Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Scott County advances first reading of telecommunications franchise ordinance
Summary
The Scott County Fiscal Court moved Ordinance 2602 to a second reading after a first-reading discussion of a proposed 10-year, non-exclusive telecommunications franchise ordinance; counsel for the applicant said the filing is largely a documentation step tied to Windstream27s refinancing activities.
Scott County Fiscal Court advanced Ordinance 2602 on first reading March 26, moving a proposed 10-year, non-exclusive telecommunications franchise ordinance to a second reading after an hourlong discussion about scope and local protections.
The ordinance, presented as a countywide franchise framework, would establish application procedures, performance bonds, insurance and maintenance standards, compensation provisions and other terms the court27s staff said would give Scott County legal tools to regulate telecommunications work within county rights-of-way. County staff said the measure is intended to align local rules with Kentucky constitutional requirements for franchises.
Outside counsel for the company seeking to apply said the proposed ordinance is not intended to signal a change in company ownership. "The reason we're requesting this is the fact that Windstream is not changing ownership," said Brian Burgerer, a lawyer who said his team has taken this draft to many Kentucky jurisdictions. He said the draft is largely a paperwork step tied to refinancing and that the proposed language is a general franchise template the county can modify.
Court members asked whether adopting a county-wide ordinance would let the county collect revenue such as a franchise fee; staff said Scott County does not participate in the state telecom excise tax and does not expect immediate franchise revenue from the application. Members discussed whether the 10-year term in the draft could be modified and whether the proposed ordinance was longer than some jurisdictions27 versions because it includes more "guard rails" to protect county interests.
The court voted to advance the ordinance to a second reading, with the court president noting that substantial changes could still be considered before final adoption. County staff invited the applicant's counsel to attend the second-reading session to answer follow-up questions.
Next steps: the ordinance will return for a required second reading at a future meeting, during which the court may amend language, accept public comment or vote to adopt.
