Laserfiche WebLink
Page Section # Section Name Comments <br /> the company's obligation to either submit a proposal which <br /> meets those needs and interests or clarify why the needs and <br /> interests are rendered unreasonable based on the costs <br /> associated with meeting the needs. See Union CATV Inc. v. <br /> Citv of Stur�is, Kentuckv, 107 F.3d 434(6th Circuit 1999). <br /> In the present case, Insight has provided a one-sentence <br /> reference to the costs associated with constructing an <br /> institutional network. There is no cost breakdown,no bids <br /> for equipment or installation costs,no specifications <br /> regarding how the estimate was arrived at and,most <br /> importantly,no description or discussion of whether the <br /> costs associated with constructing any portion of an <br /> institutional network would be unreasonable. Based upon <br /> the foregoing,the City has no basis to determine whether <br /> Insight's vague estimate renders this need"unreasonable"as <br /> required under the Cable Act. <br /> 23 8.2(c) Franchise Fee Insights' s Proposal: <br /> All amounts paid shall be subj ect to audit and recomputation <br /> by City and acceptance of any payment shall not be <br /> construed as an accord that the amount paid is in fact the <br /> correct amount. Audits may be performed during Normal <br /> = Business Hours,upon no less than twenty(20) days prior <br />� written notice,no more than once in any twelve(12)month <br /> period and the audit period may not extend back beyond the <br /> maximum time period permitted under the applicable state . <br /> statute of limitations for the State of Illinois or two (2) vears <br /> whichever neriod is shorter. <br /> City's Determination: <br /> Insight has inserted a provision which would significantly <br /> reduce the City's rights to pursue collection of franchise fees <br /> due and payable by Insight. Insight has inserted what is <br /> essentially a two-year sta.tute of limita.tions in direct conflict <br /> with Illinois state law at Section . (CHECK CITE TO <br /> ILLINOIS STATE STATUTE OF LINIITATIONS—735 <br /> ILCS 5/13-206] This appears to be an attempt by Insight to <br /> seek a waiver from the City to pursue full enforcement of the <br /> franchise as permitted under federal and state law. The City <br /> will not waive any rights under applicable law to fully <br /> enforce Insight's compliance with the term of the franchise. <br /> 25 9.1(a) Performance Bond Insights' s Proposal: <br /> 5 <br />