1998_0713_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

NOTE: I have 1�received questions from Di ct i I-Mski. I have not figurw out completely how to best answer those questions, since some of them are very broad reaching in scope(such as three different renews of the entire franchise document 4o point tin each case which particular sections must be the carne for all cities due to tecluiclogy reasons,next for regulatory reasons,and fmWyfor labeling which sections reduce present terms and which enarice present ,) I believe the answer w1 require a labeling of the franchise on a.scctLon by section basis. I am undertal�inE � env, but cannot complete it in time for this me-mc. I will get it to you and Don as soon as it is completed. Don's question 4= The MOU, does not 4;li'nit'"the terms of the franchise. It merely carries forward the terms relating to comity pro n=g support and egwpment grants which occurred in the last franchise. The only legal doc umen which l tit or dir t the terns of the anchise are the state and s deral law in that regard and associated adtnini five regWations,and the agre=ent Bch the cities entered into with the company which transfeffed the responsibility for com aunity programming to the cities. That ageement is carried forward in the proposed reneged franchise. I cannot dfink of any other controlling laws other than those lis d above. Quesn"on 5. Dori asks for revenue urns generated from the terns of the franchise. I think Cor is best qualffied to provide that infornnion. I arse he means from the franchise fees,the operating ant for corm auni proms g and the equipment grants. I will leave that to you., or, � questions will attempt to I will begin the view of the propose.franchise for Don"s�t three q es os and p put the response in a format which will be helpful to hire. 4