Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 07121988 - 1.125 • TO: � Board of.Supervisors FROM: Sara Hoffman, Franchise Administrator DATE: July 1Z 1988 7o" srA.couii SUBJECT: VIACOM FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT Specific Request(s) or Recommendations(s) & Background & Justification RECOMMENDATION 1. Fix July 19, 1988 as the date for the Board to hear Viacom's administrative appeal of the decision of the Franchise Administrator relative to franchise fee deficiencies. 2. Direct the Clerk of the Board to give at least five days' written notice of the hearing to Viacom pursuant to Ordinance code section 14-4.006. FINANCIAL IMPACT Granting Viacom's appeal will result in a loss of revenue to Contra Costa County in the amount of$36,991.32. (NOTE: Originally the Franchise Administrator requested a back payment of$41,077.52. However, as Viacom pointed out, this calculation included installation revenue which is excluded from the franchise fee). Granting Viacom's appeal could also result in requests for reimbursement from four other cable companies under Ordinance 1980 who have paid franchise fees on their premium pay cable revenue. Reimbursement of the years 1985, 1986 and 1987 could potentially cost from $37,000 to $42,000. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND Viacom's franchise fee is governed by Ordinance 1980. The basis is"gross annual receipts" which is defined as "any and all compensation and other consideration in any form whatsoever and any contributing grant or subsidy received directly or indirectly by a licensee from subscribers or users and payment for television or FM radio signals or service excluding the installation and line extension charges received within the County." Until 1977, the provisions of Ordinance 1980 were moderated by an FCC exclusion of premium pay cable service receipts from the definition of income subject to a franchise fee. In 1977,the FCC modified its previous ruling,thus subjecting premium pay cable services to a franchise fee. Most cable company's in Contra Costa County began including premium pay cable services in the calculation of their franchise fee payment in 1977. Viacom did not. Instead Viacom sent a letter to the then Chairman of the Board of Supervisors at his district office informing them of the new FCC ruling. Viacom's letter states that the County would need to amend Ordinance 1980 to collect franchise fees on pay revenues. Apparently the County did not officially act upon the letter(there are no records in the Clerk of the Board files). Continued on attachment: XX yes Signature: Recommendation of Recommendation of County Administrator Board Committee Approve Other: Signature(s):��� Action of Board on: i2 YdV'Approved as Recommended _ Other Vote of Supervisors I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN _ Unanimous (Absent ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE Ayes: Noes: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON DATE SHOWN. Absent: Abstain: Attested 2 Z Orig. Div.: CAO (Franchise) it Batchelor cc: County Counsel Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Viacom (via Franchise) and County Administrator By . 2-x :s , Deputy Clerk SH:eh(vicomfee.bo) VIACOM FRANCHISE FEE -2- July 19, 1988 Viacom believes that lacking specific direction from the County to include premium pay services in its franchise fees, Viacom was not liable for the payment. To the contrary, County Counsel and the Franchise Administrator believe that the ordinance clearly included all revenues including premium pay cable services which were temporarily excluded due to FCC ruling. County Counsel's and the Franchise Administrator's position on inclusion of premium pay services in the franchise fee is obviously shared by the cable industry: most of the operators in Contra Costa County adjusted their payments to include the premium pay services in 1978. Only two cable operators did not do so,both of whom have made back payments, as requested. The Franchise Administrator requested back payments for three years only (1985, 1986, 1987). Technically, the County might have been able to request back payment to the date of the FCC ruling, i.e., 1977. Ten years back payment was not requested however,because the current cable ordinance, Ordinance 82-28, appears to limit back payment liability to three years. The Franchise Administrator used this as policy guidance.