Laserfiche WebLink
MEMORANDUM <br /> • August 9, 1996 <br /> Page 3 <br /> 1. INTRODUCTION. <br /> The simultaneous filing of two FCC 394's presented the Authorities and this office with <br /> some unique and difficult challenges in analysis. It was the determination of this office to analyze <br /> the transactions separately and to propose separate resolutions for each transaction. <br /> At the time of awarding the original Cable Communications Franchise and in subsequent <br /> transfers of the Franchise, the Authorities considered and approved the technical ability, financial <br /> capacity, legal qualifications and character of the original and subsequent owners of the cable <br /> system, as well as other appropriate factors. These same qualifications are to be considered and <br /> reviewed by Authorities as part of the review of the proposed transfer to US West. The sources <br /> • of information used in examining these factors included FCC 394, its exhibits, the current <br /> Franchise Ordinance, various FCC rules and regulations regarding cable communication systems, <br /> US West's Response to the Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval <br /> of Transfer of Control (attached hereto as Exhibit 2), and US West's response to subsequent <br /> questions regarding corporate structure, along with direct oral communications with <br /> representatives of US West. <br /> All levels of government have something to say about such transfers. The local franchise, <br /> Minnesota state law, federal law and FCC rules all apply to this transfer. The Authorities' <br /> Franchises require that the Authorities review the transfer pursuant to the same standards used to <br /> award the original Franchise. Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. § 238.083, provides that the local <br /> franchising authority must consider a written request to approve a transfer of ownership, and the <br />