My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
5/5/1982
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1982
>
5/5/1982
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:49:38 AM
Creation date
6/11/2015 2:19:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
05/05/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
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
49 Fgc <br />MAY 51982 <br />justify some difference by the amount of customers per cable <br />strand mile. <br />Mr. Crosby agreed that density is the difference. He <br />reiterated that if the published rates are checked, it will be <br />found that his company is one of those at the bottom, and the <br />fact that they do not pay a franchise fee has contributed to <br />this. <br />Discussion continued as to rates, fees, laws, etc., and the <br />fact that things are not always equal, as demonstrated by the <br />fact that we get a 6% franchise fee from Florida Power & Light <br />and 0% from the City of Vero Beach. <br />The Chairman called for the question on a fee of 30 on basic <br />rates. It was voted on and carried 3 to 2 with Commissioners <br />Fletcher and Wodtke voting in opposition. <br />The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard. <br />William Koolage, interested citizen, commented that some <br />years ago, when he learned that St. Lucie was charging a <br />franchise fee while it was not charged up here, he felt he was <br />being overcharged because he is paying the same amount they were <br />paying down there, but the county was not getting a franchise fee <br />out of it. <br />James Harms of Village Green Mobile Home Park, expressed <br />concern that the proposed ordinance is being used as a means to <br />get taxes from mobile home owners, who it is felt are not paying <br />a fair share of taxes. He spoke in defense of mobile home owners <br />and how they benefit the community and felt the ordinance is out <br />of order for this reason. <br />It was noted that the proposed ordinance would apply to <br />everyone, not just mobile home owners, and the Board assured him <br />that they had never thought of this in connection with the <br />proposed ordinance and it was not the underlying intent. <br />Dan Fleischman stated that he would like to see the <br />ordinance require that the cable TV company would have to <br />92 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.