Laserfiche WebLink
E-1 <br />(continues) <br />Review of Cable CcnTmnications <br />assess the needs of the City and, in f act , could award a franchise <br />to sow: other cony , <br />At a recent meeting of those cities rnent Toned above, this proposal was discussed <br />It was the general cmcensus that the proposed CST is too large and spread out to be <br />workable -and that a =re appropriate CST seems still to be the one da.seussed * At <br />the very least individual idual cities would like the opportunity to further consider the <br />various options available. For these reasons it was suggested that the cities write <br />to M�M in opposition to the proposed CST <br />'the ale comnmication issue has been a rapidly developing one in remit rronths S <br />Consideration needs to be given to the options available. At this point it appears <br />that the are three such option pending: <br />1. To oppose the CST proposed by Capital City ale and continue <br />discussion with the cities mentioned along the lines outlined. <br />2. To oppose the proposed CST and mark on the franchise process <br />independently thereby atteupti.ng , establishing Roseville as an <br />independent CST. <br />3. To support the proposed CST and begin the franchise process at <br />Step 2 should the CST be approved, <br />It is recomnend6d that the first option be approved ting that P46seville be <br />ileted from the Capital City ale proposal and that a cornmittee be appointed to <br />work with New Brighton, Arden Hills, Funds view, St, Anthony, Shoreview (mod <br />possibly Falcon Heights and Lauderdale) to cuss the matter of cable coummication, <br />Action Requested.- Motion to adopt a resolution opposing the <br />proposed Capital City Cable service territory <br />and requesting the Mirmesota Cable Conm?n cation <br />Board to delete Roseville from the proposed <br />territox . ` <br />Motion to establish October 15 as the date to <br />appoint mmd)ers to a Roseville ale Cmmmications <br />Cca ittee. <br />