Agenda - Council - 05/27/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Ce 3. Impact on plans and policies adopted by the Metropolitan Council (or regional development co~nissions in the rest of the state); 4. Economic viability; 5. Other factors the Board deems relevant. State Law and Rules also require that there be a uniform regional channel and interconnectability between all cable systems franchised and operating within the Metropolitan Area. Technology to accomplish this is available to any potential franchise holder and it is up to the M.C.C.B. and the franchising municipalities to see to it that the statutory requirements related to inter-connectability are met. Staff has interpreted relevant plans and reports adopted by the Metropolitan Council to include the following: the Development Framework Chapter of the M~etropolitan Development Guide, adopted by the Council in SeptembEr, 1975 and revis'~d in December, 1977. the Districting Report, prepared by the Communications Advisory Committee and adopted by the Metropolitan Coun- cil on August 22, 1974. Analysis of Prop~.sed Cable Sergice Territory. 1. Relationship to Develo... p.ment~Framework Ch~ter of the }4e~ropql~tan ~veloPment Guide ' ' " The proposed cable service territory is Consistent with Development Framework policies in.that the proposed service area is generally within the Anoka Freestanding Growth Center. Relationship to Distr~in~ Report Recommendations This Report, which was used in preparing rules subsequently adopted by the M.C.C.B. contains a number ~of recommendations that are pertinent to this proposal: Recommendation 92.2: "The district coverage area should generally coincide with the .... Metropolitan Urban Service Area." Comment: Discussed under C(1) above. be Recommendation #~.3: "Since municipalities retain primary responsibility in regulating Cable Communications~ they should be used as the building blocks for districts." Comment: The proposal includes three entire contiguous municipalities.