Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
1 <br /> O R A N G E C O U N T Y <br /> INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM <br /> TO: County Manager <br /> FROM: Assistant County Manager <br /> SUBJECT: Cablecasting Commissioners' Meetings <br /> DATE: October 2 , 1986 <br /> On May 24, 1985, the President of the Village Companies <br /> offered up to $25, 000 as a matching grant to help local <br /> governments buy and share cameras and other equipment for <br /> cablecasting. Under this proposal, Village Cable would match <br /> any combination of funding by the Towns of Chapel Hill and <br /> Carrboro, Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City <br /> Schools. The cable company would also provide training at no <br /> charge. The equipment would be property of the participating <br /> governments. As indicated in Village's proposal, the total <br /> equipment cost would be approximately $66, 000. The only <br /> remaining cost would be personnel costs for a camera opera- <br /> tor. <br /> Since the submission of the Village Companies offer, the <br /> Town of Carrboro and the School Board have declined to <br /> participate, the Town of Chapel Hill accepted a modified <br /> version of the offer on June 9, 1986, and the County accepted <br /> the offer in principle. Although the School Board decided <br /> against participation in the cost sharing arrangements, <br /> representatives of the School Board along with the Town of <br /> Chapel Hill staff and County staff have met numerous times <br /> during the past year to discuss cablecasting. Meetings also <br /> included site visits to the respective meeting facilities and <br /> the viewing of telecasting operations in the triangle area. <br /> After viewing other operations, the Village Companies <br /> suggested considering a voice-activated camera switching iY <br /> system which selects automatically, according to which <br /> microphone is used, among pre-set cameras focused at places <br /> around a meeting table and other points in a meeting room. <br /> In essence, each board member and staff (manager and county <br /> attorney) would have lapel microphones which would trigger <br /> the camera mechanism when an individual speaks. The voice- <br /> activated system would require 6 pre-set stationary cameras <br /> (3 for the Commissioners, 1 for the staff, 1 for the podium <br /> and 1 for the easel area. The total cost would be approxi- <br /> mately $70, 000 excluding sound system, lighting and extensive <br /> wiring if required. The County cost less $12,500 <br /> contribution from the Village Companies (1/2 of $25, 000) <br /> would be $57, 500. <br />