Agenda - 06-01-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Marvin Collins presented for consideration of a 18 petition from NCDOT for the addition of Shambly Drive in Perry Hills Subdivision to the State maintained Secondary Road System. The Manager recommends approval. Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded__' by Commissioner Carey to approve the manager's recommendation. VOTE: UNANIMOUS. 3 . PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM ORDINANCE (A copy of the Ordinance with the proposed amendments is in the permanent agenda file and will be made a part of the minutes at the time of final adoption) . County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill stated that some of the changes are due to changes in the law and some of the changes are substantial in that they will impact the way that the cable companies will operate in the County. Randall Roden, attorney for Carolina Cable, questioned whether or not amending the Ordinance would automatically amends the franchise under which Carolina Cable is operating. He stated that a cable company is not a utility that can be regulated by a County. It is a media of expression. The only law in North Carolina authorizing counties to control cable television is a provision which permits counties to grant franchises on reasonable terms. There are two parties it can't be changed by one of the parties but mustbe agreed rupon lby both parties. If a county amends an ordinance, it does not automatically impose upon Carolina Cable whatever changes are made in the franchising ordinance because it has not been accepted by the existing operators. He noted that the current franchise requires the payment of 3% on certain revenues as a franchise fee. The current ordinance changes the 3% fee to 5%. Roden stated that increasing this fee is unfair and beyond the power of a County to do. Roden indicated that the Ordinance reflects a major change in the policy regarding cable television for Orange County. The line extension policy was originally limited to areas with 30 homes per mile on an average from the point where the extension would be made. This allowed the cable company to expand as the population increased. He disagreed with the technical requirements Ordinance. This would mean that a new company wuld not obelrequiredtto have two way communication but at the same time does not relieve Carolina Cable from the requirement in their franchise to provide two-way communication. He supports equal terms for all cable providers and the continuation of maintaining the high standards as originally set forth. He indicated a problem with the definitions as contained in the Ordinance and asked that these definitions be clarified. In summary, Mr. Roden asked that the problems the Ordinance is designed to address be reviewed before the Ordinance is approved. In answer to a question from Commissioner Hartwell, Mr. Roden stated that the revision in the overbuilt re incentive for Carolina Cable to pay an additionalr fee nt would not be an Discussion ensued on the extension of the trunk cables as proposed in the Ordinance. There is no provision in the ordinance or a timetable for the building of this cable. Commissioner Hartwell assured Mr. Roden that all cable companies in the County would be treated equal. Gledhill expressed disagreement with the statement that the