HomeMy Public PortalAbout19950713SCMeeting1
1
1
1
95- 07 -13. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
A special meeting was held at 6:30 p.m., immediately prior to the
✓ gular monthly meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to offer
f r sale certain FiFa properties after having met the criteria of
t e state law which requires specific notifications and
a vertisements in advance of the sale. Mayor Pat Locklear
p esided and the following members of Council were present:
K trina Hughes, Billy Remeta, Mariann Wildi and Paul Jackson.
Te City Attorney, Edward Hughes, handled the sales.
The first property offered for sale was 119A Savannah Beach &
R cquet Club, PIN # 4- 02- 201 -119A, in the name of Anthony
P gliano. Delinquent taxes were $170.74, plus costs bringing the
t tal to $203.99. David Cohen was the only bidder at $203.99.
P N #4 -02 -11 -006, Captain's Row, was next offered. Taxes due in
the name of Lamar Holloway were $158.14, with costs for a total
of $198.39. David Cohen was the successful bidder at $2050.00.
The third property was in the name of Mary F. Powers, PIN # 4 -04-
27 -001, with taxes of $101.71 for a total, with costs, of
$134.96. Jason Dalla:ra was the successful bidder at $2225.00.
The final piece offered for sale was owned by M -Five, Inc., PIN #
4 -08 -03 -019, with taxes of $50.38, total due of $85.63. Jason
Dalarra bid it in at $150.00.
The special meeting was adjourned at approximately 7:05 p.m.
Mayor Locklear opened the regular July meeting of the Tybee
Island City Council at 7:30 p.m. on the same date. The following
Councilmembers were present: Mariann Wildi, Katrina Hughes, Paul
Jackson, Billy Remeta, Jack Youmans and Phil O'Dell. City
Attorney Hughes was also present. Mayor Locklear called on Carl
Thompson to lead the prayer, and followed with the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag. The meeting was then opened for business
legally presented.
Minutes of the June meeting were unanimously approved as written
on motion and second by Councilmembers Jackson and Wildi.
Mayor Locklear welcomed a large audience who had come to voice
concern over recent property assessments. Gary Udinsky, Chief
Assessor for Chatham County, was introduced by the Mayor and
spoke, explaining the methods used and the differences between
"values" approved by the Board of Assessors and "taxes" levied by
local governments - councils or commissions. Special guests who
were present for this portion of the meeting included, in
addition to Mr. Udinsky, Danny Powers, Commissioner Frank Murray,
and the following members of the local delegation: Burke Day,
Anne Mueller, Tom Bordeaux, Sonny Dixon and State Senator Eric
Johnson. Questions from the audience occupied about an hour,
1
1
1
after which the City Council unanimously passed a Resolution
concerning local taxes (copy attached to and a part of these
minutes).
David Godley spoke for the Fine Arts Commission outlining the
local group's planned participation in the Marifest.
Jim Kluttz spoke for the Tybee Island Historic Society, showing a
customized wooden plaque for identification of properties by age,
that will be available through their organization. He reported
that the committee formed to look into military names for the
Fort Screven streets will soon have a report for City Council.
A Resolution concerning Cable TV (copy attached to and a part of
these minutes) was read and approved on motion of Councilman
O'Dell with second by Councilman Jackson. The vote was 5 - 1,
with Councilman Youmans casting the dissenting vote.
A Resolution endorsing the Chatham County Water Supply Management
Plan of June 1995 was passed by a vote of 4 - 2 on motion of
Councilman Jackson, seconded by Councilwoman Wildi. Councilmen
Youmans and Remeta cast the dissenting votes.
A Resolution and Contact accepting a $9500 grant for Jaycee
Ballfield Improvements through the GA DNR Recreation Assistance
Fund was unanimously approved. The motion to approve was made by
Councilman O'Dell and seconded by Councilman Jackson. Copies of
these documents are a part of these minutes.
Councilwoman Hughes moved that the Zoning Ordinance read for the
second time on July 12th be adopted in its entirety with the
exceptions of the "NM District" and the "Official Map ", both of
which will be forthcoming. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Youmans, and unanimously adopted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
The first public hearing concerned an extension of non - conforming
use at #6 -15th Street for Timothy Hilton. The hardship involved
an existing attached unit with no setback between units and with
a common wall built many years before. Recent construction
involved a roofed deck. No one appeared to speak pro or con.
Fire Chief Jimmy Brown stated that it did not pose any additional
fire hazard. Councilwoman Hughes moved to grant the variance,
seconded by Councilman Youmans. The variance was granted
unanimously.
A minor subdivision for a duplex, 4A & 4B Seabreeze Lane in
Captain's Row (PIN # 4- 21- 16 -30) was next considered. There was
no input from the public. The subdivision was approved without
dissent, on motion of Councilwoman Hughes, with second by
Councilman Youmans.
A minor subdivision for Ken Crockett for 1111 Bay Street, PIN #
1
1
1
4- 21 -16 -1F into three lots conforming with R -1 Zoning was heard
next. No one spoke from the audience. Councilman O'Dell moved
to approve, with second by Councilman Jackson. The vote in favor
was unanimous.
Tom Mahoney, attorney, introduced the site plan review for 302
Butler Avenue, PIN # 4 -04 -20 -001, for construction of a condo
development in C -1 Zoning. It was noted that the Planning
Commission had approved the plan. Jean Adams asked why the
company chose to develop freestanding units in the commercial
district and attached units in the historic district, neither of
which suit the surrounding neighborhood? Jeanne Hutton asked
about the proposed height of the buildings and was told that this
is not required in the preliminary site plan. Jim Kluttz also
spoke, after which Councilman Jackson moved to approve and
Councilman O'Dell seconded. The vote to approve carried 4 - 2,
with Councilwomen Hughes and Wildi casting the dissenting votes.
The site plan review for condos in the R -T District, the Old Post
Theater Building at #10 Van Horn Street, PIN E4 -03 -09 -006, were
next heard. The Developers are Gary Gephart and Scott Rector.It
was stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval
unanimously. Councilman Youmans moved to approve, Councilwoman
Wildi seconded and the vote was unanimous in favor of approval.
A petition for a zoning change from R -T to C -1 District Zoning
was brought by Alvin Davis for Desoto Beach Motel, PIN # 4- 04 -07-
001, 214 Butler Avenue. The Planning Commission recommended
approval and there were no comments from the audience.
Councilwoman Hughes moved in favor of approval, Councilman Remeta
seconded, and the vote was unanimous in favor of the zoning
change.
Allen Hendrix brought a request for a major subdivision of PIN
#4 -02 -05 -001, 42 through 45 Van Horn and 2 -4 -6 Waxwood. This
would be called Lighthouse Landing, Phase II. There would be six
lots, three fronting on each street, and would require a variance
up to 20% reduction in lot area, with the largest lot at 10,500
square feet and the smallest at 9,325 square feet. It was stated
that Planning Commission had recommended denial. Jean Adams
spoke from the audience to berate Mr. Hendrix for the poor
condition in which other properties he has subdivided are
maintained. Jeanne Hutton also spoke from the floor against
variances in general. Councilman Youmans moved, and Councilman
Remeta seconded, for approval. The vote was tied 3 (Youmans,
Remeta, O'Dell in favor) and 3 (Jackson, Hughes and Wildi
against). Mayor Locklear broke the tie by voting in favor of the
subdivision which was approved by a final vote of 4 to 3.
Jeff Dickey's petition for a residential height variance of 6 -1/2
feet was next heard. Planning Commission recommended against.
Mr. Dickey stated that his hardship is that he began a house on
this property several years ago, and had about $15,000 tied up in
the foundation. He has since acquired adjacent property so that
1
1
1
he now has an acre. The original permit called for a height
greater than he is now requesting, and the home will be fully
sprinkled. A letter of objection from Steven and Kathryn
Williams was read. Speaking against the variance from the
audience were Liz Sprague and Susan Delaney. Councilman Youmans
moved for approval of the variance and Councilman Remeta
seconded. The vote was 2 for, 4 against (O'Dell, Jackson, Wildi
and Hughes).
Bills for the month of June were approved. A transfer of $20,000
from Fund 3 for the construction of public restrooms at Third
Street was unanimously approved on motion by Councilwoman Hughes,
seconded by Councilman Youmans.
Councilwoman Hughes explained that the advertised bids for 2 HVAC
units for City Hall had been brought before the General
Government Committee she chairs and they voted to accept the Air
Temp bid of $13,360, saying that this will get the gas pilot
lights, which are fire hazards, out of the attic at last. Byrd
Heating and Air bid of $7,352.00. Councilman Jackson moved to
approve, with a second by Councilwoman Hughes and the vote in
favor was unanimous. Councilwoman Hughes then moved that the low
bid from The Rug Shoppe for carpeting City Hall offices in the
amount of $3,891.00 be approved, Councilman Jackson seconded, and
the motion passed by a margin of 4 - 2. Vickery Carpet bid was
$4,659.10.
Pay for part time workers was discussed at length, resulting in a
motion by Councilwoman Hughes, seconded by Councilman O'Dell to
send to the General Government Committee. Councilman Youmans
amended the motion to send the question to all committees to come
back with a recommendation for their specific department. The
amendment was accepted by a vote of 6 - 0. Councilman O'Dell
offered an amendment that pay be frozen as is until Council votes
on the committee recommendations at the August meeting. There
was no second. The vote on the main motion was 5 - 1 with
Councilman O'Dell opposing.
Councilwoman Wildi said that several bids had been received for a
Mohawk Hydraulic Lift System, and moved that the high bid of
$5895 be accepted submitted by Mohawk south, Div. of C.J.
Equipment Co., Councilman Jackson seconded. Other bids were
Atlantic Air & Lube, Inc - $5,558.00; Mohawk Resources, Ltd. -
$5,600.00. This had been approved by the committee after careful
consideration of the alternatives. The vote in favor was
unanimous.
Councilman Remeta moved, and Councilman O'Dell seconded, that the
Ranger Battalion be allowed to hold their picnic at North Beach
on July 28th.
Councilmember Hughes Moved to adopt Uniform Rules of the Road
into the Code of Ordinances to be in compliance with the State of
Georgia. Councilmember Remeta seconded. Vote was unanimous.
1
1
Counnilmember Youmans moved for a second reading. Councilmember
Remeta seconded. Vote by Council was unanimous.
Councilwoman Hughes moved that the Council go into Executive
Session requested by the City Attorney, and Councilman Remeta
seconded. The vote was unanimous.
The City Council returned to the public auditorium where the
meeting was adjourned. A
Ovw-to a \..„.)
Mayor James P. Locklear
City Administrator, RBF
1
1
1
July 13, 1995
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Attorney reported that he has been trying to get an
easement for storm drainage across a lot on Second Avenue and the
owners just aren't going to cooperate. On motion by Councilman
Jackson, seconded by Councilman Youmans, Council unanimously gave
the attorney the authority to begin condemnation procedures.
Mr. Hughes then reported on the Bay Street sanitary sewer
relocation, saying that he is waiting for the Proctors to secure
a new attorney - they have fired two. The other owners, the
Tsullas family, are willing to cooperate, or even to buy the
adjacent property owned by Proctor.
In the Marine Rescue Squadron situation, Mr. Hughes is attempting
to secure a Declaratory Judgement about ownership of the small
strip of land adjacent to the Old Tybee Road before proceeding
any farther.
There was a brief discussion of the personnel problem at TIPD
concerning Officer Hogan and Dispatcher Underwood, who is a
probationary employee. The attorney repeated the procedures
outlined in the Code, and Councilman Youmans questioned Ms.
Underwood's resignation. Chief Price said she resigned
voluntarily. Officer Hogan is currently on three days'
administrative leave with pay.
There was a short, heated discussion of possible locations for
the water tank, but no action was recommended at this time.
Sam Adams was given one month to come before Council.
(IAA...4Q __it)
Mayor James P. Locklear
City Administrator, RBF
1
R E S O L U T I 1
•
O N
WHEREAS, The City of Tybee Island is located on Tybee
Island, a barrier island within Chatham County; and
WHEREAS, The property values on all island properties -
not only those with ocean, marsh or water frontage - have steadily
risen in recent years to the point where a modest house on a small
interior lot is assessed at many times the value for which it was
purchased; and
WHEREAS, Many of these small holdings are the homes of
people of modest means, existing on fixed incomes; and
WHEREAS, Some long -term Tybee residents are being forced
from their homes by the rising cost of living, of which the
equalization of property values for tax purposes is a significant
part;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, AND IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED
BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TYBEE ISLAND IN OPEN
MEETING ASSEMBLED, that no citizen of Tybee Island or any other
Chatham County town should be forced to give up a home due to
property reevaluations and rising taxes;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State of Georgia and the County
of Chatham be encouraged find and implement methods of taxation of
real estate that take into consideration not only the equalization
of property values for purposes of taxation but also the length of
the existing use of the property and the age and income of the
owner.
MAYOR
RESOLUTION
Adopting A Rate Order Regarding Cable Television
Basic Service Rates and Associated Charges of
U.S. Cable Corporation
City of Tybee Island, Georgia
WHEREAS, the City of Tybee Island (the "City ") became
certified to regulate basic cable service rates and associated
charges of U.S. Cable Corporation (the "Company ") as of December
12, 1993, and has followed regulations prescribed by the Federal
Communications Commission ( "FCC ") for the regulation of the basic
service tier and associated equipment, installation, services and
charges (the "FCC Rules "); and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 1995 the City notified the
Company that the Company's basic service tier and associated
charges for equipment and installation were subject to regulation
by the City (the "initial date of regulation "); and
WHEREAS, on approximately February 27, 1995, the
Company submitted an FCC Form 393 to the City, and subsequently
filed supplemental information; and
WHEREAS, the City held a hearing on July 13, 1995and, at
said hearing, any interested party and the Company were given an
opportunity to comment on the Rate Filings; and
WHEREAS,.the City has reviewed the financial
consultant's initial report ( "Initial Report "); and
WHEREAS, the Company received an advance copy of the
Initial Report and had an opportunity to comment on said report
in writing; and
WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the Rate Filings and
other evidence and information; has received and considered
comments, evidence and information from interested parties,
including the Company's comments on the City's proposed rate
decision and the financial consultant's initial report; has
reviewed and hereby adopts, as appropriate and to the extent not
inconsistent with this Order, the findings, assumptions and other
1
information set forth in the financial consultant's report
(attached); and
•
WHEREAS, the Company has the burden of showing by
preponderance of evidence that its existing rates as of the date
of initial regulation are reasonable under the FCC Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 76.937 (a); and
WHEREAS, in calculating the number of hours the Company
spent performing installations, the Company excluded time spent
tside customers' homes; and
WHEREAS, when calculating the amount that the Company
is permitted to charge for installations on Schedule D, the
Company included time spent outside customers' homes; and
WHEREAS, the Company has therefore been inconsistent in
its approach to calculating the maximum permitted rates for
various installation types; and
WHEREAS, the Company must therefore include the full
time spent performing installations in its calculation of the
Hourly Service Charge; and
WHEREAS, the City estimates that the average
installation requires approximately 1 hour to perform, based on
the installation times provided by the Company in Schedule D; and
WHEREAS, the Company has stated that it performed 6,487
installations in 1992, and included only 0.1667 hour per
installation in its calculation of the Hourly Service Charge; and
WHEREAS, 'the City has therefore determined that the
Company underestimated its total hours spent performing
installations and customer equipment maintenance (Part III, Line
4 of Form 393) by 5,4061; and
WHEREAS, the Company based its calculation of the cost
to perform installations (Form 393, Part III, Line 3)
(specifically, vehicle capital costs and salary and benefit
expenses) on its estimate of time required to perform
installations as a percentage of employees' total available time;
1(1 hour - 0.1667 hours) x 6,487 installations.
1
1
and
4
WHEREAS, because the Company's estimate of the time
required to perform installations is too low, vehicle capital
costs and salary and benefit expenses must be increased to
reflect the City's revised calculations; and
WHEREAS, the Company imposes a monthly charge of $0.36
for additional outlets which are used to receive basic cable
service; and
WHEREAS, the Company states that although subscribers
own the wiring inside their homes, the Company owns the following
pieces of equipment in subscribers' homes: splitters, jumpers,
transformers, parental control devices, A/B switches, signal
boosters and house amplifiers; and
WHEREAS, it is the capital cost and maintenance cost of
these items, and not of the wiring itself, that the Company
claims that it is recovering through its monthly additional
outlet charge; and
WHEREAS, the FCC rules require that cable operators
unbundle significantly different pieces of equipment from each
other; and
WHEREAS, A/B switches, parental control devices and
house amplifiers are significantly different types of equipment
which should be unbundled and leased separately only to those
subscribers who use them, rather than including this equipment in
an additional outlet charge; and
WHEREAS, the costs associated with the other items
which the Company included in the additional outlet charge (i.e.,
transformers, splitters and jumpers) should instead be included
as part of the Company's expenses necessary for the maintenance
of facilities and service, and recovered through the Hourly
Service Charge as a capital cost for installation of cable
service (on Schedule A); and
WHEREAS, the additional outlet charge should therefore
be eliminated;
1
THAT:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THE COMPANY IS ORDERED
4
1. For the period commencing September 1, 1993, and
ending the date the Company became subject to the Amended Rules,
the initial permitted per channel rate for basic service, certain
installations and certain equipment shall be as follows,
excluding franchise fees:
Initial
Permitted Rate
Basic Service
- - Per - channel rate
- -Basic Tier Monthly Rate
(assuming 13- channel Basic Service)
Equipment & Installation:
- - Hourly Service Charge
- - Unwired Homes
-- Prewired Homes
- - Additional Connections
(at initial installation)
- - Additional Connections (separate trip)
- -Other installation:
Chancing Tiers:
-- Addressable (No Truck Roll)
- - Non - Addressable (Truck Roll)
Lease of Remote Control Devices:
- -Remote Control
Lease of Converter Boxes:
- - Converter
Other Charges
- - Service contract
- - Additional outlet (monthly)
$0.831
$9.97
$21.22
42.44
21.22
10.61
21.22
$ 2.00
21.22
$ 0.31 /mo.
$ 1.20 /mo.
$ 0.59 /mo.
No Permitted Charge
2. The Company shall refund that portion of previously paid
rates plus interest paid by subscribers for Hourly Service,
installations, equipment and other charges described in Ordering
Clause No. 1 determined to exceed the initial permitted rates
approved in Ordering Clause No. 1. The refund period shall run
from September 1, 1993 through the date the Company became
subject to the Amended Rules. With respect to each affected
subscriber entitled to a refund, the Company shall implement the
rate refunds ordered in this Ordering Clause within 60 days after
the effective date of this Rate Order.
3. The Company may not increase the rates for any of
the above - listed items, nor may it institute new charges for
other types of service, equipment or installation associated with
the basic service tier which are not listed above, without first
complying with applicable laws or FCC regulations.
4. Within ten (10) days after the effective date of
this Rate Order, the Company shall submit a written plan to the
City which, at a minimum, sets forth the Company's method of
providing refunds to subscribers (plus interest) ordered in
Ordering Clauses 1 and 2; identifies the basis for the
calculation of the amount of the refunds; identifies the
applicable interest rate and explains how it was calculated; and
explains how the rate reduction ordered herein shall be
implemented. Such plan is subject to the City's review and
approval. The Company's obligation to submit such plan shall not
affect the Company's obligation to implement rate refunds
immediately, as set forth in Ordering Clauses 1 and 2.
5. The City reserves the right to modify this Order
if, at any time, it determines that information the Company
provided to the City is incorrect in any material manner.
6. The City Clerk is ordered to mail a copy of this
Order to the Company, provide appropriate public notice of this
Order, and make a copy of this Order available to any person upon
request.
7. This Order shall become effective immediately upon
its adoption.
1
E
So resolved by the Mayor and Council of the City of Tybee Island
this 13 th day of July , 1995.
Approved as to Form:
City Attorney
1
RATE REPORT
We have reviewed the FCC Form 393 which US Cable Corporation ( "the Company ")
filed with the City of Tybee Island ( "the City ") dated April 19, 1994. The purpose of our
review is to assist the City in its determination of whether the rates proposed by the Company
for basic service and equipment and installation services are reasonable under the regulations
adopted by the Federal Communications Commission ( "FCC ").
While our efforts involved analyzing accounting records which the Company provided
to us, we did not perform an audit of the Company's financial statements in accordance with
Generally Accepted Auditing Standards. Furthermore, our report assumes that information
which the Company provided to us and representations made by the Company are true and
accurate.
SUMMARY OF RATES PROPOSED BY THE OPERATOR
The table on the following page summarizes the rates proposed by the Company in the FCC
Form 393 submitted by the Company, the rates actually charged by the Company on
September 1, 1993, a possible rate decision the City could make, and the approximate amount
of the refunds should the City make that decision.
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 2
Company's
Proposed
Maximum
Permitted Rate
Rate as of the
Date of Initial
Regulation _
Possible
Decision by the
City
Overcharge
(Undercharge)
Basic service tier
$10.13
$10.09
$9.97
$0.12
Per channel rate
0.844
0.841
0.831
0.010
Converter
1.33
1.33
1.20
0.13
Remote control
0.43
0.43
0.33
0.10
Additional outlet
0.36
0.36
No Permitted
Charge
0.36
Hourly Service Charge
35.04
35.04
21.22
13.82
Installation of unwired
homes
70.07
70.07
42.44
27.63
Installation of prewired
homes
35.04
35.04
21.22
13.82
Additional outlet
connection at initial
installation
17.52
17.52
10.61
6.91
Additional outlet
connection after initial
installation
35.04
17.52
21.22
(3.70)
Change of service tier
not requiring trip
2.00
2.00
.
2.00
0.00
Change of service tier
requiring trip
35.04
35.04
21.22
13.82
Service Contract
1.00
1.00
0.59
0.41
1
1
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
a
This section presents a summary of the Company's approach to developing proposed rates and
the results of our analysis for each of the rates proposed by the Company.
L. Basic Service Tier
To calculate the Maximum Permitted Rate for the Basic Service Tier one must complete Part II
of Form 393. Part II consists of five separate worksheets. The major steps in the
determination of the Maximum Permitted Rate are:
1. Determine the Base Rate per Channel as of the initial date of regulation. This step
involves the calculation of monthly revenue (Charge Factor) from regulated services which is
then weighted by the number of channels and subscribers from the regulated tiers to derive the
Charge per Channel. Franchise fees are deducted from the charge per channel (if included in
the previous computation) to derive the Base Rate per Channel.
2. Compare the Base Rate per Channel as of the date of initial regulation with the Benchmark
Rate. The Benchmark Rate is determined by a formula which uses the total number of
regulated channels, the number of regulated satellite channels, and the number of subscribers
on the cable system. If the Base Rate per Channel exceeds the Benchmark rate, Step 3 is
performed. Otherwise, the process proceeds to Step 4.
3. Determine the Base Rate per Channel for September 30, 1992, and reduce the September
30, 1992 Base Rate per Channel by 10% or to the September 30, 1992 Benchmark Rate,
whichever is higher.
4. "Unbundle" expected revenues from equipment and installation charges.
5. Adjust for inflation and changes in the channel lineup.
Analysis
Our review of the FCC Form 393 submitted by the Company revealed one item that the City
may wish to consider in determining the Company's Maximum Permitted Rate per Channel:
1. Because the Company is permitted to earn revenue for installation and equipment
maintenance equal to its cost, the Company's cost of providing installations and equipment
maintenance should equal its costs. As described below in Section II, the Company may have
underestimated the costs (and, therefore, revenues) associated with installation and customer
equipment maintenance.
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 4
Form 393 is based on a "total revenue" concept: the mathematical principals underlying
the Form permit the Company earn a certain level of total revenue for basic and expanded
service plus regulated installations and equipment, called the "Base Rate per Channel".
Because the Company may have underestimated permitted revenues earned from installations
and equipment maintenance (called "Equipment and Installation Cost (Monthly) "), it ma y have
overstated permitted revenues for the basic and expanded service tiers (called the "Base
Service Rate per Channel ").
In terms of the calculations on Form 393: Part II, Line 301 may be understated, as
described in Sections II and IV. The maximum permitted rate per channel would fall slightly
as a result.
urlHoy Service charge
The Hourly Service Charge ("HSC") is calculated in order to allow the Company to recover
all equipment basket costs (direct and indirect costs of material and labor for installation,
additional outlets and leasing and repairing of customer equipment, except for customer leased
equipment) including a reasonable profit.
The HSC is calculated by subtracting annual purchase costs of all customer equipment
from all equipment basket costs and dividing that sum by the Company's total annual person .
hours dedicated to installation and equipment repair services.
si
The Company is proposing a maximum permitted HSC of $35.04. Our review of the FCC
Form 393 submitted by the Company revealed two items that the City may wish to consider in
determining the Company's maximum permitted HSC:
1. In calculating the number of hours the Company spenfperforming installations, the
Company excluded time spent outside customers' homes. For example, travel time was
excluded. The Company included only 0.1667 hours for each installation which the Company
performed, excluding hours spent outside the house and resulting in a higher proposed
permitted Hourly Service Charge.
However, when calculating the amount that the Company is permitted to charge for
installations on Schedule D, the Company • eluded time spent outside customers' homes. The
Company has therefore been inconsistent in its approach to calculating the maximum permitted
rates for various installation types. The Company excludes time spent outside the home for
purposes of calculating the Hourly Service Charge (which results in a higher permitted Hourly
Service Charge), while at the same time including the time spent outside the home for
purposes of calculating installation rates (which results in a higher permitted installation rates).
Because this issue is related to Item 2, we further discuss the Company's response to our Draft
i
1
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 5
Report below in Item 2.
Because of the inconsistent treatment of labor hours and for the reasons described in Item
2 below, the City might decide to require the Company to include the full time spent
performing installations in its calculation of the Hourly Service Charge.
GMA estimates that the average installation requires approximately 1 hour to perform,
based on the installation times provided by the Company in Schedule D. The Company has
stated that it performed 6,487 installations in 1992. Therefore, the Company may have
underestimated its total hours spent performing installations and customer equipment
maintenance (Part III, Line 4 of Form 393) by 5,406 ((1 hour - 0.1667 hours) x 6,487
installations).
2. We stated in Item 1 that the Company may have underestimated the amount of time spent
performing installations. The Company based its calculation of the cost to perform
installations (Form 393, Part III, Line 3) on its estimate of time required to perform
installations as a percentage of employees' total available time. Therefore, if the City makes
the change described in Item 1 above, it should also recalculate the expense associated with
installations, resulting in $163,253 as the entry for Part III, Line 3 (because a larger
percentage of vehicle capital costs and salary and benefit expenses would be included.)
The Company believes that any time or cost spent by installers more than twelve inches
from a customer's home should be excluded from the equipment basket, and that the Company
was therefore correct in excluding the costs and time spent performing installations more than
twelve inches outside customers' homes. However, if a cable operator excludes this cost from
Part II, Line 301, it does not fully unbundle all installation revenue from the basic service tier
rate. Installation revenue earned performing tasks more than twelve inches from a
subscriber's home are not unbundled from the Company's Base Rate per Channel (Line 300),
which violates mathematical principles underlying Form 393.
If the City decides to require the changes described in Items 1 and 2 of this Section, the
Hourly Service Charge would fall to $19.97.
3. As explained below in Section IV, Item 1 below, the City might wish to include the cost of
certain miscellaneous equipment used in installations in its equipment basket, rather than
permitting a separate monthly fee for this equipment. Doing so would result in an entry in
Schedule A, Box 1 of $16,107, and would increase the permitted HSC to $21.22.
ICI Installation Rates
Installation rates are developed for the purpose of allowing the Company to recover costs
based on the average time it takes to perform regulated installation services. These rates are
calculated by multiplying the average hours required to complete the installation by the Hourly
Service Charge. Thus, changes in either the Hourly Service Charge or the average time it
1
1
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 6
takes to complete an installation will change the installation rates.
,Analysis
a
The Company's maximum permitted rates for installation services are listed earlier in this
document. Our review of the FCC Form 393 submitted by the Company revealed one item
that the City may wish to consider in determining the maximum permitted installation rates for
the Company.
As stated earlier, the Company may have misstated its maximum permitted HSC. If a
corrected HSC is used, the maximum permitted rates for installations would fall to the levels
listed in the column titled "Possible Decision by the City" on Page 2 of this Report.
IV. Rates for Customer Leased Equipment
The charges for customer leased equipment are designed to allow the Company to recover the
costs of providing and maintaining the equipment plus a reasonable profit. Rates are
developed for each significantly different type of equipment. To calculate these rates, the total
capital costs are added to the total maintenance costs and divided by the number of units in
service.
l sis
The Company's proposed maximum permitted rates for converters is $1.33 per month. The
Company's proposed maximum permitted rates for remote control devices is $0.43 per month.
The Company's proposed monthly rate for additional outlets is $0.36 per month. Our review
of the FCC Form 393 submitted by the Company revealed two items that the City may wish to
consider in determining the maximum permitted equipment rates for the Company:
1. The Company imposes a monthly charge of $0.36 for additional outlets which are used to
receive basic cable service. The Company states that although subscribers own the wiring
inside their homes, the Company owns the following pieces of equipment in subscribers'
homes: splitters, jumpers, transformers, parental control devices, AB switches, signal
boosters and house amplifiers. It is the capital cost and maintenance cost of these items, and
not of the wiring itself, that the Company claims that it is recovering through its monthly
additional outlet charge. In effect, then, the Company is leasing these seven types of
equipment to customers in a bundled form. Certain additional outlets might contain many of
these items, while others contain very few.
The FCC rules require that cable operators unbundle significantly different pieces of
equipment from each other. The City might decide that some of the items which the Company
leases as part of the monthly additional outlet charge (specifically, the AB switches, parental
1
1
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 7
control devices and house amps) are significantly different types of equipment which should be
unbundled and leased separately to those subscribers who use them. In other words, the City
might establish separate regulated rates for parental control devices and house amps, rather
than including this equipment in an additional outlet charge'.
With regard to the other items included in the additional outlet charge, the City might
decide to include those costs as part of the Company's expenses necessary for the maintenance
of facilities and service. The pieces of equipment which the Company has combined into an
additional outlet rental charge (i.e., the transformers, splitters and jumpers2) are items that
should be recovered through the Hourly Service Charge as a capital cost for installation of
cable service (on Schedule A).
If the City decides to require the Company to recover the cost of additional outlets through
the Hourly Service Charge (for splitters, jumpers and transformers) and through separate
equipment rental fees (for house amps, parental control devices and AB switches), the HSC
would increase as described in Section II, Item 3 above, but the additional outlet charge would
be eliminated.
2. As mentioned in Section II above, the Company may have miscalculated its maximum
permitted Hourly Service Charge. One of the factors which determines equipment rental rates
is the cost of maintaining the equipment. The cost of maintaining the equipment is determined
in part by the Hourly Service Charge. If the City decides that the Hourly Service Charge
should be lowered, the maximum permitted monthly rate for converters and remotes would
fall.
V. Other
1. On April 1, 1993, the FCC ordered a freeze of cable rates. Specifically, cable operators
were prohibited from increasing the average monthly subscriber bill during the freeze. The
freeze began on April 1, 1993 and ended on the date that franchising authorities became
certified to regulate rates, or May 15, 1994, whichever came first. The Company does not
appear to have violated the rate freeze.
2. The Company offers service contracts to subscribers. Subscribers pay a monthly fee for
'The FCC has ruled that AB switches are not subject to rate regulation. However, this
equipment should not be included as part of a monthly additional outlet charge. Rather, this
item should be leased separately at an unregulated rate.
2The Company defines a "jumper" as a piece of cable approximately three feet in length
with a connector on each end typically used to connect the TV to the converter.
1
Ms. Rowena Fripp
May 24, 1995
Page 8
service calls to their homes which are related to equipment which the subscriber owns,
including home wiring. The subscribers' other alternatives are to pay the Company for the
time required to fix the problem at the Company's Hourly Service Charge, or for the
subscribers to fix the problems themselves.
The Company charges $1.00 per month for the Plan. The Company believes that, on
average, each subscriber to the plan will require a service call regarding customer -owned
equipment approximately once every 36 months, and that the average length of such
maintenance would be one hour per call. A one hour service call at an hourly rate of $35.04
once every 36 months indicates that the monthly value of the Plan is $0.97
(1 hr x $35.04 / 36 months = $0.97).
However, if the City were to make a determination that the maximum permitted Hourly
Service Charge is $19.97, as described in Section II, Item 2 above, the maximum permitted
charge for the Plan would be $0.55 (1 hr x $21.22 / 36 months = $0.59).
Sincerely,
Donald W. Schanding, Rate Analyst
Georgia Municipal Advisory & Technical Services
•
1
1
May 24, 1995
MEMORANDUM
RE: FCC Requirements Applicable
to the Decision - Making Process
FROM: The Georgia Municipal Association
This Memorandum is optional reading for those
who are interested in learning more about the rate
regulation process. At the outset, we note that this
Memorandum is not intended to be a complete
presentation of all procedural aspects of the FCC
Rules, but is a summary of some of the requirements
applicable to a final rate decision. It should be
noted that the FCC Rules provide only general guidance
regarding procedure and many of the rules discussed
below leave a number of issues open for interpretation.
Thus, questions and issues will inevitably arise.
1. Refund Procedures
If the Council concludes that the Company has
not met its burden of proof and that it was more likely
than not that the Company's rates are not reasonable as
determined under the FCC Rules, the City may order a
refund. Specifically, the City may order a refund of
that portion of previously paid rates determined to be
1
1
1
in excess of the permitted tier charge or above the
actual cost of equipment for the period September 1,
1993 through May 15, 1994.
A cable operator has the option of implementing
a refund by one of two methods: (a) by refunding
overcharges to those subscribers that actually paid the
overcharges, either through direct payment to those
subscribers or as a specifically identified credit on
those subscribers' bills; or (b) by a future percentage
reduction in basic service tier rates or associated
equipment charges. The latter method must be reflected
as a specifically identified, one time credit on future
billing statements to the class of current cable system
subscribers. Refunds must include interest computed at
the applicable published Internal Revenue Service rates
for tax refunds .1 Before a franchising authority can
order a refund, the franchising authority must give a
cable an opportunity to comment.
2. Publication of Written Decision
A franchising authority must issue a written
decision if it disapproves an initial rate for basic
service and associated charges in whole or in part.
1 Presumably, interest should be computed for the
entire refund period going back to September 1, 1993.
The FCC Rules do not expressly state the applicable
time period for computation of interest.
1
1
The decision must also be written if the franchising
authority disapproves a rate increase or approves a
rate increase over the objections of interested
parties. The purpose of the written decision is to
enable the cable operator or an interested party to
know why the rate was disapproved and appeal the
decision if the operator or an interested party
believes it is unfair or inconsistent with the Cable
Act. The written decision must be made available to
the public and public notice of the decision must be
given.
There is no obligation to issue a written
decision if the franchising authority is approving an
initial rate or rate increase without objection or
opposition by an interested party.2
3. Appeal of Local Rate Decisions
Any participant in a rate - making proceeding may
appeal a local rate decision within 30 days after the
public release of the text of the decision. Local rate
decisions must be appealed to the FCC if the issue
involves whether the franchising authority has acted
2 If there is a complaint on file with the. FCC
regarding the per channel rate of the company's cable
program services, and the benchmark rate is the same
for both basic service and cable program service, a
city should assume that it must issue a written
decision that is available to the public.
3
inconsistently with the Cable Act and the FCC Rules.
Appeals involving other issues may be filed in the
state or local courts. The FCC Rules specify the
following pleading cycles: for the Opposition to an
appeal, 15 days after the appeal is filed; and for the
Reply by the person filing the appeal, 7 days after the
last day for filing an Opposition.
In reviewing a local rate decision, the FCC will
uphold the decision if it determines that there is a
"reasonable basis" for the written decision.
Characterizing its role as that of an appellate court,
the FCC explained, "the Commission will defer to the
judgment of the local franchising authority provided
that there is a rational basis for the decision." If
the FCC determines that there is no rational basis for
the decision, it will remand the matter back to the
local decision - makers with instructions on how to make
the result consistent with the Cable Act and the FCC
Rules.
1
As noted above, this Memorandum is not intended
to be a complete presentation of all procedural aspects
of the FCC Rules, but is a summary of some of the
requirements applicable to a rate decision. As you
proceed with your rate process, we would be happy to
respond to any questions and issues that may arise that
are not addressed by this Memorandum or that you may
otherwise have.
1
1
1
RESOLUTION
4
WHEREAS, the Floridan aquifer serves as the primary source for
drinking water in Chatham County and coastal Georgia; and
WHEREAS, excessive pumping of the Floridan aquifer throughout
coastal Georgia has caused saltwater encroachment into the
aquifer; and
WHEREAS, the effects of saltwater encroachment into the Floridan
aquifer could be detrimental to all citizens of Chatham County;
and
WHEREAS, local governments, citizens and industries within
Chatham County and the Georgia Environmental Protection Division
have worked with the Chatham County- Savannah Metropolitan
Planning Commission to study, develop and assist in the
implementation of a water supply management plan for the entire
county; and
WHEREAS, this cooperative effort has produced a Comprehensive
Water Supply Management Plan for Chatham County, Georgia; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tybee Island is included in the
Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Tybee Island is implementing recommendations
included in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division of the
Department of Natural Resources has reviewed the Plan and accepts
the Plan as an initial step toward water supply management for
Tybee Island.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mayor and Council of the
City of Tybee Island, in open meeting assembled, do hereby
officially adopt the Comprehensive Water Supply Management Plan
for Chatham County," Georgia as the City't Plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be
transmitted along with a copy of the Plan to the Georgia
Environmental Protection Division to inform EPD of this action.
ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF JULY, 1995.
00mAr (2-
Mayor James P. Locklear
1
1
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF Chatham
WHEREAS,
the City Council
July
the Mayo and Council
between the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and City of Tybee Island
for a grant of financial assistance to City of Tybee Island
at
•
the regular monthly meeting of
of Tybee Island , Georgia, held on 13th day of
19 95 , a motion was made and duly seconded that
agree to the terms of the contract for a state grant
authorize Mayor James P. Locklear to execute said contract in the amount
of $9,500.00 , to be effective and retroactive to June 30. 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED by the Tybee Island City Council of
Chatham County. Georgia. that the terms and conditions of the contract between the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources and the City of Tybee Island are
hereby agreed to, that the Mayor is authorized and empowered to
execute said contract and any subsequent amendments thereto on behalf of
the City of Tybee Island , and the grant provided for in said contract in the amount
of $9,500.00 is hereby accepted to be used under the terms and conditions of said
contract. and that sufficient funds have been designated to assure the acquisition and/or development,
operation and maintenance of the facilities and/or delivery of services as identified in said contract.
Read and unanimously adopted in the regular monthly meeting of
the Tybee Island City Council held on 13th day of July , 1995, to be
effective and retroactive to June 30, 1995.
ATTEST:
Pj1.5L-;"7.-t-71-),
Clerk of Project Sponsor
(Seal)
City of Tybee Island
Chatham
Page One
COUNTY. GEORGIA
oG
Mayor James P. Locklear
Continue on Page Two With Certification of Resolution.
1
1
1
Page Two
Certification
I do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the Resolution duly adopted
by the Tybee Island City Councithn the date so stated in the Resolution.
I further certify that I am the Clerk of the Tybee Island Council and that said
resolution has been entered in the official records of said city and remains in
full force and effect this 26th day of July , 1995.
Federal Employer's Identification # 58- 6000661
1
1
1
Ordinance #
Be it ordained, and it is hereby ordained. by Mayor and Council
in Open Meeting assembled that the Tybee Island Code of
Ordinances, Chapter 1, Title 10, Section 1 be deleted and a new
paragraph titled and numbered the same to read as follows:
Adoption By Reference: Pursuant to Chapter 6 of Title 40 of the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Code Section 40 -6 -372 through
40 -6 -376. Code Sections 40 -6 -1 through 40 -6 -395 of that chapter
known as the "Uniform Rules of the Road" and the definitions
contained in Code Section 40 -1 -1 are hereby adopted as and for
the traffic regulations of this municipality with like affect as
if recited herein and all amendments, whether previously made or
now existing, or hereinafter enacted are hereby incorporated
herein.
ADOPTS THIS D
195.
Mayor James P. Locklear
Clerk of Council
1st Reading: July 13, 1995
2nd Reading: July 13, 1995
Enacted: July 13, 1995
1
1995- 08 -03. Special Called Council Meeting
Mayor Locklear called the meeting to order to discuss
business legally presented concerning the Site Plan Review
request made by John O'Neill. The following member of Council
were present: Katrina Hughes, Jack Youmans, William Remeta, Phil
O'Dell,m Mariann Wildi, and Paul Jackson. City Attorney Hughes
was also present.
Councilmember Youmans moved to accept the site plan review
from John O'Neill for 1016 Highway 80. Councilmember Hughes
seconded. Councilmember O'Dell asked why not wait until the
regular council meeting? Vote by Council was unanimous.
Mayor James P. Locklear
1
City Administrator, RBF
1