97-22358 RESO
RESOLUTION NO.
97-22358
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
FLORIDA, (THE "CITY"), RATIFYING AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE AND EXECUTION
BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A RATE ORDER, A COpy OF WHICH IS ATTACHED HERETO
AND INCORPORATED HEREIN, WHICH DECLARES THE PROPOSED INCREJ!liSE IN
CABLE TELEVISION RATE WHICH HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY RIFKIN NARAGAII!\jSETT
SOUTH FLORIDA CATV LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNREASONABLE.
WHEREAS, on December 17, 1996, the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the "City") receive, notice
from Rifkin Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevlsion, of a
proposed increase in the basic service tier of Cable Television service rates; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach subsequently issued a Tolling Order on Decem Jer 27,
1996, in order to have time to evaluate the proposed rate increase; and
WHEREAS, the Tolling Order was in effect for a 90 day period of time in which the City engaged
outside Legal Counsel and Independent Certified Public Accountants to calculate the proposed
changes; and
WHEREAS, these cable regulation experts have concluded that basic service tier rate pni)posed
by Rifkin Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership is unreasonable for a rate increase with
the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 1997, the City Manager executed a Rate Order, a copy 0': ",hich is
attached hereto and incorporated herein, declaring the proposed rate unreasonable,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that:
1, All action taken by the City Manager in connection with the Rate Order attached hereto,
and by this reference made part hereof, is approved, confirmed and ratified, all as of Aprill
11, 1997,
2. The text of the Resolution and the Rate Order attached hereto shall be published once
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Miami Beach,
PASSED and ADOPTED this 16th day of April
jl
/,:~
APPROVED J.],s ro
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
1J ~ ~1/II)fh
City Altamey ~
AT~E:~r ~~J.-.--
CITY CLERK
f: em gr\$all\ronn ie\ea bletv. res
IN THE MATTER OF )
)
RATE REGULATION ESTABLISHING )
INITIAL RATES TO BE SET ON )
THE BASIC SERVICE TIER BY )
RIFKIN NARRANGANSETT SOUTH )
FLORIDA CATV D/B/A GOLD COAST IN )
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA )
ORDER APPROVING RATES
The city of Miami Beach, Florida hereby makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. The City of Miami Beach ("the City") is certified by the
Federal Communications commission to regulate cable rates
in FCC Community unit FL 0860 pursuant to 47 U.S.C. ~543,
and 47 CFR ~76.933.
2. The City has authorized Rifkin Narrangansett South
Florida CATV d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevision ("Gold Coast")
to operate a cable television system in the City pursuant
to a franchise granted under Ordinance No. 86-2500 and
amendments thereto.
3. After extensive rate negotiations between the City and
Gold Coast, the City released an Order Settinq Rates on
April 4, 1995, establishing a Maximum Permitted Rate of
$8.41 per month for the basic service tier, which was
agreed to between the City and Gold Coast. The
established rate of $8.41 resulted from the City's
evaluation of FCC Form 1200 and Form 1220 Cost of Service
filings submitted by Gold Coast during the negotiations,
proposing higher Maximum Permitted Rates that were not
accepted by the City and never became effective.
4. On December 12, 1996 Gold Coast filed an FCC Form 1210
showing with the City proposing to increase its basic
service tier rates from $8.41 to $12.95. This Form 1210
showing was predicated on an alleged current baseline
Permitted Charge (Line A2 of Form 1210 which specifies
use of the cable system's current Maximum Permitted Rate)
of $11.0023.
5. On December 27, 1996, pursuant to 47 CFR S76.933, the
City released an Order Tollinq Deadline, staying the
effectiveness of the proposed rate increase until April
11, 1997.
6. On January 28, 1997, the City's communications counsel,
acting on behalf of the City, filed with Gold Coast a
Request for Information to substantiate its December 12,
1997 Form 1210 filing and proposed basic service tier
rate increase.
7. On March 3, 1997, the City received a Response to Request
for Information from Gold Coast regarding its December
2
12, 1997 Form 1210 filing, which contained a revised Form
1210 showing in support of the proposed rate increase.
The revised Form 1210 showing was predicated on different
alleged baseline Permitted Charge of $10.8390. The
Response stated that the revised baseline Permitted
Charge of $10.8390 had been authorized by the city
pursuant to an FCC Form 1220 showing (Part II, Line 4)
filed with the City in February, 1995. In fact, the Form
1220 submitted to the City in February, 1995, contained a
Monthly Charge of $10.25 (Part II, Line 4). Moreover,
neither amount had ever been accepted by the City as a
valid Maximum Permitted Rate or ever took effect. In
addition, the Form 1220 attached to the Response was in
fact never filed with the City, but rather, was a copy of
a form which apparently had been filed with the Town of
Golden Beach, Florida on August 11, 1994.
8. After carefully reviewing all pertinent information
regarding Gold Coast's revised March 3, 1997 rate
increase proposal, on April 11, 1997, the City released
an Order Denvinq Rates. In the Order Denvinq Rates, the
City concluded that Gold Coast's proposed BST rate
increase was improper based on the usage of the wrong
Permitted Charge (Line A2) of $10.8390 as its baseline
rate. In denying the March 3, 1997 rate increase
proposal, the City also prescribed that Gold Coast must
use a Permitted Charge (Line A2) of $8.41 as its baseline
3
rate on any revised Form 1210 and new BST rate increase
proposal it files with the city.
9. On April 25, 1997, Gold Coast filed an Interlocutorv
Appeal and Request For Emerqencv Relief ("Appeal") with
the Federal Communications commission ("FCC") which
challenged the City's review of Gold Coast's March 3,
1997 rate increase proposal and the corresponding Order
Denvinq Rates. In the Appeal, Gold Coast alleged that
the City failed to follow FCC procedures in its review
and denial of the BST rate increase, and that the City
should have prescribed a reasonable rate rather than just
deny the request.
10. The City responded to Gold Coast's Appeal on May 1, 1997
in a Response to Interlocutorv Appeal and Request for
Emerqencv Relief ("Response") filed with the FCC,
contending that the City's Order was correct. The City
also asserted in the Response that if Gold Coast refiled
its Form 1210 using the correct prescribed Permitted
Charge of $8.41, the City would attempt to expedite its
review of the filing.
11. In answer to the City's Response, on May 6, 1997, Gold
Coast filed a revised Form 1210 utilizing the Permitted
Charge (Line A2)of $8.41 as prescribed by the City and
4
proposing a BST rate increase to a new Maximum Permitted
Rate of $10.25.
12. On May 8, 1997, Gold Coast filed a ReplY to Response to
Interlocutory Appeal and Request for Emerqency Relief
("Reply") with the FCC which labeled the city's review of
its BST rate increase as "draconian" in nature, yet
accepted the City's initial prescription of the $8.41
Permitted Charge. In addition, Gold Coast declared in
the Reply that it would not further contest the City's
Order Denyinq Rates at the FCC.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
13. WHEREAS, based on the City's evaluation of the above-
cited filings, the City has determined that Gold Coast
has used the correct current Permitted Charge of $8.41 in
the calculation of the proposed BST rate increase and
that no other aspects of the proposed increase now before
the city are subject to dispute.
14. WHEREAS, Gold Coast's action in filing the May 6, 1997
revised Form 1210 and new proposed rate increase concedes
that the correct current Permitted Charge (Line A2) for
purposes of the current rate increase is $8.41, and
recognizes that any future increase will be based on this
same methodology.
5
15. ACCORDINGLY, the City has determined that Gold Coast's
May 6, 1997 proposal to increase its BST up to a Maximum
Permitted Rate of $10.25 is reasonable, and may become
effective upon completion of all required public notice
requirements and other requirements of law.
DONE and ORDERED this
~ay
of June, 1997, at the City of
Miami Beach, Florida.
I }/rJ.!L
'/41'1
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa,
City Manager
Date
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGt-
& FOR EXECUTION
~~ b~~'
6
C~TY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 2(. '2-q 1
TO:
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commissio
DATE: April 16, 199'
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTION RATIF NG AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE O]T j\.
RATE ORDER TO GOLD COAST CABLEVISION
FROM:
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution.
BACKGROUND
On December 27, 1996, the City of Miami Beach approved a Tolling Order for 90 days in order t])
give the Administration an opportunity to verify the proposed rate increase of Gold Coa~t
Cablevision. The analysis of the pertinent accounting data by Lisa Layne of Rachlin, Cohen an, I
Holtz has led her to the conclusion that the proposed rate increase is unreasonable. Therefon, i I
order to protect the City's regulatory ability, and following the advice of the City Attorney and 0 f
outside counsel, I have issued a Rate Order to the Cable franchisee (see attachment).
This Rate Order for Basic Service Tier prevents Gold Coast Cablevision from increasing its chca-g.~
to $12.95 from current rate of $8.41. Gold Coast may now appeal the Rate Order to the Fed;:n; I
Communications Commission, or Gold Coast may ask us to negotiate the Basic Service Tie r
proposed increase. In either case, no increase will go into effect until the matter is resolved,
ANAL YSIS
It is the opinion of the City's outside Legal Counsel and independent Certified Public Accountant;
that Gold Coast Cablevision has inaccurately filed its application for a rate increase with the ( it) .
Therefore, the City of Miami Beach has issued a Rate Order to protect the City's position wit 1
respect to the proposed rate increase, The City Attorney believes that the City Commission shclull
be asked to ratify the issuance of the Rate Order. If the City of Miami Beach does not act before th ~
end of April 11 , 1997, the $12,95 Basic Service Tier rate takes effect, with no City recourse,
CONCLUSION
The attached Resolution ratifying the issuance and execution of the Rate Order is in the best intere~t
of the City and should be approved.
JGP:RS:pp
f:\cmgr\$all\ronnie\rateordr.416
AGENDA ITEM R '1 J~
.
DATE~1
1