My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
1993 AGN MAR 02 I17
Colton
>
CITY CLERK
>
City Council Agendas
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990 - 1999
>
1993
>
1993 March 02 Agenda Report
>
1993 AGN MAR 02 I17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2014 1:47:42 AM
Creation date
2/20/2014 7:43:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General Documents
Created By
avillalba
DocType
General Documents
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
BEST, BEST & KRIEGER <br />January 29, 1993 <br />Mr. David Zamora <br />Director of Community Development <br />City of Colton <br />650 N. La Cadena Drive <br />Colton, CA 92324 <br />CED <br />^r�• r <br />3W <br />RANCHO MIRAGE <br />(619) 568-2611 <br />Re: City of Colton/CableVision Franchise Renewal <br />Dear David: <br />This letter follows our telephone conversation of <br />January 28, 1993. As you recall, there has been some dispute <br />between the City and CableVision regarding the renewal of <br />CableVision's franchise. Although both the City and CableVision <br />agree that ey want to proceed pursuant to the informal renewal <br />procedures allowed under the Cable Communications Act, CableVision <br />has been insisting upon the right to invoke the formal renewal <br />proceedings described in the Act. It was the City Attorney's <br />position that this was inappropriate, inasmuch as the formal <br />renewal proceedings take many months to initiate and complete and <br />failure to complete them properly would put the City at some legal <br />risk. <br />In compromise, CableVision and the City Attorney have <br />agreed that the parties will proceed to negotiate informally for a <br />period up to and including one year before franc ise expiration. <br />At that time, if informal negotia .ions have not resulted iii a -1.cin7 <br />franchise, then either the City or CableVision may invoke the <br />formal renewal proceedings. By providing that formal proceedings <br />must begin no ior to the franchise' s <br />expir ,on, he City will have sufficient time to fulfill its <br />obligations. <br />CableVision has sent you a letter, a copy of which I have <br />received, confirming this arrangement. It is the City Attorney's <br />position that this letter is appropriate for your signature. If <br />you have any questions, please call. <br />On a practical note, what we foresee occurring is the <br />following. The City of Fontana is currently in the midst of <br />renegotiating its cable franchise and has hired a cable television <br />KKR21693 <br />A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS <br />LAWYERS <br />RIVERSIDE <br />800 NORTH HAVEN, SUITE 120 <br />(714) 686-1450 <br />POST OFFICE BOX 4360 <br />ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 <br />PALM SPRINGS <br />TELEPHONE (714) 989-8584 <br />(619) 325-7264 <br />TELECOPIER (714) 944-1441 <br />January 29, 1993 <br />Mr. David Zamora <br />Director of Community Development <br />City of Colton <br />650 N. La Cadena Drive <br />Colton, CA 92324 <br />CED <br />^r�• r <br />3W <br />RANCHO MIRAGE <br />(619) 568-2611 <br />Re: City of Colton/CableVision Franchise Renewal <br />Dear David: <br />This letter follows our telephone conversation of <br />January 28, 1993. As you recall, there has been some dispute <br />between the City and CableVision regarding the renewal of <br />CableVision's franchise. Although both the City and CableVision <br />agree that ey want to proceed pursuant to the informal renewal <br />procedures allowed under the Cable Communications Act, CableVision <br />has been insisting upon the right to invoke the formal renewal <br />proceedings described in the Act. It was the City Attorney's <br />position that this was inappropriate, inasmuch as the formal <br />renewal proceedings take many months to initiate and complete and <br />failure to complete them properly would put the City at some legal <br />risk. <br />In compromise, CableVision and the City Attorney have <br />agreed that the parties will proceed to negotiate informally for a <br />period up to and including one year before franc ise expiration. <br />At that time, if informal negotia .ions have not resulted iii a -1.cin7 <br />franchise, then either the City or CableVision may invoke the <br />formal renewal proceedings. By providing that formal proceedings <br />must begin no ior to the franchise' s <br />expir ,on, he City will have sufficient time to fulfill its <br />obligations. <br />CableVision has sent you a letter, a copy of which I have <br />received, confirming this arrangement. It is the City Attorney's <br />position that this letter is appropriate for your signature. If <br />you have any questions, please call. <br />On a practical note, what we foresee occurring is the <br />following. The City of Fontana is currently in the midst of <br />renegotiating its cable franchise and has hired a cable television <br />KKR21693 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.