Agenda - 06-01-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

c N. , -3- '• ;" ordinance . The City of Lexington has adopted an ordi � ' , a part of which was written into a contract with the defendant.. The resolution of this case depends on the interpretation " . of that r part. of that ordinance. -.-The ordinance imposes a tax on the cable •-- --- . . , system's annual "gross subscriber revenues" which is defined as .. _r∎ "any and all compensation received by a rt y,Y '.'. Y. y grantee from subscribers -'� ' or users in payment for :the community -- ' antenna •,= television ;; ; ce. servi " "Community r, antenna television service" is defined as �., .— "the business of providing an improved television reception service to the public for compensation, by means of a master antenna and cables ." The question posed by this appeal is • whether the third tier of service offered by the defendant which is the HBO satellite service is an "improved television reception service." The HBO satellite service was not available when the franchise to the defendant was granted. The question is whether Y ==:�.�... .” the ordinance written into the franchise covers this service. We believe, based on the plain words of the ordinance, that it does not. We do not believe the words "improved television reception service" include a signal that does not originate from a television station and cannot be received on a television set that is not connected to a CATV cable. We hold it was error to enter a judgment against the defendant based on revenues it received for the HBO satellite service: The plaintiffs argue that in another section of the - ordinance a community antenna television system is defined as any facility which in part amplifies television station signals. They say this shows that whatever type signal the defendant