Residents press board for clarity on 5% franchise fee in Charter agreement

At the July 6 meeting of the Lyman Select Board, residents and board members raised repeated questions about a proposed 5% franchise fee in a draft franchise agreement with Charter (referenced alongside Spectrum). A resident who asked to be recorded in the minutes (speaker 7) said the new agreement "talks about the 5% franchise fee" but that the fee is not itemized on subscribers' bills. "If you are charged a franchise fee, it is called out specifically that way on your bill, and it's not," the resident said, adding that they contacted the provider and were told they were not being charged a local franchise fee, only state and federal items such as ConnectME and taxes.

Justin Poirier, a board member who spoke during the discussion, summarized the town's understanding of the agreement: the provider is responsible for public access costs and may not transfer those costs to the municipality, and "the only cost that may be itemized on subscriber bills are franchise requirements for financial support of the public access facility equipment." Poirier said the key question is whether a 5% franchise fee would be passed on to customers and then remitted to the town.

Other board members and a staff member noted inconsistent descriptions in the documents and in past conversations with town contacts. The board cited Tony Vigu and Brad as people involved in prior discussions and agreed to request written clarification from those contacts or from Charter/Spectrum about whether a 5% fee is being collected, how it would appear on customer bills, and whether previously collected amounts would be remitted or subject to retroactive adjustment. One select board member said, "If the board decides they want to do a franchise fee, it just comes back to the municipality, and you can do whatever you want with it," and the board signaled it would follow up before finalizing the agreement.

The board did not take formal action on the franchise agreement at the meeting. Members asked staff to attempt to obtain documentation verifying current billing practices and any past remittances and to report back, noting that Charter has operated through different subsidiaries over the years and that prior versions of the contract date from 2011. The discussion closed with the board agreeing to seek clarification from the town contact and, if necessary, Charter or Spectrum, before moving forward.