Laserfiche WebLink
Memorandum <br />Page Two <br /> <br />possible to require technological updating of the system. We, <br />of course, cannot predict precisely the conditions as they <br />will exist five or ten years from now, but research in the <br />recent months has indicated that the development of a cable <br />system consistent with your Requests for Proposals would <br />require a healthy investment of money by the cable companies. <br />~ fifteen-year term for the recoupment of that investment by <br />those companies makes our area much more attractive to more <br />cable companies. <br /> <br /> I would, therefore, recommend the adoption of the enclosed <br />resolution by each City Council and the forwarding of the <br />enclosed new forms and Requests for Proposals language to <br />those cable companies which have received Requests for Proposals <br />from Mr. Hartman's office. <br /> <br /> The following major changes are recommended for the pre- <br />liminary franchise, in addition to the above mentioned enclosures: <br /> <br /> 1. Article VI. Section 4.D. (3) (m) would be changed to read <br />"(m) the extent to which Grantee has technologically upqraded <br />the system; and" <br /> <br /> This will allow the cities to consider this factor in any <br />proposed rate increase from the cable company. <br /> <br />DUNKLEY AND 8ENNEI-r <br /> <br /> <br />