Laserfiche WebLink
Chairman Scurlock stated that Falcon's objection is noted <br />for the record. However, he commented that he was quite involved <br />in tracking the Cable Communications Act, and he felt that what <br />is proposed is fair and equitable and consistent with the intent <br />of "Don't you regulate our rates, and we will give you your 5%," <br />which was the approach taken through all those deliberations. <br />Director Pinto emphasized that what we are doing today is <br />exactly what the company is requesting. We are transferring the <br />franchise, and they have agreed to agree - whether under protest <br />or whatever - to go through the process of amending the franchise <br />at a later time. Between the amendment of the franchise and the <br />transfer, there is an agreement to cover the situation as it is. <br />He, therefore, believed we have accommodated the request of <br />Falcon and would recommend we transfer the franchise as it is and <br />next approve the agreement so then we can proceed with the <br />amendment of the franchise itself, which will take a subsequent <br />public hearing. <br />Attorney Vitunac advised that the hearing would be about <br />three weeks from today. He agreed with Falcon Cable that these <br />two issues are not tied together such that if one does not happen <br />the transfer can't go through. We understand the Cable Communi- <br />cations Act, and we think we are living up to it. <br />Ms. Sims contended that under the Cable Communications Act <br />their franchise ordinance is grandfathered with the 3% fee. Her <br />argument was that if the language of the ordinance had called for <br />"3%, or whatever is the maximum allowable by the appropriate <br />authority," then the County could legally ask for the 5%. <br />Because the ordinance was worded simply "3% of your revenue," <br />that particular ordinance was grandfathered at that amount and <br />could not be raised as part of the franchise process. <br />Chairman Scurlock asked Director Pinto about the definition <br />of "gross revenue" because he believed there had been a lot of <br />discussion as to exactly what that means. <br />JAIN 12 1988 <br />3 BOOK 70 PACE 550 <br />