Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
County cannot charge Carolina Cable 5% and stated that the franchise fee <br /> is not critical to the decision to be made at this time. The two-way <br /> capability amendment incorporates the recommendation from the Cable <br /> Television Advisory Committee. They felt there was little demand for the <br /> two-way capability and felt that it should not be required by the <br /> County. The two-way communication system was offered by Village in their <br /> proposal and was simply accepted by the County. it was not a requirement <br /> of the County but the acceptance had to be incorporated into the <br /> franchise ordinance. To treat both companies equally, <br /> could either be deleted from the franchise held byCarolinareCablemeor <br /> added as a requirement in the Ordinance. With regard to the trunk cable, <br /> the issue is whether or not the County wants to impose a timetable for <br /> the building of this trunk cable. <br /> Gledhill stated that the County could grant a franchise to <br /> another cable operator in Orange County without requiring that company to <br /> have two-way capability. <br /> Jim Medlin from Greensboro and representing Alert stated <br /> agreement with the proposed Ordinance and urged its adoption. <br /> decided <br /> Discussion <br /> two-way One e quirement. It was <br /> Y <br /> franchise for Alert should have a builtin timetable for issue <br /> trunkxcablet for the <br /> areas of Orange County that have 30 homes a mile. of <br /> trunk cable, feeder and overbuilt in the Ordinance need The <br /> and the question of the two-way capability requirement needs to be <br /> decided. Either release Carolina from the requirement or impose this <br /> requirement on Alert. <br /> Chair Marshall indicated that since Carolina proposed the two- <br /> way capability that this should not be a requirement for Alert Cable. <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Hartwell, seconded by <br /> Commissioner Carey to adopt the Cable Television System Ordinance on the <br /> first reading. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br /> 4. PROPOSED ALERT CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST <br /> READING <br /> 5. PROPOSED CAROLINA CABLE ORDINANCE FRANCHISING AMENDMENTS - FIRST <br /> READING <br /> It was decided that additional information on the two-way <br /> capability was necessary before a decision could be made on the franchise <br /> amendments. it was the consensus of the Board to ask Norman Vogl, Chair <br /> of the Advisory Committee, to provide additional information for the next <br /> meeting scheduled for June 16. The two Cable companies will be requested <br /> to provide an estimated cost of providing an active two-way system. <br /> 6. BID AWARD FOR THE FLASHBOARD SYSTEM AT ORANGE LAKE <br /> Two bids were received for the flashboard system at Orange Lake: <br /> Crain and Denbo, Inc. <br /> Crowder Construction Company $ 299$ 2 ,8,850 <br /> 50 <br /> Motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner <br /> Marshall to award the bid to Crain and Denbo, Inc. for a sum of $21,978 <br /> for construction of a flashboard (spillway) system at Orange Lake and <br /> authorize the Chair to sign. <br /> VOTE: UNANIMOUS. <br /> 7. BUDGET WORK SESSION SCHEDULE <br />