(A) Any MCS provider affected by this chapter may file a written petition, at any time, with the Council/franchising authority seeking relief from one or more provisions of this chapter. The relief requested may specifically include the delay in implementation (as to the petitioning MCS provider only) of one or more provisions of this chapter.
(B) In order to receive any relief from one or more of the provisions of this chapter, a non-exempt MCS provider must satisfactorily demonstrate to the Council/franchising authority that at least one of the following facts exist:
(1) The provisions and/or requirement is expressly prohibited by federal or state law, or by the FCC; or
(2) Where applicable, that the provision in question materially affects and is in conflict with an expressed right that is specifically noted in an existing franchise agreement (but only for the term of the existing franchise). This provision covers situations where an MCS provider known as a cable operator seeks, and is granted, modification of an existing franchise agreement under Section 625 of the CCPA, codified at 47 USC 545; or
(3) That the imposition of such provisions and/or requirements will create such an undue economic hardship on an MCS provider so as to imperil or eliminate an MCS provider's ability to provide multi-channel service to a majority of current subscribers; or
(4) That one or more time frames listed in this chapter are either impossible to meet, or impractical to meet in light of the MCS provider's operational policy; or
(5) That the MCS provider has its own construction, maintenance, operation, or customer service policy, which the Council/franchising authority deems comparable to, or exceeding, any provision and/or requirement from which the MCS provider seeks relief.
(C) The Council/franchising authority shall have the responsibility of determining whether and MCS provider's construction, maintenance, operation, or customer service policy is comparable to, or exceeds, a similar provision in this chapter. Note well, however, that the Council/franchising authority may delegate investigative and reporting functions to an authorized representative of the city.
(D) As an alternative to seeking an exemption, or requesting relief, an MCS provider may submit a written request or petition for clarification on the precise intent and effect that one or more provisions or sections of this chapter has on the petitioning MCS provider.
(E) In accordance with this chapter, the Council/franchising authority may charge the petitioning MCS provider with the actual costs for processing such a petition, including any costs incurred by outside consultants who are retained by the city to review an MCS provider's petition.
(F) In those instances where the Council/franchising authority grants an exemption or relief to a franchised MCS provider, or deems a franchise MCS provider's operational policy to be comparable to an chapter provision, then the franchise agreement (initial, existing, or renewal) shall be amended within 30 days to reflect the exact extent of such exemption and/or relief. It should be specifically noted that the benefit of such exemption, relief, clarification, or comparable policy extends only to the MCS provider granted such exemption, relief, clarification, or comparable policy.
(Ord. 4-1994-20, passed 4-12-94)