Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to <br /> 2 approve funding for FY 2022-23 and adopt the FY 2022-23 County Capital projects as stated in <br /> 3 Attachment 2; the FY 2022-23 Proprietary Capital projects as stated in Attachment 3; and the <br /> 4 FY 2022-23 School Capital projects as stated in Attachment 4. <br /> 5 <br /> 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS <br /> 7 <br /> 8 c. Amendments to the Network Development Agreement for Broadband Deployment with <br /> 9 North State Communications Advanced Services <br /> 10 The Board considered approving amendments to the Network Development Agreement with <br /> 11 North State Communications Advanced Services, LLC to deploy broadband service in unserved <br /> 12 locations in Orange County. <br /> 13 <br /> 14 BACKGROUND: On April 26, 2022, the Board of Commissioners authorized the County <br /> 15 Manager to execute a Network Development Agreement with North State Communications to <br /> 16 deploy a fiber optic broadband network to unserved locations in Orange County. Unserved <br /> 17 locations are defined by State law as locations that do not have access to internet service that <br /> 18 provides speeds of 25 megabits per second (mbps) download and 3 mbps upload. The <br /> 19 statutory authority under which the County is authorized to make grants for broadband <br /> 20 deployment only allows those grant funds to be used to serve unserved locations. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 During the meeting at which the agreement was originally considered, an attorney representing <br /> 23 Spectrum Communications asserted that many of the addresses in the proposed service area <br /> 24 were served by Spectrum and, therefore, were not unserved. If that were the case, County <br /> 25 grant funds could not be used to fund connections to those addresses. County staff delayed the <br /> 26 final execution of the agreement with North State pending resolution of this dispute with <br /> 27 Spectrum Communications. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Due to the nature of the telecommunications industry, identifying specific unserved addresses is <br /> 30 difficult. There is no official map that identifies specific locations or addresses that are defined <br /> 31 as served or unserved. The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) maps, for example, <br /> 32 are imprecise since they only provide information by census block, not specific addresses within <br /> 33 that census block. North State compiled a list of addresses that the company believed were <br /> 34 unserved based on their engineering and mapping. The only way to verify addresses that are <br /> 35 served by Spectrum Communications is to individually search for them on the Spectrum <br /> 36 website. <br /> 37 <br /> 38 Spectrum Communications initially claimed that the company provided service to over 4,700 <br /> 39 addresses that were intended to be funded with County grant funds. Through a verification <br /> 40 process that included staff from the County, North State Communications, and Spectrum <br /> 41 Communications, the list of served addresses was refined to 3,528. While the number of <br /> 42 addresses that are funded with County grant funds has decreased, the total number of <br /> 43 addresses served, linear miles of fiber installed, and the cost to install the fiber is not impacted. <br /> 44 The disputed addresses are in locations that are either along the fiber route that will be needed <br /> 45 to reach the unserved addresses or are in more densely populated areas which North State has <br /> 46 a strong economic interest to serve. <br /> 47 <br /> 48 The proposed contract amendments refine the list of addresses funded with County grant <br /> 49 dollars and address concerns raised since the original contract was considered. <br /> 50 <br /> 51 1. Refining addresses funded with the County grant <br />