97-22401 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 97-22401
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA, (THE "CITY"), APPROVING THE
ISSUANCE AND EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OF A RATE
ORDER, A COpy OF WHICH IS A TT ACHED HERETO AND
INCORPORATED HEREIN, WHICH DECLARES THE PROPOSED
INCREASE IN CABLE TELEVISION RATE WHICH HAS BEEN
PROPOSED BY RIFKIN NARAGANSETT SOUTH FLORIDA CATV
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REASONABLE AND APPROVES SAID
INCREASE.
WHEREAS, on April 16, 1997, this City Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-2235::,
which ratified and approved a Rate Order that the City Manager executed on April 11, 1997, findir g
a proposed rate increase by Rifkin Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold
Coast Cablevision to be unreasonable; and
WHEREAS, on or about April 25, 1997, Rifkin N aragansett South Florida CATV Lirr ite:i
Partnership filed an appeal of said Rate Order with the Federal Communications Commis sic n
("FCC"); and
WHEREAS, concurrently with said appeal to the FCC, on May 7,1997, the City ofM:ani
Beach, Florida (the "City") received notice from Rifkin Naragansett South Florida CATV Lirrite:i
Partnership of a proposed increase in the basic service tier of cable television service rates; and
WHEREAS, the City engaged outside Legal Counsel and Independent Certified Pu bli .;;
Accountants to review the proposed changes; and
WHEREAS, these cable regulation experts have concluded that basic service tier rate (f
$10.25 per month proposed by Rifkin Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership s
reasonable for a rate increase within the City of Miami Beach.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND ClT'(
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA that:
1. The Rate Order attached hereto is hereby approved and the City Manager is hereby
directed and authorized to execute it and deliver an original thereof to Rifkin
Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership.
2. The title of this 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 4th
day of
,1997
'.....' L.-
ATTES~1Zo ~{\- f~
CITY CLERK
MA YOR APPROVED AS 10
FORM & lANGUJ,',GE
& FOR EXECU'nON
f:\cmgr\$all\ronnie\cabletv.52I
11~~-Iz/!J
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 certif ied 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 ~76.933, 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 Interlocutory
Appeal and Request For Emerqency 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
Denyinq 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, 199,
in a Response to Interlocutory Appeal and Request for
Emerqency 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 21st day of May, 1997, at the City of
Miami Beach, Florida.
Garcia-Pedrosa,
Manager
Dr/de
6
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\I~i.miami-beach. fl. us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. ~ ~ ~ J
TO:
Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission
DATE: May 21, 1997
SUBJECT:
RESOLUTIO PPROVING THE EXECUTION OF A RATE ORDER FOR
A CABLE TE EVISION RATE INCREASE IN BASIC SERVICE
FROM:
Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve the Resolution
BACKGROUND
On April 16, 1997, the City Commission ratified and approved a Rate Order executed on April 1: ,
1997 by the City Manager. Based on outside Legal Counsel and Independent Certified Publi~
Accountant's findings, the rate increase (to $12.95) proposed by our local cable franchisee, Rifkil ,
Naragansett South Florida CATV Limited Partnership, d/b/a Gold Coast Cablevision, was deeme j
unreasonable, and any increase in basic tier service was denied. On April 25, 1997, Gold C :>a: t
Cablevision appealed that Rate Order to the Federal Communications Commission. Recently, th.~
cable company dismissed its appeal and delivered to the City a revised proposed increase in the basi ~
tier of cable television service, which revised rate increase our cable regulation experts l.a" ~
examined and deemed reasonable.
ANAL YSIS
Based on the extensive evaluation done by experts in the area of cable regulation, Gold C :m: t
Cablevision has now properly filed all necessary documentation and is entitled to raise the ral.~
charged in the basic service tier from $8.41 to $10.25 per month.
CONCLUSION
The attached Resolution approves the proposed Rate Order and directs the City Manager to exe ~ul.~
same. The City Commission should approve this Resolution.
JGP~~:rs
f: \cmgr\$all\ronnie\cable.521
Date
ItemL-=~
~_I.:lU
Agenda