The URL can be used to link to this page

Cable Franchise Fee Pay Analysi D~~~E ~c/k.~ MEMORANDUM March 8, 2004 TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Fee Payment Analysis On February 16, 2004, the City Council authorized the advancement of the formal franchise renewal process as provided in the 1984 Cable Act, while continuing informal negotiations. One component of that process, which is also of significant independent value, is a franchise fee payment analysis. A review committee consisting of Cable Franchise Administrator Merrill Crawford, Finance Director Ken TeKippe and Assistant Finance Director Jean Nachtman reviewed the five Responses to Requests For Proposals and interviewed three finalists. The Review Committee recommends that the City award a contract to the Lewis & Associates consulting firm of Hollywood, Florida, in the estimated amount of $12,500, to conduct an analysis of Mediacom's franchise fee payments to the City of Dubuque for calendar years 2002 and 2003. I concur with the recommendation and respectfully request Mayor and City Council approval. ~(1vvvL14~ lifl ~ Michael C. Van Milligen MCVM/jh Attachment cc: Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Merrill Crawford, Cable Franchise Administrator as :2 Cable Television Division City Hall Annex - 1300 Main Street Dubuque, Iowa 52001-4732 (563) 589-4181 office (563) 589-4299 fax (563) 589-4193 TDD catv@cityofdubuque.o'g B~ ~c/k.~ March 2, 2004 MEMO TO: Michael C. Van Milligen, City Manager FROM: Merrill Crawford, Cable Franchise Administrator SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Fee Payment Analysis INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend that the City award a contract to the Lewis & Associates consulting firm of Hollywood, Florida to conduct an analysis of Mediacom's franchise fee payments to the City of Dubuque for calendar years 2002 and 2003. BACKGROUND: On February 16, 2004, the City Council authorized the advancement of the formal franchise renewal process as provided in the 1984 Cable Act, while continuing informal negotiations. One component of that process, which is also of significant independent value, is a franchise fee payment analysis. While not a complete formal audit, this analysis may uncover errors in the cable operator's address database, allocation of various revenues to the formula upon which franchise fees are calculated, and/or payment of fees to the City for the two-year period in question. Of equal or perhaps greater value is the opportunity afforded by such an analysis to correct, clarify or establish clear procedures going forward for the calculation and payment of franchise fees in new circumstances such as the bundling of cable and non-cable service, treatment of "launch fees", etc. Anticipating the City Council's authorization, you appointed myself as well as Finance Director Ken TeKippe and Assistant Finance Director Jean Nachtman as a small review committee to issue a request for proposals to qualified firms to conduct a franchise fee payment analysis, and to review the proposals received. The Request For Proposals was issued to eleven firms, listed in Attachment A to this memo. Proposals were received from five firms by the February 20 deadline. The committee narrowed the.selection to three excellent finalist proposals (from Ashpaugh & Sculco, Lewis & Associates, and Sikich Gardner & Co.) before opening the separately-sealed cost information. The firm indicating the most Mediacom experience and quoting a project price deemed by the committee to be lowest and most likely to remain so, was Lewis and Associates, of Hollywood, Florida. Mr. TeKippe contacted Scott Lewis by phone with follow-up questions, and reported favorably on the answers received. Secvice People integrity ReeponsibQ;ty Innovation Te=wo,k Each committee member called three municipal references (nine, total) regarding similar work performed by Lewis and Associates. Adding the notable strength of reference recommendations to the pricing information and other criteria already reviewed, the committee recommends Lewis and Associates for Dubuque's project. . A tally of proposers and cost information is contained in Attachment B. The proposal of Lewis and Associates is provided as Attachment C. It should be noted that, although the project cost estimate provided by each of the proposers is less than our $30,000 budget estimate, there remains a strong possibility that the analysis will unearth one or more categories of revenue or specific fee amounts that Mediacom disputes. This is not uncommon, and some additional expense may be incurred in securing payment regarding such disputed items. The true total cost of the analysis could therefore exceed the estimated amount of the contract we award to Lewis & Associates, but should nevertheless fall within the budgeted amount. I will keep copies of our RFP and of all five proposals available for review. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Recommended Action is that the City Council award a contract to Lewis and Associates of Hollywood, Florida in the estimated amount of $12,500, to be paid from the Cable TV Fund, which we anticipate will be reimbursed from such unpaid franchise fee revenues recovered as a result of the project. cc: Cindy Steinhauser, Assistant City Manager Barry Lindahl, Corporation Counsel Ken TeKippe, Finance Director Jean Nachtman, Assistant Finance Director Franchise Renewal Negotiating Team Cable TV Regulatory Commission Cable Community Teleprogramming Commission ATTACHMENT A Firms to whom a ReQuest for Proposals was sent: Ashpaugh & Sculco, P.L.C., Winter Park, Florida Eide Bailly LLP, Dubuque, Iowa Fox, Smolen & Associates, Austin, Texas Charles Gramlich & Associates, Austin, Texas Honkamp Krueger & Co. PC, Dubuque, Iowa Jim Kircher & Associates PC, Dubuque, Iowa Lewis and Associates P.A., Hollywood, Florida McGladrey & Pullen LLP, Dubuque, Iowa Municom, Lake Oswego, Oregon O'Conner & Brooks & Co. PC, Dubuque, Iowa Sikich Gardner & Co., LLP, Aurora, Illinois ATTACHMENT B Firms who submitted proposals bv February 20. 2004 deadline: Ashpaugh and Sculco, P.L.C., Winter Park, FL [Cost: hourly rates stated, not to exceed $20,000, plus expenses] (Excellent proposal, good cable experience and reputation, no indication of Mediacom experience stated in the proposal, highest price) Maximus, Reston, VA and Houston, TX [Cost: $16,500 + $3,500 expenses] (Firm experience appears to extend from larger utility regulation & construction base. Proposal included required scope but went also into areas of technical review that were not part of the RFP. Some obvious errors in modifying a previous proposal for another job. Priced higher than recommended vendor. Not considered a finalist) RSM McGladrey, Inc., Dubuque, IA [range $8,750 to $13,250 + expenses] (Does not indicate much experience in this area. Unrealistically short time period proposed, nb relevant references to cable franchise fee payment analysis. Low-end of price range deemed unrealistic. Not considered a finalist.) Scott Lewis and Associates P.A., Hollywood, FL [Cost: $10,000 + $2500 expenses] (Excellent proposal, several Mediacom prior experiences, largest number of references & prior jobs listed, lowest price of three finalists.) Sikich Garder & Co, LLP, Aurora, IL [Cost: $16,000 + $1800-$2400 expenses] (Excellent proposal, good cable experience, no indication of Mediacom experience given in proposal, price higher than recommended vendor.) t r I ( f I f ¡ I PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CABLETELEVISION FRANCmSE FEE PAYMENT ANALYSIS SERVICES FOR THECITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA FEBRUARY 6, 2004 SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. 2131 Hollywood Boulevard,Sujte 208 Hollywood, Florida 33020 , (954) 922-9002 . E-MAIL LEWISCABLE@AOL.COM -- SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. PROPOSAL TO PROVIDE CABLE TELEVISION FRANCmSE FEE ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF DUBUQUE, IOWA . TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL PROmLE & QUALIFICATIONS CLIENT BASE &REFERENCES SCOPE OF SERVICES WORK PLAN PROJECTED PROJECTSCHEDÐLE PROpòSED TIME COMMiTMENT INSURANCECOVERAGE . MISCELLANEOUS ARTICLES SECTION ----- 2 3 4 5 f. I I I J I I t ~ t I t ¡ 1 2131 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 208 . Hollywood, Flortda 33020. Phone/Fax: {954)'922-9002 February 6, 2004 City Clerk City of Dubuque City Hall 50 W. 13tb Street Dubuque, Iowa Dear City Officials: Thauk you for providing thisopportuuity to propose consulting services to assist the City of Dubuque with respect to the i]:HJepeudent verification of cable televisiou. franchise fee revenues derived from Mediacorn. We believe that we can provide a valuable service to youreommuuity at a cost that should more than pay fOr itseIfinterms of current and :future benefits. The' cable televisjon' industry as a whole is currently experiencing. s~guificant .' growth opportunities whilè at the same time facing competition from Direct Broadcast Satellite Providers. The major players recognize that survival means getting bigger by clustering subscribers through acquisitions and providing quality service at a competitive price to its customers. The,determinatiou to pay franchise fees on certain reveuue, streams is often based upon the cable operators' subjective interpretation ofthefranchise agreement. Given the tremendous preSsure to keep prices competitive and at the same time maintain steady cash flow growth fot purposes .of funding new acquisitions and satisfying theconcerus of investors and fmaucial institutions, it is imperative that the franchising authority independently verify the accuracy of franchise fee. calculations. This proposal explains our uuderstaudingof the City's Request For Proposal and our approach to franchise fee compliance auditing. Scott Lewis & Associates is committed to providing timely, responsive. and professional service. and ifawarded this contract will comply with aHtenusand conditions set forth in the agreement. We believe an excellent opportunity exists for us towörk together to ensure that the loealfrauchise authority is receiving the correct amount of cable television franchise fees. Siucere,ly, 'yt1 j. . " ~~' Scott Lewis President , SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. PROmLE & QUALIFICATIONS ------------------------------ Scott Lewis & Associates P.A. isa Professional Association, incol")oratediuthe State of Florida. Thefmn was established in 1995 by Scott Lewis a licensed Certified Public Accountant, . member of the Florida Iustitute of Certified Public Accountants and National Association ofTelecommuuications Officers and AdVisors. Scott Lewis earned a Bachelors of Business Administration Degree front the University of Miami, Coral Gables, FIoridain 1974. His backgroundincludes thirty years offinancial accounting experience, five years in. Public Accounting, sixteen years in Cable Television Management, and uearly uiue years as a consultant to franchise authorities. Mr. Lewis began hjscareer hI the broadcast/cable television industry m1977 as Manager oUnternal Audit for Storer COlnmunicatious, Inc. His responsibilities mcludedcouductmg finimcial and operational audits of the Company's cable television and broadcast properties. In, 1984 he was recruited by Selkirk Communications, Inc., a 90,000+ subscriber system with offices iu Fort Lauderdale and Jlallandale, Florida as its Corporate Controller. He was subsequently promoted to Vic~ President of Fmau.ce m1989 when the Company was acquired by Maclean Hunter Lt(\, a Canadian CommunicationsComp¡1JlY. Selkirk Communications was purchased by Comcast Corporation ju December of 1994 asa result 9f the, Rogers CommunicatiollS acquisition .of Maclean Hnuter.Ltd. . After a nme montb transitional period, Mr. LewIs left the CoIllcast organization to establish this firm. Scott Lewis & Associates PA. mamtams offices at 2131 HollyWood Blvd, Suite 208, III Hollywood, Flo"rlda. The. firm's business objective is to represeut local franchising authOl:ities throllghout the Country, and provide personalized services,. with respect to the independent verification ofcable television franchise fee remittances. Since 1995 the,firm has completed over one hundred and fiftycablc television 'fn\uchise fee compliance engagements mcludmgreceut Mediacom audits cond.ucted on behalf oftbe Lake Minnetoulm Cablecommunjçatious ColllIllÎ$sionand City of Albauy, Georgia. All aspects of eacb project, iucIudmgfieldwork, financial analysis and report writing is handled personally by Scott Lewis CPA. The fitmhas no other employees aud does not utilize sub-coutractorsto perform any portion of the work undertaken. SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P;A. CLIENT BASE ScQttLewis & Assòciates spècialiZ~s in perlorntingcabIe television franchise fee compliance reviews. The following pages summarize the projects undertaken by this finn which are allidenclcaljn seope and natùreto thiseugagement. . <' , ! ¡ , ~.'" I. I SCDtt Lewis & AssDciateS PA PrDject Summary Date Completed I 1 ,City Df North Miami Beach, FIDridá 2 City Df Opa LDCka, FIDrida 3 City Df Pembroke Pines, FIDrida 4 City Df PembrDke Pines, FIDrida 5 City Df Panama City, FIDrida 6 City Df Raleigh, NDrth CarDlina 7 TDwn Df Zebulon, NDrth CarDlina 8 TDwn Df Knightdale, NDrth Carolina 9 CDunty Df Orange, NDrth Carolina 10 TDwn Df Chapel Hill, NDrth CarDlina 11 TDWn Df Gamer, NDrth CarDlina 12 TDwn Df ClaytDn, NDrth CarDlina 13 CDunty Df Escambia, FIDrida 14 City of PensacDla, FIDrida 15 City Df DDver, Delaware 16 City of Miramar, FIDrida 17 City DfMiramar, FIDrida 1.8CDunty Df Orange, California 19CDunty Df Orange, CalifDrnia 20 'CountyDf Orange, CalifDrnia 21 CDunty Df Durham, NDrth Carolina 22 City Df CDral Springs, FIDrida 23 CDunty Df Santa Rosa, FIDrida '24 CitYDf Danville, Virginia 25 BrighamCity,Utah 26 City Df Springfield, MissDuri 27 CityDfRenD,Nevada 28 City Df Reno, Nevada , 29 City Df Sparks, Nevada' 30 . CDUnty Df WashDe, Nevada 31 CDunty Df WashDe, Nevada 32 City Df OcDee, Florida ' 33 City of CDral Gables, FIDrida 34 County of Spartanburg, SQuth CarDlina 35 City Df SpartanbUrg, SDuth CarDlina 36 City Df SUnrise, FIDrida ' ' 37 City DfCallaway, FIDrida " 38 Village Df North Palm Beach, FIDrida 39 CityDf Sulphur, LDuisiana 40 CityDf CDcDa Beach, FIDrida 41 CDunty DfPinellas, FIDrida 42 CDunty Df Pinellas, FIDrida 43 CDunty of Pill, NDrth CarDlina 44 City Df RDCk Hill, SDuth CarDlina 45 City Df MDbile, Alabama 46CityDf PembrDke Pines, FIDrida 47 CityDf PembrDke Pines, FIDrida 48 City Df WinstDn-Salem, NDrth CarDlina 49CDunty Df New HanDver, NDrth Carolina 50 CDUnty of New HanDver, NDrth CarDlina 51 City Df NDrth Miàmi Beach, FIDrida 52 City Df Wilson, North CarDlina 53 City Df CDlumbia, Tennessee ,54 City of MuskegDn, Michigan 55CDunty Df Lee,FIDrida 56 CityDf Tamarac, FIDrida 57 City Df Pasadena, Texas 58 City Df Ocala, FIDrida 59 City Df FDrt Wayne, Indiana 60 TDwn Df Davie, FIDrida 61 City Df FDrt Lauderdale, Florida 62 City Df Flint, Michigan 63 City Df Sunrise, FIDrida 03/27/96 04/11/96 05/03/96 05/17/96 09/30/96 12/30/96 01/06/97 01/06/97 01/08/97 01/08/97 01/13/97 01/13f97 03/12/97 03/12/97 02/20/97 04/01/97 04/15/97 08/29/97 06/13/97 05/31/97 04/18/97 08/Zl/97 11/26/97 12/19/97 ' 04/30/98 02/24/98 04/30/98 OS/20/98 04/30/98 04/30/98 OS/20/98 03/26/98 01/13/99 12/23/98 12/23/98 01/15/99 08/28/98 07/27/99 11/27/98 09/28/98 12/04/98 12/02/98 12/07/98 12/02/98 04/30/99 03/22/99 05/07/99 03/29/99 04/28/99 05/11/99 04/16/99 07/01/99 09102/99 09/15/99 01/31/00 01/11/00 04/30/00 12/22/99 06/21/00 04/21/00 05/01/00 07/13/00 08/08/00 I I I I I I I I I I t I I Cable OperatDr TCI TCI TCI TeleMedia CDmcast Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable Time warner Cable Time Warner Cable Time Warner ,Cable Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable CDX CDmmUnicàtiDns Cox CDmmunicatiDns CDmcast TeleMedia TCI TimeWamer Cable CDX CDmmunications CDmcast 'TimeWarnerCable Schurz CDmmunicatiDns Cablevision Systems Inc. Time Warner Cable ' Insight CDminunicàtions TCI TCI MediaOne TCI TCI MediaOne Time Warner Cable MediaOn" Intermedia Partners. Intermedia Partners MediaOne . CDmcast Adelphia TC1írCA TimeWarner Cable Time Warner Cable GTE VideD Ventures MultivisiDn RDCk Hill Cable CDmeast TCI TeleMedia Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable FalcDn Cable Media TCI Time Warner Cable CablevisiDn CommunicatjDns , TCI' MediaOne MediaOne TCI CDX CDmmunica!ions CDmcas! CDmcas! CDmcas! CDmcas! MediaOne I . I I I I I I t J æ ï Scott Lewis & Associates P A Project Summary 64 City of Lauderdale Lakes, Florida 65' City of Ponca City, Oklahoma 66 City of Mishawaka, Indiana 67 Flint Township, Michigan 68 City of Lauderhill, Flol"ida 69 Town of Davie, Florida 70 City of Cape Coral, Florida 71 County, of Caldwell, North Carolina 72 City of Tamarac, Florida 73 City of Lighthouse Point, Florida 74 City of Naples, Florida 75 County of Wilson, North Carolina 76 County of Santa Rosa, Florida 77 City of Los Angeles, California 78 County of Collier, Florida 79' County of Comer, Florida 80 County of Watauga, North Carolina 81 City of Pensacola; Florida 82 County of Pasco, Florida 83 CoUnty of Pasco, Florida 84 City of Wilton Manors, Florida 85 Village of Royal Palm Beaèh; Florida '86 County of Escamt>ia, Florida 87. County of Orange, California 88 County, of Orange, California 89 City of Reno, Nevada 90 City of Aventura, Florida 91 City of Lig!tthouse Point, Florida 92 Township of Muskegon, Michigan 93 Làke MinnetonkaCommunícations COm,!,., Minnesota 94 City ofWayzata, Mim1esota 95 City of Los,Angeles,Catifornia 96 City of Los Angeles, California 97 City of Chandler, Arizona ' 98 County of St. Lucie, Florida 99 , County ofSt.Lucie, Florida 100 City of Morgan Hill, California 101 City of Indianapolis, Indiana 102 City oHndianap,olis, Indiana 103' City of Danville, Virginia 104 City ofSt. Louis Park, Minnesota 105 City of Charlottesville, Virginia 106 City of Pembroke Pines, Florida 107 City of Pembroke Pines, Florida' 108. City of Albany, Georgia 109 Town of Penfield, New York 110 City of Raleigh, North Carolina 111 City of Winston-8alem, North. Carolina 112 City of North Miami Beach, Florida 113 City of North Miarni , Florida 114 Ricliland County, South C¡lrolina 115 City of Columbia, South Carolina, 116 Town of Bay Harbor, Florida 117 Village ofBal Harbour, Florida Date Completed --- 07/13/00 04/28/00 06/27/00 07/06/00 08/10/00 06/06100 10/17/00 10/31/00 08/24/00 09/21/00 11/27/00 10/26100 06/25/01 05/31/02 11/22/00 OS/22/01 05125/01 06/29/01 10/15/01 ' 08/30/01 04/0,5/01 11/26/01 08/03/01 10/22/01 12/11/01 08/02/01 09/25/01 03/01/02 06/20102 01/06/03' 01/07/03 In Progress In Progress, 08/12/02 07/17102 10/21/02 12/11/02 03/18/03 05/19/03 07/05/02 12/13/02 11/15/02 11/20/02 11/29/02 07/14/03 In Progress 06/24/03 07/31/03 05/30/03 08/03/03 In Progress In Progress 02/02/04 02/02/04 Cable Operator Comcast CableOne AT&T Comcast MediaOne Comcast Time Warner Cable Charter Communications MediaOne MediaOne MediaOne Time Warner Cable MediaCom ' AT&T AT&T Time Warner Charter Communi'cations Cox Communications TimeWarner ' Florida Satellite Network Ltd AT&T' Adelphia Cox Communications AT&T Cox Communications AT&T Charter Communications AT&T Broadband AT&T Broadband Mediacon) Mediacom Adelphia Cox Commun~ations Cox Communications, AT&T Broadband Adelphia Charter Communications COrneast Corporàtion Time Warner Cable' Adelphia Time Warner Cable Adelphia AT&T Broadband Telemedia Corp Mediacom Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable Time Warner Cable AT&T Broadband AT&T Broadband Time. Warner Cable Time Warner Cable Charter Communications Charter Communications I . I . Ie I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES REFERENCES Ms. Stacy Burnette , Telecomlnuuicatious Regulatory Officer City of Los Angeles Information Technology Agency (213) 847-6906 Comcast (AT&T Broadband/Continental Cablevision) Revkw Peóod: 1996.2001 Cox Commuuicatious-ReviewPeriod'1997-2001 Adelphia (Buueavision)- Review Þeriod 1997-2001 Ms. Vicki Gray Cable Television Coordinator County of Orange, California, , (714)834-2115 Cox Communications- Review Period -1997-2000 AT&T Broadband (Contineutal Cablevision)-ReviewPeriod -1997-2000 Ms. Margaret Coulter Communications Manager City of ChlQIdIer, Arizona (480)782-2221 Cox CommuniCations-Review Period..1998-2001 Mr. Rick Manltra Director Cable Communications Agency City of IndianapIJlis, Indiana (317) 3-27-4594 Comcast.Review Period-1998-2001 Time Warner Cabl,e-Review Period -2000"2001 'Mr. Doug Essman Cable Franchise Coordinator Connty of Collier, Florida (941) 403-2302 , MediaOue-Review PeriodJ998-200iJ Time Warner Cable-Review Period -1998-2000 Mr; Aubrey D. Dodsou Fiuance, Director City of Dauville (434) 799-5185 Adelphia Cablevision- Review Period 1999-2001 " I I I I I I I I J I I I r I I I I I SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES REFERENCES (CONTINUED) Ms. ReneeN. Knàke Assistant City Attorney Office of the City, At{ørttey City of Charlottesville, Virginia (434)970-3131 Adelphia- ReView Period 1999-2001 Ms. Sally Koenecke Admiuistrator L,akeMittnetonka Connnunications cottunissiott (952) 471-7175 ' Mediacom- Review Period2000~2001 Mr. Dennis NeWD1àn Director of Infonnation Services City ofWfuston-Salem, Northéatolina (336)727-2690 " Time Warner Cable-Review Period 2000-2001 Ms. Chris NewtJJll Internal Auditor City øfAlbauy, Georgia (229) 431-3224 Mediacom-Review period 2000-2002 I' I I I I , I SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. SCOPE OF SERVICES ------------------- Scott Lewis & Associates P.¡\.. proposes to conduct a two year comprehensive review of cable television franchise fee remittances for the City of Dubuque. The purpose of this project js to measure the c~ble television operator's compliance performance againstwhat is require,d as stipulated in the related franchise agreement audlor ordinances; and to utilize our expertise to identify potential new sources of revenue. Based upon experience, establishing specific objectives will help satisfy our goal, which is to measure the respective cable operator's compliance performanceagaiust what is required by the franchise agreement and/or ordinance in connection with franchise ,fee remittances. 'To achjeve this goal our services will encompass the following activities: I, 1, Identify what revenue streanîS aresnbject to franchise by reviewiugthe franchise agreement and related ordinances in conjundiôu With our understandfug offederallaw. ' ' I I I I I I I I I I I 2. Ou-site, Visits to franchisee to obtain and exanllne relevaniaccouuting. data , ánd supporting documentation. ' 3., Identify all revenue sources by classification ,verify dlculationslUJ,d vouch to supportiilg documentation. Evaluateallocatiou methodology with respect to uon-subscriberrevenue ánd conduct search for unreported revenues. 4. Examine the cable operator's customer codÏi1g todeterll1Íì1e if all addrésses within the City's iucorporated boundaries were properly coded to the City's des,iguatedfrauchise' area. ~. Recalculate, franchise fees due using the approved effective rates. 6. Issue report explai¡:dng fmdiugs. The report will describe our conclusions concerning the, accuracy of franchise fee remjttances,' Comment on non- compliance issues,' and iuclud,esUpportingschedules. 7. Meet with Client via conference caU following completion offield work tô fonnally pres cut overview of findings. ~.Provide assistance iu negotiating financial settlement with franchisee. I ! - I" " , 1 . If: , 8¡ III! , .. .. I I I I I I I I I I I SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. WORK PLAN ---------------------- TASK 1- NOTIFICATION TO EACH FRANCmSEEIREQUEST FOR INFORMATION The folIowmg is a speCific checklist of iterns to be provided by the City: 1. Copies of franchise agreements, and applicable ordinances. 2. Copies ofallfrapchise fe,e payment r(!!lÚttances along with supporting documentation provided by the cable operator covermg the time period under review. ' 3, Listing of zip codes loca.tedwithiu the mcorporated bo\ludaries. each City. 4. Hard copy or electronic listing of all street addresses located withm the incorporated boundaries of the City. The streetnarnes should be sortedju , alphabetical order, street n\llÌlbers m nnmericalsequence, with related hollse numbers also m uUlnericalsequence. 5. ' Provide verification of speCific addresses which contain the above zip codes but are notrel1ectedm franchisee remittances. Lewis & Associates will extract this inform:atiop from the cable operator's records based upon data indica.tedin Item' 4 above. 6. Listing ot"names; addresses andtelephoue numbers offranchiseecomp,any personnel City contacts. 7. Notification to franchisee, m writing, authorizing Scott Lewis & AssoCiates to represent Cities m theconiluct of this project. TASKU-oN-SITE VISIT It hasbeeu our past experience with Mediacom for the operator to photQCopy and send the requested records to Our office for examination. If the examination is conducted at Mediacom's Corporate Offices ,or other location, the field work will require a minimum of four days. This estimate is based upon the cable operator providing a high level of cooperation with respect fu making its records available for examination.. All requests for records and supportiugdocumentatiou will be madeiu writing. LeWis & Associates will verify and evaluate the cable operator's level of readiness prior to arriving on site. t¡ , , !~ r I I: I' It f I: ~ ~ f I I I I I I 1 SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. WORK PLAN (CONTINUE!» TASKID-ANALYSIS OF DATA Therevénue data received; fromcabJe operator wiH be used to summaIizeall revemies earned within the boundaries of the Client. The revenue sull1mary wiH document the portion of revenues which the cable operator has includediu the franchjse fee remittances. In addition, we wiH conduct a search for revenues that may be reflidedouthe operator's parent's books. and as such excluded from r~cognition at the system level. The specUk revenue or contra-expense accounts which have been excluded fromthec~mpiJatiou of the revenue base will bè analyzed. to determine ifsùchamountsare properlyexdudelJUudertlìe definition. of the revenue base found ju the CitY"s respective franchise agreell1ent and/or ordinances. Auycoltl,putaiioual errors or revenue definition differences wiH be clearly indicÌlted iIiour report. tASK IV-REPORT PREPARATION Scott Lewis & Associates upon completion of the.ou-sitè work audfinancial analysis,'wHI summarize all findings and prepare a draft copy of the report for revjewbya designated official of the CitY. AIlitems wiH be reViewed and discussed before the report is finalized. Scott Lewis & Associates willprovide four copies orthe finalized œportto the approprjate designated City Official. TASK V-ASSIST CITY IN NEGOTIATING FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT Actiug iIi the capacityasyonr consultant we wiH explain and support the review ¡IDdiugs and conclusions during negotiation sessions with the cable television operator. I I I I Ii I Ii I: I () I I I I I I I I I SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P.A. PROJECTED PROJECT SCHEDULE ------------------- Upon contract award Lewis & Associates will immediately begin Week No.1. Depending upon the availability of the records, the on-site portion of the work will begin anytime between three and eight weeks subsequent to the date of notification. WEEK NUMBER WORK PLAN TASK DESCRIPTION ------- ------- --------------------------- 1 1 Request preliminary information . from Cities. 1 Notify franchisee of engagement IlUd . obtain apporntmentto begin on-site examination of records. 2 1 Request Information from frllUchisee (address listings, franchise calculation wòFk-sheets, annual operating statemeuts,supporting documentation; 4-5 Begiueustornercoding , examiuationof using the address data provided by the City & Mediacorn 6 2 On-site Review 7 3 Analysis of Data 8 4 Draft Review Findings 10 4 Issue Final Report 14 5 Assist With Negotiatious I ~ I I ! SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATESP.A. PROPOSED TIME COMMITMENT ----------------- 1. Frauchise Agreement & OrdÌlÍance Review 2,' Customer Coding Review 3. Review & Summarize Franchise Fee Calculation Work-shééts, and Supporting I}ocumentathm Provided by Client & Càble Operator 4. On/Off-Site Field Work 5. OtherSöurces OfIncomeSearch 6. Financial Auaiysjs 7. Draft RepQtt 8. Finalizé Report 9. Assist In Negotiation Process TotalEstimated Hours To Complete Project Estimated #Honrs 2 12 4 36 5 20 10 4 7 100 I- I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I I I , SCOTT LEWIS & ASSOCIATES P A. CURRENT INSURANCE COVERAGE Commercial Geueral Liability $1,000,000 Pr.ofessional Liability $1,000;000 WorkersCompeusatiou (No Employees) NA The firm willmeeUheCity'sIusurance Requirement If AwardedCoutract cab Ie television franchise fee able television franchise fee revenue can be a significanr porrion of a localgovernmenr's annual opera ring budget. In most cases, reminancechecks received by rhe fr~nchise a¡¡thoriry indicate only rhe gross revenue aggregate sum generated from the designated franchise area. The checksrypically do nor indude supporting detail such as speCific revenue componenrs comprising the total and relared subscriber Sìarisrics that support thè compo" nenrs. When a françhising aUthority decides ro review rhe accuracy of the ()perator's payments, acquiring the proper documents to support the specific revenue components can be espeCially difficuIt when companies have been transferred or sold - possibly more than once - since the last time a review BY & SCOTT LEWIS PAUL SMOLEN SPRING 2003 :zs I, Faymem: Review I wao conducted. Document> ¡nay have been misplaced. CalcuJations may be complicated due to the applica- tion of various policies by the different operators at different intervals. At the time the teview is conducted, you probably will be dealing with a person that was not even mvolved in the calcuJation of the amounts remitted, let alone those persons who direct(Od policy relating to those payment>. All ofthese factors compli- cate fee reviews. Th(O industry as a whole is under substantial pres- sure by Wall Street analysts, investors and variouo financial inotitutiono ro meet cash flow goals, increase the subscriber base and reduce debt. Multiple System Operators recognize rhar EBITDA (Earnings Before Inter(Ost, Taxes, Depreciation, & AmortizatÎon), the present standardized measure of an operator's financial and operational h(Oalth,will inevitably in the very near fUture be replaced by Earnings Per Share and Net Income, as the primary criteria for raising.invesrment capital to expand services and distribution. Some cable operators interpretthe term "gross revenue" in fran, chise agreements very narrowly, particularly if the agr(Oements were negotiated 10 to 25, years earlier when some of the services did not exist. In addition, competition - real or imagined - may cause the opera, tor to simply overlook revenues that the liJtérnal Revenue Servic(O would certainJv not overlook. The cable operator's overaiI' objective is to reduce costs and increase profitS. The overall objective of the franchise authority is to ensure compliance with its existing agreements. Given that each party's goals may lead to different conclusions concerning the require- ments of the agreements, periodic compliance reviews ar(O beneficial to each of the parties. Compliance reviews typically encompaso five areas: (i) Timeliness Verification-Are payments made in accordance with the time stipulations set fonhin the agreement? Has interest been paid on amounts that were not paid on ti¡ne? What int(Orest rate was used? Was the rat(O specified in the franchise, or does state law specify the interest rate? (2) Proper Inclusion of Subscriber and Non- Subscriber Revenues-- This is the area where moOt of the reporting and payment "errors" occur. . Is the Operator including and ptoperly calculat- mg all revenue components in the base subject to franchise fee application, consistent with the gross revenue definition refleQ;ed in the specific franchise document? .., , . Is the non-subscriber revenue base used in the allocation all-inclusive and supported by the general ledger and related financial statements? . Does the operator include launch fees and marketing support reimbursements in the non- subscriber revenue base? (Cable companies typi- cally receive payments from the various programming services as financial inducements to launch new produCtS and to maintain subscriber groWth levels fer existing services. Operators in most circumstances account for such revenues as ¡narketing and/or progra¡n- I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ming expens,e reductions and as such, exclude such amounts from franchise fee application. It is important tonore rhat launch fees represent payment> for distribution while marketing support obligations are usually satisfied bv running cross promotional spots on the sýstem at no significant costtp the operatot,) . Does the operator Use equivalent subscribers to pay fees on contract revenue from apartment units? . Has the operator included revenue from commercial customers? - . Did the operator include amounts collected for the franchise fee as revenue subject to the fran- chise fee? (This last item is known as the "fee on fee" and many operators are still reluctant to include these fees in spite of the 1997 district court ruling, or they may havesirnply neglected to pass on the word to the clerk cakulatingthe feeo.) (3) Gross Revenue Deductions~ls the operator taking improper deductions when cakulàting the revenue base,subjecr to franchise fee application? The most common deduction is for accounts that, pròved to be uncolleçtible. This amount should be net of any amounts collected from customers whose accounts were previously written off but decide to resume service and pay t!:Ieamounts previously owed to the cable operator. There are also times when operators see fit to deduct the cost ofsales commission5Írom advertising rèvenues, This would be àna]ogous to deducting the salary of the installer from the insta]]atiQn fees. For this re,ason, the rC\'enues are speciíìed as gross revenues. There are many variations on rhis theme. (4) Boundary Vl¡rificatiQ'n-Isthe franchise authority being paid on all subscribers residing within its incorporated or uninçotporated bound- aries? Operators frequently make mistakes when coding address passings to a designated franchise area; Other errors occur when an operator fai)sto update it> records for municipal annexations. Some operators will consider existing contractual obliga- tions to homeowners associations as substitutes for franchise fees to the franchising authority even after a particuJar area was annexed. Also, so¡ne operators assume that organizations that have exemptions from state and local taxes ate also ,~,:, ,exempt from franchise fees. This IS not the case, 'unless the fees are specifically exempt by agree- 'ment or state law. (5) Ovt!rsights and Mathematical Errors-c-Has the operator at some time simply failed to be consistent in their payment patterns, or has the person or system handling the payments made a mathematical oversight? Is the operator applying the COITect rate when calcularing its franchise fee remittances? Renegotiated agreements alre" r<,olt in an increase in the fee percentage that is some- times notcomrnunicated to the individual responsi- ble for the calculations. 2G NATOA' JOURNAL OF MUNICIPAL THECO~'MUNICATIONS POLICY I' I Because franchise agreements are either contracts or in effect by ordinance, the franchising aUthority should monitor the payment stream just as it does its other sourceS of revenue. Compliance reviews of the existing contracts are imponant components for consideration in the cable franchise renewal process 'and with changes of ownership of the Cable system. Many cable systems are in the process of transferring from one provider to another Or are renegotiating franchise ,renewals. This is a perfect time for compliance reviews. The reviews shollld stan as early in the transfer or renèwà! process as possible, In many instances, failure' tQ review past performance and payments may result in a permanent loss of revenue because the transfer did 'not specify that the liability for prior years' payment should he assigned to the new provider, or that the previous provider's records should be made ;¡vailable to" the new provider. Once the transfer or renewal is approved, it may be difficult or impossibletoteview any prior years. In addition, rhe tr~nsfer and renewal process is an appropriate time to make sure .the new opemtor understands the terms of the franchise reI at- ing ro gross revenues and is willingro providerhe specific information'requiredro verify 'the revenues. This "is also a good time tospedfy in rhefranchise what information mUsr accompany the payments and be provided during a review. Many operatOrs do not even provide copies of requesred information and I I I I I I I . . I I MILLER Cable and TeleCommunications Law Attorne}'s for LÒcàI Government I Visit www.rniDervaneaton.com for * Lêading Case Rèports * FeåJure Articles * Cablè Renewal Toolkit * Tower Toolkit * Firm Profile Miller &VanEaton, P.LL.c. 1155 Connecticut Avenue NW Suite 1900 Washingtou D.C.20ò36 Ph: (202)785-0600 , Fax: (202) 785-1234 Miller & Van Eaton, LL.P 400 Montgomery Street Suitê 501 San FranciSco, CA 94104 Ph: (415) 477,3650 Fax (415)477~3652 . . Payment Revie1lV require the reviews to be conducted in their offices. The franchise should specify "copies of documents requested" should be provided under a non-disclosure agreement that assures the operator that "competitive" or "proptìet"'Y" information will not be at r"isk. In addition;, thefmnchise agreement should contain specific provisionnpatguarantee the franchise authori- ty its right to conduct franchise fee compliance exami- nations withoUt any limitation of the time period under review (except for the local Statute of limita. tions). The agreement should also specify a time frame (usually four to six weeks is considered reasonable) for' the operator to make available all supporting docu" mentation pertaining to the audit and related dollar penalties fQr nQri-compliance. To discourage aggressive strategies with respedtO the cable opérator's f,anchise fee calculations, it is nOt uncommou for fraÌ)chise agreements to also, proVide for full recovery of the cost of the examination from the opemror, shoule! the audit uncOver underpayments thatare subsequèI1tly agteed to by both parties as due and owing~ In summary, there areprocessesandrequir~ments that should be included ill the franchise agreement that will strengrhenthe reporting and compliance review gf both parties' obligations and privileges. A clear und"t- standing of those requirem~ntsarid mutine reviews wiII create a better relatioÌ)spip betWeen tpe franchising. authorities and the cable çperators.1!iI & V AN EAr 0 N. P, L.L.C. WeA,ss~NATOA Members In Achieving The Fun Benefits Of Thè Coinmunú:ations Age For Théir CommuniJæs . Próud M.embers of NA TOA since 1982 . . SPRING 2003 ,- ...,......'.... T e lecom:.Staffsuggësts county. use extra funds to fight state legislatio.D, . .. .. Çon/lnuedfrom 1Þ m!l!lC)/\ eå:~ )'"ar In lelecqmmu. nlcallon franchIse fees. If. commissioners gD alDng with staIr su~st¡;)ns. another $50.000 wi!l pa)' fDr a consul tent lø begIn phasetwo of tile inslJtu- tionøJoetwôrk, Essman said. When it Is Dperating. th! 11. ber-øpllc network will connect Collier Count)' schools, tile coun- t:)' offices, olher local govern- meou and ultlmatel)' county , residents to eacilother, ' " .Constituenls. can communi. cate with ',Ole government.on a .. more efficient basis." Essman said, ,County residents .will!>e able . to pay tbelr water biUs and traf- fic eitatiôns over Üle' ,>,slem. alollt witbhavlrit: access to a number øCother services with- out leaving home. "It. can Dave the Inllnlelpallty mone)' an.dreduce tile lÍ.eed Cot leulnctèleþbone lines." . J!:S' mIlD '/iid. '.. ' 10 ølbel' business,commis. sion!rrívi!l: ' . Consider . request b)' coun. t)' re.slden\,s' J.,arry and Llnlla Love. regarding wbat tbey sa)"is the select.lve. enforcement b)' Collier's code eRtorcemelit sec' tion or tbe ordhiance requlrlrig the remo\oal or exotic plants rrom developed property, . Decide' wbat sort or sand to use to widên the beach at Hldèa. wa)'Bllach QII Mar<:o Istand' Bnd on j;Jther sid,e or Horizon Wa)' beachaccIIss in Park Shore. . Hear concerns fròIIinelgh, bprs' of, a Golden, Ga~ Estates cilrus grove aoutll of Immokalee Roa<fproposêd to be Párlpf an e~Pallslqnof an existing earth. mlni"'operatJoo. . Pr!~eDt1'hoenix A~<li iii reCQgobeEmergeney MedlèøJ Serilces Jlafalnedlcs and '1!:MS paralnedlc,r!l'eflghte rswbo broug\)t back to life ,vlcUms !It e:ardiac arreSt. ' , , , . Consjder approvlni, the fulldlngor (Qur new positlon.s witbll\ the "i'i-anspo~tlon SIIrv- ices Division and approve bud- get amendments w transfer fund~ ror the new poslliQns. . Glv4j direction to Ole county : attorn'll)' concern!", two COII\. ' plaints filed wilh Collier County commissioners alleging that the , Madeira ¡>UD, ordinance ',ÌI, In. I eonsislent with tbe CollierCoun-.I I)' Çrowth Management plan. ' . DlsCus,sand possiblY g¡\oe staJT dirèct.lon regardillt th\1! beautification Overlay at the proposed Interstate 15 inter- cbanteon,G,olden Gate'P8rkw~)'; . . . . .,'i' . ~", :1 . ,i~",'~¡~ .' ,I i 0 ' ,a \, ~ ,,' .ft- If r E" ~ I -~- " ~-- - Ii [,iJill; j Ii lffl ii if ~Ii~~~,r~, ~~i ~i,il;[ ~,!I,!, R,i ~ nil: ~~ ~ ¡~g' 'I, "l,: '.\ÍD, ,~~&r..it.ar~" ...:.~,.&ola.;;s:!,I;\"-"!! ,~""...::;'ö"'.ä:~"'~""'..,r>"Q1t-""r>¡;~~","'.s-"'~"I=ot. .,,(=--. ;,J:.,'9"~":¡¡,d,!",p¡,af:,:'=,a'::;§,.'1l ~..O,":ö'.~...~§"~\h,',~,'!!.,~'ß","~,..'CI",~,~~.g',or>".'lS,,¡;.'1ô.~::¡;..'",S(2. G, 1tø:1: .~, .-",.,.:'"""',,.c:a..",-f&""=..,,. ~¡:S"'.B~IPI,fi!1 .,. ='!!§1'J"¡! Q"':;,"""e-"I::;~:I'öþ....e: AI>" ,,§g "'ä g¡:~!; ~I! \:tV'" CI)' - {("l~i~'~!=' l~UJ~Wgli !ii~!1~[~~~IJ[g~g:~.~~2,aä~1(1~~'" §~i t~"JI'. ,:,,-* ' ,'~ ~ai~,'~I!:;'l,-=:, ë'1:.~1",.g¡'t'iI :re:.,ñ,..,g.;r,.tI",,~,.'.g,e.,..g,.:i..=,,",p..f,,~.W."'8,¡::E.~"'.S-,.,~,.'~ ,~,~.,.J,~~. O!;¡Iq J,:~""."", =.'.,.",.;S' a.,'.;"",",,~('D -." " ""'i""a,o...",g...:::..=..-al'liOI'ø.-""'þ'E"oo""""'m....'o",,"""" '., .."."" ,',<, - .::~.:,II~d~.'¡ [,!>.,I1Í.n,~!~,!f~,'~,:,~~.If,.,"~~,[;'~"'~"',¡a,"':. &,.'~~."!;.,~ "fi':',~,'~",~ '~..,Io. > '.=,' "',:ft~"',,, ciI'.' " '1J"frCli,~o,!;:;.R"O¡¡t! !!:"". ...t'f~::;g....~~=... ..=-::,;: ",Q~,~" ~'hl,.....:;..., ...~' "'- \1:1P Z. . :os. . "":os" '" r> """Or> ø.""... "0. " .ø /þ,O a.. ' ,,11ß' ~hl ~n~~~~¡:~$ ~J¡;~!U~~H:. ~§"I~;!~'~~ ~ti~f! Ul., ,: ' , : "','.' '.:, , " .' ,:' .. , "" ';', ,"..' , ' , ' " --' , . " .' ",', '- ':'.:-,<":>: " ~,;, " ; 2131HolIyW~ ~O4IeVa~:~ile?(j8,~,HOlfyw~d; FlOrida3~~?.P~~ndJF.~(954.¡:~2?~900£ ,', , '. ::;:,;~~f~iîciS' â:~ i tOse,itl~~~ ~t..~. ;~~~g~ ,:",;"".~;"!1'"",:,, ' "" '," ,,~'-,-'~--'-"c-'--'" ",.~,,'C,,"""';-!"""""'é""!"""" "., " ": ' ' ,,~ :1993,lolh.;endorl99S.TCldls~g'eed, 'Com.dS5I..~delayedlÞe"""'~!~1nt.'tiie~ltt.'.e¡¡.,altU1ld~"\"";":' JO~E~EDU!:"' " wllh \he audil'. findings and ,efusod unlillonl!ht, ".... IhO)",,1II dl'<iJ" ,'t,Mlèh""IWøods"or Tel Com",u, '" ,,"", to pay, '" ,,:"and'lIkolyapp'ontho"llIem.nl,:oal\onilne~aáldbebopeithe.l" PINES - MonUø or Thel..u. hoaled up onJan;6, \\"h.. whIch Indud.. ao..pla..eonM,::~an be pullorell'" 0'" ,. ,', ..,": wllI.nd lonlghl "hen TCI....ghlthe'ommf$slon',o~p'o'al, m"ger8Dd <ond,u.ion'ol a feder.r"..,"~l'..,..rtalnll glad 10.....lv. I ,eable...ínp.nyTClTJ!RorSouth loínergelrilhAT&TCorp.TCI'.rron. la\\"'oll aboollhe mall"" ' ".Wooduald.'. "d', "-",,, ,':' Florida o¡¡ers lull pa'lll,enlol$313,361 ohl.. agre"menlcequires c.mmlssi..~We wore able'.lo,u,olhal a. lev- ',': '"II'. I...'..erdue,. ~"'mf$sl.' , "llfditput.dlranchise ree.. " ',' ',agroom,onlo/sucb mergers. ' eroge 10 sit do\\'l1'al \he lable and" Ben fi."ndln...ld. ,,' " . ,- - ""':Th.'..tUemell~ wi>lch mlisl,be ap-"La" moeUng, I put.. 11"01 on 10 wo,klhlngs ou~" M.,.. AI". f"k.te.>~',1'I;r. frarn:hlse,a."'ß\eJ)U.I}.", i 'p,.ved br tbtée of Ihe Rve comml.. deny (lhe merge'l and Ihol gollhol. .ald. "We ¡tJi.,.. w"hiTe a ,ighl O" ;10 ..P~1y muohor,lb"d~MÕ¡¡;r, i ,loners,lollo"",o...dll the ,ity to.., alle.Uon," CUr ManacerChorlie' thatmo"ey and our ,.n,lilu.nls will""""'" ,,' " " ,. ,', i ,:~~~~,~~"ot.,:ra' reoo'd~c!'~" July I, Dodce ,said,' 'n'_~,:'_n.. "',nnn benenUby h..'in& 'he' money pJa<,e.d..,::'> ~L~E SEE SEtTLEMENTl88 , '. .. ',- ~:d ., ':': ,',:::;,..-:. . "". '-' <, " '\ ,~ ," ,..', , , "', " . .. ,S~LEMENT , ~'WeWèreabldo usetbtltâs lèv«irage to sitdov.ìn ,attlte, table ,and work things out. We believe'we havetr--- ,right to~at money." "':-Pembroke Pines Mayor Alex Fekete ':" ,..""", , there I, atwora 1..terP.relalloil," -- , b. .old.,', , ,," "',,' ,,' c', ::, 'A,parlollhe,.l.tIeIi1eÍ1~the'" , parli~ .1l1al\'Oe on o..e!hod 10 ' , cal""lale"I... 10 prev..1 Culure ' problem.."" ,", ',\nlhem.anU..e,'th."ltyJs,' , ""ndueling 'another.udll of Tel ", :'. ,,!hal would..,.."I"" record. f,o", " {:;:~rr.l~ 1996. to the end or:: " . , 'H.llyirond.b~sed' areountanl ,n Stoll Lewl...ld be _cis to, ", "mplele a dral\ audit by eatly, , ' Marth:: -: -" ' 'tCI.. Wood. ,aid tbal audit' ,oold,'rev.ol Ihe ,.mpany 0"" -- op"rallon 10 MedlaOn.. II' said' Ihe,lty ..Ibln,o, ",otitl..Ually. ' -. ,u,I...o" lik-.ly \Till not noll,ea Ie.'" than Ibe eu'relll ..me- change a. the eon'pany ,wilebe.-- ..e..t":" ,,' ,', band.. ',"Lewl.'lnIUalaudllwu""',:,:,, Wood...ld Iho reud \\"U ba,1- dueled O,n bolh Tel and Telo...", , rallyaboul how 100.kul,lerran- dlalnr..ind r.und Telem~dia; ehis<! re... ' .wed Iheei\J $10,229. 'teleMedia,.. , "As muchas,.e IbinhèoOOIII- paid the dty i month allerr..'. 1..:!s.an..a'I'de~~,..,u~~ .elvlnC,!lsbill, , " " ",' .., ,'.. " , ", ,:,,',:,,' ~"!lG"'f" '.', ,ëable¿Q)np~l)Y , "to pay balallce ~,:' ~.r$313,361 bitt, , " ¡;¡.e¡..'ea,hange for pa¡oinc the ',' tilypartollls""Onu... " ',:~Th. agreemenl ,equl,.. TCllo ", mahilal.. $50;000 In arund lbe " , dty'oan a<1l°i" II TCI vlolot.. ,. 'Ihe' a,teement, Dodge said, ". \1Odce saicltb..udllenabled Ihe : cllrl.lake moneyr,om the rund, ',' ;"hl,h TCI 01"1 '"n,l,nlty re- """"Î)lenlsh.A.sa,..ul~lhoclty.I, , ",. ::.::rnhJ'o e:~~I:t~~~~j:, " ',IU1I.' appr...I, TCI\\"III .upply , ':!!':W~.!::':~IÙCt' will "ina;1I one or...eraloable provide.."'" -ò..n wll." it e.mpletesU, me'g- .;'i\':í'\th,~T&T and lransr". lis ,,"::,'., .,'" ",.. " '. '.. ,c, " , ".' . ,.., . " ..' :. ",""'.. ,)=~~~.~ ~~';: ;~: , , ":: Miramai ~y'commissjonl'i'S win m~WCdnesdày~to voto"" , , ,on'o ,;banSI' in control oHhe I'ÍtY'$cab,Ic'ldI'viâO,O$CrlÙ 8Jldto ' . , ' " " fine-tune Ibe citY~$ cable françbi$C regulatioO$ after $!'tUmla ".. S200,ooo,dì$plltcwiththeÇUrrcnfcompaoy." , ',. ' , ':' . :. Tbé dlY'$ cable francbise hubccJl' held by TCI TIm: of . " .. Sqj¡th Florida. Conlrolofthe companywin,MWcban~.to....T&T. . :' . Tel T{R of South Florida bad 10 pay,tbc'l'ity $200,000 after .'..' :~' ,a franÇbisc'..fcc audit. As'part oftbescUltm~t the I'i!y a¡rced to '::-' cbangcSQmcofthelangùasciÌllbccable'conlrali:t. ,,""""--- : " " ,TbemcclmB ",iUoo at,7 p.m, iotbeoommiS$ioo'chambers, ", :~',;';..nn~';-,:".,I)~""",~';',,":,:, ',:', ,,:i,.--:-,;:'q;';, ,..'" .. " " ", " ':' :,..', " , ;. .. . ,,'" ",/ I. I I I I I I I n i':5--g¡;.S'§ ;;;g¡¡;g~§'~~g- .ffg-5¡j" n <~.goc~ ',<3~3øc.~G~C-G'~ ;;;G..,' E-~ å ~,,~ ;!~~z-g ~o ~ ~ g" if c-",g.".õ-< Þ Œr;>~~: ~~~§.~ f;~'&gQ[-¡c. ~~ :3~ ~~ g-it;; !i:~j ~~,~p.:r:~ g~.g ë.c.~ e-;:! ¡; g -..\c;;~ ~ "'Þ -",~OG c ;;;;'gc.gc.co ~~ürUüùt~ïia1 ~~~"'\~õ""s-:;",¡;-g¡;",~ s- E'íf ~'\3 :..,-.q,¡¡ :::,h:.~~O<O<¡;,o..()~'\t:.O.;,.-""õ- ~~~ ~ ~~;;;g &~ ~~:~~,,~ ~ ~ ¡¡'~;h 3 \:U ~i~\~1t~t~¡in~q~n OCAU\ ~ The city of Ocala'$ audit of cable fran, chlse fees found thilt Col' ComrnunicationsInc. has underpaid the city nearly , $200,000 over a four-year peri- "They are ad, Cox said it will pass' the additional fees along ,to' its raising the customers,,' h The figure to be passed percent t e along will be sHght1y less customer will '; based on a City Council ded- ultimo ' .ately Pay,: sion Tuesday nJght, , "They are raismgthe per- for franchise '. cent the customer wi11 ulti, fees," mately pay for fra)1c1úse fees; , said 'Gary'Cassard, . Cox vice Gary ,Cassar,d , president iul(1'gener,a1 manage ',:. " ' ~'.. '-er,matelephonecönversati.on' ,caxy",p""d,."'a~.d, , TtÏesday,aÍtemoon. "1 am stlll ,:'$', ""al wanaga rese;irching ,this with my,legal, ' ' .fo1ks,.,-',:~¡",,';\,"':'::':"'-" """ " ,-The city hiied Lewis 'and ASsÓéiatesto,áudit the cable friulchise fees fMÿèärs' '199$;"1997 and 1998, ',: Theconsu]rant found a shomall of$146,995-01. cÓx ;-' :meiWith thedty and)t w¡¡,;; ¡'lgr~edtolOlÝ~[t.he fig' , ,'.ure,to $146,055,Ol;.-wruchAncltÏdes'interéstand the , H ;3~os~r:~j~~aJ:::'¿~}?~il:,~d~~dJ'};pw:e9 ~ , : I¡ (àudit-for ,1999 arid :'uric()v~reël"I111derpayments of \ l§' ';;$~~ß1ß, whjc,h inc1q,déS in~~~est and the':$4,QOO aow¡ ; I.:s¡ . fee:"For fiscal year'that ended Sept. -30, the' ttt~ ! r~ FÜASE SEE AUDIT ON 46 ' ' ! ("" 1'-\ ici' ¡§ , F~' , : i ì i \ -; I \ I I \ City "says ,Cox owes , $i46,ODO Cable company to. pass fees along locusto.mers ,By SUSAN LATHAM CARR ST",W"", 'i~ :\~ Inmate's threats. , - lead to' charges, ~ 'Ii~iiH~~tnÚij-~¡tl' i'i-:I' -",c.?;c.o"" oGc GGG<c>o"'~ C c.. ..- ~~õg-:"~~g~3:~¿¿[;",,~J¡[fgÒÕg¡; 6 " ~,> ;:;E:g,¡¡;g~G~c.~-';' s-co.""s'"",§¡ñ-E ~ -. , ~" :;ff~::;~&t\~H g~;!ht..¡¡¡¡g¡ ~ ~ ~l no.¡¡:ifs';;gs'g ä!¡ g),¡¡h D.::: 0 ¡¡ S' ¡:; 0 :¡¡ :1~~~ ~~~ i~¡ H* !~~;~ ,~ ,~~\, ':"¡"E.or¡;.~¡;'~-:~'~ ~p.;:;'.:x~¡¡-:;, - ~ -,¡¡c.~.oo' ",¡"O ";¡;",,,,~"'n~' g, '~ " ;;~",~~'ó~...~p." "'GWG~G~" ~ ",'., S'2 :;'Bõ2:g~ :rB§gÆ~ ¡¡~~H g þ) ~ §¡¡ó'R.¡Pf~.g~Qs¡¡g.°õs-¡¡:~1!¡¡-a~&'~ =' ~; g.~~~'~':;[~~~¡j"~~¡t,:;;'g!t~G'~!iinn 8, i~!~tUni~'~Hliin~~lr ¡-'" : ~~r;> ~s-¡,;-ê,<=-2 ~õ'<s-~iiS-,,":'Go'" VI ",;;x goS'c;';x õ'¡;."G"",-!>,~~-g,~ - ¡¡g,S- q;;~ãs,~",g.~t\ò:g':;¡,~~5'g,' \...' ]ßJJ5'gt¡¡-g~ ã.=i':~ã~"'gr,~S- '::!"' ~~~ ~~~~i~ ~~~~ H~n H \ or tÞ (I) (I) ::T ~':' (I)~; , n ~I. ::r ~ tt)"' -.;:' ""0 S).) "', -. Q.; n -. ,~, -<~, ~ -,: &' C; ~,' ~. .gÆ~~~~~~t.~~:~U ,~~~~~§ ~ 2:~~ ~ ~~s~gi~¡f!-È1~[qo ~ê'~¡¡-~ ' i *imnR\lmm mil g, .g"'¡¡;¡¡if~~¡;:õib-a¡;:§¡¡g ~;;!3-8¡¡- ~ ~~~~hi~H¡¡-~i1¡-~[ ~~l~ 000' ..,oc."",{ ¡;>"'õg:::<¡;g S¡¡3E ..\ HiL,¡¡e;;:~gg,,~¡¡8g,!l;;"'En":.flg.¡j:, ..' n¡],§:;¡~g,~[a:g PC>if::~¡¡5"õ,~¡f '~::- 'I1i:' ~;¡.~~oP_og"'O¡;>g,noS'oP:;O8Q"'if I net ggl~~¡¡;C~~,ifi':8~p;",Pg~~a.,,~gc ?f¡¡,g;ffi'g, ¡,¡:rã ; ¡¡ R.g ;.~¡r~ §:~~ ~ [§ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ã.,., ~,¡;.;;.~¡¡-¡to :; ","'<;J,:::s-" g-;¡~ 5:J¡,¡¡ ~;¡; õ'::o"".~~3<Øg.g,<qo.~,<~" o~ ~G~ "~¡,.O~"';;:~~~C..~ 2~ ::ic,c.' a",E:¡f-:::~õ-žo~.o~~;"'t\¡r~~~c. ,,1iÆ' I;':'i ~~g-~~o~r~g~i~H5-[!{ ~ ~&¡f ¡;.i\~¡; \?<¡;gt\~ni':~~~o~j¡" n '::~~ ~§:¡¡-E ~¡¡-~[!.:I?¡¡-h~'f!õ .:I ~,~~ I BY JOE CALLAHAN SCOTT LEWIS &ASSOCIATES P.A. PROPOSED FEE STRUCTURE --------------~---- Our proposed fee strnctur~ appears as follows: Fixed Fee:'$10,000+actualout-of -pocket costs Qut-of-pocketwstsareesfunafed at $2,500iu the aggregate aud arc billed at actual with, nomark-up. The above estimateiucludes the cost of one trip top'erformfield work. If tniYelis not necessary to complete this project, out-of-þoeket costs arelimited to $150. The above proposed feds payabie as follows: $2;500 Upon Execution of Agreemeut $'7,500 Upon.SubmÍSsiou OfFin,dized Report Out-ofcpoeket costs - ùpou Submìssiou of FinaliZed Report