5/1/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MAY 11990 BOOK 79 m3a6. point out that the two existing operators in the county accepted the franchise document with the 20 -year term and they feel that any newcomers should have to submit their request for an 8 -year extension on a separate basis. Attorney Vitunac noted that the County is not obligated to give a new entree a 28 -year term. It says "up to", and it would not necessarily have to be for a 28 -year term. With regard to Mr. Vicker's first suggestion for a change in the wording in Section 11, Attorney Vitunac explained that under the present wording, the operator's permission is needed to increase the franchise fee, and -they have a chance to talk with the County and get any problems resolved. With this new ordinance, if the federal law is changed to allow us to go to 60, we could just do it without any permission from the franchise operator. Attorney Vitunac didn't feel that the County has ever had its door shut to discuss any matter with the franchise operators, and he believed the County Commission will insure that never happens. Mr. Vickers agreed that indeed has been the case in the past and they appreciate it. However, the specific wording of the proposed ordinance is what they will have to live by. Director Pinto explained that the change in the wording would allow it to come to a public hearing, and at that point whatever negotiations were to take place would be in a public forum. Vice Chairman Bird and Commissioner Scurlock didn't have any problem saying that it will be brought before a public hearing. William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, recommended that the County collect the franchise fee monthly instead of quarterly, since the cable companies are billing the people monthly. He also would like to have shorter franchise terms since a lot of changes are anticipated in this field in not too distant future. With fiber optics coming into the picture, the telephone companies themselves might be getting into the game. 40 r