Browse
Search
Agenda - 12-06-2004-9b
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
2000's
>
2004
>
Agenda - 12-06-2004
>
Agenda - 12-06-2004-9b
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/1/2008 10:27:06 PM
Creation date
8/29/2008 10:26:52 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
12/6/2004
Document Type
Agenda
Agenda Item
9b
Document Relationships
Minutes - 20041206
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\Minutes - Approved\2000's\2004
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
TWC could commit to a beginning time, would then need to apply for permits <br />(and has no control over the time period for obtaining the permits), and then <br />could commit to a completion date by referencing a certain number of months <br />after obtaining the permits. In response to a question from Mr. Patrick, Mr. <br />Hourigan agreed that TWC could start with Southern Human Services Center <br />because it does not involve the railroad or highway crossings. <br />The group then took a break for lunch. When the group reconvened, it reviewed <br />the mediator's handout, "To Do as of 9/22/04" and made the following points <br />and decisions: <br />Section i (c) Term of Grant <br />In an earlier meeting, the parties had agreed to revisit this issue after all other <br />substantive issues have been resolved. At this meeting, Mr, Patrick asked TWC to <br />consider setting July r, 2oi6 as the termination date for this franchise. He said <br />that this date would allow f'or better coordination across the County's and Town <br />of Chapel Hill's separate franchises. <br />Mr, Patrick added that there may be tradeoffs across the length of the franchise <br />and TWC's options regarding capital expenditures associated with meeting the <br />community's needs for PEG access, He asked TWC to make a proposal or provide <br />options that would meet both Orange County's and TWC's needs. <br />Sections a and g All agreed to accept Sections 2 (Definitions) and 3 <br />(Service Area) as they appear in the common draft ("TWC Last Proposal, <br />2/26/2004"). <br />Section 4 -Cable System Service Area Extension <br />Mr, Patrick distributed his written reactions to the ~/2~/04 TWC revision of <br />Section 4 drafted and distributed by Mr, Phillips. He noted that both "street <br />miles" and "cable miles" were used and asked for clarification, Ms, McCausland <br />said that it would be problematic if the grantor and grantee used different <br />measures for determining density, All agreed to use the term "homes per mile" <br />instead of either "street" or "cable," since it is expected that because of <br />competitive pressure TWC will be interested in extending service when either <br />measure of density reaches the agreed upon threshold (18 homes). <br />All agreed that the "closest usable active point" should be the starting point for <br />measuring density, since trunk lines which cannot be tapped into by a home <br />might pass a residence. Carrboro uses "closest usable active point," Mr, Patrick <br />said. <br />All agreed to insert the following sentence into 4A after the first sentence: "The <br />Grantee shall apply for all necessary permits within 9o days of confirmation that <br />the required density is met," <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.