The Orange County Board of Commissioners voted 7-0 on Sept. 4 to postpone action on an amendment to the county broadband contract until Sept. 16 and to hold a closed session on Sept. 9 to discuss the matter. Chair James Edward Bedford made the motion and Commissioner Green seconded it; the motion carried unanimously.

Why it matters: Dozens of residents have been waiting for promised broadband service tied to a county contract and told commissioners on Sept. 4 they are frustrated by repeated delays and unclear communication about whether contract amendments have been completed.

At the start of the meeting, Chair James Edward Bedford said he wanted to “postpone item 6(a), the amendment for broadband, until Sept. 16, noting that we will plan a closed session for Sept. 9.” The board did not take public testimony on the item at that time because the item was postponed; instead, several residents used the general public-comment period to press the board for information.

Edward Mann, a lifelong Orange County resident who identified himself during public comment, said he had spent days reviewing contracts and amendments before the meeting and that he was “extremely frustrated to hear that agenda item 6(a) is being delayed again.” He told commissioners he had been tracking the project and that the original contract had scheduled service for 2024. “We were promised,” Mann said, adding that he had seen “delay upon delay.”

Commissioner McKee, who later noted she voted for the postponement, told the board she had reviewed the application packet and said the original list of households to be served—6,370 names in the application packet—had been reduced in the amendment to roughly 5,852, which she said means “500 names in this stack of papers will not get served if we accept this with no recourse.” McKee described the reduction as an “extreme equity issue.”

Discussion vs. decision: The board’s Sept. 4 action was limited to postponing formal consideration; no policy change or contract amendment was adopted at the meeting. Commissioners said they expected to return for a full vote on Sept. 16 after additional work and a closed-session discussion.

What residents asked for: Speakers asked the board for a public explanation of the delay and whether an amendment approved last December had been executed. The board did not provide a substantive public reply during the comment period; Chair Bedford’s motion deferred further discussion to the Sept. 16 meeting and a Sept. 9 closed session.

Next steps and open questions: The board’s formal action sets the next public meeting where the amendment will be considered (Sept. 16) and schedules a closed session (Sept. 9). Residents and commissioners requested clearer documentation about which households will be served under any amendment, whether the December amendment was executed, and a timeline for completion.

Context: Commissioners and several residents repeatedly emphasized the project’s long history, the county’s prior public promises of service, and the local equity implications of reducing the number of homes to be served. No new contract language or binding approvals were adopted at the Sept. 4 meeting.