.
3. You are paying the franchise fee in your charter bill. Charter is following it interpretation of the law, according to Maryann groat, and Mayor Tipple made a choice to eliminate public access televsion.
What is in dispute are the remaining, and prior PEG funds, which Charter thinks would put it over the agreed upon percentage with its Franchise Fee.
I also wonder why you need to hear it from Jim Rosenberg, he has nothing to do with this. I believe it would be more appropriate to hear it from Mayor Jim Tipple. Don’t you?
Dino Corvino
11:02 am on January 14th
And for the record John…do you think that 5 minutes, at a poorly attended City Council meeting is going to be enough to satisfy anyone? Should the Mayor not sit down with the Wausau Daily Herald, and the City Page…or us…and explain the complex issue that this is?
I think so.
thedbc
11:12 am on January 14th
Dino, with all due respect, are you reading the questions I’m asking or are you answering what you think I’m asking?
I want to know if the city sets the amount of the franchise fee (the $2.60 each customer pays monthly). You say they do not. How do you know?
I asked Mr Rosenberg to answer becuase he uses this site and he’s on the finance committee. I think he may know.
You may call it a fee, but it’s a tax. It’ s a tax levied on Charter that they then push on their consumers. A bartender license fee is a tax, it’s a gov’t charge for something, it’s a tax. Like a tax on cigarettes. You can call it the cigarette fee if you want, it’s a tax.
Back to the discussion. If Wausau wants to increase the franchise “fee”, I think they can do so. But, since I may be wrong, I’d like someone who deals with city finances to tell me what the facts are.
I’d love to get a lcear concise explanation from Tipple, but I’m willing to guess his explanation at the next meeting will be about as clear as mud for the average person. Him being so open and free with full information as he is. <—sarcasm
thedbc
11:16 am on January 14th
BTW, I’m not even discussing what the city claims Charter owes them for the lawsuit, that;s another topic as well. I’m askign about the seperate $2.60 month tax each Charter customer has to pay to receive Charter services in the city of Wausau. I think that’s maybe where things got confused.
John H. Fischer
11:25 am on January 14th
do I think a five minute explaination at a council meeting that very few people attend be clear, concise, and an acceptable answer…
no.. probably not…
but, in this discussion, I thought it was important to bring up that the Mayor did promise to put the discussion on next meeting’s agenda
(so, if anyone wanted to address this issue directly to the council, they could register to speak at the beginning of the meeting, because citizens for items on the agenda speak in the beginning, citizens for items not on the agenda speak at the end)
Here is a good question… does the council have the ability to put this item on the agenda and actually take a vote? to cut or not to cut?
Can council member A make public access an agenda item, and then move that it not be ended, and then council member B second, and the council make this decision?
Dino Corvino
11:51 am on January 14th
John
I would like to see Council Membe A make it an agenda item, as to have a clear and open discussion, instead of what happened.
DBC, I love the sarcasm. It seems like the Mayor has little interest in communicating it completely.
I was on the phone with Maryann (she is awesome) for at least an hour when I was putting this information together.
I asked Maryann, and I asked someone at the state level. These fees are determined not be locality. They are percentages of money billed, or the like.
The greater issue is this, if you want local control of fees…this fee could be collected by the state, and then redistributed through shared funds. Even worse.
I think you are over simplifying the word tax, and applying it where it does not work, but I get it.
And I do not think Mayor Tipple will adequately explain this in five minutes, at a poorly attended City Council meeting. That seemed like a bit of pandering or prearranged pandering with Mr. Gale. But, that is just my sense of it.
What would have been better…if Mayor Tipple had felt that this was such an important service to the community, is to sit down with the Editorial Board of the WDH, the Editors of the WDH, The City Pages…and do it 8 months ago…and convey to them that PA was on the block unless we could raise funds to save it.
Instead what he did was have a 15 min announcement in the middle of the day, in the middle of the week, and slip this in there. With less than 40 days for the Community to respond.
Barbara Morgan
1:03 pm on January 15th
The latest revelation in the public access debacle is that Mayor Tipple has agreed to spend a few minutes explaining his actions at the next City Council meeting. How generous of him, when in reality the issue of public access should go to the finance committee and perhaps human resources where it should have been discussed in the first place.
I decided to dig a bit more into the issue and asked our Finance Director Maryanne Groat for some financial figures. After reviewing the budget of public access I can see why changes are necessary, but the demise of public access was not. The travesty here is that the issue of this obnoxiously high budget item, considering what the public access subscribers receive, was not handled long ago. It appears that nobody was watching what was going on with public access and finally the light came on. Instead of reducing personnel to part-time, the entire program was axed.
So here you go with some facts.
1) There is NO expense to the City to have Charter Cable do business in Wausau. This is how Maryanne explained the fee; “The cable franchise fee constitutes a payment by Charter to the City for using the City’s right-of-way to conduct their business.” So basically it is rent.
2) The budget line item for Public Access for 2010 was $129,745. This is the line by line itemization of this amount
a. John Jordan salaries and fringe benefits-$86,539
b. Contractual services – $25,531. (Per Maryanne, “the majority of this is payments to the contracted worker Jordan had trying to seek sponsors and programming. It would also include maintenance contracts on equipment.”)
c. Capital – $10,000
d. Supplies – $7,675
This total budget was going to be funded with $96,590 of franchise fees and other revenues such as donations and sales of tapes of $33,155 per Maryanne.
How to resolve this issue;
1) Mayor Tipple, send this issue to Human Resources and the Finance committee to be handled.
2) Partner with NTC or the UW. See if students could run this program and in return receive college credit. This would be a win-win for students and public access viewers.
3) Form a working relationship with the High School Broadcast Studio. Perhaps students could get credit or a Letter for their time and service.
4) Use money from the franchise fee to pay for public access. With a realistic budget there would still be plenty of money left from the franchise fee to subsidize the General Fund. For example; $330,000 franchise fee collected – spend a maximum of $50,000 to run public access and there would still be $280,000 for the general fund.
There is no doubt this should have been discussed, rather than the Mayor just springing the demise of public access on us. No public comment, no council discussion. What was the real motive for his actions?
Saltpeter
3:37 pm on January 15th
Barbara, outstanding work on this worthy cause. Please keep up the good work. Why aren’t you on the ballot for your district!!
Your last paragraph of your last post asks a couple of quite pointed questions about the mayor. Why do these type of questions constantly come up with this guy? Why is there another outstanding open records request not responded to…again?! Why?
I’m sure, not having the general citizenry being able to access city meetings any longer never entered his mind. If anyone is interested, they can come to the meetings at city hall. Less transparency + save a few bucks = double whammy. Priceless!