HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 02251997 - AJ1-SD6 AJ. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on February 25, 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUBJECT: Adjournment
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisors meeting of
February 25, 1997, is ADJOURNED in Honor of the Memory of Ronald
(Ron) Beagley, Councilman, City of Walnut Creek.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken and
entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 25, 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County Administrator
By a' 4l -_ ,Deputy
Contra Costa County
Board of Supervisors
adjourns its official meeting of
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
in memory of
RONALD BEAGLEY
1�M4rK �—
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
I
AJ.2
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on February 25. 1997 by the following vote:
AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, DeSaulnier
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SUBJECT: Adjournment
IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the Board of Supervisor's Meeting of February
25, 1997, is ADJOURNED to the Board of Supervisor's Tour of West County
Thursday, February 27, 1997, 8:30 a.m.
1 hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of an action taken and
entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: February 25. 1997
PHIL BATCHELOR, Cterk of the Board
of SJf
u)pervisorrs and CCouu)nty Administrator
04
BY�\k�'�ll1S.�S �1,�Xd�.Deputy
P. 1
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTYi CALIFORNIA
DATE: February 25, 1997 MATTER OF RECORD
On this date February 25, 1997, Bart Gilbert, General Services
Director, presented Roy Middleton with a service award for his 25
years of service.
THIS IS A MATTER FOR RECORD PURPOSES ONLY
NO BOARD ACTION TAKEN
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' MEETING
FEBRUARY 25, 1997
SERVICE AWARD PRESENTATION
YEARS OF
NAME DEPARTMENT PRESENTER NICE
ROY MIDDLETON GENERAL SERVICES BART GILBERT 25
DIRECTOR
ERM/BOARD.SA
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
Building Inspection Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor
Martinez CA 94553
RETURN TO:
Building Inspection Department
651 Pine Street, 4th Floor
Martinez CA 94553
FOR BENEFIT OF COUNTY
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Order on 25 February 1997 by the following vote:
Ayes: Supervisors Rogers, Ulikama, Gerber, Canclamiila and Da Sauinier
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
Subject: Acceptance and confirmation ) Agenda item: SD.2
of Statement of E=ns for } Resolution 97/93
abatement of property at: } Contra Costa Co. Code
1320 Battery St., Richmond CA } Div. 712; Sec.712-4.006
Assessor's Parcel: #409-032-023
Owner. Joseph Montgomery Sr.
The Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County Resolves as follows:
That this Board, by Resolution number 96/296 dated the 9th day of July 1996, declared the Montgomery property located at 1320
Battery Street, Richmond, substandard and a public nuisance, and ordered the owners of the property to abate the nuisance by
clearing the property of all structures, junk and debris, and
That within the time stated In the above resolution, the owners did not clear the site as ordered, and pursuant to the California
Administrative Code,Title 25, the County Building Inspector then caused the structures and debris to be cleared after notice to the
owners thereof, and
That the Building Inspector has presented to this Board a Statement of Expense for cost of demolition and clearing the parcel,which
statement was posted at the property and mailed to the owners of record according to law, and
That there was no public comment or objections submitted to this Board at the time for holding this hearing of said Statement of
Expense, to wit, the 25th day of February 1997, this Board hereby accepts and confirms the Statement of Exciei2aq submitted by
the Building Inspection Department In the total amount of SEVEN THOUSAND TEN & SIXTY EIGHT CENTS ($7,010.66) which
amount if not paid within five (5) days after the date of this resolution, shall constitute a lien and/or tax assessment for the said
property upon which structures were demolished and removed, and
That in the event a lien is placed on said property, ft shall continue until the full amount thereof with interest beginning the 25th of
February 1997 at the rate of seven per cent (796) per annum thereon is fully paid, and
That In the event of non-payment within five(5)days after the date of this resolution,the(,4.erk of this Board is hereby directed,within
sbdy(60)days after the date of this resolution,to cause to be filed in the office of the County Recorder,a Notice of Lien substantially
In conformance with the notice requirements in Section 70 (b) of California Administr two Tftie 25.
Orig. Dept: Building Inspection I hWeby Only Met mb b 0 aw W4 aanaff of
en acomt bike am .ohne m hs wMM°q M
Baro Of aup� wn as"w
Wr Maes.
RESOLUTION 97/93 ATM8T "A dS, gJ
M r a ft
erd+va9r
TO: - BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �Y•3
'FROM: PHIL BATCHELOR, County Administrator Contra
TERRENCE STARR, County Probation Officer Costa
DATE: February 25, 1997 County
SUBJECT: JUVENILE CRIME ENFORCEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY CHALLENGE GRANT
PROGRAM (SB 1760)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)8 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
ADOPT Resolution authorizing the County Probation Officer to sign Contra Costa County's
application for State funding as well as related contracts, amendments or extensions with
the State of California
BACKGROUND:
Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program
The Juvenile Crime Enforcement and Accountability Challenge Grant Program was
established with the recent passage of SB 1760 which provides $50 million in State funds
which may be leveraged against local funds (25% match) to finance programs intended
to reduce the rate of juvenile crime in California. The State Board of Corrections was
designated as the administering agency for the grant and the grant requires that counties
establish a special council to coordinate the local grant program effort.
The grant program was divided into two phases: planning ($2 million) and implementation
(over $45 million). Planning grants are available to assist counties in developing Local
Action Plans consisting of strategies for reducing juvenile crime and delinquency. Contra
Costa County has a Local Action Plan in place in the form of the Continuum of Care model,
developed over the last several years through the efforts of the Juvenile Systems Planning
Advisory Committee (JSPAC), County officials and concerned citizens. The Continuum
of Care model includes a comprehensive system of graduated sanctions and treatment
interventions that place youth in the least restrictive appropriate intervention, while
providing sufficient supervision to protect public safety.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:✓YES SIGNATURE:
---------------------------------..___RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRAT RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD
COMMITTEE
`APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S).
---_---------__.________---_
-__-____________r______.--ACTION OF BOARD ON February 25, 1947 APPROVE AS
RECOMMENDED X OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
X UNANIMOUS(ABSENT -' ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE
AYES. NOES: SHOWN,
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ,ATTESTED February 25 1497
RIAAXWI1
CONTACT:TERRENCE STARR(510)313-4180 PHIL BA H CLERK OF THE RD
CC: COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OF SU ER S AND COLIN
PROBATION DEPARTMENT D IS R
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
WPM/ C tine Wampler, Deputy ler
BACKGROUND (continued-
--Contra Costa County successfully obtained $48,287 from the planning phase of the grant.
With the Local Action Plan formulated, Contra Costa County is using planning grant funds
to identify and prioritize unfunded Continuum programs that would have the greatest
impact on reducing juvenile crime and delinquency and develop implementation plans for
high priority programs. Some such programs may include Probation Officers on school
campuses, intensive supervision, ranch expansion, and a multi-jurisdictional girls'
residential program. Implementation Grant applications are due on March 14, 1996 and
grant awards will be made in late May of 1997.
The Probation Department plans to apply for up to $1 million per year for three years from
the implementation phase of the grant to fully implement the Probation Schools
Partnership Program currently being operated as a pilot program.
Probation/Schools Partnership Pilot Program
One Continuum program already identified by the Juvenile Court and the Probation
Department as a high priority is the assignment of Probation Officers on school campuses
to supervise and intervene in selected cases, in collaboration with schools and local law
enforcement_ The Probation Department began a pilot program in January 1997 placing
Probation Officers on school campuses in each major area of the County: East at Pittsburg
High School and Riverside Continuation School, West at Pinole Middle School and
Central at Mt. Diablo and Olympic High Schools. These officers spend the majority of their
time on the school campus working with limited caseloads to allow for intensive
supervision of the at-risk youths. Approximately half of their caseloads involve wards of
the Court. Additionally, they work with local law enforcement, school administration and
with the parents of at-risk youngsters who are on informal probation with the goal of
keeping the youngsters in school and out of the juvenile justice system. The officers also
serve as members of the SARB (School Attendance Review Boards) as well as IEP
(Individual Education Plan) boards. Finally, these officers play an active role in reducing
truancy at the schools.
THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Adopted this Resolution on February 25, 1997, by the following vote:
AYES: SUPERVISORS ROGERS, UILKEMA, GERBER, CANCIAMILLA and DeSAULNIER
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
Resolution No. 971103
In the Matter of Application )
for a Juvenile Crime Enforcement }
& Accountability Challenge Grant )
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Contra Costa hereby:
Reaffirms the appointment of Chief Probation Officer Terrence Starr as the Chair of the Contra
Costa County Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council as authorized in Board Resolution No. 96/500; and
Authorizes said Chief Probation Officer, or the chairperson of the Board of Supervisors, to submit
and/or sign Contra Costa County's application for State funding as well as related contracts,
amendments, or extensions with the State of California; and
Identifies and reaffirms the following individuals as members of the Contra Costa County Juvenile
Justice Coordinating Council:
INDIVIDUAL AGENCY
Terrence Starr (as Chair) County Probation Department
Gary Yancey District Attorney's Office
Charles James Public Defender's Office
Robert Henderson (Undersheriff) Sheriff's Department
Mark DeSaulnier Board of Supervisors
John Cullen Social Services Department
Ruth Ormsby Mental Health Department
Shirley Marchetti (REACH Project) Community Based Drug and
Alcohol Program
Chief William Lansdowne Richmond Police Department
Ellen Elster(Asst. Supt.) County Office of Education
Chris Adams At-Large Community Representative; and
Assures that the County of Contra Costa intends to enter into an agreement with the State,
relative to the expenditure of funds and program implementation and evaluation should a grant
award be forthcoming by not later than June 30, 1997;
Assures that the County of Contra Costa will adhere to the requirements of the Board of
Corrections and all conditions specified in the grant contract with the State of California in the
expenditure of State funds received pursuant to said application;
Assures that Contra Costa County will participate in the collection of research data and
participate in program evaluation activities associated with the grant award; and
Certifies that the County of Contra Costa will invoice the Board of Corrections for all costs
approved in the grant on a quarterly basis beginning October 1, 1997 and not later than October 15,
2000.
Contact:Terry Starr,County Probation Officer.(510)313-4180 1 hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken
cc:County Probation Officer and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date
County Administrator shown: ,
County Auditor-Controller
Human Resources Department ATTESTED: Fe 2 ,1997
P B CHE Clerk of e B of i rs and
C d
By ,
CG/resol.61
RESOLUTION NO. 97!I_
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
�d
FROM: a :•
Alfred P. Lomeli, Treasurer-Tax Collector a ,. '' Costa
g Count!
DATE: February 25, 1997 ` -
°ra
SUBJECT: QUALIFICATIONS OF THE TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR
SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
INTRODUCE Ordinance regarding the qualifications of the Treasurer-Tax Collector as
set forth in Government Code Section 27000.7, 27000.8, and 27000.9, waive reading,
and FIX March 4, 1997, for adoption.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION:
Government Code Sections 27000.7, 27000.8, and 27000.9, lists the qualifications
required before a person can be eligible for election or appointment to the office of the
County Treasurer-Tax Collector.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
—_APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER -�
1
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN,
ATTESTED 9z
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,C K OF THE$ AO RD OF
Cc: Treasurer-Tax Collector SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
GAO
County Counsel
County Clerk-Elections BY c t e f � a �pa DEPUTY
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
(Quali$cations of Treasurer-Tax Collector)
The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors ordains as follows (omitting the parenthetical
footnotes from the official text of the enacted or amended provisions of the County Ordinance
Code):
SECTION 1: Section 24-10.006 is added to the County Ordinance Code to make the provisions of
Government Code sections 27000.7, 27000.8, and 27000.9 applicable to the county treasurer-tax
collector to read:
24-10.006. No person shall hereafter be elected or appointed to the offices of
county treasurer-tax collector, county treasurer, or county tax collector unless that
person meets the qualifications set forth in and complies with sections 27000.7,
27000.8, and 27000.9, of the California Government Code. (Ord. 97- § 1.)
SECTION II: EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance becomes effective 30 days after passage, and
within 15 days of passage shall be published once with the names of the supervisors voting for and
against it in the a newspaper published in this County.
PASSED ON by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of
the Board and County Administrator
By
Board Chair
(SEAL]
EVL:e
(December 16, 1996)
ORDINANCE NO. 97-
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
r .
FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator /J Costa
5
A,� . .... a
DATE: January 31 , 1997 .:_
County
cuunn
SUBJECT: REFUND OF APPLICABLE PORTION OF EQUIPMENT AND
INSTALLATION RATES BY TCI
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION:
At the conclusion of the hearing, ISSUE a written decision ordering TCI Cablevision
of Contra Costa County to refund to subscribers the portion of previously paid
equipment and installation rates in excess of rates permitted by the FCC for the
period June 1996 through the implementation of the rate reduction and roll the
equipment and installation rates back to those permitted in Exhibit B attached to the
"Written Decision."
REQUIRE TCI to submit a refund summary to the Cable TV Administrator in sixty
(60) days and to refund the overcharges to subscribers in the form of a one-time
rebate within one hundred and twenty (120) days.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
As a result of refunds made, license fees paid for the period when refunds are
disbursed will be less. License fees are paid on gross receipts from all sources
attributable to the operation of the cable system.
BACKGROUND:
In December 1992, the United States Congress passed the Cable Television
Consumer Protection Competition Act of 1992 (Cable Act) which authorized local
jurisdictions to regulate Cable Television rates of the Basic Tier and associatpd
equipment.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE —OTHER
SIGNATUREIS e X�Z ,��il� .�
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 25, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X_ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
XUNANIMOUS(ABSENT --- ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED February 25, 1997
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
BY ,DEPUTY
np5
As authorized by the Cable Act, Contra Costa County applied for and was granted
certification to regulate basic cable service rates and related equipment October
27,1993.
An amendment was adopted to the County's Cable Television Ordinance on April 26,
1994 to include provision for enforcement of federal rate regulations for basic service
and related equipment.
Following the adoption of this amendment, cable operators were notified that the
County was certified to regulate basic service and related equipment charges and
had adopted the appropriate regulations to do so. Cable operators were asked to
submit required FCC Forms.
In March 1996, TCI Cablevision of Contra Costa County (TCI) submitted FCC Form
1205 to increase the rates for equipment and installations for the unincorporated
area in the Martinez system.
The Cable TV Administrator together with the Cable staff from the Cities of Danville
and Pleasant Hill contracted with Michael Katz of KFA Services to review the Form.
Mr. Katz requested and received additional documentation from TCI and presented
staff with reasons why TCI did not fully comply with the FCC rules, procedures and
concepts as attached in Exhibit A and a revised FCC Form 1205, Exhibit B, with
new maximum permitted rates for equipment and installations.
These reasons for TCI's noncompliance are similar to those for Seattle, WA;
Portland, OR and other cities. These cities have approved rate orders requiring TCI
to reduce its rates based on these reasons and TCI has appealed to the FCC
defending its position. No final decisions have been made in Seattle or Portland.
Decisions have been issued by the FCC supporting a few other municipalities with
respect to some of the issues. TCI could appeal the County's rate decision. In
which case, we could cite the above cities' replies to the FCC and await the FCC's
decision on these items.
Staff recommends the issuance of the attached "Written Decision" which
disapproves of TCI's initial rate for equipment and installations on FCC Form 1205,
approves of Exhibit B with revised maximum permitted rates, and requires a roll
back of rates to the maximum permitted.
TCI Cablevision of Contra Costa County has been notified of the proposed decision
and following the issuance of the "Written Decision,"the text of such decision will be
made available to the public.
-2-
WRITTEN DECISION ORDERING REFUNDS TO SUBSCRIBERS
TCI Cablevision of Contra Costa County (TCI) having submitted FCC Form
1205 to the County on March 3, 1996 covering rates charged for equipment and
installations in unincorporated areas of the Martinez system; and
The above-named licensee having subsequently submitted to the County
additional records supporting the figures stated in that Form, as requested; and
The Cable TV Administrator, with assistance from Michael Katz of KFA
Services, having evaluated the Form and all supporting records submitted by TCI
and having prepared a report to the Board; and
The Cable TV Administrator having determined that TCI Cablevision of Contra
Costa County has charged more than the maximum permitted rates for the
equipment and installations for TCI Cablevision's cable system in unincorporated
Contra Costa County
and having found that TCI did not fully comply with FCC rules, procedures and
concepts as follows:
1) TCI has improperly included certain alleged "direct overhead" costs in
the capital costs of converters.
2) TCI has improperly included certain insurance costs in the calculation
of the hourly service charge applicable to installations and equipment
repair;
3) TCI has improperly included the costs of security devices (traps) in the
cost of converters;
4) TCI has improperly included "amortization of unfunded deferred taxes"
as though it were an allowable asset depreciation expense; and
5) TCI has failed to identify and justify the rate for TCI's inside wiring
maintenance program as a regulated rate.
These issues are more fully discussed in Exhibit A.
The Cable TV Administrator having notified TCI of the apparent overcharges
and having afforded TCI an opportunity to comment; and
The Cable TV Administrator recommending that the Board issue a written
decision, pursuant to 47 CFR Section 76.936 and Section 58-10.018 (5) of County
Ordinance No. 82-28, ordering TCI to refund the rates over maximum permitted in
the revised Form 1205(Exhibit B) to subscribers in unincorporated Contra Costa
County and roll back their rates to the maximum permitted; and
The Board having considered the recommendation of the Cable TV
Administrator, all materials submitted by TCI and any comments offered by TCI or
the public;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Board DECIDES, ORDERS and DETERMINES as
follows:
The Board DETERMINES that TCI Cablevision of Contra Costa County has
been given notice and opportunity to comment; and
The Board FURTHER DETERMINES that TCI, to the extent the equipment
and installation rates charged by TCI during the period from June 1, 1996 through
implementation of the rate reduction ordered herein exceed the maximum permitted
rates for equipment and installations in Exhibit B, such rates exceed the maximum
permitted by law; and
gD'�
Pursuant to 47 CFR Section 76.940 and Section 58-10.018 (5) of County
Ordinance No. 82-28, the Board DECIDES AND ORDERS that TCI Cablevision of
Contra Costa County reduce their equipment and installation rates where necessary
to bring them into compliance with the FCC maximum permitted rates; and
Pursuant to 47 CFR Section 76.942 and Section 10.019(e) of County
Ordinance No. 94-44, The Board DECIDES AND ORDERS that TCI Cablevision of
Contra Costa County refund to subscribers within unincorporated Contra Costa
County all excess charges (i.e., amounts received from subscribers that exceed the
maximum permitted rates) during the period from June 1, 1996 through
implementation of the rate reduction; and
As required by 47 CFR Section 76.942(e), the Board FURTHER DECIDES
AND ORDERS that the refund shall include interest computed at applicable rates
published by the Internal Revenue Service for tax refunds and additional tax
payments; and
The Board FURTHER DECIDES and ORDERS that TCI reduce the rates
within 120 days, if new rates have not been filed and are not in effect by June 1,
1997, and make refunds within 120 days of the date of this decision; and
The Board FURTHER DECIDES and ORDERS that TCI Cablevision of Contra
Costa County deliver to the Cable TV Administrator within sixty (60) days of the date
of this decision detailed refund calculations providing a monthly breakdown of the
overcharges received during the above-described period; and
To the extent that TCI's actual rates exceed the maximum permitted rates in
Exhibit B, the Board DISAPPROVES and REJECTS the actual rates; and
As required by 47 CFR Section 76.936 (b), the Board FURTHER DECIDES
and ORDERS that public notice be given of this decision by posting the attached
notice in the County Administration Building and that the text of this decision be
released upon request to any interested member of the public.
Dated: February 25, 1997
ATTEST: PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNT' OF
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY CONTRA COSTA
ADMINISTRATOR
BY; BY: �M1�t12(C
DEPUTY CLJRKj BOARD CHAIR
Page 2
Exhibit "A"
Background on the ways that TCI did not fully comply with FCC rules, procedures and
concepts:
1. Improper Inclusion of Certain "Direct Overhead" Costs in the Capital Costs of
Converters
Schedule C of Form 1205 is used to calculate the annual capital cost of equipment
leased to subscribers, including converters and remotes. For each different type of
equipment, the operator identifies the gross book value as of the end of the year, the
accumulated depreciation, deferred taxes, and the current annual depreciation expense. The
annual capital cost consists of the current provision for depreciation plus the allowed return
on investment percentage applied to the gross book value minus accumulated depreciaton
and deferred taxes.
For its 1996 Form 1205, TCI has added exactly $20 per converter unit in service to
the gross book values of each type of converter, with corresponding amounts added to
accumulated depreciation, deferred taxes, and annual depreciation as though the $20 had
been spent on acquiring a converter during 1996. TCI identifies this procedure as a new
"regulatory accounting policy" which it did not propose or follow in its prior filings.
In its Form 1205 documentation, TCI simply refers to this amount as "certain direct
overhead". In reponse to our inquiries, TCI has indicated that, in concept, four categories
of costs were included:
• material costs (cable jumpers, fittings, etc.) associated with the installation of
converters ($3),
• labor costs (connecting cable jumpers, customer education, etc.) Asociated with the
installation of converters at the time of initial connection or subsequently ($7),
• labor costs incurred to retrieve a converter as part of disconnecting a subscriber
from service ($7), and
• "operating costs" incurred to manage the converter unit population, such as labor
involved in acquiring or disposing of converters ($3).
The dollar amounts included are represented as estimates made at TCI's
headquarters in discussions with TCI engineering personnel and the same $20 is apparently
being used in TCI's systems nationwide, including all TCI systems with which we are
involved.
1
We believe that inclusion of these costs as capital costs of equipment is improper for
a number of reasons including:
the costs are not consistent with the FCC's definition of "annual purchase
costs"
In 47 CFR § 76923, the FCC defined the costs that should be included in
equipment lease rates. These costs include a capital cost component, or "annual purchase
cost" in FCC terminology, and a repair and service operating cost component based on an
hourly service charge (HSC) § 76.923 (f) states:
Monthly charges for rental of a remote control unit shall consist of the average
annual unit purchase cost of the type of remote leased, including acquisition price
and incidental costs such as sales tax,financing and storage up to the time it is
provided to the customer, ... (emphasis added; note that, while this refers to remote
control units, the regulations go on to state that converter rates are to be calculated
in the same manner as remotes)
The regulations clearly distinguish this type of capital cost, which is to be recovered
over the multiyear life of a remote or converter, from operating costs associated with
equipment installation, repair, or service which are recovered through the HSC applied to
time spent on such activities.
We believe that the installation, disconnect, and converter population management
costs which TCI claims are incorporated in its $20 per unit capital cost are not equipment
purchase costs, i.e., they are something other than payments to the converter manufacturers
or payments incidental to the purchase such as sales tax or shipping charges. In short,
inclusion of the $20 amount does not comply with a plain reading of the FCC rules.
the costs are not capitalized as part of the cost of a converter under generally
accepted accounting principles
In fact, we believe the FCC simply intended to incorporate into the purchase cost of
converters those costs which would normally be capitalized as converter assets in the cable
operator's books and records under generally accepted accounting principles. Specifically,
on page 3 of the FCC instructions for Form 1205, the FCC states:
You should complete this Form using financial data from the company's general
ledger and subsidiary records maintained in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles.
2
In an appeal decision (Crown Media appeal re State of Connecticut rate order,
issued April 5, 1995), the FCC re-emphasized this point with specific reference to
converter capital costs and did not allow substitution of alternative converter purchase costs
which had not been recorded on the cable operator's books in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.
In this case, the "direct overhead" costs referenced by TCI are not, were not in
1994, and have never been, capitalized as part of converter assets in TCI's general ledgers
or financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles. Nor do we believe they should be. TCI's special "regulatory accounting
policy" is not consistent with generally accepted accounting principles nor with FCC rate
regulation rules.
material and labor costs associated with installation of equipment are already
incorporated in installation charges
Schedule B of Form 1205 is intended to include, among other costs, all direct and
indirect operating expenses, including labor and materials, related to equipment installation,
repair, and service. These costs are to be appropriately allocated and converted into the
hourly service charge and then recovered through installation charges or, in the case of
equipment repair and service, the equipment rental rate.
TO has previously represented, and the supporting data provided to us previously
and for this current Form 1205 seem to confirm, that TCI has included all of the
appropriate installation labor and material costs in its HSC and installation charge
calculations. Thus, the installation costs which, supposedly, represent half of the $20
amount TCI is now trying to include in capital costs, are already included in its installation
charges. In concept, this is a clear case of double charging and should not be allowed.
Indeed, since the $20 per unit is being applied to all units currently in service, it
may well be that TCI is claiming costs incurred and already recovered through installation
or other charges in previous years when most of these units were actually installed. As a
practical matter, it is impossible for us to determine what the $20 actually incorporates
since TCI provided no cost records or calculations to support a $20 amount.
labor or other operating costs associated with disconnects or converter
"management" are already incorporated in programming service rates
For operators, such as TCI, that have elected to use the benchmark method of
setting programming service rates, the FCC rate setting approach assumes that 1) an initial
overall benchmark rate (total regulated revenue per subscriber) is a fair "competitive" price
which would allow recovery of all necessary operating and capital costs plus a reasonable
profit, and 2) from the overall benchmark rate, certain installation and equipment costs
3
would be deducted and recovered through installation and equipment rental rates. Thus, the
remaining basic and expanded basic rates derived through the Form 1200/1205 process are
assumed to incorporate recovery of all types of costs not specifically "unbundled" and
incorporated into the installation and equipment rates.
Historically, operators, including TCI, have not attempted to charge subscribers for
disconnecting service since such a charge would be very unpopular and very difficult to
collect in many cases. The FCC clearly recognized this and did not attempt to create an.
"uninstall" or disconnect charge. Nor were such costs included in the definition of the
equipment basket which is the basis for installation and equipment rates and which was
unbundled from programming service rates. Indeed, TCI and other operators have
explicitly excluded the time spent on disconnects by their staff and by contractors when
allocating operating costs to the equipment basket.
In other words, disconnect costs are recovered through the basic and expanded basic
service rates. Thus, TCI is again, in concept, attempting to double charge subscribers for
this operating cost when it now adds such costs to converter purchase costs.
Treatment of the administrative costs of "managing the converter population", in
TCI terminology, is slightly less clear than disconnect costs. The FCC rules in § 76.923
(c) explicitly state that "The Equipment Basket shall not include general administrative
overhead..." (emphasis added) One might argue that these costs are less "general" and
more specific to equipment than some other general administrative costs, i.e., includable, in
concept, in the equipment basket. TCI, however, did not include these types of costs in the
equipment basket during the Form 1200/1205 process and, thus, has never unbundled these
types of costs from its programming service rates. Thus, in TCI's case, adding such costs
to converter purchase costs now is clearly an attempt to double charge subscribers.
the dollar amounts included are not based on the books and records of the Iocal
system
FCC instructions for Form 1205 require the use of cost and statistical data from the
books and records of the company level at which such data is maintained. In general, TCI
has used equipment and installation cost data from its local system books except for the
installation, disconnect, and administrative costs included in this new $20 "direct
overhead".
While the FCC allows estimates to be used in certain instances, the reasonableness
of such estimates must be fully justified. Even apart from all of the conceptual difficulties
discussed above, we do not believe that TCI has come close to meeting its burden of proof
that the dollar amount which it has capitalized for installation, disconnect, and
administrative costs is an accurate representation of its actual local system costs for these
items.
4
In summary, we believe that any one of the above problems with TCI's inclusion of
the $20 per converter charge would he fatal and, thus, the costs should be removed from
Schedule C and the converter rental rates.
Alternatively, if the County or the FCC were to decide that the $20 per converter
charge represents a proper type of converter purchase cost, includable in converter rental
rates, which had somehow been overlooked or misrepresented by TCI in prior rate
regulation filings, we believe it would be reasonable and consistent with the fundamental
FCC rate regulatory framework to require a corresponding going forward reduction in
TCI's basic service rate. Without such an adjustment, the mandatory unbundling of
equipment rates from programming service rates will not have occurred and TO will
clearly be overcharging its subscribers.
2. Improper Inclusion of Certain Insurance Costs
Form 1205 is used to assemble what the FCC refers to as the "equipment basket"
costs that are the basis for installation and customer premises equipment rates.
Specifically, Schedule B of Form 1205 is used to determined the annual operating
expenses for installation and equipment maintenance. For its 1996 Form 1205, the
current filing, TCI has added a category of costs, which it labels "self-insurance".
In response to our questions, TCI has clarified that this category actually
includes all of TCI's liability, property, auto, and workmen's compensation insurance,
both premiums paid, related fees incurred, and losses paid directly by the company. The
costs were accumulated on a national basis and then allocated to each local system for
purposes of Form 1205 filings based on the number of subscribers in the system.
We believe TCI's inclusion of these costs in the equipment basket at this time is not
appropriate since:
these costs, particularly liability insurance costs, are normally treated as
general administrative costs not includable in the equipment basket
When establishing its rate regulation framework, the FCC decided that, to reduce
complexity and potential cost determination and allocation difficulties, equipment basket
costs would not include all costs that might in some way be related to equipment and
installations. Rather, 47CFR § 76.923 (c) states:
...Equipment Basket costs shall be limited to the direct and indirect material and
labor costs of providing, leasing, installing, repairing, and servicing customer
equipment ... The Equipment Basket shall not include general administrative
overhead including general marketing expenses ... (emphasis added)
5
The rationale for this rule was discussed by the FCC in FCC 93-177, Report and
Ordered, released May 3, 1993 at 1295, footnote 714:
Excluding general system overhead will simplify the cost showing for the
Equipment Basket because a cable operator will not have to calculate these costs,
unless the operator chooses to make a cost-of-service showing. In addition, this
exclusion will reduce the burden for local franchising authorities because they
will not be required to review and evaluate the methodology for determining
general system overheads. We believe that this decision is consistent with
Congress'intent to keep rates for equipment and installation low.
We believe that these general insurance expenses, particularly general liability
insurance costs, are general administrative overhead that was not intended to be included
in the equipment basket.
Indeed, in its own accounting system, TCI treats these insurance expenses as
general administrative costs and, apparently, does not normally even separately identify
or allocate them to individual systems.
even if these costs were includable in concept, TCI has improperly allocated
the entire amount to the technical services department
Clearly, TCI has liability and other insurance exposure for property, facilities,
other assets, and employees not related to its technical services departments(which
includes installers, technicians, plant and equipment maintenance and repair staff) For
example, a customer service office could incur liability costs for a subscriber injured
during a visit or an accounting staff person could receive workman's compensation due
to a workplace environmental problem.
Indeed, some portions of this national insurance pool may be related to property,
assets, or staff that are not part of local cable systems, e.g., regional or corporate
headquarters.
TCI, however, has attributed the entire insurance amount to local technical
services departments. Its asserts, without any supporting evidence, that almost all of the
expenses is related to technical departments, but plainly some portion, which TCI has
not analyzed or quantified, should be allocated to other aspects of TCI's operations and
assets.
even if these costs were includable in concept and properly allocated, TCI has
never unbundled these costs from programming services rates, i.e.,
allowance of these costs would constitute double charging of subscribers
6
For operators, such as TCI, that have elected to use the benchmark method of
setting programming services rates, the FCC rate setting approach assumes that 1) an
initial overall benchmark rate (total regulated revenue per subscriber) was a fair
"competitive" price which would allow recovery of all necessary operating and capital
costs plus a reasonable profit, and 2) from the overall benchmark rate, certain
installation and equipment costs would be deducted and recovered through installation
and equipment rental rates. Thus, the remaining basic and expanded basic rates derived
through the initial Form 1200-1205 process and updated through the Form 1210 and,
now, Form 1240 process are assumed to incorporate recovery of all types of costs not
specifically "unbundled" and incorporated into the installation and equipment rates.
Even though TO was certainly incurring insurance expenses, i.e. premium
payments or self-insured losses, at the time of initial rate regulation in the fall of 1993
and at the time of the Form 1200/1205 filings in the summer of 1994, TO did not
incorporate these types of expenses into the equipment basket and its installation and
equipment rates. Thus, they were never unbundled from programming service rates. To
allow TCI to include them in installation and equipment rates now, without a
corresponding downward adjustment of programming service rates, would be
fundamentally inequitable and would effectively be double charging subscribers for the
same costs.
3. Improper Inclusion of the Costs of Security Devices
Schedule C of Form 1205 is used to calculate the annual capital cost of equipment
leased to subscribers, including converters and remotes. For each different type of
equipment, the operator identifies the gross book value as of the year, the accumulated
depreciation, deferred taxes, and the current annual depreciation expense. The annual
capital cost consists of the current provision for depreciation plus the allowed return on
investment percentage applied to the gross book value minus accumulated depreciation
and deferred taxes.
For its 1996 Form 1205, TCI has added the costs of its security devices to the
costs of its converters' as though the security devices were simply components of the
converters. These devices, commonly called traps, are filters of various types that either
allow a subscriber to receive certain channels or block certain channels from the
subscriber. Subscribers may have traps installed whether or not they are renting a
converter and may have converters installed with or without any traps required. In
short, traps are separate pieces of equipment with no one-to-one correspondence with
converters.
I The total costs of security devices were simply allocated between addressable converters and standard converters
based on the number of each type of converter in service.
7
TCI has used traps for many years, but did not identify such equipment as
customer premises equipment forms.
We believe ICI's inclusion of these costs in the equipment basket at this time is
not appropriate since:
it is not clear that all traps are customer premises equipment as defined by
the FCC
The FCC defined customer equipment that is regulated by local franchising
authorities in 47 CFR § 76.923 (a):
The equipment regulated under this section consists of all equipment in a
subscriber's home that is used to receive the basic service tier, regardless of
whether such equipment is additionally used to receive other tiers of regulated
programming service and/or unregulated service. (emphasis added)
The FCC has also clarified that a subscriber's premises begins at a point twelve
inches outside of where the cable wire enters the outside wall' so that, for example,
drops, although located at the subscriber's home site, are not considered customer
premises equipment.
While some traps are located inside a subscriber's home, other traps may be
located at the utility pole and, thus, would not be customer premise's equipment. Also,
some traps may be obtained and used solely to receive pay per view or specific premium
services, i.e., it is not clear they play any role at all in receiving basic service.
even if traps are treated as customer premises equipment, they are plainly
not addressable or standard converter boxes, and under the rules in effect for
this filing, would have to be treated as a separate type of equipment
Under the current applicable FCC rules, equipment offerings and rates must not
only be unbundled from programming service rates, but different types of equipment
must be separately offered with separate rates:
§ 76.923 (b)A cable operator shall establish rates for remote control units,
converter boxes, other customer equipment, installation, and additional
connections separate from rates for basic tier service. In addition, the rates for
such equipment and installations shall be unbundled one from the other.
(emphasis added)
'see,for example, FCC 93-177, Report and order, released May 3, 1993, 1282,f000tnote 666.
8
§ 76.923 (g) ... Separate charges shall be established for each significantly different
type of converter box and each significantly different type of other customer
equipment. (emphasis added)
Traps are neither standard converter boxes nor addressable converter boxes.
Indeed, if traps were leased, the group of subscribers who would have to lease the units
would not necessarily be the same group of subscribers who lease either standard or
addressable converters. Thus, it seems clear that even if traps were a legitimate type of
customer premises equipment to be included in the present Form 1205 filing, TCI would
have to determine the number of traps in service, calculate a separate rate for such traps,
and charge such rate only to those subscribers who use such traps.
The FCC is developing a new set of rules, in accordance with the recently
enacted Telecommunications Act of 1996, for future Form 1205 filings that may allow
broader groupings of equipment types. However, even traps were allowed to be
averaged together with converter boxes to create a single blended rate, TCI would have
to add the number of traps in service to the number of converter boxes in service in
order to calculate a rate; in general terms, the rate equals total allowable costs divided by
the number of units in service. This is in contrast to TCI's treatment of traps in this
Form 1205 filing in which the costs of traps were added to the costs of converters, but
the number of traps in service was not added to the number of converters in service.
This leads to a higher - probably substantially higher - average rate than would otherwise
be the case.3
even if costs of trap were includable in concept, TCI has never unbundled
these costs from programming service rates, i.e., allowance of these costs
would constitute double charging of subscribers
Just as with the insurance costs discussed earlier, costs of traps is again a type of
cost that TCI has incurred for many years, but did not incorporate in earlier filings.
Traps were neither viewed as separate customer premises equipment nor as components
of converters. Thus the costs for traps were never unbundled from programming service
rates and are implicitly included in such rates in the same way that the costs of system
distribution plant or system equipment is implicitly included. To allow TCI to include
them in installation and equipment rates now, without a corresponding downward
adjustment of programming service rates, would again be fundamentally inequitable and
would effectively be double charging subscribers for the same costs.
a Note, however, that some subscribers might have to pay for multiple "converters" if both a converter and one or
more traps was in use at the home.
9
4. Improper Inclusion of "Amortization of Unfunded Deferred Taxes"
One of the allowable capital cots of assets used by installers, or equipment assets
leased to subscribers, is the annual depreciation expense. This is simply the original
acquisition cost of the assets allocated over the number of years that the particular asset
is expected to be in use. In concept, the sum of the annual depreciation expense for all
of the years of service of the asset equals the original acquisition cost, i.e., the cable
operator recovers the fail acquisition cost over time.
In this Form 1205 filing, TCT has added a new dollar amount to the depreciation
expense for each asset category which it calls "amortization of unfunded deferred taxes"
(AUDT). Although it is unclear from the information provided by TCI exactly how the
amounts were determined, it appears that the concept was to take deferred tax balances,
as of the period for which TCI's Form 393 was filed several years ago, computed for the
assets in use at that time, and amortize those amounts over the remaining estimated
useful lives of those assets. Deferred tax balances are computed income tax amounts
that reflect differences between depreciation lives or methods TCI uses for financial
statement/Form 1205 purposes and the depreciation lives or methods TCI uses for
income tax reporting. Typically companies "write off' their assets more quickly for tax
purposes and, thus, effectively defer income tax payments to future years that might
otherwise be due currently.
We believe inclusion of this AUDT as asset depreciation expense at this time is
not appropriate since:
there is no basis in the FCC rules or instructions for including these amounts
as asset depreciation expenses
As indicated above, and as intended by the FCC Form 1205 instructions, the
current provisions for depreciation that are captures on Schedules A and C of the Form
1205, are simply intended to allow a cable operator to recover the original acquisition
cost of each category of assets over time. Both the original costs and the depreciation
expenses are supposed to be consistent with the financial books of the operator. Taxes,
and any different tax depreciation amounts, have absolutely nothing to do with the
depreciation amounts to be included in the equipment basket.
Indeed if AUDT were to be included in the depreciation expense, the operator
will recover more than the original acquisition costs of the assets over time. The FCC
certainly did not intend such a result.
inclusion of AUDT seems to be based on inappropriate concepts such as
a) TCI's equipment rates prior to rate regulation were not high enough to
recover all costs and a reasonable return on investment, and b) deferred tax
balances represent expenditures of funds to be recovered through equipment
and installation rates
10
TCI, in its response to our requests for clarification, seems to be suggesting that
the deferred tax balances that existed at the time of initial regulation somehow offset a
portion of the original acquisition costs, or, perhaps, a portion of pre-tax profit, that
should have been recovered through rates in previous years, but somehow was not
recovered. However, there does not seem to be any substance to TCI's rationale, since
1) there is no evidence that equipment rates prior to regulation were in any way
calculated or determined by reference to actual equipment costs, 2) TCI's equipment and
installation rates were typically much higher prior to regulation, suggesting that TCI was
recovering far more than its acutal equipment costs and a reasonable return on
investment, not less, and 3) in any event, TCI had complete freedom to set its rate as it
wished prior to regulation, so, if there were some kind of undercharging or under
recovery of costs, it was TCI's own responsibility and should not become a burden for
today's subscribers.
Secondly, the only roles that deferred tax balances play in the Form 1245 is as a
mechanism which the FCC uses to reduce the effective rate of return on assets, the
allowable profit, from what otherwise would be. The FCC allows operators to "gross
up" the permitted after-tax rate of return (11.25%) to a rate sufficiently higher so that,
after payment of taxes at statutory income tax rates°, the net profit remaining would
provide the 11.25% return. However, the FCC recognizing that a portion of statutory
tax amounts is deferred when tax depreciation differs from financial books depreciation, `
decided it was necessary to reduce the effective return accordingly. Thus, instead of
simply applying the full grossed up rate of return to the net book value of the assets, the
net book value is first reduced by the deferred tax balances, thereby reducing the total
amount of allowable profit.
In short, deferred tax balances are not expenditures to be recovered through
rates. Rather, only a percentage of the amount (typically TCI's grossed up rate of return
is 14-15%) offsets the profit that TCI would otherwise he allowed.
It is interesting to note that the rates calculated by .TCI by including AUDT in
this Form 1245 filing are higher than the rates that would result if there were no
deferred taxes involved at all, i.e., if TCI's book and tax depreciation lives and methods
were identical . This is the reverse of the FCC's intent that rates should be somewhat
lowered by the existence of deferred taxes to recognize the benefit operators attain by the
tax deferrals.
even if AUDT was includable in concept, TCI has never unbundled these
costs from programming service rates, i.e., allowance of these costs would
constitute double charging of subscribers
4 Note that TO does not actually pay any material federal or state income taxes, and has not for many years if ever.
The FCC rules nonetheless provide for a profit amount as though TCI paid the 35%federal income tax rate plus state
taxes where appropriate.
11
Just as with the insurance costs and the costs of security devices discussed
earlier, AUDT is again a type of cost that TCI perceives existed at the time of initial
regulation, but did not incorporate in its filings. Thus, the AUDT amounts were never
unbundled from programming service rates and, to the extent they have any economic
reality, are implicitly included in such rates. To allow TCI to include them in
installation and equipment rates now, without a corresponding downward adjustment of
programming service rates, would again be fundamentally inequitable and would
effectively be double charging subscribers for the same costs.
5. Failure to Identify and Justify the Rate for TCI's Inside Wiring Maintenance
Program as a Regulated Rate
At some time during the last year and a half, TCI began offering a new inside
wiring maintenance program (IWMP) to its subscribers. To do this, TCI first
transferred, to the subscriber, any inside wiring ownership rights TCI may have had'.
The subscriber is now the owner of the inside wiring and, thus, becomes responsible for
any service or maintenance required. The subscriber may obtain service (1) from a third
party, (2) from TCI, at a charge based on actual service time required at the Hourly
Service Charge (HSC) established through the FCC Form 1205 process, or (3) through a
service contract (the IWMP) with TCI for which a monthly rate is charged.
TCI has, since the inception of the program, taken the position that the program,
and the rate, is unregulated since the subscriber has other options including one that
involves the regulated HSC. Several communities, however, challenged this position
and issued rate orders disallowing the rate or setting the rate for the IWMP based on the
HSC and the average number of hours required for maintenance and repair of inside
wiring. This was based on the FCC rules as discussed in FCC 93-177, Report and
Order, released May 3, 1993 at 1298;
...The purchaser would be responsible for maintaining and repairing any
purchased equipment, but cable operators may also sell service contracts. The
price of these contracts shall be based on the HSC times the estimated average
number of hours required for maintenance and repair over the expected life of the
equipment...
And implemented via 47 CFR § 76.923 (I):
...An operator may sell service contracts for the maintenance and repair of
equipment sold to subscribers. The charge for a service contract shalt be the
HSC times the estimated average number of hours for maintenance and repair
over the expected life of the equipment.
'In many situations,e.g., where a new home was prewired, the subscriber was already the owner of the inside wiring.
12
TCI subsequently appealed those local rate orders to the FCC. The FCC did not
accept TCI's arguments that, because other options exist, the IWMP rate should not be
regulated. Rather, the FCC stated in its decision in the City of Portland/Multnomah
County appeal (FCC DA 95-2269, released November 14, 1995):
We recently ruled on this issue and made the following determinations. Inside
wiring is customer equipment, the regulatory treatment of which depends upon
who owns it. The record in this appeal with regard to the ownership of the inside
wiring is unclear. An operator is not likely to be the owner of a subscriber's
inside wiring if it did not install the wiring in the subscriber's premises. In
addition, an operator is not the owner if the operator installed the wiring but
transferred ownership of the wiring to the subscriber. However, if an opeator
installs the inside wiring and retains ownership of that wiring, our rules
specifically provide that the rate for the lease of that equipment must be justified.
The rate for operator-owned wiring includes a component for maintenance costs.
Under such circumstances, TGs subscribers can not also be charged a separate
wire maintenance fee. On the other hand, if TCI's subscribers own their inside
wiring, no lease rate would apply, obviously, but TCI's costs of providing any
maintenance and repair of that wiring may be recovered through a service
contract. Our rules provide that charges for such service contracts must be
based on the operator's HSC multiplied by either the estimated average number
or the actual number of hours for maintenance and repair. We are unable to
rule on the issue presented in this appeal since the facts in the record below are
unclear. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the MHCRC in order to allow TCI
to clarify thse facts consistent with our findings. (emphasis added)
Unfortunately the FCC did not notice that there was a clear record of TCI having
transferred ownership rights to subscribers and thus remanded the case rather than
simply denying the appeal. In any event, TCI has now requested reconsideration of the
decision, again based on its rejected arguments concerning the options available to a
subscriber. TCI did stipulate in its reconsideration request that it had transferred inside
wiring ownership rights to its subscribers, but maintains that ownership of the wiring
should not determine the regulated status of the IWMP.
The FCC reached the same conclusions in other appeals (see, e.g., FCC DA 95-
2471, deciding an appeal by Continental Cablevision in Avon Lake, OH, released
January 19, 1996).
The FCC appeal decisions notwithstanding, TCI still maintains that the IWMP
rate is unregulated and has provided no justification for its rate. We have used
information provided by TCI in support of its Form 1205 to calculate a maximum
permitted rate for the IWMP, based on the HSC, as required by the FCC.
13
TCI subsequently appealed those local rate orders to the FCC. The FCC did not
accept TCI's arguments that, because other options exist, the IWMP rate should not be
regulated. Rather, the FCC stated in its decision in the City of Portland/Multnomah
County appeal (FCC DA 95-2269, released November 14, 1995):
We recently ruled on this issue and made the following determinations. Inside
wiring is customer equipment, the regulatory treatment of which depends upon
who owns it. The record in this appeal with regard to the ownership of the inside
wiring is unclear. An operator is not likely to be the owner of a subscriber's
inside wiring if it did not install the wiring in the subscriber's premises. In
addition, an operator is not the owner if the operator installed the wiring but
transferred ownership of the wiring to the subscriber. However, if an opeator
installs the inside wiring and retains ownership of that wiring, our rules
specifically provide that the rate for the lease of that equipment must be justified.
The rate for operator-owned wiring includes a component for maintenance costs.
Under such circumstances, TCI's subscribers can not also be charged a separate
wire maintenance fee. On the other hand, if TCI's subscribers own their inside
wiring, no lease rate would apply, obviously, but TCI's costs of providing any
maintenance and repair of that wiring may be recovered through a service
contract. Our rules provide that charges for such service contracts must be
based on the operator's HSC multiplied by either the estimated average number
or the actual number of hours for maintenance and repair. We are unable to
rule on the issue presented in this appeal since the facts in the record below are
unclear. Accordingly, we remand this issue to the MHCRC in order to allow TCI
to clarify thse facts consistent with our findings. (emphasis added)
Unfortunately the FCC did not notice that there was a clear record of TCI having
transferred ownership rights to subscribers and thus remanded the case rather than
simply denying the appeal. In any event, TCI has now requested reconsideration of the
decision, again based on its rejected arguments concerning the options available to a
subscriber. TCI did stipulate in its reconsideration request that it had transferred inside
wiring ownership rights to its subscribers, but maintains that ownership of the wiring
should not determine the regulated status of the IWMP.
The FCC reached the same conclusions in other appeals (see, e.g., FCC DA 95-
2471, deciding an appeal by Continental Cablevision in Avon Lake, OH, released
January 19, 1996).
The FCC appeal decisions notwithstanding, TCI still maintains that the IWMP
rate is unregulated and has provided no justification for its rate. We have used
information provided by TCI in support of its Form 1205 to calculate a maximum
permitted rate for the IWMP, based on the HSC, as required by the FCC.
13
Exhibit "B"
2oy�ym--�
O £ O
-. , w 3 Ci d
'< 3 OZ .C. 2'n znn m G03 A Hroc a �.<3
.v 3o � m rroH.n �m mS'¢^ e' w nms SS " nnac3 a. �
O4� B � v'
Z ' < H
8rt� n v� rt
3 �-+ o —
�a 2'O G o S �n $io < mcyi rho FF d
C, R V]
'V S z tr0 m o-
n w W. >
3. z�� ' v, � �.� Qta, 5o g n
0
v
n n PCA
H
G G
3 O .>. Yrt
o^n
O '' NNNNH H
onno > _o O Nin
O� GnN A
t^ ca SR' Ec; Eo;c,cc
C. O h. Iti " p " " < 6
h7 3 ��o o,�a On n3o = o.� �n'�-3 �? Y " rvrorv ���
owWR
no n . ov�
n ,
c P. .�0
t+7 �
o N:i.o
.� TJ sN.w w o A rm e n n Cs1 ro _w w•c c rt
EL
O O �v' WWNNrr
m «NV ^ 33 3 3 ^ c "� aR A39 o. v wwoaw�o a..n
�x.Q ��, o o C 2C 2C C o _ o
�_ S 6 S-, E-, .o 0 6 0' a
^tTd� spa S. SR 3 ��`B 5 El 9 3 5 °� � ��a n `� < � o KP_ P_ o
Aosno w5^5s9g r-, <' E, W 0 a w b 3 n [fig ^
o`
Ela,
^ 'n Rag
E. .> =-l.d Rn �
n c c 54 S>G „° �' � 4 fO - � 5: 3 � E 5l "
c. c.
a� 3. _ o. w 2 S c2 5 a 00
a o o a d
z . = d O rt 3 n w w �. 5. n w u w C. w c O •� .1 \ '
C. O 5 r
0 3 P e n gu " 3 v o rt No_ c o L ;I �.
w g 7' M `�' o > >
E E 4 o o Vt
O W u O 1
..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -« « « « «
f , . _ - • � o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0� o 0 0 0
RPR.23. 1996 5:31PM P 2
FROM KRTZ—KFR SERVICES PHONE NO. 296 745 6860
FMeN CWwu9ic —Cnmmlmbn
WU npbn,D.C. 2551
FORM 1105
DATSANINIt:O AAOVLATM EQUIpNA "D 1w1TALL "M COSTS
nQUIFNQR MAN"
WII/ al n yppn pin. WW
C 020&&LeNA r111.1996
Nwnndma
TCI-PMnCm
AdameO w FSCrde=Oyabbd.Srl6I.. Dnieb,uM AUK
d w
9 o Pnaon comp na m.
•wn
ty
Mn{ IF
Immn IMF
I.i6k rwmir 6enl filtl� IFak+w'4"kt4.pp..pri�wbWl
Min aamdWM&P 1200.FCCpotm1110,bpCCtom1w.
AmrA On Wwplmd PCC pan I1m,FCC F®I=,mFCC Fan UB 0 f fiebdk6 Am.
OR❑% kONmm fidfiup bW tbpddpfa mmoY ming orkk firm
inlrrtlwdmmwNfi>m kmfikd tbk(wm �(mmNdtyy)
Nm; OWN bo M do m wlkk 6e mmlmllusdGA yudOf 1ikm9'CC Fam 797 w 6 pdw 6kq oft1L km mm in exmc
X Fats t6.dmr w vkeek pm tlaN p9w b for tAe ArN>nr aDmL/k0,lrk. 11/11/95 (m✓ddyy)
Nob:]6k wlu lodwwdv nd dIM i1 %OCAI)m Bvnbid,ym n filkl Wn A...
A l0dkmee6999rp9rmb tlbnp 9fymr nbk gtlm 1Sneum"r"b Ne 9obmt ba[1
% C.Crpm
"AW-S WRomIW
rnrmnnfia
Sok pmpeks w,
Ipksmyhi06tlow1
�°1 Fyal
1205
Fmn 5.0 Win.Wain^20 FCC I
Mry 1995
RPR.23. 1556 5:32PM P 3
FROM : KRTZ-KFR SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 745 6660
Po5•wlm,Dcir205%
05 Cmunis+im Approved by OMB]060.0592
Wubinlmn,�C.20551
EVw'InM9]
SLTCp)DLRA;WIT"COMOFSERVICtlb=ALLAW NAND"nGIAN"OFEQUIMAMPUW
Y• • VCKW
A IW PImt Vdd Tmb P.dtdwm 6Pwilr sa.nl dry blow)
B G.Book Vdm 31,I91,d5.19 3961,996.05
C A.WW d 31,131,01031 050.01.56
D D T. !66.16231 SSQ73116
.......... __..... .__•_._ _..._.. _..._.
Byk BmkWmDB-(CD)] 95io'1725i 36o9:
P RW efRmm 0.1175
G Cw4NmmM Imw
GI Fb W T.Ra 035
62 Sminmm.Tu Rae 0.091
0) Na7aW lemr TuP•m IGNG21 GIYG2) 'B:11R5
d umummRtllea lu9ma0•aiaiNlry
G4 AemdlmwSAsemt SI.011,197,2nn
Cdb ToWNw A•ww MIAMIASSNSM
Glc Rs Ammmfeve®ul Amur dbx SYAAA/YIWAA9AA
Nd I Iowa Ddu Wjb,P.aafAvGlc 54669
GS BH•ails in Paw lG]x(IGldII IC Yf bG)1 O:YI
G6 A fmNmC Cerperriou
Gd Rw Rmmml•wm•mt Am00m G9e :yl
G66 Dimibriw
Cmdbaml(m mt nceed G6b)
G61 R•mw•Su' mmmweTnG6o-066M.6c1 :d•
G6e Rmm11lmm 'mmiemw
T.IC4dtW
G7 Q9 R9w C •:N(IGS)Odar INl{GSxG6e1) 13104
N orwwWJjpRsdP F%G7] 91N
1 Yrmm6vummt 6nTvadFlx SB SlY�6IL259 p1 U]9.9F24 0110. '10.M 114no.
I CwnmlbwWm mrdPma.dm 015,139.01 2%,199.60
R AN"C*W Ca 1144) 2391 A00L659 RIU¢]9]O9 95110 3'O:etr ffi00':
L QNND iOfAL lwlw of l:m Kmmlml '96)S,01y.14M'�
Specify 00iw I.
Spwify Otbw 7.
SCI =BI AIOIOALOPRRATNIG WWSLSFOR SFAVICRINRTALLAMON AtIDMA1NRNANCR OPRQUIPMpYS
l BneRw G61idw 00erimm 0ew IS bemnl
A Awwd Op,R�mwkt rbve.mWl.wd)Idm.dFpuip p,115,156.T1 fll],11tit 1792,75/.73 025,61551 3197,725.0
■ GRAND TVfAL]nw 9f Lim Aen6+w] f1,k1/,»4.fP:
1pu by:06.1.
Specify O 2.
FCC F.:M
Ppe 2 bml l O Wu,Vent•2 0 A44 M
noo_-I�_5 oac �•�� -Inc nnr coca 0c 1 0 nz
RPR.23. 1996 5:33PM P 4
FROM KRTZ-KFR SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 745 6360
Fede COmmmirtiom CRa m App IN:OM 306D0592
Wnkvm D.C.2055/
B.P;m:ND97
SCHEDULE C.CAPITAL COSTS OF) SW CUSMIAER EQUIPMENT
A Pambl - Rm 2 Re 3 C.w 1 Cmwm1 CaereM3 ONn
B TRY 91WBmemSnviR Hoon(Amro ) 726.617 1511AM 12291.3m6
C TaY/o1( bn smiw /3174 5599 M14
D Om1Bmk VYm 5561,9U.m m,mmo 57.672.329.83
S ARwOamnd '10on ON."312 5513,002]6 55.515,213.07
F DdmedTw 51,15159 (5202.29) U7,11130
G jNaBookVgw 3M*08 -:tom 54;00 *9,432;97 *2.31A975,X ta.G7 s4
H Dmad Rm KRamm Pmm SNW.A,Iu9 ::0.11/
1 Rmmm dvmam Gm W- PorTvu xHl f26,489:1913 *O.pO 50:00 SI,351.TL9 5305,320371 S60D 50:0➢'
3 Cmm5 PmYlbe Dr 533,10072 59,301.16 !311,313.15
K A CmioYCom(I5)) 556.990:131] falMf 5000 S41t96b19i9 .S61d,695]28 $Lp SD:OD.
L GMNDTOTALIomdUA Knudo SH6,35/:Silt
SCI®ULE
W.AVERAGE HOOKS PPA E95TALLATTON
A. A HM W UvwkW lM04DYkdm(6ERk m m 'm) 13
B. A 11om6 PSWkad}3arhYY4Ym(Y2tlmmgm5(iml 0.75
C. A H.WAd6 Ctmnmmlwtluim•T MWOY 4pWWm(mrkm ) as
D. A Fb6n AddimnYfadatlm hmlmimm 'dm heBlloOoo nuY,m aCm) 0.15
E pha3w16dm O l9mT
m EYRm aun
A Hnm Mo1+lm 606ak m ) 0.75
M 7bnf Nlmmlioo m 1911im 0.5
m3.
A eHmn kmYYOm YmAmomloemm)
FW] 1305
E5RI1.9 Win,VRYm 20 FCC Tam
Wy 1994
RPR. 23. 1996 5:34PM P 5
FROM : KRTZ—KFR SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 745 6860
Fehml Canmu9iuumr Cammbum APPmr by OMB)050.0591
Wmltl m,D 20554 g ly�Dyl
WOJUOI iMRG LAT PER WltD6 OIPARNSAND IMST011LA110N C RGBS
21M A.Bwrll Srrrim C
1. Te Ca d6rrWWmdMYnrmmmis'Ae0919 Bm l] :.::5?IJ.a3Y.T48L
1 ieW Amml 3brindWSmdAtinYemmlSYmdele H.Box 11 '::F i13�25t.b9':
. .................
3. TmYCpd CYYrd dr6vYlWioed MYmmYRe 11:ml�lim 3. ':.'.S1:3Kr]N:Hti'.
4. Cea®r d1nYYlxOen PYYeYB4(ruxr6m Yiex). 02495
S. Amml CeYimvr blrmlmmv d lDYYWm Cm,10re1 c.9rL 'r3 x13m 41 :::Sk134,434.1i0H'.
R TPW Llbafb9.b Witt".d l 1N dCu.tx !,m fmor(rmrh ) 374303
3. 1U,6y Servim Chep mc)(Lme shim 6) 13D3015:
OI�IA31xG POR INSfALWTlOh3lgme u'4"ix tlY ePPrW6ek ba)
bYrID6aM IBW by HO bav bard mtbc FLSCdNYdin liml.
R YNBIIi9e1081N pxYmdRd 46eRx.
SlV 0.fwtlellNm Clrrrp
t.
W6.HSC bN 6YYIr66p tT.S"A,lb.7) :"Wa
OR
9.
ArpClmtpfthY T
a 11ewW Ilene leW Wm
N.me[11xe 3163 w.
ei Aw+nlbua w1leirr6lbm.lersBrtim(Sxhdrk D.WuA) l's
V.Cbrrye wUwiM 11vm G.W Wm[.1:.11 545'.(513
b.['m+YMlaw WYYYen
bl.mc{ip3 ii S3830I5
62A9amelbmiw Pwvlyd Hams Ndlrtlml5meauM D,lien B) D;?S
63.C4mpw Psr6Mtbme bYW Wm @I x 631t =,Mt:
a A6dDmY fgmeeum ImJlrem YTMa 9ttri1W WNBYioe
e1.1 IIm3 ':''b03Dt3
Q.Aw4eMavwAldi6mY Cmec4m ledWmYTW d hit.
c3.CbvpwAGbraW Caen.e69.inW Wm YTime d W0Y BRMree.lu x r3] %4"91t.
d-AdY emwme bfW m DwWWm
el.lsc 3 :naaw3
dl,Av3.IbmwA66i0mY Cmnm4im hwYWmReq.6ep lmR8.l56Ya6e D,live D] ':0:35
u.c,,.pwAaeYe..Iemmrm.bnWlNm Rgw6q SePm.Y)o.YWm Nlxazl nzn6i;
a OtwLW Ww V•r rpY&d'm SdeAiYD,Lim 8):
eI.MSC LW '.`):55363015
d.Awrtellmnpamm11Y1mdM1 �SebAie D,Iine>3 Ban 11 :i4
el.C1Y5rwbYYBYW eflme 1 N1 v11 S22MU
N.MC 11x 3 00:3015
d.Al M.Mw Wmdlme3[Sdedule D.lim H 16m Il
t6 cmw w IRa1Wim aB IlMx01 515 l3Wr:
.I.MSC 3Qli
N.AwpMma bdlRim dDm3(Sr0N9YD,limkltrm31
N.Cbvie pr hmI Wmdlmm]In xN] SO:W:
PCC F.
14ye4 Fm 4.6Wia Va 2.0 May 1994
!11']fl_'l7._�flflf 1'J•77 'lfTf 'J iIC CCJG(A OC'i O IlC
RPR.23. 1996 5:34PM P 6
FROM KRTZ—KFR SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 745 6860
FW"Cu ,ii,lime Cmmixim ApplvueE by OMB ll6O993
WYLwpun BC.MSL Eli.11a97
tiv
ICYalvm netlf(x evbY i(kxNF tliOmnlrym) 14neb1 RmewE ]lemarl
10. T"M.wb=n SY mllvm ICOMVobdiM mlmn ll wSrMtlok C,Iim O1 .719.61!
11. HSC ' (003011 :1303015 _SJ03a13
13. raY M.w. cm mlo.ux 11 - .p4,01l;�0Y so:aO 70.00:
13. A Caro m Avw SneaA4e C.1Jw1: '3f599OS213: 30:Oa. ::.3am
14. TiWCmedPawub ' II.1.i9r13 A{.WI;U.Id' w00: mo
13. NmbrdUYYiv Svrim 4m Fmw Sdnd C.Lix Cl
16. two CoY(1s INJm Ifl d1:T634 SO:OA: 50.00:
13. PaY px Mmth 1uv1 AK12)) �
e
(Nu1aw n WrrLYrylirmtlr6fhxm gpe) CmwY,l Cwpcen3 Cavvvtxl
11. Teel MYvbmaMYvin lkaY lC mhmv Bow Salwd�w C,Limo .:1331]35! 51II933006
19. NBC lir 31
WWW vo;;lm, VQIW15':
M. TaW 3A1i01Yred5aviu fat I9a 191 '391'A06!'. H"4.1371':
31. AMW WO:mbl mlmwfmn3r la C.J K _530Sb6;641R: '56/6,6R4.)36 :30:00"
II. LaW CeYdC9vwNYNim301Um31 ......14416' Sl',Of9 OAdt1: 3C;�'.
13. NmbldUNbkSwW m1Y SddvkC,U.Cl
u. wtU3m35A1ven1 SO04 SMA14,
U. RYegrMmO lu9a541(15)1 90:3963: U.M.
9Tr160 fx Ol9w lseM Yn1
M anal Md� Num 10..P Cin mlmw Avm Sdwduk C. B)
53. NBC BM3O13
ML TYY�C [o U.3x531
59, AmvY ' Cms lCmapm�v6mb9n dxY$rAduL C.Lim KI '�::9J:OD:
31), rYtl CeYd um v.l.m.m1 ::s:mo4-
31. Nmb athtib uS =1 mlvm Am SYdY.C,Une Cl
31 tI&Cat IMx3R'Lx311
U. MpvNmY Uix J5Rl3)] .50:00:
00 a RILIJN69'OR CHAf/O1NC SRVICS LIP0.40R ROUIFMBNT IWxe vv 1"w Rn apPrrprimbu)
v aNYeiW CbY1 N+abrYrnvYiml,bYae kL'me J4)
Y9 WIIBIR I1mtl3 SMrry(3u{1
a xrA.e,me C6ga(BrtvrBwAnyeNvubtr Suv)m Pmin LkeJmJ
STFA P. Ser 9evYm Tienx Y wnl
L. Nm®1 brClYYiy SvMml3m SJ.m
P uYwbk ewdeLw0. m'StkM bx Ytlu"
11R
35. UYbs3kYb 51nlm :)6iJi
OR
M. A krCbagwg SYNmrkn
34 NSC
Mb.Au l wCome SVNm line 03
36O Ameµe CAY9e Ix ClY9v95mvlmT Nm 36av Um 360] O13351A
FCC Pam 1Mf
Fpf 3 Fiw 4.03rW ver 1.0 May 1991
APR. 23. 1996 5:35PM P 7
FROM KATZ-KFA SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 745 GeGo
Appmvad by.GMB 3060-0592
Wwhim D.C.M54
CALCUL G WrUFPM AND[MTAL"nON COM
TMA Cm a4WrGm a ad MAomeMxs J&Wda A.Bm 11 - 11 Fm6l
2. Taw ft wwl nd M.M..[Srida4 B.a.21
3. Ta C,,M Cma a Bu la m Mwennr JU.1 2] -:fF,5ia31113L:
4. Cu . dl W.p (m
S C. mah3muom nd Im Wm Cm Bxdu& Cmu dLwvd S9 ob
S716.231.412
t. AIIouIImbl6faWn Ana(A
10. M yEWipedWWhYmC ' 9/(12)j iRCLL
1).
14L bwllMlm CM Submibc JLme 12 x Us 13]
FCC Fmm 1205
PW 6 Em 4.0 V.2.0 wy im
APR.23, 1996 5:36PM P 8
FROM KRTZ—KFA SERVICES PHONE NO. 206 ?45 6660
FedeN CMv.iCwm,Cawniviw Aa« by:0"]0.60192
w«eu,tma,D.c.xessd
0akv:/l5O9]
SUADMRV SCHEDULE
CutnM w land lxltlWheRwa fanaivo! ,
1, Ax Cabb 8a hw W.
b.A htlY41(ea
I.h8d4dm e3fbwiM lienee e,L!«9a3 �-SIS.a3--'.
xbaMlauoa ah.Atw Ist,B. %3] ' 'Sian
t.EudbdnafAdSoaaN CmMedaa w Tnaof5E6N bNdNEw 5 E,tNasai I7S15
/.hM1,E of Addidwal Camwdma hdaN tSlB,tine 9d3 -:Eu.n':
S,O16«ImWlNbna - )( e,t.agc Sd,hA,h9
........................
b' iFLh}
.......................
'Ei::S0:0k:
2 M.WY Cbga beLb it ad ssa
R Cored 1:
Rema Ca T F
Anne Cft" 3:
mffit,Cbvya t«Lva afCmvhe Boa« D.U. mimmubs
CmcwrBo: 3' ::SdAd
4 M«WFCEn{a dxlmaFOder P.then
3. Cbage SrzpoEatTim(d ( f:iiEa St,3Fa334c :SiZTS:
usoR cosi AND7OLICY LTLwcEs
hdkala7meanewrmnk tabwiq NmVaeaieutYl�>•Y'biba 49viahsbac
L NaMyaa iaela43 b hb«ew a,«aiA,dwiLL aahmbv aaNa LLaFeb yweobnRa terinldJ IaadWim9
YES
FIVES
NO
1 IVES gYWlsd tiv W«aom rndmtl wM abon4er«bN 4aPi
3.8}x eve flied ple Ean 6e0R 6ses Ma aeEM v6'PaBaY.Y.oes aamhy«aorc.Ibuba Oe veaer n iaxav b dv a«b
... . .hdv«mwledaa alalFvvll W haa8nlaaa aEpa,R
CERT37lCATIONSTA71241 T
WILLFUL FALSE 6TATEMENSS&LADE ON M;E AFE MMIM BY ME ANONR IA@RL9ONME]xT
(U.S.CODE TrTLE It,SI!C13ON 10011 AND/OR FORFEnURE N.E.CODE.UVISS a],SECTION MO
7-*Otbr SUMEOU mde W"f.W m a aOoNevbVr6m Hm7 MUWA Sa aM b*4 a W m W&b Land OiA.
Name Nov Cobh Opanna ;paew
m Tsda
peer.1x05
PYa] Cx«I a.0 Wiq Vevan 10 May 1M
APR-23-1996 17:35 206 745 6860 95% P.08
APR.24. 1996 8:31AM P 2
FROM KATZ-KFA SERVICES PHONE NO. : 206 745 6860
TCI - Contra Costa Schedule IWMP April 18, 1998
Calculation of Maximum Permitted
Inside Wiring Maintenance Program Rate
Contra Costa
Area
System
A. Annual ServicatMaintenance Hours 3867
Incurred re Inside Wiring(1)
B, Hourly Service Charge(2) $30.30
C. Annual Service/Maintenance Cost $117,170
Incurred re Inside Wiring (A x B)
D. Subscriber Base Served(3) 81,920
E. Annual Cost per Subscriber(C+D) $1.43
R Monthly Cost per Subscriber(E+12) LU
i.e., Maximum Permitted Monthly Service Contract Charge
for Inside Wiring Maintenance(4)
Assumptions:
Subscribers who sign up for IWMP have, on average, no more or less trouble with their inside
Wiring than other subscribers
Service of inside wiring problems by any party other than TCI is de minimus
Notes:
(1)From Exhibit C-6, Service Technicians Schedule B%Support,attached to April 15, 1996 letter
from Stacie Kelley to Michael Katz providing supporting data for Form 1205 calculations
(2) From Form 1205 calculations as revised April 18, 1996
(3)Subscribers as of december 31, 1995 corresponding to Contra Costa area system covered by
Form 1205
(4)Excluding franchise fee costs
LYPR-7d-199 GR:.iGt ?AF, 74S rRrA 96% P.02
s p/
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
C
FROM: G Cotta
Finance Committee ;
A' r County
DATE: February 25, 1997
c ux�
SUBJECT: PURCHASE OF RADAR EQUIPMENT FOR THE HIGHWAY PATROL
SPECIFIC REOU£ST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. APPROVE the request by the Highway Patrol to purchase replacement radar
equipment for use in Contra Costa County unincorporated areas for approximately
$119,000.
2. AUTHORIZE the Administrator's Office to negotiate the terms of the agreement and
secure financing for the purchase of the equipment.
3. DELETE this item as a referral to the Finance Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On February 3, the Finance Committee reviewed the proposal for the purchase of
$119,000 for radar equipment by the Highway Patrol. The CHP representative indicated
that the request was to replace 45 radar devises purchased by the County in 1987.
The staff from the County Administrator's Office explained the distribution of revenue
derived from traffic tickets issued by the CHP in the unincorporated areas, and submitted
the attached report. The staff suggested that non-general fund revenues, derived from
CHP traffic citations, can be identified to pay for the new radar guns. Staff recommended
that the Board authorize the staff to negotiate the agreement with the CHP and return with
a contract, perhaps phasing in the radar units over a two year period.
The Committee supported the staff recommendation.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
_RECOMMENDATION F COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_._APPROVE _OTHER
SIGNATURE{S); Jae G8i1C 181[ill ld Gayle B. Uilkema
ACTION OF BOARD ON February 25, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _X..._ OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X_UNANIMOUS(ASSENT i AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED February 25, 1.997
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR.CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: CAO - George Roeder SUPER VI OR SAND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Sheriff
a
BY ..._ ,DEPUTY
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Contra
C l
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier Costa
DATE: January 2E, 197 '
County
SUBJECT: Refer Request by California Highway Patrol for County to Purchase
Replacement/New Radar Equipment to the Finance Committee
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)d BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATION
REFER the request by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) , Martinez office, for the county
to purchase replacement/new radar equipment for use on county roads to the Finance
Committee for its meeting on February 3, 1997.
BACKGROUND
Attached is a letter of request from the Martinez office of the CHP, along with a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding (a standard document used by the CHP for this type of
partnership). Summarizing the letter's contents, in 1987 Contra Costa County purchased
radar units for use by CHP officers for traffic enforcement on roads in the unincorporated
area of the county. This resulted in reducing injuries and fatal collisions on those roads by
20 percent. At the time of the purchase, it was recognized that the radar units had a life
expectancy of six years. The CHP has used these units for double that time. In essence,
there has been twice the benefit for the cost of the units.
An additional factor since the purchase of the radar units is the new safety feature of
passenger-side air bags. These old radar units, and their attendant wiring, can no longer
be mounted in that area. Radar units on the market today can be accommodated in a new
location on the vehicle.
It is appropriate for the Finance Committee to consider this request and report back to the
Board. Because of time factors dictated by CHP headquarters in Sacramento, the local office
is hoping this matter can be back on the Board's agenda no later than February 25, 1997.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x YES SIGNATURE: wwc ,�
—RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR —RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
_._APPROVE _,,._OTHER
SIGNATURE(S):
ACTION OF BOARD ON annar-y 28, 1997 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER _
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ASSENT s AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED January 28, 1997
Contact K. Mitchoff, District SV PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
cc: CAO - George Roemer SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRA70P
County Counsel Q
CAO - Tony Enea
BY q�i !rf/�y/4�?
� ,DERUTY
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
and
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU), made and entered into this 1st
day of March 1997, by and between the State of California, acting by and through the
Department of California Highway patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and the County of
Contra Costa hereinafter called COUNTY.
WITNESSETH, By and in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein
contained, the COUNTY and the CHP do hereby agree as follows:
1. CHP agrees to operate 45 radar devices in Contra Costa County for a minimum of
six (6) years from the receipt date of the radar units purchased under this Agreement.
2. COUNTY agrees that the 45 radar units which are purchased and installed by CHP
in CHP vehicles under this agreement shall become solely the property of CHP and the
CHP will solely determine the enforcement policy in operation of the radar devices.
3. CHP will be responsible for the repair, installation, and recertification costs
associated with the radar units during the term of this agreement.
4. This memorandum of understanding may be amended by written mutual consent of
both parties.
5. Any correspondence regarding this Memorandum of Understanding, Letter of
Agreement, or the radar devices shall be addressed to the following Coordinators.
a. Department of California Highway Patrol
Office of Research and Planning
Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001
Telephone No. (916) 657-7237
b. County of Contra Costa
651 Pine Street
Martinez, CA 94553
County of Contra Costa
Page 2
6. This MOU may be cancelled by either party upon fifteen (15) days prior written
notice.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Dept. of California Highway Patrol
Admin. Services Officer Signature
Title
Date Date
Dept. Of California Highway Patrol County of Contra Costa
Business Services Section 651 Pine Street
Contract Management Unit Martinez, CA 94553
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001
Exempt from Department of General
Services approval in accordance
with the State Administrative Manual
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
LETTER OF AGREEMENT
RADAR ENHANCED SPEED ENFORCEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of March, 1997, by and
between the State of California, acting by and through the Department of California
Highway Patrol, hereinafter called CHP, and the County of Contra Costa, hereinafter
called COUNTY.
WITNESSETH, by and in consideration of the covenants and conditions herein
contained, the COUNTY and the CHP do hereby agree as follows:
1. CHP agrees to augment traffic radar equipment in use by the CHP Contra Costa
Area with forty five (45) additional traffic radar devices which meet CHP installed
radar traffic device specifications.
2. The CHP Contra Costa Area agrees to provide radar equipment for the operation in
the Contra Costa areas.
3. The CHP Coordinator shall be Sgt. Harry Larson, Contra Costa Area, telephone
number (510) 646-4980.
4. The term of this agreement shall be from March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998.
5. In the event of disaster or unforeseen emergency, this agreement may be cancelled
by CHP without prior notice.
6. This agreement may be amended by written mutual consent of both parties.
7. In consideration for the above services and upon receipt of an itemized invoice,
COUNTY agrees to reimburse the CHP for the actual cost and installation of 45
radar units in CHP vehicles. In no event, will the cost exceed a total of$119,000.00.
8. CHP will be responsible for the repair, installation, and recertification costs
associated with the radar units during the term of this agreement.
9. COUNTY agrees that the 45 radar units which are purchased and installed by CHP
in CHP vehicles under this agreement shall become solely the property of CHP and
the CHP will solely determine the enforcement policy in operation of the radar
devices.
County of Contra Costa
Page 2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
Dept. of California Highway Patrol
Admin. Services Officer Signature
Title
Date Date
Dept. Of California Highway Patrol County of Contra Costa
Business Services Section 651 Pine Street
Contract Management Unit Martinez, CA 94553
P.O. Box 942898
Sacramento, CA 94298-0001
Exempt from Department of General
Services approval in accordance
with the State Administrative Manual
State of California—Business,Transportation and Housing Agency PETE WILSON, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
California Highway Patrol
5001 Blum Road
Martinez,California 94553
(510)646-4980
(800)735-2929(TTITDD) JAN 17 1997
(800)735-2922(Voice)
January 16, 1997
File No.: 320.8324.A8763
Mr. Mark DeSaulnier, Chairman
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
2425 Bisso Lane, Suite 110
Concord, California 94520
Dear Mr. DeSaultier:
The Contra Costa Area of the California Highway Patrol currently employs radar for
speed enforcement on county roads within Contra Costa County. These radar units are
purchased and maintained by the county. Since the initial purchase of radar, injury and
fatal collisions have been reduced 20% on county roads. This program has given us an
effective tool to deal with speeding, the primary complaint that our office receives from
citizens and the primary cause of collisions on county roads. As effective as our joint
program has been, there have been two developments which I would like to bring to
your attention.
Although there was an expectation that our radar units would remain serviceable for
about six years, the current units were purchased twelve years ago. Our Officers have
maintained them with great care, however, there have been numerous times when
these units have failed, necessitating repairs, which are charged to the county. Despite
this level of care and maintenance, the radar units which we have are now generally
worn out.
A second development is right side air bags. It has been necessary to modify vehicle
interior equipment due to mounting space limitations. The radar units we are currently
using cannot be easily modified for use in our cars. The antennas must be mounted
outside the passenger compartment, which necessitates extensive wiring modification.
I would like to propose the following:
1. Change in purchasing procedures of radar by Contra Costa County. After a one
time purchase, all expenses, including installation, and recertification would be paid
for by the State of California. Attached is a sample Memorandum of Understanding.
January 16, 1997
Page 2
This process is in use in several counties and is less cumbersome than the current
practice.
2. Replacement of current radar equipment. In addition to purchase of radar for all
California Highway Patrol vehicles, we propose the purchase of two LIDAR units.
These use laser to track target vehicles and are particularly valuable in areas such
as Highway 4 and Kirker Pass Road. They enable Officers to pick individual
speeders out of groups of traffic. Total cost of acquiring 31 radar units (sedan), 12
radar units (motorcycle) and two LIDAR units is about $119,000. This would be a
one time fee which would guarantee radar in every California Highway Patrol vehicle
for six years, with no additional cost of the County.
I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely
/Y.1�' L
T. NOBLE, Lieutenant
Acting Commander
Contra Costa Area
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 10th Floor
Martinez,California 94553
DATE: January 30, 1997
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE
Supervisor Joe Canciamilla
Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema
FROM: GEORGE ROEMER, Direct
Justice System Programs
SUBJECT: RADAR GUNS - CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
The County General Fund receives 25% of fines collected from traffic tickets issues in Contra
Costa's unincorporated areas and 23% of traffic school revenues. The State receives the
balance. In 1995-96 the General Fund was credited $241,169 from fines and $627,000 from
traffic school - a total of$868,169. This revenue is used to support the County's share of the trial
courts. The following is a breakdown of the CHP moving violation revenue on an average $35
traffic fine:
State $26.25
County General Fund (Municipal Court) 8.75
Total $35.00
Additional Penalties per $10 (or fraction)
Courthouse Construction $2.00 $8.00
Criminal Justice Facilities Construction 2.50 10.00
Automated Fingerprint Identification .50 2.00
Emergency Medical Services 2.00 8.00.
Sub-total $7.00 $28.00
Additional State Penaltiea per $10 (or fraction)
Criminal Offenses - 100% State $10.00 $40.00
Additional Penalties per Fine
Night Court - 100% County for Night Court 1.00
Court Administration Fee 100% County
To track prior offenses 10.00
Total Cost of Ticket $114.00
We believe that non-general fund revenues can be identified to pay for new radar guns. Since
new guns are needed for new vehicles due to right side air bags, it would appear that buying
guns for new vehicles as they are purchased would make the most sense.
JAN-31-1997 14:59 SUPV. DESAULNIER P.01i02
2425 BISSO L NF-SME 110 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
CONCORD,CALIFORNIA 945204817 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
(510)6465783
m.
(510)6465787(FA)q
MARK DESAUWIER
SVPERVIEOR,DISMICT W
CLAYTON,CLYM CO%COM.PAC ECO.PLEASHILL
SENT VIA FAX
TO: Supervisor Gayle Uilkema, District II
Supervisor Joe Canciamilla, District v
FROM: Mark DeSaulnier
DATE: January 31, 1997
RE: Additional Information for Finance Committee - February 3rd
Captain Noble (he was promoted today) has provided our office with additional
information regarding the radar units. He wanted you to have this data for Monday's
Finance Committee meeting.
MD:ksm
Attachment
cc: Tony Enea w/attachment
JAN-31-1997 14:59 SUPV. DESAULNIER P.02i02
RADAR PURCHASE PROPOSAL
RADAR IN USE BY CONTRA COSTA AREA , CHP
There are currently 30 radar units owned by Contra Costa County and used by
the Contra Costa Area , California Highway Patrol. The county is responsible for
all repair and certification costs.
The status of these units are as follows:
1. HR-12 hand held units (14 units). Manufactured between 1985 and 1988
_Four have failed recertification , ten have passed.
2. Pro 1000 moving radar(10 units) . Manufactured between 1987 and 1989. All
have failed certification by an independent laboratory.
3. Hawk moving radar units (3 units). Manufactured 1985. One unit has failed
recertification.
4. Eagle moving radar units (3 units) Manufactured 1995 . One unit failed
recertification.
SUMMARY
There are 30 units, 14 of which are usable. The remainder require repairs and a
certification fee. Departmental policy requires an independant laboratory certify
radar units after major repairs or every two years. The charge is currently $130.
COSTS OF PROPOSED RADAR ACQUISITION
These costs are one time costs and guarantee radar units for six years with no
additional billing to the county.
1. 29 moving radar units Q $2,900. $84,100
2. 13 hand-held units (motorcycle) @ $1,800. $23,400
7RR-31-1997 15.02 9JPV. DESRIA_NSER P.01i01
3. 2 LIDAR un9ts @ &4,300. $8,600
4. Extra batteries for hand held radars $800
Total $11$,900
TOTRL P.01