Agenda Packets - 2017/09/25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1. Section 6— Notice. Strike "Jim Ericson" and replace with "City Administrator". 2. 1 would suggest that, similar to other franchises, the Agreement include a complaint process. For instance, as with telecomm franchises, the City will forward complaints to the Franchisee who is contractually bound to address those issues within a certain period of time. Failure to address such concerns may result in termination of the agreement. Given the exclusive nature of this agreement, and the fact that residents of the City are likely to equate the program as being offered by the City under the marketing scheme, the City should require the franchisee to address problems that arise. We don't want to get into a situation where the City is being held out as a partner to an organization that is wrongfully denying or failing to timely process claims, for instance. I did not find any documented complaints about these behaviors related to this program, but it is reasonable for the City to include such a protection. 3. 1 do not see an issue with the exclusive nature of this program. I am unaware of any other reputable organization or program that exists which provides this type of protection , so it is unlikely that another entity would seek approval to operate this type of program in the City. Additionally, this agreement only prohibits the City from agreeing to let another entity use the City as a partner (i.e., use of the City's letterhead). I do not interpret this agreement as prohibiting another entity from offering identical coverage to homeowners without participation of the City. a. In short, the exclusive license being granted is for the use of the City's intellectual property, NOT an exclusive license or right to operate a program that offers warranty coverage for privately -owned utilities. Please let me know if you would like to discuss. Andrew