1998_0713_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

i2:-415-0035 v-ter- .'� � �:_ �:�+ ■ rr V The MOB{ was a settlement agreement for a significant rate dispute which . grown out of the Cornnu`ssion's laws responsibility to regulate rates on behalf of its Member Cities. In direct response to.Mr. ar ozy's direct question,"-No,the t:orw fission does not have the authority to change the terms of a Nlcmber City's franchise." However, some,Wherc been fmnchise arnendrnent and the everyday process of interpretation which must go on as a regulatory body interprets franchise language in the cv -,chi environment of tclecornrnuni ations, perhaps �� i 1 t f some action of the Co�f ssion 'is considered by Roseville to have crosscd the line and actually amended the City"s franchise, This was certainly not the intent of the Commission, ao r would I have advised as suet It should also be noted that the Rosffffle dimvwr wa pruent and vow for the Memorandum of Undentmding as it was discussed over rimy meetings at the time of its adoption by the o ` ion. In addition to suggesting that the ComrWssion may have u ulaterally amended the City's franchise, Mr. Sarkozy states that`*the Cable Commission has executed the Memoranduam.of Understanding that aces benefic to the Cable Commission and not the City-7 I have asked for specific reference to that section which benefits the Commission not the City.,since 1 cannot find any such section. when I eve information as to which part of the ent c oncem the City of Roseville, I will =nediaftly respond, I want to cc clear that any response is not def=la ve nor ccaftonmtional. The C ors ion works for the City of RosevillCr Therc is no"us and them," The Commission has no purpose other d= *,o admiriis=the franchise for the City and the other Member Cities, and if the Commission strays our aut'hori ,,then the City must point out to the Commission,and the ommtssiou or oversteps tY- T y� m=respond and immediately remedy any such unlace expansion of its authority. That is perhaps h l do not even d the walysi s that the Commission has benefited and not the City. The y City is the o�nrnissi on. Even any is received by the Commission are proportionately&'ownedi it by each of the Membcr Cities. So even if something nmcific did accr=to the Commission by the MOB Roseville would "o 1 its 4% (or whatever Roseville's current share is) and would ;#c ontrol" 100% of such asset through its voting membership on the Commission (Which is the 1 est 'rn onate member sWp of all the cities)# p � ore es the Commission has the legal authority' for the Memorandum of n wig. uhf s ;y - no the Conmszoon not amended the Member Cities Franchises as a result of the lei . e Commission did enter_into the MOU (*ith the suPPOrt of the CitY of Rosevil1e = t - dement of a r --dispjte and did not confer benefit�xpon the Commission and not delega }the cities. - perhaps taking the 1OU section by sermon X11 help. 1. Recitals.,-,stets the himry of the rate dispute R Sculement_.Mplains the SeW=cw of the,rate dispute,con&rring no benefit upon the omrai Aston and not the City. 2