Laserfiche WebLink
VARIOUS USER INTERESTS INCLUDING MUNICIPAL AND REGIONAL AGENCIES. <br />THE REGIONAL CHANNEL SHOULD PROVIDE PROGRAMXING OF BROAD <br />REGIONAL INTEREST VGRSUS NARROW SPECIAL INTERESTS AND NOT <br />ATTEMPT TO COMPETE WITH CURRENT COMMERCIAL CHANNELS. <br />PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR A THOROUGH OVERSIGHT STUDY, AFTER <br />A "EASONABLE TES:' PERIOD, TO DETERMINE THE LONG TERM VIABILITY <br />Attu NEED OF THE: REGIONAL CHANNEL CONSILERING AT LEAST SUBSCRIBER <br />USE AND COST EFFECTIVENESS. <br />C-4 CABLE SYSTEMS INTERCONNECTION. <br />Ultimately, provision will be made to interconnect the various <br />cable service territories and systems in the metropolitan area. <br />The Metropolitan Councils Advisory Committee on <br />Telecommunications has recommended the formation of a commission <br />of Cable Service Territory Commissions to effect this <br />interconnection which is technically complex and does involve <br />issues within the individual franchise agreements. <br />THE AMM SUPPORTS FORMATION OF A COMMISSION OF CABLE SERVICE <br />TERRITORY COMMISSIONS TO FACILITATE THE U...IMATE OVERALL <br />INTERCONNECTION OF THE VARIOUS CABLE SYSTEMS IN THE METROPOLITAN <br />AREA. <br />II-D INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BOND ALLOCATION <br />In 1984, the Federal Government adopted various restrictions in <br />the use of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds which included a <br />$150 per capita cap for each state per year through 1986 and then <br />$100 per capita for 1987. The allocation for Minnesota equalled <br />approximately $600 million per year. In response, the State <br />Legislature adopted an allocation program for 1984 and 1985 which <br />dedicates $95 million to the state, $404 million to entitlement <br />cities issuing at least an average of $1 million in three._ Qf_:tte <br />last four bears, and $101 million for non entitlement eiLy uon. <br />Any amounts nct issued or committed by August 31 Will revert to <br />the non entitlement pool. A 19 point project criteria was <br />developed to judge applications to the non entitlement :. <br />However, some of the points seem redundent, skewed to :r <br />citirl, arl not project oriented, thus making it difficu or <br />small %cn untitlemunt cities to compete, even with good projo ,ts. <br />THE: AMM URGES THE LEGISLATURE: TO CAREFULLY REVIEW THE 1984 118 <br />BOND STATUES TO ENSURE; A FAIR AND EQUITABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL <br />MINNESOTA CITIES TO UTILIZE THIS FUNDING MECHANISM FOR <br />ECONOMIC AND JOB CREATION GROWTH. SPECIFICALLY THE: REVIEW SHOULD <br />EXAMINE THE. ALLOCATION FORMULA, THE STATUTORY CRITERIA FOR <br />PROJECT:,, ENTITLEMENT iDINT POWERS AGREEMENTS, AND BOND SALES <br />TIME LINES. FURTHER, THE: AMM WOULD SUGGEST THAT VARIOUS <br />