Agenda - 11-16-2004-9b - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

io Ms, McCausland explained that the 5% franchise fee paid by TWC to Orange County is supposed to go toward the County's operating costs for PEG access. The capital costs associated with PEG access are to be paid for through other means, for example in Carrboro subscribers pay a "pass through" amount to TWC which goes toward capital expenses associated with the Town's PEG access. Ms. Harvey checked her understanding of how such an arrangement might be applicable to Orange County's situation: Orange County pays the People's Channel to tape and rebroadcast BOCC meetings, Those meetings are broadcast to County subscribers on Chapel Hill's public access channel, the capital costs of which are paid for by Chapel Hill subscribers. In effect, she said, unincorporated Orange County subscribers are getting public access programming for free, because they do not pay a pass through for the PEG access capital costs. Mr, Patrick added that in 1996, when Chapel Hill and TWC entered into a cable franchise agreement, the FCC rules governing how capital expenditures for PEG access are to be recaptured were not as clear as they are now. The rules were clarified in 1999• He asked TWC if it would allow a pass through for the capital costs associated with the County PEG access in return for a twenty,year term, Ms. Harvey said that the shared question around the table is "how to amortize the $2i5,ooo that TWC estimates it will cost to run live feeds to the two BOCC meeting sites; how to recapture that amount from the subscribers?" Ms, McCausland said that in answering that question all parties should also note that if the pass through is too high then subscribers will switch to dish TV, which penalizes both TWC and Orange County (the County loses its 5% share from the franchise fee), Mr. Patrick reiterated that TWC should weigh the capital costs against the term length, and asked TWC to come back with a proposal or some options. Sections i3. - 22. No issues were raised regarding these sections. Mr. Phillips asked if these sections are acceptable as they stand, but did not get an explicit reply. Mediator notes that group members should make an explicit and.joint decision that these sections are acceptable, or identify issues needing further discussion. Section 23. Performance Bond and Section 24. Remedies -Liquidated Damages Ms. McCausland will identify in writing some problems that she believes will arise if the Orange County cable regulatory ordinance were not repealed upon adoption of a cable franchise ordinance. Ms, Harvey will share the ideas with the County attorney for consideration. Mr. Patrick reiterated his intention to review the proposals offered early by Ms, McCausland, "Section 23. Letter of Credit or Performance Bond," and Section z4, Remedies -Liquidated Damages," (8/r~/o4).