Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCable Correspondence (2004-2007) - Vol 2 REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON, WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello, this is . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process, the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
la. First, may I verify that your household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton?
1. Yes, Renton
2. Other - Thank you and end.
lb. How old are you?
a. 18 - 25
b. 26 - 35
c. 36 - 45
d. 46 - 65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES - SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO - CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES —> SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO -> CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED. AT END GO TO Q21).
a. Not available
b. Cost
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO Q.20b
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to? (READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable, contains only local broadcast, local access channels and a few
cable network, costs about$14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about $47 a month and has about 85 channels,
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages, the cost between$60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information,music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe to?
a. Premium channels, such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO
d. Comcast High Speed Internet YES or NO
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. How much is your total monthly cable bill on average, including all services and fees?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel (Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
11a. My next few questions are about your cable operator, Comcast. Overall, how satisfied are
you with your current cable service? READ LIST)
1. Very Satisfied -> SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied}
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied} -> CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied}
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know —> SKIP TO Q.12a
1 lb. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied" --that is, what could Comcast do better, to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is . . . (INSERT ITEM, STARTING AT
"X") Overall, how satisfied are you with(ITEM), Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM, REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year, have you had any significant problems with reception, such as with
picture or audio quality? YES (Go to Q12c) NO (Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly, every few days, a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6, IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q13a.
13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit, did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember
13b. Overall, how satisfied were you with the following aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall, how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcast's employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year,have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER--> SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now, I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year, have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES —> CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} - SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s) have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST. PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS (PICTURE, SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO (ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING (CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered, including any time you were left on hold, within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative, overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service, how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast, what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission, FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year, have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} - SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year, can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO -> SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES,was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO -* CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service . . . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First, how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels, like KIRO, the CBS affiliate, or KOMO, the ABC affiliate, as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system, such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1 _
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important, or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ) DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see added to your cable television line-up?
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers, educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs
you see on these channels include city council meetings, courses at the community
college, election forums with candidates, and religious programming. Are you aware of
these local access channels on your cable channel line-up?
a. YES
b. NO (Go to Q 20)
c. Don't Know (Go to Q 20)
18h. When considering the total time you spend watching these channels each week,which
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming, such as the
City's Channel 21, the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels 9
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never } SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know } SKIP TO Q19q
REVIEW DRAFT / ' 10
Ore
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings, the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good, fair or poor.
Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's, Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5 �OG
picture quality ni J
14,
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5 r
sound quality t a,d
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational �,ll
value. e�
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21 014
064
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast, Channel 77. CU
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates, religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Community Access Excellent Good I Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels _
A Puget Sound Access, Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality _
B Puget Sound Access, Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming. _
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming. I
REVIEW DRAFT CO'+ON S �O r��" 11
x ,�
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77, as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28, I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of, has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A, B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education, University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage. 11/7
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming. .
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO (Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio, portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know (Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10. The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11. The hours the facility is open.
12. The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST. CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talentVICI4Pr /
3. Run camera O)
4. Other(DO NOT READ, LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No (SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. How do you currently access the Internet from home?
a. Dial up modem
b. DSL
c. COMCAST Cable Modem
d. Wireless Internet Provider
e. Other(DO NOT READ, LIST)
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household?
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income, before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than $50,000
4. $50,000 to less than $75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only, may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
From: "Constance Book" <cbook@elon.edu>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/16/2006 7:10:14 AM
Hi Bonnie,
It was good to talk to you yesterday. I've reviewed the documents you
sent and wanted to share a couple of observations before we sift thru
the questions today.
Most access television surveys measure awareness of the channels,
viewership of the channels and programming interests. I've started to
see more questions of late about programming in alternative environments
as well (such as via the web, cell phone or VOD).
Awareness and viewership are good measures to use during franchise
negotiations because access viewership exceeds the majority of cable
networks around the country. I've attached a cable ratings brief
article on that issue that I wrote for the NATOA journal.
To test specific programming we might add a top of head recall question
about what programs they've watched in the last month. We can rank
order from that.
This is just food for thought.
I've attached two studies because they approached the questions a little
differently-one was a written survey in Dubuque, Iowa and the other a
telephone survey(much like you are doing in Renton)from Virginia
Beach.
I'll give you a call around 3:30 your time this afternoon.
Thanks,
Connie
Connie Ledoux Book, Ph.D.
Associate Dean and Associate Professor
Elon University
School of Communications
CBX 2850
Elon, NC 27244
cbook@elon.edu
(336)278-5661
FAX (336)278-5734
CC: "Thomas G. Robinson" <robinson@cbecommunications.com>
1
Television Ratings and Cable: Don't Be Fooled by the Numbers Game
by Connie Ledoux Book, Ph.D.
In the last year, several communities have publicly faced off with the cable company in a
numbers game about the viewership of local access channels. The cable companies have
cited "low viewership" of access television as a means for not continuing to support the
service. Unfortunately, because council members and the general public typically don't
understand the basis of television ratings, this play on a lack of expertise often works.
This article explains the basis of cable television ratings and provides information that
administrators can use to educate government officials when viewership of access
television is questioned or used as a means to limit funding.
Background
Nielsen, Arbitron and Scarborough are the country's primary television audience research
companies. Surveys and meters are used to track the television audience. The cable
industry, while it now engages more than half of the homes using television in the
evening, has numerous channel offerings. As a result, half the audience is spread across
300 channels and there is never a significant number of households watching any given
cable network at the same time. In fact, in 2003 of the top 100 television programs
viewed in the United States, none were cable programs. The first appearance of a cable
television program was in the 263rd position, the second most popular cable show in 2003
was in the 325th position and the 10t most popular cable show in 2003 was ranked 799th
That means that besides those three programs, every other cable program fell below the
800th mark.
Cable television does not operate on a programming policy of mass audience, but rather
niche audiences. The ability of the cable industry to engage niche, smaller audiences is
its primary purpose.
Table 1
Top 10 broadcast programs vs. top 10 cable programs in 20031
Rank Broadcast Program Network HH Rating2
1 Super Bowl XXXVIII ABC 40.71
2 Super Bowl Post-Game ABC 23.44
3 Academy Awards ABC 20.40
4 Fiesta Bowl ABC 17.23
5 American Idol - Wed. (S) FOX 17.22
6 MLB ALCS Game 7 FOX 17.15
7 MLB NLCS Game 7 FOX 16.94
8 20/20 - 2/6 (S) ABC 16.82
9 Joe Millionaire (S) FOX 16.60
10 AFC/NFC Playoff Game 2 ABC 16.03
t Television Bureau of Advertising. www.tvb.org.
2 The HH Rating is the percentage of homes watching the program.
2
Rank Cable Program Network HH Rating
263 2003 NBA All-Star Game TNT 6.65
325 NFL Regular Season ESPN 6.24
420 Trading Spaces: 100 Grand TLC 5.61
604 Presidential Address FOXNC 4.61
672 Spec. Rep: Iraq Military FOXNC 4.32
710 MLB Divisional Series ESPN 4.13
743 2003 Video Music Awards MTV 4.00
748 Holiday Bowl ESPN 3.97
782 Presidential Address AnalysisFOXNC 3.84
799 Pres. News Conf. - Analysis FOXNC 3.73
Another common measure in the television industry is the use of cumulative audience
exposure (CUME). In other words, what percentage of an audience interacts with a given
network over the course of a week. When considering the top 10 average weekly CUME
(cumulative audience) ratings in 2003, there was no single cable network that engaged
more than 42% of the audience during a given week.
Table 2
CUME weekly index for broadcast networks and top 10 cable networks in 2003.
AVG.WEEKLY
BROADCAST AFFILIATES" cuME%
NBC '„:,:...111.11179.5
CBS 78.8
ABC 777-7=-;..... 7-W.3 —._ .,_. ... 78.2 FOX _ ; �._�.-.-_--- _ 72.1
WB -" " 48.2
UPN _..._.. 40.6
PAX 17.9
CABLE NETWORKS"
TBS 41.8
TNT . .LL 38.0
USA 36.5
NICK -:::::: 1111110 32.8
CNN M 30.1
LIFE " -:--..._._....._ . 30.0
TLC _. --..._ 29.3
DISC 7:77-713WW 29.1
A&E 27.4
MTV :2—ismaini 26.9
26.0
SPIKE 25.2
Source: Nielsen, year ending 20033
3 The Television Bureau of Advertising(www.tvb.org)provides a full explanation of the data presented in
this narrative at its website,www.tvb.org.
3
Case Study
To illustrate this argument, an actual data set from a Midwestern city with active public,
education and government channels is used. The following chart illustrates residential
responses related to viewership collected during a random telephone study of the market
conducted in 2004 as preparation for franchise renewal.
Table 3
Sample Access Channel Viewership from a Midwestern Community
Access Channels Daily CUME
Viewership (Weekly
Exposure)
Public Access 1% 9%
Educational Access 2% 11%
Government Access 5% 14%
Information Channel 4% 11%
Community Access 1% 7%
On first glance, these numbers may look low and as result leaves the impression that the
local access channels are not of value; but when considering these numbers in apples to
apples comparison with other cable networks, one can see that these numbers are quite
good. While the access channels experience less weekly viewership than the top 10 cable
networks, their viewership exceeds the weekly CUME for several other popular cable
networks. This Midwestern community's access channels have significantly greater
weekly viewership than the following cable networks:
Cable Network CUME (Weekly Exposure)
Outdoor Life Network(OLN) 3%
Speed Channel 3%
BET 3%
Bravo 3%
Style 2%
(Arbitron, 2003)4
During recent viewing periods, Animal Planet's weekly CLIME was .3%, Fine Living and
ESPN Classic have experienced weeks with less than.1%. Keep in mind that the cable
industry has more than 300 cable networks and that while more than half of households
are watching during primetime, they are spread across a diverse offering of channels.
This is cable television's greatest asset (NCTA, 2004).5
To further illustrate the ratings point, during one of the weeks the Midwestern community
viewership study was conducted, Nielsen reported the USA Network was the most
4 Arbitron's website, www.arbirton.com,provides several white papers on cable television viewership.
Weekly Nielsen ratings are reported in Broadcasting& Cable and Multichannel News.
5 www.ncta.com.
4
popular cable network with a primetime average rating of 1.8% (CableFAX, 2004).6 That
number is lower than several of our Midwestern city's access channels.
As cable executives play this numbers game with local governments, they also frequently
discuss per subscriber costs for access television. In order for city officials and local
cable subscribers to truly appreciate the costs related to access programming, a
perspective of how much a cable network typically costs would have to be understood.
Table 4
Sample of monthly cable network license fees.
Cable Network Monthly Feel
Disney Channel $1.48
ESPN $3.78
MTV $0.43
Fox News $0.51
TBS $0.47
In recent months, the cable industry has worked hard to convince the federal government
not to require a la carte pricing of cable services. This is because the industry is fully
aware that if cable subscribers were aware of the breakdown of per monthly cable
network charges, they would choose not to subscribe to a majority of them. This finding
is supported by evidence from Nielsen which finds even though the cable industry
provides over 300 channels, most viewers do not watch more than 19 of those channels.
Table 5
Number of channels received vs. number of channels viewed.
6 CableFAX's Cableworld. (October 27,2004). "October 17th Ratings." Retrieved online:
www.broadband-pbimedia.com.
7 NCTA(2004). "White Paper: The Pitfalls of a la Carte Pricing: Fewer Choices,Less Diversity,Higher
Prices." Available at www.ncta.com
5
183.2
•
n
115.9:
riAvg.,Viewed 105.2 r— " ','
It„
' Avg.Receivable 84 5i,
a5~1
`•r':.
,.-
66.4, 75'9. 3,.
559,
957,�� �
35.4, r '
15434 .15 ' [ 15, '. 18 ' ' ,
r
. 56:
' a�: a�a,�..r, 'rQ sus,. '`Wei,k10+ tee.,. aa.;
0 0 0 0 0 0 oar O o0 0 0
,--- (N 01 V' U) '0 I- co ,�I .�1 — *'i
O) o
Source: Nielsen, 2003.
Knowing these numbers, cable administrators can preempt or challenge the ratings game
when the cable industry decides to use it as a means to create lack of local support. Often
this game is launched in the local press, so the information in this article can be used to
educate the local reporter as well. When the cable company attempts to argue that cable
subscribers are not watching access and therefore shouldn't have to pay for them, ask
them about their willingness to also take off the system the other channels viewed less
frequently than the access channels that cable subscribers are paying for and aren't
watching like Animal Planet, Fine Living,the Outdoors Network, Speed, Hallmark
Channel, Lifetime, ESPN Classic (and the list goes on).
DUBUQUE RESIDENTIAL CABLE TELEVISION NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Dear Resident:
The City of Dubuque wants your input about cable television service --whether or not you are a subscriber. The current cable television provider,
Mediacom,formerly AT&T Broadband,has applied for renewal of its franchise in Dubuque.Understanding your needs and interests,as they relate to
cable services,is important to the City so that we can make the best decision for our citizens in this matter. Please have the person in the household
who makes,or equally shares in,the decision to subscribe or not to subscribe to cable television,take a few minutes to let us know how members of
your household feel about these issues. Please return the survey folded so that the return address is showing by February 15, 2002. All
responses will remain anonymous. If you have any questions,please contact the City's Cable Franchise Administrator,via phone(589-4181) or e-
mail(catv@cityofdubuque.org).
1. Do you reside:0 Within the city limits of Dubuque ❑ Outside the city limits of Dubuque
2. Please indicate how many people in your household fall within the specified age ranges.
0-5 _ 6- 11 12-17 18-21 22-30
31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71 -80+
3. Does your household currently subscribe to Mediacom cable services? Yes 0 (If Yes,go to Q5) No 0(Continue)
4. Have you ever subscribed to cable services in Dubuque? Yes 0 No 0
If Yes,why did you stop subscribing to cable services in Dubuque?
If No,why have you never subscribed to cable services in Dubuque?
4a. Is there anything Mediacom could do that would change your decision to not subscribe to its cable services?
NON-SUBSCRIBERS MOVE TO Q27
5. How many years have you been a cable subscriber at your current address?
6. Which of the following Mediacom services does the household currently subscribe to(check all that apply):
Basic service(also called Standard Service)
Digital Service(includes additional TV channels,music channels and an interactive remote)
I Receive cable television service as part of rent/lease
One or more(pay/premium)movie channel(i.e.HBO,Showtime,Cinemax,etc.)
Cable FM Radio Service(requires a separate cable connected to your FM radio receiver)
Extra cable television outlets
Ordered Pay Per View movies and events
High-Speed cable modem Internet @Home service
Other:
7. How would you rate the prices charged by Mediacom for your current cable service(s)? (Circle#)
Prices are Very Low Prices are Very High
1 2 3 4 5
8. Overall,how would you describe your level of satisfaction with your current cable service(s)? (Circle#)
Very dissatisfied Very satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
9. If you indicated anything less than"very satisfied,"is there anything Mediacom could do to improve your level of satisfaction with its cable services?
2
10. What is your general level of satisfaction with the current programming available from Mediacom? (Circle#)
Very dissatisfied Very satisfied
1 2 3 4 5
11. Would you like to see additional programming services added to your present cable service? Yes 0 No 0 Maybe 0
12. If yes or maybe,please specify what types of programming:
12a. If yes or maybe,would you be willing to pay for those additional services? Yes 0 No ❑ Maybe 0
COMMUNITY PROGRAMMING(ALSO KNOWN AS PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT ACCESS PROGRAMMING):
Community programming includes local public,educational and government channels. Under the current franchise,the cable operator is required to
provide channels, production equipment, training and operational support for these purposes. Our community cablecasts City Council meetings,
County Board of Supervisors meetings,School Board meetings,and other topical programming including local news and interest stories,community
issues forums, and public safety programming. Other programming includes community and school events such as band concerts and ball games,
political debates,talk shows,religious programs and others. Our community also uses its access channels to run local message boards,informing the
population of community meetings,street closings and other local activities. The range of programming is typically limited only by local interest and
funding and is produced by local government,schools,colleges,clubs,organizations and individuals.
13. How important is it that a portion of your cable bill be used by Mediacom to support community programming? (Circle#)
Not at all important Very important
1 2 3 4 5
14. What kind of programming would your household like to see more of on the community(PEG)access channels?(Check all that apply.)
City/County Government meetings 0 Public/Community Events&Activities 0
School Events&Activities 0 Local Sports ❑
Special Events 0 Local Arts ❑
Local Political&Issue Debates ❑ Other 0
Please Explain "Other":
15. Have you every participated in a local community access program? Yes❑ No 0 Don't Know 0
16. If you indicated no,is there anything that would motivate you to participate in local community access programming?
17. How many television sets are in your household? 17a. Have you purchased a digital television set? Yes 0 No 0 Don't Know
0
18. In the last year,have you had occasion to call Mediacom(or AT&T Broadband)? Yes 0 No 0(Go to Q20) Don't Know 0(Go to Q20)
18a. If yes,do you recall why you called?
19. When calling,did you receive a busy signal? Yes 0 No 0 Don't Know 0
19a. Was your call answered,including the time you were left on hold,within 30 seconds? Yes 0 No ❑ Don't Know 0
19b. If yes,was the reason you called resolved in:
24 hours or less 0 3 days to a week 0 The problem is still unresolved 0
1-2 days 0 From 1 week to a month ❑
20. The next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you ever lost your entire cable signal (all channels) for a
period of fifteen minutes or more when you still have electricity? Yes ❑ No 0(Go to Q21) Don't Recall ❑ (Go to Q21)
20a If yes,can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
20b. If yes to Q20,did you contact Mediacom's office to alert them to the outage(s)? Yes 0 No ❑ Don't Recall ❑
20c. If yes to Q20,rate Mediacom's responsiveness to the outage: (Circle#)
Very unresponsive Very responsive
1 2 3 4 5
21. Has your household had any technical difficulty with your cable service? (i.e.picture quality,audio problems,and overall reception)
Yes❑ No❑ Don't Know 0
Ifyes,please explain and note specific channels:
3
22. If you have had cable service for less than 2 years or have acquired digital cable in the last two years please indicate a rating of Very Poor, Poor
Fair,Good or Very Good for the following installation service issues. If not,move to Q23. (Circle#)
Very Very Don't know/
Installation Issues Poor Poor Fair Good Good No answer
The available times for installation or service 1 2 3 4 5 DK
The arrival time of the service technician 1 2 3 4 5 DK
The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options 1 2 3 4 5 DK
The professionalism of the installation 1 2 3 4 5 DK
23. The next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Mediacom communicates with you. Overall,how would you rate the following
aspects of communication provided by Mediacom? Please indicate a rating of Very Poor,Poor,Fair,Good,Very Good. (Circle#)
Very Very Don't know/
Communication Issues Poor Poor Fair Good Good No answer
The ability of Mediacom to explain and address billing questions 1 2 3 4 5 DK
The ability of Mediacom to alert YOU regarding programming 1 2 3 4 5 DK
changes
The ability of Mediacom to alert YOU regarding rate changes 1 2 3 4 5 DK
The helpfulness of Mediacom employees 1 2 3 4 5 DK
24. What source do you prefer to use to find cable programming information?
Monthly Cable Magazine 0 TV Guide 0
Daily Newspaper ❑ Intemet Source ❑
Weekly Newspaper Insert 0 Interactive Remote 0
Other ❑ Specj5i.
25. On a scale from 1 to 5,with I being"very poor"and 5 being"very good,"please rate the following aspects of Mediacom's cable service:
Picture quality Sound quality @Home Reliability(lack of outages)
Repair service Billing practices @Home Speed
Cable company office location System reliability(lack of outages)
Cable company office hours Programming @Home Installation
Advance notification(of cable construction,rate changes,service changes,etc.)
26. What types of new services would you like to see provided through the cable system? (Check all that apply.)
Access to HDTV(High Definition Television)
Telephone services
Programs-on-Demand(movies or other programs exactly when you want to watch them)
High Speed Internet Access for Small and Home-Based Businesses
Other(please specify):
Computer and Internet Users Q27-32. All other go to Q31.
27. a. How many personal computers are in your household?
b. How many hours per week,on average,do you spend on-line(Intemet and on-line services at home)? Hours per week
c. Considering your time on-line as 100%,what portion of your time is spent:
Working Recreationally Shopping Educationally
28. How frequently do you browse the web and watch television at the same time? (Circle#)
Never All the time
1 2 3 4 5
29. Do you currently subscribe to Mediacom's high speed Internet access? 0 Yes(Go to Q31) ❑ No
If no,how likely are you to subscribe in the future? (Circle#)
Very unlikely Very likely
_ 1 2 3 4 5
4
30. Does your household have an additional phone line for the computer? Yes 0 No 0 Don't Know 0
31. Do you work from home(telecommute)or does your company have a telecommuting program? Yes 0 No 0 Don't Know 0
32. If yes,how many hours per week?
While your specific responses will remain anonymous,we would like to be able to consider your opinions with others like yourself. Please indicate the
Demographics following:
33. Zip Code
34. Own or Rent
35. How long have you lived in Dubuque?
36. How old were you on your last birthday? (Optional)
37. Male or Female(Optional)
38. Highest Grade Completed(Optional)
39. Race? (Optional)
40. Estimated Annual Household Income? (Optional)
If you have any additional comments regarding Mediacom and its cable services please include them in the space provided below:
Thank you for your cooperation in completing this survey. We know your time is valuable. Please fold the survey so that the return address appears on
the outside. Use tape or staple to close the survey. Please return the completed survey by February 15,2002. All responses will remain anonymous.
POSTAGE GRAPHIC
Cable Franchise Administrator
City of Dubuque
City Hall Annex, 1300 Main Street
Dubuque,IA 52001
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the
City and schools in Virginia Beach that are operated by VBTV, Virginia Beach
Television.
1. Are you aware of the local government access channel programmed by the
City of Virginia Beach on Channel 46 that provides announcements about local
events?
1. YES (Continue) 2. NO (Skip to Q18h) 3. REFUSED (Skip
to Q18h)
2. How useful is the information provided on that channel?
1. Very Useful
2. Useful
3. Somewhat Useful
4. Not at all useful
5. Don't Know
18h. 1. Are you aware of the local government and educational programming that
appears on VBTV, Channels 47 and 48?
1. YES (Continue) 2. NO (Skip to Q18J)3. REFUSED (Skip to
Q18J2)
2. How often do you watch local programming that appears on VBTV's Channel
47 and 48, the government and education access channels?
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18H3)
b. Less than 5 hours per week, but on a weekly basis. (GO TO
Q18H3)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18H3)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q18J2
d. Never } SKIP TO Q18J2
e. Don't Know } SKIP TO Q18J2
3. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on VBTV Channels 47
and 48, such as City Council and School Board meetings, as well as original
programming like Beach Magazine, Video Magazine, Newscan and Ahead of the
Curve. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent, good, fair or poor.
Access Channels 47 and 48 Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
A Channel 47 and 48's picture 16% 55% 20% 4% 5%
quality
B Channel 47 and 48's sound 11% 48% 29% 8% 6%
quality
C The programming on Channel 13% 61% 18% 1% 6%
47 and 48's informational
value.
D The programming on Channel
47 and 48's entertainment
value.
From: Marty Wine
To: Denison, Steven; Hansen, Ronald; Herzog, Linda; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride,
George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil
Date: 7/10/2006 9:09:06 PM
Subject: Re: cable franchise renewal - baton-passing &team meeting
Hi all, attached is the briefing that Linda referenced below with a status report from Mike Bradley. This
helped me to get up to speed on our renewal status (I understand we're on step 3 and will pick up there in
August) and I'd welcome any background information you each may have to offer about the renewal
process and what Renton's interests are. I would like to schedule a meeting among us, so look for a
Groupwise invitation from me for late next week.
Thanks - more soon.
Marty
x6526
>>> Linda Herzog 06/30/06 2:11 PM >>>
You may be wondering what's happening with the cable franchise renewal contract. Well, here's a brief
update . . .
Our new Asst. CAO Marty Wine will be taking over responsibility for management of the cable franchise
renewal effort under contract to Bradley&Guzzetta. Bonnie will, of course, continue to deal with Bradley
& Guzzetta on all the "daily franchise administration"and customer service aspects of the contract. Marty
and I will have a phone meeting with Mike Bradley on Thursday or Friday of next week, to be sure all of
Marty's questions are answered at the outset.
Mike Bradley will prepare a status report summarizing the work completed to date, and looking forward to
the next phase. We'll distribute Mike's report when it comes in, likely mid-next week.
Marty will want to pull the in-house team together before August 7, so be on the look-out for a meeting
invitation from her. On the evening of Aug. 7 Mike Bradley and Dick Nielson will do a presentation to
Council at the opening of the Council meeting. Mike will describe the status of the contract work, and
introduce Nielson & his phase of the work.
The next day, Aug. 8, Mike and Dick will want to meet with our in-house work group. To prep for that
meeting you will want to read Bradley's status report (forthcoming) and review the materials in the "Cable
Franchise Renewal Workbook"you received back in March.
Last words from me: Thank you all for working so cooperatively with me over the past year. I've very
much enjoyed my time here, and have come to love this community as I'm sure you do. Best to all of you
for continued success!
Linda
CC: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay; Zimmerman, Gregg
•
MEMORANDUM
To: Marty Wine and Linda Herzog, City of Renton
From: Michael R. Bradley
Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Status Report and Briefing
Date: July 5, 2006
Bradley&
Guzzetta, LLC
City of Renton
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Status Report and Briefing
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 As we transition from Ms. Herzog to Ms. Wine as the cable franchise renewal
P/(651)379-0900 project lead for the City of Renton, you asked for a status report to assist in
F/(651)379-0999
bringing Ms. Wine up to date with the project. The cable franchise renewal
Attorneys at Law process is not a typical one, so I expect that this memorandum will start the
Michael R.Bradleyt dialog and education process and I of course welcome any questions that you
Stephen J.Guzzetta* may have.
Senior Project Manager
Tracy J.Schaefer To assist the City,we have put together a team of nationally recognized
consultants consisting of my firm, Front Range Consulting and CBG
Legal Assistants Communications, Inc. My firm, Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC, provides legal and
Thomas R.Colaizy administrative services and is the project manager for this cable franchise
Brian Laule renewal project. We also provide daily cable franchise administrative services
Of Counsel to the City. Some of our representative clients include the cities of Minneapolis,
Thomas C.Plunkett Nashville and Oklahoma City. We will be using Mr. Dick Treich of Front
Gregory S.Uhl Range Consulting for financial analysis, such as rate reviews. Mr. Treich has
over twenty years of experience in the cable rate field and was the Vice
President in charge of rate filings with TCI and AT&T Broadband. I started the
technical firm of CBG Communications in 2001. Although I no longer have an
ownership interest in the company,the company still employs the lead
consultants Tom Robinson and Dick Nielsen,whom I initially hired. Both are
technically sound and have worked across the country with cities. You should
also know,that our firms work exclusively with cities and therefore have no
conflicts of interests with the cable or telephone industries.
In March, 2006,we put together our current work plan. I am happy to report to
you that we are on schedule, but we have a couple of tasks that need to be
completed in July. The following is the work plan from March and I have
indicated below our current status on each task.
1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan (March 2006)
Status: Complete. I gave a power point presentation to the City Council and
fielded questions.
2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006)
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
*Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
a. Identify City Staff Priorities
b. Identify Roles for City Staff
Status: Complete. We had a lengthy meeting with key city staffers to discuss their interests
in the cable franchise renewal. One of the most important issues that were raised is the use
and future need for the institutional network that Comcast provides to the City. This will be
a major issue for us going forward. An institutional network is a communications network
dedicated for the City's use. Another issue will be the funding for access television. The
City has joined with about 5 other cities to fund Puget Sound Access,which provides public
access television. The City also runs a government channel. We will be discussing the
City's future involvement and present satisfaction with Puget Sound Access and of course
the appropriate funding levels for public, educational, and governmental access television.
3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure Compliance(B&G)
Status: In Progress. I expect our review of franchise compliance to be complete by late July.
A report will be produced.
b. Franchise Fee Review(Front Range Consulting)
Status: In Progress. Mr.Treich is gather in the information that he needs and should have a
preliminary report to us by late July. I would also like to review Comcast's rate forms. We
should discuss this in our call tomorrow. We recently entered into one of the largest rate
settlements in the Country with Comcast on behalf of some of our clients. It is worth doing,
especially given the fact that the City really has not ever reviewed the forms.
c. System Technical Review(including Institutional Network) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
Status: This was originally scheduled to be performed in mid-July, but was moved back to
accommodate vacation schedules. It will now be performed the week of August 7, 2006 and
I would expect a report by the end of August. Mr.Nielsen will perform the review and I will
assist in identifying the appropriate franchise standards that they need to follow.
4. Notice Non-compliance(if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study(September 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
a. Identify Role(participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
2
b. Identify Role(participation and financial) of other Participating Cities(Auburn,
Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG Communications, Inc.)
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance(November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council(February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP (February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP(February 2007)
12. Receive Formal Renewal Proposals(April 2007)
13.Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations (approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14. Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal(August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15.Act on Formal Renewal Proposal(September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
Hopefully, you now have a flavor of the tasks that we will be performing. To give you some
context, I am attaching a renewal memorandum that I put together for the City in March. I am
looking forward to working with you(although sad to see Linda move on) and assisting the City
in a successful cable franchise renewal process.
Mike Bradley
3
a MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms.Linda Herzog, City of Renton
FROM: Michael R.Bradley,Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
Bradley; DATE: March 12,2006
Guzzetta, 1.I.0
SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The following information is provided to give you additional background on the
P/(651)379-0900
F/(65 I)379-0999 cable franchise renewal process that the City will undertake with Comcast. Over
the last several years, cable franchise renewals have become more and more
Attorneys at Law contentious and difficult. This is due in large part to industry consolidation, to
Michael R.Bradleyt changes in the law, to the cable industry's decision to devote large amounts of
Stephen J.Guzzetta* capital to the improvement of cable systems and to the popular (but mistaken)
Legal Assistants belief that local government franchising acts as an impediment to the deployment
Thomas R.Colaizy of infrastructure that is needed to foster reliable, high-speed access to video and
Brian Laule data programs and applications. In practical terms, this means the franchise
renewal process is generally taking longer and longer to complete, and that the use
Of Counsel of the formal renewal process is becoming more prevalent.
Thomas C.Plunkett
Gregory S.Uhl
J.David Abramson The cable industry has also become more inclined to use litigation as a means of
intimidating local governments and avoiding local processes. For instance,
Comcast sued the City of San Jose, California rather than following the hearing
process established by city officials as part of the formal renewal process. With
respect to the informal renewal process,many cable operators, including Comcast,
have adopted a strategy of attrition. This strategy is designed to drag out renewal
negotiations until municipalities run out of funding or political will. The operator
is then typically able to obtain renewal on very favorable terms and conditions,
which do not necessarily benefit the local franchising authority or its citizens.
With this in mind, it is very important for the City to wisely manage the renewal
process,and to develop an overall renewal strategy from which it does not deviate.
Although the renewal of a cable television franchise can be difficult, expensive
and very time-consuming, and specific results cannot be guaranteed, it is important
to dedicate sufficient financial and staff resources to the process for a variety of
reasons. First, a cable television franchise is usually granted for a long period of
time—often ten to fifteen years. Consequently, it is important to renew a franchise
on terms and conditions that will meet the community's cable-related needs and
interests during the entire franchise term. Second, the grant of a franchise confers
a very valuable right to Comcast—the authority to use the City's public rights-of-
way for private profit. City officials may therefore want to ensure that the people
who pay for the maintenance,management and repair of the public rights-of-way—
taxpayers—are adequately compensated by Comcast. Such compensation should
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
°Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
reflect the fair market value of the City property and rights-of-way that are used, and usually takes
the form of franchise fees and in-kind benefits, such as free cable service and cable drops at public
institutions. If the compensation received from Comcast does not reflect fair market value, the
City's residents are essentially subsidizing Comcast's operations in the City. Lastly, compensation
received through the renewal of a cable franchise can provide significant tangible benefits to the
City and its citizens. By way of example, financial support for government access can ensure that
the City is able to communicate broadly and effectively with its residents in a video format,
including during emergencies. In addition, a fiber-optic institutional network requirement could be
included in a renewal franchise, if warranted. The construction of such a network could save the
City a substantial amount of money because leased lines could be eliminated. An institutional
network could also provide the City with a reliable, high-speed platform that could be utilized to
deploy new video, voice and data applications, such as Internet Protocol telephony. Comcast,
however,has a history of combating municipal efforts to obtain institutional networks.
With the foregoing in mind, this memorandum will outline the franchise renewal requirements
applicable to the City.
I. OUTLINE OF THE FEDERAL CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
The City's cable franchise renewal is subject to the renewal provisions of the federal Cable Act, 47
U.S.C. § 546,which set out two ways of arriving at a renewal decision: the formal and the informal
processes.
Informal Process
• The City and Comcast may, at any time, agree on a renewal franchise through informal
negotiations, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h). Conversely, the City may deny an informal
renewal proposal at any time.
➢ Informal renewals are essentially contract negotiations.
➢ Adequate public notice and opportunity to comment must be provided before
granting or denying an informal renewal proposal submitted by Comcast.
➢ The City's decision to deny an informal renewal proposal does not need to be based
on the criteria delineated below for the formal renewal process. In other words, the
City may deny an informal renewal proposal for any reason.
Formal Process
• If the City and Comcast are unable to agree on renewal terms through negotiation, and
Comcast has properly invoked the formal renewal process under 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), the
only way that the City may deny renewal is to take the following steps:
➢ The City conducts an"ascertainment"process to develop facts about Comcast's past
performance and the community's future cable-related needs and interests. The
2
public must be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to participate in the
needs ascertainment and past performance review. This is often times accomplished
through public hearings and surveys (e.g., telephone, mail and/or Internet surveys).
The City has significant discretion in determining how to conduct its needs
assessment and past performance"proceeding."
➢ Once the City completes the ascertainment and past performance review process, it
issues a request for renewal proposal ("RFRP") to Comcast. The RFRP should
clearly specify the requirements for cable-related facilities and equipment and
capital support needed to satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests.
In addition, based on identified needs and interests, the RFRP should establish
requirements for public, educational and governmental access channel capacity and
capacity on institutional networks for educational or governmental use. An RFRP
generally may not establish requirements for specific video programming or "other
information services." The City may establish a deadline for the submission of a
renewal proposal in its RFRP.
➢ Comcast submits a proposal for renewal. This proposal must contain such material
as the City may require, including (but not limited to) proposals for system
upgrades.
➢ The City must provide"prompt"public notice of Comcast's renewal proposal. State
and local publication requirements should be strictly followed.
➢ The City has four months from submission of Comcast's proposal in which to renew
the franchise or issue a preliminary denial of renewal.
➢ If the City issues a preliminary denial, it begins a formal administrative proceeding
to consider whether the franchise should be renewed, basing its decision on the four
factors listed below. Comcast must be given adequate notice of the hearing and a
fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to
require the production of evidence and to question witnesses. 'A transcript of the
administrative hearing must be made.
➢ At the end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision
granting or denying the renewal proposal, based on the record of the administrative
hearing,which decision states the reasons for the City's determination.
➢ Comcast may appeal the City's decision in state or federal court.
• Under the formal renewal process,the only four criteria upon which a denial of renewal may
be based are whether:
➢ Comcast has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise
and with applicable law;
3
➢ The quality of Comcast's service, including signal quality, response to consumer
complaints, and billing practices (but without regard to the mix or quality of cable
services or other services provided over the system) has been reasonable in light of
community needs;
➢ Comcast has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services,
facilities,and equipment as set forth in its proposal;and
➢ Comcast's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs
and interests,taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
Renewal may be denied if there is a negative finding with respect to any one of the
foregoing criteria. In practice, however,the City would be well advised to ensure that it has
the strongest possible case before denying renewal. It should also be noted that the City
may not deny renewal based on Comcast's failure to substantially comply with material
franchise terms and applicable law or to provide reasonable quality service in light of
community needs unless Comcast has been given notice and an opportunity to cure.
• Normally, the formal ascertainment process goes on simultaneously with the informal
renewal process. If an informal agreement is reached,however,there is no need to complete
the formal process. Reactivating the formal renewal process would not prevent the City
from continuing to negotiate with Comcast informally, and the denial of an informal
renewal proposal would not impact any formal renewal proposal that has been submitted.
A. Why Renewal is Important.
Cable television systems operate pursuant to franchises issued by local governments. A
franchise authorizes a cable system operator to provide cable service, and to occupy valuable
public rights-of-way for that purpose. A franchise sets out the terms and conditions under which
service is to be provided.
When a franchise is about to expire or has expired, a local franchising authority has a rare
opportunity to review the performance of the cable operator, and to ensure that the operator will
meet the future cable-related needs and interests of the community. This opportunity is rare
because franchises are typically issued for periods of years. At the time of renewal, a City can
establish requirements for system improvements to ensure that the community has adequate
infrastructure. The City can also ensure that everyone has real opportunities to originate, as well
as receive, video programming. In addition, the City can ensure that cable service will be
reliable, and that Comcast will be in a position to bring the benefits of advances in cable
technology into the City's homes, businesses and schools. As part of the franchise renewal
process, the City will look to the past, and assess Comcast's performance under the current
franchise, and will identify what is needed for the future.
In looking at future cable-related needs and interests, the City may conclude that there is a need
for channels, facilities and equipment that will permit members of the public, educational
institutions and government agencies to produce and disseminate programming. This type of
4
programming — so-called "public, educational and governmental" access (or "PEG" access) —
serves critical public interests.) PEG access requirements help eliminate the danger that our
society will be sharply divided between information "haves" and "have-nots." As the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration has noted, "[b]ecause information means
empowerment — and employment — government has a duty to ensure that all Americans have
access to the resources and job creation potential of the Information Age."2
Cable systems once served merely to retransmit broadcast television signals. They have now,
however, become a"dominant nationwide video medium,"3 with many companies maintaining or
upgrading to 2-way transmissions used for cable modem service, telephony and video on
demand. The development of these electronic highways has the potential to significantly change
the way people live, work, and interact with each other by providing users access to vast
quantities of information, services and entertainment in a variety of forms. As a result, a local
government has a compelling interest in ensuring that a cable system is adequately designed and
constructed to help satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests, that good service is
provided at a fair price, that services are available to all, and that the flow of information is not
monopolized by the companies that own the cable networks. These interests are reflected in
federal, state and local law.4
The foregoing interests are particularly strong because, in order to operate, cable systems must
occupy scarce and valuable public property—property that the public effectively pays to acquire
and maintain. Comcast's facilities are located on poles and under rights-of-way throughout the
City. The City, as a trustee of the public's interest in public rights-of-way, has a compelling
interest in ensuring that Comcast utilizes this public property in a way that benefits the entire
community. This means, among other things, that the City should ensure that public property is
used in optimal ways, and that the public receives fair compensation — in the form of franchise
fees and other conditions—for the use of its public property to provide cable service.
These interests and others are protected, in part, through the franchising process. For example,
during renewal proceedings a community is permitted to establish basic requirements for system
design, and to require that cable operators provide facilities and equipment and set aside channel
capacity for public, educational and governmental use. Thus, the legislative history of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 521, et seq.,
(the"Cable Act")explains:
As Congress has pointed out,one of the primary purposes of PEG access is to afford groups and individuals who
generally have not had access to electronic media the"opportunity to become sources of information in the
electronic marketplace of ideas." H.Rep.No.934,98th Cong.2d Sess.at 30,reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,
4667(1984)("1984 House Report").
2 National Telecommunications Information Administration,The National Information Infrastructure:Agenda for
Action at 1(September 1993).
9 H.Rep.No.862, 102d Cong.2d Sess.at 50,reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1232(1992).
4 For federal law,see e.g., 47 U.S.C.§544(requiring facilities and equipment); §546(c)(1)(D)(satisfying
community's cable-related needs and interests); §543(ensuring reasonable rates);§541(a)(3)(anti-redlining);and
§531(access channels).
5
The ability of a local government entity to require particular cable
facilities (and to enforce requirements in the franchise to provide
those facilities) is essential if cable systems are to be tailored to the
needs of each community [and the legislation] explicitly grants this
power to the franchising authority.5
This is why the franchise renewal process is so important to both the operator and the
community.6 The City is able to protect the interests of cable subscribers and the general public
through the franchising process by identifying present and future cable-related needs and
interests, and translating those needs and interests into franchise requirements.
B. The Renewal Process Under Federal Law.
Certain individuals and organizations in the community no doubt want the City simply to put the
Comcast franchise up for competitive bid, and then award a franchise to the best operator. That,
however, is not an option. In 1984, the federal government passed a law that was intended to
provide cable operators with a fair opportunity to obtain renewal. To that end, the Cable Act
establishes two possible ways a community can respond to a request for a franchise renewal.
Under the informal renewal process, the City and a cable operator can meet informally at any
time and attempt to resolve franchise issues through negotiations.' If the issues are resolved the
City can, after providing the public with adequate notice and an opportunity to comment, adopt a
renewal franchise. An informal proposal can be rejected at any time, and for any reason. Most
renewals are settled informally.
Either the operator or the City can invoke the more formal renewal procedures set out at 47
U.S.C. § 546(a)-(g) during a six-month window which begins with the thirty-sixth (36th) month
prior to franchise expiration. These "formal" procedures give the operator the opportunity for a
fair hearing on its renewal request. At the same time, the procedures insure that the City can
deny renewal if an operator has performed poorly in the past, or is not qualified, or is not willing
to make a reasonable proposal for meeting the community's needs and interests for the future
(taking into account the cost of meeting those needs and interests). Under the formal process,the
City is given broad authority to define what the cable-related needs and interests of the
community are.8 The operator must then submit a proposal that is reasonable to meet the
community's cable-related needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting those
needs and interests (the focus is the community, not the individual subscribers who may receive
service today).
More specifically,the formal renewal process under the Cable Act is a four-stage process.
5 1984 House Report at 26, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4663.
6 Congress intended that:"the franchise process take place at the local level where[local]officials have the best
understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet
those needs." 1984 House Report at 24, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4661. However,the Cable Act does not give local
government unlimited authority to impose conditions on cable operators. For example,it limits local authority to
require an operator to carry a specific programming service. Id.at 4663.
47 U.S.C.§546(h).
8 See, e.g., Union CATV,,Inc. v. City of Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434(6`''Cir. 1997).
6
First, the City must conduct a proceeding to identify future cable-related needs and interests of
the community, and to review the past performance of the cable operator serving the
community.
Once that proceeding is complete, the City may issue a request for renewal proposals ("RFRP").
Because each renewal proposal is evaluated on its own merits, this RFRP cannot simply be a
competitive bidding document.10 The Cable Act allows the City to establish requirements in an
RFRP:
(1) "that channel capacity be designated for public, education or government
use, and channel capacity on the institutional networks be designated for
educational or governmental use, and may require rules and procedures for
the use of channel capacity designated . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 531(b).
(2) "for facilities and equipment." The legislative history of the Cable Act
explains that this includes requirements for institutional networks, studios,
equipment for public, educational and government use,two-way networks,
and so on. 47 U.S.C. § 544.
The Cable Act also states that "[a] franchising authority may establish and enforce (1) customer
service requirements of the cable operator and (2) construction schedules and other construction-
related requirements, including construction-related performance requirements of the cable
operator." 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(a)(2). This language arguably permits the City to establish
these requirements unilaterally in a franchise (or through a regulatory ordinance), along with
various other requirements established pursuant to the City's police and other governmental
powers.
In the next stage of the renewal process, the franchised cable operator submits a renewal
proposal in response to the City's RFRP. "[A]ny such proposal shall contain such material as the
franchising authority may require . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2). If an operator submits a timely,
complete and proper response," the City has four months to evaluate the proposal, and to decide
whether to grant renewal based on the proposal, or to preliminarily deny renewal. 47 U.S.C.
§ 546(c).
Finally, if renewal is preliminarily denied, and an operator desires it,the City must commence an
administrative proceeding to consider whether the franchise should be renewed. Comcast must
be given adequate notice and a fair opportunity for full participation in the proceeding, including
the right to introduce evidence,to require the production of evidence and to question witnesses.12
Four issues are considered at that proceeding:
9 47 U.S.C.§546(a)(1).
10 47 U.S.C.§546(b).
The proposal must be submitted by a deadline established by the City. If the operator fails to do so,then its rights
are ended.
12 47 U.S.C.§546(c)(2).
7
(A) whether the cable operator has substantially complied with the material
terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law;
(B) whether the quality of the operator's service, including signal quality,
response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard
to the mix or quality of cable services or other services provided over the
system, has been reasonable in light of community needs;
(C) whether the operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability to
provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in the operator's
proposal; and
(D) whether the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-
related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of
meeting such needs and interests.t3
These criteria do not include considerations such as programming selection or rate levels. A
franchise renewal request can be denied on any one (or more) of the foregoing grounds. At the
end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision granting or denying the
renewal proposal, based on the record and stating its reasons.14 Comcast can appeal the City's
decision in state or federal court. A court will overturn a decision to deny if the City's denial
was not based on a preponderance of the evidence included in the record of the administrative
proceeding.
C. General System Design and Capability.
Under the Cable Act, franchising authorities may establish and enforce requirements for
"facilities and equipment."15 In particular:
Facility and equipment requirements may include requirements which
relate to channel capacity; system configuration and capacity, including
institutional and subscriber networks; headends and hubs; two-way
capability; addressability; trunk and feeder cable; and any other facility or
equipment requirement, which is related to the establishment and
operation of a cable system, including microwave facilities, antennae,
satellite earth stations, uplinks, studios and production facilities, vans and
cameras for PEG use.16
13 47 U.S.C.§546(c)(1)(A)-(D).
14 47 U.S.C.§546(c)(3).
15 47 U.S.C.§544(b)(1)-(b)(2).
16 1984 House Report at 68,reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705. The exercise of this authority,however,must take
into consideration 47 U.S.C.§544(e),which states that no local franchising authority"may prohibit,condition,or
restrict a cable system's use of any type of subscriber equipment or any transmission technology."
8
Accordingly, a local franchising authority may not only determine certain requirements for the
facilities and equipment used in the subscriber network, but may also require that a cable
operator provide an institutional network and PEG support"
D. Support for Public,Educational and Governmental Use.
As Congress noted when it first passed cable legislation:
One of the greatest challenges over the years in establishing
communications policy has been assuring access to the electronic media
by people other than the licensees or owners of those media. The
development of cable television, with its abundance of channels, can
provide . . .the meaningful access that. . . has been difficult to obtain.
Almost all recent franchise agreements provide for access by local
governments, schools, and non-profit and community groups over so-
called "PEG" (public educational and governmental) channels. Public
access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soapbox or
the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet ... PEG channels also
contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home
and by showing the public local government at work.18
Given the important policy considerations underlying PEG access, Congress empowered local
franchising authorities to establish PEG access requirements as part of the franchising process.
Under the Cable Act, PEG requirements may take several forms.19 Franchising authorities can
require operators to designate channels for public, educational and governmental use in an RFRP
or in a franchise agreement. Franchising authorities can also establish requirements for
equipment and facilities — for example, requirements for studios and cameras. In addition,
franchising authorities can establish rules for the management and use of the facilities and
channels devoted to PEG use. Furthermore, franchising authorities can enforce promises for
broad categories of programming or other services made by a franchise applicant. In any event,
before issuing a franchise, a franchising authority can insist that a cable operator "provide
adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities or financial
support."2
17 See, e.g.,Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,CS
Docket No.94-46,Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd.20227,¶ 146(Aug.
8, 1996)(FCC acknowledges that"a local franchising authority may require a cable operator to provide institutional
networks as a condition of the initial grant,renewal or transfer of a franchise"). See also Implementation of the
Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,CS Docket No.96-85,Report and Order, 14
FCC Rcd.5296,¶142(March 29, 1999)("Section 621(b)(3)(D)[of the Cable Act]allows an LFA to require
institutional networks.").
18 1984 House Report at 30, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N..at 4667.
19 1984 House Report at 68, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705(franchising authorities may require,among other things,
"satellite earth stations,uplinks,studios and productions facilities,vans and cameras for PEG use").
20 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(4)(B).
9
It should be noted that setting aside channels for public, educational and governmental use does
not guarantee that the community will be able to use those channels. As indicated above, there
must also be adequate support for access operations, in the form of facilities and/or other
financial support. Accordingly, franchises in many communities require cable operators to
provide facilities, equipment and services to support PEG use. Such facilities and equipment
include upstream transmission paths for PEG signals from certain origination sites. In order for
Comcast to carry PEG access programming on its network, it must provide a means of
transporting audio and video signals from the locations where such programming it produced,
played back or originated to its headend. This is accomplished by establishing an upstream
transmission path from an origination point to Comcast's headend facilities (as opposed to a
"downstream" transmission path which supplies subscribers with video programming). The
quality of an upstream transmission path is extremely important, because the signal reaching
subscribers can be no better than the signal that reaches the headend. Thus, high-quality and
reliable upstream transport is essential to providing high-quality access programming.
Accordingly, communities generally have a need and interest in high-quality, and reliable
bidirectional transmission paths (equivalent to an uncompressed digital optical connection)
between origination sites and the cable system headend.
E. System Construction and Extension Issues.
Under federal law, the City must allow Comcast a reasonable time to make any improvements
required to upgrade the system, consistent with identified needs and interests.21 The City,
however, has an interest in ensuring that any construction and system modifications dictated by
the community's cable-related needs and interests are completed expeditiously, so as to
minimize any necessary service interruptions, as well as disruption of economic activity and of
the rights-of-way. To adequately protect its economic and property interests,the City should be
able to enforce timing and construction requirements. Major system upgrades typically take two
to three years to complete.
Even though construction of the current cable system in the City has been completed, the system
may often need to be extended to new developments and multiple dwelling units. There may
also be areas within the boundaries of the existing service area that are not now reachable by the
cable system, without extending the network plant to a point where the home or business can be
served by a drop. As a policy matter, the City may want to consider whether all of its residents
have access to Comcast's system, and the services offered over that system now and in the
future, both from an economic development and information delivery standpoint. At a
minimum, the City should ensure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in
which such group resides. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3).
F. Past Performance.
In reaching a decision to grant or deny renewal under the formal renewal process, a local
franchising authority can consider whether a "cable operator has substantially complied with the
21 See 47 U.S.C.§541 (a)(4)("[i]n awarding a franchise,the franchising authority...shall allow the applicant's cable
system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service...").
10
material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law." 22 According to the legislative
history of the Cable Act, this particular consideration "does not require that the operator meet each
and every specific provision of a franchise." 23 Consequently, minor violations of a franchise
agreement probably would not justify denying a renewal proposal because the operator would still
have "substantially complied" with the franchise. Additionally, violations which do not concern
"material" terms may not constitute grounds for denial. If, however, a cable operator repeatedly
breaches its franchise agreement or violates important franchise provisions (e.g., PEG support,
channel capacity, signal quality, etc.), a franchising authority may be able to deny renewal under 47
U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A). Depending on the circumstances, a single violation of an extremely
significant franchise term, which deprives the franchising authority of a major benefit it bargained
for,could be a sufficient basis on which to reject a renewal proposal 24
In addition to franchise compliance, § 546(c)(1)(A) allows franchising authorities to consider
whether a cable operator has substantially complied with applicable law. The reference to
"applicable law" apparently provides local governments with the authority to explore a variety of
federal, state and local law requirements in connection with renewal, regardless of whether such
requirements are cable-related. Thus, for example, local franchising authorities may be able to
consider whether a cable operator has complied with federal equal employment opportunity
requirements, federal subscriber privacy requirements, local tax laws, local zoning laws, state and
local construction requirements, civil rights laws, and state antitrust laws. If a cable operator has
repeatedly or completely failed to comply with a provision of applicable law, a franchising authority
can probably deny renewal.
It is important to note that 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A) can only be used if certain statutory
requirements are met. Section § 546(d), stipulates that a franchising authority cannot deny renewal
under Section 626(c)(l)(A) based on events that occurred after the effective date of the Cable Act,
unless the franchising authority has provided the operator with notice and an opportunity to cure.25
Additionally, a local franchising authority cannot invoke Section 626(c)(1)(A) if it has waived its
right to object, or if the operator has provided "written notice of a failure or inability to cure, and the
franchising authority fails to object within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice." 26 A
franchising authority can waive its right to object by expressly or implicitly failing to require
compliance(e.g., by failing to enforce a requirement or to assert a right, or by modifying a franchise,
etc.), unless a franchise ordinance or agreement provides otherwise. Thus, franchising authorities
should think carefully before affirmatively assenting to noncompliance, and should not ignore
repeated franchise violations. Furthermore, a franchising authority must promptly respond to
noncompliance letters from cable operators, and unequivocally object to the stated violations or
22 47 U.S.C.§546(c)(1)(A).
23 House Committee on Energy and Commerce,Report on Cable Franchise Policy and Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984,H.R.Rep.No.934,98`h Cong.,2"d Sess.74(1985)("House Report").
24 An example of this scenario might be if the operator unjustifiably refused to pay the franchise fees required by a
valid franchise agreement.
25 Adequate notice for purposes of invoking Section 626(c)(1)(A)as grounds for denial must be specific in its
explanation of the problem and must come directly from the franchising authority. Rolla Cable Systems,Inc.v.City
of Rolla,761 F.Supp. 1398, 1409(E.D.Mo. 1991). Notice need not be given in writing,however,as long as"the
franchising authority discloses to the cable operator its position and that position is expressed with specificity." Id.
26 47 U.S.C.§546(d).
11
inability to cure. Unless it diligently enforces the franchise, it is easy for a local franchising authority
to unintentionally waive its renewal rights.
CONCLUSION
We look forward to working with the City throughout the cable franchise renewal process. Our
goal is to help the City maximum the use of its available resources to obtain the best franchise
possible under the circumstances.
12
ECFS Comment Submission: CONFIRMATION Page 1 of 1
•
Federal Communications Commission
The FCC Acknowledges Receipt of Comments From ...
Bonnie Walton
...and Thank You for Your Comments
Your Confirmation Number is: '2006124891216 '
Date Received: Jan 24 2006
Docket: 05-311
Number of Files Transmitted: 1
DISCLOSURE
This confirmation verifies that ECFS has received and
accepted your filing. However, your filing will be rejected
by ECFS if it contains macros, passwords, redlining,
read-only formatting, a virus or automated links to
source documents that is not included with your filing.
Filers are encouraged to retrieve and view their filing
within 24 hours of receipt of this confirmation. For any
problems contact the Help Desk at 202-418-0193.
Initiate a Submission I Search ECFS I Return to ECFS Home Page
FCC Home Page Search Commissioners , BureauslOffices Finding Info
updated 12/11/03
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/websgl/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.hts 1/24/2006
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Andrew.Long@fcc.gov; Info@natoa.org; John.Norton@fcc.gov
Date: 1/24/2006 4:05:37 PM
Subject: City of Renton Comments to FCC - MB Docket No. 05-311
The attached comments were submitted today to the FCC via the Electronic Comment Filing System at
www.fcc.gov/cqb/ecfs by Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, on behalf of Kathy Keolker, Mayor,
City of Renton, Washington.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Ph. 425-430-6502
Fax 425-430-6516
bwaltonna ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Kathy Keolker; Linda Herzog
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984)
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No. 05-311
Protection and Competition Act of 1992
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens.At the same time, Renton's
policies and actions clearly demonstrate that the City values its business partnerships and
understands the advantages to the community of competition among multiple service providers.
Although Renton affirms its long-standing commitment to healthy competition and supportive
business development practices, the City will resist any action by the Federal Communications
Commission to diminish its direct authority to protect valuable public assets. Renton further
advises that cities are much better positioned to address customer concerns about cable services
in a specific locality. There would be nothing gained from moving customer service complaints
from city hall to a distant federal agency.
We recognize that time and predictability are essential to business success. The City takes pride
in its reputation as a jurisdiction that is responsive, timely and efficient in processing land use
applications and construction permits.As evidence of its success in regulatory reform, Renton
cites special recognition by the Washington State Competitiveness Council for the City's
streamlined permit process.
Renton has worked hard to create both a general environment and municipal business plan goals
that support business development,while prudently managing public assets and enhancing the
quality of life in our community.
The City of Renton can and will maintain its local cable franchise authority with the highest
standards of clarity, timeliness, and fairness. In order to assure its citizens appropriate choice,
high quality and reasonable cost, Renton supports the entry of new video service providers, and
welcomes market competition.
There are important facts for FCC Commissioners to know about the City of Renton and
hundreds of other local jurisdictions like it across the United States. Here are some facts about
Renton that bear on the question of cable franchise authority and management of the cable
franchise relationship:
The City of Renton
Renton has 57,000 residents and 36,000 daytime workers. Voluntary annexations of
unincorporated areas to the east and the west of the City are expected to double the City's
resident population within 7-8 years.
The Cable Television Franchise
Comcast(and its predecessor companies)has held the City's only cable television franchise
since 1977. The current franchise agreement has been in effect since 1993; it will expire in
September 2008. Comcast has filed a notice of intent to renew the franchise. The renewal
process is expected to begin within the next few months.
Franchise Fee
Under the current franchise, Comcast has access to all households, businesses and institutions
within city limits. The franchise fee it pays to the City of Renton equals 5%of gross revenues.
Public, Educational,and Government Access
Comcast also provides Renton with three"PEG"access channels on the cable system. Two of
those are now in operation: one for government access, and the other for public access. Under
the agreement, Comcast will make available additional channels when use of the current PEG
channels warrants.
The franchise agreement requires Comcast to provide, install and maintain equipment necessary
for local government cable-casting; provide service to public buildings and schools in Renton
without charge; and (in exchange for release of certain obligations)contribute funds to a non-
profit foundation for construction, operation and maintenance of a public access studio shared by
six adjoining cities all of which hold franchise agreements with Comcast.
Institutional Network(I-net)
The City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network installed by Renton's initial
cable franchisee, a predecessor of Comcast. The network is made up of 12-strand fiber runs
from City Hall to:
• the city attorney's office
• four fire stations
• the municipal airport control tower
• the public works shops
• three community centers and a community use building in a downtown park
• a senior center
• two libraries
• the Renton Museum and Historical Society
• a downtown parking garage and a public transit"Park and Ride"facility
• the former city hall and 2 other buildings the city leases out.
The fiber network is critical to daily operation of the City and its public agency partners, and
fundamental to the high quality of public service they provide.
Altogether these network links connect a total of thirty-two city facilities to Renton's main data
center, the hub of all City government telecommunication services including voice (dial tone),
data, some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety communications and dispatch. In addition, the
network supports cashiering, back office business and data base services, and reservation,
scheduling,financial and emergency management applications. The City's traffic management
system (signal timing &adjustment)also operates on this same fiber network.
The City also uses the I-net fiber to backhaul a city-wide wireless network system including all fire
and police vehicle data. This wireless network covers 80% of the land area within Renton's
corporate boundaries.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts on the I-net, the fiber
network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition,firefighters and
police officers have access across the I-net to both the fire and police records management
systems, along with regional, state and federal emergency management and public safety data.
One of Renton's great concerns about the FCC's current telecommunication discussion is the
dependence of our police and fire operations on this cable I-net. If local franchise authority is
removed or diminished, Renton and other cities that have modernized their public safety
communications in this way may lose access to the systems that enable them to function.
Customer Service
Renton's franchise agreement assures the quality of service described in Federal standards.
These are good business practices that any cable service provider should endorse. Under the
terms of the Renton franchise agreement:
• In no case can a franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established by the
National Cable Television Association.
• If there is a service failure,the cable operator renders repairs promptly and with the shortest
service interruption possible, to restore the quality of the signal to pre-failure conditions.
Repair-related interruptions are preceded by notice, and occur during a period of minimum
use of the cable system.
• The cable operator responds to any system outage affecting more than five subscribers.
• The operator maintains an adequate force of customer service representatives and incoming
trunk lines, so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsibly. A summary of
customer service measures is provided by the operator quarterly.
• An employee of the franchise operator answers and responds to all individual complaints no
later than 5:00 p.m.weekdays, but may use an answering service after regular business
hours.
• The cable operator has a technician on call 24/7 and maintains a sufficient repair force to
respond to service requests within two working days. All complaints are resolved within
seven days,to the extent reasonable.
• If a subscriber has notified the operator of an outage,there is no charge for service if the
outage lasts more than 24 hours.
• When a new connection is made, and periodically at least once a year, the operator supplies
the title, address,and telephone number of the City official who subscribers can call with
questions or complaints.
Build Out
Another component of Renton's cable franchise agreement is especially important to our citizens
—the requirement for cable service to be available to all. Only a few small areas in Renton have
not been able to receive Comcast services because of extraordinary conditions.
The agreement specifies that service must be available city-wide within 12 months from granting
of the franchise(i.e. by September 1994). Areas subsequently annexed to the City must be
provided with cable availability within 12 months of annexation, subject to stipulated extraordinary
installation conditions. (Note that Renton has accepted nearly sixty annexations of
unincorporated King County territory since the initiation of the current franchise.)
Regarding low-density areas, our franchise agreement holds that cable service must be available
to all Renton residents provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per street mile. If a potential
new subscriber lives in a less dense area,the cable operator must enter into an agreement
wherein the new subscriber reimburses the operator for the costs of making the connection.
Whenever any subsequent subscriber(who did not contribute to the cost of the extension)
connects to the extended line,that subscriber must pay his/her pro rata share directly to the cable
operator. Then the operator passes that payment back to the original subscriber.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications technologies,
Renton's franchise stipulates a schedule completion of upgrades(such as internet connection)
within 48 months from the beginning of the franchise. Comcast now offers Internet service to all
City residents who have cable.
New Entrants into the Renton Market
Directly pertinent to the FCC's concerns about assuring a"level playing field"for new entrants
into the local maket, Renton's franchise contains an "Equalization of Civic Contributions" section.
Under this provision:
• If one or more additional franchises are granted, the City may require that such subsequent
franchisees pay an amount proportionally equal to franchising costs experienced by the initial
franchisee.These costs may include but are not limited to access and institutional network
costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable installed to municipal buildings, and similar expenses.
• On the anniversary of each later-awarded franchise, those franchisees must pay to the City
an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee, based on the
number of subscribers held by the franchisees.
• Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel(s)and emergency override
systems currently available to the subscribers of the existing franchisee(s). In order to provide
these access channels, new franchisees may interconnect, at their cost, with the existing
franchisee(s), subject to reasonable terms and conditions imposed by the existing franchisee.
These interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees. In case of
dispute, the City Council may arbitrate.
Operation in the Public Rights of Way
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way for the purpose of
providing cable television service. As is the case with all ROW users,the cable provider must
obtain a construction permit from the City, and must pay an approval/inspection fee. Upon
application for each construction permit the franchisee must submit an"advance notification"plan
for the proposed construction.
Insurance and Performance Bond
According to the franchise agreement the City of Renton holds with Comcast:
• Comcast maintains a general comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect the City and
all persons against liability for personal injury, death and property damage, and errors or
omissions related to the operations of the franchisee. The insurance policy provides
minimum limits of$1 million for both personal injury and/or property damage, and names the
City as additional insured.
• The franchisee must promptly repair any damage to City property caused by a franchisee or
any of its agents.
• The franchisee must comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations regarding
excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City, shall be required to post a
performance bond in favor of the City warranting that all restoration work will be done
promptly and in a workmanlike manner.
The Franchising Process and Enforcement Mechanisms
The City of Renton treats it cable franchise agreement as a contract between the City, acting on
behalf of its citizens, and the cable television/internet connection provider.
Renton agrees with the Federal Cable Act that the statutory obligation of the local government is
to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests, and ensure that these are
addressed in the franchising process.
If any portion of our franchise is inconsistent or conflicts with any FCC rule or regulation or other
Federal law,the FCC or Federal rule controls. Our franchise further states that matters involving
technical standards, rates,franchise renewal,franchise fees, compensation for involuntary
abandonment, and termination for non-compliance are subject to Federal and State law.
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract,the franchise process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights. For instance, Renton's City Code
(Section 5-19-9)requires the City to give public notice of the grounds for revocation of a
franchise. Also,the franchisee may elect a hearing before the City Council, who has authority to
•
issue a sanction less severe than revocation, based on factors specified in the Code.
There are three sections of the Renton City Code that enable the City to enforce the terms of the
cable franchise agreement:
• City Code Section 5-19-5N provides that no franchise shall be renewed until violations or
defaults in the franchisee's performance have been corrected, or a plan of correction has
been approved by the City.
• Code Section 5-19-4P, mirrors this language to describe the conditions warranting non-
renewal of a telecommunications license.
• City Code Section 5-109-8U provides for revocation or termination of a franchise for
certain violations.
Competitive Cable Systems
The City of Renton was approached once several years ago by a competitive cable television
provider, but the provider chose not to enter into formal discussions. The City has not and will not
deny any provider the opportunity to serve this community. There is already a procedure on our
books allowing competitive providers to establish a franchise relationship with the City.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in Renton,Washington. Renton has
experience working with cable providers to both see that the needs of the local community are
met, and ensure that the practical business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that cable operators are allowed access to the public rights of
way in a fair and even-handed manner, that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way assure adequate protection of this valuable
public asset. Our cable franchising process also ensures that our community's specific needs are
met, and that the City of Renton is able to intervene on behalf of its citizens if need be.
Franchises provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the operations of
cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to handle matters of specifically local
interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including Renton, a voice in implementation of
local cable systems, and the features (such as PEG access and I-Nets)that will be available to
meet local needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing providers.
The City of Renton,Washington therefore respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from
interfering with local government franchising authority, or to otherwise impair the operation of the
local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Renton,Washington
By: cl(CatiIcy
Mayor Kathy Keolker'
cc: NATOA, info©natoa.orq
John Norton, John.Nortonfcc.qov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Lonqfcc.qov
Filing Instructions
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
("ECFS") or by filing paper copies. Instructions for both forms of filing are included below.
Comments must be filed by February 13, 2006 in order to be included in the comment
round. Otherwise, they can be submitted until March 14, 2006 to be considered in the
Reply Comment round. Comments must also be sent to FCC staff — John Norton
(John.NortonPfcc.gov) and Andrew Long (Andrew.Long(&fcc.gov). We also ask that a copy
be sent to info@tnatoa.org.
Filing Electronically
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs or else they may be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. In completing the transmittal screen, electronic filers should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number: which in this case is MB Docket No. 05-311. More detailed
instructions are available on the FCC website and on NATOA's website.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. These are instructions
for members of the public who want or need to send comments on FCC Proceedings via
Email instead of through the Electronic Comment Filing System's interactive web site. Click
on one of the links below to review instructions and information. If you need further
assistance, please contact the Help Desk at ecfshelp@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0193.
Instructions ; Blank Form ; Data Requirements ; Sample Forms
Filing by Mail or in Person
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies (for a total of
five) of each filing in MB Docket No. 05-311. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. However, note that comments must be received by the due date, regardless of when
the comments were mailed, and that U.S. Postal Service mail is typically delayed and may
make the filing late. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission to one of the
following addresses:
• Filings via U.S. Postal Service should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20554.
• Filings via commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service mail) must
be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• Filings via hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings must be delivered to the
Commission's filing location at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110,
Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this facility are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Note that in accordance with FCC rules, any local government named in the
comments of any party must be served with a copy of the comments to provide them with
an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, the comments may be disregarded as violating the
FCC's ex parte rules. See, Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings,
GC Docket No. 95-21, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18831 (October 28,
1999).
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984)
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No.05-311
Protection and Competition Act of 1992
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens.At the same time, Renton's
policies and actions clearly demonstrate that the City values its business partnerships and
understands the advantages to the community of competition among multiple service providers.
Although Renton affirms its long-standing commitment to healthy competition and supportive
business development practices, the City will resist any action by the Federal Communications
Commission to diminish its direct authority to protect valuable public assets. Renton further
advises that cities are much better positioned to address customer concerns about cable services
in a specific locality. There would be nothing gained from moving customer service complaints
from city hall to a distant federal agency.
We recognize that time and predictability are essential to business success. The City takes pride
in its reputation as a jurisdiction that is responsive, timely and efficient in processing land use
applications and construction permits.As evidence of its success in regulatory reform, Renton
cites special recognition by the Washington State Competitiveness Council for the City's
streamlined permit process.
Renton has worked hard to create both a general environment and municipal business plan goals
that support business development,while prudently managing public assets and enhancing the
quality of life in our community.
The City of Renton can and will maintain its local cable franchise authority with the highest
standards of clarity,timeliness, and fairness. In order to assure its citizens appropriate choice,
high quality and reasonable cost, Renton supports the entry of new video service providers, and
welcomes market competition.
There are important facts for FCC Commissioners to know about the City of Renton and
hundreds of other local jurisdictions like it across the United States. Here are some facts about
Renton that bear on the question of cable franchise authority and management of the cable
franchise relationship:
The City of Renton
Renton has 57,000 residents and 36,000 daytime workers. Voluntary annexations of
unincorporated areas to the east and the west of the City are expected to double the City's
resident population within 7-8 years.
The Cable Television Franchise
Comcast(and its predecessor companies)has held the City's only cable television franchise
since 1977. The current franchise agreement has been in effect since 1993; it will expire in
September 2008. Comcast has filed a notice of intent to renew the franchise. The renewal
process is expected to begin within the next few months.
Franchise Fee
Under the current franchise, Comcast has access to all households, businesses and institutions
within city limits. The franchise fee it pays to the City of Renton equals 5%of gross revenues.
Public, Educational,and Government Access
Comcast also provides Renton with three"PEG"access channels on the cable system. Two of
those are now in operation: one for government access, and the other for public access. Under
the agreement, Comcast will make available additional channels when use of the current PEG
channels warrants.
The franchise agreement requires Comcast to provide, install and maintain equipment necessary
for local government cable-casting; provide service to public buildings and schools in Renton
without charge; and (in exchange for release of certain obligations)contribute funds to a non-
profit foundation for construction, operation and maintenance of a public access studio shared by
six adjoining cities all of which hold franchise agreements with Comcast.
Institutional Network(I-net)
The City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network installed by Renton's initial
cable franchisee, a predecessor of Comcast. The network is made up of 12-strand fiber runs
from City Hall to:
• the city attorney's office
• four fire stations
• the municipal airport control tower
• the public works shops
• three community centers and a community use building in a downtown park
• a senior center
• two libraries
• the Renton Museum and Historical Society
• a downtown parking garage and a public transit"Park and Ride"facility
• the former city hall and 2 other buildings the city leases out.
The fiber network is critical to daily operation of the City and its public agency partners, and
fundamental to the high quality of public service they provide.
Altogether these network links connect a total of thirty-two city facilities to Renton's main data
center, the hub of all City government telecommunication services including voice(dial tone),
data, some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety communications and dispatch. In addition, the
network supports cashiering, back office business and data base services, and reservation,
scheduling,financial and emergency management applications. The City's traffic management
system (signal timing &adjustment)also operates on this same fiber network.
The City also uses the I-net fiber to backhaul a city-wide wireless network system including all fire
and police vehicle data. This wireless network covers 80%of the land area within Renton's
corporate boundaries.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts on the I-net,the fiber
network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition, firefighters and
police officers have access across the I-net to both the fire and police records management
systems, along with regional, state and federal emergency management and public safety data.
One of Renton's great concerns about the FCC's current telecommunication discussion is the
dependence of our police and fire operations on this cable I-net. If local franchise authority is
removed or diminished, Renton and other cities that have modernized their public safety
communications in this way may lose access to the systems that enable them to function.
Customer Service
Renton's franchise agreement assures the quality of service described in Federal standards.
These are good business practices that any cable service provider should endorse. Under the
terms of the Renton franchise agreement:
• In no case can a franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established by the
National Cable Television Association.
• If there is a service failure,the cable operator renders repairs promptly and with the shortest
service interruption possible, to restore the quality of the signal to pre-failure conditions.
Repair-related interruptions are preceded by notice, and occur during a period of minimum
use of the cable system.
• The cable operator responds to any system outage affecting more than five subscribers.
• The operator maintains an adequate force of customer service representatives and incoming
trunk lines, so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsibly. A summary of
customer service measures is provided by the operator quarterly.
• An employee of the franchise operator answers and responds to all individual complaints no
later than 5:00 p.m.weekdays, but may use an answering service after regular business
hours.
• The cable operator has a technician on call 24/7 and maintains a sufficient repair force to
respond to service requests within two working days. All complaints are resolved within
seven days,to the extent reasonable.
• If a subscriber has notified the operator of an outage, there is no charge for service if the
outage lasts more than 24 hours.
• When a new connection is made, and periodically at least once a year,the operator supplies
the title,address, and telephone number of the City official who subscribers can call with
questions or complaints.
Build Out
Another component of Renton's cable franchise agreement is especially important to our citizens
—the requirement for cable service to be available to all. Only a few small areas in Renton have
not been able to receive Comcast services because of extraordinary conditions.
The agreement specifies that service must be available city-wide within 12 months from granting
of the franchise(i.e. by September 1994). Areas subsequently annexed to the City must be
provided with cable availability within 12 months of annexation,subject to stipulated extraordinary
installation conditions. (Note that Renton has accepted nearly sixty annexations of
unincorporated King County territory since the initiation of the current franchise.)
Regarding low-density areas, our franchise agreement holds that cable service must be available
to all Renton residents provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per street mile. If a potential
new subscriber lives in a less dense area, the cable operator must enter into an agreement
wherein the new subscriber reimburses the operator for the costs of making the connection.
Whenever any subsequent subscriber(who did not contribute to the cost of the extension)
connects to the extended line,that subscriber must pay his/her pro rata share directly to the cable
operator. Then the operator passes that payment back to the original subscriber.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications technologies,
Renton's franchise stipulates a schedule completion of upgrades (such as internet connection)
within 48 months from the beginning of the franchise. Comcast now offers internet service to all
City residents who have cable.
New Entrants into the Renton Market •
Directly pertinent to the FCC's concerns about assuring a"level playing field"for new entrants
into the local maket, Renton's franchise contains an "Equalization of Civic Contributions"section.
Under this provision:
• If one or more additional franchises are granted,the City may require that such subsequent
franchisees pay an amount proportionally equal to franchising costs experienced by the initial
franchisee.These costs may include but are not limited to access and institutional network
costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable installed to municipal buildings,and similar expenses.
• On the anniversary of each later-awarded franchise,those franchisees must pay to the City
an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee, based on the
number of subscribers held by the franchisees.
• Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel(s)and emergency override
systems currently available to the subscribers of the existing franchisee(s). In order to provide
these access channels, new franchisees may interconnect, at their cost,with the existing
franchisee(s), subject to reasonable terms and conditions imposed by the existing franchisee.
These interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees. In case of
dispute, the City Council may arbitrate.
Operation in the Public Rights of Way
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way for the purpose of
providing cable television service. As is the case with all ROW users,the cable provider must
obtain a construction permit from the City, and must pay an approval/inspection fee. Upon
application for each construction permit the franchisee must submit an "advance notification"plan
for the proposed construction.
Insurance and Performance Bond
According to the franchise agreement the City of Renton holds with Comcast:
• Comcast maintains a general comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect the City and
all persons against liability for personal injury, death and property damage, and errors or
omissions related to the operations of the franchisee. The insurance policy provides
minimum limits of$1 million for both personal injury and/or property damage, and names the
City as additional insured.
• The franchisee must promptly repair any damage to City property caused by a franchisee or
any of its agents.
• The franchisee must comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations regarding
excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City, shall be required to post a
performance bond in favor of the City warranting that all restoration work will be done
promptly and in a workmanlike manner.
The Franchising Process and Enforcement Mechanisms
The City of Renton treats it cable franchise agreement as a contract between the City, acting on
behalf of its citizens, and the cable television/internet connection provider.
Renton agrees with the Federal Cable Act that the statutory obligation of the local government is
to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests, and ensure that these are
addressed in the franchising process.
If any portion of our franchise is inconsistent or conflicts with any FCC rule or regulation or other
Federal law, the FCC or Federal rule controls. Our franchise further states that matters involving
technical standards, rates,franchise renewal,franchise fees, compensation for involuntary
abandonment, and termination for non-compliance are subject to Federal and State law.
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract,the franchise process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights. For instance, Renton's City Code
(Section 5-19-9)requires the City to give public notice of the grounds for revocation of a
franchise. Also, the franchisee may elect a hearing before the City Council,who has authority to
issue a sanction less severe than revocation, based on factors specified in the Code.
There are three sections of the Renton City Code that enable the City to enforce the terms of the
cable franchise agreement:
• City Code Section 5-19-5N provides that no franchise shall be renewed until violations or
defaults in the franchisee's performance have been corrected, or a plan of correction has
been approved by the City.
• Code Section 5-19-4P, mirrors this language to describe the conditions warranting non-
renewal of a telecommunications license.
• City Code Section 5-109-8U provides for revocation or termination of a franchise for
certain violations.
Competitive Cable Systems
The City of Renton was approached once several years ago by a competitive cable television
provider, but the provider chose not to enter into formal discussions. The City has not and will not
deny any provider the opportunity to serve this community. There is already a procedure on our
books allowing competitive providers to establish a franchise relationship with the City.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in Renton,Washington. Renton has
experience working with cable providers to both see that the needs of the local community are
met, and ensure that the practical business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that cable operators are allowed access to the public rights of
way in a fair and even-handed manner,that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way assure adequate protection of this valuable
public asset. Our cable franchising process also ensures that our community's specific needs are
met, and that the City of Renton is able to intervene on behalf of its citizens if need be.
Franchises provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the operations of
cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to handle matters of specifically local
interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including Renton, a voice in implementation of
local cable systems, and the features (such as PEG access and I-Nets)that will be available to
meet local needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing providers.
The City of Renton,Washington therefore respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from
interfering with local government franchising authority, or to otherwise impair the operation of the
local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Renton,Washington
By: �
Mayor Kathy Keolker
cc: NATOA, info(cDnatoa.orq
John Norton, John.Norton@fcc.gov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Long(a�fcc.gov
1
@omcast. Comcast Cable Communications,Inc.
4020 Auburn Way N
Auburn,WA 98002
Tel:253.288.7450
October 14, 2005 Fax:253.288.7500
CITY OF RENTON
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT-REQUESTED 7 "iv
OCT 1 A 2005
Bonnie Walton CITY CLERKS OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: FRANCHISE RENEWAL
Dear Ms. Walton:
We at Comcast appreciate the opportunity to serve the citizens of Renton. It is our credo that
we will be the company to look to first for the communications products and services that
connect people to what's important in their lives. In living our credo, we look forward to
providing broadband services to our customers in Renton for many years to come. Therefore,
we are taking this step to ensure the renewal of our franchise with you.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("the 1984. Cable Act") encourages franchisors
and cable operators to reach renewal agreements at any time through an informal process of
discussion. However, Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act also provides for commencement of a
formal renewal procedure. To preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter
is our official notice to you invoking that provision.
This letter is not intended to introduce a new formality into our discussions,nor is that the
intention of the 1984 Cable Act. In fact, we prefer to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement
through informal negotiations, thus making many of the 1984 Cable Act's formal procedures
unnecessary.
I will be happy to discuss this matter with you, or provide any additional information that you
may require. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future and to continuing a
relationship that, we believe, benefits both the community and the residents of Renton.
Sincerely,
Terry Da is �'�/
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
cc: Brad Dusto, Mountain Division President
Deborah Luppold, Mountain Division Vice President of Government Affairs
Sheila Willard, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
3/6/2006
Tracy Schaefer's replacement:
Gregory S. Uhl
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Ste 950
St.Paul, MN 55101
651 .379.0900, ext 1 - phone
651 .379.0999 - fax
uhl@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
�za� ,�'cde c�_
r
t,
. , . .
__.
. ..______n
) , , ,
. .. ,
.„_, ,
.. ....
. .
___,
. . .
•
• .
• .
_........
, ..,.. ..... .. . ". .
...
..
..
._ •,
.. . . .
. , .
• .
. •
...
• , /itied.tiefri ,
... . •
Aile Ifiwi
. . ,,
Mr
�-
ii ,
74,,,z,,,,. , • , , .
___. * / /-s ,
Policy/Advocacy Page 1 of 1
NATOA issues Action Alert requesting members call, fax or e-
mail the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation with their letters of appreciation to Senator's
Burns and Inouye for their support.
http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/index.html?cat=6 2/15/2006
LO jNaToa
February 3, 2006
The Honorable Conrad Burns The Honorable Daniel Inouye
United State Senate United States Senate
Washington, D.C.20510 Washington,D.C.20510
Dear Senators Burns and Inouye:
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors(NATOA)
would like to thank you for releasing a set of principles for Video Franchising reform.
These principles are consistent with NATOA's core values and promote both localism
and competition.
Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising process is essential to the
entry of new competitors in the video market. Because all communities are unique, a
framework that adapts to individual needs will ensure smoother and faster entry. Title VI
recognizes the need to keep the franchising process local as the federal government
cannot create one framework that will adapt to all communities around the country.
Additionally, local authority over rights-of-way is essential for the protection and
enrichment of our citizens.
Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local government franchising is not a barrier to
competition. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Local governments welcome competition
and are optimistic that your stated principles will promote competitive entry in a timely
and equitable manner.
NATOA is ready to work with you, Senator Stevens and the entire Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation to develop a new video franchising regime that
promotes competition in the video market, protects the role of local governments,
preserves the principles of localism, and provides a level playing field for all providers.
Thank you again for your commitment to preserving federalism.
Sincerely,
Lori Panzino-Tillery
NATOA President
National Association of Tetecornmunieat ons Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314.(703)519-8435,(703)519-8030—Fax.www.natoa.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Burns)
(202)224-6137
Andy Davis (Inouye)
(202) 224-4546
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON,DC- U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman, respectively, of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee, released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens deserves a lot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront of the minds of the Committee members,"said Senator Burns. "The
principles we've put forth will lay the groundwork for serious reform of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also allow new franchisees to enter markets with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide, the Committee will draft an effective and
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms,"said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the context of telecommunications reform."
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner, and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law, state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs,to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be
eliminated. If the current process results in unnecessary delay, procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless,the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee, so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field.
o The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
o The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
###
r j p'`�u�jA{
-... j N��©� GIIeCOmmUnItY
*Sip National League o/Crtras
For Immediate Release Contacts:
February 15, 2006 Sherry Conway Appel,NLC, 202-626-3003
Tom Goodman,NACo, 202-924-4222
Elena Temple, USCM,202-861-6719
Libby Beaty,NATOA, 703-519-8039
Barrie Tabin-Berger, GFOA,202-393-8020
Local Governments Push for Equity and Fairness in Video Franchising
Washington, DC—Local control in video franchising must remain in the hands of local
governments to ensure maximum protection for consumers, according to testimony presented today
by a representative of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA)to the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.
Speaking on behalf of a coalition of local groups including NATOA,the National League of Cities
(NLC),the US Conference of Mayors(USCM),National Association of Counties (NACo),
TeleCommUnity, and Government Finance Officers Association(GFOA),Lori Panzino-Tillery
reassured the Senate committee that local governments"want and need competition", but not at the
expense of protecting their citizens from questionable service, harming public safety by losing
control of local streets and sidewalks, or encouraging"cherry picking"by industry providers
seeking high-profit areas.
"Local governments have, and will continue to grant, competitive franchises because that's what
their constituents want,"Panzino-Tillery told the Senate Committee. She also commended Senators
Inouye and Burns for their recent statement of principles that recognized the critical role played by
local governments in protecting consumers.
Panzino-Tillery is president of NATOA and is the franchise administrator of San Bernardino
County, Calif, the largest county in the continental US. She oversees 39 franchises for essential
utilities as well as 13 individual cable franchise agreements in her California community.
Panzino-Tillery told the Senate committee that proposals supported by a number of telephone
companies to eliminate local government oversight are misguided. "What they really want...is to
tilt the playing field to their own advantage," she said. "The radical changes some are seeking
would lead to communications red-lining. Income will determine who gets access to competition.
Rural America will be the last to gain competitive service."
1 r
Panzino-Tillery also underscored the critical role that local governments play in protecting their
citizens from poor service and in resolving disputes over billing, access and rights of way.
"Eliminating local government's role would also make providers far less accountable for the service
they provide. Can you imagine having to call the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) in
Washington every time you have a problem with your video provider?"
Her written testimony focused on several key concerns of local government, including:
• Local governments must continue to manage their streets and sidewalks through local
control of rights of way and franchising. "Keeping track of each street and sidewalk and
working to ensure that installation of new services does not cause gas leaks, electrical
outages, and water main breaks are among the core police powers of local governments....
While citizens want better programming at lower prices,they do not want potholes in their
roads, water main breaks, and traffic jams during rush hour as a consequence," she wrote.
• Industry must not be able to pick and choose where and to whom it will provide service.
Local franchising will"ensure that services provided over the cable system are made
available to all residential subscribers in a reasonable period of time....This helps to ensure
that our citizens, young and old alike, are provided the same opportunities to enjoy the
benefits of cable and broadband, regardless of income,"Panzino-Tillery wrote.
• Fees for the use of the public space are appropriate and should be levied by local
government. "In the same way that we charge rent when private companies make a profit
using a public building...we ensure that the public's assets are not wasted.... These private
companies enjoy privileged access to public and private property to deliver their services. In
return, they must pay appropriate compensation," she wrote.
Panzino-Tillery said local governments are willing to work closely with Congress to develop
reasonable guidelines and timeframes for franchising agreements as well as pre-established criteria
to avoid unnecessary negotiations. "However, any changes should be akin to the evolution we saw
when telephone dials were replaced by buttons. The basic instrument is the same; it's just easier to
use."
"Local government has successfully overseen cable system deployments and significant upgrades
throughout this country," she said. "Let's keep it at the local level, where it makes the most sense."
####
Commission
Meeting Agenda
A Public Notice of the Federal Communications
Federal Communications Commission Commission
445 12th Street,S.W. News Media Information(202)418-0500
Washington,D.C.20554 Fax-On-Demand(202)418-2830
Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
ftp.fcc.gov
FCC TO HOLD OPEN COMMISSION MEETING_
FRIDAY,FEBRUARY 10,2006
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on Friday, February 10,
2006, which is scheduled to commence at 11:00 a.m. CST. For the convenience of those
appearing before the Commission,the Commission will hold its meeting in Keller, Texas at:
The Keller Pointe Community Center
405 Rufe Snowe Drive
Keller,TX 76248
At this meeting,the Commission will consider one item. The Commission also will hear
presentations on video competition from a panel of industry, governmental and public parties.
ITEM NO. BUREAU SUBJECT
1 MEDIA BUREAU TITLE: Annual Assessment of the Status of
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of
Video Programming
SUMMARY: The Commission will consider a
Twelfth Annual Report to Congress on the status of
competition in the market for the delivery of video
programming.
Open captioning will be provided for this event. Additional information concerning this meeting
may be obtained from Audrey Spivack or David Fiske, Office of Media Relations, (202)418-
0500; TTY 1-888-835-5322. Audio coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live over the
Internet from the FCC's AudioNideo Events web page at www.fcc.gov/realaudio.
*The summaries listed in this notice are intended for the use of the
public attending open Comnission meetings. Information not
summarized may also be considered at such meetings. Consequently
these summaries should not be interpreted to limit the Commission's
authority to consider any relevant information.
Copies of materials adopted at this meeting can be purchased from the FCC's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (202)488-5300; Fax(202) 488-5563;TTY(202) 488-
5562.These copies are available in paper format and alternative media, including large
print/type; digital disk; and audio and video tape. Best Copy and Printing, Inc. may be reached
by e-mail at FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
-FCC-
2
and promote
cities as centers
of opportunity,
leadership,and
governance.
National League February 3, 2006
of Cities
The Honorable Conrad Burns
1301 Pennsylvania Ave.,N.W. U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Washington,D.C.20004-1763
202-626-3000 508 Dirksen Office Building
Fax: 202-626-3043 Washington,DC 20510
www.nlc.org
2006 Officers The Honorable Daniel Inouye
President Co-Chairman
James C.Hunt
Councilmember U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Clarksburg,West Virginia
508 Dirksen Office Building
First Vice President
Bart Peterson Washington, DC 20510
Mayor
Indianapolis,Indiana
Second Vice President Dear Senators Burns and Inouye:
Cynthia McCollum
Council Member
Madison,Alabama I am writing on behalf of the 18,000 cities and towns represented by the National
Immediate Past President
Anthony A.Williams League of Cities to thank you for your February 2 statement affirming the central
ayor
Washington,
t ,DC role of localities in cable and video franchising.
Executive Director
Donald J.Borut
As you recognize, each community is unique, and local elected leaders are in the
best position to ensure that each community's needs are met. We are gratified that
you recognize the limited federal role in managing streets and sidewalks around the
country.
Local government strongly endorses promoting competition for all consumers and
treating like services alike. The elected leaders of our nation's cities and towns
stand with you, ready and willing to welcome video competition in their
communities and committed to treating all competitors fairly.
As your statement acknowledges, cities' management of the rights of way protects
public safety. While citizens want better programming at lower prices, they do not
want potholes, water main breaks, and traffic jams during rush hour as a
consequence. Yet local government's ability to ensure that public safety is
maintained would be severely jeopardized without authority over the physical rights
of way established through the franchising process. I appreciate your willingness to
put this important role at the forefront of your consideration of this issue.
Cities believe that the franchising process is open and quick for those companies that
do not seek to abuse the process. However, this does not mean it cannot be
streamlined if necessary to address particular issues.
The Honorable Conrad Burns
The Honorable Daniel Inouye
February 3,2006
Page Two
The National League of Cities looks forward to working closely with you to develop legislation
that meets our shared goals.
Very truly yours,
047- 4.40(7/—
James C. Hunt
President
Councilmember, Clarksburg, West Virginia
Cc: Senate Commerce Committee
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Past Presidents:Clarence E.Anthony,Mayor,South Bay,Florida•John DeStefano,Jr.,Mayor,New Haven,Connecticut•William H.Hudnet,ill,Mayor,Town of Chevy Chase,Maryland•Sharpe
James,Mayor,Newark,New Jersey•Brian J.O'Neill,Councilman,Philadelphia,Pennsylvania Directors: R.Michael Amyx,Executive Director,Virginia Municipal League•Tommy Baker,Alderman,
Osceola,Arkansas•Vicki Bamett,Mayor,Farmington Hills,Michigan•Thomas Bredeweg,Executive Director,Iowa League of Cities•Nora Campos,Counctmember,San Jose,California•Thomas
Carlson,Mayor,Springfield,Missouri•James Condos,Council Chair,South Burlington,Vermont•Joseph Donaldson,Mayor,Flagstaff,Arizona•Ted Ellis,Mayor,Bluffton,Indiana•Mekia Eple,Council
Member,Cedar H11,Texas•Margaret Finlay,Mayor,Duane,California•Eddy Ford,Mayor,Farragut,Tennessee•Danny George,Executive Director,Oklahoma Municipal League,Inc.•Gary Graham,
Mayor,O'Fallon,Illinois•Matthew Greller,Executive Director,Indiana Association of Cities and Towns•Jim Higdon,Executive Director,Georgia Municipal League•Charles Hughes,Council President,
Gary,Indiana•Steven Jeffrey,Executive Director,Vermont League of Cities and Towns•Martin Jones,Council Member,Conyers,Georgia•Ronald Loveridge,Mayor,Riverside,California•Cynthia
Manginl,Councilman-At-Large,Enfield,Connecticut•Marcia Marcoux,Councilmember,Rochester,Minnesota•Michael McGlynn,Mayor,Medford,Massachusetts•James Mitchell,Jr.,Council Member,
Charlotte,North Carolina•Darryl Moss,Mayor,Creedmoor,North Carolina•Ed Oakley,Councilmember,Dallas,Texas•James Perkins,Jr.,Mayor,Selma,Alabama•Richard Radcliffe,Councilman,
Greenacres,Florida•Dottie Reeder,Mayor,Seminde,Florida •Jolla Aberg Robison,Council Member At-Large,Cary,North Carolina•Ron Schmitt,Council Member,Sparks,Nevada•Shirley Scott,
Council Member,Tucson,Arizona•Anne Sinclair,Council Member,Columbia,South Carolina•Walter Skowron,Council Member,Loveland,Colorado•Connie Sprynczynatyk,Executive Director,North
Dakota League of Cities•Ken Strobeck,Executive Director,League of Arizona Cities and Towns•Chatleta Tavares,Council Member,Columbus,Ohio•Lynne Whalen,Council Woman,Casper,Wyoming
•Jacques Wigginton,Council Member,Lexington,Kentucky•Evelyn Woodson,Councilor,Columbus,Georgia
NAG° National Association of Counties
EWS ELEASE
440 First St., NW, Washington, D.C. 20001-2080
www.naco.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Tom Goodman--202-942-4222
February 3,2006 tgoodman(a,naco.org
Counties praise Burns, Inouye for action on video franchising
Washington, D.C.—America's counties are praising U.S. Senators Conrad Burns(R-
Mont.)and Daniel Inouye(D-Hawaii) for developing a set of principles for the future of
video franchising that reflect the need for continued involvement of local governments
and fair competition.
"These principles reflect many of the key ingredients we have been advocating during
discussions with many members of Congress and their staff,"said Bill Hansell, President
of the National Association of Counties and Commissioner from Umatilla County, Ore.
"While some in the video industry have suggested that local governments are an
impediment to the deployment of new, exciting video services, nothing could be further
from reality. Local governments are eager for wireline video competition."
Hansell noted in a letter to Senators Burns and Inouye that in a recent study, the
Government Accountability Office found that cable companies cut their prices by 15
percent when faced with head-to-head competition. Bank of America also reported this
month that where Verizon has entered the market, consumer prices have dropped at least
20 percent.
"These are very good things for our constituents,"Hansell said. "We embrace
competition and speedy deployment of broadband video services."
The six principles,which were issued February 2, are divided into three sections:
• Recognize and reaffirm the role of states and localities in the video franchising
process;
• Promote competition by facilitating speedy entry on fair terms; and
• Promote competitive neutrality and a level playing field.
Senators Burns and Inouye said in a release that the principles are essential for any
legislation the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee might consider
on video franchising reform.
NACo is a full-service organization that provides legislative, research, technical and public affairs
assistance to county governments. Created in 1935,NACo continues to ensure that the nation's 3,066
counties are heard and understood in the White House and Congress. www.naco.org
*ii\
NEWS RELEASE
-it NBTO2
,__}
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: LIBBY BEATY,EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FEBRUARY 3, 2006 PHONE: 703-519-8035
Local Government Applauds Senate Leadership
Alexandria, VA — February 3, 2006, 2006 — Libby Beaty, Executive Director of the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) made the
following statement in response to Principles on Video Franchise Reform issued by
Senators Burns and Inouye. "NATOA applauds the leadership of Senators Burns and
Inouye. We were very pleased that the Senators have issued principles reflecting such
a strong commitment to localism and the needs of our citizens as we all seek to
encourage competition in the video marketplace. We are particularly grateful to the
Senators for recognizing the important role that local government plays in facilitating
competitive delivery of services and the value of local government in providing its own
content and critical information to our communities through the video medium."
###
NATOA is a national trade association based in Alexandria, VA, representing local
government jurisdictions and consortiums, including elected and appointed officials and
staff, who oversee telecommunications and cable television franchising.
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA22314,(703)519-8035,(703)510-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
.
.i
".cCON THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS
1620 EYE STREET,NORTHWEST'
W "' WASHING[ON.D:C.20006
(� TELEPHONE{202)293?330
try' •• • Aw, FAX(202)-293-23.52
( r URL:www.uslnayors.org
Pre.sidcnc January 25,2006
BEVERLY O'NEILL
Mayor of Lang Brach
Vitt President
MICHAEL A.GIRD„ The Honorable Ted Stevens The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Mayor of Dearborn Pau Preridence ChairmanRanking-Member
JERMY E.A ragsvtlle Metro50"
Mayor o(. Committee on Commerce,Science Committee on Commerce,Science
RICHARD M.DALEY
Mayor of air go and Transportation and Transportation.
It10AlA5M:osiOn O
Fioa Mayor of rbn The United States Senate The United States Senate
D L
°MayorofAkrone1'E""" 508 Dirksen Office Building 508 Dirksen Office Building
Mayor of Akron
J" ofhoMyoC EY.wri;SC Washington,DC 2051,00 Washington,DC 20510
Tmverar
MANUEI.A'.DIAL.
Mayor of Miami
ELILUILTII C:FLORES The Honorable Joe:Barton The Honorable`John D.Dingell
Mayor of lama°
PATRICK HENRY HAYS Chairman Ranking Member
Mayur'of North Liner flock
SHARPE JAMES Committee-on Energy and-Commerce Committee on Energy and Commerce
Mayorar.NI
SCOTT KING The U.S.House of Representatives The U.S. House of Representatives
MaylnufGary
DANNEL 2125 Rayburn House Office Building . .2125-Rayburn House Office Building
I'.Af.11.LOY'
Mayor of Stamford
ARLE.NE J.MUIDFR Washington,DC 205.15 Washington,DC 20515
Mayor of Arlington Hei*So
RITA L.MULLINS' '
Mayor of Pala(ne
GREGNICKEfS Dear Committee Leaders:
Bode Mayor of Be
MEYERA E.OBER:V DORF
Mayor„/Virginia Brach
RII.LPUIii.ELL A4'ryur of NiJ,.ilk On.behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors and the:hundreds of mayors we
DAVID W.SMITH
Mayor of-Newark,CA represent,we:write.to urge you to consider the following principles as.you continue your
DAvia G.WALLACE
Advi Maoruiary L mar land deliberations on the rewrite of key sections of the federal Communications Act.
DOUGLAS H.PALMER,CI,air •
Mayor ofTremw,
IRMAL ANDERSON We support and encourage innovation in video telephone and broadband services and
Mayor of RIc rnon.f.CA !,
nIA Mayor
of Y embrace increased competition,as fast and as much as the:market will sustain. However,
of Ems.,
K.AY tlAIWFS
Maly of KK,rw.Ciry,Ma as we"convene this week in Washington, D.C. for our 74t`Winter Meeting,our
MARK BrGILII-1
Mayrrra.Andwngc fundamental principle in the rewrite of-the Communications Act is our responsibility to
I.CIIIIISTIAN BOLLWACP .
Mayor of NAJU RDrh protect our citizens,local businesses, local:infrastructure, and our local economy.
JAMES BRAINA
Major Ur-Cannel,IN
MARTIN J.CH.LAVEZ
MDN.CICIILUNEAlhoquelq As you continue,to debate-the rewrite,we urge you to apply.the following"principles:
DAVID N.CICR.LINE
Mayor of I'rovSL-nm
PETER A.CLAVELLE
Mayor'of Bierlmgton
Si RRI:eTFYANKL1N CLOSE THE DIGITAL.DIVIDE
Mayor of*Arla a
OSCIR B:GOODMAN Ensure that broadband services>.including.those-provided.over a telco-cable system are
Mayoc of Lu Vegas
J;"`MES yor of tort EY,III made.available.to all residential subscribers in a reasonable period of time.. This can only
rh
"USEyo+RIE 1«
Ma f Rad mnn.l be done-by banning"redlining",the-practice of bypassing less profitable neighborhoods;
H
E`.'M,BNofB Burnsville and preserving the ability of franchise authorities to enforce.reasonable"build out"
KWAME M.KILPATRICK
Mayor of Dareir requirements for providers.
CARLOS M.AYANS
Mayor of Wtd;ira
PATRICK MrCRORY
Mayor ofCaIo m AVOID FISCAL HARM TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS -
LAURAMILLER
AID r of Dallas.
0.1V1N NLWSUMWSO Any rewrite proposal should ensure consumers are paid a fair rent for use of their assets,
Mayor of San Fnocieco
A,ARf7,Nn•AfAI.L.EY the communities' rights-of-way. You may achieve this goal by-doing no fiscal harm to
Mayor or Baliiinesc
BARI PEIERSON local governments. Beware of proposals that claim to retain the.full 5%franchise.fee,but
Mayor of Indianapolis
ION;P A.SANf1NI exclude traditional revenues such as advertising; and other non-subscriber revenues. Local
Mayor'ofSao Juan D�
,OH tiTRFET governments need
this
revenue.to su rt.critical municipal services,including'public
Alal�rorrA�L,drlpl,ia pp0 p
J 71niyor of Sarr,T.EisL4'rnar.linJ� .safety,traffic management,and street.and•sidewalk.preservation.
Aa
L.DOUGLA.S WILDER
Mayor of Rrrhmon I.VA
SI fELIA YOUNG
Mayor of San Lcandio
Ere.iori.e Dirctaor.
TOM GOO IRAN
U.S. Conference of Mayors
January 25,2006
Page 2
PRESERVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S MANAGEMENT OF THE RIGHTS-OFAVAY
Local:.governments have both state delegated and inherent police powers to manage and
charge impact fees in addition to rent for the use of public rights-of-way. Local
governments are proven stewards of the public rights-ofway,and are pivotal in helping to
prevent public safety.issues.resulting from overcrowding and improper use;ensuring local
emergency.services are provided;as well as addressing customer service and local business
concerns related to misuse of public rights-of-way. It is important that Congress respect
local governments' property rights and interest:in the management and control of the
public rights-of-way.
MAINTAIN LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S FRANCHISE AGREEIVIENT AUTHORITY
Congress may ensure our citizens and businesses benefit from the rewrite of the
Communications Act through preserving local franchising authority. Preserving local
franchise:authority ensures that key services for our citizens and businesses.are'tailored to
meet,local needs, including public,education and government access channels, local
emergency,alerts and institutional networks.
MAINTAIN SOCIAL OBLIGATIONS•&PUBLIC SAFETY OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROVIDERS
Congress and the states"have long recognized`that social obligations,such as channel
capacity, capitol grants and in-kind support for access channels should be imposed upon
communication=providers as part of the compensation required Of"a rights-of-way
occupant. •Similarly,institutional.network wants and in-kind support serving non-
residential buildings such as police and fire stations,schools,and libraries need to be
retained. Maintenance of these social and public safety systems require continued
obligations based on the current 3%average on top of the 5%.franchise fee.
MUNICIPAL BROADBAND
Allow local governments that,have determined in order to_meet their.community's needs
they have decided to develop municipal broadband networks either through public-private
partnerships or systems wholly owned by the municipality.
We took forward to working together to:further secure America's:future economic growth'
by offering citizens a modem communications infrastructure:that includes the provision of
broadband service and video by competing providers.
The.United States Conference.of Mayors would be pleased to supply additional
information to futther.,your assessment of these issues as you continue your deliberations
On the rewrite of the Communications Act For more information,please contact our
Assistant Executive-Director,Ron Thaniel,at 202-861-6711.or rthaniel@usmayors.org.
cc: The United States Senate
The United States House.of Representatives
U.S. Conference of Mayors
January 25,2006
Page 3
Sincerely,
•
,\i, tei :_ei ilitGejr4 a tt'kk/?
City: or . ' City: �G..,� ,^ram i µ.1
...„ (A,_ v.--ystc.,----i:ki:: :,
City: ...._ ;: in,. -1 .. `
ZY:' '-‘I1A 14 L e^
..ity: • ',�,;4-y.c.¢G t 7-'l' ti. • cltyj datti24,4e elf
- ,40a-si /(°-
Parri„p i-i c-e di it e:S /; '
CI City: ! f, fi✓
"tip-k2----04-. 4k--4-62-0Pe-14-1")-4-1
gliCity: Mit, 7-rre ---
� O
yam-�--t.o'
je .K
City: city ,� r
: ��c a.,-,../v:.,t1,.,:- A .
City: -A-3 - 7
1/:::•----e.---
'',- 7:
�-.,. 13 y
,� 5/EGG L4ftx.4 - 4 ^�
City ,K City: ) -t.L ,�-6•x-A
T4,. ; 0./4 at.orn ,___ . ., . .
City: 0 i% City: p- c -t-c,t.aa- tJ
(57;g W---'_ / _ e 7-,e‘•I-2&._ ..., ...?
"cavt
City: /� J '�_J/J 1 City: 2e ,a...�,�:7'e
AG.- -':G:y.-1I�`;._j- 4. C r �t,r1: ,''`� 7, tom} �. ,,
,
City: City: rzlt,4,w •.0.
ham,oGei s 4,4
ity' b4-e' SrisckfiJ``I-A-
City: )k` 5'7 La.Ci�'. 1TI4; City: ?Ali hl7 'j ei ' L
ity: 4414w4(!tzu xa City: " Q, OeL.
U.S. Conference of Mayors
January 25,2006 . ,/.....
Page 4 /
f
r
ete_47iatett4 h 'c*.te-0-1
CRY: /..A.COPC), '7"X CI 'F' z41-1-
tPoe, r-t-
. '-' '--- -
City: 1 - 4,4.r Me-, Cb Ctity. St" 1..,
7) 2I
?
--•-,,
1/( 7.,
.... ft 4.. ., 1
Foilt-57- 4., -1----A. City:
A47;311 de 06,-/ ,67:2,..e
iv
ity:4 t. et 0 i 4Misif-4— City: • ,p-
A4City: Z-f}eilined-Czlii, CA- (.57:41 • —'7
i : Alereni,,
ip
city:be r i,,,t‘ ;v.,. :,.,. .1 City: ii,i./ph el 1,01 a 4-ri i .ti
a .)•-..."--c -CLA. kts"---
CitY:
-.... ,
..„...,,..v2_ • _,,S7,,,r," - r
ce:Acei „„,"
/ 1 111))/' ' te'l / eirf/li "all ..., CitY: er?)e ,f---e:-.... X ./.,,,,.. /.1 -
' -..,.,
Stionc•S‘140'
`..--,.....--:/ ov C::::::._ ...,. ...,..._.......- to boA1A)4oft t .11(IMAS
City: Ai k.,„LI 0.t 1.-. c4e. .4 \ City:
- g
CitY: letio,11, /3e446 CI City: ; -6-
- ,N ..t:"---t ----e-e,-------
C. )CitY;lied)z,vt. CA
4-
'In.% fidiaol Kdity lectfei2E.-,.,
City: fteCkiLe y 1 c A. city:
gep%ivy. 1 w a-,
4111*,v I if / OM 0
ci 14:
, • .......,,A10
U.S.Conference of Mayors '• .
January 25,2006 • ' -
'age 5
City.
PN 6C
City: City: )6,, ILI 1-./-
City: I, Kit vi, 3/471t) Cityaa_kj si.Q.5x,"Nz?9,4..„vt.,27,G
A
1 I I 1
.12,
City:
i 5: ,. WI/V-S1•7 ‘" SC1)AAA' "C '
i
,
0 ,,,,..
02ve. /4 7-44...a.------- SAI,J ,Tife> if4--
City: ,
A0),‹„44'
"..i...-,r ,"I c,•
ity
,67 e/ ACity c/
(
Ve,/,/,rs„ /A
-/ ..-
d NY'r
t
i
', Zi• #
itYjAr-i
City: k 0,,MAYAA- C'
i wjtjett KrierTh
City: ilz ,-/-4-:;v rti C 1-. City: N Cft•MO)/ L.
---" 'OVW1 11(cA rks ( ‘-‘
City: `1-tAA 05.5att. V- L citY. ill/k -ti' r L
,
ciff: irvint, cA
Cos4-1-61 C.
A--
city: eke, 6 J ,
City: Land kpeak\CILA kW , —
U.S. Conference,of Mayors
January 25,2006
Page 6
Gavin Newsom
Mayor
San Francisco, CA
Bill White
Mayor
Houston, TX
Michael Moncrief
Mayor
Ft. Worth, TX
Roosevelt:Dorn
Mayor
Inglewood, CA
Mark Mallory
Mayor
Cincinnati, OH
Joan McGilton
Mayor
Burien, WA
Steven Mullett
Mayor
Tukwila, WA
Miguel Pulido
•
Mayor
Santa Ana, CA
Linda Rouches
Mayor
Hood River, OR
U.S.Conference of Mayors
January 25,2006
Page 7
City, State -Mayor
Long Beach,CA-Beverly O'Neil
Dearborn,MI-Michael A. Guido
Trenton,NJ-Doughlas H. Palmer
Anchorage,AK-Mark Begich
North Little Rock,AR-Patrick.Henry Hayes
Alameda, CA-Beverly Johnson
Alhambra,CA-Steven T.Placido
Berkeley; CA-Tom.Bates
Folsom,CA- Stephen Miklos
Inglewood,CA-.Roosevelt Dorn
Irvine,CA,-Beth Krom
Modesto, CA-James Ridenour
Pasadena, CA-Bill Bogaard
Redondo Beach, CA- Mike Gin
Richmond, CA-Irma L.Anderson
San Francisco,CA -Gavin Newsom
San Jose,CA-Ron Gonzales
San:Leandro,CA- Shelia Young
Santa Ana,CA-Miguel Pulido
Santa Barbara;:CA-Marty Blum
Walnut Creek,CA-Kathy Hicks
U.S. Conference of Mayors
January 25 2006
Page.8
City, State-Mayor
Denver, CO-John W.Hickerilooper
Thornton,CO-Noel I. Busck
Hartford,CT-Eddie Perez
Clearwater,FL- Frank V.Hibbard
Hallandale Beach, FL-Joy Cooper
Miami,FL-Manuel A.Diaz
Pembroke Pines,FL-Frank C. Ortis
Port St Lucie, FL -RObert E. Minsky
Tallahassee,FL-John Marks
Macon,GA C. Jack Ellis
Des Moines,IA-Frank Cownie
Addison,IL-Larry Hartwig
Bartlett,IL-Catherine Melchert
Bloomington,IL-Stephen Stockton
Carol Stream, Ross Ferraro
Chicago, IL-:Richard M. Daley
Hoffman Estates, IL-William McLeod
Mount Prospect,IL-Irvana K.Wilks
Xonnal, IL-Chris Koos
NorthBrook;IL-Eugene Marks
Palatine, IL-Rita L. Mullins
. •
U.S. Conference of Mayors
January 25,2Q06
Page 9
City, State Mayor
Schaumburg,IL-Al Larson
Carmel,IN-James Brainard
Elkhart,IN-David Miller
Gary,IN-Scott L.Xing
Bowling Green,KY-Elaine Walker
Louisville,KY-Jerry Abramson
Boston,MA-Thomas M.Menino
Northampton,.MA-Clare Higgins
Biunsville,MN-Elizabeth B.Kautz
St. Louis,MO -Francis Slay
Winston:Salem,NC-Allen Joines
Fargo,ND-Bruce W. Furness
Camden,NJ-Gwendolyn A.Faison
Elizabeth,,NJ-J. Christian Bollwage
Piscataway,NJ-Brian C. Wahier
Albuquerque,NM-Martin Chavez
Las Vegas,NV -Oscar.B. Goodman
Cincinnati, OH-Mark Mallory
Hood River,OR=Linda Rouches
Portland,OR Tom Potter
Philadelphia, PA-John F. Street
U.S.Conference of Mayors
January 25,2006
Page 10
City, State- Mayor
Chattanooga,TN-Ron Littlefield
Franklin,TN Thomas Miller
Germantown, TN - Sharon Goldsworthy
Hendersonville,TN-Scott Foster
Knoxville,TN -Bill Haslam
Beaumont,TX-Guy M. Goodson
Dallas,TX- Laura Miller
Denton,TX Euline Brock
Fort Worth,TX- Michael Moncreif
Houston,TX-Bill White
Laredo,TX-Elizabeth G. Flores
McKinney,TX- Bill.Whitfield
North Richland Hills,TX-Oscar Trevino
Richmond,VA-L.Douglas Wilder
Burlington,VT-Peter Clavelle
Burien,WA-Joan McGilton
Renton,WA- Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Seattle,WA-Greg Nickels
Tukwila,WA-Steven Mullett
, , ,
.: -..,-
4,A,„
., -4:> NaTD KEEP IT LOCAL
THE VALUE OF PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS PROGRAMMING
' CURRENTLY COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE AND
SHARE PROGRAMMING ABOUT THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITY THROUGH THE OUTLET
KNOWN AS PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENTAL(PEG)ACCESS TELEVISION.
4' LOCAL COMMUNITIES VALUE THEIR LOCAL PROGRAMMING,AND NO ONE PRODUCES
MORE LOCAL PROGRAMMING THAN LOCAL COMMUNITIES. FROM COUNCIL MEETINGS
TO HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL GAMES-PEG PROVIDES SOME OF THE LAST LOCAL
PROGRAMMING AVAILABLE TO OUR CITIZENS.
i EDUCATIONAL ACCESS CHANNELS ARE USED BY ELEMENTARY,SECONDARY AND
INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING THROUGHOUT THIS NATION TO TEACH STUDENTS,
TRAIN TEACHERS,AND PROVIDE DISTANCE EDUCATION TO ADULTS AND CHILDREN.
, GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNELS ARE USED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REACH THEIR
CITIZENS WITH TIMELY AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON THE GOVERNANCE OF THEIR
COMMUNITIES,ON SERVICES WITHIN THE COMMUNITY AND AS A MEANS OF PROVIDING
MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT USE OF GOVERNMENT RESOURCES.
' THESE CHANNELS ARE USED TO PROVIDE CRITICAL SAFETY OF LIFE INFORMATION IN THE
EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY,NATURAL DISASTER OR OTHER THREAT.
4 FROM NORTHEAST TO THE SOUTHWEST-FROM THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST TO THE
SOUTHERN STATES-THERE'S A RESOURCE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS USE THAT'S LOCAL TO
THEM,AND LOCAL FOR YOU. FROM THE STUDIOS ON CAPITOL HILL TO THE STATE
HOUSES ACROSS THIS NATION-LOCAL PROGRAMMING BRINGS YOU TO THE PEOPLE.
• ANY LEGISLATION THAT THREATENS THE SUPPORT THESE CHANNELS RECEIVE WILL
UNDERMINE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO SUPPORT,SERVE AND PROTECT ITS
CITIZENS. LOSS OF THE SUPPORT WILL MEAN LESS SERVICE OR HIGHER TAXES TO
COMPENSATE.
` PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO REVIEW THE EXCEPTIONAL USE THAT LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS MAKE OF THIS RESOURCE,AND THEN TAKE A LOOK AT HOW IT IS OR
MIGHT BE USED IN YOUR OWN COMMUNITY. THEN,PLEASE HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENT
RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REQUIRE THIS SUPPORT-THE PROGRAM YOU SAVE MAY BE YOUR
OWN.
• THE ENCLOSED DVD WILL HELP YOU SEE WHAT PUBLIC,EDUCATIONAL AND
GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS ARE ALL ABOUT,WHY YOU SHOULD CARE,AND WHY YOU
SHOULD KEEP IT LOCAL.
National Association of Telecommunications Moors and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road.Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
..4,1001011”.111111 — _
hYlt 45W-1St; )6Mde; W-41"/ - &Pit. ib%ae° ,
yad trit
/V ,y
-549 0?/ 1//v 87,,d4d/mr/o
pzd. 00) ggeata
-fitd/n//3 6ict) 6,44-64(7-zi-catit;
m/44,u,te /id/ea,
ad
16,4' /pAvaAzd yelikfrie hifebt)
NSaedlt_ Cizezae-te9
dziadre-gite-k?'
dor ,,fe'ae,
y44
,c_L-- cide,e4zi, -6,/
• /40, 2061( pie//az
.76ep
° ol/tit id() 154
I ,eacu;
94- pi, atAted ays-a-141'
it
JI
II
I
V 70-19 ,a272/0/0y ' 1
:j
Da�/ yid � _. -91 . - ;il.--- .
,li
.„,-70 )-/yr , . .77:1L - :11
,,,,,, „expii2 - , ,
(./) i I Ai 449#1.n la ti Or
'11/74P17 LI"Xf/7" "11/0 1
H 141;rid t
2"?(
---- - - - WA
--� I------ --- -- 1 --' -r
I,
. EIM/ k-ee % ..- - - --.,- `..-__,___. .. II ,
-' ' .47"J‘: .'(//77 )1
..,,, ' //r"7/7. Cr/ r y,
v?)7,2/1 v/7/(._1..r. 1.0,Iwy,,- 4 00„; 72* 1 - - --
_ '1
-0'7;979 i .•,- ---#'477. --- i.
-. (,
(71r1W1- 2-149V '4 ii
to, 0 iv-7-7-77-g /9-mr- Illi\
- - • - - - ,7,7,/ac--z ,s,
I'I I -r
II
1
- 11
KI‘\, n J CITY OF RENTON
. Y 0 $ 2002
'3,01) RECEIVED
CITY RECE'S OFFICE ®AT&T Broadband
Washington Market 22025 30th Drive Southeast
Bothell,WA 98021-4444
May 5, 2002 425 398-6000
Bonnie Walton
City of Renton
City Clerk Division, 7 floor
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Ms. Walton:
In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed
the franchise fee report for fees paid for first quarter of 2002. The figures reported herein
should be consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office
in Denver, Colorado. If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the
attached report,please feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051.
Sincerely,
a/144---
Ann Svensson
Contracts Administrator, Franchising and Government Relations
Encl.
Cc: Janet Turpen, Regional Director of Franchising and Local Government Relations,
AT&T Broadband
Anne McMullen,Area Director,AT&T Broadband
Hans Hechtman,Manager,Franchising and Local Government Relations, AT&T
Broadband
Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
Vt &-d6-16/
r (n Recycled Paper
clt
City of Renton •
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
GL Number: 110029
Billing Area: 8498/3400/0050
Term: Quarterly NET 30 Days
JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH 0,QTRr,TOTA1: „
VIDEO REVENUE
Basic Cable Service 165,726.20 162,432.40 161,379.49 489,538.09
Expanded Basic Cable Service 271,858.30 279,713.10 279,208.20 830,779.60
Digital Service 34,830.22 35,024.71 36,028.14 105,883.07
Premium Services 59,062.58 57,033.00 56,899.86 172,995.44
Pay-Per-View 23,927.85 17,856.89 21,927.60 63,712.34
Guide Revenue 2,012.41 2,011.68 2,096.87 6,120.96
Bad Debt (7,020.46) (36,741.87) (12,333.07) (56,095.40)
Installation 4,267.61 6,396.34 5,930.38 16,594.33
Equipment Rental 31,698.26 31,975.42 32,501.14 96,174.82
Other Revenue 3,540.28 1,924.01 3,400.83 8,865.12
Franchise Fees/Utility Tax 59,117.36 66,502.97 65,772.04 191,392.37
Peg Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
FCC Fees 539.99 540.54 540.85 1,621.38
Late Fees 1,944.00 1,536.00 2,256.00 5,736.00
Shopping Commissions 12,251.21 6,768.11 12,175.35 31,194.67
Advertising 27,606.30 40,641.98 53,551.71 121,799.99
691,362.11 673,615.28 721,335.39 2,086,312.78
DATA REVENUE
Bad Debt (990.89) (1,783.89) (2,118.63) (4,893.41)
Service Revenue 82,457.63 91,013.23 47,870.96 221,341.82
Installation 4,201.81 6,229.63 5,470.58 15,902.02
Equipment Rental 22,955.68 22,801.40 11,851.57 57,608.65
Other Revenue 75.28 (147.02) 108.30 36.56
Franchise Fees 15,215.89 13,819.59 7,436.85 36,472.33
123,915.40 131,932.94 70,619.63 326,467.97
TOTAL REVENUE 815,277.51 805,548.22 791,955.02 2,412,780.75
Franchise Fee Percentage R"`a'500% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
FRANCHISE FEE DUE -i ,,)..40 763.88:-� v r, „ ;40 277.4�; , ,;Ft s 39 5Q7:75;.:k„,,.:.-,. ,,120;639 U4'
1'Quarter-2002
r'
.
OPERATOR: City of Renton
AT&T Broadband Period From 1/1/01-3/31/01
22025 30th D lVe SEs t;3
1 9-tI011;WA.9.8021 _-; . FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YID
REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE
Installation-(Including Digital) 344 0!$16.06 3 16,594.33 5 829.72 829.72
Rate Card Price
[ 'si3.10 J t:'q Basic Cable Service 14,520 $11.24 3 489,538.09 5 24,476.90 24,476.90
¢I;;„Sso_651= -'1 Expanded Cable Service* 13,462 $20.57 3 830,779.60 5 41,538.98 41,538.98
- ftzo3 _3 Special Interest(Digital) 1,457 $24.22 3 105,883.07 5 5,294.15 5,294.15
- so:o'o.sa.99' • Additional Outlet(Digital)** 1,246 $0.00 3 0.00 5 0.00 0.00
$14.99. . HBO Customers 2,708
_ -sass Showtime Customers 2,275
s13.2s. . Cinemax Customers 2,494
$1325. ' TMC Customers 2,450
_ ; trim _ Starz!Customers 2,734
s2�o, Encore Customers 4,325
-• Total Premium 16,986 $3.39 3 172,995.44 5 8,649.77 8,649.77
r
$3.a9-S44.95'. Pay-Per-View 3,242 $6.55 3 63,712.34 5 3,185.62 3,185.62
•
$1.85to$4.25, Standard Converters 222
'st.tisto$4.25 Addressable Converters 1,229
sass Digital Converters 6,293
_ sus',,'-' Remote Units 1,082
" Total Equipment 8,826 $3.63 3 96,174.82 5 4,808.74 4,808.74
$a5.95 @Home 3,107 $35.03 3 326,467.97 5 16,323.40 16,323.40
TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,102,145.66 5 105,107.28 105,107.28
Advertising Revenue 121,799.99 5 6,090.00 6,090.00
Shopping Services 31,194.67 5 1,559.73 1,559.73
' :szii' ! Guides 761 $2.68 3 6,120.96 5 306.05 306.05
Late Fees 5,736.00 286.80 286.80
Miscellaneous 10,486.50 5 524.33 524.33
TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 175,338.12 5 8,766.91 8,766.91
Less Refunds/Bad Debts (56,095.40) 5 (2,804.77) (2,804.77)
Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00
NET BAD DEBTS(-) (56,095.40) 5 (2,804.77) (2,804.77)
TOTAL REVENUES 2,221,388.38 5 111,069.42 111,069.42
Franchise Fee Revenue 191,392.37 5 9,569.62 9,569.62
Adjustments* ., . . 0.00 __'_ , _,...
TOTAL DUE CITY 2,412,780.75 5 120,639.04 120,639.04
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
�*QI1;Sta ifikd;_Ceb!e;8ulk%mmJrevenues are'recorded=in the panaed^Basic revehue"rcategory:; '`'`.
f:.:0'n':;R..�.�_ ,G�.p"9f,�..L.., ti.�{:a�,HS..i d':.a!a�.�'�d�.c... .-..:.:.-: �s;vi-}+; � .r..:.::". �_,.r,;.:'en � � .k...
*.*This?;includescevenueforrDig1:4'.)dditional)Outietsfas=well;asYBUlk/_.CommerciaPAdditional;0utJets;.•`4,,.`;!
The customerinformatio/r is for Digital Additidual'Outlets'orily�„y;.%,.', ,," -,_ <,; ,i7, ;^Si
Send to: Prepared by: f c?j/?,$541
3-H Cable Communications Consultants Authorized by:
502 East Main Street
Auburn,WA 98002 Title: Contracts Administrator
Date: 5/ 65 () P--
V O Vi St® Comcast Cable
19909120th Ave.NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
October 28,2005 CITY OF RENTON
NOV 0 1 2005
Sent Via US Mail RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Performance Summary Report- 3rd Quarter 2005
Dear Ms.Walton:
Enclosed please find the Performance Summary Report for 3rd Quarter 2005. If you have
any questions about this report,please contact me at(425) 398-6051.
Sincerely,
Ann Svensson
Franchise Contracts Administrator
Comcast- WA Market
• End.
Cc: Janet L.Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades,Comcast
Terry Davis, Comcast
.4' . .
@omcast. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUMMARY
Everett and Fife Call Centers Combined Report*
Performance Standards Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 3rd QTR
90% of Calls Answered within 30 seconds 89.6% 88.3% 92.4% 90.1%
3% or less Busy Signal 1.1% 2.0% 0.7% 1.5%
Number of Calls Received 495,080 596,420 536,057 1,627,557
Average Speed of Answer 0:22 0:20 0:15 0:19
Average Handle Time (Includes talk and
wrap-up) 5:00 5:06 4:58 4:59
Number of Calls Abandoned by Caller 8,228 9,681 6,013 23,922
7-day Installation 7 6 7 6.6 days
(average days out)
Service Call Responsiveness 90% 87% 89% 89%
(no picture resolved in 24 hours)
O m V Vi l S ® Comcast Cable
`� 19909 120th Ave.NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
CITY OF RENTON
October 28, 2005
OCT 3 1 2005
SENT VIA UPS RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Bonnie Walton
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Franchise Fee Report- Third Quarter 2005
Dear Ms. Walton:
In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed
the franchise fee report for Third Quarter 2005. The figures reported herein should be
consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver,
Colorado.
If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report,please
feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051.
Sincerely,
4414 )41/"4 ---
Ann Svensson
Franchising Contracts Administrator
Comcast—WA Market
Ends.
cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades, Comcast
Terry Davis, Comcast
OPERATOR: City of Renton
Comcast Period From 7/1/05-9/30/05
199O912Oth Ave'NE,Suite`200
.Bottietl;WA 98011 _ ' ... 1 FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD
REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE
Installation-(Including Digital) • 959 ."._$16.0 .7 .; 3 46,195.15 5 2,309.76 6,133.00
Basic Cable Service* 17,044 $10.69 3 546,510.74 5 27,325.54 82,453.52
Expanded Cable Service* 14,799 $29.02 3 1,288,299.34 5 64,414.97 193,228.22
Special Interest(Digital)** 6,739 $16.82 3 340,025.28 5 17,001.26 49,257.24
HBO Customers 3,473
Showtime Customers 1,193
Cinemax Customers 868
TMC Customers 733
Start!Customers 1,585
Encore Customers 1,519
Total Premium 9,371 $7.21 3 202,577.01 5 10,128.85 31,330.43
Pay-Per-View 3,874 $8.57 3 99,589.23 5 4,979.46 14,981.04
Standard Converters 85
Addressable Converters 304
Digital Converters 10,167
Remote Units 10,066
Total Equipment 20,621 $0.08 3 4,960.66 5 248.03 958.39
TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,528,157.41 5 126,407.87 378,341.84
Advertising Revenue 207,059.78 5 10,352.99 29,750.70
Shopping Services 27,948.76 5 1,397.44 4,285.83
Guides 651 $3.30 3 6,438.42 5 321.92 957.58
Late Fees 13,563.00 678.15 1,975.80
Miscellaneous 8,314.41 5 415.72 1,074.28
TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 263,324.37 5 13,166.22 38,044.17
Less Refunds/Bad Debts (60,175.91) 5 (3,008.80) (8,161.40)
Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00
NET BAD DEBTS(-) (60,175.91) 5 (3,008.80) (8,161.40)
TOTAL REVENUES 2,731,305.87 5 136,565.29 408,224.62
Franchise Fee Revenue 150,449.79 5 7,522.49 22,228.38
— Utility Tax 180,234.73 5 9,011.74 26,623.93
Adjustments* (9.84)
TOTAL DUE CITY 3,061,990.39 5 153,099.52 457,067.08
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
*All Basicarid- ce revenues are recordetl'as Standard Cable;;Bulk/Comm l revenue'atego"ry.' ,
**This.indudes revenue for Digital Additioriall Outlets as'well as Bulk%Commerciai Additional Outlets.
Send to: Prepared by: A]iy,�vensson
City of Renton Authorized by:
(/�%fy7�-
Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator
Date: 28-Oct-2005
,-FRANCHISE EE' REVENUE::',,_.,
'F,
Z..sa3sa'_.a. u .- :: ....._ <<.r.. . - r.�-:`::.�4: .y'.,;.'""=�'� - fi","t't`:7"�r"F4�.^a_s'" ?,''q: �':µ^i4.�•���`�.-a+ s.� r �"r....r�,; v xr ., 'tp.z. ^rg»•
*�SECTION 1•GENERAL INFORMATION
ENTITY NAME: AUBURN
ENTITY NUMBER: P27
FRANCHISE NAME: CITY OF RENTON
BILLING AREA: 8498 3400 0050
YEAR/TERM: 2005/QUARTERLY
DAYS DUE: 30 DAYS
FRANCHISE EXCLUSIONS: Internet
SECTION 2-SUBSCRIBER REVENUE
Description JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL
BAD DEBT/WRITE-OFFS 84 (15,929.57) (15,357.84) (13,646.58) (44,033.99) (20,122.07) (15,195.22) (22,800.72) (58,118.01) (22,118.64) (21,168.30) (16,888.97) (60,175.91)
BASIC CABLE 182,623.01 184,555.99 183,036.85 550,215.85 182,883.12 186,633.65 182,826.99 552,343.76 183,367.89 182,115.18 181,027.67 546,510.74
BOTTC" OF THE BILL DISCOUNT - - - -
DIG* \BLE 101,611.75 105,716.96 107,815.18 315,143.89 108,968.59 110,331.28 110,675.80 329,975.67 111,248.50 112,559.94 116,216.84 340,025.28
BLAt. .i FORMATTING PURPOSES
EQUIPMENT REVENUE 4,583.22 2,004.65 2,135.39 8,723.26 2,053.46 1,766.41 1,664.09 5,483.96 1,653.87 1,678.98 1,627.81 4,960.66
EXPANDED BASIC 415,749.48 429,578.35 430,496.59 1,275,824.42 432,712.01 435,597.38 432,131.20 1,300,440.59 429,899.55 428,549.44 429,850.35 1,288,299.34
FCC FEE REVENUE 949.28 950.74 957.76 2,857.78 968.68 972.43 972.62 2,913.73 973.49 976.80 988.11 2,938.40
FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE 48,975.61 48,728.45 48,672.24 146,376.30 49.189.71 49,627.44 48,924.36 147,741.51 48,925.07 49,343.32 52,181.40 150,449.79
GUIDE REVENUE 2,610.21 726.85 2,437.13 5,774.19 2,376.84 2,326.55 2,235.52 6,938.91 2,189.42 2,152.47 2,096.53 6,438.42
INSTALLATION REVENUE 13,153.08 13,077.55 10,253.19 36,483.82 11,715.26 15,701.83 12,563.97 39,981.06 14,864.38 15,605.75 15,725.02 46,195.15
LATE FEE REVENUE 4,545.00 4,109.60 4,166.20 12,820.80 4,217.01 4,122.00 4,793.20 13,132.21 4,482.00 4,533.00 4,548.00 13,563.00
OTHER REVENUE 839.76 1,521.32 954.95 3,316.03 1,402.21 1,237.39 1,443.97 4,083.57 1,044.63 930.16 3,401.22 5,376.01
PAY REVENUE 72,162.75 72,033.38 71,077.86 215,273.99 70,411.44 69,822.93 68,523.13 208,757.50 67,912.08 67,194.93 67,470.00 202,577.01
PAY PER VIEW REVENUE 30,242.25 29,678.17 27,141.62 87,062.04 43,591.63 27,909.54 41,468.40 112,969.57 35,322.14 20,470.76 43,798.33 99,589.23
UTILITY TAX 58,643.01 58,356.95 58,288.78 175,288.74 58,912.01 59,442.24 58,600.84 176,955.09 58,601.82 59,106.65 62,526.26 180,234.73
SUBSCRIBER REVENUE TOTAL 920,758.84 935,681.12 933,787.16 2,700,227.12 949,279.00 950,295.05 944,023.37 2,843,599.12 038,366.20 924,049,08 964,566.57 2,826,981.85
SECTION 3-ALLOCATED REVENUE JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH QTR TOTAL APRIL MAY JUNE QTR TOTAL JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER QTR TOTAL
SHOPPING COMMISSIONS 7,143.09 6,434.16 9,188.48 22,765.74 7,750.19 7,613.83 7,620.91 22,984.93 (6,570.68) 6,190.88 6,739.63 6,359.84
LEASED ACCESS 315.40 713.78 567.73 1,596.90 478.33 682.55 563.66 1,724.55 15,179.68 2,622.40 2,630.64 20,432.72
OTHER COMMERCIAL LEASED ACCESS _ _
OTHER REVENUE 78.96 35.84 (12.12) 102.68 (58.28) (81.78) (268.13) (408.19) (427.37) 1,154.90 90.39 617.92
TOWER 8 RENTAL INCOME 2,006.89 637.68 167.65 2,812.22 1,684.44 386.63 4,117.83 6,188.90 2,339.43 (2,517.41) 516.26 338.28
ALLOCATED REVENUE TOTAL 9,544,34 7,821.47 9,911.73 27,277.64 9,854.69 8,601.24 12,034.27 30,490.20 10,521.06 7,450.77 9,976.93 27,948.77
LOCAL ADVERTISING 46,281.06 42,074.28 42,007.70 130,363.04 45,050.14 59,178.16 48,989.85 153,218.14 55,383.80 48,290.01 52,151.69 155,825.51
NATIONAL ADVERTISING 16,48929 11,949.97 20,084.39 48,523.64 19,364.37 19,327.43 17,820.54 56,512.35 21,835.49 16,301.23 14,435.11 52,571.84
BAD DEBT ON ADVERTISING (575.55) (169.41) (685.45) (1,430.40) 546.10 (252.70) 277.14 570.54 (265.54) (428.02) (644.01) (1,337.57)
ADVERTISING REVENUE TOTAL 62,194.80 53,854.84 61,406.64 177,458.28 64,880.61 78,252.89 67,087.53 210,301.02 76,953.75 64,163.23 65,942.80 207,059.78
SECTION 4-TOTAL REVENUE $992,497.98 $997,357.43 $1,005,105.54 52,994,960.95 $1,024,095.19 $1.037,149.98 $1,023,145.17 $3,084,390.34 $1,025.841.02 5995,683.08 $1,040,486.20 $3,061,990.40
SECT.- ' -FRANCHISE TAX% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00%
Cable franchise fee 46,515.16 47,175.13 47,184.94 140,875.23 47,956.73 47,944.85 47,802.88 143,704.47 47,444.36 46,574.99 48,727.17 142,746,53
Ad sales franchise fee 3,109.74 2,692.74 . 3,070.33 8,872.81 3,248.03 3,912.64 3,354.38 10,515.05 3,847.69 3,208.16 3,297.14 10,352.99
Ad)for Mar-05 Ad Sales Calc (9.84)
SECTION 6-TOTAL FRANCHISE FEE DUE 84 $49,624.90 $49,867.87 $50,255.28 $149,748.05 $51,204.78 $51,857.50 $51,157.26 6154,209.68 551,292.05 $49,783.15 $52.024.31 $153.099.52
Amount Paid 849834000050 FFPMT $149,757.89 $154,209.68
Over/Under -$9 84 $153,099.52
.00
•
•
or
@omcast. Comcast Cable
19909 120th Ave.NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
CITY OF RENTON
April 28, 2005 APR 2 9 2005
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
SENT VIA UPS
Bonnie Walton
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Franchise Fee Report-First Quarter 2005
Dear Ms. Walton:
In accordance with our franchise agreement with the City of Renton,please find enclosed
the franchise fee report for First Quarter 2005. The figures reported herein should be
consistent with the franchise fee check you received from our corporate office in Denver,
Colorado.
If you have any questions about your franchise fee check or the attached report,please
feel free to contact me at(425) 398-6051.
Sincerely,
ati/a
Ann Svensson
Franchising Contracts Administrator
Comcast—WA Market
Ends.
cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades, Comcast
Terry Davis, Comcast
•
OPERATOR: City of Renton
Comcast Period From 1/1/05-3/31/05
19909'120th Ave NE,Suite.200
Bothell,WA 98011' FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
UNITS UNIT PRICE MONTHS IN GROSS FEE% FRANCHISE YTD
REVENUE SOURCE (AVE OF PER) (EACH MO) PERIOD REVENUE FEE
Installation-(Including Digital) 757 $16.06 3 36,483.82 5 1,824.19 1,824.19
Rate Card Price
$12.45 Basic Cable Service* 16,586 $11.06 3 550,215.85 5 27,510.79 27,510.79
$30.51 Expanded Cable Service* 14,463 $29.41 3 1,275,824.42 5 63,791.22 63,791.22
s17.99 Special Interest(Digital)** 6,220 $16.89 3 315,143.89 5 15,757.19 15,757.19
$15.99• HBO Customers 3,434
$15.99 Showtime Customers 1,253 •
$15.99. Cinemax Customers 949
615.99 TMC Customers 797
. st5.99 Stars!Customers 1,721
$15.99 Encore Customers 1,778
•
Total Premium 9,931 $7.23 3 215,273.99 5 10,763.70 10,763.70
$3.99444.95 Pay-Per-View 5,028 $5.77 3 87,062.04 5 4,353.10 4,353.10
still Standard Converters 93
$4.76 Addressable Converters 367
$4.7963$6.45 Digital Converters 9,578
so.33 Remote Units 9,488
Total Equipment 19,526 $0.15 3 8,723.26 5 436.16 436.16
TOTAL SERVICE/INSTALL INCOME 2,488,727.27 5 124,436.36 124,436.36
Advertising Revenue 177,653.09 5 8,882.65 8,882.65
Shopping Services 27,277.54 5 1,363.88 1,363.88
$3.30 Guides 754 $2.55 3 5,774.19 5 288.71 288.71
Late Fees 12,820.80 641.04 641.04
Miscellaneous 6,173.81 5 308.69 308.69
TOTAL NON-SUBSCRIBER INCOME 229,699.43 5 11,484.97 11,484.97
Less Refunds/Bad Debts (44,933.99) 5 (2,246.70) (2,246.70)
Plus Bad Debt Recovery 0.00 5 0.00 0.00
NET BAD DEBTS(-) (44,933.99) 5 (2,246.70) (2,246.70)
TOTAL REVENUES 2,673,492.71 5 133,674.64 133,674.64
Franchise Fee Revenue 146,376.30 5 7,318.82 7,318.82
Utility Tax 175,288.74 5 8,764.44 8,764.44
•
Adjustments*
TOTAL DUE CITY 2,995,157.75 5 149,757.89 149,757.89
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
*Alf Basic `Expanded.Bas_ic Service revenues are°recorded as Standard Cable;Bulk/Comm'I revenue'category.
'**:This indudes revenue for Digital Additianat Outlets as.well as Bulk/Commercial'Add%tional Outlets;';:,. "= "' ' "
Send to: Prepared by: Ann S sson
City of Renton Authorized by:
Title: Franchise Contracts Administrator
Date: 28-Apr-2005
•
, °o5f .2--A Nimmrvg > zz>»e eeEE '> ee -ae
2 2__2 22 Z'2
mH" 'g aa.eeg aa�@ g as two`
•
0 g
g> u-
r HMI 222E > 52 > 2; ,
� 'i acsa Fe2 222i a as a a •
I:, •
• j X
H
me mw » S
Z eeeeee ee2e > ee e
i. s easae 22.2.e s 22 2
.3
[]
8
me eeeeee `eeee a ee e
e2 E 222222 2222 >_ 22 >_
o= @ c 466666 ccc8 6 66
z
9
j
3{j X
f w 8
e e m eeeeee eeee a ee
°2 >_ 0 222E_22 2222 2 22
oa @ $ NAPA iam@ a as e
�1 0 0
ge e s eeeeee eeee e ee e e
X
W w 8
�e a eeeeee eeee a zz 2 2 222222 2222 _
x @ 1 111111 sea@ _: x
gg m
>J X
0 1e e < eeeee2 ee1e a ee e
3 8
>e e 11 eeeeee eeee a ee
P;;
h e 8 eeeeee eeee e ee o e
> ° 222222 2222 > 22 > 2,
�= B i 66ara@ 5666 a a. @ a.
} a a
1-} X
we eeeeee MI a " ee e
n
S
_$ >e ' > eeeee@ Hu e m ee e
j 2 Z 222>22 222E >2 >
a e g 2222:2 ecmi s aQ a
rc•
e 8
0 a g 12e81e eee e es e
•
4 o m rlf.. ilBl7 n:E.'Rk u Sys N,4m WI �o
[1 Z o ^ N
18t 2 N v'n C"'8888 ; �^. rymv A3 F X
• . w...;°/
ilmi
wE
Rya _ N4m. _ .8aE, i m „ k :^' a
oeW F42885882885 82 22; 8:A73 $ 8
« 3
Al '11
Z 6F i 8 g '; 'o' R u m ,", la
1 ' 6 Z > w 2 X
LL F m L m 2 J
'2 w j w C O 2 ug .0 imm K
T. ls� gg oj. .w 0 8.2w1g rc�u>F < a ,.
1^ "5 ~?? 3 FzxmZwwo�uwo m ou >>
z' ,.}O SOgO = w IRl edOS WOwi¢SW�w�'>y I Z Oaay< 8-,8 O =O O •
,.
F M252 Z F L1103 Qui0N' TAL F n ww"zi LAE F F F ..'.i
QK 2 e <a nay�y UG w FF W O S <QO W W N •
LL vwi w.�m.-0 LL 8 mm.3.2 -0.50..J ," w,00, ,Zm a m
t
1 - g .m me mo 1m1
a
• It a5 P" P.m' o he g eeeeee eeee a ee 05
m6§ " N�'^" LI o aQaaa. &tea@ g e& :»u
,e = eeeeee eee= e N ee e e
.1 mtt : z uua9uu 8RR8 a «# 9 9
a a
t 8
w w
me 'e m eeeeee eeee a ee e 5
1 ott @ U c95C$cc 5Ra! @ a9 9 9
0
c w w 8
H me e m eeeeee eeee a ee e e
>. : > cagane PAPA 9 &9 ? P
0 0
z z
!.5
s, N
W
e e eeeeee eeee e ee e z
.i o> > o >Z22>Z 2»Z > z> >
G# t u a#C:$: ccuc $
4 0 0
3
l''::'
r� Z e2Zi>Z e2e> e N Z> > E
�R r i �u u 1u61 d B6 6 B
0 0
W w 8
' me e m eeeeee eeee a ee e e
t> > um »»» »zz > z> z >
ta i t eeeeee g eee a Qe 9 9
yy. m m
:t 11 > r 11>>Z> 1111 > 8
a»s > 2
v
S
,e ,e eeeeee eeee e N ee e e
(, Jm r 9 R¢4CR! RRa@ c 89 C 9
x
�e e g eeeeee eeee e m e-e e e
o> Z a >Z >2, Z > > » > >
5b m �00000 ❑000 s &o a g
a:aae aaa�
a a
g _
?I l' i> > z »»» >>» > N
�� s 4 999998 :crg 9 ee e e
s
11re e r eeeeee eeee 'e N ee e e
. <> > >zz>z> Zz > z z
.9 �a : - Qwecut R::: & :a e 8
8
e e d »eeee e eee e 0 ee e e
ri
Fi m .m 8o�148o8g1s81 <& siya 14$e 8 N� ^^g
a - 'N
a
r 34o 5. wee ?mo �� i F' - gai. St rl E.
pE �R o ^r2p f m N og N S ^ 9$o
`tA1
NN ^�. m
r Vim, Ng��ggggg`rm`r r �^ ,$gC ae �igt 8 �g .Q8
EU
pm „ tr . 8
;55 oE§0o� oes 9 � be oa03 5 N sg $$o
LL N N< "_
z 44JNo88.148S m< , ma gVNR 8 :0 ems
Wok . 4Piv R ^ N N Nr '
gN� p. g p88q 14m
;gii
Qaumti'
— 0 N H w ti »
i`) a w °� o z 0 01 1-..1 c J J i wG i a
5 [`,? zO W. `LL p zw W J J m W O J oC ZFm C 5 E
�� `j.`` 8 x uu>>11 >w> a O O m �
f l W W j U 4 m Z U,4 W J W m 0 F N U W 5.0 i Q j Q
x� z u m w w a zwwrcw� ¢ 8 ¢ �a <
F, '.o 1� H = o�2 J xx i ow4w��' aoz� r
h 'z 120A p i 2S,T NV swa re;� " ighV Q1,0 z "
Ili
u ouor�5c a Qw¢LLw`yaW r.. 5
awww�$mu t-t�'<Jo0 0 o F
; L:N WWLLmrO N 0 OmWW OFJ066J N,OOF 2m N
f
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Keri Stokstad
Date: 7/29/2006 8:46:00 AM
Subject: RE: Reports
Thanks for the quick update, Keri. So sorry about the loss of your grandmother. My sincere sympathies.
Yes, if you could have someone bring the binder over to me sometime Mon. morning that would be
appreciated. I have a meeting Mon. afternoon and it would be helpful for me to have as much PSA
information in hand as possible for that.
Bonnie
>>> "Keri Stokstad" <KeriS@pugetsoundaccess.org> 07/29/06 1:03 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to get back you quickly.
I've actually been swamped for the last few weeks - National Conference and vacation June 30-July 14,
then sick, then my grandmother passed away and I'm in Iowa for the week for the memorial service. The
Annual Report will be ready upon return and I had hoped to deliver the binder with it. I will not be back until
late next week though so I will not be able to provide it this Monday. I will do everything I can to get it to
you as soon as I return. If you would like I can have someone from PSA get you the binder (with the
meeting minutes and foundation reports) next week.
I will be available by email or cell 235-315-0156.
Take care,
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.pugetsoundaccess.orq
South King County Community Access
From: Bonnie Walton fmailto:Bwalton(a�ci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Fri 7/28/2006 4:30 PM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: Re: Reports
** High Priority**
Keri:
I wanted to touch base with you again. Hope all is going well there.
How are you coming with the reports? I am hoping we can have them Monday. I did not receive the
•
.J
binder of minutes and foundation reports, yet either, so am hoping that will all be ready Monday. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Keri Stokstad" <KeriS anpugetsoundaccess.orq> 06/26/06 10:18 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to provide you with a much needed update.
We are working on a comprehensive report that will be available at the end of July that will contain
updated information on PSA. I have held off providing any information until that document is complete.
In the meantime, I will have our office coordinator compile the meeting minutes and foundation reports in a
binder for you so you have that available.
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.pugetsoundaccess.orq
South King County Community Access
SMIT UTCHENS CITY OF RE TON
CONSULTING INC.
"Your Telecommunications Resource" '�
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ms. Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk's Office 7th Floor
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,Washington 98055
July 28, 2003
Dear Ms. Bonnie Walton,
Greetings from the Rose City, Portland, Oregon! Let me take a brief moment to introduce to you
Smith&Hutchens Consulting,Inc. Smith&Hutchens was formed in January to combine Smith
Telecommunication Consultants owned by Michael Smith and Consolidated Telecom Group
owned by Dana Hutchens. In joining these two organizations together we have combined 42
years of experience in the telecommunication industry,with a desire to provide the best service to
our clients. We have your best interest in mind,taking into consideration your current needs,
future plans,budget and understanding.
As Smith&Hutchens we bring our experience from Nortel,US WEST and Qwest along with our
system hardware expertise of Nortel and NEC products that allows our company to provide such
an expanded area of service offerings. Our Mission is to be"Customer Focused"and an
independent telecommunications consulting organisation that brings a high quality of service and
support to our clients.
We have a passion for customer service and creating the best system solutions for our client's
specific needs. There are no quotas to meet. There are no targets to hit. Our only concern is the
satisfaction of our client's, and we have the flexibility to do whatever it takes to accomplish these
objectives. I have enclosed a flyer for your review that describes some of the services we offer.
We also have a web site www.smithhutchens.com that has some additional information on our
company and services along with some examples of projects we have completed.
I would appreciate and opportunity to meet with you about current or future Telecommunication
needs you may have. Smith&Hutchens Consulting, Inc. is ready to provide expert assistance and
support to you and your staff.
Best Regards, ,
Michael D. Smith
President
Smith&Hutchens Consulting, Inc.
Office: 503-203-2917
Office: 888-281-3444
Fax: 503-297-0741 4475 SW Scholls Ferry Rd./Suite#204/Portland,Oregon 97225
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Keri Stokstad
Date: 7/31/2006 12:42:49 PM
Subject: RE: Reports
Thank you, Keri. Someone from your office dropped off the 2006 minutes & Foundation Trust Account
summary statements this morning. Since these cover 2006 only, we still need the prior years'minutes and
PSA financial statements, however, as well as the other requested reports.
Our cable consultant will be in town next week, and we had hoped to review the reports beforehand, and
then have a meeting with you to discuss where PSA might fit in our cable franchise renewal negotiations.
If you can get the requested reports to me by next Mon. or Tues. (8/7 or 8/8), then would you be available
to meet with us on Thurs. or Fri. (8/10 or 8/11)? That won't give us too much time to review the
documents beforehand, but would at least allow the meeting to occur.
Please advise.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Keri Stokstad" <KeriS@pugetsoundaccess.org>07/31/06 9:32 AM >>>
Bonnie,
I will contact PSA and see what can be done to get you something by 1pm.
Take care,
-Keri
From: Bonnie Walton fmailto:Bwalton(a,ci.renton.wa.usl
Sent:Sat 7/29/2006 9:01 AM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: RE: Reports
Thanks for the quick update, Keri. So sorry about the loss of your grandmother. My sincere sympathies.
Yes, if you could have someone bring the binder over to me sometime Mon. morning that would be
appreciated. I have a meeting Mon. afternoon and it would be helpful for me to have as much PSA
information in hand as possible for that.
Bonnie
>>>"Keri Stokstad"<KeriS(a.pugetsoundaccess.orq> 07/29/06 1:03 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to get back you quickly.
I've a tually been swamped for the last few weeks-National Conference and vacation June 30-July 14,
then hick, then my grandmother passed away and I'm in Iowa for the week for the memorial service. The
Annual Report will be ready upon return and I had hoped to deliver the binder with it. I will not be back until
late next week though so I will not be able to provide it this Monday. I will do everything I can to get it to
you as soon as I return. If you would like I can have someone from PSA get you the binder(with the
meeting minutes and foundation reports)next week.
I will be available by email or cell 235-315-0156.
Take care,
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.pugetsoundaccess.org
South King County Community Access
From: Bonnie Walton Jmailto:Bwalton anci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Fri 7/28/2006 4:30 PM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: Re: Reports
** High Priority**
Keri:
I wanted to touch base with you again. Hope all is going well there.
How are you coming with the reports? I am hoping we can have them Monday. I did not receive the
binder of minutes and foundation reports, yet either, so am hoping that will all be ready Monday. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>>"Keri Stokstad"<KeriS a(�pugetsoundaccess.orq>06/26/06 10:18 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to provide you with a much needed update.
We are working on a comprehensive report that will be available at the end of July that will contain
updated information on PSA. I have held off providing any information until that document is complete.
In the meantime, I will have our office coordinator compile the meeting minutes and foundation reports in a
binder for you so you have that available.
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent,WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.ougetsoundaccess.orq
South King County Community Access
(Q o *CITY OF RENTON
♦ -47 Imo)
City Clerk
N ,� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
- rf
March 14, 2006
Keri Stokstad,Executive Director
Puget Sound Access
224.12 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
•
Re: Reports Requested
Dear M/s ,S tstad: .
Pursuant.to Section 8, Reporting Requirements of the Contract dated July 9, 2001,:between the
City of Renton and Puget Sound Access(PSA), the City of-Renton requests that-the following
written reports be provided: .
1. The PSA current financial statement
2. The PSA 2005. annual report
3. The PSA 2006 budget
4. Current statistics on PSA programming and services being provided
5. A listing of the PSA Board of Directors and their terms
6. A schedule of PSA training classes being,offered'
7. A statement of anticipated number ofhours.of local origination access programming
8. A statement of any additional PSA plans,activities or concerns.
After the City has received and had opportunity to review the reports, you are encouraged to
schedule:a short presentation at:a City Council meeting to update City officials on PSA's.
activities. I believe it has been alinost,three years since your last presentation here: I would'be
happy to schedule that when you are ready.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know how soon the City can expect to
receive these materials.
Sincerely,
16o -e; &c2
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
•
cc: King Parker,PSA Board Member and City of Renton Representative
•
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425):430-6510/FAX(425)430a6516 R E N-T 0 1V:
::* AHEAD OF THE CURyE
This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer .
•
Outcomes of Recent Cable Franchise Renewals
City/State Cable Company
Cable Company Year Rebuild Institutional PEG Access Funding
undiPEG g for Support for PEG Access Services
ss
Renewed Highlights • Network Channels
No.of Subscribers Equipment and
Facilities Source Amount
System capacity: Included in funding for
870+ MHz Company to equipment&facilities.
provide PEG Initial:$500,000
Humboldt County and (200+channels). Access fiber Initial: 3 analog Free PEG Access
the Cities of Eureka, System to support links(at its channels(18 MHz). After 12 months: listings in electronic
Arcata, Fortuna, $250,000 ro ram
high-speed Internet cost)to 13 2 additional digital p g guide.
Ferndale, Blue Lake andphone service. locations, Ongoing: Cable
and Rio Dell, CA 2006 includingcatithe channels may be g g' CompanyFree annual billstuffer.
Fiber links between requested at any $200,000/year(in 20 free promo
(Term: headend and 20 sites, CMC. time. additional to ads per
Cox 8 Years above grants) week inserted on other
(being transferred to ) including Community Company to After 2 years, 2 cable channels.
Cebridge in June 06) Media Center(CMC). provide up to additional analog Up to$25,000 for
All systems in County $70,000 for channels may be CMC equipment Up to$5,000/access
seven other to transmit and channel if re-located.
31,000 subscribers to be interconnected requested.
PEG Access receive signals. ------------ ----_----_------_--_--
for exchange of PEG fiber links. County& (To be determined
Access programming. Cities yearly by Councils)
Comcast to Initial: 2 analog
provide I-Net channels.
860 MHz fiber/coax to link public Included in funding for
After 24 months: equipment and
rebuild—to be buildings for Initial Grant:
completed within
voice,video 4 analog channels. $828,000 facilities.
Santa Maria& 24 months. &data. Thereafter: up to Free program listings
Lompoc, CA I-Net to link 7 analog channels. Annual Grants: in print and electronic
Internet capability. $355,000/year for Cable program guides.
2002 Cities'media After digital 12-year franchise Company
Comcast Interconnection with centers to transition, upto 20 P y 10 free promotional
other Comcast each other. • digital channels. term (adjusted spot insertions per
each year per
25,000 subscribers systems in North week.
Santa Barbara County Comcast to Channel locations local CPI), in
and all other systems provide all may not change additional to initial Free annual billstuffer.
hardware to
in Cities. more than once per grant.
transmit PEG 5 years, unless due $2,000/access
Access and to must-carry channel if re-located.
I-Net signals. requirements.
Prepared by The Buske Group Page 1
Outcomes of Recent Cable Franchise Renewals
City/State/State Cable Company
ty Funding for Support for PEG Access Services
Cable Company Year Rebuild Institutional PEG Access PEG Access
Renewed Highlights Network Channels Equip ment and
No.of Subscribers q P
Facilities Source Amount
750+MHz fiber/coax "Telecom./
at Partially included in
rebuild completed
time of renewal. Technology funding for equipment
Grants" and facilities.
Internet capability. Initial: 3 analog (for PEG Access
channels. and I-Net equip- Free PEG Access
Fiber links between City may use ment and directly Cable listings in electronic
Oceanside, CA PEG Access center, portion of the Thereafter: g
headend and 3 sites. "Telecom./ up to 4 analog related services): s Company program guide.
Cox 2002 Interconnection with Technology channels. Initial:$1.4 million Free annual billstuffer.
systemsother CityGrants"to
in
50,000 subscribers construct an After digital After 12 months:
to exchange PEG I-Net. transition, up to 8 $1.35 million Up to$10,000/access
Access programming. digital PEG Access channel if re-located.
channels. After 24 months: _-____-��- ---
Interconnection with $1.35 million
City of Vista system to $426,000 in 2003
exchange Educ. Ongoing: 350 City (determined each
Access programming. per sub per mo. year by City Council)
Included in funding for
equipment/facilities.
• Free program listings
750+ MHz fiber/coax Initial: 1 analog Cable in print and electronic
rebuild. After one year: Initial: $150,000 Company program guides.
Healdsburg, CA Internet capability. 3 analog .
City to fund, Free annual billstuffer.
Interconnection with After 12 months:
AT&T build, own Thereafter:
(now Comcast) 2002 other systems in City. and operate up to 5 analog $100,000 $2,0 if/access
channel re-located.
Interconnection of its I-Net. After digital Ongoing: ----
3,500 subscribers City's I-Net with the transition, upto 20 g p� 65¢ -- Will allocate portion of
City of Santa Rosa's digital PEG Access per sub per mo. City franchise fees($$$to
I-Net within one year. channels. be determined).
School Built new media center
District for PEG Access use.
Prepared by The Buske-Group Page 2
•
Outcomes of Recent Cable Franchise Renewals
City/State Cable Company
ty Funding for Support for PEG Access Services
Cable Company Year Rebuild Institutional PEG Access PEG Access
Renewed Highlights Network Channels
No.of Subscribers Equipment and
Facilities Source Amount
Initial: 3 analog $800,000 litigation
After rebuild: settlement fee paid to
4 analog the City, which will
Thereafter: Year 1: $400,000 Cable use these funds to
T analogCompany support PEG Access
Brunswick& up and the City's cable
Brunswick Hills After digital Year 4: $100,000 administration.
Township, OH 860 MHz fiber/coax transition, up to 20
2001 rebuild. Yes digital PEG Access PEG Access -- _ ---
Adelphia facility renovated
channels. and provided 100%of franchise
10,000 subscribers Channel locations rent-free for life of fees will be used to
may not be franchise. City support PEG Access
changed without and the City's cable
City consent, administration.
unless required by
federal law.
Included in funding for
PEG Access
Cable equipment/facilities.
Company Free program listings
in print and electronic
Gilroy/Hollister/ Initial: 1 Initial: $700,000 program guides;
Within 24 months: free annual billstuffer.
San Juan Bautista,CA 750 MHz fiber/coax After rebuild: Ongoing:
2000 rebuild. Yes minimum of 4 $209,782 or 3% Gilroy: 20%of
Charter of gross revenues franchise fees
Interconnection with Thereafter, up to per year,
15,000 subscribers adjacent systems. 7 analog whichever is less. Hollister: $18,800/yr.
Cities +50%of additional
franchise fee
revenues(compared
to FF revenues
received in 2000).
Prepared by The Buske Group Page 3
Outcomes of Recent Cable Franchise Renewals
City/State/State Cable Company
tY Funding for Support for PEG Access Services
Cable Company Year Rebuild Institutional PEG Access PEG Access
Renewed Highlights Network Channels Equipment and
No.of Subscribers
Facilities Source Amount
Initial: 1
After 2 Years:
750 MHz fiber/coax 3 analog Initial: $500,000 Cable Included in funding for
rebuild. Thereafter: Year 2: $400,000 Company PEG Access
Ventura, CA up to 10 equipment/facilities.
By Jan. 1,2002: (maximum of 5 Year 3: $140,000
Adelphia,Avenue 1999 Internet service Yes analog) Ongoing: __
p available. _--- _— _
Channel locations Adelphia: $1.04
27,000 subscribers Interconnectionaesystems
ewsh maynot be per sub per mo.
adjacent systems
within the City. changed without Avenue: $1.20 City Minimum of 20%of
City consent, per sub per mo. franchise fees.
• unless required by
federal law.
70¢per sub per.month
Initial:digital upgrade Initial: 1 (City may increase
(to add 36 video and this amount.).
Monterey, CA 10 audio channels). After 1 Year: 2
Cable 30 free promotional
TCI Within 2 Years: After 2 Years: 4 Initial: $800,000 Company spot insertions per
(now Comcast) 1998 (a)fiber/coax rebuild, Yes Thereafter, up to: Ongoing: 35¢per month;free video and
(b) Internet service print program listings;
available. (a)6 analog, or sub per month. free annual billstuffer.
11,500 subscribers (b)24 digital plus
Interconnection with 12 MHz, or $2,000/access
adjacent systems. (c)6 HDTV. channel if re-located.
City 32%of
franchise fees.
Prepared by The Buske Group Page 4
.',.. 'r-
Outcomes of Recent Cable Franchise Renewals
Cable
City/State Funding ay
for
Support for PEG Access Services
Cable Company Year Rebuild Institutional PEG Access PEG Access
Renewed Highlights Network Channels
No.of Subscribers Equipment and
Facilities Source Amount
•
Montgomery Co., MD Year 1:
$2,000,000
Prime Cable 750 MHz fiber/coax 13 analog Year 2: Cable $1,500,000 per year,
(now Comcast) 1998 rebuild. Yes Up to 10%of digital $1,200,000 Company adjusted for CPI.
spectrum. Thereafter:
200,000 subscribers $200,000 per
year, adjusted
for CPI.
Cincinnati, OH Cable 960 per sub per month
Company (for Public Access).
Time-Warner 1996 750 MHz fiber/coax Yes 9 channels (Included in Annual allocation for
rebuild. support for Public
Access services.) City Government Access
60,000 subscribers - made during City
budget process.
550 MHz fiber/coax
Santa Rosa, CA rebuild. Cable
Initial: 2 Initial: Company $150,000/year
Cable One Within 30 months: After 2 Years: 4 $1,200,000
(now Comcast) 1995 Internet service Yes --------' -_------
available. Thereafter: Replacement: $350,000/year
50,000 subscribers Interconnection with up to 7. $1,300,000 City (37%of franchise
adjacent systems. fees).
Prepared by The Buske Group Page 5
Contact Page 1 of 2
Contact Sign
How to contact us?
E-mail: info©tvtoastmasters.org
Our TV productions are done at the Puget Sound Access TV studio in Kent.
The address is: Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave. S., Building C
Kent, WA 98032
From Auburn and Kent
NORTH on CENTRAL ST Turn
LEFT onto S 228TH ST Turn
RIGHT onto 72ND AVE S
Turn RIGHT into Kent
Corporate Park Proceed to
Building "C" on left-hand side
From Renton and Tukwila
SOUTH on E VALLEY HWY
Turn RIGHT on S 212TH ST
Turn LEFT on W VALLEY
HWY/68TH AVE S Turn LEFT
onto S 228TH ST Turn LEFT
onto 72ND AVE S Turn
RIGHT into Kent Corporate
Park Proceed to Building "C"
on left-hand side
From Burien and Seatac
EAST on WA-518/will become
I-405 Continue on I-405
NORTH Take the W. VALLEY
HWY EXIT #1 Turn RIGHT off
EXIT on W. VALLEY HWY
Continue SOUTH on W.
VALLEY HWY Turn LEFT onto
S 228TH ST Turn LEFT onto
72ND AVE S Turn RIGHT into
Kent Corporate Park Proceed
to Building "C" on left-hand
side
http://www.tvtoastmasters.org/Shared%20Documents/Contact.aspx 8/10/2006
Contact Page 2 of 2
South of Seattle:
eddiaa;' �i 14n.
M;ankou 34,00.. 0 8altar,it ': ' f4 .klarld oI', - 4km
0 . ; 1 f ;' era„
:,. , inbrid�ge Island ` 62 j:. 6lp d_1-111i, ' „K4n11wa'th =:�.., ,F',
A.ifSealtt10 , eil YSO., rt•.
ri
Krtlot: :C} `,-, "crpr4'nads.'` r,
i , , 4■�': , *t^ .k =' oMonolnan= 20:
„ .,-� .. .' ` r1 ■ r,}: fl�!IT Yx}� •FIB.' ;•.,`,..
Ark,❑ ;c .. - , -. ,.
Manc, ester .a.<'"
.�, ':-:!',''''i
a [ ""'. ;YNewcaMle.
.Catttianar, : ;,.. .�: .f). . ' r : 1-u.l ,f 'Y4dhite: ritr., "sI 4 ..
', .x1;. .;,, -t; z'. :, , e;": Bryj
'Mawr ..„ caarlde iinia�. ,
y ra=
�Cawlg - � �O.
- ,� , >ti9`arinniainDanrwr'; c?_. . .O:; Y,1 ," roil,. .,5_. ',S'Eu'c
.plvw-` =B rten.x' ' ` --.s' Forest•''
I,� Dilweirtil :6{ .r c::''` 2 "" :Maprewoad '
SE�ttet!t; �-` Fairwgo�d''«, Mapro"Nita 'a " 8
' Normandy Park'' • h� .:'ij:' -; re',,lv
•6100i- j ck- S',.?):,,,r.t Olt la', Hopatt
",''' Kraltanle,O: ., = ,.,k._ `~r;;_. -
-'v ', 3'"chautauqua> ,-te ibitiin3 : ..a
.•-cMr- - -- �;_ - ��.- • ..t..- '.. '~�,^-;Ja``D'brra Cola
,,:;,- aad `---1:;nria 0---, 7 .-i•-,, Wlldurngs'Vill e U
'•`: -�Fe rr"s'laeatit __ ` ,- 2. 7',
',' =Woodmant Beacli 1jii: i]an+ili4
,, 81°.. Henrys
spring Bbatli- L4,10,14 '•F: i" �%,;Cavirigtor
._., ;.),: F deraI 4y;:_ ., • ,.
1 �- -_." ''::3:1 '. . .{ ..".. 58 ,WY13,„, l4orgAnvillu:
200•444aPRtiest,com;Incs;.Q 2DQ4,GDT;)Inc;" - •' _i'-- ~
In Kent, WA;
Y id
}pt.� - •a 1 rySp200111 St" i '1800
_,1,_:;,, s 1. a'._ cu ty P i _.-._,__..
. • ,:i R,,t0.0.; _. 7C E�7 t, 7t i , IF71 ;C'3:` i ,i._. .-
+C v
Caarti�;th7 a --Ill
-- i .Q ""
, r, ...
< f wG?" S'��gUP S¢ :yam".'.
.. us H6) - i y
,iy; :y 1 O'Brien S 212th
, G ...—a _. -yz-�...-.-..m....__,- .. -..�...., ...u- .,. __...��}.®.m� Cn co. � fir:
I B i
`s 216to st 0., ,d ,.p v T,' -
_ 1 10- `a t'' Ui..t0-.'m" 1tithStg) F'• 'i ,
_�4I S22Mh St! I< --, in to _
S224Utfifi� ! I
LDS c w i .
1 22Ett1 St,...... S 227t11'StS'.22_7th Pt. ...J �,¢�^t+ ---
- S 22�8th•St ..'0.,�" : $228thiiSt i 1_.,
rg ... ; $ �; to
d 2_?Btt?`3-''' -_S 231st st' w; r
" .._ k l Z341tt, t D�i r . .5L _
1
Get directions from where you are...
http://www.tvtoastmasters.org/Shared%20Documents/Contact.aspx 8/10/2006
•
CAG-01-087
AT&T AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, effective this day of ,2001, is by and
between TCI Cablevision of Washington,Inc.known as AT&T Broadband(hereinafter
"AT&T"), and the Cities of Auburn,Burien,Kent,Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila(hereinafter
collectively"the Cities") to fully satisfy certain of AT&T's existing franchise obligations to
provide,maintain and operate public access facilities for the Cities.
RECITALS
A. AT&T and the Cities entered into agreements whereby the Cities granted
franchises to AT&T. The existing franchise agreements are as follows:
Auburn: Resolution No. 2409, as amended
Burien: Franchise Ordinance No. 119, as amended
Kent: Franchise Ordinance No. 3108, as amended,granted in accordance
with Master Ordinance No. 3107
Renton: Franchise Ordinance No.4412, as amended, granted in accordance
with Master Ordinance No. 4413
SeaTac: Franchise Ordinance No. 96-1003
Tukwila: Franchise Ordinance No. 1688, granted in accordance with Master
Ordinance No. 1687
For convenience, they shall be referred to collectively herein as the"Franchise."
B. Pursuant to the Franchise,AT&T is obligated to provide,maintain and operate a
public access studio. The purpose of this Agreement is to release this obligation as set forth
under the Franchise.
C. In exchange for a release of its obligations described in paragraph B. above,the
Cities and AT&T agree that AT&T will contribute to Puget Sound Access Foundation
(hereinafter"PSAF"), a tax- exempt charitable trust governed by the laws of the state of
Washington and constituted as a supporting organization of Puget Sound Access (hereinafter
"PSA"), a tax-exempt Washington non-profit corporation, funds intended to be granted over 10
-1-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
•
years to PSA to enable PSA to undertake this obligation for the remainder of the Franchise terms
referenced in paragraph(A) above.
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings contained herein, the
parties agree as follows:
1. In exchange for a full and unconditional release of its Franchise obligation to
provide, equip, operate and maintain public access facilities for the Cities,AT&T agrees to pay
to PSAF a one-time lump-sum amount of$3,701,942.78 (the"Designated Fund") from which
PSAF shall make grants, at least annually, to PSA to be used by PSA for the sole purpose of
constructing, equipping, operating and maintaining a single public access studio in South King
County for the use and benefit of the citizens of the Cities through January 1, 2011, or for so
long as PSA has the financial means to do so,whichever is earlier. AT&T shall pay this amount
to PSAF'within sixty(60)days of the execution of this Agreement;provided,however, that prior
to payment being made to PSAF by AT&T,the PSAF Board of Advisors shall prepare and
approve a written plan that outlines how PSAF intends to invest,manage, administer and
distribute the Designated Fund in a prudent and responsible manner with the intent that the funds
will be sufficient to enable PSA to fulfill its obligation to the Cities through January 1,2011.
2. Each City assigns to PSAF its right to receive such payment from AT&T in lieu
of its Franchise obligations described in paragraph B.
3. The Cities agree to contract with PSA for use of the public access studio and the
administration and operation of the public access channels to be provided by AT&T. A copy of
the proposed service agreement to be executed by and between each City and PSA is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
-2-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
4. AT&T agrees to assign a designated AT&T employee to provide consultation and
advice to PSAF and PSA until June 30, 2001, as additional consideration for the full and
unconditional release granted by the Cities pursuant to paragraph 7. below.
5. It is understood and agreed that all funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this
Agreement shall be administered by PSAF subject to its governing instrument, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Trustee of PSAF shall have full authority and discretion as
to the investment and reinvestment of the Designated Fund.
6. It is further understood that following the end of the term of this Agreement as
provided in paragraph 1. above, if any of the funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this Agreement,
including residual monies in the Designated Fund,have not been expended for the purposes
described herein,then notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,PSAF shall distribute the
remainder of such funds to PSA and PSA shall have the right to use such funds for PSA's
general uses and purposes(in accordance with its articles of incorporation and bylaws)without
restrictions or conditions or, as determined by the Board of Directors of PSA in its sole
discretion,to distribute these funds to another, successor organization organized for the same
purpose as PSA and operated exclusively for such uses and purposes as shall at the time qualify
as exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
7. . In exchange for satisfying as herein contemplated the Franchise obligation
described in paragraph B. above,the Cities agree to fully and unconditionally release AT&T
from its current Franchise obligation to provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for
each City for the term of each City's franchise.
-3-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
8. PSAF agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless AT&T and the Cities party
to this Agreement from and against any and all claims which may arise out of this Agreement
that may be brought against AT&T and/or the Cities by any third party.
9. The Cities covenant and agree that they will not seek additional funds or any other
form of consideration from AT&T for the duration of this Agreement should the Designated
Fund provided by AT&T pursuant to paragraph 1. of this Agreement be insufficient to fund the
construction, equipping, operating and maintaining of a public access studio by PSA for the
duration of this Agreement.
10. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which when so
executed shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one
agreement,binding on all the parties hereto,notwithstanding that all parties should not have
signed the same counterpart.
11. It is intended that the funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this Agreement shall be the
property of PSAF and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of PSAF or PSA as
organizations that are described in section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended. To the extent necessary,this Agreement shall be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the foregoing and so as to conform with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and
any regulation issued pursuant thereto applicable to PSAF and/or PSA.
12. The parties to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have full lawful
authority to enter into it, as demonstrated by the signatures of each parry's representative as set
forth below.
13. Each party to this Agreement agrees to execute all documents and do all things
necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
-4-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
14. This Agreement shall not affect the other obligations as may be owed by AT&T
to the Cities as set forth in the Franchise.
15. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced exclusively under the laws of
the state of Washington.
16. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and
supersedes all prior understandings,negotiations and agreements between them concerning the
subject matter. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, oral
or written,between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are
not described herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written above.
CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF BURIEN, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF ON, a municipal corporation .410
By: Approved as t 'A► . teit""
Its: ayor City Attorn y
Date: 34. d/ Date: 6.- 51- o/
ATTEST:/ ,,,.__...41 .-.�
Marilyn�J. �etersen, City Clerk
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
CITY OF SEATAC, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
TCI CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON,INC.
known as AT&T BROADBAND, a Washington corporation
By: Ce4-N---
Its: Senior Vice President
Date: June 25, 2001
-6-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
aritIOii A
CAG-01-088
CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON
AND
PUGET SOUND ACCESS,A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this q-6 day of July , 2001,by and between the City of
Renton, a municipal corporation("City"), and PiYget Sound Access, a Washington non-
profit corporation("PSA"),who agree as follows:
RECITALS
1. Whereas,the City granted a franchise to TCI Cablevision of Washington,Inc.
known as AT&T Broadband("AT&T") effective as of September 13, 1993, and
terminating on September 13,2008;
2. Whereas,pursuant to section 5 of the franchise agreement AT&T agreed to
provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for the City;
3. Whereas,AT&T assumed this same franchise obligation with the cities of
Auburn,Burien,Kent,Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila(collectively"Cities");
4. Whereas,in full and complete consideration of AT&T's franchise obligation to
provide,maintain and operate public access facilities for the Cities,AT&T has
agreed to pay to the Cities$3,701,942.78 (the"Designated Fund").
5. Whereas,the Cities intend to assign their right to receive this payment from
AT&T to Puget Sound Access Foundation("PSAF"), a supporting organization of
PSA, and to direct AT&T to pay the Designated Fund directly to PSAF subject to
the conditions of that Agreement between AT&T and the Cities dated
,2001 ("AT&T Agreement"),which agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, for the sole purpose of
enabling PSA to undertake AT&T's franchise obligation to provide public access
facilities for the Cities at least during the remainder of the franchise terms;
6. Whereas,PSA is an independent Washington non-profit corporation organized to
develop and promote the concepts of public, educational, and government access
to existing and future telecommunications media, and to establish and operate one
or more community media access centers to educate and assist individuals in the
use of tools and techniques for the production of local cable television
programming; and
7. Whereas, the City wishes to contract with PSA to provide,maintain and operate a
public access studio for the City and to provide community and public access
programming and services in the City.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 1 of 9
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings and covenants
contained herein and the benefits to be realized by each party, and in further
consideration of the benefit to the general public to be realized by the performance of this
Agreement,the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: In consideration of the City's assignment to
PSAF of its right to receive payment from AT&T in full satisfaction of AT&T's franchise
obligation to provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for the City and the
payment by AT&T of$3,701942.78 to PSAF,PSA agrees to do the following:
A. OPERATE PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE CHANNEL(S). Operate the
public access cable channels) for public/community access programming
purposes with the primary purpose being to administer, coordinate, and
assist those requesting access on a non-discriminatory basis.
B. ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL ACCESS CHANNEL AND OTHER
CHANNELS AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. Administer access to
and programming of the City of Renton's educational channel,if
•
requested, either by entering into a service agreement with a designated
access provider or by programming the channel through other resources.
•
The City may request that PSA manage other access channels as well,
under conditions to be determined at a later time.
C. OPERATE A COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER. Manage a video
production facility and equipment, available for public use at such hours
and times as are determined by PSA. Access to equipment and facilities
shall be open to all those who satisfactorily complete training classes
provided by PSA or who receive a certification from PSA,identifying said
user(s) as having satisfied training requirements through means other than
PSA training classes. This community access center shall serve the
citizens of the City and shall be located in south King County at a place
reasonably accessible by the citizens of the city.
D. PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS. Provide access to the use of the
equipment, facilities,channels, and services provided hereunder on a non-
discriminatory basis to all members of the participating communities for
non-commercial programming purposes,whether individuals,groups,
organizations,on a non-discriminatory basis,pursuant to the operating
rules promulgated by PSA.
E. DEVELOP OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Develop
policies and procedures,for use and operation of the access equipment,
facilities, and channel(s), and advise the City and the general public of
such policies and procedures.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 2 of 9
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS,RULES,AND REGULATIONS.
Administer the access channel(s) and facilities in compliance with
applicable laws,rules, and regulations, and City ordinances.
G. TRAINING. Train City residents, and when requested, City and school
employees, in the techniques of video production, and provide technical
advice in the execution of productions. PSA will schedule production and
equipment training workshops on a regular basis. Training will be
available to individuals and organizations as described in the PSA
Operating Policies. Training will include an explanation of the producer's
responsibility and legal accountability for the content of the programming
they produce.
H. PLAYBACK AND CABLECAST. Provide for the playback and
cablecast of programs on the cable access channel(s). Within twelve
months of the completion and opening of the access center,PSA shall
cablecast local original,replayed and outside programming the minimum
number of hours required by the City's cable franchise agreement,which
agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
reference,or at least an average of 25 hours of per week
I. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT. Provide regular maintenance and
repair of all video equipment.
J. PROMOTION. Actively promote the use and benefit of the access
channel(s)and facilities to the citizens of the City of Renton.
K. OTHER ACTIVITIES. Undertake other access programming activities
and services as deemed appropriate by PSA and consistent with the
obligation to provide facilities and promote access programming and
provide non-discriminatory access.
SECTION 2. CHANNELS OPEN TO PUBLIC: PSA agrees to keep the access
channel(s)open to all potential users regardless of their viewpoint, subject to FCC
regulations and other relevant laws. Neither the City nor PSA shall unlawfully control
the content of programming placed on the public access channel(s) so long as such
programming is lawful. However,PSA reserves the right to refuse to air programming
which it deems unlawful, in its reasonable judgment. Provided that,nothing herein shall
prevent PSA or the City from producing or sponsoring programming; underwriting
programming; or from promoting production or programming by targeted groups as
consistent with applicable law and rules for use of channels. PSA shall promulgate and
enforce policies and procedures which are designed to promote local use of the
channel(s) and make the programming accessible to the viewing public, consistent with
such time,place, and manner regulations as are appropriate to provide for and promote
use of access programming, equipment, and facilities.
C
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 3 of 9
SECTION 3. PROGRAM CONTENT AND INDEMNIFICATION: The City shall have
no responsibility for program content on the public access channel(s),unless the
programming was produced by an agent or employee of the City as part of the City's
access programming efforts.
PSA shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claims, suits, liability, loss or
damage, including attorney's fees,caused by or arising out of any public access
programming not produced by an agent or employee of the City including but not limited
to any claim or legal action for alleged violation or infringement of copyright or other
intellectual property right,invasion of privacy, obscenity or defamation; or any claim
arising out of claimed violation of law or the U.S. Constitution by a person affected by
curtailment of access to facilities,use of those facilities or transmittal of programming by
PSA,provided that the City shall inform PSA in writing within twenty(20) calendar days
of its receipt of notice of the existence of any such claim or action. This obligation to
indemnify and hold harmless shall extend to any claims made against the City by AT&T
pursuant to paragraph 8. of the AT&T Agreement.
The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless PSA from any claims, losses,
liabilities, or damage including payment of reasonable attorney's fees arising out of or
resulting from the performance of this Agreement, caused in whole or part by any act or
omission of the City,but only to the extent that the City is found to be negligent.
PSA shall have sole discretion and authority for decisions regarding standards for
program quality and scheduling except as provided herein. It shall be the responsibility
of PSA to insure compliance with the standards provided by law relating to defamation,
privacy,or obscenity.
SECTION 4. PRODUCER'S STATEMENT:Before cablecasting video transmissions,
PSA shall require all users to agree in writing, at a minimum,to the following: (i)that the
producer has made all appropriate arrangements to obtain rights to all material contained
in the program,including clearances from broadcast stations,networks, sponsors,
representatives of music licensing organizations, and any and all other persons as may be
necessary; and(ii)that the user understands and agrees to the policies and procedures of
PSA with regard to programming and has indicated the nature of the programming,
including whether it is intended for adult viewing. PSA shall maintain these statements
for a time period to be determined by PSA.
SECTION 5. COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP: PSA shall own the copyright of any
programs that it may choose from time to time to produce. Copyright of programming
produced by the public shall be held by such person(s)who produce said programming.
SECTION 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PSA: During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall select at least one(1) employee, representative, or agent to nominate for
service on the Board of Directors of PSA. Upon approval of such nomination and
election of such nominee by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA, such Director shall take office at the time C
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 4 of 9
and on the date specified by the Board of Directors of PSA and shall continue in office
for a term of two (2)years and thereafter until his or her successor has been elected and
has qualified or until his or her earlier death,resignation,retirement, disqualification, or
removal unless such Director shall have been elected to fill an unexpired term of a
directorship left vacant or unless such Director is designated as a member of the first
regular Board of Directors of PSA serving an initial term of only one(1)year. The City
shall have the right to notify the Board of Directors of PSA of its desire to remove a
Director nominated for such service by the City, and the Board of Directors of PSA
agrees to consider such request at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors. If
any such Director is removed by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with its
articles of incorporation and bylaws, the City shall have the right to nominate a successor
for such Director who may be elected by the Board of Directors in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA and this Section 6.
SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE REVIEWS:PSA may, after three(3)years of operation
under this Agreement,contract with a consultant from outside the Puget Sound
community who is expert in the operation of public access cablecasting to conduct a
performance review of PSA operations. If a performance review has not been conducted
at least once in a three-year period,the City may require that such a review be conducted
within six(6)months of PSA's receiving notification of the City's request. The cost of
this review shall be borne by PSA and will not occur more than once in a period of three
(3)years. Upon completion, a copy of the performance review shall be submitted to the
City.
SECTION 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: If requested by the City during the term
of this Agreement,PSA will give to the City once a year copies of(i)current financial
statements audited by a committee of the PSA Board of Directors or an independent
certified accountant, as determined appropriate by the Board of Directors of PSA, (ii)
PSA's annual report, (iii)PSA's annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and(iv) any
other relevant information reasonably requested by the City. If not included in the annual
report,PSA also will provide the City with current statistics on programming and
services provided as well as a current and complete listing of the Board of Directors of
PSA. During the term of this Agreement the City also may request, and PSA will provide.
once a year,if requested, a statement of anticipated number of hours of local origination
access programming and a schedule of training classes to be offered and other access
activities planned by PSA.
SECTION 9. RECORDKEEPING AND REVIEW OF RECORDS:
A. During the term of this Agreement,PSA shall maintain all necessary
books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
B. Upon reasonable request from the City,PSA shall, at any time during
normal business hours, make available all of its records with respect to all
matters covered by this Agreement during the term of this Agreement.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 5 of 9
During the term of this Agreement,the City shall reserve the right to audit
PSA's financial records at the City's sole expense.
SECTION 10. DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS:
A. PSA shall require that all programs produced with funds, equipment,
facilities,or staff granted under this Agreement shall be distributed on the
channels whose use is authorized by this Agreement. This subparagraph
shall not be interpreted to restrict other distribution, so long as such other
distribution is consistent with any pertinent guidelines established in the
access operating policies and procedures.
B. At least at the beginning and end of each day that video programming is
cablecast on the access channels which use is authorized by this
Agreement,PSA shall display a credit stating that the opinions expressed
in access programs are the sole responsibility of program producers, and
providing contact information for the program.
SECTION 11. INSURANCE:
A. LIABILITY: During the term of this Agreement,PSA shall procure and
maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits no less than
two million dollars ($2,000,000)combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury, and property damage,
including personal and advertising injury coverages for activity performed
and obligations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. These are
minimal limits and are not meant as a reflection of exposure, and are not
intended to be a limitation on indemnification. The cost of such insurance
shall be borne by PSA.
B. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS: During the term of this Agreement,PSA
shall procure and maintain Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for
coverage of all of the members of its Board of Directors and its officers.
SECTION 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICE: PSA
shall not discriminate against any person, employee, applicant for employment, or
subcontractor on the basis of race, color,creed,religion, gender, sexual preference,
marital status, ancestry,national origin,or physical or mental handicap.
SECTION 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: It is understood and agreed that PSA
is an independent contractor and that no relationship of principal/agent or
employer/employee exists between the City and PSA and that PSA is free to contract
with other parties to best utilize the community access center consistent with the purposes
of this Agreement. If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are
employed by PSA, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the control, .
direction, and supervision of PSA. All terms of employment,including hours, wages,
working conditions, discipline, hiring, and discharging or any other term of employment
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 6 of 9
•
shall be determined by PSA, and the City shall have no right or authority over such
persons or terms of employment.
SECTION 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING:Neither this Agreement nor any
interest herein shall be assigned or transferred by PSA, except as expressly authorized in
writing by the City.
SECTION 15. FUNDING AND OTHER RESOURCES: The City agrees to make the
AT&T dedicated channel capacity(spectrum on the cable system) for access use
available to PSA without charge to PSA. The City agrees to permit PSA to manage the
channel capacity that has been designated in Section 1 of this Agreement for access
programming purposes.
. SECTION 16. TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be for a period of seven
(7)years commencing on and ending on September 13,2008,unless
terminated earlier, as provided in this Agreement. At the end of said term,this
Agreement may be extended by a written agreement executed by the City and PSA.
SECTION 17. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT:
A. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by reason of
the other parry's default. Furthermore,if income,including grants from
PSAF, and other revenues are insufficient,PSA also shall have the right at
any time during the term of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement if
PSA concludes in its best judgment that within ninety(90)days of such
time it will experience a total exhaustion of operating funds.
B. Notice of termination shall require ninety(90)days written notice by
registered or certified mail,return receipt required. A notice of
termination shall specify the basis thereof, including a detailed explanation
of any alleged events of default.
At least the following shall constitute an event of default by PSA:
1. Malfeasance,misfeasance,misappropriation of grants received
from PSAF for the purposes described in this Agreement; or
2. Any other material breach of this Agreement.
At least the following shall constitute an event of default on the part of the
City:
1. Failure to act in good faith to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement; or
2. Any other material breach of this Agreement.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 7 of 9
C. Upon receipt of written notice of termination and/or of alleged events of
default, the recipient shall have sixty(60)days, or another time frame
agreed to by both parties,to cure the default before termination shall
become effective. The availability of this remedy shall not bar any action
by either party for specific performance of the provisions of the
Agreement or any other remedy.
D. SECTION 18.MEDIATION: In the event that any dispute shall arise as to the
interpretation of this Agreement, or in the event of a breach of this Agreement and if the
parties cannot mutually settle such differences,then the matter shall first be referred to
mediation with a mutually selected mediator and,if necessary, to arbitration with an
arbitrator mutually selected by the parties.
E.
F. SECTION 19. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement may be renewed or
extended for additional time,pursuant to the following process:
A. If PSA or the City seeks an extension of this Agreement, it shall, on or
before July 1 of the year in which the Agreement would end, submit a
letter of intent requesting extension.
B. On or before October 1 of that same year,the party receiving the request
shall respond to the other. If either party intends to refuse to extend the
Agreement, it shall explain the reasons for this decision in its response.
SECTION 20. TIME: Time is of the essence in this Agreement and for the performance
of all covenants and conditions of this Agreement.
SECTION 21. COOPERATION:Each party agrees to execute all documents and do all
things necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 22.APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced
exclusively under the laws of the State of Washington.
SECTION 23.NOTICES: All notices and other communications to be given by either
party may be given in writing, depositing the same in the United States mail,postage
prepaid and addressed to the appropriate party as follows:
To City of Renton
CIO City Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
To Puget Sound Access
C/o Jennifer Krebs
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 8 of 9
Any party may change its address for notice by written notice to the other party at any
time.
SECTION 24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement is the entire agreement of the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements whether written or oral. This
Agreement may be amended only by written agreement and no purported oral
amendment to this Agreement shall be valid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written above.
CITY OFiTNTON, a municipal corporation
By: Attest:
Its: 1 yor City Cl C ble Manager
Date: S,30,0/
Puget Sound Access, a Washington non-profit corporation
By:
Its: 130 rd. r esidQ4
Date: 1•- Q-p
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 9 of 9
Ex µ es iT 8 .
PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this a/ day of , 2001, between TCI
CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON, INC. known as AT&T Broadband(hereinafter the
"Trustor") and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (and successors thereto) (hereinafter the
"Trustee") as follows:
Pursuant to an agreement between the Trustor and the Cities of Auburn,Burien, Kent,
Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila dated cU,frie ZS ,2001, the Trustor has irrevocably transferred
to the Trustee the property listed on Schedule A attached hereto, which property,together with
any additions thereto by any other persons or entities (hereinafter"Foundation Property"), the
Trustee shall hold, administer and distribute as hereinafter provided for the purposes of enabling
PUGET SOUND ACCESS to construct, if necessary, or otherwise provide,maintain and operate
a public access studio. This trust is intended to be a tax-exempt charitable trust and shall be
known as the"Puget Sound Access Foundation" (hereinafter"PSA Foundation").
ARTICLE I
CHARITABLE PURPOSES AND CHARITABLE BENEFICIARY
PSA Foundation is organized and at all times shall be.operated exclusively for charitable
uses and purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
1986, as amended(hereinafter"Code"). The Foundation Property shall be used exclusively for
such charitable uses and purposes. PSA Foundation is a supporting organization, within the
meaning of Code Section 509(a)(3), that is organized and shall be operated exclusively for the
purpose of supporting PUGET SOUND ACCESS, a Washington non-profit corporation exempt
from taxation under Code Section 501(c)(3)and described in Code Section 509(a)(1) and Code
- 1 -
1176955.1
Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (hereinafter"PSA"). In the event that during the trust term PSA ceases.
to exist or to qualify for exempt status under Code Section 501(c)(3) as an organization
described in Code Section 509(a)(1) or Code Section 509(a)(2), PSA Foundation shall support
such organization that does so qualify and is organized and operated exclusively for the same
charitable-and educational purposes as PSA.
ARTICLE II
TRUSTEES
2:1 Designation and Successorship: Pursuant to the request of PSA,the Trustee of
PSA Foundation shall be WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (or successor thereto). Any Trustee of
this trust may be removed and a successor appointed as provided in Article 3.4 of this
Agreement.
2.2 Resignation of Trustee: Any Trustee of this trust may resign at any time by
giving thirty(30)days written notice of such Trustee's resignation to the Board of Advisors of
PSA Foundation(see Article III`Board of Advisors"). Upon resignation of the Trustee,the
Board of Advisors shall appoint a successor Trustee in the manner provided in Article 3.4 of this
Agreement without court proceedings. If the Board of Advisors fails to designate a successor
Trustee within thirty(30) days of receipt of notice of the then acting Trustee's resignation, the
then acting Trustee may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for leave to resign and the
judicial settlement of such Trustee's account.
2.3 Accounting of Prior Trustee: Any Successor Trustee may accept a predecessor's
accounting without independent review or audit and shall not be liable for any loss sustained
' during or attributable to the period in which a predecessor served as Trustee.
- 2-
11769».1
2.4 Trustee's Compensation: The Trustee shall be compensated in accordance with
its customary schedule of fees as the same may be revised from time to time.
2.5 Bond; Administration Without Court Intervention: No bond shall be required of
any Trustee serving hereunder, and to the extent permitted by law, this trust shall be managed,
administered, distributed and settled in the manner provided herein and specifically without the
intervention of any court, board, tribunal, or officer.
ARTICLE III
BOARD OF ADVISORS
3.1 Board of Advisors: During the term of the trust,the Trustee shall be advised by a
Board of Advisors as provided in this Agreement. It shall be the function and purpose of the
Board of Advisors to advise the Trustee on the making and timing of grants to PSA in
accordance with the provisions of Article IV of this Agreement so that the Trustee can make
appropriate short- and long-term investment decisions in accordance with the grant
recommendations of the Board of Advisors. Furthermore, the Board of Advisors shall be
available to consult with the Trustee on matters relating to the business and affairs of PSA
Foundation and to suggest or be available for consultation with regard to any activities which
PSA Foundation may undertake, consistent with its exempt purposes, in furtherance of its goals
and objectives. The Board of Advisors also shall have the authority to remove and replace the
Trustee as more particularly described in Article 3.4 below.
3.2 Membership and Appointment: The Board of Advisors of PSA Foundation shall
consist of no fewer than three (3) and no more than thirteen(13) individuals. To the extent
possible, the Board of Advisors should consist of individuals whose integrity, capability,
- 3 -
11769».1
experience, community standing, and knowledge of the communities and institutions served by
PSA will help PSA Foundation carry out its functions. The members of the Board of Advisors of
PSA Foundation shall consist of those individuals who are appointed as such by the Board of
Directors of PSA by act of a majority of the directors then in office. Each appointee to the Board
of Advisors shall take office at the time and on the date specified by the Board of Directors of
PSA and shall continue as a member of the Board of Advisors for a term of one(1) year and
thereafter until his or her successor has been elected and has qualified or until his or her earlier
death,resignation,retirement, disqualification or removal. There shall be no limitation on the
number of successive terms an individual may serve as a member of the Board of Advisors. Any
vacancy in the Board of Advisors arising at any time and from any cause may be filled for the
unexpired term at any meeting of the Board of Directors by act of a majority of the directors then
in office, and each member so appointed shall serve until the expiration of his or her term, or the
unexpired term of his or her predecessor, as the case may be, and until his or her successor is
elected and qualifies,or until his or her earlier death, resignation,retirement,,removal or
disqualification.
3.3 Removal of Member of Board of Advisors: Any member of the Board of
Advisors may be removed, either for or without cause, by the Board of Directors of PSA by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the directors then in office, and a successor member may be
appointed by the Board of Directors of PSA at the same time to serve the unexpired term of the
individual so removed.
3.4 Authority to Remove Trustee and Appoint Successor:, The Board of Advisors
shall have the right to remove any Trustee of this trust for breach of fiduciary duty under
Washington law or for failure to produce over a reasonable period of time (as determined by the
-4-
1176955.1
Board of Advisors) a reasonable return of that income (as determined by the Board of Advisors)
with due regard of safety of principal over the course of the trust term. Prior to exercising such
authority, the Board of Advisors shall notify the Trustee, in writing, and the Trustee shall have
thirty (30) days from receipt of such notification to respond to the Board of Advisors and make
any necessary or advisable corrections. Upon removal of the Trustee, the Board of Advisors,
without court proceedings, shall concurrently appoint an accepting successor Trustee which shall
be a bank or trust company having trust powers and capital and surplus of at least One Hundred
Million Dollars ($100,000,000).
3.5 Quorum and Vote Required for Action: At meetings of the Board of Advisors, a
majority of the members of the Board of Advisors then in office shall be necessary to constitute a
quorum for the transaction of business. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the act
of a majority of the members of the Board of Advisors present at a meeting at which a quorum is
present at the time shall be the act of the Board of Advisors.
3.6 Action Without a Meeting: Any action required or permitted to be taken by the
Board of Advisors may be taken without a meeting if a consent in writing, setting forth the
actions so taken, is signed by not less than a majority of the members of the Board of Advisors
then in office. Such consent shall have the same force and effect as an affirmative vote at a
meeting duly called.
3.7 Telephone and Similar Meetings: The members of the Board of Advisors may
participate in and hold a meeting by means of conference telephone or similar communications
equipment by means of which all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the
same time. Participation in such a meeting shall constitute presence in person at the meeting,
- 5 -
1176955.1
except where a person participates in the meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the
transaction of any business.
3.8 Compensation: No stated salary shall be paid by PSA Foundation to the members
of the Board of Advisors for their services as such, but any member of the Board of Advisors
may receive reimbursement for expenditures incurred on behalf of PSA Foundation.
ARTICLE IV
DISTRIBUTIONS
4.1 Required Income Distributions: During the trust term,the Trustee shall distribute
to or for the use of PSA all of the net income of the trust in convenient installments,but not less
frequently than annually. The specific timing of such distributions shall be determined by the
Trustee upon consultation with the Board of Advisors and a representative of PSA as provided in
Article 4.3 below.
4.2 Discretionary Principal Distributions: Upon.receipt of a written request from
PSA, the Trustee,upon consultation with the Board of Advisors and a representative of PSA as
provided in Article 4.3 below, may make distributions of principal to or for the use of PSA;
provided,however,that any distributions of principal in excess of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) shall be approved by a majority of the members of the Board of Advisors then in
office.
4.3 Required Consultation with Board of Advisors and PSA: Throughout the trust
term,the Trustee shall meet with the Board of Advisors and a representative of PSA at least
annually for the following purposes:
4.3.1 To work together to implement an investment strategy that will best serve
the goals and objectives of PSA;
- 6 -
11769».1
4.3.2 To work together to establish fixed dates for the distribution of trust
income with the goal of enabling PSA to budget effectively each year; and
4.3.3 To consider written requests by PSA for discretionary principal
distributions.
4.4 Limitations: •
4.4.1 No part of the net earnings of PSA Foundation shall inure to the benefit of,
or be distributable to, any individual so as to jeopardize PSA Foundation's exempt status under
Code Section 501(c)(3). PSA Foundation shall be authorized and empowered,however,to pay
reasonable compensation for services rendered,to make reimbursement for reasonable expenses
incurred on its behalf, and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of PSA
Foundation's charitable purposes.
4.4.2 PSA Foundation shall not carry on propaganda, or otherwise attempt to
influence legislation, to an extent that would disqualify it for tax exemption under Code Section
501(c)(3)by reason of attempting to influence legislation. PSA Foundation shall not participate
in, or intervene in(including the publication or distribution of statements) any political campaign
on behalf of(or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
4.4.3 Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement,PSA Foundation
shall not conduct or cany on activities not permitted to be conducted or carried on by an
organization exempt from taxation under Code Section 501(c)(3) and which is a supporting
organisation with the meaning of Code Section 509(a)(3), or by an organization contributions to
which are deductible under Code Section 170(c)(2).
- 7-
I176955.1
4.4.4 If PSA Foundation is,or at any time becomes, a private foundation within
the meaning of Code Section 509(a), for as long as such private foundation status continues, the
following provisions shall apply in the management of its affairs:
(a) Each year PSA Foundation shall distribute its income for the purposes
described in Article I at such time and in such manner at least sufficient to avoid liability for the
tax imposed by Code Section 4942;
(b) PSA Foundation shall not engage in any act of self-dealing as defined in
Code Section 4941(d)which would give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Code
Section 4941(a);
(c) PSA Foundation shall not retain any excess business holdings as defined
in Code Section 4943(c)which would give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Code
Section 4943;
(d) PSA Foundation shall not make any investments or otherwise acquire
assets in such manner as to subject it to tax under Code Section 4944; and
(e) PSA Foundation shall not make any taxable expenditures as defined in
Code Section 4945(d)which would give rise to any liability for the tax imposed by Code Section
4945(a).
ARTICLE V
DURATION OF FOUNDATION
5.1 Term of Trust: The trust shall terminate as soon as practicable after January 1,
2011.
5.2 Final Distribution: Upon the winding up and dissolution of PSA Foundation,
after payment of or adequate provision for the debts and obligations of PSA Foundation, the
- 8 -
1176955.1
Trustee shall distribute the Foundation Property to PSA. If at such time PSA does not exist or
does not qualify as exempt from taxation under Code Section 501(c)(3) as an organization
described in Code Section 509(a)(1) or Code Section 509(a)(2), the Trustee,upon consultation
with the Board of Advisors, shall distribute the Foundation Property to an organization selected
by the Trustee that is exempt from taxation under Code Section 501(c)(3) as an organization
described under Code Section 509(a)(1)or Code Section 509(a)(2) that is organized and operated
exclusively for the same charitable and educational purposes as PSA. In no event shall any of
the Foundation Property be distributed to or for the benefit of any private individual other than as
reasonable compensation for services rendered.
ARTICLE VI
ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
6.1 Trustee's Powers: In addition to and not in limitation of the powers set forth in
this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the Trustee shall have all rights,
powers and duties given by the laws of the State of Washington, including those set forth in the
Washington Trust Act under RCW 11.98, in force on the date of this Agreement, incorporating
by reference such laws. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, such powers may be
exercised independently and without the prior approval of any court of judicial authority, and no
person dealing with the Trustee shall be required to inquire into the propriety of any of the
Trustee's actions. If any powers herein conferred upon the Trustee by state law or by the terms
of this Agreement should jeopardize the tax-exempt status of the trust,however,this Agreement
shall automatically be amended to conform to the appropriate federal tax law and such offending
powers shall be null and void. In addition, the Trustee shall have full power and authority:
-9-
11769».1
6.1.1 Determination of Principal and Income: To determine what is principal or
income, which authority shall specifically include the right to make adjustments between
principal and income for premiums,discounts, depreciation or depletion; in making such
determination the Trustee may,but shall not be required to, apply the Washington Principal and
Income Act. -
6.1.2 Agents and Attorneys: To employ agents and attorneys as the Trustee
thinks necessary or desirable for the proper administration of the trust or for any litigation,
controversy, or uncertainty which may arise in connection with the trust, without liability for
their omissions or neglect,but using reasonable care in their selection. The Trustee may pay
reasonable compensation to agents and attorneys for their services and be fully protected in
relying on advice of legal counsel.
6.1.3 Affiliates: To employ the services of other departments or divisions of the
Trustee or of any affiliate of the Trustee in connection with the performance of the Trustee's
duties hereunder,including,but not limited to,purchasing securities transactions through an
affiliated broker and purchasing insurance through an affiliated agency. It is understood that the
Trustee or its affiliate may have an underwriter's stake in such transaction or may charge fees or
commissions for services rendered which include a profit and the Trustee is specifically
authorized to undertake such transactions on behalf of the trust estate and to pay such fees for
commissions from the trust estate so long as the transactions are on terms and under
circumstances comparable to those generally available through nonaffiliated entities.
6.1.4 Investments: To invest and reinvest the trust assets as the Trustee shall
determine to be prudent under circumstances then prevailing but without being 1united in the
character of investments by any statutory or other governmental limitation on the investment of
- 10-
1176955.1
trust funds. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to restrict the Trustee from investing
the trust assets in a manner which could result in the annual realization of a reasonable amount of
income or gain from the sale or disposition of trust assets; and
6.1.5 Purchase and Sales of Securities: The Trustee has full discretionary
authority to trade in stocks, bonds, securities or other investments, including money market
instruments, whether or not such investments are of the kind or class authorized by law. The
Trustee may purchase securities of an investment company, such as Wells Fargo Funds, for
which the Trustee, its subsidiaries, or its affiliates act as an investment advisor.
6.1.6 Contributions from Others: To receive gifts, bequests, or devises to PSA
Foundation from any person or persons-at any time. The Trustee shall not,however, receive
gifts,bequests, or devises made upon any terms or conditions that would conflict with the
charitable purposes of PSA Foundation or other provisions of this Agreement. The Trustee shall
have power and authority to refuse or place restrictions or any gift proffered.
6.2 Accounting: Within sixty(60) days following the end of each calendar year,the
Trustee shall prepare a statement of all property held in the trust and of all disbursements and
receipts of the trust for the calendar year and shall furnish a copy of the statement to the Board of
Advisors, but, to the extent authorized by law,the Trustee shall otherwise be relieved from
compliance with the Uniform Trustees Accounting Act of the State of Washington, any
amendments thereof, and any similar laws of any other jurisdiction wherein the trust, or any
share or portion thereof, is being administered.
6.3 Distribution of Assets: The Trustee may distribute assets in kind, including
undivided interests therein, and may do so without regard to the income tax basis of specific
property allocated to any beneficiary(including any trust). The Trustee shall not be required to
- 11 -
1176955.1
distribute assets of the trust, or interests therein, pro rata to the beneficiaries receiving such
distributions, but may, in the exercise of the Trustee's discretion, make non-pro rata
distributions, so long as the distributees receive assets of a value equal to the value of their
respective interests in the trust as of the time of distribution.
6.4 Significant Non-Routine Transactions: The Trustee is hereby relieved from the
duty to obtain an independent appraisal and from the duty to sell in an open market transaction,
as might otherwise be required by law or by the provisions of RCW 11.100.140, as amended;
provided,however,the Trustee shall comply with the other requirements of such statute.
6.5 Accumulation of Income: Any income not distributed or required to be
distributed during any year shall be accumulated and added to principal at least annually.
6.6 Environmental Provision: The Trustee is authorized to pay from the trust all
charges which the Trustee deems necessary or appropriate to comply with laws regulating
environmental conditions and to remedy or ameliorate any such conditions which adversely
affect the trust, and to pay any liabilities, fines or penalties incurred by the Trustee personally on
account of such conditions, other than any such charges which are directly caused by the
Trustee's own gross negligence or willful misconduct, and to apportion all of such charges
among the interests of the beneficiaries in such manner as the Trustee deems fair,prudent and
equitable under all of the circumstances.
ARTICLE VII
REVOCATION AND AMENDMENT
7.1 Revocation: This Agreement is irrevocable, and the Trustor does not reserve any
right to alter, amend, revoke or terminate this trust in whole or in part at any time. The Trustor
also declares that after the execution of this Agreement,the Trustor shall have no right,title or
- 12 -
1176955.1
interest in, and no power or privilege to control or affect the Foundation Property or the income
therefrom.
7.2 Amendment: Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Trustee shall have the power to
amend this Agreement in any manner required for the purposes of ensuring that PSA Foundation
qualifies and continues to qualify under Code Section 501(c)(3)and qualifying PSA Foundation
as a supporting organization described in Code Section 509(a)(3).
ARTICLE VIII
LIMITATION OF TRUSTEE'S LIABILITY AND INDEMNIFICATION
8.1 Limitation of Trustee's Liability: A Trustee shall have no liability to PSA
Foundation for monetary damages for conduct as a Trustee,except for(1) acts or omissions that
involve intentional misconduct by the Trustee; (2) a knowing violation of law by the Trustee; (3)
making, approving or assenting to distributions by PSA Foundation in violation of this
Agreement; (4) any transaction from which the Trustee will personally receive a benefit in
money,property or services to which the Trustee is not legally entitled. Any amendment to or
modification of this Article shall not adversely affect any right or protection of a Trustee of PSA
Foundation existing at the time of such amendment or modification for or with respect to any
acts or omissions of such Trustee occurring prior to such amendment or modification. This
provision shall not eliminate or limit the liability of a Trustee for any act or omission occurring
prior to the date this section becomes effective.
8.2 Right to Indemnification: PSA Foundation shall indemnify any person or entity
(hereinafter "Person")who was or is threatened to be made a party to or is otherwise involved
(including, without limitation, as a witness) in an actual or threatened action, suit, or proceeding,
whether civil, criminal, administrative, or investigative, by reason of the fact that such Person is
- 13 -
1176955.1
or was a Trustee of PSA Foundation or a member of the Board of Advisors of PSA Foundation,
against all reasonable expenses incurred by the Person in connection with the proceeding.
Except as otherwise provided herein, PSA Foundation shall indemnify and hold harmless a
Person made a party to a proceeding because the Person is or was a Trustee or a member of the
Board of Advisors against liability incurred in the proceeding if(1)_the Person acted in good
faith; and(2)the Person reasonably believed: (a)in the case of conduct in an official capacity
with PSA Foundation, that the conduct was in PSA Foundation's best interests; and(b) in all
other cases,that the conduct was at least not opposed to PSA Foundation's best interests. The
termination of a proceeding by judgment, order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo
contendere or its equivalent is not, of itself,determinative that the Trustee or member of the
Board of Advisors did not meet the standard of conduct described in this Article. PSA
Foundation shall not indemnify a Trustee or a member of the Board of Advisors under this
Article in connection with a proceeding by or in the right of PSA Foundation in which the
Trustee or the member of the Board of Advisors was adjudged liable to PSA Foundation or in
connection with any other proceeding charging improper personal benefit to the Trustee or the
member of the Board of Advisors, whether or not involving action in an official capacity, in
which the Trustee or the member of the Board of Advisors was adjudged liable on the basis that
personal benefit was improperly received by the Trustee or the member of the Board of
Advisors. Indemnification hereunder in connection with a proceeding by or in the right of PSA
Foundation is limited to reasonable expenses incurred in connection with the proceeding.
8.3 Indemnification of Employees and Agents: PSA Foundation may indemnify
employees and agents of PSA Foundation to the same extent as provided under Article 8.2 above
or to the extent, consistent with law, that may be provided by contract.
- 14-
1176955.1
•
ARTICLE IX
MISCELLANEOUS
9.1 Number and Gender: Unless some other meaning is apparent from the context,
plurals shall include the singular and vice versa., and masculine, feminine and neuter words shall
be used interchangeably. -
9.2 Governing Law; Savings Clause: This instrument shall be governed by the laws
of the State of Washington. Any provision prohibited by law or unenforceable shall not affect
the remaining provisions of this instrument.
- 15 -
1176955.1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written above.
TRUSTOR:
• TCI CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON, INC.
known as AT&T BROADBAND, a Washington
corporation
By: LeAnn Talbot
Its: Senior Vice President
TRUSTEE:
WELLS FARGO,N.A.
By: gRI
Its: .AVia TO
f
B •
Its: . . 370.
C�
- 16-
1176955.1
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day pe onally appeared before me ,t,, \Z - o me known to be
the ii Vice MASid TCI CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON, INC.,the
co oration that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be
g g g
the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein
mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the same instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this 7 day of 9 , 2001.
•
\AL( Oir/21-1-P'
Nola N
�yOT.lq),.. G,
r •
140/ L1 c. 'A (print notary's name)
r • �'. _ s Notary Publicind for the State of Washington,
•� •• • ,�,, residing at
A
bA My commission expires: v2/c/
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day personally appeared.before me 3r' 114 fit- n e.r ,to me known
to be the hv p 4 74r-as f o 744 ccr• of WELLS FARGF3 N.A. oration that
executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the same instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal thisa26.'1/fday of , 2001.
•
�i �� , (print notary's name)
• OTARY i Notary Public in and fob the State of Washington,
;0 N o•: i residing at ••• e-e-. /tA .-, 411/9 .
PUBLIC i I My commission expires: /f7e2 •
•
1\\ w``` C )
- 17-
1176955.1
STATE OF WASHINGTON ) •
ss. •
COUNTY OF KING )
On this day personally appeared before me 1 e./e-- , to me known
(/to be the y'e 7%v57L ol/>cei of WELLS FARGO,N.A., the corporation that
executed the foregoing instrument,and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and
voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on
oath stated that he/she was authorized to execute the same instrument.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal this,2‘,f4 day of \P.M ' ,2001.
ENE e.
C. T �‘�
S�Ft (print notary's name)
i,Z• .`SSION •.. jam� Notary Public in and for the State of Washington,
c�����.1OTARY'�i,'?� �� residing at .�P�.- ��- Za
i •o --- w. My commission expires: ///Z4/O
PUBLIC •
1 � '
1‘hPW
•
- 18 -
1176955.1
SCHEDULE A
Puget Sound Access Foundation Trust Agreement
Cash in the amount of$3,701,942.78.
Received by:
,Trustee
1176955.1
CERTIFICATE
The undersigned assistant secretary of TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc., (this
"Corporation"),does hereby certify as follows:
1. That I am a duly elected, qualified and acting Assistant Secretary of this
Corporation;
2.- That as such Assistant Secretary of this Corporation, I have access to the books
and records of this Corporation;
3. That the following is an excerpt from the bylaws of this Corporation amended as of
October 30, 1992, and that same have not been modified, amended, or repealed, and are in full
force and effect as of the date of this certificate:
"Article V
Section 3. Powers and Duties.
c. President. ...The President or a Vice President, unless some other
person is specifically authorized by the Board, shall sign all bonds, deeds, mortgages,
leases, and contracts of the Corporation. ..."
4. As appears from the records of this Corporation available to me, the following
named person is the duly elected, qualified and acting officer of this Corporation and is authorized to
sign documents referred to in paragraph 3 above, holding at the date hereof the office set opposite
his name.
NAME OFFICE HELD •
LeAnn Talbot Senior Vice President
5. That the original of the above documents is on file in the minute book of this
Corporation.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has made and delivered this Certificate on June
27,2001.
Pact,„( F.
Michael E. Brand
Assistant Secretary
•
Y '
g/icioe, 6,,. ,4 Pit)P7-4(1);101'
r;i ter/„,,,dai )1/1V yyvv—'"-----
,_1,-,,,„, ___6/1" ,,,,,,
dolo ›Seet. '
.1;15v) Iy1).7 _ iya
- / -_Ciii, AIS. atatit y‘ltiimila -/1/, &I
Actik_ tof , El ,
�(10� cp1YvheFY��I r �(°�'pI� i,,
� ,,}-
l3o,a�o v� vf: r �y�.� � � ,:y,, T . , y /} -- r
du
1 - _,64 ,4 ,iinid CLVibild1/ _67-fria ezedzi -0616,p,
_ "4/1 !wad k A,a44/A> 45WAfo 6 if PrifreitAiiverkx 4't-
7 ---,I/Pk/1j r sviisffy --_---40i- 7.-y
at—i
— -- - --i , - - -------
• _. - 01,(441,1_1
- al iiime-fi ,4 6 gi60 iiCiebit," 0,-
' ? 4d/i21 zi/i/a/m/dez. 064/ k
3yr
ii5 ,\,__ ..,"4"„
- auli zu,ca r _,
- ,/,../_,2 - "iiiii (///tA/ ,i(
4,„7,11 i
vas-o ' ,A,/./' w000. , 75f
Puget Sound Access Page 1 of 1
sK b 'V . � t� a ., # ac e o '',ON', . s r:
mot. '![*". s^" k'-,Z. ,4 ,} .D ,,.+X.,M '" 'w' #�`. yy2,,,-Ni
t !; aht 1 pL yr, i. ' k e 'x
W ,2e q '.', a `7 .., f 6 .. 9.
#r"b,�„ .. ,�.... m �a a + .h+ •-'�
` (
- 1. gA .. w,et s S o . . �SOUn
:, . .
., ,.., . -, .,.:
,.., ,.. ,,
....„..... .: . ., . y...., .; ...:.,,...: ::‘,
PSA's Board of Directors is made up of appointed representatives of the
member cities. For more information call 253-479-0200 or email
board@pugetsoundaccess.org
Dea Drake (President),At-Large Representative - Bio
King Parker(Vice President), City of Renton Representative - Bio
Susan Kruller(Secretary), At-Large Representative - Bio
Frank Iriarte (Treasurer)„ City of Tukwila Representative - Bio
Don Franks , City of Burien Representative - Bio
Doug Cullen, Producer Representative - Bio
Mark Siegel, City of SeaTac Representative - Bio
Duanna Richards, City of Auburn Representative - Bio
©copyright 2006 Puget Sound Access All rights reserved
http://www.pugetsoundaccess.com/board.htm 8/10/2006
Puget Sound Access - Staff Page 1 of 1
•
4'1 ; 7 1.4 A irC°"v zr, ,a lja .n • ,.-
Uget'SOUnCtIACCeSS.
Keri Stokstad, Executive Director-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 105
keri@pugetsoundaccess.org
Margie Barge, Office Coordinator -Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 103
margieb@pugetsoundaccess.org
Russell Edwards, Channel Operations Manager-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 109
russell@pugetsoundaccess.org
Luke Sams, Facility/Operations Manager-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 110
lukes@pugetsoundaccess.org
Chris Miller, Production Facilitator -Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 200
chrism@pugetsoundaccess.org
Derek Klein, Production Facilitator-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 201
derekk@pugetsoundaccess.org
Amy D'Angelo, Production Support-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 215
amy@pugetsoundaccess.org
• Jeff Axtman, Production Support-Additional Info
253-479-0200 Ext. 210
jeffa@pugetsoundaccess.org
Meet the PSA Summer Interns -TBA Additional Info
©copyright 200E Puget Sound Access All rights reserved
http://www.pugetsoundaccess.com/staff.htm 8/10/2006
Puget Sound Access -About PSA Page 1 of 2
.ag JE * s {f, .$ f t d v ti *
' a 1 • { s'k' 4 WP'O' `,.} C '"a'ri `. .„' 's .
q�
r a r tln
w
Directions to PSA provided by TVToastmasters
Directions using Yahoo Maps
Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, WA. 98032
253-479-0200
info©pugetsoundaccess.org
Puget Sound Access (PSA) is a non-profit organization created to bring
communications tools to South King County residents. Our member cities
consist of Kent, Burien, Tukwila, Auburn, Renton and SeaTac. Our mission is
to provide equipment, training and services and allow access to resources to
' help aid community communication.
Currently, PSA has ten members on its Board of Directors. This membership
consists of representatives from each of the city departments as well as
community members. PSA is funded through a charitable trust negotiated
with AT&T to provide cable access services for South King County.
Productions from the PSA television facility will be seen on the Comcast
cable system in South King County. This channel will reach approximately
65,000 households and the facility will potentially serve over 200,000 people.
PSA's staff will contribute to programming with community events and
informational programs of local significance.
PSA Membership is open to residents, non-profit organizations, educational
institutions and public agencies located in the cities of
Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila.
PSA Membership is a non-voting membership to utilize equipment space and
exercise the right of cablecast on the community access channel.
Membership is required before taking training workshops or
using PSA production equipment and must be renewed yearly.
There are no age restrictions for PSA Membership, however, parents or legal
guardians of members under the age of 18 must sign the parental consent
portion of the PSA Statement of Compliance form
to allow the use of PSA Production facilities
http://www.pugetsoundaccess.com/current.htm 8/10/2006
Puget Sound Access -About PSA Page 2 of 2
and equipment and the schedule programming on the channel.
In order to schedule a program for playback, check out equipment, obtain
equipment certification, or enroll in a training class, a member must present a
valid Washington State Driver's License or
Washington State ID containing a recent photograph and
current residency address or other valid proof of residency.
®copyright 2006 Puget Sound Access All rights reserved
http://www.pugetsoundaccess.com/current.htm 8/10/2006
♦
•
CAG-01-088
CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY OF RENTON
AND
PUGET SOUND ACCESS,A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION
AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made this q-6 day of .Ju , 2001,by and between the City of
Renton, a municipal corporation("City"), and P get Sound Access, a Washington non-
profit corporation("PSA"),who agree as follows:
RECITALS
1. Whereas,the City granted a franchise to TCI Cablevision of Washington,Inc.
known as AT&T Broadband("AT&T") effective as of September 13, 1993, and
terminating on September 13, 2008;
2. Whereas,pursuant to section 5 of the franchise agreement AT&T agreed to
provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for the City;
3. Whereas,AT&T.assumed this same franchise obligation with the cities of
Auburn,Burien,Kent,Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila(collectively"Cities");
4. Whereas, in full and complete consideration of AT&T's franchise obligation to
provide,maintain and operate public access facilities for the Cities,AT&T has
agreed to pay to the Cities$3,701,942.78 (the"Designated Fund").
5. Whereas,the Cities intend to assign their right to receive this payment from
AT&T to Puget Sound Access Foundation("PSAF"), a supporting organization of
PSA, and to direct AT&T to pay the Designated Fund directly to PSAF subject to
the conditions of that Agreement between AT&T and the Cities dated
, 2001 ("AT&T Agreement"),which agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, for the sole purpose of
enabling PSA to undertake AT&T's franchise obligation to provide public access
•
facilities for the Cities at least during the remainder of the franchise terms;
6. Whereas,PSA is an independent Washington non-profit corporation organized to
develop and promote the concepts of public, educational, and government access
to existing and future telecommunications media, and to establish and operate one
or more community media access centers to educate and assist individuals in the
use of tools and techniques for the production of local cable television
programming; and
7. Whereas,the City wishes to contract with PSA to provide,maintain and operate a
public access studio for the City and to provide community and public access
programming and services in the City.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 1 of 9
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual undertakings and covenants
contained herein and the benefits to be realized by each party, and in further
consideration of the benefit to the general public to be realized by the performance of this
Agreement,the parties agree as follows:
SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES: In consideration of the City's assignment to
PSAF of its right to receive payment from AT&T in full satisfaction of AT&T's franchise
obligation to provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for the City and the
payment by AT&T of$3,701942.78 to PSAF,PSA agrees to do the following:
A. OPERATE PUBLIC ACCESS CABLE CHANNEL(S). Operate the
public access cable channel(s)for public/community access programming
purposes with the primary purpose being to administer, coordinate, and
assist those requesting access on a non-discriminatory basis.
B. ADMINISTER EDUCATIONAL ACCESS CHANNEL AND OTHER
CHANNELS AS REQUESTED BY THE CITY. Administer access to
and programming of the City of Renton's educational channel, if
requested, either by entering into a service agreement with a designated
access provider or by programming the channel through other resources.
The City may request that PSA manage other access channels as well,
under conditions to be determined at a later time.
C. OPERATE A COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER. Manage a video
production facility and equipment, available for public use at such hours
and times as are determined by PSA. Access to equipment and facilities
shall be open to all those who satisfactorily complete training classes
provided by PSA or who receive a certification from PSA,identifying said
user(s) as having satisfied training requirements through means other than
PSA training classes. This community access center shall serve the
citizens of the City and shall be located in south King County at a place
reasonably accessible by the citizens of the city.
D. PROVIDE EQUAL ACCESS. Provide access to the use of the
equipment, facilities, channels, and services provided hereunder on a non-
discriminatory basis to all members of the participating communities for
non-commercial programming purposes,whether individuals, groups,
organizations, on a non-discriminatory basis,pursuant to the operating
rules promulgated by PSA.
E. DEVELOP OPERATING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES. Develop
policies and procedures for use and operation of the access equipment,
facilities, and channel(s), and advise the City and the general public of
such policies and procedures.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 2 of 9
F. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS,RULES,AND REGULATIONS.
Administer the access channel(s) and facilities in compliance with
applicable laws,rules, and regulations, and City ordinances.
G. TRAINING. Train City residents, and when requested, City and school
employees,in the techniques of video production, and provide technical
advice in the execution of productions. PSA will schedule production and
equipment training workshops on a regular basis. Training will be
available to individuals and organizations as described in the PSA
Operating Policies. Training will include an explanation of the producer's
responsibility and legal accountability for the content of the programming
they produce.
H. PLAYBACK AND CABLECAST. Provide for the playback and
cablecast of programs on the cable access channel(s). Within twelve
months of the completion and opening of the access center,PSA shall
cablecast local original,replayed and outside programming the minimum
number of hours required by the City's cable franchise agreement,which
agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by
reference, or at least an average of 25 hours of per week
I. MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT. Provide regular maintenance and
repair of all video equipment.
J. PROMOTION. Actively promote the use and benefit of the access
channel(s) and facilities to the citizens of the City.of Renton.
K. OTHER ACTIVITIES. Undertake other access programming activities
and services as deemed appropriate by PSA and consistent with the
obligation to provide facilities and promote access programming and
provide non-discriminatory access.
SECTION 2. CHANNELS OPEN TO PUBLIC: PSA agrees to keep the access
channel(s)open to all potential users regardless of their viewpoint, subject to FCC
regulations and other relevant laws. Neither the City nor PSA shall unlawfully control
the content of programming placed on the public access channel(s) so long as such
programming is lawful. However,PSA reserves the right to refuse to air programming
which it deems unlawful, in its reasonable judgment. Provided that, nothing herein shall
prevent PSA or the City from producing or sponsoring programming; underwriting
programming; or from promoting production or programming by targeted groups as
consistent with applicable law and rules for use of channels. PSA shall promulgate and
enforce policies and procedures which are designed to promote local use of the
channels) and make the programming accessible to the viewing public, consistent with
such time,place, and manner regulations as are appropriate to provide for and promote
use of access programming, equipment, and facilities.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 3 of 9
SECTION 3. PROGRAM CONTENT AND INDEMNIFICATION: The City shall have
no responsibility for program content on the public access channel(s),unless the
programming was produced by an agent or employee of the City as part of the City's
access programming efforts.
PSA shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claims, suits, liability,loss or
damage, including attorney's fees, caused by or arising out of any public access
programming not produced by an agent or employee of the City including but not limited
to any claim or legal action for alleged violation or infringement of copyright or other
intellectual property right,invasion of privacy, obscenity or defamation; or any claim
arising out of claimed violation of law or the U.S. Constitution by a person affected by
curtailment of access to facilities,use of those facilities or transmittal of programming by
PSA,provided that the City shall inform PSA in writing within twenty(20) calendar days
of its receipt of notice of the existence of any such claim or action. This obligation to
indemnify and hold harmless shall extend to any claims made against the City by AT&T
pursuant to paragraph 8. of the AT&T Agreement.
The City shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless PSA from any claims, losses,
liabilities, or damage including payment of reasonable attorney's fees arising out of or
resulting from the performance of this Agreement, caused in whole or part by any act or
omission of the City,but only to the extent that the City is found to be negligent.
PSA shall have sole discretion and authority for decisions regarding standards for
program quality and scheduling except as provided herein. It shall be the responsibility
of PSA to insure compliance with the standards provided by law relating to defamation,
privacy, or obscenity.
SECTION 4. PRODUCER'S STATEMENT: Before cablecasting video transmissions,
PSA shall require all users to agree in writing, at a minimum,to the following: (i)that the
producer has made all appropriate arrangements to obtain rights to all material contained
in the program, including clearances from broadcast stations,networks, sponsors,
representatives of music licensing organizations, and any and all other persons as may be
necessary; and(ii) that the user understands and agrees to the policies and procedures of
PSA with regard to programming and has indicated the nature of the programming,
including whether it is intended for adult viewing. PSA shall maintain these statements
for a time period to be determined by PSA.
SECTION 5. COPYRIGHT AND OWNERSHIP: PSA shall own the copyright of any
programs that it may choose from time to time to produce. Copyright of programming
produced by the public shall be held by such person(s)who produce said programming.
SECTION 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PSA: During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall select at least one(1) employee,representative, or agent to nominate for
service on the Board of Directors of PSA. Upon approval of such nomination and
election of such nominee by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance.with the �..
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA, such Director shall take office at the time
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 4 of 9
and on the date specified by the Board of Directors of PSA and shall continue in office
for a term of two (2) years and thereafter until his or her successor has been elected and
has qualified or until his or her earlier death,resignation,retirement, disqualification, or
removal unless such Director shall have been elected to fill an unexpired term of a
directorship left vacant or unless such Director is designated as a member of the first
regular Board of Directors of PSA serving an initial term of only one(1)year. The City
shall have the right to notify the Board of Directors of PSA of its desire to remove a
Director nominated for such service by the City, and the Board of Directors of PSA
agrees to consider such request at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors. If
any such Director is removed by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with its
articles of incorporation and bylaws, the City shall have the right to nominate a successor
for such Director who may be elected by the Board of Directors in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA and this Section 6.
SECTION 7. PERFORMANCE REVIEWS: PSA may, after three(3)years of operation
under this Agreement, contract with a consultant from outside the Puget Sound
community who is expert in the operation of public access cablecasting to conduct a
performance review of PSA operations. If a performance review has not been conducted
at least once in a three-year period,the City may require that such a review be conducted
within six(6)months of PSA's receiving notification of the City's request. The cost of
this review shall be borne by PSA and will not occur more than once in a period of three
(3)years. Upon completion, a copy of the performance review shall be submitted to the
City.
SECTION 8. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS: If requested by the City during the term
of this Agreement,PSA will give to the City once a year copies of(i)current financial
statements audited by a committee of the PSA Board of Directors or an independent
certified accountant, as determined appropriate by the Board of Directors of PSA, (ii)
PSA's annual report, (iii)PSA's annual budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and(iv) any
other relevant information reasonably requested by the City. If not included in the annual
report,PSA also will provide the City with current statistics on programming and
services provided as well as a current and complete listing of the Board of Directors of
PSA. During the term of this Agreement the City also may request, and PSA will provide
once a year, if requested,a statement of anticipated number of hours of local origination
access programming and a schedule of training classes to be offered and other access
activities planned by PSA.
SECTION 9. RECORDKEEPING AND REVIEW OF RECORDS:
A. During the term of this Agreement,PSA shall maintain all necessary
books and records in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.
B. Upon reasonable request from the City,PSA shall, at any time during
normal business hours,make available all of its records with respect to all
matters covered by this Agreement during the term of this Agreement.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01.
Page 5 of 9 •
During the term of this Agreement, the City shall reserve the right to audit
PSA's financial records at the City's sole expense.
SECTION 10. DISTRIBUTION RIGHTS:
A. PSA shall require that all programs produced with funds, equipment,
facilities, or staff granted under this Agreement shall be distributed on the
channels whose use is authorized by this Agreement. This subparagraph
shall not be interpreted to restrict other distribution, so long as such other
distribution is consistent with any pertinent guidelines established in the
access operating policies and procedures.
B. At least at the beginning and end of each day that video programming is
cablecast on the access channels which use is authorized by this
Agreement,PSA shall display a credit stating that the opinions expressed
in access programs are the sole responsibility of program producers, and
providing contact information for the program.
SECTION 11. INSURANCE:
A. LIABILITY:During the term of this Agreement,PSA shall procure and
maintain commercial general liability insurance with limits no less than
two million dollars($2,000,000)combined single limit per occurrence and
general aggregate for personal injury,bodily injury, and property damage,
including personal and advertising injury coverages for activity performed
and obligations undertaken pursuant to this Agreement. These are
minimal limits and are not meant as a reflection of exposure, and are not
intended to be a limitation on indemnification. The cost of such insurance
shall be borne by PSA.
B. DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS:During the term of this Agreement,PSA
shall procure and maintain Directors and Officers Liability Insurance for
coverage of all of the members of its Board of Directors and its officers.
SECTION 12. NON-DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT AND SERVICE: PSA
shall not discriminate against any person, employee, applicant for employment,or
subcontractor on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, gender, sexual preference,
marital status, ancestry,national origin, or physical or mental handicap.
SECTION 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: It is understood and agreed that PSA
is an independent contractor and that no relationship of principal/agent or
employer/employee exists between the City and PSA and that PSA is free to contract
with other parties to best utilize the community access center consistent with the purposes
of this Agreement. If in the performance of this Agreement any third persons are _
employed by PSA, such persons shall be entirely and exclusively under the control, C
direction, and supervision of PSA. All terms of employment, including hours,wages,
working conditions, discipline,hiring, and discharging or any other term of employment
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 6 of 9
shall be determined by PSA, and the.City shall have no right or authority over such
persons or terms of employment.
SECTION 14. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING:Neither this Agreement nor any
interest herein shall be assigned or transferred by PSA, except as expressly authorized in
writing by the City.
SECTION 15. FUNDING AND OTHER RESOURCES: The City agrees to make the
AT&T dedicated channel capacity(spectrum on the cable system)for access use
available to PSA without charge to PSA. The City agrees to permit PSA to manage the
channel capacity that has been designated in Section 1 of this Agreement for access
programming purposes.
SECTION 16. TERM OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be for a period of seven
(7)years commencing on and ending on September 13, 2008,unless
terminated earlier, as provided in this Agreement. At the end of said term,this
Agreement may be extended by a written agreement executed by the City and PSA.
SECTION 17. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT:
A. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by reason of
the other party's default. Furthermore, if income,including grants from
PSAF, and other revenues are insufficient,PSA also shall have the right at
any time during the term of this Agreement to terminate this Agreement if
PSA concludes in its best judgment that within ninety(90)days of such
time it will experience a total exhaustion of operating funds.
B. Notice of termination shall require ninety(90)days written notice by
registered or certified mail,return receipt required. A notice of
termination shall specify the basis thereof,including a detailed explanation
of any alleged events of default.
At least the following shall constitute an event of default by PSA:
1. Malfeasance,misfeasance,misappropriation of grants received
from PSAF for the purposes described in this Agreement; or
2. Any other material breach of this Agreement.
At least the following shall constitute an event of default on the part of the
City:
1. Failure to act in good faith to fulfill the provisions of this
Agreement; or
2. Any other material breach of this Agreement.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 7 of 9
C. Upon receipt of written notice of termination and/or of alleged events of
default, the recipient shall have sixty(60) days, or another time frame
agreed to by both parties,to cure the default before termination shall
become effective. The availability of this remedy shall not bar any action
by either party for specific performance of the provisions of the
Agreement or any other remedy.
D. SECTION 18. MEDIATION: In the event that any dispute shall arise as to the
interpretation of this Agreement, or in the event of a breach of this Agreement and if the
parties cannot mutually settle such differences,then the matter shall first be referred to
mediation with a mutually selected mediator and, if necessary, to arbitration with an
arbitrator mutually selected by the parties.
E.
F. SECTION 19. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement may be renewed or
extended for additional time,pursuant to the following process:
A. If PSA or the City seeks an extension of this Agreement, it shall, on or
before July 1 of the year in which the Agreement would end, submit a
letter of intent requesting extension.
B. On or before October 1 of that same year,the party receiving the request
shall respond to the other. If either party intends to refuse to extend the
Agreement,it shall explain the reasons for this decision in its response.
SECTION 20. TIME: Time is of the essence in this Agreement and for the performance
of all covenants and conditions of this Agreement.
SECTION 21.COOPERATION: Each party agrees to execute all documents and do all
things necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
SECTION 22.APPLICABLE LAW: This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced
exclusively under the laws of the State of Washington.
SECTION 23. NOTICES: All notices and other communications to be given by either
party may be given in writing, depositing the same in the United States mail,postage
prepaid and addressed to the appropriate party as follows:
To City of Renton
CIO City Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
To Puget Sound Access
C/o Jennifer Krebs r'
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn,WA 98002
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 8 of 9
Any party may change its address for notice by written notice to the other party at any
time.
SECTION 24. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Agreement is the entire agreement of the
parties and supersedes all prior negotiations and agreements whether written or oral. This
Agreement may be amended only by written agreement and no purported oral
amendment to this Agreement shall be valid.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written above.
CITY OF '= NTON, a municipal corporation
By:
--
Attest: „✓
Its: fA yor City Cl C ble Manager
Date: S,30-0/
Puget Sound Access, a Washington non-profit corporation
By:
Its: l3pcirct -Pr
*-1.- Q-oi
C.
Draft Access Service Agreement
05/17/01
Page 9 of 9
eickFrl3ir
CAG-01-087
AT&T AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, effective this day of ,2001, is by and
between TCI Cablevision of Washington,Inc.known as AT&T Broadband(hereinafter
"AT&T"), and the Cities of Auburn,Burien,Kent,Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila(hereinafter
collectively"the Cities")to fully satisfy certain of AT&T's existing franchise obligations to
provide,maintain and operate public access facilities for the Cities.
RECITALS
A. AT&T and the Cities entered into agreements whereby the Cities granted
franchises to AT&T. The existing franchise agreements are as follows:
Auburn: Resolution No. 2409, as amended
Burien: Franchise Ordinance No. 119, as amended
Kent: Franchise Ordinance No. 3.108, as amended, granted in accordance
with Master Ordinance No. 3107
Renton: Franchise Ordinance No. 4412, as amended, granted in accordance
with Master Ordinance No. 4413
SeaTac: Franchise Ordinance No. 96-1003
Tukwila: Franchise Ordinance No. 1688, granted in accordance with Master
Ordinance No. 1687
For convenience, they shall be referred to collectively herein as the "Franchise."
B. Pursuant to the Franchise,AT&T is obligated to provide, maintain and operate a
public access studio. The purpose of this Agreement is to release this obligation as set forth
under the Franchise.
C. In exchange for a release of its obligations described in paragraph B. above, the
Cities and AT&T agree that AT&T will contribute to Puget Sound Access Foundation
(hereinafter"PSAF"), a tax-exempt charitable trust governed by the laws of the state of
Washington and constituted as a supporting organization of Puget Sound Access (hereinafter
"PSA"), a tax-exempt Washington non-profit corporation, funds intended to be granted over 10
-1-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
years to PSA to enable PSA to undertake this obligation for the remainder of the Franchise terms
referenced in paragraph(A) above.
NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual undertakings contained herein,the
parties agree as follows:
1. In exchange for a full and unconditional release of its Franchise obligation to
provide, equip, operate and maintain public access facilities for the Cities,AT&T agrees to pay
to PSAF a one-time lump-sum amount of$3,701,942.78 (the"Designated Fund") from which
PSAF shall make grants, at least annually, to PSA to be used by PSA for the sole purpose of
constructing, equipping, operating and maintaining a single public access studio in South King
County for the use and benefit of the citizens of the Cities through January 1,2011,or for so
long as PSA has the financial means to do so,whichever is earlier. AT&T shall pay this amount
to PSAF within sixty(60) days of the execution of this Agreement; provided,however,that prior
to payment being made to PSAF by'AT&T,the PSAF Board of Advisors shall prepare and
approve a written plan that outlines how PSAF intends to invest,manage, administer and
distribute the Designated Fund in a prudent and responsible manner with the intent that the funds
. will be sufficient to enable PSA to fulfill its.obligation to the.Cities through January 1, 2011.
2. Each City assigns to PSAF its right to receive such payment from AT&T in lieu
of its Franchise obligations described in paragraph B.
3. The Cities agree to contract with PSA for use of the public access studio and the
administration and operation of the public access channels to be provided by AT&T. A copy of
the proposed service agreement to be executed by and between each City and PSA is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
-2-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
4. AT&T agrees to assign a designated AT&T employee to provide consultation and
advice to PSAF and PSA until June 30,2001, as additional consideration for the full and
unconditional release granted by the Cities pursuant to paragraph 7. below.
5. It is understood and agreed that all funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this
Agreement shall be administered by PSAF subject to its governing instrument, a copy of which
is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Trustee of PSAF shall have full authority and discretion as
to the investment and reinvestment of the Designated Fund.
6. It is further understood that following the end of the term of this Agreement as
provided in paragraph 1. above, if any of the funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this Agreement,
including residual monies in the Designated Fund, have not been expended for the purposes
described herein,then notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,PSAF shall distribute the
remainder of such funds to PSA and PSA shall have the right to use such funds for PSA's
general uses and purposes (in accordance with its articles of incorporation and bylaws)without
restrictions or conditions or, as determined by the Board of Directors of PSA in its sole
discretion, to distribute these funds to another, successor organization organized for the same
• purpose as PSA and..operated exclusively for such uses and purposes as shall at the time qualify
as exempt from taxation under section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended.
7. In exchange for satisfying as herein contemplated the Franchise obligation
described in paragraph B. above, the Cities agree to fully and unconditionally release AT&T
from its current Franchise obligation to provide,maintain and operate a public access studio for
each City for the term of each City's franchise.
-3-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
•
8. PSAF agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless AT&T and the Cities party
to this Agreement from and against any and all claims which may arise out of this Agreement
that may be brought against AT&T and/or the Cities by any third party.
9. The Cities covenant and agree that they will not seek additional funds or any other
form of consideration from AT&T for the duration of this Agreement should the Designated
•
Fund provided by AT&T pursuant to paragraph 1. of this Agreement be insufficient to fund the
construction, equipping, operating and maintaining of a public access studio by PSA for the
duration of this Agreement.
10. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which when so
executed shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one
agreement,binding on all the parties hereto,notwithstanding that all parties should not have
signed the same counterpart.
11. It is intended that the funds paid to PSAF pursuant to this Agreement shall be the
property of PSAF and that nothing in this Agreement shall affect the status of PSAF or PSA as
organizations that are described in section 501(c)(3)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended. To the extent necessary,this.Agreement shall be interpreted in a manner consistent
with the foregoing and so as to conform with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and
any regulation issued pursuant thereto applicable to PSAF and/or PSA.
12. The parties to this Agreement represent and warrant that they have full lawful
authority to enter into it, as demonstrated by the signatures of each party's representative as set
forth below.
13. Each party to this Agreement agrees to execute all documents and do all things
necessary'and appropriate to carryout the provisions of this Agreement.
4-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
14. This Agreement shall not affect the other obligations as may be owed by AT&T
to the Cities as set forth in the Franchise.
15. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced exclusively under the laws of
the state of Washington.
16. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties hereto and
supersedes all prior understandings,negotiations and agreements between them concerning the
subject matter. There are no representations, agreements, arrangements, or understandings, oral
or written,between the parties hereto relating to the subject matter of this Agreement which are
not described herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date
written above.
CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF BURIEN, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form: .
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF KENT, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF TON, a municipal corporation
p_aeteltot.,
By: tiwtlL..® Approved as t 11,4 .
Its: ayor City Attorn y
Date: 6: 30- 0/ Date: S. - 4�
ATTEST s 441
_5_
Marilyn 3. etersen, City Clerk
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
CITY OF SEATAC, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
Date: Date:
CITY OF TUKWILA, a municipal corporation
By: Approved as to Form:
Its: City Attorney
•
Date: Date:
TCI CABLEVISION OF WASHINGTON,INC.
known as AT&T BROADBAND, a Washington corporation
By:
Its:
Date:
•
•
-6-
AT&T Agreement
05/17/01
gX H J 8i1 fs
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON, GRANTING
TO TCI SEATTLE, INC. A FRANCHISE TO OPERATE A CABLE
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM WITHIN THE CITY OF RENTON.
Table of Contents:
Section
1. Purpose
2 . Length of Franchise
3. Service Area
4. Franchise Fee
5. Future Provisions
6. Access Channels
7 . Government Access Equipment
8. Institutional Networks
9 . Emergency Override
10. Emergency Power
11. Coverage
12 . Cable Availability
13 . Extraordinary Installation
14. Distribution Line Extension Charges
15. Public Buildings
16. Penalties
17 . Independent Contractors
18. Entire Agreement
19.. Successors or Assigns
} 20. Acceptance
21. Effective Date
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
22. Notice
Appendix "A" Access Studio and Equipment
Appendix "B" Building Locations
Appendix "C" Public Schools
Appendix "D" Programming Survey
Section l: Purpose.
This Franchise shall constitute an agreement between the City of
Renton (hereinafter the "City" ) and TCI Seattle, Inc. (hereinafter
the "Operator" ) . The Operator promises to construct, maintain, and
operate a cable television system for the distribution of television
and other electronic signals pursuant to the terms of this
Franchise. The City agrees to grant the Operator all necessary
rights and privileges to use public rights of way necessary for a
cable television system. This agreement shall, as of its effective
date, supersede and replace all existing franchises previously
granted.. by the City of Renton to the Operator or any of its
predecessors, subsidiaries or affiliated companies .•
Section 2: Length of Franchise.
The length of this Franchise shall be for a term of fifteen
(15) years from September 13, 1993 through midnight
September 1-3, 2008.
Section 3: Service Area.
The Operator' s service area shall be the entire incorporated
area of the City of Renton, in its present incorporated form or in
any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged, or re-incorporated
•
form. .
2
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
Section 4: Franchise Fee.
Recognizing that current Federal law limits a franchise fee to
five percent (5%) , the Operator shall pay to the City quarterly, on
or before the thirtieth (30th) day of each January, April, July and
October, a sum equal to five percent (5%) of gross revenues, for
the preceding three calendar months, as defined in Ordinance
4413 Revenues that are derived as a portion of a national
or regional service shall be computed on a per subscriber basis if
such determination cannot be achieved by other means .
The City may raise the franchise fee, if so permitted by
Federal and State law. Prior to implementation of any increase in
franchise fees the Operator may request a public hearing by the
City Council to discuss said increases. Following such a hearing
the City Council may require the implementation of such increase in
accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(a) Late Payment. Any quarterly franchise fee not paid by
the Operator within thirty (30) days of the end of a quarter shall
bear interest at the rate of twelve percent (12%) , per annum or
whatever maximum amount is allowed under State law, whichever is
greater, from the due date until paid.
(b) Financial Reports . Each franchise fee payment shall be
accompanied by a financial report on a form provided by the City
showing the basis for the Operator' s computation separately
indicating revenues received by the Operator within the City from
basic. service, pay TV service, other applicable sources of revenue,
0 and such other information directly related to confirming the
amount of the Operator' s gross revenues as may be reasonably
3
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
required by the City.
(c) Audit by City. The City shall have the right, upon
reasonable notice or no less than two (2) working days, •tol
inspect the books and records of the Operator during normal
business hours, for the purpose of ascertaining the actual gross
revenues collected by the Operator. In the event that such audit
discloses a discrepancy of more than ten percent (10%) between
the financial report submitted by the Operator with a quarterly
payment and the actual gross revenues collected by the Operator,
the Operator agrees to pay to the City the costs of such audit.
In the event that such audit results in a determination that
additional franchise fees are due the City, the Operator further
agrees to pay interest as required for late payment on such
additional franchise fees computed from the date on which such
additional franchise fees were du.e and payable.
(d)Non-waiver. Acceptance of any franchise fee payment by the
City shall not be construed as an agreement by the City that the
franchise fee paid is in fact the correct amount, nor shall
acceptance of payment by the City be construed as a release or
waiver of any claim the City may have for further or additional
,_sums payable under the provisions of this Ordinance.
(e)Taxes . Nothing in this section shall limit the Operator' s
obligation to pay applicable local, State, or Federal taxes.
Section 5: Future Provisions.
The City and the Operator acknowledge that the former should
be provided with a cable system that has the same general
capabilities and capacity as those provided other cities served by
4
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
the Operator in the King-Pierce-Snohomish County area of the State
of Washington. The City may, at its discretion, require that the
Operator provide such interactive services as addressability,
security, computer interaction, banking, shopping, voice and data
transmission, High Definition Television (HDTV) , fiber optic and
other such features, as well as upgrades capable of carrying at
least fifty-four (54) channels, within the City within twenty-four
(24) months of any of the following occurrences :
Provision by the Operator of any of the same services
identified above to a preponderance of a system;
(a) Within the City of Seattle system, or;
(b) Within any adjacent community, or;
(c) Forty percent (40%) of the municipalities in the King,
Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.
Notwithstanding the above, the Operator shall in any event
complete the upgrade to fifty-four (54) channels and have the
capability of implementing these enhanced services within forty-
eight (48) months from the effective date of this franchise.
Prior to implementation of any such service the Operator may
request a public hearing by the City Council, to discuss the
benefits of said features to the citizens of the City. Upon a
finding by the City Council that such features are reasonably
required to meet community needs, taking into consideration the
expense of providing such services and the potential costs to
subscribers, the City Council may require the implementation of
such features in accord with the provisions of this agreement. If
the Council deem it necessary, it may, at its own option by a
5 .
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
majority vote, extend the time requirements established- in this
section.
Additionally, the Operator, upon completion of the upgrade or
by the expiration of the forty-eight (48) month period as
prescribed herein, shall provide, maintain and operate a public
access studio within a radius of eight (8) miles of the City Hall,
or at a location mutually agreeable by all parties. Such
facilities shall be subject to approval by the City as suitable.
Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Section 6: Access Channels.
Upon completion of the upgrade conditions the City shall be
provided with three (3) access channels including the government
channel already in use, one of which shall be capable of
broadcasting live from City Hall. The City may initially share a
common public access channel with other communities, however, the
City may elect, at its option, to provide programming over an
individual public access channel for the City' s sole use.
Additional channels over and above these shall be made
available for City purposes when any of the three (3) designated
channels is in use for access purposes with programming during
fifty percent (50%) of the hours between 10:00 a.m. and 10 : 00 p.m. ,
during any consecutive ten (10) week period. The Operator shall,
within six (6) months, following a request by the City, subject to
the restrictions above, provide another designated access channel
for this purpose.
The Operator shall continue to provide additional channels
under the same conditions. Programming on additional channels
6
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
shall be distinct and non-repetitive of the previous channel. If
additional channels are designated for community use, but, after
one year, such channel(s) are not utilized at least twenty-five
percent (25%) of the hours between 10 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. with
programming, the access users will, within six (6) months of
receiving written notice from the Operator, group their programming
into one contiguous block of time of their choosing. The remaining
broadcast time on such channel shall then revert to the Operator
for its unrestricted use within the terms and conditions of this
ordinance.
Contributions to PEG access will not be considered in lieu of a
franchise fee nor other obligations to the City.
Section 7 : Government Access Equipment.
The Operator shall provide, maintain, and install the
necessary equipment for local government cablecasting within six
(6) months of a request of the City unless extended by mutual
written agreement. Such equipment shall not be less in quantity
nor equivalent quality than those listed in Appendix A.
Section 8: Institutional Networks.
Upon completion of the cable system upgrade the Operator' s
system shall have the capability of bi-directional Institutional
Networks for educational and public safety communications . An
entity desiring activation of such feature(s) will provide the City
Council demonstrated need of such use.
Prior to implementation of any such service the Operator may
(,_ request a public hearing by the City Council, to discuss the
benefits of said features to the . citizens of the City. Upon a
7 ' .
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
finding by the City Council that such features are reasonably
required to meet community needs, taking into consideration the
expense of providing such services and the potential costs to
subscribers, the City Council may require the implementation of
such features in accord with the provisions of this agreement.
Section 9: Emergency Override.
Upon completion of the system upgrade subject to the
conditions of Section 5, Future Provisions the Operator shall make
provisions for an emergency alert system. The Operator shall
establish a process which will provide a character generated scroll
and make the best effort to furnish a voice override notifying
viewers and listeners of the emergency. Subject. to Federal and
State laws and regional planning authorities, control of these
emergency override facilities shall be the responsibility of the
City. The City shall hold a franchisee, its agents, employees,
officers, and assigns harmless from any claims arising out of the
emergency use of its transmitting facilities by the City. The
City, at its option may elect to share this service with adjoining
communities.
• Section 10: Emergency Power.
A franchisee shall provide a standby power system to
automatically activate equipment at the headend and hubs, if
applicable, in event of a primary electrical failure.
Section 11: Coverage.
The City shall be provided with cable television service in the
entire Franchise area. If such a condition does not now exist, the
Operator shall complete such wiring and be in a position to offer
8
•
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
•
cable reception to all residents within twelve (12) months from the
grant of the Franchise. Areas subsequently annexed shall be
provided with cable availability within twelve (12) months, subject
to the terms in Section 13 Extraordinary Installation.
Section 12: Cable Availability.
Cable service shall not be denied to any group of potential
residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents
of the local area in which such group resides.
Section 13: Extraordinary Installation.
All residents requesting cable service and living within one
hundred fifty (150) feet of existing cable distribution lines shall
have the cable installed at the prevailing published installation
rate.
In the event a request is made for service and the residence is
more than one hundred fifty (150) feet from an existing cable
distribution line., such installation shall be completed on a time
and material cost basis for that portion of the service line
extending beyond one hundred fifty (150) feet.
Section 14: Distribution Line Extension Charges.
Cable Service shall be available to all residents within the
City provided there are at least thirty five (35) dwelling units
per street mile.
In the event a request is made for service by a resident(s)
living in an area not meeting such criteria, the Operator shall
enter into a contractual agreement with the resident(s) requesting
service wherein the Operator shall be reimbursed for its
construction costs . Whenever any subsequent subscriber who did not
9 .
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
contribute to the original cost of the extension connects to the
extended distribution service line, that subscriber shall pay
his/her pro rata share directly to the .Operator prior to obtaining
cable service. The Operator shall then promptly tender such
payment to the original subscriber so long as the agreement remains
in force.
Reimbursement shall be calculated on a front foot basis as a
percentage of the total cost of the service line extension.
Reimbursements shall be made to the original subscriber for a
period of up to five (5) years or to the point when the Operator
has recovered its incremental costs to construct the distribution
service line.
The Operator may, at its option, record its contractual
agreement with the original subscriber in the office of the King
County Recorder prior to the time any subsequent subscriber
connects to the extended service line.
Section 15: Public Buildings.
The Operator shall provide without charge for installation or
monthly rate, basic service, one outlet, and converter, if needed
at such public buildings and schools as specified in Appendix "B"
and "C" as well as other such buildings that may be constructed
during the period of the Franchise that are passed by cable and
within one hundred fifty 150 feet of the trunk or distribution
system.
Section 16: Penalties.
The City shall notify the Operator in writing stating the
nature of a perceived deficiency in the operation of the cable
10
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
system and setting forth the time the Operator will be allowed to
rectify such alleged improper condition. The Operator may request
an extension of time if construction is suspended or delayed by the
City, or where unusual weather, acts of God (e.g. earthquakes,
floods, etc. ) , extraordinary acts of third parties, or other
circumstances which are reasonably beyond the control of the
Operator, delay progress provided that the Operator has not,
through its own actions or inactions, substantially contributed to
the delay. The amount of time allowed will be reasonably
determined by the City and the Operator. The extension of time in
any case shall not be less than the extent of the actual non-
contributory delay experienced by the Operator.
Failure of the Operator to correct these deficiencies, except
in those circumstances cited above, may result in the City calling
a hearing to determine if penalties should be imposed upon the
Operator or if a material violation of the franchise has occurred.
If, following such hearing, it is determined by the City
Council that the Operator has failed to comply with the schedule
set forth in the Franchise; monetary penalties will be imposed as
set forth below for each day beyond thirty (30) days that the
Operator has not fulfilled the requirement(s) :
a. Upgrade improvements and regional P.E.G. facilities required
by Section 5 Future Provisions, two hundred dollars ($200.00)
per day.
b. Equipment and channels committed by the Operator to the City
for access purposes . Sections 6 Access Channels; 7 Government
Access Equipment; and 8 Institutional Networks, two hundred
11
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
dollars ($200 .00) per day. •
c. Coverage of annexed areas where such is not completed as
required by Section 11 Coverage, two hundred dollars ($200.00)
per day.
Monetary penalties may be assessed retroactive to the date
that notification was provided to the Operator in such cases where
the Operator has been non-responsive in correcting the situation or
in the case of flagrant violations.
Termination of the Franchise pursuant to the procedure
outlined in Ordinance No. 4413 may be imposed for any violation of
one or more of the above listed items. The Operator and the City
agree that any of the above described violations, unless excused,
or not corrected by the Operator within the time allotted, shall
constitute failure to comply with a material provision of the
Franchise.
No penalty, bond, forfeiture, or termination shall be imposed
for delays where such delays are the result of causes beyond the
reasonable control and/or without substantial fault or negligence
of the Operator, as reasonably determined by the City. If payment
of any of these penalties is delinquent by three (3) months or
more, the City may require partial or total forfeiture of
performance bond or other surety.
Section 17: Independent Contractors.
This agreement shall not be construed to provide that the
Operator is the agent or legal representative of the City for any
purpose whatsoever. The Operator is not granted any . express or
implied right or authority to assume or create any obligation or
12 . . .
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
responsibility on behalf of or in the name of the City or to bind
the City in any manner or thing whatsoever.
Section 18: Entire Agreement.
This agreement, including the Master Cable Ordinance and
exhibits that are attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference represents all of the covenants, promises, agreements,
and conditions, both oral and written, between the parties .
However, the City reserves the right to waive any of these sections
without affecting the applicability of other sections not so
specifically waived. Waiver of any Franchise requirement or
Ordinance sections by the City shall be in writing in order to be
effective.
Section 19: Successors or Assigns.
This Franchise Agreement, including all addenda, and the
City's Master Cable Ordinance shall be binding to the Operator, its
heirs, successors, and assigns .
Section 20: Acceptance.
This grant of Franchise and its terms and provisions shall be
accepted by the Operator by the submission of a written instrument,
executed and sworn to by a corporate officer of the Operator before
a Notary Public, and filed with the City Clerk within sixty (60)
days after the effective date of this Franchise. Such instrument
shall evidence the unconditional acceptance of this Franchise and
the promise to comply with and abide by all its provisions, terms
and conditions .
�..: Section 21: Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall take effect five (5) days from and after
13
•
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
its passage and publication, provided, however, the Franchise
granted by this Ordinance shall not become effective until the
Operator files written acceptance thereof.
Section 22: Notice.
Written notices shall be deemed to have been duly served if
delivered in person to the individual or entity for whom it was
intended, or if delivered at or sent by registered or certified
United States mail to the last business address known to the party
who gives the notice.
All notices and requests shall be addressed to the City of
Renton and the Operator as follows:
CITY: City Clerk
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
OPERATOR: TCI Seattle, Inc..
15241 Pacific Highway South
Seattle, WA 98188
ADDITIONAL NOTICE: TCI Seattle, Inc.
Attn: Legal Department
P.O. Box 56.30
Terminal Annex
Denver, CO 80217
SECTION II. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its
passage, approval, and thirty days after its publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 9th day of Auqust 1
1993 .
Marilyn J P ersen, City Clerk C:..
14
ORDINANCE NO. 4412
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 9th day of August , 1993 .
--)Ck&
°-%7J\._Earl Clymer
Approved as to form:
Law e . Warr City Attorney
4. 4Date of Publication: August 16, 1993
ORD.303:4/23/93 :as.
C..'
15 _ .
•
Access Equipment APPENDIX A
In accordance with Section 7 Government Access Equipment the
following equipment or its equivalent will be supplied by the
Operator.
Quantity Description of Item
1 Texscan MSI—SG 4-B Character Generator
3 Panasonic CCD Two-Color Chip Cameras
3 Telco Remote Camera Control Systems
1 Amega 3000 Computer System with Omni Link and
Video Toaster
2 Panasonic AG 8350 SVHS 1/2" Recording Decks
1 Shure Audio Microphone System
10 Lavalier Microphones
3 12" Color Monitors
1 19" Color Monitor
2 Panasonic AG460 1/2" SVHS Cameras
2 LTM 4 Pepper 420 Light Kits (with accessories)
2 Bogen 3062 Video Tripods (w/3066 fluid head)
2 Tripod Adaptors
20 1/2" 20 Minute Video Cassettes
20 1/2" 30 Minute Video Cassettes
20 1/2" 60 Minute Video Cassettes
Miscellaneous lighting system as required to
adequately allow for the video taping and
broadcast of City meetings in the existing City
Council Chambers
Miscellaneous cable as required to complete the ( : ..
wiring of the existing City Council Chambers .
Renton Public Buildings APPENDIX B
CARCO THEATER BLDG.
1717 Maple Valley Hwy.
Renton, WA 98055
CITY HALL
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
CITY SHOPS
3555 NE 2nd St.
Renton, WA 98055
COMMUNITY CENTER
805 Union Avenue N. E.
Renton, WA 98055
FIRE STATION # 11
211 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
• FIRE STATION #12
W/S Harrington Ave N. E.
& NWC of 9th N
Renton, Wa 98055
FIRE STATION #13
17040 108th Avenue S. E.
Renton, WA 98055
FIRE STATION #16
12923 156th Avenue S.E.
rENTON, wa 98055
HIGHLANDS LIBRARY
2902 N. E. 12th .St.
Renton, WA 98055
HIGHLANDS NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
OFFICE, GYM & WATER DEPT.
800 Edmonds Avenue N. E.
Renton, WA 98055
HISTORICAL MUSEUM
235 Mills Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
LIBERTY PARK CON. BLDG
1101 Bronson Way North
Renton, WA 98055
17 05/25/93
MAIN LIBRARY
535 Bronson Way
Renton, WA 98055
MAPLEWOOD GOLF COURSE
CLUB HOUSE & RESTAURANT
4000 Maple Valley Highway
Renton, WA 98055
NO. HIGHLAND NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER
N. E. 16th & Jefferson N. E.
Renton, WA 98055
PHILLIP ARNOLD PARK REC. BLDG.
S. 7th At Arnold Park
Renton, WA 98055
POLICE/CITY HALL ANNEX
1010 S. 2nd St
Renton, WA 98055
RENTON COMMUNITY CENTER
1715 Maple Valley Highway
Renton, WA 98055
RENTON POLICE RADIO BLDG.
3310 N. E. 10th Street
Renton, WA 98055
SENIOR CITIZEN BLDG.
211 Burnett Avenue North
Renton, WA 98055
THE HOLM BUILDING
230 Main Avenue South '
Renton, WA 98055
THOMAS TEASDALE PARK
ACTIVITY CENTER
William Avenue St. 98th S.
Renton, WA 98055
WINDSOR HILL PARK
RECREATION BLDG.
420 Windson Way N. E.
Renton, WA 98055
18 05/25/93
Renton Schools APPENDIX C
BENSON HILL ELEMENTARY
18665 116th Ave. S. E
Renton, WA 98058
CASCADE ELEMENTARY
16022 116th Ave. S. E.
Renton, WA 98055
HAZEN HIGH SCHOOL
1101 Hoquiam Ave N.E.
Renton, WA 98056
HIGHLANDS ELEMENTARY
2727 N. E. 9th Street
Renton, WA 98056
KENNYDALE ELEMENTARY
1700 N. E. 28th Street
Renton, WA 98056
LINDBERG HIGH SCHOOL
16426 128th Ave. S. E.
Renton, WA 98058
MCKNIGHT MIDDLE SCHOOL
2600 N. E. 12th Street
Renton, WA 98056
NELSON MIDDLE SCHOOL
2403 Jones Ave. So
Renton, WA 98055
MAPLEWOOD HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY
13430 144th Ave. S. E.
Renton, WA 98056
RENTON AREA YOUTH SERVICES
1025 So Third Ave
Renton, WA 98055
RENTON HIGH SCHOOL
400 So. 2nd Street
Renton, WA 98055
RENTON PARK ELEMENTARY
16828 128th Ave. S. E.
Renton, WA 98058
19 - 04/26/93
RENTON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 403
Administrative Center
435 Main Ave. So.
Renton, WA 98055
SIERRA HEIGHTS •ELEMENTARY
9901 132th Ave S.E.
Renton, WA 98056
SPECIAL EDUCATION- HILLCREST
Special Prog/Multicultural
1800 Index Ave N. E.
Renton, WA 98056
SPRING GLEN ELEMENTARY
2607 Jones Avenue So.
Renton, WA 98055
TALBOT HILL ELEMENTARY
2300 Talbot Road So.
Renton, WA 98055
TIFFANY PARK ELEMENTARY
1601 Lake Youngs Way S. E.
Renton, WA 98058 •
VTI/BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY CNTR.
800 Union Ave N.E.
Renton, WA 98056
VTI/SARTORI PROGRAMS
315 Garden Ave No.
Renton, WA 98055
20 04/26/93 •
PROGRAMMING SURVEY Appendix D
Results of Random Sampling of 1000 Residences
8/10/90
% Responding Interest as
Type of Programming Very High or Somewhat High
News 93%
Old Movies 82%
Adult Education 78%
Health 78%
Consumer Information 77%
Weather 76%
Sports 74%
Business 64%
Fine Arts 59%
Video Music 59%
Children' s Programs 52%
Country 52%
U. S. Congress Proceedings 51%
Local Bulletin Board 45%
Senior Citizens 41%
Local Advertisement 37%
Religious 24%
CSpanish Language 9%
-
21 • 04/26/93,
PSA IS BUILDING
community through media... become part of the PSA Communi TV
Become a PSA producer. Learn to give voice to ,
11111
Providing access to ! ,,,,,.. your activities, interests and opinions. �j
video-cameras, Your video projects will cablecast on PSA •f ,
digital editing facilities, Community Access Channel 77 to local South
a complete television studio, King County Communities.
and knowledgeable staff. ' • %,,, \
•
_. u e£3oun
\ s � 9 Access . 1,
• _ erving residents of
i :7
N
PSA staff and volunteers Expi ore
provide training on
. the medium of
production equipment and assist in translating
TELEVISION
members ideas into television programs.
Allowing and
I r not simply by
:• watching it
encouraging ' but by
self-expression, .,� Become a PSA viewer and see a diverse range of10
uniting diverse r local programming including music, local sports, ma ki ng
points of ew, _ _ dance, spiritual, and community programs that
supporting •the i •);� showcase the South King County area and '
principles of its residents.
democracy and
nurturing artistic Become a PSA partner. PSA partners include
\hi': ,
visions. volunteers, non profits, service clubs, cities,
•
il businesses and individuals who help by
volunteering, providing sponsorships,
t
and co-producing programming.
1
I#
Puget Sound Access(PSA)is a 501(c)(3)non-profit organization created to bring communications tools to South King County residents.Our member cities
consist of Auburn, Burien,Kent,Renton,Tukwila,and SeaTac.PSA is funded through a charitable trust negotiated with Comcast to provide cable access
services for member cities.This channel reaches approximately 65,000 households and the facility will potentially serve over 200,000 people.
' YOUR COMMUNITY 1-
° ° '' I ACCESS STATION
2 Share resources, experience and
talents to enrich the lives of , O T
those who reside in a
specific region. lLTIND d i
ii
. , .: ACCESS
CALLTODAY LENT
BURN Ain S 1
Channel
........_,I Conveniently located in Kent.
3. Access to production equipment Easily accessible from Auburn,
--------- ' Burien, Renton, Tukwila and SeaTac. ��
and training to ensure the right to
communicate openly and freely. Directions available on our website Com'mu'ni' V
pugetsoundaccess.org. =;ke-my00' nl Tv,'
1. Power of the medium of television
—,harnessed by local citizens to
communicate their activities,
opinions and interests.
r
L
4111111
r'
ii
4 ,...m..111th4Ifft? ,
www.pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
253.479.0200
IEr'N"\-x.
geou n •
Access
Comparisons
of statistics
2004 & 2005
Puget Sound Access
Page 1 - Table of Contents
Page 2 - Comparison Training Enrollments
Page 3 - Comparison Equipment Usage - Number of uses
Page 4 - Comparison Equipment Usage - Percentage of avail time
Page 5 - Comparison Memberships
Pages 6-7 - Facility Use - Number of Uses
Pages 8 - Training - Number of Enrollments
Pages 9-10 - Personnel
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Comparison
Training Enrollments
180
160
140
120
P
5-
100
80
60
40
20
0
Orientation Prod/Prov Portable Edit Studio
■2004 158 79 43 36 60
■2005 155 86 60 69 52
Percentage of Increase/Decrease 2004-2005
Orientation Provider Portable Edit Studio
-2% 8% 28% 48°AD -15%
Points of Interest
• Training Coordinator Kim Blankenship left in April 2005 - very
little difference in enrollments regardless of having a position
dedicated to training.
• A large studio class was held in May 2004 to accommodate
new producers
Follow up
The Program/Outreach position will provide much needed focus on
increasing awareness.
2
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Comparison
Equipment Usage - Number of uses
1200
1000
800
600
400
200 •
0
Studio Edit Portable
•2004 84 432 192
•2005 157 972 322
Percentage of Increase 2004-2005
Studio Edit Portable
54% 440/0 60%
Points of Interest
• Producers typically check out all four portable cameras over
weekends Friday-Monday. Weekdays are regularly open.
• Edit time can be monopolized by several producers as there is
no max reservation limit for equipment usage at this time.
Follow up
PSA will visit the option of changing reservation hours and limit to
allow for more producers to utilize the space.
3
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Comparison
Equipment Usage - Percentage of available time used
80%
70% -
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Edit Bays Studio Portable
■2004 37% 22% 24%
■2005 68% 31% 42%
Percentage of Available Reservation Time Used & Increase
2004 2005 Increase
Edit 37% 68% 31%
Studio 22% 31% 9%
Portable 24% 42% 18%
Points of Interest
• Studio usage should increase considerably with the VT4
fix/update and new lighting and props.
• Statistics do not include additional 83 hours of studio use by
staff for staff productions
Follow up
The Facility Manager position allows for time for focus on the
studio and productions in the studio as well as facility issues.
4
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Comparison
Memberships
Number of Memberships 2004
s
7
6
4
3
2 _
1 2 3
4 5 ., .
0
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
•Org Mem 2 2 2 1 0 1 1 3 1
■Ind Mem 5 2 2 2 3 7 7 7 4
Memberships
Number of Memberships 2005
10
tl
8 •
•
6 -
2 -4
1 1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
■Org Mem 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2
■Ind Mem 6 7 3 2 5 5 3 8 8 1 1 1
Total Memberships & Percentage of Increase 2004-2005
2004 2005 ok
Organizational 6 13 54%
Individual 39 50 22%
5
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Facility Use
Total number of hours per week the PSA Facility is available for equipment
reservation for studio and editing is currently 31 hours.
3 Edit Bays and 1 Studio - 4 hour maximum reservation per day
Number of Equipment Uses 2005 - Edit
120
IOW
100
®
® ® c
41.1
80 AIM
AIM
60
40
20
0 a __ w� • ...r
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Edit 05 29 79 71 54 92 102 86 91 94 94 90 90
Number of Equipment Uses 2005 - Studio
25
20
1 AEI
Asa ,Q
15 —
10
5 ,
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Studio 05 1 5 6 7 18 19 18 14 16 21 16 16
6
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Number of Equipment Uses 2005 - Portable
Four portable camera packs currently available for check out for
48 hour reservations.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan __e July AugSeptOct I Nov I Dec
p
I Feb Mar i April I May June i �
if
Ptble 05 11 26 31 37 29 31 29 1 30 29 1 24 rt 24 I
Total Equipment Usage
Number of Use
Actual 2004 Avg 2004 Actual 2005
Edit Bays 181 432 972
Studio 34 84 157
Portable 80 192 322
Total Equipment Usage
Hours of Use Edit Bays and Studio
Actual 2004 Avg 2004 Actual 2005
Edit Bays 181 1728 2495
Studio 84 336 360
Total Equipment Usage
Days of Use Portable Equipment
Actual 2004 Avg 2004 Actual 2005 Per camera
Portable 147 352 578.25 144
7
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Training
Number of Enrollments per Month 2004
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
r
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Orientation 33 19 12 11 18 25 21 9 10
PP 13 18 6 10 11 7 9 2 3
Portable 10 10 4 4 4 5 4 2
Edit 13 4 2 2 4 6 2 3
Studio 32 4 4 6 4 4 4 2
Number of Enrollments per Month 2005
30
y r
25
20
15
10
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov ' Dec
Orientation 27 27 10 10 5 8 4 17 8 13 13 13
PP 14 12 5 5 8 7 3 7 8 3 7 7
Portable 4 13 7 7 4 5 1 4 3 2 5 5
Edit 16 6 5 6 4 4 3 7 3 3 6 6
Studio 8 7 4 5 4 5 2 2 3 4 4 4
8
PSA Stats 2004-2005
Personnel
PSA is open for community access hours:
Tuesday-Friday 3pm-9pm and Saturday Noon-7pm
Producers are able to make an appointment during these times.
PSA offers administrative hours for equipment check in/out and various tasks from
Monday-Friday 10am-4pm
Current Hours - Basic Functions
00 PSA ProdrKton Adreotratne Admnntrative PSA PPo moon Pdmnistrative Admsistr0Me PSA Production Administrative
10ri �g s erns 1ars�Gwererner Hers tars _< . . _
Productbrs PlouCtors Produ0k _
1100
12 Community PSA Production
Aoce% HarsfC e,
_ Prod,-tom
1°°
Zoo
300 r: -
C.OMMLrACy Arces. Ncess Access
400
5 00
6 00 Classes Classes
$ .40
� ii
9°°
Staff Allocation of Hours - Basic Functions
900 I
in00 Derek Ken Marge Kai Merge Derek Kern Russel Marge Ken Mars Ken Like Margie
Lc a Luke
1100
12 Pm Intern GrrNl
1 W Luke
2 tp Chris Derek Derd On1s
r PT PT ■na PT
4°D I
I • .
500 , A ne
600 I
800 i a
900
Facility Staff Allocation
Administrative Hours 30 36
Community Access Hours 31 68
Training 3.75 4
Production 20 41
Programming 36 36
Administrative Tasks 40 40
TOTAL 160 225
9
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
;, f ,o , Board of Directors,r �z i . �. . � Meeting
.-3Y. :.i...uc
UC,�e ur1 r
Minutes — Amended 03/17/05
1 j
Access
February 17, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Susan Kruller,
King Parker, Lorrie Rempher, Mark Siegel, Greg Worthing
Also present: Keri Stokstad
Call to order— 3:35pm
A. Approval of Financial Reports for December 2004 & January 2005
Kruller moved to approve the Finance Reports for December 2004 and January
2005. -
Seconded by
Vote —Approved unanimously
Kruller moved the board be provided documents for board meetings on the
Friday prior to the meeting date.
Seconded
Vote —Approved unanimously
B. Reports
Marketing Committee— Scheduled to meet at 3pm on the second Thursday of
the month beginning in April.
Finance Committee— Scheduled to meet at 4pm on the second Thursday of the
month beginning in April.
Programming Committee — Scheduled to meet at 5pm on the second Thursday
of the month beginning in April.
Parker moved to approve the purchase of Robert's Rules of Order by the
Executive Director not to exceed $20
Seconded Siegel
Vote —Approved unanimously
Adjournment— 5:15pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Director will research retirement, disability and life insurance choices to be
provided at the next finance committee meeting.
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
253.479.0200
uget Soun
Access
Wells Fargo
Foundation Trust Account
Account Summaries
2005
f TFtiLS>:
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
s
RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 2,550 0.10% 2,550
Money Market 1 28,690 1. 17% $ 28,690 $ 1,200 4.18%
fixed Income 1,490,255 61.00�% 1,452 931 76,030 5. 10%
.� Equities -921,643 37.72% 894,726 17,050 1.85%
® Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,443,138 100.00% $ 2,378,297 $ 94,280 3.86%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C ,
KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 77,643.26 Assets Purchased/Acquired $ 126;709.01-
Dividends 18,016.23 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 48,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 351,552.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 353,278.91 Withdrawals 'from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 fees Paid from Principal 11,504.88-
Other Cash Receipts 80,850.30 Expenses Paid from Income 129,270.38-
Fees Paid from Income 11,504.79-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 577,788.70 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 630,541.06-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,443,137.79
Market Value as of last Statement 2,746 856.56
Change in Market Value $ 303,718.77-
N
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
v gid inni-ng-Cash Balance i 0.00 0.00.
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 2,550.15
7.
• TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
�WPL,�LLS}
PAGE 2
DIVERSIFICATION SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
DIVERSIFICATION SUMMARY
FIXED INCOME MARKET VALUE FIXED INCOME • EQUITIES MARKET VALUE EQUITIES
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS $717,970 48.18% MATERIALS $8,871 0.96%
CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS 772,285 51.82% INDUSTRIALS 98,476 10.68%
TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES 32,766 3.56%
TOTAL FIXED INCOME $1,490,255 100.00% CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY 68,264 7.41%
CONSUMER STAPLES 117,737 12.77%
ENERGY 52,509 5.70%
FINANCIALS 151,949 16.49%
HEALTH CARE 125,370 13.60%
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 163,907 17.78%
MUTUAL FUNDS: EQUITIES 101,795 11.04%
TOTAL EQUITIES $921,644 100.00%
% OF
PRINCIPAL/INCOM BREAKDO VALUET E WN ACCOUNT
ACCUMULATED INCOME $3,807 0.16%
PRINCIPAL 2,439,331 99.84%
TOTAL $2,443,138 100.00%
h LLs.`
PAGE 3
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
® MONEY MARKET
INCOME CASH $2,550.15 $2,550.15
27,433.18 FIDELITY INSTITUTIONAL MONEY MARKET $1.000 $27,433. 18 $27,433.18 $1 ,147 4.18%
PORTFOLIO CLASS I
FUND NUMBER 59
1,256.86 FIDELITY INSTITUTIONAL MONEY MARKET $1.000 $1,256.86 $1,256.86 $53 4.22%
PORTFOLIO CLASS I
p FUND NUMBER 59
( I )
TOTAL MONEY MARKET $31,240.19 $31,240.19 $1,200 3.84%
® FIXED INCOME
GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS
50,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP $102.938 $51,469.00 $50,888.00 $2,875 5.59%
DTD 03/12/99 5.750 03/15/2009
CUSIP 3134A3EM4
50,000 FFED D HOME5LN MTG000R0P 6/15/2011 $105.844 $52,922.00 $50,765.00 $3,000 5.67%
CUSIP 3134A4FM1
50,000 FED HOME LN MTG CORP DTD 10/13/98 $101.031 $50,515.50 $49,497.50 $2,563 5.07%
5.125 10/15/2008
CUSIP 3134A2UJ5
INVESTMENT OBJECTIVE: This account is being managed with an objective that places emphasis on the
production of current income with some consideration for capital appreciation. If you feel that
circumstances warrant a change in this investment, please contact your account officer or
portfolio manager.
(I ) INDICATES THAT THE ASSET IS HELD IN THE INVESTED INCOME PORTFOLIO
—CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE—
TRS 26085(3-02-5 1859)
rLLS
PAGE 4
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
100,000 FED NAIL MTG ASSN $99.750 $99,750.00 $99,860.00 $4,375 4.39%
DTD 10/25/01 4.375 10/15/2006
CUSIP 31359MLH4
50,000 U S TREASURY INFLATION INDEX $126.695 $63,347.55 $61,149.39 $1 ,688 2.66%
DTD 01/15/97 3.375 01/15/2007
CUSIP 9128272M3
100,000 U S TREASURY INFLATION INDEX $122.359 $122,359.30 $110,637.21 $3,500 2.86%
DTD 01/15/01 3.500 01/15/2011
CUSIP 9128276R8
50,000 U S TREASURY SEC STRIPPED INT PMT $98.461 $49,230.50 $49,170.89 $2,287 4.65%
GENERIC TINT PMT DTD 01-01-86
0.0000 05/15/2006
CUSIP 912833FY1
200,000 U S TREASURY SEC STRIPPED INT PMT $94.252 $188,504.00 $187,466.80 $9,066 4.81%
GENERIC TINT PMT
0.0000 05/15/2007
CUSIP 912833GA2
50,000 U S TREASURY SEC STRIPPED INT PMT $79.745 $39,872.50 $37,673.09 $2,039 5.11%
GENERIC TINT PMT DTD 11-15-85
0.0000 05/15/2011
CUSIP 912833JW1
TOTAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS $717,970.35 ;b97,107.88 $31,393 k.37%
CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS
50,000 BOEING CAP CORP $105.362 $52,681.00 $49,602.50 $3,050 5.79%
DTD 03/08/01 6.100 03/01/2011
CUSIP 097014AD6
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
W LLS.!:
PAGE 5
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
50,000 CREDIT SUISSE FB USA INC $104.974 $52,487.00 $49,258.50 $3,063 5.84%
DTD 11/06/01 6.125 11/15/2011
CUSIP 22541LAB9
50,000 DONALDSON LUFKIN & JENRETTE INC $103.327 $51,663.50 $51,353.00 $3,250 6.29%
mmmmm DTD 06/08/98
6.5000 06/01/2008
CUSIP 257661AF5
50,000 FIRST DATA CORP $99.864 $49,932.00 $49,928.00 $2,350 4.71%
DTD 11/08/01 4.700 11/01/2006
CUSIP 319963AE4
50,000 GENERAL ELEC CAP CORP $100.145 $50,072.50 $49,871 .00 $2,500 4.99%
DTD 02/15/02 5.000 02/15/2007
o�
CUSIP 36962GXR0
50,000 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP $105.089 $52,544.50 $50,160.00 $3,325 6.33%
DTD 05/19/99 6.650 05/15/2009
CUSIP 38141GAA2
p 50,000 HSBC FINANCE CORP $107.317 $53,658.50 $50,560.00 $3,375 6.29%
DTD 05/09/01 6.750 05/15/2011
CUSIP 40429CAA0
50,000 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO $100.429 $50,214.50 $50,659.00 $2,813 5.60%
DTD 08/14/01 5.625 08/15/2006
CUSIP 46625HAL4
50,000 MERRILL LYNCH & CO DTD 02/17/99 $103.124 $51,562.00 $50,556.00 $3,000 5.82%
6.000 02/17/2009
CUSIP 590188JP4
50,000 MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC $103.789 $51,894.50 $51,355.00 $3,188 6.14%
DTD 10/28/98 6.375 10/15/2008
CUSIP 590188JK5
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
matig
PAGE 6
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
50,000 MORGAN ST DEAN WITTER $101.019 $50,509.50 $49,855.00 $2,900 5.74%
DTD 04/03/02 5.800-04/01/2007
CUSIP 617446HB8
50,000 NATIONSBANK CORP DTD 02/04/98 $102.973 $51,486.50 $51,000.00 $3,188 6.19%
6.3750 02/15/2008
CUSIP 638585BD0
50,000 TARGET CORP $100.366 $50, 183.00 $51 ,184.00 $2,975 5.93%
DTD 05/22/01 5.950 05/15/2006
CUSIP 87612EAE6
50,000 U S BANK NA $106.783 $53,391.50 $50,816.00 $3,188 5.97%
DTD 07/26/01 6.375 08/01/2011
CUSIP 90333WAA6
50,000 WACHOVIA CORPORATION $100.008 $50,004.00 $49,665.00 $2,475 4.95%
DTD 11/02/01 4.950 11/01/2006
CUSIP 929903AA0
TOTAL CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS $772,284.50 $755,823.00 $44,640 -6778$
TOTAL FIXED INCOME $1,490,254.85 $1,452,930.88 $76,033 5.10%
EQUITY
MATERIALS
300 COCOA INC $29.570 $8,871.00 $9,753.00 $180 2.03%
CUSIP 013817101
TOTAL MATERIALS $8,871.00 $9,753.00 ;180 2.03%
INDUSTRIALS
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
..WELLS..
'FARGO
PAGE 7
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
400 EMERSON ELECTRIC CO $74.700 $29,880.00 $22,211.00 $712 2.38%
CUSIP 291011104
1,000 GENERAL ELECTRIC CO $35.050 $35,050.00 $40,261.00 $1,000 2.85%
CUSIP 369604103
600 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP $55.910 $33,546.00 $21,326.00 $528 1.57%
........... CUSIP 913017109
TOTAL INDUSTRIALS 598,476.00 ;83,798.00 ;2,240 2.27$
..... TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES
600 AT & T INC $24.490 $14,694.00 $25,547.00 $798 5.43%
CUSIP 00206R102
600 VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS $30.120 $18,072.00 $32,182.00 $972 5.38%
CUSIP 92343V104
TOTAL TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES $32,766.00 557,729.00 $1,770 Via$
CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY
600 HOME DEPOT INC $40.480 $24,288.00 $29,428.00 $240 0.99%
CUSIP 437076102
800 TARGET CORP $54.970 $43,976.00 $29,353.00 $320 0.73%
CUSIP 87612E106
TOTAL CONSUMER DISCRETIONARY $b8,264.00 558,781.00 $5b0 O.82
CONSUMER STAPLES
500 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP $49.470 $24,735.00 $20,197.00 $230 0.93%
CUSIP 22160K105
N
A
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
r
i
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
f
A
ix,.
.�® r;M
PAGE 8
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
600 CVS CORP $26.420 $15,852.00 $10,861.00 $87 0.55%
CUSIP 126650100
400 KIMBERLY CLARK CORP COM $59.650 $23,860.00 $23,210.03 $720 3.02%
CUSIP 494368103
400 PEPSICO INC $59.080 $23,632.00 $18,226.00 $416 1.76%
CUSIP 713448108
350 WAL MART STORES INC $46.800 $16,380.00 $17,752.00 $210 1.28%
CUSIP 931142103
300 WALGREEN CO $44.260 $13,278.00 $10,359.00 $78 0.59%
CUSIP 931422109
TOTAL CONSUMER STAPLES $117,737.00 $100,b05.03 $1,741 -TITOI
ENERGY
600 CHEVRON CORP $56.770 $34,062.00 $27,188.00 $1,080 3.17%
CUSIP 166764100
300 ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC $61 .490 $18,447.00 $17,001.00 $667 3.62%
SPONSORED ADR REPSTG A SHS
CUSIP 780259206
TOTAL ENERGY $52,509.00 $44,189.00 $1,747 3.33%
FINANCIALS
500 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO $51.460 $25,730.00 $16,718.23 $240 0.93%
CUSIP 025816109
400 AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC $68.230 $27,292.00 $32,428.00 $240 0.88%
CUSIP 026874107
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
tWEIElS;
r tc o
PAGE 9
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
150 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC $127.710 $19, 156.50 $12,601.50 $150 0.78%
- CUSIP 38141G104
700 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO $39.690 $27,783.00 $29,481.00 $952 3.43%
CUSIP 46625H100
300 MORGAN STANLEY $56.740 $17,022.00 $14,538.00 $324 1.90%
COM
CUSIP 617446448
250 WACHOVIA CORP 2ND NEW $52.860 $13,215.00 $13,007.50 $510 3.86%
COM
CUSIP 929903102
500 WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC $43.500 $21,750.00 $16,990.00 $980 4.51%
CUSIP 939322103
TOTAL FINANCIALS $151,948.50 $135,764.23 $3,39b 2.23%
HEALTH CARE
325 AMGEN INC $78.860 $25,629.50 $19,638.00 $0 0.00%
CUSIP 031162100
350 JOHNSON & JOHNSON $60.100 $21,035.00 $18,751.00 $462 2.20%
CUSIP 478160104
450 MEDTRONIC INC $57.570 $25,906.50 $20,410.00 $173 0.67%
CUSIP 585055106
800 PFIZER INC $23.320 $18,656.00 $32,126.00 $768 4.12%
CUSIP 717081103
350 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC $51.480 $18,018.00 $11,766.88 $126 0.70%
CUSIP 74834L100
N
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
r
T
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
AEGO
PAGE 10
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
350 WYETH $46.070 $16,124.50 $15,669.01 $350 2.17%
COM
CUSIP 983024100
TOTAL HEALTH CARE $125,369.50 $118,360.89 $1,879 -1.50
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
400 AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC $45.900 $18,360.00 $20,252.00 $296 1.61%
CUSIP 053015103
900 CISCO SYSTEMS INC $17.120 $15,408.00 $15,858.32 $0 0.00%
CUSIP 17275R102
400 DELL INC $29.950 $11,980.00 $9,488.00 $0 0.00%
CUSIP 24702R101
1,800 E M C CORP MASS $13.620 $24,516.00 $33,783.00 $0 0.00%
CUSIP 268648102
900 INTEL CORP $24.960 $22,464.00 $26,827.00 $288 1 .28%
COMM
CUSIP 458140100
225 MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODS INC $36.240 $8, 154.00 $8,399.25 $113 1.39%
CUSIP 57772K101
800 MICROSOFT CORP $26.150 $20,920.00 $26,078.00 $288 1.38%
CUSIP 594918104
1,300 NOKIA CORPORATION - ADR $18.300 $23,790.00 $23,200.00 $472 1.98%
SPONSORED ADR
CUSIP 654902204
1,500 ORACLE CORPORATION $12.210 $18,315.00 $23,228.00 $0 0.00%
CUSIP 68389X105
TOTAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY $163,907.00 $187,113.57 $1,457 -07$9%
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
WEiii .
PAGE 11
INVESTMENT DETAIL PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INVESTMENT DETAIL
ESTIMATED CURRENT
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE MARKET VALUE COST VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
MUTUAL FUNDS: EQUITIES
300 (SHARES INC MSCI PACIFIC EX-JAPAN $98.670 $29,601.00 $29,835.00 $1, 109 3.75%
INDEX FD
CUSIP 464286665
875 ISHARES TR EAFE INDEX FUND $59.430 $52,001.25 $48,387.50 $971 1.87%
CUSIP 464287465
p 250 S & P EUROPE 350 INDEX FUND $80.770 $20, 192.50 $19,810.00 $0 0.00%
CLASS I SHS
CUSIP 464287861
TOTAL MUTUAL FUNDS: EQUITIES )101,794.75 $98,032.50 $2,080 %
TOTAL EQUITY $921,642.75 $894,126.22 $17,050 1.85%
.v
TOTAL SECURITIES PORTFOLIO $2,443,137.79 $2,378,297.29 $94,283 3.86%
Z
IRS 26085(3-02-51859)
L4 .adt,
G9
PAGE 12
PENDING TRADES SCHEDULE PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PENDING TRADES SCHEDULE
TRADE SETTLE ACCRUED DUE TO/FROM MONTH END
PAR VALUE/SHARES DESCRIPTION DATE DATE INTEREST BROKER MARKET VALUE
PENDING SALES
500- ORACLE CORPORATION 12/30/05 01/05/06 0.00 6,109.81 6,105.00-
PRICE: 12.270
COMM: 25.00 FEES: 0.19
CUSIP 68389X105
100- WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC 12/30/05 01/05/06 0.00 4,362.86 4,350.00-
PRICE: 43.680
COMM: 5.00 FEES: 0.14
CUSIP 939322103
TOTAL PENDING SALES 0.00 10,472.67 10,455.00—
NET PENDING TRADES 0.00 10,472.67 10,455.00—
�W.CJIljLA7.
I F 'ktt,GP.
}
PAGE 13
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
ASSETS PURCHASED
ISHARES INC MSCI PACIFIC EX-JAPAN 08/08/05 300.000 SHARES AT 99.4000 29,835.00-
CUSIP 464286665
TRADE DATE: 08/03/05
mamma SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $15.00
ISHARES S&P EUROPE 350 08/08/05 250.000 SHARES AT 79.1900 19,810.00-
p CUSIP 464287861
TRADE DATE: 08/03/05
SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $12.50
ISHARES TR EAFE INDEX FUND 08/08/05 875.000 SHARES AT 55.2500 48,387.50-
CUSIP 464287465
C TRADE DATE: 08/03/05
SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $43.75
EEEEE WACHOVIA CORP 2ND NEW 05/16/05 250.000 SHARES AT 51.9700 13,007.50-
p CUSIP 929903102
TRADE DATE: 05/11/05
SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $15.00
WYETH 07/01/05 350.000 SHARES AT 44.7086 15,669.01-
CUSIP 983024100
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $21.00
TOTAL PURCHASED 126,709.01-
N
G
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
;,'I LSD,
FARGO
PAGE 14
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
ASSETS SOLD/REDEEMED
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 07/01/05 100.000 SHARES AT 53.6600 1,381.77 5,359.77
CUSIP 025816109
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
MORGAN KEEGAN & CO.
COMMISSION: $6.00
OTHER FEES: $0.23
AMERIPRISE FINL INC 11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 39.3500 1,548.06 3,929.83
CUSIP 03076C106
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: 5.00
OTHER FEES: 0.17
ARTISAN FDS INC INTL FD #661 08/04/05 4,288.083 SHARES AT 23.0200 23,711.67 98,711.67
CUSIP 04314H204
TRADE DATE: 08/03/05
ASSOC CORP NA 6.000% 7/15/05 07/15/05 50,000.000 PAR VALUE AT 100.0000 1,328.50- 50,000.00
CUSIP 046003J 3
TRADE DATE: 07/15/05
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC 11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 47.2700 647.20- 4,721.80
CUSIP 053015103
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
BEAR. STEARNS SECURITIES CORP.
COMMISSION: $5.00
OTHER FEES: $0.20
BANK OF NEW YORK INC 05/16/05 500.000 SHARES AT 27.9600 6,936.59- 13,949.41
CUSIP 064057102
TRADE DATE: 05/11/05
SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $30.00
OTHER FEES: $0.59
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
WELLS;
EAR,Gd
,
PAGE 15
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
mmmmm
® BANK ONE ARIZ NA 6.000% 9/15/05 09/15/05 50,000.000 PAR VALUE AT 100.0000 1,545.00- 50,000.00
CUSIP 064208AA9
TRADE DATE: 09/15/05
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 49.4300 515.79 4,937.79
CUSIP 22160K105
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $5.00
p OTHER FEES: $0.21
mmomm
ERRR CVS CORP 07/01/05 200.000 SHARES AT 28.9528 1,833.31 5,778.31
CUSIP 126650100
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $12.00
C OTHER FEES: $0.25
11/21/05 200.000 SHARES AT 26.5600 1,563.78 5,301.78
CUSIP 126650100
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
p BRIDGE TRADING COMMPANY
COMMISSION: $10.00
OTHER FEES: $0.22
SUB-TOTAL 3,397.09 11,080.09
DELL INC 07/01/05 100.000 SHARES AT 39.4714 1,229.97 3,940.97
CUSIP 24702R101
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $6.00
OTHER FEES: $0.17
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
r
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
WEI6
PAGE 16
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 29.8900 272.87 2,983.87
CUSIP 24702R101
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $5.00
OTHER FEES: $0.13
SUB-TOTAL 1,502.84 6,924.84
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO 11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 71.8000 1,506.69 7,174.69
CUSIP 291011104
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
BEAR STEARNS SECURITIES CORP.
COMMISSION: $5.00
OTHER FEES: $0.31
MEDTRONIC INC 07/01/05 150.000 SHARES AT 53.2900 988.66 7,984.16
CUSIP 585055106
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
BERNSTEIN SANFORD C. & CO.
COMMISSION: $9.00
OTHER FEES: $0.34
11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 57.1700 1,049.26 5,711.76
CUSIP 585055106
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
MORGAN KEEGAN & CO.
COMMISSION: 5.00
OTHER FEES: 0.24
SUB-TOTAL 2,037.92 13,695.92
NOKIA CORPORATION - ADR 07/01/05 300.000 SHARES AT 16.8700 1,508.22- 5,042.78
CUSIP 654902204
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.
COMMISSION: $18.00
OTHER FEES: $0.22
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
yEI',IS:
FARGOj.
PAGE 17
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC 07/01/05 150.000 SHARES AT 53.5600 2,837.66 8,024.66
CUSIP 74834L100
TRADE DATE: 06/28/05
PRUDENTIAL EQUITY GROUP
COMMISSION: 9.00
OTHER FEES: 0.34
SCHLUMBERGER LTD ADR 03/09/05 150.000 SHARES AT 78.1600 4,355.61 11,716.11
CUSIP 806857108
TRADE DATE: 03/04/05
BNY BROKERAGE INC.
COMMISSION: $7.50
OTHER FEES: $0.39
SUNGARD DATA SYS INC 05/16/05 350.000 SHARES AT 33.6300 2,124.00 11,749.00
CUSIP 867363103
p TRADE DATE: 05/11/05
SPEAR LEEDS & KELLOGG
COMMISSION: $21.00
OTHER FEES: $0.50
mimmom
U S TREASURY SEC 5/15/06 03/22/05 50,000.000 PAR VALUE AT 96.1940 635.78 40,921.78
CUSIP 912833FY1
TRADE DATE: 03/21/05
G.X. CLARKE & CO.
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP 11/21/05 100.000 SHARES AT 53.4400 1,530.27 5,338.77
CUSIP 913017109
TRADE DATE: 11/16/05
CAP INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES INC
COMMISSION: $5.00
OTHER FEES: $0.23
TOTAL ASSETS SOLD/REDEEMED 35,119.64 353,278.91
O
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
PAGE 18
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ASSETS ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION SCHEDULE
DATE DESCRIPTION GAIN/LOSS AMOUNT
FREE RECEIPTS
AMERIPRISE FINL INC 10/03/05 RECEIVED 100 SHARES
DISTRIBUTION AT 0.2 SHARES OF
AMERIPRISE FINL INC
FOR 1 SHARE OF
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO
DUE 09/30/05
AT & T INC 11/21/05 NAMED CHANGED FROM SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 07/20/05 RECEIVED 1 SHARE FOR EACH
SHARE HELD OF ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO. - ADR
300 SHARES RECEIVED
TOTAL FREE RECEIPTS 0.00
FREE DELIVERY
ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO. - ADR 07/20/05 DELIVERED 300 SHARES FO R EACH S
HELD
SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC 11/21/05 NAME CHANGED TOAT & T INC
TOTAL FREE DELIVERY 0_00
'a C-
WELLS'
FAAGO:`
PAGE 19
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DIVIDENDS
BANK OF NEW YORK INC 03/25/05 REDEMPTION 25.00
500 SHARES/PAR VALUE OF
BANK OF NEW YORK INC
® PAYABLE AT $0.05 DUE 03/25/05
CASH RECEIPTS 10/28/05 REFUND OF FOREIGN TAX-DIVIDEND 92.58
TAX RCLM 0.308598 PER ADR 780257804 P/D 03/15/05
12/06/05 REFUND OF FOREIGN TAX-DIVIDEND 39.96
25% TAX RECLM 0.1332 OER ADR DUE 6/15/05 780257804
SUB-TOTAL 132.54
TOTAL DIVIDENDS 157.54
OTHER CASH RECEIPTS
mmomm
CASH RECEIPTS 01/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 4,129.39
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
02/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 6,448.84
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
03/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 6,267.65
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
04/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 13,619.84
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
05/16/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 9,930.45
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
N
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
MS 26085(3 02-51859)
trl
:4 ytt,C trir7
PAGE 20
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
06/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 3,698.22
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
07/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 3,764.61
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
08/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 6,764.97
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
09/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 6,759.72
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
10/17/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 6,218.09
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
11/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 9,351.23
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
12/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 3,897.29
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
SUB-TOTAL 80,850.30
TOTAL OTHER CASH RECEIPTS 80,850.30
EXPENDITURES FROM PRINCIPAL
PUGET SOUND ACCESS 01/05/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00-
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION-ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET-PER BUDGET APPROVED 12/04
PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION 02/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00-
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION-ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH- 12/04 BUDGET
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
. f
WELLS,
PAGE 21
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
03/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
111
04/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
.1444
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
44-4. 05/02/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
44-.4
06/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
07/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
EMMEN
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
mommm 08/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
p DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
09/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
10/03/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
11/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00—
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION—ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH— 12/04 BUDGET
O
—CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE—
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
0,wELLs;
PAGE 22
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
12/01/05 PAID TO: PUGET SOUND ACCESS 29,250.00-
DISCRETIONARY DISTRIBUTION-ACH
MO. OPER. BUDGET FOR CURRENT MONTH- 12/04 BUDGET
SUB-TOTAL 321,750.00-
KPMG LLP 08/25/05 ACCOUNTANT/LEGAL FEE 552.00-
TAX PREP FEE FORM 990 / TAX YR ENDING 05/31/05
TOTAL EXPENDITURES FROM PRINCIPAL 351,552.00-
FEES PAID FROM PRINCIPAL
WELLS FARGO BANK FEE 01/20/05 999.21-
02/22/05 986.20-
03/21/05 980.51-
04/20/05 967.62-
05/20/05 959.63-
06/20/05 964.11-
07/20/05 955.94-
08/22/05 952.97-
09/20/05 945.64-
10/20/05 937.31-
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
•FAiGOj:
PAGE 23
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
11/21/05 927.59-
•
12/20/05 928.15-
SUB-TOTAL 11,504.88-
TOTAL FEES PAID FROM PRINCIPAL 11,504.88-
e
CAPITAL CHANGES
CVS CORP 06/07/05 2 FOR 1 STOCK SPLIT
CUSIP 126650100
500 SHARES RECEIVED
STOCK SPLIT
�o QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC 06/21/05 2 FOR 1 STOCK SPLIT
CUSIP 74834L100
250 SHARES RECEIVED
STOCK SPLIT
p UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP 06/13/05 2 FOR 1 STOCK SPLIT
CUSIP 913017109
350 SHARES RECEIVED
STOCK SPLIT
TOTAL CAPITAL CHANGES 0.00
TAX ADJUSTMENTS
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $-496.06
OLD: $3,978.00 /NEW $3,481 .94
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
r
N
TRS 26085(3 02-51859)
MAD
PAGE 24
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $-466.38 _
OLD: $3,740.00 /NEW $3,273.62
10/04/05 SPIN OFF .
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $-475.61
OLD: $3,814.00 /NEW $3,338.39
10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $-943.72
OLD: $7,568.00 /NEW $6,624.28
AMERIPRISE FINL INC 10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $496.06
OLD: $0.00 /NEW $496.06
10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $466.38
OLD: $0.00 /NEW $466.38
10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $475.61
OLD: $0.00 /NEW $475.61
10/04/05 SPIN OFF
FEDERAL COST BASIS
ADJUSTED BY $943.72
OLD: $0.00 /NEW $943.72
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
FARGO'
PAGE 25
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
U S TREAS INFL IND 3.375% 1/15/07 01/18/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 5,941.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
01/18/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 5,941.00
CURRENT YEAR ACQ. PREMIUM OID
07/15/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 5,941.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
07/15/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 5,941.00
CURRENT YEAR ACQ. PREMIUM OID
12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 7,080.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128272M3
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 7,080.00
CURRENT YEAR ACQ. PREMIUM OID
U S TREAS INFL INDEX 3.500% 1/15/11 01/18/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 1,846.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
,
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
i
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
%W,ELT'3S
rFARGA
PAGE 26
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
01/18/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 1 ,846.00
CURRENT YEAR ACO. PREMIUM OID
07/15/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 1,846.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
07/15/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 1,846.00
CURRENT YEAR ACO. PREMIUM OID
12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 3,920.00-
CURRENT YEAR OID
12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 9128276R8
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 3,920.00
CURRENT YEAR ACO. PREMIUM OID
U S TREASURY SEC 5/15/06 03/22/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 912833FY1
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 949.47
CURRENT YEAR TAXABLE OID
03/22/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 912833FY1
FEDERAL BASIS DECREASED BY 7,175.38-
DISPOSITION OF ACCRETION
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
WE�,LS�
�•�'A1�G;0;�
•
PAGE 27
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
PRINCIPAL RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
aaaaa
12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 912833FY1
® FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 1,709.52
CURRENT YEAR TAXABLE OID
U S TREASURY SEC 5/15/07 12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 912833GA2
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 8,649.03
CURRENT YEAR TAXABLE OID
® U S TREASURY SEC 5/15/11 12/30/05 ACCRETED DISCOUNT
CUSIP 912833JW1
FEDERAL BASIS INCREASED BY 1,935.04
CURRENT YEAR TAXABLE OID
TOTAL TAX ADJUSTMENTS 0.00
c'
N -
A
TRS 26085(3-02-5 1 859)
E
c
4Y ILLS
� {{ 0.
rj�V4
PAGE 28
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
INTEREST
ASSOC CORP NA 6.000% 7/15/05 01/18/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
07/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,000.00
BANK ONE ARIZ NA 6.000% 9/15/05 03/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
09/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,000.00
BOEING CAP CORP 6.100% 3/01/11 03/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03050 1,525.00
09/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03050 1,525.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,050.00
CREDIT SUISSE FB USA 6. 125% 11/15/11 05/16/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03063 1,531.25
11/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03063 1,531.25
SUB-TOTAL 3,062.50
DONALDSON LUFKIN & 6.500% 6/01/08 06/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03250 1,625.00
12/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03250 1,625.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,250.00
FED HOME LN MTG CORP 5.125% 10/15/08 04/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02563 1,281.25
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
'ARG;O'
PAGE 29
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
10/17/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02563 1,281.25
SUB-TOTAL 2,562.50
FED HOME LN MTG CORP 5.750% 3/15/09 03/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02875 1,437.50
mmmmm
09/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02875 1,437.50
SUB-TOTAL 2,875.00
FED HOME LN MTG CORP 6.000% 6/15/11 06/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
® 12/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,000.00
FED NATL MTG ASSN 4.375% 10/15/06 04/15/05 INTEREST ON 100,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02188 2,187.50
10/17/05 INTEREST ON 100,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02188 2,187.50
SUB-TOTAL -4,375.00
ZNZZN
FIDELITY INST MM PTFLO CL I #59 01/03/05 INTEREST 131.39
INTEREST FROM 12/1/04 TO 12/31/04
01/03/05 INTEREST 4.01
INTEREST FROM 12/1/04 TO 12/31/04
02/01/05 INTEREST 103.91
INTEREST FROM 1/1/05 TO 1/31/05
02/01/05 INTEREST 2.51
INTEREST FROM 1/1/05 TO 1/31/05
C
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
.
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
{
WF3LLSf?
I+'ARG'tO�"
L
PAGE 30
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
03/01/05 INTEREST 51.67
INTEREST FROM 2/1/05 TO 2/28/05
03/01/05 INTEREST 5.68
INTEREST FROM 2/1/05 TO 2/28/05
04/01/05 INTEREST 59.48
INTEREST FROM 3/1/05 TO 3/31/05
04/01/05 INTEREST 11.03
INTEREST FROM 3/1/05 TO 3/31/05
05/02/05 INTEREST 85.83
INTEREST FROM 4/1/05 TO 4/30/05
05/02/05 INTEREST 12.13
INTEREST FROM 4/1/05 TO 4/30/05
06/01/05 INTEREST 68.99
INTEREST FROM 5/1/05 TO 5/31/05
06/01/05 INTEREST 7.60
INTEREST FROM 5/1/05 TO 5/31/05
07/01/05 INTEREST 24.51
INTEREST FROM 6/1/05 TO 6/30/05
07/01/05 INTEREST 5.99
INTEREST FROM 6/1/05 TO 6/30/05
08/01/05 INTEREST 85.69
INTEREST FROM 7/1/05 TO 7/31/05
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
'VRTELI'S
FAR C)
}
PAGE 31
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MEE
limmmmm
mmimmu 08/01/05 INTEREST 4.64
INTEREST FROM 7/1/05 TO 7/31/05
09/01/05 INTEREST 111.33
INTEREST FROM 8/1/05 TO 8/31/05
09/01/05 INTEREST 9.85
®_ INTEREST FROM 8/1/05 TO 8/31/05
10/03/05 INTEREST 96.20
INTEREST FROM 9/1/05 TO 9/30/05
10/03/05 INTEREST 8.92
INTEREST FROM 9/1/05 TO 9/30/05
11/01/05 INTEREST 106.41
INTEREST FROM 10/1/05 TO 10/31/05
11/01/05 INTEREST 6.93
INTEREST FROM 10/1/05 TO 10/31/05
12/01/05 INTEREST 75.20
INTEREST FROM 11/1/05 TO 11/30/05
12/01/05 INTEREST 9.54
INTEREST FROM 11/1/05 TO 11/30/05
SUB—TOTAL 1,089.44
FIRST DATA CORP 4.700% 11/01/06 05/02/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02350 1,175.00
11/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02350 1,175.00
SUB—TOTAL 2,350.00
N
G
N —CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE— -
rRs 26085(3-02-51859)
r
PAGE 32
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL ELEC CAP COR 5.000% 2/15/07 02/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02500 1,250.00
08/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02500 1,250.00
SUB-TOTAL 2,500.00
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP 6.650% 5/15/09 05/16/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03325 1,662.50
11/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03325 1,662.50
SUB-TOTAL 3,325.00
HSBC FINANCE CORP 6.750% 5/15/11 05/16/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03375 1,687.50
11/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03375 1,687.50
SUB-TOTAL 3,375.00.
JP MORGAN CHASE & CO 5.625% 8/15/06 02/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02813 1,406.25
08/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02813 1,406.25
SUB-TOTAL 2,812.50
MERRILL LYNCH & CO 6.000% 2/17/09 02/17/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
08/17/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03000 1,500.00
SUB-TOTAL 3,000.00
MERRILL LYNCH & CO 6.375% 10/15/08 04/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
10/17/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
SUB-TOTAL 3,187.50
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
METALS
'WORM
PAGE 33
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
MORGAN ST DEAN WITTE 5.800% 4/01/07 04/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02900 1,450.00
10/03/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02900 1,450.00
SUB-TOTAL 2,900.00
NATIONSBANK CORP 6.375% 2/15/08 02/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
08/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
SUB-TOTAL 3,187.50
TARGET CORP 5.950% 5/15/06 05/16/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02975 1,487.50
11/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02975 1,487.50
SUB-TOTAL 2,975.00
U S BANK NA 6.375% 8/01/11 02/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
08/01/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.03188 1,593.75
SUB-TOTAL 3,187.50
U S TREAS INFL IND 3.375% 1/15/07 01/18/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02034 1,016.88
07/15/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02072 1,035.86
SUB-TOTAL 2,052.74
U S TREAS INFL INDEX 3.500% 1/15/11 01/18/05 INTEREST ON 100,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.01920 1,919.93
07/15/05 INTEREST ON 100,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.01956 1,955.77
SUB-TOTAL 3,875.70
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
i
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
t.
F'ARRG)'
PAGE 34
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
U S TREASURY SEC 5/15/06 03/22/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE 7,175.38
50,000 PAR VALUE AT 96.19432 %
WACHOVIA CORPORATION 4.950% 11/01/06 05/02/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02475 1,237.50
11/O1/05 INTEREST ON 50,000.000 PAR VALUE RATE OF $0.02475 1,237.50
SUB-TOTAL 2,475.00
TOTAL INTEREST 77,643.26
DIVIDENDS
ALCOA INC 02/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 45.00
05/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 45.00
08/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 45.00
11/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 45.00
SUB-TOTAL 180.00
AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 02/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12000 72.00
05/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12000 72.00
08/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12000 60.00
11/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12000 60.00
SUB-TOTAL 264.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
fir'•.
+WALLS+
ti FARGO+`
PAGE 35
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC 03/18/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12500 50.00
06/17/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12500 50.00
09/16/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 60.00
Em▪ ma
12/16/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 60.00
SUB-TOTAL 220.00
AMERIPRISE FINL INC 11/18/05 DIVIDEND ON 100.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.11000 11.00
® AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING INC 01/03/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15500 77.50
04/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15500 77.50
07/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15500 77.50
10/03/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15500 77.50
SUB-TOTAL 310.00
BANK OF NEW YORK INC 02/03/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.20000 100.00
05/05/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.20000 100.00
SUB-TOTAL 200.00
CHEVRON CORP 06/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 270.00
09/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 270.00
12/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 270.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
,
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
Writ
'
PAGE 36
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
03/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.40000 240.00
SUB-TOTAL 1,050.00
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP 02/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 60.00
05/27/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.11500 69.00
08/26/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.11500 69.00
12/02/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.11500 69.00
SUB-TOTAL 267.00
CVS CORP 02/04/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.07250 36.25
05/02/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.07250 36.25
08/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.03625 29.00
11/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.03625 29.00
SUB-TOTAL 130.50
EMERSON ELECTRIC CO 03/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.41500 207.50
06/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.41500 207.50
09/09/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.41500 207.50
12/09/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.44500 222.50
SUB-TOTAL 845.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
WELLS
FARGO-.
PAGE 37
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 01/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 1,000.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 220.00
04/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 1,000.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 220.00
07/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 1,000.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 220.00
10/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 1,000.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 220.00
SUB-TOTAL 880.00
GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 02/24/05 DIVIDEND ON 150.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.25000 37.50
05/26/05 DIVIDEND ON 150.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.25000 37.50
08/25/05 DIVIDEND ON 150.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.25000 37.50
11/21/05 DIVIDEND ON 150.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.25000 37.50
SUB-TOTAL 150.00
HOME DEPOT INC 03/24/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 60.00
06/23/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 60.00
09/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 60.00
12/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 60.00
SUB-TOTAL 240.00
INTEL CORP 03/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 900.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 72.00
06/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 900.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 72.00
O
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
i rLLg
k CARGO;
PAGE 38
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
09/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 900.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 72.00
12/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 900.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 72.00
SUB-TOTAL 288.00
(SHARES INC MSCI PACIFIC EX-JAPAN 12/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $3.69837 1,109.51
ISHARES S&P EUROPE 350 12/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $1.87863 469.66
(SHARES TR EAFE INDEX FUND 12/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 875.000 SHARES RATE OF $1 .10969 970.98
JOHNSON & JOHNSON 03/08/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.28500 99.75
06/07/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.33000 115.50
09/13/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.33000 115.50
12/13/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.33000 115.50.
SUB-TOTAL 446.25
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO 01/31/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.34000 238.00
05/02/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.34000 238.00
08/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.34000 238.00
10/31/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.34000 238.00
SUB-TOTAL 952.00
KIMBERLY CLARK CORP COM 01/04/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.40000 160.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
WELLS.
DIEV1O'•
PAGE 39
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
04/04/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 180.00
07/05/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 180.00
10/04/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.45000 180.00
mmmmm
SUB-TOTAL 700.00
MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODS INC 03/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 225.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 22.50
06/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 225.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 22.50
08/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 225.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 22.50
11/29/05 DIVIDEND ON 225.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.12500 28.13
SUB-TOTAL 95.63
MEDTRONIC INC 01/28/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08375 58.63
04/29/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08375 58.63
07/29/05 DIVIDEND ON 550.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.09625 52.94
10/28/05 DIVIDEND ON 550.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.09625 52.94
SUB-TOTAL 223.14
MICROSOFT CORP 03/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
06/09/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
09/08/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
N
O
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
.
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
�'.w
6 at5.4k'E;. om'..�
PAGE 40
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
12/08/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
SUB-TOTAL 256.00
MORGAN STANLEY 01/31/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.27000 81.00
04/29/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.27000 81.00
07/29/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.27000 81.00
10/31/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.27000 81.00
SUB-TOTAL 324.00
NOKIA CORPORATION - ADR • 04/29/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 689.54
0.430963 ON 1,600 SHRS DUE 04/29/05
PEPSICO INC 01/03/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.23000 92.00
03/31/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.23000 92.00
06/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.26000 104.00
09/30/05 DIVIDEND ON 400.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.26000 104.00
SUB-TOTAL 392.00
PFIZER INC 03/08/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.19000 • 152.00 ,
06/07/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.19000 152.00
09/06/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.19000 152.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
ARG;O�'
PAGE 41
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
12/06/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.19000 152.00
SUB-TOTAL 608.00
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INC 01/26/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $0. 15000 37.50
04/20/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.18000 45.00
07/22/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.09000 31.50
® 10/19/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.09000 31.50
s
SUB-TOTAL 145.50
ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO. - ADR 01/13/05 REFUND OF FOREIGN TAX-DIVIDEND 73.82
780257804 25% TAX REFUND P-DATE 09/15/128
_ REFUND RATE OF 0.24730
03/15/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 397.93
1.32642 ON 300 SHRS DUE 03/15/05
06/15/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND - 177.28
0.59092 ON 300 SHRS DUE 06/15/05
SUB-TOTAL 649.03
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 09/15/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 166.14
0.5538 ON 300 SHRS DUE 09/15/05
12/15/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 166.68
0.5556 ON 300 SHRS DUE 12/15/05
SUB-TOTAL 332.82
O
-N -CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
IC• •fi,
MWELLS
AR9c
PAGE 42
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC 02/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.32250 193.50
05/02/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.32250 193.50
08/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.32250 193.50
11/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.32250 193.50
SUB-TOTAL 774.00
SCHLUMBERGER LTD ADR 01/07/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 28.13
0.1875 ON 150 SHRS DUE 01/07/05
TARGET CORP 03/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
06/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.08000 64.00
09/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 80.00
12/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 800.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.10000 80.00
SUB-TOTAL 288.00
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP 03/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.44000 154.00
06/10/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.44000 154.00
09/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 154.00
12/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 700.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.22000 154.00
SUB-TOTAL 616.00
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
l xXr .
- YM
.W;IEZLL5',
I�II'.F'i9RGOr
PAGE 43
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS 02/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.38500 231.00
05/02/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.40500 243.00
08/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.40500 243.00
11/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 600.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.40500 243.00
SUB-TOTAL 960.00
WACHOVIA CORP 2ND NEW 06/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.46000 115.00
09/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.51000 127.50
12/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 250.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.51000 127.50
SUB-TOTAL 370.00
WAL MART STORES INC 01/03/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.13000 45.50
04/04/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 52.50
06/06/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 52.50
09/06/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.15000 52.50
SUB-TOTAL 203.00
WALGREEN CO 03/14/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.05250 15.75
06/13/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.05250 15.75
09/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.06500 19.50
N
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
f!LtA
PAGE 44
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
12/12/05 DIVIDEND ON 300.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.06500 19.50
SUB-TOTAL 70.50
WASHINGTON MUTUAL INC 02/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.46000 230.00
05/13/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.47000 235.00
08/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.48000 240.00
11/15/05 DIVIDEND ON 500.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.49000 245.00
SUB-TOTAL 950.00
WYETH 09/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.23000 80.50
12/01/05 DIVIDEND ON 350.000 SHARES RATE OF $0.25000 87.50
SUB-TOTAL 168.00
CASH RECEIPTS 04/08/05 FOREIGN DIVIDEND 31.50
806857108 SCHLUMBERGER LTD ADR 0.2100 04/08/05
TOTAL DIVIDENDS 17,858.69
OTHER INCOME
CASH RECEIPTS 01/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
01/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
FARGOi
PAGE 45
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
02/14/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
02/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
03/14/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
EME 03/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
04/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
04/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
_ FEE RESERVE
05/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
p 05/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
06/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
06/20/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
07/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
.
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
: IIS.
FARGOI�
PAGE 46
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME RECEIVED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
07/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
08/15/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
08/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
09/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
09/19/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
10/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
10/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000:00
FEE RESERVE
11/14/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
11/18/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
12/13/05 TRANSFER FROM INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
12/19/05 TRANSFER FROM INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00
FEE RESERVE
SUB-TOTAL 48,000.00
TOTAL OTHER INCOME 48,000.00
tWELLS+'
1,:MAG.IO,
PAGE 47
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME DISBURSED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
EXPENSES PAID FROM INCOME
NOKIA CORPORATION - ADR 04/29/05 PAID TO: TAX WITHHOLDING 193.07-
FOREIGN TAX
28% W/H ON 1,600 SHRS
ROYAL DUTCH PETROLEUM CO. - ADR 03/15/05 PAID TO: TAX WITHHOLDING 99.48-
FOREIGN TAX
25% W/H ON 300 SHRS
06/15/05 PAID TO: TAX WITHHOLDING 44.32-
FOREIGN TAX
25% W/H ON 300 SHRS
SUB-TOTAL 143.80-
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL PLC 09/15/05 PAID TO: TAX WITHHOLDING 41.54-
FOREIGN TAX
25% W/H ON 300 SHRS
12/15/05 PAID TO: TAX WITHHOLDING 41.67-
FOREIGN TAX
25% WIN ON 300 SHRS
SUB-TOTAL 83.21-
CASH DISBURSEMENTS 01/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
01/18/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 4,129.39-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
01/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
O
Z
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
IRS 26085(3-02-5 1 859)
> s
Ci 24
PAGE 48
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME DISBURSED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
02/14/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
02/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 6,448.84-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
02/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
03/14/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
03/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 6,267.65-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
03/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
04/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
04/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 13,619.84-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
04/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
05/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
05/16/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 9,930.45-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
IWFL ,S
MAR°O°'
}},fi
PAGE 49
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME DISBURSED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
roWa
Immmimm
05/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
06/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
06/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 3,698.22-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
p 06/20/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
07/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
s
07/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 3,764.61-
_® INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
07/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
08/15/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
08/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 6,764.97-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
08/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
09/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
2 '
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
N
lT
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
47,46i4J81Y
`IARGD
PAGE 50
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME DISBURSED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
09/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 6,759.72-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
09/19/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
10/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
10/17/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 6,218.09-,
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
10/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
11/14/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
11/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 9,351.23-
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
11/18/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
•
12/13/05 TRANSFER TO INVESTED INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE •
12/15/05 TRANSFER TO PRINCIPAL 3,897.29- .
INC MM TO PRIN MM FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM PRINCIPAL
12/19/05 TRANSFER TO INCOME 2,000.00-
FEE RESERVE
SUB-TOTAL 128,850.30-
TOTAL EXPENSES PAID FROM INCOME 129,270.38-
-CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE-
tr f
1:WELLS
01fNxI.
PAGE 51
STATEMENT OF TRANSACTIONS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
INCOME DISBURSED
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
® FEES PAID FROM INCOME
Wagai WELLS FARGO BANK FEE - INC 01/20/05 999.21-
02/22/05 986.20-
mmmmm 03/21/05 980.50-
04/20/05 967.61-
p 05/20/05 959.62-
06/20/05 964.10-
07/20/05 955.93-
® 08/22/05 952.96-
_® 09/20/05 945.63-
10/20/05 937.30-
11/21/05
927.58-
12/20/05 928.15-
SUB-TOTAL 11,504.79-
TOTAL FEES PAID FROM INCOME 11,504.79-
N
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
WELLS.'Il `
w�` G YOUR STATEMENT AN EXPLANATION
Statements reflecting asset information,and the activity of Wells Fargo Diversification Summary:This page provides a summary of holdings by
accounts,are produced at regular intervals.Should you have any questions asset classification.
about the account after you have reviewed the statement,please call your Investment Detail:This section shows market price,market value,cost basis,
Relationship Manager,Administrator or Investment Manager.The names and estimated income and current yield for each asset held by the account.Cost
numbers appear on the first page of the statement. figures are believed to be accurate,but may not reflect all adjustments
In order to provide added clarity to the account statement,several of the required for preparation of federal and state tax returns.
pages are explained below. Estimated Annual Income:The cash return that would be received from an
Account Summary:The first page of the statement shows changes in the asset at today's rate of return if held for a year.Yield expresses the estimated
overall cash and investment status since the last statement. - annual income as a percentage of the market value of the asset.
Q Summary of Investment Holdings:
a concise recap of the value,cost, FOOTPrincipal or Income Received or Disbursed:
income and current yield of the K(0U"ttLOW. 10i0 "' I"" Included in the cash transactions are fees paid to
FOR IMF FIOg0 OAT I,1090 990.3h00 ,b 11,1001 KCOUM mum OOQ IS
account. ACCOUNrwMMARY Wells Fargo Bank and any payments made to third
'� ""A' �"A"A�MOOT '"l"fl,.,f parties,who may or may not be agents of the
Q Cash Receipts and Cash
„DIIIIISTIL.,o,,.NT WOO 1FI°I°°,.,.. bank. Cash is invested daily in interest bearing
Disbursements:the columns 0
YMRi VALUE
MIX U
W W Coil FSIIFC CONDO
oOp WNW *mown IMYl01[O MD
! MD
' ' " accounts or in money marketfunds..Money
summarize the activity of all cash �
,m'„ ' .05, ,,•,°; ' f00I market mutual funds are NOT FDIC Insured,are
transactions that have occurred l - COM a ° o�
• "°°OM R"393. 0W*0A0010fs dM °°" 0 OD(� NOT obligations of Wells Fargo Bank,are NOT
0
during the accounting period. an:slAllr• Imes l 01.1tl IOGOUa l fall. f 101 0A301
0 guaranteed by the Bank,and involve investment
• "®
Q Value Comparison:reflects asset s 1.»I,. R, k F I.FII„ risk,including possible loss of principal.
a aena O00 rem"ne efa Oem 1.17101
value and provides a quick way to °"'�"` Rm F�.1.eane haw Daegl 000
4,nF StlNM�w„tl 1}(000 N.Uom..h Item RrapY 000
4p91 ChnRn 000 F.Of hk Iran 00500. I1100
review the change in asset value °"Ca3A095.011
°°° �"e ha"nf a °`°
F.e,OFl0han OK01.e 000
TOTALCA9IRRRS i 411t11
TOTAL CA91"ItUIYr"IS f a110J1
since the last statement.Changes in O y aa,ls "e f111f»
value result from fluctuation in "'`^"'a„0I1„131F1Fa.re 01.1110•
MR 13.9•011aI1" f 110.59 market value,as well as inflows or ^-10^�CAW MICMAC CAM
fglnnlp(nOWnn f ow1 00
FMbp(Wane f OM 000
outflows of assets during the period
since the last statement.
This statement reflects the value of the assets of the account By calling our toll-free number 1-800-352-3705 you may obtain the
as of the date shown, as well as transactions which have Diversified Investment Fund Annual Report as well as information
occurred since the last statement. Included in this information on our Diversified Investment Funds showing historic trends and
is trustee compensation. prices.
VE LS`'a
; ARG:O"
Look for Your Easier-to-Read Statement Soon
We are redesigning your IM&T statement to include many improvements that you told us were
important to you. On the new statement, you' ll find it easier to locate the information
you want and you' ll also find more information about your account activity. Look for the
new statement soon. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact any member
of your relationship team listed on your statement.
z
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
• o
iL ..,
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD DECEMBER 1, 2005 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
•
MENZ RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ 2,550 0.10% $ 2,550
Money Market $ 28,690 1.17% 28,690 $ 1,200 4.18%
Fixed Income 1,490 255 61.00 1,452,931 76,030 5.10%
Equities 921 ;643 37.72% 894,126 17,050 1.85%
Real Estate 0 0.O0 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
s.. PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX.' DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,443,138 100.00% $ 2,378,297 $ 94,280 3.86%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
•
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
In Interest $ 3,209.74 Assets-Purchased/Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 4,310.29 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 928. 15- .
Other Cash Receipts 3,897.29 Expenses Paid from Income - 7,938.96-
Fees Paid from Income 928.15-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ • 15,417.32 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ • 39,045.26-
PARKEI VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,443, 137.79
Market Value as of last Statement 2,462,599.18
Change in Market Value $ 19,461.39-
.
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
r Beginning Cash Balance ,$ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 2,550. 15
T.
•
'1 Rs 26085(3 02 5 I 8S9) •
IN n
•
PAGE 1
•
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD NOVEMBER 1, 2005 THROUGH NOVEMBER 30, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
• ACCOUNT SUMMARY
NEMEM RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
ITITT INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
-�� MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 0 0.00% 0
Money Market $ 54,868 2.23% $ 54,868 $ 2,188 3.99%
Fixed Income 1,488,630 60.45% 1,440,637 75 977 5.10%
Equities 919,TO1 37.32% 894,T26 16,360 1.78%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 6 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,462,599 100.00% $ 2,389,631 $ 94,525 3.84%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
� CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
_
Interest $ 8,894.59 Assets Purchased/Acgiired $ 0.00
Dividends 892. 13 Income Paid to for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 40, 100.29 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 927.59-
Other Cash Receipts 9,351.23 Expenses Paid from Income 13,351.23-
Fees Paid from Income 927.58-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 63,238.24 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 44,456.40-
RARKEF VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,462,599. 18
Market Value as of last Statement 2,460,333.79
Change in Market Value $' 2,265.39
,.
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Cash Balance i 0.00 O.(tl
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 0.00
r.
1 Fr,.`(,(11ti(1 (1). ',1 F1',0)
;)ARGO;r:
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2005 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
____ RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
..... SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 0 0.00%
Money Market 36,086 1.47% 36,086 $ 1,389 3.85%
.111111
Fixed Income 1,488,640 60.51% 1,440,637 75,925 5. 10%
�' Equities 935,608 38.63% 926,887 16,283 1.74%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.130% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
.... C/0 KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,460,334 100.00% $ 2,403,610 $ 93,597 3.80%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
�_ KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
Interest $ 6,617.62 Assets Purchased Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 973.52 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 937.31-
Other Cash Receipts 6,218.09 Expenses Paid from Income 10,218.09-
Fees Paid from Income 937.30-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 17,809.23 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS
$ 41,342.70-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,460,333.79
Market Value as of last Statement 2,499,219.41
Change in Market Value $ 38,885.62-
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
beginning Lash balance 1 0.00 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
IRS 26085(3-02-51859)
• .}-A#G:O;
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD SEPTEMBER 1, 2005 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2005 • ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
.� RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
'EMI! INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ • 0 0.00 $ 59 0
Money Market $ 59,620 2.39% ,620 $ 2,209 3.71%
Fixed Income 1,498,051 59.94% T,440,637 75,871 5.06%
Equities 941,549 37.67% 926,887 16,030 1.70%
C Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
C PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,499,220 100.00% $ 2,427,144 $ 94,110 3.77%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 4,583.68 Assets Purchased/Acquired
Dividends $ 0.00
1,785..14 Income Paid to/fr Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00—
Assets Sold/Redeemed 50,000.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 945.64—
Other Cash Receipts 6,759.72 Expenses Paid from Income 10,801.26—
fees Paid from Income 945.63—
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 67,128.54 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 41,942.53-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,499,219.41
Market Value as of last Statement 2,532,544.45
Change in Market Value $ 33,325.04-
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Cash Balance 1 0.00 '0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
$"
VVEL1S.
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD AUGUST 1, 2005 THROUGH AUGUST 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
RRE RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
LIMME INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ 0 0.00 $ 0
Money Market $ 34,434 1.36% $ 34,431 $ 1,185 3.44%
Fixed Income 1,559,324 61.57% 1,492, 182 78,819 5.05e
® Equities 938,787 37.07% 926,887 16,002 1.70%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
'..... Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,532,545 100.00% $ 2,453,503 $ 96,006 3.79%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C •
p KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 7,434.08 Assets Purchased Acquired $ 98,032.50-
Dividends 1,177.50 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,802.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 98,711.67 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes . 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 952.97-
Other Cash Receipts 6,764.97 Expenses Paid from Income 10,764.97-
Fees Paid from Income 952.96-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 118,088.22 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 140,505.40-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,532,544.45
Market Value as of last Statement 2,561,851.21
Change in Market Value $ 29,306.76-
N
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
N Beginning Cash Balance 1 0.00 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
i
.WELL;S,.
PARGID,:
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1, 2005 THROUGH JULY 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
. RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
..... END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
..... SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ 0 0.00% $ 0
Money Market $ 56,851 2.22% $ 56,851 $ 1,853 3.26%
p Fixed Income 1,549,127 60.47% 1,492, 182 78,763 5.08%
�... Equities 955,874 37.31% 903,854 14,667 1.53%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,561,852 100.00% $ 2,452,887 $ 95,283 3.72%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 4,522. 13 Assets Purchased/Acquired $ 15,669.01-
Dividends 642.94 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 86,130.65 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 955.94-
Other Cash Receipts 3,764.61 Expenses Paid from Income 7,764.61-
Fees Paid from Income 955.93-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 99,060.33 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 54,595.49-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,561,851.21
Market Value as of last Statement 2,573,748.67
Change in Market Value $ 11,897.46-
N
n
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Cash Balance 1 0.00 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
T.
IRS 26085(3-02-51859)
IARGQ
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 2005 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
•
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ 0 0.00% $ 0
Money Market $ 12,386 0.4�6 12 386 $ 390 3.15%
Fixed Income 1,614,599 62.73% 1,543;5T1 81,713 5.06%
Equities 946,763 36.79% 917,553 15,242 1.61%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,573,748 100.00% $ 2,473,450 $ 97,345 3.78%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
Interest $ 3,201.59 Assets Purchased/Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 1,696.03 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 964.11-
Other Cash Receipts 3,698.22 Expenses Paid from Income 7,742.54-
Fees Paid from Income 964. 10-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 12,595.84 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 38,920.75-
•
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,573,748.67
Market Value as of last Statement 2,606,416.23
Change in Market Value $ 32,667.56-
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Cash Balance i 0.00 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
F�iRGO•
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD MAY 1, 2005 THROUGH MAY 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
. R RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 0 0.00% 0
® Money Market 38,711 1.49% 38,711 1,144 2.96%
C Fixed Income 1,615,051 61.96% 1,543,511 81,662 5.06%
I� Equities 952,654 36.55% 917,553 15,143 1.59%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,606,416 100.00% $ 2,499,775 $ 97,949 3.76%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS LASH DISBURSEMENTS
Interest $ 8,879.21 Assets Purchased/Acquired
Dividends $ 13,000.00-
1,269.25 Income Paid to or Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 E penditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 25,698.41 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 959.63-
Other Cash Receipts 9,930.45 Expenses Paid from Income 13,930.45-
Fees Paid from Income 959.62-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 49,777.32 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS
$ 58,107.20-
MARKE I VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,606,416.23
Market Value as of last Statement 2,588,514.12
Change in Market Value $ 17,902.11
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
beginning Cash Balance t 0.00 496.47
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
Tf1S 26085(3-02-5 1 85 9)
t, -
raLLS
E >tdfi.
•
•
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2005 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
iiiii RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
iggg INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash $ 496 0.02% 496
111M1111Money Market $ 46,544 1.80% $ 46,544 $ 1,286 2.76%
Fixed Income 1,610,529 62.22 1,543,511 81,607 5.07%
Equities 930,944 35.96% 935,056 15,081 1.62°+;
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,588,513 100.00% $ 2,525,607 $ 97,974 3.78%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
p KENT WA 98032-1904 .
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 6,583.01 Assets Purchased Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 1,435.67 Income Paid to for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
CapitaT Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 967.62-
Other Cash Receipts 13,619.84 Expenses Paid from Income 17,812.91-
Tees Paid from Income 967.61-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 25,638.52 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 48,998.14-
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,588,514.12
Market Value as of last Statement 2,620,458.39
Change in Market Value $ 31,944.27-
N
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
U Beginning Cash Balance $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 496.47
•
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
v
V.Vti.L.'
•
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 1, 2005 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
-
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
•
RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
EEEE. INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
�...... END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
.... Cash $ 0 0.00% $ 0
Money Market $ 70,401 2.69% $ 70,401 $ 1,774 2.52%
Fixed Income 1,600,485 61.08% 1,543,511 81,558 5. 10%
Equities 949,573 36.24% 935,056 14,950 1.57%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS t er ,
C/O KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,620,459 100.00% $ 2,548,968 $ 98,282 3.75%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
KENT WA 98032-1904
.� CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 11,695.23 Assets Purchased/Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends
1,716.43 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00—
Assets Sold/Redeemed 52,637.89 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 980.51—
Other Cash Receipts 6,267.65 Expenses Paid from Income 10,367.13—
Fees Paid from Income 980.50—
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 76,317.20 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS
$ 41,578.14—
MARKET VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,620,458.39
Market Value as of last Statement 2,672,031.42
Change in Market Value $ 51,573.03—
PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
beginning Cash Balance $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
WELLS.
FARGO
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2005 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
mmimmm
illiii RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 0 0.00% 0
Money Market 35,661 1.33% $ 35,661 $ 826 2.32%
Fixed Income 1,657,999 62.05% 1,590,023 83,707 5.05%
Equities 978,371 36.62% 942,417 T4,893 1.52%
Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS
C/O'KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,672,031 100.00% $ 2,568,101 $ 99,426 3.72%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C
p KENT WA 98032-1904
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
Interest $ 7,450.17 Assets Purchased Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 1,005.25 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 986.20-
Other Cash Receipts 6,448.84 Expenses Paid from Income 10,448.84-
Fees Paid from Income 986.20-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 18,904.26 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 41,671.24—
MARKET VALUE CHANGE.
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,672,031.42
Market Value as of last Statement 2,694 799.46
Change in Market Value $ 22,768.04-
' PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
tieglnning' Cash Balance $ 0.00 $ 0.00
Ending Cash Balance $ 0.00 $ 0.00
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
trt
- r:
FAr .1tGO
z
PAGE 1
ACCOUNT SUMMARY PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST •
FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1. 2005 THROUGH JANUARY 31. 2005 ACCOUNT NUMBER 11280200
ACCOUNT SUMMARY
WAIEN RELATIONSHIP MANAGER KATE THAYER 425-450-8074
INVESTMENT OFFICER TURNER BLUECHEL (206)292-3141
MARKET VALUE % OF COST ESTIMATED CURRENT
END OF PERIOD ACCOUNT VALUE ANNUAL INCOME YIELD
SUMMARY OF INVESTMENT HOLDINGS
Cash 0 0.00% $ 0
Money Market i 58,428 2.17% $ 58,428 $ 1,245 2.13g
p Fixed Income 1,671,297 62.02% -1,590,023 83,653 5.01g
Equities 965,074 35.81% 942,417 14,353 1.49%
p • Real Estate 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
Other 0 0.00% 0 0 0.00%
PUGET SOUND ACCESS •
C/0 KERI STOKSTAD, EX. DIRECTOR TOTALS $ 2,694,799 100.00% $ 2,590,868 $ 99,251 3.68%
22412 72ND AVE S BLDG C .
p KENT WA 98032-1904
.
CASH RECEIPTS CASH DISBURSEMENTS
p Interest $ 4,572.21 Assets Purchased Acquired $ 0.00
Dividends 1,112.08 Income Paid to/for Client 0.00-
Other Income 4,000.00 Expenditures from Principal 29,250.00-
Assets Sold/Redeemed 0.00 Withdrawals from Principal 0.00
Capital Changes 0.00 Fees Paid from Principal 999.21-
Other Cash receipts 4,129.39 Expenses Paid from Income 8, 129.39-
Fees Paid from Income 999.21-
TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS $ 13,813.68 TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $ 39,377.81-
RARKEI VALUE CHANGE
Market Value as of this Statement $ 2,694,799.46
Market Value as of last Statement 2,746,856.56
Change in Market Value $ 52.057.10-
z PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH •
beginning Cash Balance i 0.00 0.00
Ending Cash Balance 0.00 $ 0.00
n
TRS 26085(3-02-51859)
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
253.479.0200
uget Sou nc'
Access
Board of Directors
Meeting Minutes
2005
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
£r` � : �`: > ' t Board of Directors Meeting
Li
PugetSound ..
Minutes
Access
May 19, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Susan Kruller,
King Parker, Lorrie Rempher,
Also present: Keri Stokstad, Darcy Crane
Call to order— 3:36pm
A. Approval to excuse Greg Worthing & Mark Siegel from May meeting.
Parker moved to approve the December 2004 Minutes.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
Mark Siegel, Greg Worthing
A. Approval of December Minutes
Parker moved to approve the December 2004 Minutes.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
B. Approval of February Minutes
Cullen moved to approve the February 2005 Minutes
Seconded by Parker
Parker moved to amend February 2005 Minutes to strike Section C -
Personnel Policies
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
Vote —Approved unanimously
C. Approval of Financial Reports for February 2005
Kruller moved to approve the Financial Report for February 2005 and February
2005 Ledger.
Seconded by Siegel
Vote —Approved unanimously
B. Reports
Finance Committee - Iriarte stated he completed auditing the ledgers and
receipts for October 2004— February 2005 and complimented Darcy Crane and
Keri Stokstad on the organization of the files. He stated there were only very
minor issues that needed addressing.
Personnel Committee — Drake stated the personnel committee did not have a
quorum at the February 28th meeting. Those that did attend the meeting would be
making recommendations to the board.
C. Personnel Policies
Kruller moved to approve the Personnel Policy Summary Report dated February
28, 2005 with the inclusion of Item C from the February Board Meeting Minutes.
Seconded by Worthing
Rempher moved to amend motion to include full benefits prorated at 80%
for staff recognized as full time at 32 hours per week.
Seconded by Kruller
Vote —Approved unanimously
Siegel moved to amend motion to revise Reimbursement for Business
Calls on Personal Cellular Phones policy and approve PSA provide cellular
phones for business use for staff available for check out.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote — Approved unanimously
Vote —Approved unanimously
Adjournment— 5:09pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Director will research cellular phone plans and report back to Finance Committee
• Director will research audio issues with channel
• Director will provide web links to board on upcoming conferences in Oregon and
California
• Director will provide revised tables for benefits at 32 hours and 40 hours per
week.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Finance Committee will discuss retroactive cellular reimbursement at the April
committee meeting.
Minutes prepared by Ken Stokstad 3/17/05
Additions or corrections: keri@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
=ry� Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
Board of Directors Meeting
,( • gy^p�,,
CZ kit
Pu�getLYSound � . �:��.:. N. .:� .: :..�:. �
1 a Minutes
Access
July 21, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Don Franks, Frank Iriarte,
Susan Kruller, Lorrie Rempher, Mark Siegel
Also present: Keri Stokstad
Call to order— 3:31pm
A. Approval to excuse King Parker from July meeting.
Cullen moved to excuse King Parker from the July meeting.
Seconded by Kruller
Vote — Approved unanimously
B. Approval of May 2005 Minutes
Cullen moved to approve the May 2005 Minutes.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote — Approved unanimously
C. Approval of Financial Reports for May & June 2005
Iriarte moved to approve the Financial Reports & Ledgers for May & June 2005.
Seconded by Kruller
Vote —Approved unanimously
D. Reports
Marketing Committee — Drake explained that she is providing a rough draft for
the Annual Report and meeting with Don Franks to provide a the hired designer
and suggested contacting Big Fish for contract designers. Seigel stated the
designer should provide branding for all marketing materials and PSA should
provide that documentation to the member cities and local events. Rempher
emphasized funding should go towards solid print materials rather than
promotional items.
Finance Committee — Stokstad stated the finance committee met and
discussed space concerns and PSA benefits plans. Stokstad explained benefits
issues were tabled for the 2006 budget discussion.
Programming Committee — Kruller stated that Arnie Pelluer attended the
committee meeting and presented a plan for scheduling and series repeats.
Stokstad explained that programming is scheduled by categories and in blocks
of time. Child friendly programming is aired in primetime, afternoons and
mornings. Programming considered mild adult is aired in primetime and
repeated in late evening hours. Adult content is aired after 11pm. Kruller
followed up on PSA's content review process and a comparison with SCAN's
process. Stokstad explained the SCAN content review committee consists of
one producer representative, one SCAN representative and one appointed by
the two other members. Kruller discussed the option of forming the committee
based on expertise and experience. Kruller recommended an issue for the
marketing committee would be creating a communications plan for getting
information to the public when issues arise.
E. ACM Conference Report
Cullen reported on the ACM Conference and emphasized volunteering, education and
media literacy programs. He stated he was impressed with the Hometown Awards
Festival and the fact'they shortened the festival and had separate theatres for viewing.
Rempher added she focused on franchise issues and utilizing technology by allowing
more opportunities to promote the channel utilizing the I-NET and other media outlets.
Rempher discussed establishing a youth video camp with the City of Auburn.
Drake stated the City of Kent is involved with a youth leadership training program and
expressed an interest of having a youth leader placed on the PSA board as a non-
voting member.
F. King County
Drake stated that she and Stokstad met with Mike Alvine and Chris Jaramillo with King
County to discuss contributing funding to PSA. Drake explained that while the County
was interested in provided funds for PSA to allow unincorporated citizens there was a
bigger issue in that those members would be unable to view Channel 77. Kruller
stated the importance was a balance of what member cities have already contributed.
Drake stated that what the County could contribute is Channel 21. Rempher stated
having Channel 21 in unincorporated areas would not provide incentive for including
the County as those areas around Auburn will eventually become City of Auburn
Channel 21 areas. Stokstad explained King County would be meeting and deciding on
funding allocation in the near future. Siegel stated the importance would be a long
term commitment to PSA and that PSA should focus on its existing member cities first.
Rempher, Drake, Iriarte and Kruller voiced agreement. Stokstad provided letters from
producers with interest to have unincorporated residents utilizing the space.
Adjournment— 5:31 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Director will follow up on updates for website including board biographies.
• Director will follow up with Mark Siegel regarding a programmer utilizing SQL.
• Director will contact WATOA to follow up joined effort for regional conference
trade show
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Board will provide biographies for the website to Director.
• Board will provide suggestions to Programming Committee regarding Content
Review Committee representatives.
• Drake will follow up on the youth leadership board member and opening up
involvement to other youth boards in member cities.
Minutes prepared by Keri Stokstad 9/11/05
Additions or corrections: keri@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
.Kent WA 98032
R>. pugetsoundaccess.org.
h.4.° Board of Directors Meeting
•
•
•
•
Puget S.aund. Minutes
Access
Sept 15, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Don Franks, Susan Kruller,
King Parker
Also present: Keri Stokstad, Turner Bluchel, Kate Thayer
Introduced to the board — Production Facilitators Chris Miller& Derek Klein and Office
Coordinator Margie Barge.
Call to order— 3:36pm
A. Approval to excuse Frank Iriarte & Mark Seigel from September meeting.
Parker moved to excuse Frank Iriarte & Mark Seigel from the September
meeting.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
B. Approval of July 2005 Minutes
Cullen moved to approve the July 2005 Minutes.
Seconded by Kruller
Vote —Approved unanimously
C. Approval of Financial Reports for July & Aug 2005
Parker moved to approve the Financial Reports & Ledgers for July & Aug 2005.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
D. Wells Fargo Report—Turner Bluchel provided the quarterly report for the PSA
Foundation Account.
E. Reports
Programming Committee — Kruller stated she attended a meeting at SCAN
regarding...
Marketing Committee — Stokstad stated the brochures were ready to go for
quotes for printing & the Annual Report will incorporate 2005 and be ready in
January of 2006.
F. Board Recruitment
Adjournment— 5:21pm
• ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Director will follow up on merchant card processing and requiring deposits for
equipment usage.
• Director will follow up
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Marketing Committee will incorporate coordinated ACM NW Regional
Conference into tasks
Minutes prepared by Ken Stokstad 9/16/05
Additions or corrections: keri@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
) ,#b : ° . ` Board of Directors Meeting
'7 ..is`:.`,.v3'_'°��. ''`;.' >. a:,.�., :�3ii4`.c'�.�• ry .......wa.:.:.....r:.....:..<t...re..`.a.r�c.»,:d_,..».w:.:r...�, a .:a,,.°..-.s....... a ., .. vim• :.ear ....
Pt Sound uget Minutes
Access`
November 17, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Don Franks, Frank Iriarte,
Mark Siegel
Also present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge, Duanna Richards
Call to order— 3:29 pm
A. Approval to excuse King Parker and Susan Kruller from November meeting.
Cullen moved to excuse King Parker and Susan Kruller from the November
meeting.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote —Approved unanimously
B. Approval of September 2005 Minutes
Siegel moved to approve the October 2005 Minutes.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
C. Approval of Financial Reports for September and October 2005 and Ledger
Siegel moved to approve the Financial Reports & Ledgers for October 2005.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
D. Reports
Finance Committee — Iriarte stated the finance committee met on October 13th
and discussed the 2006 budget proposal. Iriarte explained that the committee
had adjourned pending additional statistics from Stokstad as to the proposed
increases. Stokstad prepared the information and the committee met again on
November 7. lriarte stated that the increases met with some further discussion
and with the exception of a few minor points were accepted by the board.
Marketing Committee —Siegel stated that the board members still need to be
more proactive in promoting PSA. Siegel announced that a video promoting
PSA has been completed and is being shown on various area cable stations.
Siegel stated that the printing of 5,000 of the tri-fold PSA informational
brochures needs to happen as soon as possible for use in the promotional
efforts. Drake showed that the brochure has been prepared for the final printing
stage.
Programming Committee — Stokstad explained that most of the activity taking
place was "housekeeping" duties that had been discussed with Drake and
Kruller.
E. Programming Policies and Procedures
Cullen moved to accept the proposed changes regarding programming to PSA
Policies and Procedures Handbook.
Seconded by Siegel
Vote — Approved Unanimously
F. ACM Conference Report
Stokstad stated that the Northwest Regional Board meeting is being held here on
Saturday, November 2005. Stokstad will be in attendance and will be given time to tell
the attendees about PSA.
G. Board of Director's positions:
Auburn: Duanna Richards was welcomed into the room and introduced to the board.
A copy of her application was distributed and board members shared about
themselves. Richards answered a few questions.
Cullen moved to nominate Duanna Richards for Auburn representative
Seconded by Iriarte
Burien: Drake announced the proposed nomination of Don Franks for this position.
Siegel moved to nominate Don Franks for Burien representative
Seconded by Cullen
Renton: Drake announced the proposed nomination of King Parker for this position.
Cullen moved to nominate King Parker for Renton representative
Seconded by Iriarte
Tukwila: Drake announced the proposed nomination of Frank Iriarte for this position.
Cullen moved to nominate Frank Iriarte for Tukwila representative
Seconded by Franks
Member at Large: Drake announced the proposed nomination of Susan Kruller for this
position.
Siegel moved to nominate Susan Kruller for At-Large representative
Seconded by Cullen
Officers:
Cullen moved to nominate Dea Drake for President
Seconded by Iriarte
Siegel moved to nominate King Parker for Vice President
Seconded by Iriarte
Siegel moved to nominate Susan Kruller for Secretary
Seconded by Cullen
Cullen moved to nominate Frank Iriarte for Treasurer
Seconded by Drake
Drake closed the nominations. The vote will take place at the Annual Meeting on
December 8th
H. PSA Budget 2006
Stokstad provided additional information on the budget for 2006. Drake stated the
board will revisit the budget mid-year 2006.
Cullen moved to approve the PSA Budget for 2006
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote —Approved Unanimously
I. - The 2005 Annual Board Meeting combined with a Holiday Party for PSA Producers
and staff was voted on and approved. It will take place on December 8th from 5:00 pm
until 8:00 pm.
Adjournment— 5:20 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Stokstad will gather information regarding liability issues for PSA when an
incident takes place in our space involving producers.
• Stokstad and staff will plan and order the food and necessary supplies for the
December 8th meeting/party.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Drake will determine the price quote for the City of Kent to print brochures.
• Board will hold a retreat/strategy meeting the third week in January in lieu of a
regular board meeting.
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge & Keri Stokstad on 12/05/2005
Additions or corrections: Margieb@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
ff ti y •
Board of Directors Meeting
5
" `'.:aT _ds i;_.;s' "-.G,. t .:A •a .. a+.r _.cr-�n•,e .+ ts:. s..u.s�. ...-..-.. -. ..a-;�umtsa,M. -..:^u ssa +r,.a-,a..ti+cw
PugetaSound Minutes
Access'
December 8, 2005
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Don Franks, Frank Iriarte,
Susan Kruller, Duanna Richards
Also present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order— 6:11 pm
A. Approval to excuse King Parker from December meeting.
Kruller moved to excuse King Parker from the December meeting.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote —Approved.unanimously
B. Approval of November 2005 Minutes
Iriarte moved to accept the November minutes.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
C. Board of Director's positions:
Auburn: Duanna Richards is the nominee for this position.
Burien: Don Franks is the nominee for this position.
Renton: King Parker is the nominee for this position.
Tukwila: Frank Iriarte is the nominee for this position.
Member at Large: Susan Kruller is the nominee for this position.
Drake asked if there were any additional nominees for the positions.
Kruller brought up an error that had gone unnoticed in the November minutes. The
Nomination for Tukwila was listed with Mark Siegel and should be corrected to name
Frank Iriarte.
Iriarte moved to make the necessary correction.
Seconded by Cullen
The subject returned to the Board of Director's positions.
Drake closed the nominations.
Cullen moved that all positions be accepted as listed.
Seconded by Iriarte.
Officers:
Dea Drake is the nominee for President
King Parker is the nominee for Vice President
Susan Kruller is the nominee for Secretary
Frank Iriarte is the nominee for Treasurer
Drake asked if there were any additional nominees for Officers.
Drake closed the nominations.
Kruller moved that all positions be accepted as listed.
Seconded by Cullen
D. For the good of the order:
Drake distributed thank you gifts to the board members in appreciation for their service
during 2005.
Drake recognized Cullen as the only member of the board to have perfect attendance
at the board meetings.
Drake presented Stokstad with a thank you gift for all of her work during the year.
Kruller moved to adjourn the meeting.
Seconded by Cullen
Adjournment— 6:23 pm
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on 12/09/2005
Additions or corrections: Margieb@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
iiiss°6..11/"*\"414144
253.479.0200
Puget Sound
Access CTIY OF RENTON
JUL 3 1 2006
RECEIVED
CI'T`!CLERK'S OFFICE
Board of Directors
Meeting Minutes
Jan 1 - July 31, 2006
Monthly Summary Statement
Of Balance in
Foundation Trust Account
Jan 1 - June 30, 2006
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
Board of Directors Meeting
u enou nd'
9 Minutes
Access
January 19, 2006
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Mark Siegel,
Susan Kruller and King Parker
Also Present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order— 3:31 pm
A. Approval to excuse Don Franks and Duanna Richards from the January 2006
meeting.
Cullen moved to excuse Don Franks and Duanna Richards from the meeting.
Seconded by Parker
Vote — Approved unanimously
B. Approval of November 2005 and December 2005 Financial Reports.
Several items were questioned, discussed, and explained to the satisfaction of the
board.
Iriarte moved to approve the November 2005 and December 2005 Financial
Reports.
Seconded by Kruller
Vote — Approved unanimously
C. Approval of the December 2005 Minutes.
Cullen moved to approve the December 2005 Minutes.
Seconded by Kruller
Parker stated that Mark Seigel should be included as an excused absence.
Parker moved to modify the December 2005 minutes to included Mark
Seigel as an approved absence.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote- Approved unanimously
Vote for December 2005 Minutes — Approved unanimously
C. Reports
Finance Committee — Iriarte stated PSA implemented a new approval system
for payroll. He expressed the need for a back-up person to approve payroll in
the event that he is not available to do so. It was stated that Drake would be
that person. Iriarte expressed a concern that the new payroll approval system
sent to his office email created limitations for him when he was not physically in
his office. Stokstad has designed a new location to approve payroll that is now
on the Board of Directors website. Iriarte stated that having the approval
function on the Board site should be much better.
Marketing Committee—Drake presented a "draft" copy of the PSA brochure.
Members of the Board made suggestions as to things that they would fix and
modify before the final product was run. Drake stated that the brochures would
be run on a heavier paper stock and that the first run should be approximately
5,000 copies so that this information about PSA could "flood the community".
Drake estimated delivery of the first run of brochures to be in two weeks.
Programming Committee— Kruller stated that a few changes have been
made to programming. The category once called Government is now called
Civic. Drake and Kruller stated that there were several times that they tuned to
the channel and discovered a blank screen. Stokstad stated that during the
first week of January the staff updated the video server software, which may
have contributed to the issue and that Russell Edwards was aware of the
problem. Stokstad stated that the staff installed several monitors in the building
to help with quality control for the channel. Stokstad stated that there should be
fewer problems but, when one comes up, a log is kept of all such occurrences
and corrections are made when possible. Stokstad requested the Board to call
PSA with issues arise with the time of the occurrence when possible.
D. SCAN Policy Update — Stokstad stated that there have been changes made in the
SCAN policies regarding the definition of what is considered obscenity and therefore
not appropriate for cablecast on their channel. Parker stated that PSA should have
copies of the PSA Channel 77 policies available for community outreach. Parker
stated it would be helpful to have this information to affirm PSA's stance on
programming.
E. Board vacancies— Drake requested information on board vacancies. Stokstad
stated that there are four vacancies on the Board at present. The vacancies are the
City of Kent, Producer Representative, and two "At Large" positions. Kruller stated
that along with others, PSA should try to recruit from business development
professionals, law professionals, and performing arts professors. Drake stated that the
board should think about possible nominations to the board and discuss them further
at the Board members upcoming retreat. Drake asked that everyone keep in mind the
goal for PSA to move towards being more financially independent.
F. Board retreat: Drake stated that the purpose of the retreat was to focus on 2006
and beyond. A discussion took place about time, day, and location. The retreat
was scheduled for:
Friday
2/24/06
•
5-9 pm
RETREAT at PSA
G. ACM NW Region Conference Planning —Stokstad went over the information that
•
was handed out at the meeting. Stokstad stated that there is still work to be done on
possible conference dates, locations, and subject matter of the presentations made.
Drake requested that there be a meeting scheduled to help Stokstad with the
conference planning. Drake, Kruller, Stokstad, Siegel, Cullen, and possibly
Franks will attend the planning meeting scheduled as follows:
Tuesday
01/31/2006
5:30 pm
CONFERENCE PLANNING MEETING
H. PSA website information — Iriarte requested Stokstad look over the information on
the Board website to ensure it is updated regularly.
Adjournment— 5:03 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Distribute copies of the Director's report that was missing at this meeting.
• Update the information on the Board of Director's website to include Board
retreat materials.
• Continue to gather information for the ACM Conference being planned.
• Stokstad to provide a breakdown of revenue to the Finance Committee.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Drake to continue working on the brochure and have a final version for printing
in approximately two weeks.
• Entire Board to attend the planned Retreat.
• Committee members to attend the Conference Planning meeting.
• Siegel will research financial sponsors for the ACM Regional Conference.
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on 01/20/2006
Additions or corrections: Margieb@pugetsoundaccess.org
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
Board of Directors Meeting
uget A • - : Minutes
Acces
March 16, 2006
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Mark Siegel,
Duanna Richards, Don Franks(arrived at 3:50pm)
Also Present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order — 3:31 pm
A. Approval to excuse Susan Kruller, Don Franks and King Parker from March 2006
meeting.
Cullen moved to excuse Kruller, Franks and Parker from the meeting.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote — Approved unanimously
B. Approval of Financial Reports for January and February 2006
Richards moved to approve the Financial Reports for January and February of
2006.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
C. Director's Report
Stokstad presented the Director's Report for the board.
D. Reports
Finance Committee — Iriarte stated the finance committee was now using a
new process by which to approve the payroll. The payroll data is posted on the
board website and Iriarte can get to the data anywhere he has access to a
computer, print it out, sign it as approved, and FAX it to the Office Coordinator
He feels that the new process is working well.
Marketing Committee —Siegel stated that the new brochures are a good start
at our efforts to market PSA. He wants research to be done to find out if we can
insert our brochures into member city's mailings and if we do so, can it be done
at no charge to PSA. Siegel is going to contact various board members to
gather information about the possible mail opportunities in their city.
Programming Committee — Kruller was not present at the meeting and,
therefore, no report was given.
E. PSA 2006 Capital Budget
Stokstad presented an Excel spreadsheet showing a need to redistribute the
approved funds from the originally listed equipment to a revised list. Stokstad
informed the board that due to some problems with our current equipment, the
list needed to be revised due to changing priorities that could not have been
anticipated when the list was created. The question was then posed whether
the Capital Budget should be approved requiring each line item to remain
specific or should it be approved at a total dollar amount allowing the items to
be altered according to need.
Siegel offered the names and phone numbers of two contacts of persons that
are very experienced in this industry and that live in Auburn who would possibly
be able to volunteer some time to do some equipment evaluation for PSA.
Iriarte moved to approve Capital Budget as a dollar amount of $14,400.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote- Unanimously approved.
F. PSA Board Retreat
Drake shared more about the conference strategic planner, Rosie Baker.
Drake requested that all members of the board reply to the planning questions
posed by Baker for the purpose of meeting development. Siegel asked if the
$3.600 fee that PSA is going to have to pay Baker was a line item in the 2006
PSA Budget. Stokstad informed the board that the fee would be paid under the
line item titled Board Development which has an amount of $5,000.
G. ACMNW 2006 Conference Planning
Stokstad presented a packet of information regarding the conference hosted at
PSA on June 2 and 3. Much discussion took place of discussion topics and
ways to organize the flow of the conference days. It was decided that more
planning would take place immediately following the upcoming Committee
Meetings
COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Thursday,April 13,2006
Location: PSA Conference Room
3:00 pm
(ACM NW Region Conference Planning
to take place immediately following the Committee Meetings)
BOARD RETREAT
Thursday, April 20th
Noon*—8pm
PSA Conference Room
*Please eat lunch before arriving.
Afternoon munchies and dinner will be provided by PSA.
Adjournment—5:40 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Place phone calls to the two contact names of persons provided by Siegel
(Jensen /Jonas) and ask if they may be able to volunteer some time to come
into PSA and evaluate our equipment.
• Continue with the ACM NW Region Conference Planning.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Check the possibility of the PSA brochure being inserted in city mailings.
• Send any questions that you feel would help in planning the ACM NW Region
Conference to Drake.
• Reply to the meeting development questions posed by Rosie Baker.
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on 03/20/2006
Additions or corrections: MargiebPpugetsoundaccess.org
a 22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsou ndaccess.org
Board of Directors Meeting
Minutes
Access
May 18, 2006
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Don Franks,
and Susan Kruller.
Also Present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order— 3:42 pm
A. Approval to excuse King Parker and Susan Kruller from the May 2006 meeting.
Iriarte moved to excuse Parker and Kruller from the meeting.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
B. Approval of March 2006 Minutes
Iriarte moved to approve the Minutes
Seconded by Franks
Vote — Approved unanimously
C. Approval of March 2006 and April 2006 Financial Reports.
Several items were questioned, discussed, and explained to the satisfaction of the
board.
Cullen moved to approve the March 2006 and April 2006 Financial Reports.
Seconded by Richards
Vote — Approved unanimously
D. Director's Report
Stokstad shared information about PSA programming.
E. Reports
Finance Committee — Iriarte stated the he performed the audit of PSA financial
documents for the months of January, February, and March 2006. He found
everything in order and there were no irregularities or questions. He gave
compliments to Margie Barge for a job well done. Iriarte commented that all of
the supporting documents were presented to him in the order that they
appeared on each ledger and that allowed the audit process to be completed
with a very efficient use of his time. Barge presented a proposed change in the
approval process currently in place for the second approval requirement on any
checks that exceed $1,000. Barge asked to have Drake sign an approval letter
to allow the lease check, the group insurance check and the payment for the
power bill to be paid monthly without having each and every one approved. If
any one of them would go over the limits mentioned on the letter, then they
would need to have an explanation of the reason for the increased amount and
then receive a secondary approval signature. Drake stated that the change
should be put to a vote, since it would vary what the Board of Directors had
originally set.
Richards moved to approve the letter signed by Drake to be the current
authorization for checks covering the PSA lease, group insurance, and the gas
and electric bill up to the maximum limits listed in the letter.
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote —Approved unanimously
Marketing Committee —ACM Report-Stokstad provided a check list of all of the
steps in the process of getting ready for the June ACM Northwest Region
Conference that have been completed and the ones that still need to happen.
Stokstad stated that at this point there are only 4 official registered attendees
and approximately 25 verbal commitments. Stokstad stated that there is a
growing list of vendors as well. Stokstad asked for board members to volunteer.
Drake and Richards said that they would be willing to help with the last minute
registration process. Stokstad asked that each board member place follow up
calls to the Mayor and Council Members of their prospective city to personally
invite them to attend the conference. Stokstad also asked for each board
member to do what they could to collect items for approximately 100 "goodie
bags" to be given to attendees as well as larger items that could be part of a
raffle. Stokstad and Richards shared information about Gallucci Catering and
what food would be provided at the Conference. Stokstad stated that there will
be a need for more tables and chairs in the PSA building. Drake will check to
see if the tables and chairs can be borrowed from the City of Kent.
Stokstad shared that PSA sent off nine entries to the Best of the Northwest
contest. There is no news of winners as of yet.
Drake stated that she was contacted to set up a time for the PSA and SCAN
board members to socialize. It was decided that the conference time in June
was just going to be too busy and that a get together will be planned for the late
summer or early fall.
Programming Committee— Kruller stated that there would be no report at this
meeting but that she wished to discuss Imported Programming at the next
committee level meeting.
Retreat Follow-up — Drake delayed the Board Retreat discussion until the next
Committee meetings to take place after the ACM Conference.
HVAC Information — Stokstad provided copies of several bids for needed
improvements to the heating and air conditioning system at PSA. Some
discussion took place regarding the bids and it was suggested that Stokstad be
given authorization to move forward with the work.
Kruller moved to empower Stokstad to select the company and move forward
with the HVAC improvements up to a maximum limit of$18,000.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
ACM National Conference in Boston — Stokstad stated that the list of names for the
Boston trip was probably going to have to be reduced due to budget constraints.
Currently the names on the list are as follows: Stokstad, Drake, Edwards, Sams,
Iriarte, Kruller, Richards, and Cullen. Richards withdrew her name from the trip list.
Cullen will be an alternate. Iriarte stated he would follow up with the City of Tukwila on
help covering his expenses. Stokstad was asked to come up with a list of what
expenses would need to be paid for what people to see how many we could afford to
send and still be within the $7,000 budget.
Adjournment— 5:43 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Select a company and schedule the HVAC improvements (up to $18,000)
• Develop a list of who can.go to Boston and what expenses can be paid by PSA
with the budget of$7,000.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Place a call to the Mayor of your city to invite to the ACMNW Conference
• Place calls to City Council members to invite to the ACMNW Conference
• Iriarte follow up with the City of Tukwila on help covering his expenses on the
ACM National Conference in Boston
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on 05-22-2006
Additions or corrections: MargiebCa pugetsoundaccess.orq
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsou ndaccess.org
Board of Directors Committees Meeting
Puget Soun Minutes
Access
June 8, 2006
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Don Franks, Susan Kruller, King
Parker, Duanna Richards
Also Present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order— 3:40 pm
At the request of Drake, this was a less formal meeting of all of the committees combined
into one group with a focus on the sharing of what was learned by board members at the
various sessions of the ACM Northwest Region Conference held in the PSA facility on
June 2nd and 31d
Frank Iriarte and Mark Siegel did not attend this June 2006 meeting.
Programming — Drake introduced PSA Channel Operations Manager, Russell Edwards.
Edwards shared information about PSA show content that concerns references to
websites, phone numbers, and some footage that may not have been signed off with a
release document. Discussion took place and a suggestion was made that PSA needs to
change and clarify some of the wording in the Policies and Procedures Handbook that is
given to PSA producers. This subject matter will be revisited at the next meeting of the
Programming Committee. Between now and the next committee meeting, PSA staff will
be requested to contribute language proposals to insert into the Policies and Procedures
Handbook to describe what PSA determines is permitted show content and the board will
be shown more of Edward's information upon which to base their input.
National Conference Travel to Boston — Stokstad announced that the $6,000 budget
thought available for travel was discovered to actually be $5,000. Iriarte has withdrawn
himself from the travelers list which brought the list of expenses down to $4,766. A vote
was taken and the $4,766 for the Boston Conference for Drake, Kruller, Stokstad,
Edwards, and Sams to attend was approved by those present.
Stokstad announced that PSA will be closed to the public during the first week of July for
routine maintenance and reorganization to take place.
Drake and Kruller suggested that consideration be given to a change in the time for all
future board meetings. The board was requested to email Drake with times that would
work for each of their schedules and the subject will be revisited at a future meeting.
Follow up to ACM Northwest Region Conference— Drake shared a list of items shared
with her by Email from the board and from the PSA staff as to what they learned from the
conference. Drake requested input on what the number one focus of the PSA board
should be once considering the information shared at the various conference sessions.
The list to consider was:
• Grow business
• Financially self sustaining
• Strategic alliances
• Programming quality
• Board expertise
The members present determined that the number one goal should be to become
financially self sustaining. A very informal discussion took place of Who? Total BOD and
Executive Director along with Colleen Gillespie, who was a presenter at the Conference
and who will consult with PSA at no charge and of What? $100,000 to be raised the first
year to be increased each successive year.
Drake will form a committee to create the structure by which the goal of PSA becoming
financially self sustaining can be accomplished. In addition, the first hour of each future
board meeting will be devoted to the subject of that goal.
Adjournment—5:07 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Inventory of PSA assets.
• Language input for Policies and Procedures Handbook regarding allowable PSA
show content.
• Post minutes, financial reports and any other documents to be considered at the
board meeting to the board website prior to each meeting to enable the board
members to view them all ahead of time and therefore quickly approve them upon
arriving at the monthly meeting.
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Form a committee whose purpose it will be to structure a plan whereby PSA will
become financially self sustaining.
• Collect input from board members and come up with a suggested list for future
board meeting times.
• View all meeting materials on the board website prior to arriving at board meetings,
therefore, allowing the first hour of each meeting to be focused on the goal of PSA
becoming financially self sustaining.
• Make contributions of language to insert in the Policies and Procedures Handbook
regarding allowable PSA show content.
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on 06/20/2006
Additions or corrections: MargiebApugetsoundaccess.orq
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
Board of Directors Meeting
Puget Soun Minutes
Access
July 20, 2006
PSA Board Members Present: Doug Cullen, Dea Drake, Frank Iriarte, Susan Kruller, King
Parker
Also Present: Keri Stokstad, Margie Barge
Call to order— 3:36 pm
The approval of the absences, prior minutes and financial reports was delayed until a
quorum of board members was present. Board member Kruller informed the board that
she would be in attendance, but would be arriving late for this meeting.
A. Board meeting times and days-
Drake addressed the subject of new meeting times for board meetings. Drake stated that
Parker, Siegel, Kruller, and Franks have a problem making it to the board meetings at
their currently scheduled times. Drake asked the board to consider meetings in the early
mornings or in the evenings and to let her know by email what days and times would work
the best. Drake will take note of the board responses and revisit this subject at a later
meeting.
B. Director's Report-
Stokstad handed out a written report and also asked the board members to please inform
her if they become aware of any city event that PSA should cover.
C. Approval to excuse Franks, Siegel and Richards from July 2006 meeting.
Cullen moved to excuse Franks, Siegel and Richards from the meeting
Seconded by Iriarte
Vote — Approved unanimously
D. Approval of May 2006 Minutes
Parker moved to approve the May Minutes.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
E. Approval of Financial Reports for the months of May and June 2006.
Iriarte moved to approve the May and June Financial Reports.
Seconded by Cullen
Vote — Approved unanimously
King requested Stokstad provide to the board the "percent of budget spent" report with
the ending balance of the Foundation Account. Drake requested to include the business
checking and business market rate monthly balances to the ledger and the front page of
the Foundation Account reports provided by Wells Fargo. Stokstad stated that a
comprehensive packet will be provided to the finance committee and a snapshot will be
provided to the Board at the regular Board meetings. She is working with PSA's
Bookkeeper Terri Cunningham to create a schedule for reports that Margie will follow to
provide reports on a regular basis. The reports will be consistent and posted to the Board
website on a specific date.
Stokstad discussed the HVAC improvements. Cullen stated the studio control and studio
were reported to be colder than necessary.
F. Check signing authority -
Stokstad stated that she had been informed by Wells Fargo Bank that she was the only
authorized check signer on the PSA checking account. Stokstad requested that there be
at least two other board members set up to sign on the account. Drake stated concern
that she had not been asked to sign a purchase order for the recent building
improvements. King explained the process of a voucher list and invoice as an option for
oversight. Margie Barge stated PSA has an established invoice system that Iriarte audits
quarterly. Drake stated she would like payroll timesheets provided to lriarte for approval
with the payroll summary and recommended print to pdf for a more secure system.
Parker moved to approve the Executive Committee members be authorized to sign
checks on the PSA Wells Fargo Bank checking account
Seconded by Cullen
Vote —Approved unanimously
G. Three minute message of information to share about PSA—
Drake provided a suggestion that was made during a Board Development Class she
attended at the ACM Conference in Boston that a three minute message be designed for
use by all associated with PSA to share with persons interested in knowing about PSA.
Drake asked for input for a list of key points that could be given to our Marketing
Committee for their use in putting together such a three minute message. Drake stated
she would be able to print out the message on a folding card as a reference piece.
The key point suggestions were as follows:
• Production studio
• Local Community TV
• TV station put together by six South King County cities so that YOU can be on TV
• You can see yourself, your kids, your grandkids....etc.... on TV
• All digital station
• Teaching facility
• Anybody can learn
• Sponsorship Opportunities
• Some phrase that puts the interested party in the "driver's seat" and in control of
their experience at and with PSA
• Partnerships
Parker stated that he would like to see PSA develop a "mascot" involving an animated
image to associate with the station as well as some catchy jingle to run during the
promotional spots.
H. Board restructuring —
Drake circulated a handout of suggested board restructuring to help implement a more
organized and productive process. Key points on the restructuring included committees
would provide agenda items for a consent agenda, the Board positions would be changed
to vice-president or vice-chair of committees with the ability to make decisions on items to
bring to the full board, committees would include board oversight and development, policy
oversight and Finance committee. Committees themselves would have the ability to
structure themselves. Other committees would be convened as necessary. Discussion
took place about the suggestions on the handout document and the board was asked to
consider the information for further discussion as a later meeting. Drake stated she was
open to many ideas from the board and that she would email the document to the board
for comment.
I. Administrative support totally dedicated to supporting the Board of Directors —
Stokstad and Drake asked the board members to consider the possibility of hiring a
temporary administrative position. The responsibilities would be implementing some of
the items outlined in the board restructuring, keeping board members on task with
projects and providing support for coordinating schedules and meeting minutes,
facilitating the flow of information to and from and between board members,. Drake stated
that the subject will be'revisited at the next committee meeting.
Adjournment— 5:16 pm
ACTION ITEMS DIRECTOR:
• Acquire the necessary paperwork and/or instructions on how the members of the
board can become authorized signers on the Wells Fargo Bank account.
• Research policy regarding finance authorizations and purchase orders.
• Implement timesheet addition to payroll approval for Treasurer
• . Upload Bylaws and additional support materials to board website
ACTION ITEMS BOARD:
• Email Drake suggestions for new board meeting times and days.
• Provide Board Restructuring document to board and provide comments to Board
Chair.
• Franke Iriarte will check if he is receiving monthly PSA Foundation reports.
Minutes prepared by Margie Barge on July 24, 2006
Additions or corrections: Margieb(apugetsoundaccess.orq
qot)gsfcDTIogr
TcN9STA•ccO zm!r
MONTHLY
STATEMENTS
2006
Wells Fargo Bank
Account Statement For: Period Covered: January 1, 2006-January 31, 2006
WELLS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST Account Number 11280200
FARGO
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $2,443,137.79 Beginning Balance $0.00 $2,550.15
Change in Account Value -27,356.92 Purchases -27,420.00 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,415,780.87 Sales 113,614.98 0.00
Cash Receipts 0.00 4,206.72
Cash Disbursements -36,025.00 0.00
Cash Sweep Activity 51,563.95 3,516.33
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Transfers Within Account 2,317.26 -2,317.26
Wells Fargo Bank Fees -923.29 -923.28
-
Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORT TERM LONG TERM
This Period $0.00 $3,406.62 THIS PERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest 53,152.41
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 1,054.31
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Taxable $4,206.72
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt $0.00
TOTAL INCOME $4,206.72
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
G represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information(if applicable)or your tax advisor
for proper tax classification.
w 3 of 27
N
PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
N
r
Account Statement For: Period Covered: February 1, 2006- February 28, 2006 •
PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
WELLS Account Number 11280200
FARGO
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $2,415,780.87 Beginning Balance $0.00 $0.00
Change in Account Value -23,576.88 Purchases 0.00 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,392,203.99 Sales 0.00 0.00
Cash Receipts 0.00 8,361.21
Cash Disbursements -36,000.00 0.00
Cash Sweep Activity 26,381.18 3,090.50
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Transfers Within Account 10,535.27 - 10,535.27
Wells Fargo Bank Fees -916.45 -916.44
Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORT TERM LONG TERM
This Period $0.00 $0.00 THIS PERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest $7,536.33
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 824.88
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Taxable $8,361.21
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt S0.00
TOTAL INCOME $8,361.21
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information(if applicable)or your tax advisor
for proper tax classification.
3 of 23
N
ti PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
Account Statement For: • Period Covered: March 1, 2006- March 31, 2006 •
WELLS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FARGO Account Number 1 1280200
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $2,392,203.99 Beginning Balance $0.00 $0.00
Change in Account Value -28,935.00 4,116 Purchases 0.00 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,363,268.99 QK5,'_c, Sales 0.00 0.00
'Cash Receipts 0.00 4,908.80
A-Cash Disbursements -36,000.00 -41.75
Cash Sweep Activity 31,740.04 1,214.01
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Transfers Within Account 5,170.51 -5,170.51
Wells Fargo Bank Fees -910.55 -910.55
Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORT TERM LONG TERM
This Period $0.00 $0.00 THIS PERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest $3,140.32
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 1,768.48
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Taxable 54,908.80
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt $0.00
TOTAL INCOME $4,908.80
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information (if applicable)or your tax advisor
•
for proper tax classification.
3 of 27
PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
Account Statement For: Period Covered: April 1, 2006-April 30, 2006
WELLS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FARGO Account Number 11280200
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $2,363,268.99 / Beginning Balance $0.00 $0.00
Change in Account Value - 17,697.38 ✓ ( /�� Purchases 0.00 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,345,571.61 A Sales 52,913.87 0.00
Cash Receipts 0.00 8,227.65
Cash Disbursements -36,000.00 -92.77
1 .1111
Cash Sweep Activity -22,705.07 -537.05
Transfers Within Account 6,694.52 -6,694.52
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Wells Fargo Bank Fees -903.32 -903.31
Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORT TERM LONG TERM
This Period $0.00 $7,592.68 THIS PERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest $7,093.21
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 1,134.44
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Taxable $8,227.65
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt $0.00
TOTAL INCOME $8,227.65
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information(if applicable)or your tax advisor
for proper tax classification.
PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
N
Account Statement For: "'Period Covered: May 1, 2006- May 31, 2006 •
WELLS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST
FARGO Account Number 11280200
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $2,345,571.61 Beginning Balance $0.00 $0.00
Change in Account Value -57,739.99 Purchases 0.00 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,287,831.62 Sales 50,000.00 0.00
Cash Receipts 0.00 9,406.64
Cash Disbursements -36,000.00 0.00
Cash Sweep Activity -22,398.35 789.49
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Transfers Within Account 9,297.24 -9,297.24
Wells Fargo Bank Fees -898.89 -898.89
Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORTTERM LONG TERM
This Period S0.00 -$1,184.00 THISPERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest $8,293.76
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 1,112.88
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Taxable $9,406.64
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt $0.00
TOTAL.INCOME $9,406.64
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information(if applicable)or your tax advisor
for proper tax classification.
3 of 24
PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
N
Account Statement For: Period Covered: June 1, 2006- June 30, 2006
WELLS PUGET SOUND ACCESS FOUNDATION TRUST Account Number 11280200
FARGO
ACCOUNT VALUE CHANGE CASH SUMMARY
z/ HA./=a,a87,83Y-6'd
THIS PERIOD PRINCIPAL CASH INCOME CASH
Beginning Account Value $0.00 Beginning Balance $0.00 $0.00
Illciso DeskPurchases - 16,054.40 0.00
Ending Account Value $2,253,395.32 f" Sales 16,686.20 0.00
0. * Cash Receipts 360.22 5,164.78
Cash Disbursements -36,000.00 -47.28
�c l _/rF�3l .62 + Cash Sweep Activity 31,798.70 - 139.30
Miscellaneous 0.00 0.00
Transfers Within Account 4,093.74 -4,093.74
_. n vl 1� + Wells Fargo Bank Fees 884.46 -884.46
l� Q — � a* Ending Balance $0.00 $0.00
REALIZED GAIN/LOSS SUMMARY INCOME SUMMARY
SHORT TERM LONG TERM
This Period $0.00 55,825.20 THIS PERIOD
Taxable
Gain/Loss information is un-audited and should not be used for tax preparation, Interest 53,298.91
estate and/or retirement planning purposes.
Dividends 1,864.51
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 1.36
Total Taxable $5,164.78
Tax Exempt
Interest $0.00
Dividends 0.00
Real Estate&Specialty Assets 0.00
Other 0.00
Total Tax Exempt $0.00
TOTAL INCOME $5,164.78
The tax classification of income summarized above and in the Transaction Detail section of this statement was obtained from a market information supplier and may not
6, represent the actual character as finally determined for federal or state income tax purposes. Please refer to your year-end tax information (if applicable)or your tax advisor
for proper tax classification.
It 3 of 27
s
N PRIVATE CLIENT SERVICES
i
CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 0 5
o AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON,
ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY OF THE CITY OF RENTON
(FALK II ANNEXATION; FILE NO.A-04-007)
0
WHEREAS, under the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, as amended, and SSB 5409, a
petition in writing requesting that certain territory contiguous to the City of Renton, as described
OD
9-1
b below, be annexed to the City of Renton, was presented and filed with the City Clerk on or about
0
x October 18, 2004; and
WHEREAS, prior to the filing and circulation of said petition for annexation to the City
of Renton, the petitioning owners notified the City Council of their intention to commence such
proceedings as provided by law, as more particularly specified in RCW 35A.14.120 and SSB
5409, and upon public hearing thereon, it having been determined and the petitioning owners
having agreed to assume their fair share of the pre-existing outstanding indebtedness of the City
of Renton as it pertains to the territory petitioned to be annexed; and to accept that portion of the
City's Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to the territory including the applicable Zoning Code
relating thereto; and
WHEREAS, the King County Department of Assessments has examined and verified the
signatures on the petition for annexation on or about June 7, 2005, and determined that the
signatures represent a majority of the area to be annexed's assessed value (excluding streets), as
provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the King County Records, Elections and Licensing Services Division has
examined and verified the signatures on the petition for annexation on or about June 28, 2005,
1
ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 0 5
and determined that the signatures represent a majority of the registered voters of the area to be
annexed; and
WHEREAS, the Economic Development, Neighborhoods and Strategic Planning
Department of the City of Renton having considered and recommended the annexing of the
property to the City of Renton; and
WHEREAS, the City Council fixed August 1, 2005, in the City Council Chambers, City
Hall, Renton, Washington, as the time and place for public hearing upon the petition and notice
thereof having been given as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said notices public hearings have been held at the time and
place specified in the notices, and the Council having considered all matters in connection with
the petition and further determined that all legal requirements and procedures of the law
applicable to the petition method for annexation have been met; and
WHEREAS, the King County Boundary Review Board having deemed the "Notice of
Intention" approved as of January 5, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City of Renton is concurrently zoning the annexation site R-8, eight
units per net acre;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RENTON,
WASHINGTON,DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION L All requirements of the law in regard to the annexation by petition
method, including the provisions of RCW 35A.14.120, 130, 140, 150, and SSB 5409 have been
met. The petition for annexation to the City of Renton of the property and territory described
below is hereby approved and granted; the following described property, being contiguous to the
2
ORDINANCE NO. 5 2 0 5
City limits of the City of Renton, is hereby annexed to the City of Renton, and such annexation
shall be effective on and after the approval, passage, and publication of this Ordinance; and on
and after said date the property shall constitute a part of the City of Renton and shall be subject
to all its laws and ordinances then and thereafter in force and effect;the property being described
as follows:
See Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof as if fully set forth herein,
[Said property, approximately 6.29 acres, is generally located immediately south
of the north side of SE 185th Street, if extended, on the north, the east side of
102nd Avenue SE, on the east, a line parallel and some 428 feet south of the
northern boundary on the south, and approximately 100th Avenue SE, if extended,
on the west]
and the owners of the property within the annexation shall assume their fair share of the
outstanding indebtedness of the City,of Renton as prescribed in RCW 35A.14.120 as it pertains
to the property, and the property shall be subject to the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Code.
SECTION IL This Ordinance shall be effective upon its passage, approval, and
five days after its publication.
A certified copy of this Ordinance shall be filed with the King County Council, State of
Washington, and as otherwise provided by law.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 2 4 t h day of April , 2006.
847441.4.e alto^.
R
Of ;. Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk
•0, 4' : 3
ORDINANCE NO. 5205
APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 2 4 t h day of April , 2006.
etet&-,
Kathy Keo u er, Mayor
Approved as to form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date of Publication: 4/2 8/2 0 0 6 (summary)
ORD.1251:3/29/06:ma
4
ORDINANCE NO . 5205
Exhibit "A"
FALK II ANNEXATION •
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That portion of the south half(1/2)of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of
the Southwest quarter of Section 32,Township 23 North,Range 5 East,W.M., King
County, Washington, lying southerly of the south line of the north 72 feet thereof;
EXCEPT the east 20 feet thereof;
TOGETHER WITH the north quarter(1/4)of the Southwest quarter of the Northwest
quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section 32; EXCEPT the east0 feet thereof;
TOGETHER WITH that portion of the west 30 feet of the east half(1/2), and that portion
of the east 20 feet of the west half(1/2),of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest
quarter of said Section 32,lying northerly of the south line of the north quarter(1/4) of
the Southwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of said Section
32,extended easterly, and southerly of a line described as follows: •
Beginning said line at a point on the west boundary line of the plat of Windsor
Heights, as recorded in Volume 173 of Plat,Pages 28 through 30,inclusive,
records of King County, Washington, said point being 102.80 feet southerly of
the northwest corner of said plat and also being a point on the easterly right-
of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE;
Thence westerly along said line, said line being perpendicular to said plat
boundary line and right-of-way margin,crossing 102nd Ave SE, to an
intersection with the westerly right-of-way margin of 102nd Ave SE and the
termination point of said line.
ORDINANCE NO. 5205 `
1 *iii44, MUM 1 13411.1
1 r i',,U _____ . <cf,;(
sow
. y
Be WI . Oil
♦I, G., S17th ', 65
qfr.S 43 2St aw-
. adi0 MIL ‘--
c�
0. 111111 •
,Qic-'Ail
. A., a
0 45ta1111
0fj
iii r
L._ ---/ I IIETO I i I
1-r , 1ii ► ► ii ►
I
._
-\ LT, -1 _ Ma W, ` �■ ■'■ I
- Eillip
ir
I III II •� .�L
0
I
7 -2 Hill c *um um_ iii 1
MI lit Vol I
Iwo e
SLs
III 1 ■n■ ■ im I i
4. :%Iuiiip, A I
:h St # ��
1,,s Egli . ■ ids a
1 1 %ii \ INI
• : I - . - ,....1 •
. ■ -
Proposed Falk II Annexation 0 600 1200
Figure 1: Vicinity Map .,>:.;:.;;;:- . . . . .;>:.;:...... ......
? Economic Developmentwdminisauor.Neighborhoods&Strategic Planning ——— City Limits 1 : 7200
wr,�Piascb.
©_ c.Duttas,rio - Proposed Annex Area
10 November 2004
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Keri Stokstad
Date: 7/31/2006 12:42:49 PM
Subject: RE: Reports
Thank you, Keri. Someone from your office dropped off the 2006 minutes & Foundation Trust Account
summary statements this morning. Since these cover 2006 only,we still need the prior years' minutes and
PSA financial statements, however, as well as the other requested reports.
Our cable consultant will be in town next week, and we had hoped to review the reports beforehand, and
then have a meeting with you to discuss where PSA might fit in our cable franchise renewal negotiations.
If you can get the requested reports to me by next Mon. or Tues. (8/7 or 8/8), then would you be available
to meet with us on Thurs. or Fri. (8/10 or 8/11)? That won't give us too much time to review the
documents beforehand, but would at least allow the meeting to occur.
Please advise.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>>"Keri Stokstad" <KeriS@pugetsoundaccess.org> 07/31/06 9:32 AM >>>
Bonnie,
I will contact PSA and see what can be done to get you something by 1 pm.
Take care,
-Keri
From: Bonnie Walton Jmailto:Bwaltona,ci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Sat 7/29/2006 9:01 AM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: RE: Reports
Thanks for the quick update, Keri. So sorry about the loss of your grandmother. My sincere sympathies.
Yes, if you could have someone bring the binder over to me sometime Mon. morning that would be
appreciated. I have a meeting Mon. afternoon and it would be helpful for me to have as much PSA
information in hand as possible for that.
Bonnie
>>> "Keri Stokstad" <KeriSa.puoetsoundaccess.orq>07/29/06 1:03 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to get back you quickly.
I've actually been swamped for the last few weeks - National Conference and vacation June 30-July 14,
then sick, then my grandmother passed away and I'm in Iowa for the week for the memorial service.The
Annual Report will be ready upon return and I had hoped to deliver the binder with it. I will not be back until
late next week though so I will not be able to provide it this Monday. I will do everything I can to get it to
you as soon as I return. If you would like I can have someone from PSA get you the binder(with the
meeting minutes and foundation reports)next week.
I will be available by email or cell 235-315-0156.
Take care,
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.pugetsoundaccess.orq
South King County Community Access
From: Bonnie Walton Jmailto:Bwaltonaci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Fri 7/28/2006 4:30 PM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: Re: Reports
** High Priority**
Keri:
I wanted to touch base with you again. Hope all is going well there.
How are you coming with the reports? I am hoping we can have them Monday. I did not receive the
binder of minutes and foundation reports, yet either, so am hoping that will all be ready Monday. We look
forward to hearing from you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>>"Keri Stokstad" <KeriS(a)_pucietsoundaccess.orq> 06/26/06 10:18 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Just wanted to provide you with a much needed update.
We are working on a comprehensive report that will be available at the end of July that will contain
updated information on PSA. I have held off providing any information until that document is complete.
In the meantime, I will have our office coordinator compile the meeting minutes and foundation reports in a
binder for you so you have that available.
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.ougetsoundaccess.org
South King County Community Access
CITY OF RENTON
stYCi Clerk
1
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
•
July 7, 2005
•
Noemie Maxwell, et al:
14400 SE 208th St.
Kent, WA 98032
Re: Puget Sound Access Membership
Dear Ms. Maxwell:
Thank you for your group's letter to the Renton City Council in.which you have
requested certain policy changes as regards Puget Sound Access (PSA)membership.
As you may now know,the legislative bodies'of the member cities of PSA do not set
policy for PSA. The PSA Board of Directors sets the policies for the PSA organization,
which is a separate, non-profit corporation: The City of Renton, like other member cities,
contracts with PSA as an independent contractor.
For further information regarding the PSA-Board of Directors; its meetings or procedures,
contact Ken Stokstad, Executive Director, at 253-479-0200.
If I can provide further information or assistance,please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
aiteu - I tual4vs-'
Bonnie I: Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
cc: Members,Renton City Council
Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Jay Covington, CAO
Keri Stokstad, Executive Director, PSA
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 R E NIT ® N
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
C, This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
r
-'w`=`" `" '11;s CITY OF RENTON 22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
, y , '.4;, Kent WA 98032
t Y `�-,- � Y -, JUL 1 2005 pugetsoundaccess.org
\'�
n
u = t0
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Acc -ss
June 29, 2005
Renton City Council
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA. 98055 -
To: Members of the Renton City Council
RE: Saltwater Unitarian Universalist Church
Recently you received a letter regarding an organization that is interested in joining Puget
Sound Access, (PSA). We have been fortunate to be building a clientele of community members
that are learning video production and providing programs for the channel and are excited to
include others.
Unfortunately, while some members of this organization reside in the PSA member cities of
Auburn, Burien, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila, the organization is located in Des Moines,
Washington. Des Moines is not one of the PSA member cities. The member cities agreed to
contract with PSA to provide community access services to the cities thus, our priority is to
provide training and services to the residents of those cities.
We do make every effort possible to accommodate non-profit organizations, educational
institutions and government agencies in South King County under special consideration when
possible by providing videography and production services.
In our early stages we continue to focus on building a foundation of a solid multimedia training
center and production studio for the residents of PSA member cities.
Please don't hesitate to contact me for further information.
Sincerely,
e./LJ S11-11'
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
Susan Aigner Noemie Maxwell
24817 184th Place SE 14400 SE 208th Street CITY OF RENTON
Covington,WA 98042 Kent, WA 98032
JUN 2 7 2005
Jeanne Dinehart Seth Monger
Auburn,WA 4426 Carnaby Street CITY CRECEIVED
LERK'S S OFFICE
Kent,WA 98032
Christine Hawkes
23306 115th Pl. SE Manuel Nonong
Kent,WA 98031 Federal Way,WA
Auburn City Council Renton City Council
25 West Main 1055 South Grady Way
Auburn,WA 98001-4998 Renton,WA 98055
Burien Cry Council SeaTac City Council
415 S.W. l tree�t 4800 South 188th Street
Burien,Washingto 66-1957 SeaTac,Washington 98188
Kent City Council Tukwila City Council
City of Kent Tukwila City Hall
220 Fourth Avenue South 6200 Southcenter Boulevard -
Tukwila,WA 98188
CC:
Puget Sound Access Julia Patterson
22412 72nd Ave.S. King County Council
Kent,WA.98032 13516 Third Avenue,Room 1200
Seattle,WA 98104-3272
June 24,2005
Dear City Councilntembers,
We value the dedication of city resources and the devotion to local communications that Puget
Sound Access television represents. The station offers wonderful opportunities to residents and
to the community at large. We are writing to ask that you consider adjusting your current PSA
membership policies in a way that we believe would help better realize the station's mission of
"bring(ing)communication tools to South King County residents."
Several members of Saltwater Unitarian Universalist Church who live in South King County have
formed a committee to film some of our services and other activities for broadcast on Puget
Sound Access,channel 77.
There are thirteen South King County residents who are members of this committee and who
would like to join Puget Sound Access. Unfortunately,most of these members live in
unincorporated King County or in South King County cities whose residents are not eligible for
membership. Of the six members who are eligible,only four have so far been able to complete
PSA classes.
Our church serves many residents of your six cities. There are many more residents of
. these cities whom we know would greatly benefit from learning about us. We would
very much like to communicate with these people via Puget Sound Access, and also with
other residents of South King County.
We understand that PSA,as a relatively new station, is still in the early stages of
understanding how its policies,in.practice,impact the community and affect its.own
operations. We hope-thatyou-will'uader tand our perspective that,in-some regards,your
current policies appear to have the effect of closing down,rather than opening up,access
to local residents in a way that we feel is reasonably avoidable.
We would like to request, specifically,that you consider the following policy changes
1. Allow all South King County residents to join PSA,perhaps charging a higher
fee to residents who are not-within city limits. South King-County could be
defined by King County District or Legislative District. This policy would
bring PSA closer to what we feel•.are more equitable Seattle=Scan policies, •
which allow all King County residents to join,simply charging a higher fee
for those who do not live in Seattle.
2. ..Regardless•of whether you decide to implement#1,above,allow,residents of
unincorporated'areas'that'are immediately outside•of your six-cities,
particularly in those areas that are likelyto be included in incorporation at a
later date,to.jein the station,:preferably at the'regular coritnnun'ity fee.
• .3. Allow-organizations that operate.primardy within South King'County and
service South egg County residents{perhaps requiring a certain percentage,
10%or so,to be from.your six cities)to join as-organizational Members at a
higherfee.
4. When local.organizations have several group members who belong to PSA
and who want to-collaborate on projects,allow those PSA members to share
and-collaborate'on editing files onyourcomputer under the name of that
group. This will allow individuals within your six citios to join with their
neighbors in••communicating-withothers in the local'community. In•this
. regard,your•current policies hinder;rather thanenable,communications
among south King County'neighbors.
Many thanks.for your•consideration on this matter.
-4(17�/(A/-1,141
keS-
I
. cjas.o...NAA kolikszLN \,)to r\
F-c 4ra'i r��c�
(cY) CITY OF RENTON
•
) .
•
+ • , : + City Clerk
a _
Bonnie I.Walton Kathy Keolker,Mayor
- .N7 TO
March 14, 2006
Keri Stokstad, Executive Director
• Puget Sound Access
• 22412 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
•
Re: Reports Requested
Dear Mi.,.Sterkstad:
Pursuant to Section 8, Reporting Requirements of the Contract dated July 9; 2001,between the
City of Renton and Puget Sound Access(PSA), the City ofRenton requests that-the following
- • written reports be provided;
1. The PSA Current financial statement
2. The PSA 2005 annual report
3. The PSA 2006 budget •
4. Current statistics on PSA programming and services being provided
5. A listing of the PSA Board of Directors and their terms ,
6. A schedule of PSA training classes•being offered
7. A statement of anticipated number of hours of local origination access programming
8. A statement of any additional PSA plans, activities or concerns. -
After the City has received and had opportunity to review the reports, you are encouraged to
schedule a short presentation at a City Council meeting to update City officials on PSA's
- , activities. I believe it has been almost three years since your last presentation here. I would be
happy to schedule that when you are ready.
We look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know how soon the City can expect to
receive these materials. . .
Sincerely,
iehtnue: tl2&167. :. .
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager . •
• ,
cc: King Parker,PSA Board Member and City of Renton Representative
. ,
. . ___ ........... ,. ,
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-65101 FAX(425)430-6516 ENTON
.s.. . • , AHEAD OF THE CURVE
%.* This paper contains 50%recycied material 30%oost consurriar •
r1( 0 • CITY OF RENTON
4:.
City Clerk
.14
•
•ep, Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
- 1\11-c0
March 14, 2006
Keri Stokstad, Executive Director
Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave. S.
Kent, WA 98032
•
Re: Reports Requested
• keA)-
Dear MStedtstad:
Pursuant to Section 8,Reporting Requirements of the Contract dated July 9, 2001, between the
City of Renton and Puget Sound Access(PSA), the City of Renton requests that the following
• written reports be provided;
• 1. The PSA current financial statement
2. The PSA 2005 annual report
3. The PSA 2006 budget
4. Current statistics on PSA programming and services being provided
5. A listing of the PSA Board of Directors and their terms
6. A schedule of PSA training classes.being,offered
7. A:statement of anticipated number of hours of local originationaccesS programming
• 8. A statement Of any additional PSA plats, activities or concerns.
• After the City has received and had opportunity to review the reports,you are encouraged to
schedule a short presentation at a City Council meeting to update City officials on PSA's
activities. I believe it has been almost three years since your last presentation here-; I would be
happy to schedule that when you are ready, • •
We look forward to hearing from you. Please let me know how soon the City can expect to
receive these materials.
Sincerely,
1(56,7141-uGda,tt-,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
cc: King Parker,PSA Board Member and City of Renton Representative -
•
•
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-65101 FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
e::*'This paper contains 50°6 recycled material,30%post consurrier
•
l .
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Keri Stokstad
Date: 3/16/2006 5:39:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Need Videographer
Keri, have you revised, signed and sent over the two original contracts yet? As soon as I receive them,
along with the updated insurance certificate, I will get it processed and can pay your invoice at the new
rate.
Thanks.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk, x6502
>>> Bonnie Walton 02/27/06 9:28 AM >>>
Keri:
Luke has contacted me and we have a videographer scheduled. Thank you for that.
The contract you sent looks good, except that I see no language as before about PSA paying for 3 hours
of training for a new person on our booth equipment. Could that be added back in? If so, then it would be
fine and you could sign two originals to send over, so I can obtain the signatures here and send one back
to you.
Also, we need an updated insurance certificate for this contract. The one we have on file expired
1/16/2006, so we need the renewal certificate.
Thanks, Keri. Hope all is well there.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>>"Keri Stokstad" <KeriS(a pugetsoundaccess.orq>02/22/06 12:48 AM >>>
Bonnie,
I've forwarded your request to Luke who will contact you to schedule a videographer(it could be someone
new to you that has more experience with our portable equipment).
Here's the contract with the updated rates. If its acceptable I will sign it and get it to you promptly.
Thanks so much,
- Keri
Keri Stokstad
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent,WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.puoetsoundaccess.orq
South King County Community Access
From: Bonnie Walton jmailto:Bwalton(c�ci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Tue 2/21/2006 5:46 PM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject: Need Videographer
r
Keri:
I am in need of a videographer for a special shoot on Wednesday, March 1st from about 10:00 am to
about 2:00 pm. This for our Mayor's speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon at the Holiday Inn here
in Renton. Either Mei or Rita would be fine if one is available, or whoever you think. Lighting is a little
challenge at this place, so someone fairly good at helping with that would be nice. Let me know.
Also, you had asked if we could bump up the fee for the videographers. Do you happen to have the
contract document used before saved electronically? If you have the same contract we used before, and
can change it to reflect the new rate, and sign two copies to send over, we can get that going. Otherwise I
can retype the contract.
Thanks, Keri.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
Comcast Cable _,`ec , '
TN R
2/25/2005 ( M.o MT)
u�
Key Contacts Information:
General Maintenance and troubleshooting of cable connections (non I-net) at
public buildings:
1),Stevc Kinston,Technical Operations Manager: Phone#253-288-748
2) Merrill Swanson, Technical Supervisor: Phone#253-288-7.62& 10
Right-of-way Construction and Inspection Issues:
1) Jim Nies, Eng. & Const. Supervisor: Phone#253-288-7431
2) Martyn Hebert, Eng. & Const. Manager: Phone#253-288-7430
City Utilized I-net Related Issue:
1) Dan Wherry, Regional Manager of Engineering: Phone # 253-864-4387
2) Thomas Perry, Network Fiber Engineer: Phone # 206-571-7525
Franchise, bonding, billing, reporting, and new public building cable
connection issues:
1) Myself by contact info listed below
2) Janice Burch, Franchise Compliance Specialist: Phone#425-398-6141
If you have any questions,please contact me. Thanks.
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast-- South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell#253/261-1586
Desk#253/288-7496
Fax# 253/288-7500
E-mail Address: Terry Davis@cable.comcast.com
Comcast—Washington Market
comcastSouth East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
` .. Auburn,WA 98002
COMCAST CABLE OVERVIEW
CITY OF RENTON
DATE: JUNE 18,2007
KEY FACTS:
No. of Cable Subscribers in the City of Renton= 18,991
Franchise Fees &Utility Taxes Paid in 2006=$ 1,517,010
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN CABLE?
ANALOG TRANSITION--February 17, 2009, date set by Congress for the return of spectrum allocated
to broadcasters through the telecommunications act
VIDEO SERVICE --
BANDWIDTH MANAGEMENT:
Adding capacity for more programming(HD Channels and HD On-Demand)
DIGITAL SIMULCAST:
100% digital line-up through conversion of all analog channels to digital format
VIDEO ON DEMAND:
Video streamed to individual customers requested through the set-top box
(8,000 programs &3 Billion On-Demand views since 2004)
HIGH SPEED INTERNET--
BANDWIDTH ENHANCMENTS:
Technology improvements,increasing speeds from 1.5 mbps to 8 mbps
POWERBOOST:
Speed on-demand technology boosting uploads and downloads up to 10-12 mbps
BRAND X:
Cable modem service ruled an Interstate Information Service(reference National Cable&
Telecommunications Association et al. v. Brand X Internet Services)
COMCAST DIGITAL VOICE(CDV) --Providing competitive phone service to Washington Market
SYSTEM RELIABILITY--
LOCAL MONITORING CENTER(LMC):
Washington Market's center responsible for monitoring all elements of the Cable System and
deploying technical support from the local fulfillment offices
STATUS MONITORING:
Network monitoring systems deployed via LMC throughout Washington Market
Pathtrack—Nodes Tollgrade—Power Supplies Auspice-Cable Modems
CUSTOMER SERVICE-- 750 local customer service representatives based in Fife and Everett,with a
third call center schedule to open in Lynnwood in July 2007.
WHAT IS NEXT?
• State-wide franchising bill in Olympia and FCC 621(a)(1)Report&Order
1/ Level Playing Field&Reasonable Build-out(no red-lining)
• Franchise Renewal (within 3 year renewal window)
• Competition, Competition, Competition!
CITY OF RENTON
CABLE PLAN LOCATIONS
/0 - 1 ,
w VL ;
IR
. 1RMNrrolti, .AA oism w
, I 1 .1% ti 4rifiatu.le - -4. v
‘.. i
- 4.07,,, --14! --plson*i i ,
{ ' ir~
• ill'
. , --4A .4 ab_1=11,2111 --own fiff
' 14113, '- - 7 L, ‘1.11,14142Ir ir, _ 111111 , ,
t..
1 - _ ice11
., 7ip.—,::i4,Not4r1iA.,w rritVt ,
.,...kI,...
-,,,,7, , ,a,,,,ffilki,,io,r,,,,;
r S: d - ..
,) ,ril
____ „„„ ,.,, ,,,u,,,,,„.,,,...4,,„„„ .,-
, „Ai, L,,,,. . ,,„ . -4.,•,,,,,,,, s'
- -44*-k ogo s,.- - ,- -.t
. . ,.... ,
_,
..„ . s 0., ,,.. .
4' -
alitiOraslaft
t
Pc.
f - RNze I I�M' ,r
, ,
,,, r
_.,. till
Je
, .,I, ak--
10 t----ra
LEGEND
r� CITY BOUNDARY
UNDERGROUND
°:-t AERIAL—�
NODE BOUNDARY
CITY OF RENTON I coos CREATED-rasrn rowusr um ~ D. DD.. Am O. ON.. �`�
FACILITIES MAP Rorz ra�ER Cyr ERD Comcast
WASHINGTON -
wA{NINOTON MARKET
Comcast® Comcast Cable
1500 Market Street
Philadelphia,PA 19102
FOR SETTLEMENT PURPOSES ONLY
INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE CITY OF RENTON
January 22, 2007 JAN 2..2. 2001
CITY CLERK'S RECEIVED FFICE
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
City Clerk Div., 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: RESOLUTION of COMCAST'S FCC FORM 1205 RATES for 2006
Dear Ms. Walton:
I am writing on behalf of Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, and its affiliates
(collectively, "Comcast" or the "Company")to resolve issues related to Comcast's FCC
Form 1205 for 2006 which have been identified by your consultants Ashpaugh & Sculco,
CPAs, PLC and Front Range Consulting, Inc. (the "Consultants"). Comcast believes that
its proposal as set forth herein, which reflects recent discussions between Comcast and
the Consultants, if accepted, would minimize the substantial administrative burdens,
uncertainty, and delay otherwise associated with the rate review process.
This proposal is being made to each of the franchise communities that participated
in the consolidated review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205 conducted by the
Consultants. The affected communities (the "Communities") are identified in Appendix
A hereto.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT RE 2006 RATE REVIEW:
1. The maximum permitted equipment and installation rates for the applicable period
of the 2006 FCC Form 1205 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2005) will be those listed in Appendix B.
2. Based on Appendix B, if an actual rate in a particular Community exceeds a
revised "maximum permitted"rate, Comcast shall lower that rate to the maximum
permitted rate and issue credits to local customers without claiming the benefit of
any potential refund"offsetting" in calculating the amount of refunds owed.
Comcast will provide each Community a refund plan detailing the refund amounts
Page 2
January 22, 2007
within 45 days of the acceptance of this proposed resolution by each Community.
Rate changes and credits shall be issued within 60 days of the issuance of a rate
order approving Comcast's FCC Form 1205 for 2006.
3. The credits will be paid in the form of a one-time bill credit, which will be
identified on customer bills as "Rate Credit."
Conditions
1. Comcast shall issue the credits described above regardless of a finding of
effective competition in any of the Communities subject to a rate order approving
equipment and installation rates consistent with those listed on Appendix B.
2. By extending this proposal, Comcast does not admit any error in the Company's
established approach to the FCC Form 1205, and this offer shall not be deemed to
be an admission of any such error in any civil or administrative proceeding.
3. Comcast agrees to not appeal to the FCC any Communities Rate Order that is
consistent with the Terms, Conditions and rates set forth in this proposed
settlement.
4. Because the Communities pursued a consolidated 2006 rate review, Comcast
must proceed on a consolidated basis in extending this proposal. The proposal is
therefore contingent on 90% of the Communities (as measured by customer
count) adopting rate orders within twelve (12) months from the filing of the Form ,
1205 ("Final Approval"). If more than 10% of the Communities (as measured by
customer count) fail to adopt the rate orders, Comcast reserves its right to
withdraw the proposal,notwithstanding any intervening approval action in any
particular Community.
Ice e ,
e er . 'nber;.
associate Gener. ounsel
Comcast Cable C�_ munications, LCC
cc: Mr. Richard Treich
Mr. Garth Ashpaugh
ccd dti 9tty 6./6,
Appendix A
Participating Communities
Local Franchise Authority Community Unit Identification Number
Montgomery County, MD MD0236
Arlington County, VA VA0108
West Central Cable Agency, IL ' IL0847, IL0848, IL0849, IL0666, IL0871
Mountain View, CA CA0906
Renton, WA WA0068
Metropolitan Area Communications OR0325, OR0283, OR0318, OR0326,
Commission, OR OR0289, OR0442, OR0290, OR0317,
OR0064, OR0304, OR0341, OR0330,
OR0288, OR0328, OR0333, OR0242
Appendix B
Maximum Permitted Rates for the Applicable Period Related to FCC Form 1205
for 2006 (based upon costs for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005)
Installation Activity Maximum Permitted Rate
Hourly Service Charge $32.50
Unwired $35.35
Prewired $25.68
Additional Outlet—Same Trip $13.75
Additional Outlet— Separate Trip $22.42
Relocate Outlet $18.42
Upgrade $17.55
Downgrade $14.55
Change of Service (Addressable) $1.99
VCR/DVD— Same Trip $6.92
VCR/DVD --Separate Trip $15.02
Customer Trouble Call $24.06
Equipment Rental Maximum Permitted Rate
Remote Control $0.22
Basic - Only Converter $1.10
HD /DVR/HD-DVR Converter $6.50
Converter (All Others) $3.80
CableCARD $1.89
o,. CITY OF RENTON
♦ 1.11 ' Office of the City Attorney
NTT0 Kathy Keolker,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren
Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L.Fontes
Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S.Nielsen
Garmon Newsom II
Shawn E. Arthur
MEMORANDUM
To: Mike I ailey F IS yAd ninistrator;:t s;
Gregg Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator
Lys Hornsby, Utility Systems Director
Jay Covington, CAO
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: December 21, 200'6
Subject: Court of Appeals Decision Validating City's System of Collecting Utility
Taxes and Comcast v. Seattle, Re: Taxation of Cable Data Transmission
Please find enclosed a copy of the case Adams v. City of Spokane. Spokane set its utility rates
and then charged its utilities a 17% utility tax. This system was challenged on .a number of
grounds: The Court ultimately found that the City'.s system was legal in all respects and rejected
• the challenge. Since I believe this is the process that the City of Renton follows, I thought you
might find this case of some interest.
On a related note, this letter follows a conversation that I had with Mike Bailey confirming the
fact that he was aware of the recent Supreme Court case of Comcast v. City of Seattle, which
validated Seattle's charging a tax on Comcast data transmission services.-It may be that we need
to review our ordinances and Comcast payment history to the City to see if this case has any
implications to Renton.
fF r;
Lawrence J. Warren
LJW: scr
•
Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RENTON
AHEAD'OF THE:CURVE
7'.77"nVED BY
C 7 COUNCIL
Date 3-026-a007
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 26, 2007
Cable Franchise Renewal Annual Rate Review
Equipment and Installation Rate Regulation
FCC 1205 Proposed Rate Settlement
(March 12, 2007)
The Committee of the Whole recommends approval of revised FCC rate orders and approval
of the settlement offer from Comcast; and
Further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be adopted.
Toni Nelson, ouun • Pre
sident
esident
cc: Bonnie Walton
George McBride
Neil Watts
cable cte reports 031907.doc\ rev 01/05 bh
7.nI.WE!3 BY
C COUNCIL
Date 3- 6- a co 7
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
COMMITTEE REPORT
March 26, 2007
Cable Franchise Renewal
Basic Programming Rate Regulation and Network Upgrade Add-On Calculation
FCC Forms 1235 and 1240 Proposed Rate Review and Settlement
(March 12, 2007)
The Committee of the Whole recommends approval of revised FCC rate orders and approval
of the settlement offer from Comcast; and
Further recommends that the resolution regarding this matter be adopted.
Toni Nelson, Council President
cc: Bonnie Walton
George McBride
Neil Watts
cable cte reports 031907.doc\ rev 01/05 bh
Franchise Renewal Process:
Overview
• What's important about renewal
Cable Television Franchise •Franchise:Crtygrants Comcast the sight to operate to
provide cable TV in Renton,and the tenns&conditions to
Rates Settlement do so
•A review of the cable operator's performance
•Cities seek compensation for use of ROW,and benefits to residents,
such as support for government cable programming
March 19,2007 •Renton-Comcast Franchise expires Fall 2008
Renton City Council •Goal:renew by Fall 2007
Committee of the Whole Briefing • Team:Bradley&Gts77etta,LLC,CBG
Communications,Front Range Consulting
Franchise Renewal : Overview Compliance Review
• Review Franchise
Commitments/Compliance Review • Is Comcast in compliance with the City's
■-Institutional Network(I-Net) current cable franchise and applicable laws
Ownership We are here and regulations?.
• Franchise Fee Review •FCC Form 1235&1240 Review(Equipment&
Installation Rates)
• System Technical Review •FCC Form 1205 Review(Basic Programming&
•Needs Assessment Review Network Upgrade)
• Draft Franchise Agreement& •Initiated 4/1/2006;aw has one year from
Ordinance initiation to accept settlement
• Issue Request for Renewal Proposals
(and negotiate formally or informally)
Compliance: FCC Form 1205 FCC Form 1205 - Findings
• Comcast cannot justify some maximum permitted rates
• National rate filing by Comcast • Negotiated maximum pemitted rates
•Maximum permitted rates for installation and •Contract labor
•Asset depreciation expense and reserve
equipment •Installation costs within 12"of residence
■ Comcast must justify basic rates ■ Proposed settlement
• Renton participated in national rate consultant ■ Comcast will offer refund plan and rate reduction
audit/review(Ashpaugh&Sculco,and •east will not appeal a rate order consistent with this
resolution
FrontRange Consulting) • What it means for subscribers
•Refunds for most types of installation and equipment services
1
Compliance: FCC Forms 1235 & 1240 FCC Fonns 1235 & 1240- Findings
• 1235:Allowed cable company to recoup costs of ■ 1235
the system upgrade in its rates(14 yearn ■Filed in 1999,allowed Comcast to charge subscribers
+$1.16/month for 14 years;no final filing
• 1240:Justifies maximum permitted rates that • Comcast refusing to provide information regarding affiliated
Comcast can charge customers for basic cable advertising revenues
programming • 1240
• Rate consultants:Dick Treich,Front Range •Comcast improperly included the Business&Occupational
Consulting&Warren O'Heam tax in basic service rate
•Comcast excluded the FCC regulatory fee in its calculation of
maximum permitted rates
FCC Forms 1235 & 1240 Recommendation
• Proposed settlement
•Elimination of FCC form 1235 fee • Set Public Hearing:March 26,2007
•Elimination of B&O tax • Prior to April 1,adopt resolution recommending
•Inclusion of FCC fee in calculation of 1240 approval of settlements and adopting rate orders
maximum permitted rates • 1205:approve settlement rates for installation and equipment
and direct Comcast to file refund plans and make refunds
•Comcast provides information on affiliated revenues • 1235:disallow network upgrade add-on charge
for franchise fee review • 1240:exclude B&O tax and set max permitted rates
• What it means for subscribers • Authorize execution of the settlement agreement
•Comcast cannot charge future$1.16 upgrade fee
Next Steps
If resolutions are approved:
•Franchise fee review(Spring 2007)
•Verify fees have been paid
•Review compliance,include advertising revenues
•Technical review(Spring 2007)
•Nationally recognized cable engineer
•Needs Assessment Report(Spring 2007)
•Survey of residents'cable-related needs(completed)
•PEG/Governmental program planning
•Draft Cable Franchise Agreement and Ordinance
•Issue Request for Renewal Proposals(RFRP),leading to
formal orinfonnal negotiations
•Act on formal Renewal Proposal(Fall 2007)
2
I'
Cable Television Franchise
Rates Settlement
March 19, 2007
Renton City Council
Committee of the Whole Briefing
1
Franchise Renewal Process:
Overview
■ What's important about renewal
■ Franchise: City grants Comcast the right to operate to
provide cable TV in Renton, and the terms &conditions to
do so
• A review of the cable operator's performance
• Cities seek compensation for use of ROW,and benefits to residents,
such as support for government cable programming
• Renton-Comcast Franchise expires Fall 2008
• Goal: renew by Fall 2007
• Team: Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC, CBG
Communications, Front Range Consulting
Dick Nielsen and Tom Robinson of CBG Communications, Tech Review and
Cable Needs Assessment
Dick Treich of Front Range Consulting for financial analysis and rate review,
franchise fee review
Also internal team
2
i
Franchise Renewal : Overview
• Review Franchise
Commitments/Compliance Review
• Institutional Network (I-Net)
Ownership We are here
• Franchise Fee Review
• System Technical Review
• Needs Assessment Review
• Draft Franchise Agreement &
Ordinance
• Issue Request for Renewal Proposals
(and negotiate formally or informally)
Renewal processes have become more contentious and difficult. Recent FCC
ruling will probably grant access to phone companies to provide some video
services; industry consolidation, changes in law, contributions by cable
providers to government systems, will all influence how the negotiation of the
franchise will go. First informal, then formal negotiations.
3
Compliance Review
• Is Comcast in compliance with the City's
current cable franc_zise and applicable laws
and regulations?
• FCC Form 1235 & 1240 Review(Equipment &
Installation Rates)
• FCC Form 1205 Review(Basic Programming &
Network Upgrade)
• Initiated 4/1/2006; City has one year from
initiation to accept settlement
•
Compliance: FCC Form 1205
• National rate filing by Comcast
• Maximum permitted rates for installation and
equipment
• Comcast must justify basic rates
• Renton participated in national rate consultant
audit/review (Ashpaugh &Sculco, and
FrontRange Consulting)
5
FCC Form 1205 - Findings
■ Comcast cannot justify some maximum permitted rates
• Negotiated maximum permitted rates
• Contract labor
• Asset depreciation expense and reserve
• Installation costs within 12" of residence
• Proposed settlement
• Comcast will offer refund plan and rate reduction
• Comcast will not appeal a rate order consistent with this
resolution
• What it means for subscribers
• Refunds for most types of installation and equipment services
6
Compliance: FCC Forms 1235 & 1240
• 1235: Allowed cable company to recoup costs of
the system upgrade in its rates (14 years)
• 1240: Justifies maximum permitted rates that
Comcast can charge customers for basic cable
programming
• Rate consultants: Dick Treich, Front Range
Consulting &Warren O'Hearn
Nationally known municpal cable rate consultant
7
FCC Forms 1235 & 1240 - Findings
• 1235
• Filed in 1999, allowed Comcast to charge subscribers
+$1.16/month for 14 years;no final filing
• Comcast refusing to provide information regarding affiliated
advertising revenues
• 1240
• Comcast improperly included the Business &Occupational
tax in basic service rate
• Comcast excluded the FCC regulatory fee in its calculation of
maximum permitted rates
B&O inclusion resulted in Comcast receiving inflationary increases on the tax
FCC regulatory fee
8
FCC Forms 1235 & 1240
• Proposed settlement
• Elimination of FCC form 1235 fee
• Elimination of B&O tax
• Inclusion of FCC fee in calculation of 1240
maximum permitted rates
• Comcast provides information on affiliated revenues
for franchise fee review
• What it means for subscribers
• Comcast cannot charge future $1.16 upgrade fee
B&O inclusion resulted in Comcast receiving inflationary increases on the tax
FCC regulatory fee
9
Recommendation
• Set Public Hearing: March 26, 2007
• Prior to April 1, adopt resolution recommending
approval of settlements and adopting rate orders
• 1205: approve settlement rates for installation and equipment
and direct Comcast to file refund plans and make refunds
0 1235: disallow network upgrade add-on charge
• 1240: exclude B&O tax and set max permitted rates
• Authorize execution of the settlement agreement
•
10
Next Steps
If resolutions are approved:
• Franchise fee review(Spring 2007)
• Verify fees have been paid
• Review compliance,include advertising revenues
• Technical review(Spring 2007)
• Nationally recognized cable engineer
• Needs Assessment Report(Spring 2007)
• Survey of residents'cable-related needs (completed)
• PEG/Governmental program planning
• Draft Cable Franchise Agreement and Ordinance
• Issue Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP),leading to
formal or informal negotiations
• Act on formal Renewal Proposal (Fall 2007)
11
From: George McBride
To: ljwarren@seanet.com; Marty Wine
Date: 11/27/2006 8:29:35 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Renton I-Net Memorandum
marty, from my perspective this is well written (i am not an attorney), covers what i believe to be the key
elements of fact concerning how we got where we are today. i also believe, as i have consistently stated,
that the city should pursue its claim to ownership. thanks, gm.
>>> Marty Wine 11/26/2006 4:53:40 PM >>>
Attached is a memo from Mike Bradley regarding the institutional network and its status and relevance
given current cable franchise negotiations. He specifically requested your review of this, Larry, then we
should have a franchise renewal discussion about it within Renton regarding our negotiating strategy.
Could you each please review and comment as relevant to you and relay your comments to me in the next
week or two and we can proceed once we have all reviewed?Thanks.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwinec ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Bonnie Walton; Michael Bailey; Neil Watts
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer©bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/29/2005 11:37:31 AM
Subject: Renton - Comcast/City Document Request
Bonnie,
Per our phone conversation yesterday, I will need the following
documents/information that may have been provided to the City by Comcast:
v1. Franchise Fee Reports -2nd &3rd quarter 2005;
✓2. Performance Summary Reports-2nd &3rd quarter 2005;
ih }zYe�o►'3. Copy of the quarterly franchise fee payment check-2nd quarter&
3rd quarter 2005;
Statement of current billing practices and a sample of copy of the
bill format;
%/5. General Comprehensive Liability Insurance Certificate;
6. Performance Bond or other acceptable surety bond (not sure which one
the City is requiring...);
),adiJ - 7. 2005 Comcast Channel Allocations (Channel Line-Up). A listing that
shows Comcast's programming and its tiers in which they are placed;
Copt') v8. Comcast System Maps (unless the City has requested such maps,
Comcast may not be currently providing them);
AT; r - 9. Comcast Annual Report;
10. Copy of the Comcast 10K Report;
r1. Number of home passed;
12. Number of subscribers with basic services;
} 13. Number of subscribers with premium services;
14. Number of hook-ups in a period;.
15. Total miles of cable in the City;.
���' 6. Summary of the complaints received by category, length of time taken
C� o resolve and action taken to provide resolution;
7 17. Current copy of Comcast subscriber service contract;
18. Report on Operations-such other reports with respect to its local
operation, affairs,transactions or property that may be appropriate; and
19. Maintenance Payment Checks for Video Equipment-does the City still
ve receives these checks for$1,500 annually or is the money going to PSA?
As we discussed, you may not have all of the above documents, since the
franchise requires that the City request some of the documents before
Comcast"needs"to provide them.
I also need the following City documents:
541 1. ROW Ordinance (electronic copy would be the best);
2. Any policies, documentation, regulations, performance review of the
PSA operations, audit, etc. for the Puget Sound Access (PSA);
3. Contact information for PSA; and
4. Who is the City's representative for the PSA Board?
Emergency Override:
1. Does the City have the ability to use its emergency override
capabilities;
2. Has the City used the emergency override system;
3. If so, roughly, when was the last time it was used;
4. Does the City test its emergency override system;
5. If so, how often; and
6. Does the City share its override capabilities with other surrounding
communities?
This is a good start on the document/information front. As you locate these
documents, either mail or e-mail them to me. It would be great if we could
try to locate as many documents as possible by December 19, so if the City
does not have all documentation we can still request the documentation from
Comcast before the end of the year. I will also need much of this
information to provide the City with a update/status report on Comcast and
cable issues.
Also, you mentioned yesterday that Comcast will begin forwarding future
information/mailings to B&G as well. Do- , •-t mean that on Dec. 31,
Comcast will send B&G and the City o opies of its performance
review and franchise fee payment information? I just want to make sure
that, if we do not receive the information in the future, that I request it
from the correct individual.
Thank you for all of your assistance!
Thanks,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
CC: "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
4112. .
I
:4----- -`r--- ---A"till/ ' '
, - , . -
.., r rImic
Ecc.--- wzaf: , --)&v 1141, 90z/
': - ,b.,&&i(gi 1 1---- ___ _
..--- aLk__4440.
, 44-0 pLe 1„didei.yti Let" II
'. 4 �� �i12 :,'/;1 =-
,.
t g' 44,g•
, ks:n,,;_s 5 -
/
--- , dif-A.11.r- acia
._... 9'6' • le-a-aiA-""
- zpte-/- ____ cial. .
' - ,61adot-7d iln4"./41/id
7 h /11/(47/1-11 .
IE - # I1, WW e K9P 99
1‘--- vi-.//fr ,/i/i/ ir /
, ,......, eta eilte,e~ zy3100..
Ii 64. 1,;)
From: George McBride
To: Larry Warren; Marty Wine
Date: 11/28/2006 9:01:23 AM
Subject: RE: Renton I-Net Memorandum
we estimate there is approximately 15 strand miles of comcast fiber in-place with a replacement cost
anywhere from $400,000 to $700,000 depending on a lot of mitigating factors. at the time of construction,
my estimate was $750,000. although the cost of fiber is now lower, labor costs have risen, pretty much an
offset. we have been working on a plan to extend the city's fiber optic network to fire station#16. the
distance we need to cover is approximately 2 miles with an estimated cost of$50,000. using this estimate
and our knowledge of expenses incurred on other additions to the city's network, i am comfortable with
this cost range. mitigating issues might be partnering with the school district to reduce costs, variances
for lashing overhead cable to existing poles, repair of existing underground conduits, sizing of cabling
(some cables are 48 pair, some 6 and all numbers in between, etc.). i want to emphasize that this is an
estimate only, based on costs we have already experienced in making fiber additions to our network.
thanks, gm.
>>> "Larry Warren" <ljwarren@seanet.com> 11/27/2006 10:53 AM >>>
Marty, I have been over this issue several times. What is new, in my
recollection, is mention of two letters from ICI to the then city clerk in
late 1998 and early 1999 referring to the city owned I-net. Without those
letters, all we had was one sided city documents i.e. Committee of the Whole
and Council minutes. With just those council documents it was our word
against theirs.
Even now, this is not an easy case to win. We need to make a business
decision whether or not it is worth the cost of a suit to try and secure
title to these assets. I have no idea what the value would be of the I-net.
I would guess that attorney's fees would be at least$50,000 and maybe more
depending on circumstances. Let's presume the city has a 60% chance to win.
Without factoring in staff time, if the I-net is worth more than $100,000,
then a business case can be made to file the suit.
Perhaps we need to meet internally to gauge sentiment and test recollection
and then meet with Mike Bradley.
Original Message
From: Marty Wine [mailto:mwine@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:54 PM
To: ljwarren@seanet.com
Cc: Bonnie Walton; George McBride; Michael Bailey; Neil Watts
Subject: Fwd: Renton I-Net Memorandum
Attached is a memo from Mike Bradley regarding the institutional network and
its status and relevance given current cable franchise negotiations. He
specifically requested your review of this, Larry, then we should have a
franchise renewal discussion about it within Renton regarding our
negotiating strategy. Could you each please review and comment as relevant
to you and relay your comments to me in the next week or two and we can
proceed once we have all reviewed?Thanks.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Bonnie Walton; Michael Bailey; Neil Watts
From: Marty Wine
To: McBride, George; Medzegian, Julia; Neumann, Michele; Shridhar, Preeti; Walton,
Bonnie; Wine, Marty
Date: 1/5/2007
Time: 8:30:00 AM - 10:30:00 AM
Subject: Visioning: cable channel and gov't access
Place: Mayor's Conference Room
Please note: location of meeting has changed, now in Mayor's Conference Room
Purpose of this meeting: a first conversation about what the "G" in PEG (Public, Educational and
Governmental)access means for Renton in the future.
For the cable renewal process,we need to identify our negotiation strategy with Comcast based on our
vision of our channel. But before we can do that, I would like to have a wide ranging conversation with you
all that will focus on identifying our current capabilities and goals for the cable channel, programming,
equipment, and what our vision going forward will be. I'll structure an agenda and get it to you in advance.
The vision and ideas coming from this meeting will inform 1) how Bradley& Guzzetta will negotiate on our
behalf with Comcast and 2)our own activities going forward. Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson may
conference in on this meeting so they can hear and help us where needed.
Please suggest others who have interests in the cable channel,who you think should be in this visioning
exercise. After this meeting,we'll have another session with Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson to discuss
these issues related specifically to negotiations and the renewal.
Bonnie, I would like to work with you before this meeting to create a one-page situation assessment of
where we are today that we can use as an input for the discussion.
Those of you on the cc: list-please join us if this is of interest, but it's optional if you have other things to
do.
CC: Bailey, Michael; Pietsch, Alexander
: CID•
• y,.
jn
a a
-sC.1)
}
x °
.41111
L . .
Policies. & Procedures Id
a .dbo k
APPROVED August 2003
rv. 10/03
The purpose of this document is to clearly set forth
the rules and procedures that govern the operation of
the Puget Sound Access (PSA) facilities and channel.
These rules and procedures are intended to encourage
participation by individuals and groups from PSA member
cities in a fair and equitable manner.
PSA reserves the right to restrict any person from
using PSA facilities for violation of these or other
policies that result in the disruption of PSA activities
and operations.
P. M4
These policies may be revised by the PSA Board of
Directors in response to the changes we face as demand
on our resources increases. Approved changes to these
policies will be published and disseminated to the
members and funding jurisdictions of PSA. Every effort will
be made to notify all members of policy changes.
Our Mission
To empower PSA members to produce television
programming responsive to the diverse range of
perspectives, issues, &
interests of their communities.
LOCATION
22412 72nd Ave South Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200
EMAIL
info@pugetsoundaccess.org
WEB
www.pugetsoundaccess.org
SIGNIFICANT DATES
Puget Sound Access may be closed on the following days: New Year's Eve & Day,
Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day & Labor Day, Presidents Day, Veterans' Day, Thanksgiving Day, the
day after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve Day, Christmas Day
The intent of these policies is to provide rules that are reasonable, clear, fair, and
can be fairly enforced. If a member has questions concerning current policies and
practices, he/she is encouraged to discuss them with the PSA staff.
Members are required to acknowledge receipt of these operating policies.
This book describes the policies guiding membership, training, program production,
channel use, and user responsibilities. These policies are designed to be flexible and
change as needs evolve. They are guided by the following: The Constitution of the
United States of America; The Washington State Constitution; The Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended; the Cable Consumer Protection Act
of 1992, as amended; The Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended; other
applicable federal and state laws and court decisions; PSA Bylaws; PSA service
contracts with the cities of Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila and
the cable franchise documents for these member cities
1. WELCOME TO PSA
LLI
1.1 Our Values
1.2 Statement of Purpose
1.3 Introduction
1.4 PSA Board of Directors
.11.5 Definitions
W
1.6 Non-Discrimination Policy
1.7 PSA Records
2. MEMBERSHIP C.
2.2 Relationship Between PSA and Members
2.3 Individual Members ce
2.4 Organizational Members W
2.5 Membership Fees m
2.6 Non-Residents
2.7 Scholarships W
3. TRAINING
3.1 Eligibility
3.2 Orientation
3.3 Production Workshops Z
Provider
Production
Camcorder
Editing
Studio
4 PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT I-
.1 General Guide Ines
4.2 Financial Responsibility W
4.3 Portable Equipment
4.4 Studio d
4.5 Editing
4.6 PSA Production Services (S
4.7 Production Partnerships with PSA W
5 PROGRAMMING & CHANNEL USE
... . ILA5.1 .rogram Rig is r
5.2 Program Support and Underwriting
5.3 Program Content
5.4 Potentially Indecent and/or Erotic Programming J
5.5 Program Scheduling W
5.6 Political Programming
5.7 Programming Preview
5.8 Program Archival
5.9 Media & Dubbing V
5.10 Program Liability
5.11 Technical Requirements 1-
5.12 Public Service Announcement Display V
6 CONDUCT CI
u pen is ono ages
6.2 Disciplinary Actions o
6.3 Dispute Resolution and Appeal Process
7 PSA FORMS ,
1. WELCOME TO PSA
1.2 Statement of Purpose
Puget Sound Access(PSA)is a 501(c)(3)non-profit corporation
1 .1 Our Values established to administer the use of community access
channels and facilities dedicated to providing equipment and
• services to the residents of South King County.
Bringing Local Events PSA coordinates outreach, training, production, playback,
to the and promotional activities to achieve these goals.
Viewing Audience ' PSA wants to make available to cable viewers programming
that reflects the interests and serves the needs of every
segment of the community.
Community Partnerships 1,, PSA is unequivocally committed to the expression of lawful
free speech. Our responsibility is to assist, to the best of
Diversity our abilities, all residents, non-profit organizations, schools,
and local government agencies in South King County in the
Effective Use of production of their programs.
Technology We encourage high technical quality in programming that
leads to entertaining, diverse, informative, challenging,
Fiscal Responsibility and interesting programs, and incorporate these values in
programming that is an asset to our member cities.
Open Exchange of Ideas 1.3 Introduction
Inclusivit" PSA signed service contracts in June of 2000, with the cities
..' of Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila to
develop and manage community access programming.
Lawful Free Speech
1.4 PSA Board of Directors
Media Training &
is=. The PSA Board of Directors is a self-appointed volunteer
Literacy board. Each member serves a two-year term. The board
sets policies for the organization. These policies are then
Open Access to t,
implemented through procedures determined by the
Executive Director. The Executive Director also gathers
Information information and suggestions from members, board, staff,
and volunteers at PSA, and relays this input to the Board.
1
1.5 Definitions or demonstrated to PSA staff, a sufficient
working knowledge of the facilities and 1.IJ
"Advertising" Material designed to promote a equipment available to them and is current on M
commercial service, business or product. membership dues. V
"Channel" A channel on the Comcast cable system "Local Program" Non-commercial programs L I
in greater South King County that is administered by produced within a PSA member city.
PSA.
"Member City" Within the incorportated city ,--
"Equipment" Any and all video and audio equipment limits of a city in contract with PSA for cable �n
available for the production of community access access services. ,
ro rammin
p g g "Non-Profit Organization" Recognized by the r r
"Erotic Material" "Motion pictures, photographs, IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization and
pictures, printed material and other such objects also registered with the State of Washington as i
depicting: human sexual intercourse; direct physical a non-profit corporation. t-'"
stimulation of unclothed genitals; flagellation or x m
torture in the context of sexual relationships; or "Non-Resident" An individual who does not
an emphasized depiction of bare adult genitals; live in a PSA member city. Gcry:'
provided, however, that this definition applies only to
`4"-,
those works which, applying the average standards "Obscene" Defined by applying the Miller
of the city, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient test: (a) whether the average person, applying t- -,
interest of persons and which lack serious literary, contemporary community standards would find
artistic, political or scientific value. that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the - -
prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts
"Facilities/Premises"The building, parking lot, and or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual .
other property currently under control of Puget Sound conduct specifically defined by applicable state r
Access. law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a + +
whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or ':-y
"Funding Jurisdiction" Local jurisdictions that have scientific value. t-;_-
a service agreement with PSA. tm,.
"Organizational Member" Educational L.•
"Import Program" Non-commercial programs institution, funding juristiction, government
produced by a person or organization not residing in a agency, or non-profit organization that has t;
'PSA member city. successfully completed PSA training and is :
current on membership dues. _.-`
"Indecent Material" Defined by the courts as the °_
repetitive and deliberate use of language or material "Producer" A PSA member that has primary -;-r.
that depicts or describes, whether directly or by content control and legal responsibility for ..
innuendo, in terms patently offensive as measured by program content of programs submitted to PSA G
contemporary community standards for the broadcast for cablecast.
medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs. For ti
example, extreme physical violence or degradation, "Provider" A PSA member that provides :_
nudity, graphic depiction of medical procedures, programming to PSA for cablecast and assumes
and repetitive use of profanity would be considered primary legal responsibility for the program
"indecent". Profanity includes, but is not limited to, content. '= `
words such as those identified in FCC vs. Pacifica. -:"
"Resident" An individual whose principal
"Individual Member" PSA members who have abode, within which the individual lives the `-- '
successfully completed a PSA training workshop majority of the time, is within a PSA member , t
city.
2
1.6 Non-Discrimination Policy In order to schedule a program for playback, check-
out equipment, obtain equipment certification or
No individual will be denied PSA membership or enroll in a closed enrollment class, a member must
access to any PSA equipment, facilities, or channel present a valid Washington State Drivers License or
time on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, Washington State ID containing a recent photograph
age, physical disability, religious or political belief, and current residency address or other valid proof
or due to the nature of the programming interest. of residency.
Individuals that violate the policies and procedures
of PSA will be subject to disciplinary action outlined PSA keeps photocopies of member IDs on file but
in Section 6 of this document. showing an ID may be required at any time. PSA
reserves the right to independently verify the
1.7 PSA Records residency status of members.
PSA maintains public records in accordance with 2.2 Relationship Between PSA and Members
state and federal law. These records are available
for inspection during normal business hours. PSA is a private non-profit corporation. Members
Persons requesting review of these records must and producers are not agents or employees of PSA
submit a written request to the Executive Director, and are considered to be independent producers
which includes their name, address, and telephone that create programming for themselves or the
number and provide proof of identity. organization they represent. At no time may any
individual or organization identify themselves as
2. MEMBERSHIP an employee or agent of PSA or any of the funding
jurisdictions unless hired by PSA or the jurisdictions
2.1 Eligibility to perform a service.
PSA membership is open to residents, non-profit PSA exercises no control, beyond these policies,
organizations, educational institutions, and public over production activities by members except
agencies located in the cities of Auburn, Burien, when members have been recruited by PSA to crew
Kent, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila. PSA Membership productions that are specifically coordinated by
is a non-voting membership to utilize equipment PSA.
space and exercise the right to cablecast on the Members must not identify their production efforts
community access channel. as being "for PSA", rather, producers should
Membership is required before taking training indicate that their programs "will be seen on PSA
workshops or using PSA production equipment and Channel 77".
must be renewed yearly. 2.3 Individual Members
There are no age restrictions for PSA membership, Individual members must be residents within the
however, parents or legal guardians of members incorporated city limits of PSA member cities.
under age 18 must sign the parental consent portion They may take training workshops and use the
of the PSA Statement of Compliance form when a PSA production facilities and equipment to create
minor requests training and to allow the use of PSA programs to be cablecast on the access channel.
production facilities and equipment or schedules Individual members must provide to PSA a current,
programming on the channel. accurate address of their primary residence.
Members should provide a current mailing address
3 if different from their residence.
•
2.4 Organizational Members 2.5 Membership Fees ,
�_ li
Organizational members must be either: PSA chose a membership-based structure CD
to increase user accountability, demonstrate
An educational institution, funding commitment to the principals of cable access,
jurisdiction, or government agency with and help defray operating expenses. g .
offices located in a PSA member city; or ..
Membership fees are collected following the a
A non-profit organization recognized orientation workshop. —
by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) tax exempt =
organization that is registered with the Membership fees are established by the CO
State of Washington and has a primary PSA Board of Directors and are subject to W
change.
place of business located in a PSA m
member city.
LIJ
This can be an independent organization, . The PSA M
or a duly recognized chapter, branch or membership fee ` C
other division of a larger state, national or • structure
international organization. PSA may request ;I G-,'
is established
proof of this registration and a current accurate bythe PSA Board of c
address of their primary location and mailing `i
address. Directors and is madeE.
available at PSA and .z
Organizational members must name a primary C
contact person and may identify up to 4 online at 3 er
additional representatives to be covered by the ? www.pugetsoundaccess.com •i -
organization's membership. These individuals J r..
may receive training and use PSA production
facilities to create programming on behalf of `L.1"`
the organization for cablecast on the access 2.6 Non-Residents C
channel. Organizations may have a maximum Pia°
of 5 people on their member roster at any one Individuals who do not live in PSA member
fe
time. Persons listed on an organizational cities are considered "Non-residentsTM. Non-
member's production/training roster are residents may receive training and check-not considered individual members of out PSA production equipment only when C
PSA, working on behalf of an organizational °-_7
member. Non-residents must be listed as- K. .,
Certified organizational representativescan only such on the organizational member's roster.
check out equipment and produce programs
that are sponsored by their organization. If Non-Residents cannot hold individual
certified organizational members wish to use membership. t h
PSA equipment to produce programming of `--'`
their own personal interest, they must become
an individual member.
4
2.7 Scholarships Orientation is a prerequisite for all PSA
workshops
Waivers, fee reductions and scholarships may be
available to residents of member cities based on 3.3 Production Workshops
financial need. Persons who receive a waiver of
membership fees are entitled to the same privileges PSA Production workshops are basic production
as paid members. courses that offer hands-on training for PSA
members and are offered on a first come, first
Persons may request a scholarship if they cannot served basis.
pay the membership fee for reasons of financial
hardship as defined on the scholarship application Completion of each workshop allows a member
form. to reserve and use that portion of the facility. For
example, after taking an edit workshop, a member
Scholarships must be renewed yearly. Individuals may reserve edit suite time.
with limited revenue may, with approval of the
PSA Executive Director, arrange for an in-kind If a member fails to show for a scheduled class
contribution in exchange for their membership. without notification to a staff member at least 24
hours in advance, they will be charged a fee. PSA
PSA shall designate all in-kind assignments, which will attempt to place them in the next available
may include media production, administrative session.
services, or other appropriate duties depending on
PSA's needs and the member's skills. All other workshops are available depending on
interests.
3. TRAINING Producers may test-out of certain workshops
3.1 Eligibility provided they can prove proficiency.
You must be a current individual member or an
authorized representative of a current organizational
member as described in Section 2.4 to take PSA Members must take
training workshops. Current PSA membership and
attendance at an Orientation meeting are required f the provider workshop
before you may sign up for other training workshops.
Groups of 10 or more should contact the to submit a program for
Executive Director to schedule training.
cablecast.
3.2 Orientation •PSA Orientations are informational workshops -=~ ~
designed to ensure that participants understand their
rights and responsibilities as members, producers,
provider, and viewers. PSA Orientations are free and
open to the public. Following orientation, residents
are encouraged to become PSA members and sign
up for PSA workshops in TV production.
5
PSA WORKSHOPS f r _.,
4
>.u.=.a+.....rn_ rerc...i1ew..�uwavwr. » r+i++ N• ,x.y..,-- n..t.9R z».w._at}.., �
G "
r
r
t ,
it Provider (required to provide a progam) - The rules and regulations that rr,;-
govern providing programming to cablecast on the channel. Introduction -...
to the online web reservation system. Upon completion, members can
provide a program to be cablecast on the access channel. r.
Production (required to produce a program) - Intimate, interactive
CD
workshop on what it takes to produce videos, both in studio and in the
field. Topics include budgeting for a project, equipment needs, working
with volunteers, shooting to edit, and writing a script. Upon completion, Q
members can produce a program to be cablecast on the access channel. H
Camcorder - Camcorder basics and introduction to accessory equipment,
such as the portable light kit, to shoot productions on location. Upon
completion, members can use the camcorder package to produce a
program to be cablecast on the access channel. •
J Editing - Digital editing basics. How to import, edit and export footage.
Upon completion, members can use PSA editing suites to produce a
program to be cablecast on the access channel,
LI Studio - How to direct, light, run robotic camera-system, audio engineer,
and run the character generator. Upon completion, members can use i
the studio to produce a program to be cablecast on the access channel.
t-R
6
4. PRODUCTION EQUIPMENT Certified members who are repeatedly
late returning equipment, fail to cancel
4.1 General Guidelines reservations, or violate any other PSA policies
will be subject to disciplinary action, as defined
PSA staff will treat members in a courteous, in these policies.
client-oriented fashion and assist members in
fulfilling their production goals. PSA staff will also PSA reserves the right to adjust equipment use and
be engaged in productions for the channel. PSA project maximum policies as needs arise.
staff will not produce a program for members but
will provide suggestions on technique, equipment, 4.2 Financial Responsibility
and production planning that can help to ensure a Certified members must sign an Equipment Use
successful project. Agreement accepting to reimburse PSA for repair or
Prior to making any equipment reservations, replacement of any equipment that is damaged, lost
members must complete and submit a Project or stolen while in their possession. If the member is
Proposal Form for each new project, initially under age 18, a parent or legal guardian must sign
provided at the producer workshop. Members may the Equipment Use Agreement.
have a maximum of 3 projects in production at one
time. 4.3 Portable Equipment
PSA production equipment and facilities are Portable equipment includes camcorders, tripods,
made available on a first come, first served light kits, audio equipment, and other accessories
basis, to members that have completed for remote productions.
PSA workshops or have provided proof of Portable equipment may be reserved for 48 hours
proficiency. Only current members are allowed to
reserve or operate PSA equipment. PSA production at a time. Portable equipment reservations may
equipment must be utilized to create programming be extended if the additional time has not been
that will be seen on the access channel. PSA reserved by another member provided the PSA staff
equipment designated for producer use is not is notified. Reservation extensions will be granted
available for rent, personal use, or commercial no sooner than 7 days prior to the reservation
production. date. Camcorder reservations will be taken up to 2
months in advance. No more than 2 camcorders may
Studio productions, editing, and equipment check- be reserved for any one project at a time. No more
out must be scheduled during regular facility hours than 2 camcorders may be checked out by any one
or online through the PSA web reservation system. individual.
Hours for portable equipment check-in/check-
Only certified members are allowed to operate
out may be different than regular facility hours the portable equipment.
and will be posted. Studio, edit, and equipment
reservations are taken by staff only. Voice-mail and
email messages do not constitute a reservation.
A member is considered a "no-show" if they are
20 minutes late without advising PSA. The time
reserved will be made available on a first come, first
serve basis.
7
4.4 Studio 4.5 Editing
Ng
Studio includes the control room, studio room, Only current members certified to use
and all other equipment in them for live or taped the editing equipment may reserve edit
productions. Studio requests are not confirmed time. Certified members may reserve a 0
until they have been reviewed and entered into maximum of 4 hours per reservation.
the studio reservation system. Studio time is Edit reservations will be taken up to 2 "-
scheduled in conjunction with the programming months in advance. No food or drink is
season. allowed in the edit bays.
PSA members may book a maximum of 4 4.6 PSA Production Services 'E.
hours per studio reservation. The total n `
number of hours an individual may reserve PSA may be hired to produce programs C-.
g programming for member cities or mayc Burin theseason will be based contract to
on the demand for the resource. Only current additional cities to help offset costs. PSA
members with studio certification may be staff can not be hired for commercial
used as crew for studio productions. projects as employees of PSA. PSA staff iscp
allowed to produce programs for non profitoranizat
d scretionl ons of PSA management.promote AS to sheet
No food or drink is is available upon request. -
4.7 Production Partnerships with PSA
allowed in control
As a service to producers and member Z
room or studio. cities, PSA may choose to be a co-applicant W
for a grant or use it's non-profit status to a
assist a producer in securing a grant. In
all situations, PSA will administer a 20%
at least 15 minutes prior to the end of administrative fee for all monies received. W
Studio productions must be completed
the reserved time in order for staff to do l r;
Ctl
a walk-through and complete check-in
,,
procedures.
The studio must be left in a clean, orderly state, e--
with all equipment in a "normal" setting and _�,
ready in time for the next production. Refer
to the posted studio rules and checklist for '.
details.
C
No food or drink is allowed in the control room
or studio. If you are bringing food for your crew, .
please use a PSA designated area. .-.,;,
Pagers and cellular phones should be turned off
or put in silent mode during productions.
8
5.PROGRAMMING&CHANNEL 5.2 Program Support and Underwriting
USE Members seeking underwriting, whether cash or in-
kind contributions, must obtain written approval for
5.1 Program Rights the underwriting activity from the Executive Director
PSA members are the owners of the programs they prior to contacting potential contributors.
create and as such retain the copyright for their Members may not solicit or receive personal
program. Programs produced with PSA equipment financial compensation for the production of their
must be intended for cablecasting on the PSA own programming.
channel.
All underwriting and in-kind contributions must be
PSA recognizes that additional uses occasionally described on the Program Contract.All contributors
develop that were not part of the primary intent must be acknowledged in the program closing
of the producer. Producers may take advantage of credits. In addition, producers may acknowledge
these unanticipated opportunities only when: contributors once every 30 minutes during the body
of the program. Programs less than 30 minutes in
A Program Contract has been filed for length may have 1 contributor acknowledgment in
cablecast on PSA's channel prior to any other addition to the closing credit.
use.
Underwriting credits must be formatted as such:
Any use of the program for fund raising
activities must be by an organization that The credit may use full or partial screen
has been granted 501(c)(3) tax exempt with plain background or over program
status by the Internal Revenue Service. video with or without voice-over for a
maximum of 10 seconds.
The producer notifies PSA's Executive Director
in advance of the additional unanticipated Service descriptions, photographs or video of
use of the program. business locations, business logos and business
addresses are not permitted.
No other PSA policy is violated. If this
policy is violated, the producer may
have member privileges suspended or
revoked. . ....
There is absolutely no distribution of programs for There is absolutely y
PSA reserves the right to retain one copy of selected i no distribution of
programs for cablecasting and archival purposes.
PSA may request but not require that programs ` programs for profit. I
be used for promotional purposes or distribution to
other access centers.
9
•
5.3 Program Content
PSA encourages community producers to exercise the responsible expression of their
1st Amendment rights. Program producers and/or sponsoring agencies are held :
solely responsible and legally accountable for the content of their programs and as
such may be subject to prosecution for the cablecast of illegal material.
Producers and/or authorized representatives of organizations supplying programs are required
to complete a PSA Program Contract that truthfully and accurately describes the program or r`
series they are submitting for cablecast. Should the program(s) deviate from that described in C}
the original Program Contract, a revised Program Contract must be completed before the L=W
program is scheduled.Willful falsification of this document or material misrepresentation
of information required is grounds for revocation of membership privileges. Should a
court order be issued against a program or series for any reason,the cablecast of that
program or series will be suspended pending the legal decision.
The following content limitations apply to any and all programs or messages cablecast on the ):
access channel administered by PSA. Community producers should seek staff assistance in
meeting these guidelines.
The following are absolutely prohibited: 41.7
:"."
Lotteries/ Contests: Lotteries or contests that involve directly or indirectly the elements of
a prize, chance, and/or consideration. Reference section 76.213 of the rules of the FederalCommunications Commission.
Illegal Material: Material which would subject the producer or supplier to civil or criminal
prosecution under any applicable local, state, or federal law for production or presentation of
obscene or erotic material, slander or libel, invasion of privacy.
Licensed Material: Material that is copyrighted or subject to ownership or royalty rights, union ~:
residuals, or other payment e.g. music, written works, photographs, film unless .,-
P Y � video)
producer has obtained all necessary permission, releases, licenses and made all necessary W
payments to authorize cablecasting of any such material. PSA may require producers to provide CO
evidence of such payment or permission.
Advertising / Commercial Endorsements: Advertising or other material that is designed to J
promote commercial businesses, the sale of commercial products, or purchase of professional W
or commercial services. This includes but is not limited to, product or business endorsements Z
and/or service descriptions. For example: A program guest may be identified as "John Doe Z
- Owner ABC Business Supplies"but not "John Doe, owner ABC Business Supplies, the best =
selection and the lowest prices in town."To advise viewers how to get more information about V
program topics, program credits can include a contact name, phone number, web site or e-
mail address. Credits must be in accordance with underwriting guidelines in Section 5.2 of this
policy manual.
Unauthorized Fundraising: Solicitation of funds by organizations other than those pre-approved
by PSA that have been granted 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. ,�,
10
•
5.4 Potentially Indecent Programmina Local programming has priority over imported
programming when being scheduled.
PSA wants to provide parents and guardians with
a means of controlling the viewing of programming Unless a program receives a special waiver, it
with indecent material by children as well as provide must be scheduled for cablecast at least 2 weeks
viewers with notification of programming with in advance. The program producer/provider must
potentially indecent material so they can make complete a Program Contract acknowledging their
informed cable viewing choices. PSA requires a legal responsibility for program content.
content advisory notice before each program
with potentially indecent content. Programs are scheduled on a first come, first
considered basis. PSA will post available time
The content advisory notice must be formatted slots and producers/providers may request specific
as such: times for cablecast. PSA will make every effort to
accommodate these requests within the limits of
The notice will use full screen with plain available channel time slots but will not guarantee
color background for a minimum of 30 requests can be honored.
seconds.
Any programming with at least 25% of the
While providing such notification, we do not wish to same visual content as a previously submitted
preclude the opportunity for all forms of expression or cablecast program will be considered repeat
on the PSA channel in accordance with all relevant programming regardless of program provider.
laws. Programming with potentially indecent
material as defined in these policies will be The number of repeat showings any program -
scheduled between 12:00am and 5:00am. receives after its first cablecast will be based on the
available channel time and may change as demand -
5.5 Program Scheduling for channel time increases. PSA reserves the right
PSA reserves the right to pre-empt to pre-empt program repeats to facilitate the
programming as needs arise. scheduling of special programming. PSA will make
a good faith effort to notify producers in advance if
Any non-commercial program with a majority of their scheduled program is being changed.
material produced by a PSA member city resident, Programs scheduled to air Monday - Friday must be
whether it was produced through PSA, a school or delivered to a PSA staff person 3 work days prior
other institution, or a private production facility to the air date. Programs that are scheduled to air
within PSA member city limits, is considered "local" on Saturday or Sunday must be delivered no later
programming for purposes of scheduling. than 9:00pm on Thursday. Programs not delivered
Non-commercial programming produced by in accordance with this schedule may be delayed for
non-residents is considered to be "imported" playback. PSA reserves the right to change delivery
programming. Only non-profit organizations requirements.
who are current organizational members The intent of channel scheduling is to allow
of PSA may request cablecast of imported viewers and producers/providers ease of
programming on the access channel. access and use of channel capacity. PSA will
not allow channel monopolization of any sort
by any individual or organization.
11
SERIES PROGRAMS PSA encourages local community producers to
must a provide like opportunities when they produce
To obtain a series slot a
producersignprograms about political candidates or ballot
• Program Contract and request a series timeslot. issues.
Producers must provide 2 programs to PSA staff
prior to scheduling. 5.7 Programming Preview
Exceptions: live series do not need any recorded PSA reserves the right to require a mandatory pre-
programs on hand; series featuring timely cablecast review by the PSA Executive Director
commentary need only 1 recorded program on PSA Board of Directors, or assigned staff, of any
hand. production which, as described in the Program
Contract, portrays or depicts material considered
Series programs will be assigned a regular time sensitive for children under federal law.
slot for at least 6 months. In order to make time
available for all current and future programs, PSA Additionally, if the PSA staff has reason to believe a
reserves the right to make schedule changes. program violates any PSA policy, the PSA Executive
Director or assigned staff may preview the program
Each series producer must submit a never-before or refer it to the PSA Board of Directors for review
seen program in accordance with the time frame they and policy interpretation. PSA reserves the right
have agreed to in the Program Contract, unless to suspend a program until a determination
they notify the Executive Director in advance. regarding the potential violation has been
made by the Board of Directors. Reasonable
If a new episode is not received as scheduled, effort will be made to notify the producer/provider
PSA reserves the right to schedule substitute of the status of the program. Likewise, management
programming. If a new episode is not received by reserves the absolute right to terminate, in progress,
the end of the agreed upon grace period, the series the cablecast of any program it deems is in violation
time slot will be discontinued. of these policies. Decisions of the Executive Director
5.6 Political Programming can be appealed as set forth by the dispute resolution
procedures described in these policies.
Any program describing or endorsing declared
political candidates or describing ballot issues that is
directly related to a current campaign is considered
"Political Programming." Programs which include
appearances by incumbents acting in their current PSA reserves the right to
elected or professional capacity are not included in
this definition. ' terminate, in progress, the
Each political program produced by PSA and for cablecast of any program it
which PSA has direct editorial control will be non-
partisan and will provide an equal opportunity for deems is in violation of these
all candidates or parties concerned to participate.
If a candidate or issue representative declines to k policies.
participate, PSA will not be obligated to provide
other opportunities.
12
5.8 Program Archival All program producers/providers must
provide to PSA a current, working telephone
PSA will hold archival programs for 60 days number or mailing address where they can
after last airdate. PSA reserves the right to receive messages or comments about their
recycle all media after 60 days. program.
5.9 Media & Dubbing 5.11 Technical Requirements
Producers/providers must provide their own media Programs submitted for playback must have
or may purchase media from PSA, at cost. PSA technical standards high enough to deliver a
staff will make copies of completed programs for a clear, consistent and unbroken picture to cable
nominal fee. subscribers. Audio must be clearly understandable
5.10 Program lability and at audible levels without distortion.
Program producer/providers must accept by PSA will accept the following for playback:
signature the liability and indemnification
agreement portion of the Program Contract DVD * VHS * SVHS * Mini-DV
acknowledging legal responsibility for program
content. If the producer/provider is under 18, a All programs submitted on a SVHS or VHS tape
parent or legal guardian must sign the program must be recorded at SP. Program audio for SVHS
contract.The content of programs presented on must be recorded in "normal". All formats must
the access channel is solely the responsibility have audio recorded to cablecast for mono output.
of the producer. PSA requests 72 hours to import tape programs to --
As such: the server for playout.
No liability for the content of access programs Programs submitted on DVD must be in a format
for which PSA does not have direct production supported by PSA.
control shall attach itself to PSA , the funding Programs must have a minimum of 10 seconds of
jurisdictions, their agents or employees, or video black prior to the program beginning and
the cable operator. a distinct end with black recorded for at least 10
Applicants for cablecast time shall sign a seconds following.
release which saves and holds PSA, the PSA reserves the right to reject programs that
funding jurisdictions, their agents and do not meet technical standards.
employees, and the cable operator, harmless
for all damages or claims arising as a result of 5.12 Public Service Announcement Display
the use of access channels by the applicant.
PSA will cablecast computer generated screens,when
Locally produced programs must include time is available on the channel, consisting of public
the producer's/provider's name in the opening service announcments and program schedules. Use
&closing credits. of the public service annoucement display is open
Imported programs must include the name and to any non-profit organization or public agency
current, working toll - free telephone number located in PSA member cities. The community board
may be used to announce meetings, events, and
of the providing organization. activities that are open to the public. Commercial
advertisements will not be accepted.
13
•
Code of Conduct 1 pm
The following acts are prohibited:
False information: Intentionally providing false Harassment/physical harm: threatening,
information to PSA for the purpose of obtaining intimidating or harassing another with intent
membership services, access to channel time, or to substantially harm the person with respect
to avoid determination of facts in accordance with to his or her physical safety or mental health.
any PSA investigation or hearing This includes causing physical harm to any
person or property on PSA premises or at any
Misrepresentation: Individuals and organizations PSA sponsored activity or causing reasonable ,
must not identify themselves as being an employee apprehension of such harm to another person.
or agent of PSA or the funding jurisdictions unless rizr
hired by PSA or the jurisdictions to perform a Disrupting PSA functions: Intentionally and/
specific service. or recklessly interfering with the normal PSA
operations or with PSA sponsored activities.
Destroying or damaging property: Intentionally
and/or recklessly destroying or damaging PSA Smoking: Smoking is prohibited inside the PSA
property or the property of others on PSA premises facilities.
or at PSA sponsored events or activities.
Theft or conversion: Deprivation of another
Drugs/alcoholic beverages: Use, possession or person's property including PSA property or
distribution of any controlled substance, illegal services without that individual's or PSA's
drug, or alcoholic beverage on PSA premises or authorization.
at PSA sponsored events. Appearance at any PSA PA
sponsored event while intoxicated or under the Use of PSA name/logo: Unauthorized use of the
influence of a controlled substance is prohibited PSA logo, name, indicia, motto, or symbols for
and will be considered a violation. any purpose without prior consent by the PSA
Executive Director. "'
Weapons, firearms, explosives and dangerous grit
chemicals: Use or possession of any weapon, Inappropriate behavior: Engaging in lewd,
explosives, dangerous chemicals, substances indecent, erotic or obscene behavior or language
instruments or other weapons, as defined by on PSA premises or at PSA sponsored activities.
state law, which may be used to inflict bodily
harm on another individual or damage upon PSA Unlawful acts: Engaging in any unlawful act while
premises or PSA sponsored events is prohibited, on PSA premises.
except when being displayed or demonstrated in
conjunction with a bona fide production, for which Trespassing: Unauthorized entry into restricted
prior permission has been granted by the PSA areas.
Executive Director.
It is within PSA's rights to permanently revoke a
producer's privileges,and access to the facility
if a producer violates PSA,policies.. 0
CA
14
6. CONDUCT 6.2 Disciplinary Action
6.1 Suspension of Privileges Engaging in any of the acts prohibited will
result in disciplinary action. Violation of any
Individuals and organizations who use the PSA other PSA policies may result in suspension or
facilities and channels must agree to abide by all revocation of privileges. The PSA Executive Director
PSA policies regarding the use of equipment or will determine the termination or length of any
channels for the production and presentation of suspension based on circumstances surrounding
their programming. In addition,they are expected to and the severity of the incident(s) that resulted in
respect the rights and dignity of the staff and other the suspension. Services may also be suspended or
individuals in the facility. Conduct that discriminates prohibited to individuals for criminal activities off-site
against or degrades any person will not be tolerated. that may pose a danger to PSA or its operations.
A reasonable standard of courtesy and respect must
be observed. 6.3 Dispute Resolution &Appeals Process
PSA reserves the right to restrict any person It is hoped that disputes over policy interpretation
from using PSA facilities for violation of this or can be resolved by a good faith effort to reasonably
other policies that result in the disruption of discuss the problem to arrive at an acceptable
PSA activities and operations. solution for everyone involved. When this is not
acceptable or practical, a user may file a written
Parents/guardians are responsible for supervising grievance with the Executive Director. The Executive
their children while in the facility. Director will review the grievance and attempt to
mediate a solution. If a mutually acceptable solution
PSA reserves the right to refuse on a temporary or cannot be reached, the Executive Director will make'
permanent basis or otherwise initiate disciplinary or a determination.
legal actions against individuals or organizations that
violate the Code of Conduct or otherwise interfere If an individual wishes to file an appeal to a decision
with or jeopardize PSA operations or otherwise they should submit a Request for Appeal of
violate these operating policies. Suspension/ Decision to the Executive Director within 30 days
termination of privileges may be appealed to the PSA of the decision. The Executive Director will notify
Board of Directors as described in these policies. the PSA Board of Directors and set a meeting date
within 30 days of the receipt of the request. The
In addition to the Code of Conduct, individuals who appellant will be given the opportunity to address
use the PSA facilities and/or channels must agree the Board of Directors during the meeting. Decisions
to abide by the PSA procedures. Specific violations of the Board of Directors are the final determination
are set forth in writing in order to provide notice to regarding the issue.
all who use PSA facilities. They are not designed to
define violations in exhaustive terms. Individuals Grievances relating to PSA staff conduct should be
may be accountable to both civil/criminal authorities addressed to the Executive Director. Grievances
and PSA for acts which constitute violations of law relating to the conduct of the Executive Director
on or off the premises. Individuals shall be subject should be addressed to the president of the PSA
to disciplinary action for violation of any provision of Board of Directors.
the PSA policies.
15
7. PSA FORMS P-nett
4
All members must have a PSA Membership Statement of Compliance form on file at PSA
with proof of residence in order to submit programming as well as take additional workshops. —'
Additional forms are available at Puget Sound Access and online at www.pugetsoundaccess.org.
C9
NOTES
Es
E.
C=�
C-
c
r
r_7
C.
El_J
rn r7.1
C"
n�
L..
Y T�.
Kr=i
C-1
16
From: Marty Wine
To: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720; McBride, George; Medzegian, Julia;
Neumann, Michele; Shridhar, Preeti; Walton, Bonnie; Wine, Marty
Date: 1/5/2007
Time: 8:30:00 AM - 10:30:00 AM
Subject: Visioning: cable channel and gov't access
Place: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720
Purpose of this meeting: a first conversation about what the"G" in PEG (Public, Educational and
Governmental)access means for Renton in the future.
For the cable renewal process, we need to identify our negotiation strategy with Comcast based on our
vision of our channel. But before we can do that, I would like to have a wide ranging conversation with you
all that will focus on identifying our current capabilities and goals for the cable channel, programming,
equipment, and what our vision going forward will be. I'll structure an agenda and get it to you in advance.
The vision and ideas coming from this meeting will inform 1) how Bradley& Guzzetta will negotiate on our
behalf with Comcast and 2) our own activities going forward. Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson may
conference in on this meeting so they can hear and help us where needed.
Please suggest others who have interests in the cable channel, who you think should be in this visioning
exercise. After this meeting, we'll have another session with Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson to discuss
these issues related specifically to negotiations and the renewal.
Bonnie, I would like to work with you before this meeting to create a one-page situation assessment of
where we are today that we can use as an input for the discussion.
Those of you on the cc: list-please join us if this is of interest, but it's optional if you have other things to
do.
CC: Bailey, Michael; Pietsch, Alexander
— 4 n
711,6,,,L- valf
4
''c - 22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
\\„ ii Kent WA 98032
S, J
(; ` a'', qi',;e pugetsoundaccess.org
. Y.
P'u a �S{oun
PSA Board Membership Application
C !SS
Name:
Complete Business Address:
Complete Home Address:
Work Phone: Home Phone:
E-Mail: Fax:
Please check all boxes representing your skills and prior experience:
[ ] Television production [ ] Strategic planning
[ ] Fundraising and fund development [ ] Nonprofit management
[ ] Human resources [ ] Public relations and marketing
[ ] Finance and trust management [ ] Legal issues
[ ] Media literacy and technologies [ ] Arts and culture
[ ] Community development [ ] Free speech and democracy issues
[ ] Volunteer development and management [ ] Other:
Please mention any specific relevant education and/or employment:
Please mention any memberships and volunteer involvement in
charitable/professional/community organizations:
Membership on any City, County, or State boards or commissions, and dates of terms:
Please describe your interest in serving on the PSA Board of Directors, and if you have
any specific goals you would like to see accomplished during your service.
Personal Information (OPTIONAL):
PSA is looking for a diversity of backgrounds on its Board of Directors. The information
you furnish here will assist in this goal and is voluntary on your part.
[ ] Native American [ ] Hispanic Latino Birth Date:
[ ] African American [ ] Caucasian Sex: Male _ Female
[ ] Asian American [ ] Other: Disability:
References: Please list two people, not related to you, who have known you for at least
one year.
1) Phone:
2) Phone:
The Board currently meets on a quarterly basis on Wednesday evenings at 6pm.
Committee meetings are held monthly and are scheduled at the discretion of the
committee chair. If this schedule does not work for you, please list two days of the
month (i.e. First Tuesday, Third Thursday) and times that would work better:
Please return completed application form
Puget Sound Access
c/o Keri Stokstad
22412 72nd Ave. S
Kent, WA. 98032
For more information, please call Keri Stokstad at (253) 479-0200, or email at
keri(a�pugetsoundaccess.orq.
.Applicant's signature: Date:
From: "Keri Stokstad" <KeriS@pugetsoundaccess.org>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 9/27/2006 1:33:50 PM
Subject: RE:Videographer Pay
Hi Bonnie,
We pay freelance videographers $17 per hour. The $25 was to get Renton to a comparable rates we
charge the cities we serve.
Here are our rates as they pertain to government contracts.
Videogprapher on site using client's equipment-$25
Videographer with special skill set training (for scheduling or scala)- $32
Videographer on site using PSA equipment-$40
Videographer off site field production -$40
Regardless the videographers are paid $17.
As we get the process organized (we now have a services request form online-
www.pugetsoundaccess.org/production) and the staff is trained,we'll be able to restructure the
administrative aspects and pass the cost to the videographer. I'd like to get the freelance videographers
up to at least$20 per hour in 2007.
PS. I'm attaching 2 documents. One is the Board Application, the other is a comparison chart for three
playback systems that have reader board features to them. I should be finished with the one that's specific
to reader boards this evening.
- Keri
Keri Stokstad •
Executive Director, Puget Sound Access
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253-479-0200 ext. 105
www.pugetsoundaccess.org
South King County Community Access
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Wed 9/27/2006 1:15 PM
To: Keri Stokstad
Subject:Videographer Pay
Hi Keri,
I have a question. The City agreed to increase the hourly rate for our Mon. night videographers as of the
first of the year to$25/hr. Did that increase get passed on to the videographers in its entirety, partially or
not at all? What rate does PSA currently pay Rita& Mei for their work here?
Thanks for the info.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street
Suite 950
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651) 379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
January 28, 2007
In reference to:Cable Adminsitration
Invoice#13934
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
1/25/2007 MRB Cable Administration for January and February, 2007. 4,000.00
For professional services rendered 0.00 $4,000.00
Interest on overdue balance $57.86
WA Excise Tax $60.00
Total amount of this bill $4,117.86
Previous balance $4,000.00
Balance due $8,117.86
We appreciate your business!
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street
Suite 950
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
January 28, 2007
In reference to:Cable Franchise Renewal
Invoice#13935
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
11/11/2006 JK Review Washington case and statutory law concerning ownership of 4.00 NO CHARGE
the Insitutional Network. 125.00/hr
11/12/2006 BFL Researched strategies for determining ownership interests related to 3.00 525.00
the City of Renton's Institutional Network, including the law of 175.00/hr
fixtures, gifts, adverse possession, estoppel, and course of dealing.
11/13/2006 JK Legal Research. Conducted research on Washington case and 2.00 NO CHARGE
statutory law concerning ownership of the Insitutional Network. Also 125.00/hr
helped draft parts of a memo on the same issue.
BFL Researched issues related to ownership of the City of Renton 4.75 831.25
Institutional Network, including issues related to the law of fixtures, 175.00/hr
gifts, course of dealing, and estoppel.
SJG Receive/review City comments on telephone survey instrument; draft 4.00 NO CHARGE
notes concerning same; multiple telephone conferences with T. 195.00/hr
Robinson concerning same; work on I-Net ownership issue.
SJG Review City documents and draft notes concerning same; research 6.50 NO CHARGE
I-Net ownership theories. 195.00/hr
11/14/2006 BFL Drafted memorandum discussing the legal strategies available for 1.25 218.75
the City in seeking to assert ownership rights over the Institutional 175.00/hr
Network.
11/15/2006 BFL Reviewed City of Renton documents and correspondence in 1.75 NO CHARGE
connection with the matter of Institutional Network ownership. 175.00/hr
BFL Drafted memorandum dealing with parol evidence and issues of 2.50 NO CHARGE
ambiguous contract language; statute of limitations regarding 175.00/hr
contract claims in the State of Washington; and the legality of
municipal use of utility poles.
SJG Draft memorandum on I-Net ownership; discuss issues with M. 5.50 1,072.50
Bradley. 195.00/hr
11/16/2006 BFL Researched legal issues related to the institutional network 3.50 612.50
ownership disputed, contract interpretation, and the application of 175.00/hr
state, local, and federal law to the franchise agreement of Renton
and Comcast.
BFL Drafted and finished editing a legal memorandum on the contract 3.25 568.75
and I-Net ownership issues raised in the dispute between the City of 175.00/hr
Renton and its Cable Operator.
City of Renton Page 2
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
11/16/2006 SJG Draft memorandum on I-Net ownership. 4.75 926.25
195.00/hr
11/17/2006 MRB Review FCC From 1240 Report. Review survey issues. Review 4.50 877.50
technical audit findings. Review FCC Form 1235 review. Review 195.00/hr
FCC Form 1205 review. Review I-Net memo. Review
correspondence from client. Draft status report to client.
SJG Draft and revise memorandum on I-Net ownership. 5.25 1,023.75
195.00/hr
JK Research. Researched Washington case law for the rules 1.50 NO CHARGE
associated with a contract for sale and construction contracts. This 125.00/hr
was in connection with the Renton I-Net memo.
11/18/2006 SJG Draft and revise memorandum on I-Net ownership. 4.75 926.25
195.00/hr
11/20/2006 MRB Review/revise memo on I-Net ownership. Additional research on 3.00 585.00
statute of limitations- declaratory judgments, UCC applicability. 195.00/hr
Review survey.
11/21/2006 BFL Researched issues surrounding declaratory judgments, statutes of 1.75 306.25
limitations, and other doctrines of application in the Washington 175.00/hr
courts.
MRB Final revisions to I-Net memo. Forward I-Net memo to Ms. Wine. 4.50 877.50
Phone conference with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Nielsen re project 195.00/hr
communications, survey and technical audit. Prepare for and attend
meeting via phone conference with Ms. Wine re renewal status
report. Follow up with Mr. Treich on Franchise Fee Review and FCC
Form 1240 review and FCC From 1205 review. Receive and review
e-mail correspondence from Ms. Pepper re 1235 review. Draft
correspondence to Mr. Davis re technical audit drive out findings.
Follow up with Mr. Robinson re PEG needs assessment. Follow up
with Mr. Nielsen re technical audit.
11/27/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence re Survey. Respond to the 1.00 195.00
same. Receive/review e-mail correspondence re 1235 review. 195.00/hr
Respond to the same. Phone conference with Mr. Treich re
Discussions with Comcast.
12/1/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Retrieve and review comments filed in the FCC's video 1.00 195.00
competition NOI; draft notes regarding same for reply comments. 195.00/hr
12/4/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Retrieve and review comments filed in the FCC's video 0.50 97.50
competition NOI; draft notes regarding same for reply comments. 195.00/hr
MRB Follow up with Mr. Treich on Renton 1240 review to see if Cocmast 0.25 48.75
had responded yet. They had not and instructed Mr. Treich to follow 195.00/hr
up with Comcast.
12/7/2006 SJG Telephone conference with M. Bradley and D. Treich concerning 1.50 292.50
possible terms for settling outstanding Form 1240, Form 1235 and 195.00/hr
franchise fee data request issues; telephone conference with
Comcast officials concerning same.
MRB Prepare for and attend meeting via phone conference with Mr. Treich 1.50 292.50
and Mr. Guzzetta and Comcast rate team to discuss possible 195.00/hr
resolution on 1235, 1240 and franchise fee review issues.
12/8/2006 MRB Receive/review proposal from CBG Communications re coordination 0.50 97.50
on government access needs. Respond to the same and ask for a 195.00/hr
revised (and cheaper) proposal.
12/11/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail re government affairs and FCC Comments. 0.25 48.75
195.00/hr
City of Renton Page 3
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
12/12/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence re concerns from citizen with 0.25 48.75
survey. 195.00/hr
12/13/2006 BFL Researched issues surrounding economic development and 0.75 131.25
comprehensive planning that may require improvements in 175.00/hr
telecommunications infrastructure with systems such as
broadband/wireline.
SJG <SPLIT>Review comments filed in the FCC's video competition 1.00 195.00
notice of inquiry and draft notes concerning same. 195.00/hr
MRB Multiple e-mails with Mr. Robinson re Government Access planning. 0.75 146.25
Phone conference with Ms. Wine re renewal issues - rate reviews 195.00/hr
and government access planning..
12/14/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Review comments filed in the FCC's video competition 0.50 97.50
notice of inquiry and draft notes concerning same. 195.00/hr
MRB Coordinate review of Government Access needs with Mr. Robinson. 0.25 48.75
195.00/hr
12/27/2006 SJG Telephone conference with D. Treich concerning proposed 3.00 585.00
settlement of Form 1240 issues, Form 1235 issues and Comcast's 195.00/hr
failure to provide financial data for the franchise fee review; prepare
for telephone conference with R. Pepper from Comcast; telephone
conference with R. Pepper and D. Treich concerning possible
settlement; telephone conference with M. Bradley and D. Treich
concerning proposed settlement terms and preparation of a
memorandum setting from the proposed settlement terms.
12/28/2006 SJG Draft E-mail correspondence to M. Wine concerning the FCC order 0.50 97.50
on franchising and the City's FCC reply comments. 195.00/hr
1/16/2007 SJG Review/revise Form 1240/Form 1235 draft settlement letter prepared 2.00 390.00
by Comcast; discuss same with D. Treich; e-mail comments on draft 195.00/hr
settlement letter to P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast.
1/17/2007 SJG Respond to e-mails from P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast, 0.50 97.50
concerning comments on the company's proposed Form 1240/Form 195.00/hr
1235 settlement letter.
1/19/2007 SJG Review/revise drafts of the Comcast settlement letter; review and 2.50 487.50
respond to e-mails from P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast, 195.00/hr
concerning same; telephone calls with D. Treich concerning
Comcast's proposed language changes.
1/24/2007 MRB Review proposed FCC Form 1205, 1240, and 1235 settlements. 2.50 487.50
Prepare for and attend meeting via phone conference with Ms. Wine 195.00/hr
-prepare for on-site visit and meetings and update on renewal
projects. Phone conference with Tom Robinson re update on
projects -survey,technical audit, and use of government channel.
1/25/2007 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence update from Mr. Nielsen on 0.25 48.75
technical audit. 195.00/hr
MRB Review proposed FCC Form 1205, 1240, and 1235 settlements. NO CHARGE
Prepare for and attend phone conference with Ms. Wine re renewal 195.00/hr
For professional services rendered 93.25 $13,480.00
City of Renton Page 4
Additional Charges :
Date Description Amount
12/15/2006 Consulting Service- CBG Communications - Invoice#62-1106 in the amount of$9,425.71. 9,425.71
Consulting Service- Front Range Consulting- FCC Form 1240 Review- Invoice#290 for 3,000.00
$3,000.00.
1/25/2007 CBG Communications Invoice 62-1206 for$16,386.68. 16,368.68
Total costs $28,794.39
Interest on overdue balance $430.19
WA Excise Tax $634.12
Total amount of this bill $43,338.70
Previous balance $14,815.63
Balance due $58,154.33
We appreciate your business!
From: Marty Wine
To: Bradley, Michael; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 11/7/2006 12:51:27 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
Hi Bonnie&George, I provided my comments about this proposed survey to Mike Bradley several weeks
ago, and forwarded this to you at the time for your review and consideration. Could you please review,
forward Mike your comments directly, cc: me, and Mike and Dr. Book will design the final survey for our
review? He needs your comments by Thursday.
Mike, I still have not seen your survey design or plan for timing. Could you please forward me a draft
timeline for when, how and where the survey will be completed, and when the City we will see topline
results by the time we talk next week. By survey design, I also mean that I would like to hear from you or
Connie about how you determine adequate sample size and pretesting and sampling approach.
Thanks all -
From: Marty Wine
To: Bradley, Michael
Date: 10/23/2006 12:49:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
Hi Mike,
Here are some comments and thoughts in markup and comment mode after just briefly reviewing this
document. I have routed this draft to George and Bonnie for their comments and to determine the timing
of the valley cities survey, if it's moving. I thought we were going to have a more general discussion about
what we want from this survey.
A note about our sample-would it be useful to survey outside the city if possible, in our PAAs, or to mine
King County's survey data for their problems?They may have different service needs in the future than
our current city. Not sure if this is advisable, but if we renew based on today's service base,we may seek
help in areas that look like the problems of today, when our new neighborhoods, once annexed, may have
problems they are experiencing under the County's franchise.
What is the time from pre-test to topline results? Is the plan to complete surveying before the end of the
year?What's the target#of households?-could you or Connie please send me a survey design and plan
so we know what to expect?
Thanks. I will convey Bonnie & George's comments to you as well. My best time to talk this week is any
morning before 9 my time except Wednesday.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
>>> "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 10/17/06 10:06 PM >>>
Let's schedule some time to discuss. Let me know what your schedule looks like.
Mike
From:Thomas Robinson [mailto:robinson@cbgcommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Connie Ledoux Book Ph. D.; 'Dick Nielsen'
Subject: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest Survey
Importance: High
Mike: Attached is a draft of the Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey, for your and the City's review. Let me know if it needs any modifications. If so, Connie and I will
make the necessary adjustments and send back a final version for approval before going forward. Issues
&Answers is ready to put the survey into pre-test as soon you and the City are satisfied with the survey
instrument. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom
CC: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON,WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello,this is . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process,the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
la. 1First,mayI verifythat your household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton?' Comment[M1]:A person might
answer"yes,Renton"because they have
a Renton zip code.It's not that simple.
1. Yes,Renton You need a test that verifies that their
2. Other —> Thank you and end. residence is in city limits—either because
it has a 3-digit street addressor named
street,or is in East Renton in a very
lb. How old are you? particular part of the east of the City.
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46-65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES -* SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO --> CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES - SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO - CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH - Comment[M2]:I think we should
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.AT END GO TOgure
Q21 2 ) fo with thiss gat dsof anewhat
d st we
fan t to
on based on it.What is our goal?Just to
a. Not available fmd out why?To determine what services
Comcast could offer to make them
b. Cost subscribe?
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO Q.20b
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to?(READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable,contains only local broadcast,local access channels and a few
cable network,costs about$14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about$47 a month and has about 85 channels, •
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages,the cost between$60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information,music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe to?
a. Premium channels,such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO
d. Comcast High Speed Internet YES or NO " Comment[M3]:Here,I it would
_. .......................................................... " be good to also test for the bnpoportanco
e of
having intemet bundled with cable.
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. (I-low much is your total monthly cable bill on average,including all service s and fees?
Comment[M4]:Is it relevant to us
whether the respondent thinks that is a
fair price,too high or too low?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel(Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
11 a. My next few questions are about your cable operator, Comcast. Overall,how satisfied are
you with your current cable service?READ LIST)
1. Very Satisfied —+SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied}
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied} -+ CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied}
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know - SKIP TO Q.12a
1 lb. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied"--that is,what could Comcast do better,to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is. . .(INSERT ITEM,STARTING AT
"X") Overall,how satisfied are you with(ITEM),Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied,or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM,REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year,have you had any significant problems with reception, such as with
picture or audio quality? YES(Go to Q12c) NO(Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly, every few days, a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6,IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR,SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q13a.
13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit, did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember -• Comment EMS]:How often did the
company meet that four-hour installation
window?
13b. Overall,how satisfied were you with the following aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
•
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall,how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast?Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcast's employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year,have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO) SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER—>SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now,I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year,have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} —>SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s)have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST.PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS(PICTURE,SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO(ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING(CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered,including any time you were left on hold,within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative, overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know(DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service,how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast,what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission,FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} -SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year,can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO - SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES,was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO -> CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service . . . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First,how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels,like KIRO,the CBS affiliate,or KOMO,the ABC affiliate,as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system,such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important,or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ)DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see!added to your cable television line-up? Comment[M6]:I think people will
answer this question based on whether
they would have to pay more.For
example,if they could get programming
added for no cost,they'd probably give
us a list of 10 things.But if they would
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people pay more,it might be fine as is.
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers,educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs
you see on these channels include city council meetings, courses at the community
college,election forums with candidates, and religious programming.Are you aware of
these local access channels on your cable channel line-up?
a. YES
b. NO (Go to Q 20)
c. Don't Know (Go to Q 20) . Comment[M7]:Would it be
important to distinguish between
public/educational access and
government access?If people don't use
18h. When consideringthe total timeyou spend watchingthese channels each week,which one but love the other,that would be
P interesting.
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming,such as the
City's Channel 21,the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels 9
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q 18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never } SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know} SKIP TO Q19q
REVIEW DRAFT 10
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings,the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good,fair or poor.
Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's,Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
picture quality
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
sound quality
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational
value.
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast,Channel 77.
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates,religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Community Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels
A Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality .
B Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
REVIEW DRAFT 11
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77,as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28,I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of,has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A,B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education,University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage.
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming.
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO(Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio,portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know(Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT,GOOD,FAIR,POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10.The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11.The hours the facility is open.
12.The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No(Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST.CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talent
3. Run camera
4. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No(SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many ?
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. How do you currently access the Internet from home?
a. Dial up modem
b. DSL
c. COMCAST Cable Modem
d. Wireless Internet Provider
e. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST) - Comment[M8]:If this is to be a valid
sample of our current residents,might be
useful to know what they use the internet
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household? for—test with other questions how tech-
savvy our users are.
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income,before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than$50,000
4. $50,000 to less than$75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only,may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON,WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello,this is . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process,the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
1a. First,may I verify that your household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton? comment[Mil:A person might
answer"yes,Renton"because they have
a Renton zip code.It's not that simple.
1. Yes,Renton You need a test that verifies that their
2. Other Thank you and end. residence is in city limits—either because
it has a 3-digit street address or named
street,or is in East Renton in a very
lb. How old are you? particular part of the east of the City.
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46-65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES - SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO - CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES -> SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO - CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. (PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH - Comment[M2]:I think we should
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.AT END GO TO figure out ahead of time what we want to
Q21). do with this question and design a follow-
on based on it.What is our goal?Just to
a. Not available find out why?To determine what services
Comcast could offer to make them
b. Cost subscribe?
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO Q.20b
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to?(READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable,contains only local broadcast,local access channels and a few
cable network,costs about$14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about$47 a month and has about 85 channels,
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages,the cost between$60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information,music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe to?
a. Premium channels,such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO ___._..__..__......._..............___........._
d. Comcast High Speed Internet I YES or NO Comment[M3]:Here,I think it would
be good to also test for the importance of
having intemet bundled with cable.
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. 11-Iow much is your total monthly cable bill on average,including all services and fees?
Comment[M4]:Is it relevant to us
whether the respondent thinks that is a
fair price,too high or too low?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel(Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
11 a. My next few questions are about your cable operator,Comcast.Overall,how satisfied are
you with your current cable service?READ LIST)
1. Very Satisfied ->SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied}
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied} -+ CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied}
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know - SKIP TO Q.12a
1 lb. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied"--that is,what could Comcast do better, to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is. . . (INSERT ITEM,STARTING AT
"X") Overall,how satisfied are you with(ITEM),Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied,or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM,REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service _
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered _
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year,have you had any significant problems with reception,such as with
picture or audio quality? YES (Go to Ql2c) NO(Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly,every few days,a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6,IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR,SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q 13a.
13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit,did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember I .{Comment[M5]:Flow often did the
company meet that four-hour installation
window?
13b. Overall,how satisfied were you with the following aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
•
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall,how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast?Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcast's employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year,have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO) SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER-SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now,I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year,have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} -SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s)have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST.PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS(PICTURE,SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO(ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING(CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered,including any time you were left on hold,within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative, overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know(DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service,how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast,what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission,FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO) SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} -*SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year,can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO --- SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES,was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO - CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service. . . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q 18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q 18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First,how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels,like KIRO,the CBS affiliate,or KOMO,the ABC affiliate,as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system, such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important,or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ)DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see added to your cable television line-up?I Comment[M6]:I think people will
answer this question based on whether
they would have to pay more.For
example,if they could get programming
added for no cost,they'd probably give
us a list of 10 things.But if they would
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people pay more,it might be fine as is.
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers, educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs
you see on these channels include city council meetings, courses at the community
college, election forums with candidates,and religious programming.Are you aware of
these local access channels on your cable channel line-up?
a. YES
b. NO (Go to Q 20)
c. Don't Know (Go to Q 20) • Comment[M7]:Would it be
important to distinguish between
public/educational access and
government access?If people don't use
18h. When consideringthe total timeyou spend watchingthese channels each week,which onebsting.ut the other,thatwouldbe
p interesting.
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming,such as the
City's Channel 21,the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels 9
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never ) SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know} SKIP TO Q19q
REVIEW DRAFT 10
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings,the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good, fair or poor.
' Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's,Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
picture quality
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
sound quality
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational
value.
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast, Channel 77.
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates,religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Community Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels
A Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality
B Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
REVIEW DRAFT 11
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77,as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28,I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of,has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A,B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education,University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage.
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming.
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO(Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio,portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know(Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT,GOOD,FAIR,POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10.The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11.The hours the facility is open.
12,The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No(Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST. CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talent
3. Run camera
4. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No(SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many ?
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. How do you currently access the Internet from home?
a. Dial up modem
b. DSL
c. COMCAST Cable Modem
d. Wireless Internet Provider
e. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST Comment[M8]:If this is to be a valid
(_...._ ._ ._ ..__.........._.................._ sample of our current residents,might be
useful to know what they use the interne
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household? for—test with other questions how tech-
savvy our users are.
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income,before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than$50,000
4. $50,000 to less than$75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only,may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
From: George McBride
To: Michael Bradley
Date: 11/7/2006 3:55:21 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
mike, marty asked that i forward my comments to you. attached is the survey with my comments. frankly,
i am a little disappointed in that we don't seem to address the future or technology issues in this survey.
the current offerings from comcast or any cable provider, i would hope we would agree, are going to
change significantly but we don't delve into that with our citizens. franchise negotiations are not my area
of specialty but it would seem we could learn more. for example, 18b seems an appropriate question, 24
months ago? what kind of internet connection do they have (vendor)and how much band width are they
paying for? how much do they want? should we ask a community question, i.e. west hills, highlands,
etc.? just some thoughts, gm.
>>> Marty Wine 10/23/2006 12:49 PM >>>
Hi Mike,
Here are some comments and thoughts in markup and comment mode after just briefly reviewing this
document. I have routed this draft to George and Bonnie for their comments and to determine the timing
of the valley cities survey, if it's moving. I thought we were going to have a more general discussion about
what we want from this survey.
A note about our sample-would it be useful to survey outside the city if possible, in our PAAs, or to mine
King County's survey data for their problems? They may have different service needs in the future than
our current city. Not sure if this is advisable, but if we renew based on today's service base, we may seek
help in areas that look like the problems of today,when our new neighborhoods, once annexed, may have
problems they are experiencing under the County's franchise.
What is the time from pre-test to topline results? Is the plan to complete surveying before the end of the
year?What's the target#of households?-could you or Connie please send me a survey design and plan
so we know what to expect?
Thanks. I will convey Bonnie & George's comments to you as well. My best time to talk this week is any
morning before 9 my time except Wednesday.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
>>> "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 10/17/06 10:06 PM >>>
Let's schedule some time to discuss. Let me know what your schedule looks like,
Mike
From: Thomas Robinson [mailto:robinson@cbecommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Connie Ledoux Book Ph. D.; 'Dick Nielsen'
Subject: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest Survey
Importance: High
Mike: Attached is a draft of the Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey, for your and the Citys review. Let me know if it needs any modifications. If so, Connie and I will
make the necessary adjustments and send back a final version for approval before going forward. Issues
&Answers is ready to put the survey into pre-test as soon you and the City are satisfied with the survey
instrument. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom
CC: Bonnie Walton; Marty Wine
REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON,WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello,this is . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process,the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
la. First,may I verify that your household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton?
1. Yes,Renton
2. Other -* Thank you and end.
lb. How old are you?
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46-65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES -> SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO - CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES -> SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO -* CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
' v
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.AT END GO TO Q21).
a. Not available
b. Cost
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO Q.20b "
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to?(READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable,contains only local broadcast,local access channels and a few
cable network,costs about$14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about$47 a month and has about 85 channels,
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages,the cost between$60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information,music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe o:? _.-- Comment[GM]:Does this question
a. Premium channels,such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO assume that all citizens receiving high
speed Internet also have cable tv?There
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO are subscribers to the high speed service
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO that do not have the tv signal!
d. Comcast High Speed Internet YES or NO
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. How much is your total monthly cable bill on average,including all services and fees?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel(Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
1 la. My next few questions are about your cable operator,Comcast.Overall,how satisfied are
you with your current cable service?READ LIST)
•
1. Very Satisfied -*SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied}
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied} - CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied}
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know -a SKIP TO Q.12a
11b. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied"--that is,what could Comcast do better,to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is. . .(INSERT ITEM,STARTING AT
"X") Overall,how satisfied are you with(ITEM),Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied,or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM,REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 _ 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year,have you had any significant problems with reception,such as with
picture or audio quality? YES(Go to Q12c) NO(Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly,every few days,a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6,IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q13a.
13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit,did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember
13b. Overall,how satisfied were you with the following aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
•
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall,how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast?Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied.(WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcast's employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year,have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER-*SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6 •
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now,I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year,have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES -a CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} -*SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s)have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST.PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS(PICTURE, SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO(ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING(CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered,including any time you were left on hold,within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative,overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know(DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service,how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast,what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission,FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8 •
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} -SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year,can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO -* SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES,was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service. . . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First,how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels,like KIRO,the CBSaffiliate,or KOMO,the ABC affiliate,as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say.. . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
•
•
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say. ..(READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system,such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say. .. (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important,or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ)DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see added to your cable television line-up?
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers,educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs
you see on these channels include city council meetings,courses at the community
college,election forums with candidates,and religious programming.Are you aware of
these local access channels on your cable channel line-up?
a. YES
b. NO (Go to Q 20)
c. Don't Know (Go to Q 20)
18h. When considering the total time you spend watching these channels each week,which
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming,such as the
City's Channel 21,the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels 9
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never } SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know} SKIP TO Q19q
REVIEW DRAFT 10 •
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings,the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good,fair or poor.
Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's,Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
picture quality
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
sound quality
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational
value.
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast,Channel 77.
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates,religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Community Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels
A Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality
B Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
•
•
REVIEW DRAFT 11
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77,as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28,I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of,has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A,B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education,University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage.
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming.
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO(Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio,portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know(Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12 •
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT,GOOD,FAIR,POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10.The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11.The hours the facility is open.
12.The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No(Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST.CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talent
3. Run camera
4. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No(SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many ?
•
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. How do you currently access the Internet from dome? .--- Comment[GM2]:Would it be
a. Dial upmodem •
appropriate to ask how many computers
•are in the home and by type(desktop,
b. DSL laptop,etc.)?22a with a little more
c. COMCAST Cable Modem detail?
d. Wireless Internet Provider - - Comment[GM3]:We also have
asked whither or not this service is
e. Other(DO NOT READ,LISTT) meeting their present needs or anticipated
• future needs?
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household? Comment NM]:Might we also ask
how much they use this service, A
question similar to 18h for computer
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED time? J
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the.following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income,before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than$50,000
4. $50,000 to less than$75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only,may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
e_ ..
rl
From: Marty Wine
To: Bradley, Michael
Date: 10/23/2006 12:49:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
Hi Mike,
Here are some comments and thoughts in markup and comment mode after just briefly reviewing this
document. I have routed this draft to George and Bonnie for their comments and to determine the timing
of the valley cities survey, if it's moving. I thought we were going to have a more general discussion about
what we want from this survey.
A note about our sample-would it be useful to survey outside the city if possible, in our PAAs, or to mine
King County's survey data for their problems? They may have different service needs in the future than
our current city. Not sure if this is advisable, but if we renew based on today's service base,we may seek
help in areas that look like the problems of today, when our new neighborhoods, once annexed, may have
problems they are experiencing under the County's franchise.
What is the time from pre-test to topline results?-Is the plan to complete surveying before the end of the
year?What's the target#of households? -could you or Connie please send me a survey design and plan
so we know what to expect?
Thanks. I will convey Bonnie & George's comments to you as well. My best time to talk this week is any
morning before 9 my time except Wednesday.
•
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
>>>"Michael Bradley"<bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 10/17/06 10:06 PM >>>
Let's schedule some time to discuss. Let me know what your schedule looks like.
Mike
From: Thomas Robinson [mailto:robinson@cbecommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Connie Ledoux Book Ph. D.; 'Dick Nielsen'
Subject: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest Survey
Importance: High
Mike: Attached is a draft of the Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey, for your and the City's review. Let me know if it needs any modifications. If so, Connie and I will
make the necessary adjustments and send back a final version for approval before going forward. Issues
&Answers is ready to put the survey into pre-test as soon you and the City are satisfied with the survey
instrument. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom
CC: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON,WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello,this is . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process,the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS,THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
First mayI verify that our household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton.. -- comment[Mi]:Aperson might
la. � � � ._Y.. . �t
answer"yes,Renton"because they have
a Renton zip code.It's not that simple.
1. Yes,Renton You need a test that verifies that their
2. Other - Thank you and end. residence is in city limits—either because
it has a 3-digit sheet address or named
street,or is in East Renton in a very
lb. How old are you? particular part of the east of the City.
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46-65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES - SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO -> CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES -* SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO - CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. pRoi3EA.Mj CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH --- Comment[M2]:I think we should
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.AT END GO TO Q21).
figure out ahead of time what we want to
do with this question and design a follow-
on based on it.What is our goal?Just to
a. Not available fmd out why?To determine what services
Comcast could offer to make them
b. Cost subscribe?
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO.Q.20b
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to?(READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable,contains only local broadcast,local access channels and a few
cable network,costs about$14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about$47 a month and has about 85 channels,
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages,the cost between$60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information,music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe to?
a. Premium channels,such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO
ocast Hi Seed Internet YES or NO • Comment[M3]:Here,I think it would
d.
m . w_....gh Sp d Int n.. -- be good to also test for the importance of
having Internet bundled with cable.
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. How much isouur•total monthly cable bill on average,including all services and fees?
- Comment[M4]:Ts it relevant to us
whether the respondent thinks that is a
fair price,too high or too low?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel(Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
1 la. My next few questions are about your cable operator,Comcast.Overall,how satisfied are
you with your current cable service?READ LIST)
1. Very Satisfied -SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied)
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied) —* CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied)
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know —> SKIP TO Q.12a
1 lb. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied"--that is,what could Comcast do better,to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN [HEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is. . .(INSERT ITEM, STARTING AT
"X") Overall,how satisfied are you with(ITEM),Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied,or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM,REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year,have you had any significant problems with reception,such as with
picture or audio quality? YES(Go to Q12c) NO(Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly,every few days,a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6,IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR,SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q13a.
• 13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit,did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you,at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember - Comment[M5]:How often did the
company meet that four-hour installation
window?
13b. Overall,how satisfied were you with the following aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
•
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall,how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast?Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied.(WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcasfs employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year,have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO) SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER-SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied,Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now,I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year,have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} -SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s)have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST.PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS(PICTURE, SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO(ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING(CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered,including any time you were left on hold,within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative,overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know(DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service,how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE.
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast,what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission,FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES -* CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} -SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year,can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO - SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES,was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES -> CONTINUE 2. NO -* CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service.. . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First,how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels,like KIRO,the CBS affiliate,or KOMO,the ABC affiliate,as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
•
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say. . .(READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system,such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say. . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important,or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ)DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see added to your,cable jelevision -- Comment[Me]:Ithink people will
answer this question based on whether
they would have to pay more.For
example,if they could getprogramming
added for no cost,they'd probably give
__..._.___ ...._.._...._....._.__. us a list of l O things.But if they would
18g._ The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people pay more,it might be fine as is.
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers,educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs'
you see on these channels include city council meetings,courses at the community
college,election forums with candidates,and religious programming.Are you aware,of
these local access channels ony_our cable channel line-up?
a. YES_._.
b. NO. (Go tti Q 20)
c,Don't Know„PO to Q 20) -. comment[M7]:Would it be
important to distinguish between
public/educational access and
government access?If people don't use
18h. When consideringthe total timeyou spend watchingthese channels each week,which one but love the other,that would be
P interesting.
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming,such as the
City's Channel 21,the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels '
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never } SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know} SKIP TO Q19q
REVIEW DRAFT 10
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings,the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good,fair or poor.
Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's,Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
picture quality
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
sound quality
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational
value.
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast,Channel 77.
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates,religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Conununity Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels
A Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality
B Puget Sound Access,Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
REVIEW DRAFT 11
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77,as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28,I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of,has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A,B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education,University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage.
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming.
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO(Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio,portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know(Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT,GOOD,FAIR,POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10.The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11.The hours the facility is open.
12.The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No(Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST.CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talent
3. Run camera
4. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No(SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many ?
•
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. _How do you currently access the Internet from home?
a. Dial up modem
b. DSL
c. COMCAST Cable Modem
d. Wireless Internet Provider
e. Other(DO NOT READ,LIST) I_.._ ._ _ ...._..._...._...._ .._ .........._. ` Comment[tine]:If this is to be a valid
sample of our current residents,might be
useful to know what they use the Internet
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household? for test with other questions how tech-
savvy our users are.
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income,before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than$50,000
4. $50,000 to less than$75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only,may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
• e dta s ta s G
702 Mangrove Ave. #221
Chico, CA 95926
Phone(530)82 Media
Fax 898-9588
February 9, 2007
•
City of Renton CITY OFRENTON
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk Division, 7th Floor FEB 1 5 2007
1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98055 CITY CLECRKSp
OFFICE
Dear Ms.Walton,
Thank you for speaking with me about your local channel opportunity in September 2006, Please find
attached the paperwork you requested.
Mediastar-SG can provide you with channel consultancy, turnkey equipment, content solutions and
ongoing support for your operation.
For the past 11 years the staff of Mediastar-SG has worked with cable companies who want to generate
viewer loyalty through local "content" on dedicated channels. We have been approached by cities in the
past six years to help them develop their own local channel opportunities. We have installed over 500
channels across the US.
Mediastar-SG's consultancy includes:
o Channel Branding
o Channel (Re)Launch
o Program Formats and Content Development
o Channel Operations
Mediastar-SG's equipment solution (Mediastar-SG) is a "TV-Channel-in-a-Box":
o Single Solution for Master Control,Automation and Still-Store
o "Coming up Next"preview ads
o Automation of all possible video sources
o Internet Interface
® Broadcast-Quality Still-Store
o Simplified, scheduling with verification
O Multi-Media Programming
o Automated, on-air weather information
o Remote, Emergency System Control
o Remote, Emergency Crawl(s)
o Channel "Bugs"/ID's
Mediastar-SG simplifies content acquisition:
• Satellite Feeds
• Live and Remote Truck Feeds
o Internet
Mediastar-SG's Support includes:
• Free Phone Support 24/7
• Free, Loaner Equipment (FOB Chico)
o Free Software Upgrades
o Guaranteed Future Availability of Parts and Components
• Dedicated Customer Service Manager
No matter what you want to accomplish, we can help you achieve each stage of your channels
development and put you on the road to success.
•
I look forward to speaking with you further about your vision for your channel.
Sincerely,
, ..rebady
Leslie Clayey
PEG Specialist
gi
u) mediasta ran so®
C Public, Educational and Government (PEG)
a) Community Information Channels
ECity Council
Meeting Scheduled D o /� a ° STOP CMonday 8pm Agenda: •Iosd
ta9)zzss)net7 og bns Isnodsube ri ms122�sksbeM 1 szU
las3bsmd Isool elssi3.Iei,srb natsmic*ri�lirasrnuoymnoilgs
aetsbqu�biup iol ae�gmsf�rlgste bns)xsi eniau a lsrit inslnoo s --- --
@n,su lennsrb woy no sheaf evil bns s rla Isnot,zgnBesm yliiunmo�iiA 15 Min. ir CD riguovit raibuba q)r�noo etsmoluA.noilgo no8ezni oebiv M D(Moi9 erlt Use 105E ���
ssQensm jIlrriliw Je me1a s�bsd�slg islesibeM eriT.ellsd4W 1uoV :#4/11 V
writ bon rNiw etsbgU.(eb a e uorl AS tnefnc o 7am-9pm .1 S
Unde3C OWIt
ram ,,,0 r�
> CALL 530 82 MEDIA
1.95 to 412
Sam to 3pm0
'
liti 2ubsVio�erssgrrglz�2wlesibsMio%MoAer4i5biooT First Medical
Cycle lane closed 45
32 west
›N
• Create broadcast-quality local content using text,
C photos and graphic templates for quick updates.
o • Add MPEGs to the channel quickly and easily.
(.) • Air communimeetings,
eet ngs, local shows and live feeds
-o on your channel using the built-in ProMX video
insertion and Master Control system.
C
CD • Automate content production through your Website.
›N
A -0 • The mediastar-sG playback system automatically
manages content 24 hours a day. Update in real-
time, in with no downtime. Schedule years in advance.
702 Mangrove Ave., #221 fldjas+
Chico, CA 95926-3948 USAT110 . 1 -.6, , ) F., -....c. pi au
Mk 06400ps- r ^Imo
(530) 82 MEDIA (826-3342)
Fax (530) 898 9588 Copyright Mediastar-SG(aka SupportGuys)2006
IT_ s G
U
LIT (41,1„,..\\\(:i : acof.,___ a
On Air "In control" - b design. mediastar-sG letsyou
Y y
•� T : Stillframe weave content together from any source - live
Shows feeds, satellite, internet, data feeds, DVD, analog
AUTO OUTLET
and DV-CAM tape decks, MPEG2 servers, bugs,
overlay crawls, and weather data... in real-time,
and can be scheduled for 24/7, years in advance!
Video
ShowsIlea
-Content Sources
Weathersite-s�
Video Intros
y Bu 1
•I . iuminance9 crawl Local Sports
keyed
- .. Live Remotes
Video
ndow MFEG Player, Adtec etc - ) 1/
r4. ,
0._.,..„
5-0885 / i
DVaeota ��� • )r
'�z ;" Crawls CAM °A�eck 2 Regional Sports
lir
F Data Feeds r 1 Free to air
4 ` ; Local Weather lnaUstri og
Special Events
- -.1°°, el grape pip Themed Content
Blend all PIOM " r l-
together for X Mes ' l
unique ester
••--�__
hybrids t<<�I •I ,'
•
...I � ��diast f" is Emergency yawl
o pla bat.% I ,' Remote control
Live Traffic D Ck ,J ' ``•
Cameras �.9hs '`
r :ea.
CSC C 'd`a dl
R10qb/�o,q/je/
- mediastar-sG1114111111-/"*.
www data
i_ 'Mir DVE Bugs Production System feeds etc.
1311.1119. /
)41
w' mediastar-SO
PRODUCES
Stillframe Content
Voice Over1111000
■ CO Titling
mediaat a o 68 Templcrtes
EDITS
702 Mangrove Ave., #221 Showences
Chico, CA 95926-3948 SCHEDULES
(530) 82 MEDIA (826-3342) Sequences
Shows
FAX 530 kcrf Do
( ) 898-9588 MPEG2 hardware encoding
\ Controls up to 99 channels DVD/CD Burning' &system backups
Copyright Mediastar-SG(aka SupportGuys)2006 USB2,Firewire,Memory stick etc.
' 1: ath , 'sit : 1
MM.. S ..ftw
The most sought after information by your viewers is the local weather. a / '
Now your mediastar-SG system can broadcast accurate, real-time,
local weather information without an ongoing fee.
Best of all, having the weather data on your channel drives-up viewership
and gives your channel a professional look and feel.
Weathersite-SG is a simple-to-use add-on option that automatically
creates content that displays the local temperature, humidity, wind-
speed and direction, dew point, barometric pressure, rainfall data fields
using on of three different sophisticated on-air display choices. cr.E�EAu r s
-1•04---,-..y.,--4,--,- r
How will it look? (the three display choices): r
-.11,sw
��Crawl - a continuous text crawl (like CNN etc.) on a black background ,11,995.14 am*
across the bottom of the screen. The crawl displays all of the data "
fields in succession from right to left. You can choose from several a -
broadcast-quality fonts. ' r /--Ti.
Keyed Text - allows you to select any combination of the data fields -,-"` r .„. ""
to be superimposed on the screen. You can choose from wide
variety of broadcast-quality font styles, sizes and colors. With this •
more advanced screen design, you control the placement of each
of the data fields.
!■ 1 �� ,.
Weather Frame - allows you to create a full-screen, single-frame, / �
with choice of font styles, font sizes, color and placement and Alrl I' -liA fie"`
customized text labels for the weather data fields that you choose. _ _ -.------
Spacious Home 14,
Mediastar-SG is the industry leader for on-air Master Control Must Sell! $280,000
systems and broadcast-quality PEG and photo-classifiedisimellill
channels (with MPEGS). With the Weathersite-SG, you can S ER
add a professional touch to your channel without , 'y_ c•_
having to tie-up valuable resources to manually -'_ • '
create the content. The Weathersit-SG is the ,_- I, `,.,!.'"
perfect solution for adding relevant "local"
$" - real-time weather information to your channel. rODArS WEATHER
O
$- - r. ,
Weathersit-SG is available in both a wired and '�y
$- - wireless configuration.
$' _ Contact us at:
$- - 702 Mangrove Ave., #221
$_ _ Chico, CA 95926-3948 USA i
T (530) 82 MEDIA (826-3342) ®
F (530) 898 9588 ediastar.sG
Copyright Mediastar-SG(aka SupportGuys)2006
A New Direction! � medI"'"astaA)P- Go^ Made in the U. A.
MAOPIS.
S.
VI USA
kaiaks!
References for the Mediastar-SG System
August 15, 2006 1 of 1
Lane County Governments/Metro Television
Eugene, OR
Robert Lewis, Video Manger
(541)-682-3799
Mediastar Customer Since 2004
City of Coral Gables
Coral Gables, FL
Joe Keefe, Video Production Manager
(305) 205-2793 "
Mediastar Customer Since 2004
Massillon Cable TV
Massillon, OH
Randy Ramsey, Channel Manager
(330)-833-6655 "
Mediastar Customer Since_ 1998
City of Fort Smith
Fort Smith, AK
Cindy Remler, City Clerk
(479)-784-2208
Mediastar Customer Since 1998
•
More References Available Upon Request
medTa.star-se©
702 Mangrove Ave. #221• Chico, California 95926-3948
T(530)828-8772 • F (530) 898-9588
www.Mediastar-SG.com Employee owned and operated!
Anew direction! md1 E�w3 �. `( Made in the U.S.A.
MADEINTHEI
USA
It matters!
PRODUCT LIST
June 1st, 2006
Mediastar-SG system inclusive configuration: •
Fully-Integrated Master control system with MPEG2 and still-frame playback for one television channel-
Mediastar-SG sets the standard for ease-of-use, automated functionality and graphics excellence. It includes:
Production System: Mediastar-SG integrated software package, includes these four modules:
• Production—create templated or scripted frames for maximum efficiency
• Bookkeeping/content management—easy to use content library
• Editing -storyboard "thumb-nails"for quick editing, pre-air proofing
• Scheduling - unlimited advanced user-friendly scheduling, automatic drop-offs
• Mediastar-SG integrated hardware package, typically:
• Intel Pentium 4 with 240G hard drive
• 32-bit (RS170M) broadcast-quality Image Capture board
• 19" color menu VGA monitor or LCD and AGP video card
• Multi-channel RGB/S-Video/Composite NTSC display monitor, with under-scan
• Professional Audio (studio quality) production system, including mic and mixer
• High-speed communications software, including diagnostic modem
• Network switch for dedicated LAN configuration (no bandwidth constraints)
Playback System: Mediastar-SG integrated Master Control software package:
• Integrated 10X1 A/V switcher(ProMx)
• Dependable industrial rack design
• Auto-recovery after power failure
• Device control for up to 8 bi-directional A/V devices (see website for list)
• Mediastar-SG integrated Master Control appliance:
• Intel Pentium industrial class CPU with 9G hard drive
• 32-bit (RS170M) broadcast-quality Image Display board
• Professional Audio (studio quality) playback D/A converter
• Schedulable/controllable 2 channel on-air mixer for background audio ramping
• High-speed ultra-secure communications software
MPEG2 encoding system: Netstar-SG MPEG2 encoding and editing workstation, typically;
• MPEG2 hardware encoder and MPEG2 editing software
• Intel Pentium 4 with 120G hard drive, 512M RAM
• 19" color menu VGA monitor or LCD for AGP VGA card
MPEG2 playback server: Vstar-sG compatible MPEG2 player- Broadcast-grade MPEG2 video server.
• 55 hours (@ 8Mbps) of on-line MPEG2 video playback for on-air insertion
• Rackmount industrial unit, with auto-recovery after power failure
•
•
702 Mangrove Ave. #221• Chico, California 95926-3948
medtastar-SGc
T(530)82MEDIA ° F (530) 898-9588
www.Mediastar-SG.com Employee owned and
operated!
A new direction! - + t r-.SGV Made in the U.S.A.
,MADEI 1 IIEI
kuSA
It matters!
PRODUCT LIST
June 1st, 2006
OPTIONS:
Vstar-SG compatible MPEG2 player-Broadcast-grade MPEG2 video server-
This MPEG player offers 55 hours of on-line video for on-air insertion. Transfer content using your network
or by DVD media. Remotely manage your content. This industrial-grade, rackmount MPEG2 player has
built-in error correction and will automatically recover from a power failure.
Vstar-sG compatible DVD player-Industrial-grade, bi-directionally controlled on-air DVD player-
This industry-standard industrial-grade DVD player has been upgraded to be controlled by Mediastar-SG
and will offer your channel an inexpensive alternative for playing your MPEG2 content. Plays DVD-R and
DVD-RW disks. The Vstar-SG DVD player will automatically recover from a power failure.
Messagestar-SG -Downstream, controllable crawl and bug using luminance keying-
Messagestar-SG for Mediastar-SG is a downstream, controllable, crawl and bug overlay system using
luminance keying (as in CNN, FoxNews etc.). Create your own emergency messages or brand your channel
(or purchase the Messagestar-SG option without the Bug option for only$4,350).
Weathersite-SG -Insert real-time on-air weather data on your channel-
Using wired weather instruments, display temperature, wind, barometric pressure, dew point, rainfall,
humidity, date as well as current time display from local instruments (versus NOAA data from a nearby
airport). These roof-top instruments will give make your channel more interesting and can display the
weather information all the time (on-screen) or automatically create a full-screen weather page that can be
scheduled at regular intervals throughout the day (wireless connectivity is available as a separate upgrade).
Weathersite-SG -Wireless upgrade; protect your Playback equipment from lightening strikes-
Remotestar-SG-Manage all your Mediastar-SG equipment remotely-
Connect and manage all the Mediastar-SG equipment (including Production, Netstar-SG, Playback and
MPEG2 players such as Vstar-SG compatible MPEG2 player) from any.Ethernet connected PC or MAC,
or dial-up connected PC or MAC or any Mobile PC capable cellular telephone. Over-ride schedules, do
"live" switches, diagnose problems, update schedules, upload and. download files to all Mediastar-SG
equipment, including your Vstar-SG compatible MPEG2 player.
Datastar-SG -Import non-Mediastar-sG compatible text for on-air broadcast-
Datastar-SG automates the import and conversion to the Mediastar-SG Production system, of third-party,
text-based data (e.g. email, .DOC files etc.), into attractive, well-formatted, still-frame images suitable for
direct display on the Mediastar-SG Playback System. Bring in text files from any media source and use the
Mediastar-SG Production System to create all of the on-air screens with a single click of a button. One
custom filter included (each additional filter costs$750).
702 Mangrove Ave. #221• Chico,California 95926-3948
s see ria
T(530)82MEDIA • F (530) 898-9588
www.Mediastar-SG.com Employee owned and
operated!
A new direction! t !a to r-SG© Made in the U.S.A.
CADEINYHE;
,USA
It matters!
PRODUCT LIST
June 1st, 2006
Alertstar-SG -Uses All-Hazards Emergency/NOAA signals to over-ride the channel
Using the existing nation-wide network of All-Hazards Emergency/NOAA signals to automatically put
emergency weather or other hazard (such as public alert warnings for civil emergencies, terrorist attacks,
problems at nuclear plants, industrial fires, chemical spills, biological hazards and Amber alerts) content on-
air and over-ride your existing programming. The Alertstar-SG system frees the operator from having to
program the channel, during times of an emergency.
Datastream-SG -Automated On-Air Content Creation
Datastream-SG is designed to automatically build on-air screens in real-time from one or more data
streaming (RSS, ASCII etc.) sources. Includes one custom Datastream-SG filter(each additional filter costs
$3,250).
Titlestar-SG -schedulable text or graphic overlay on your video feeds (requires ProMx option)
Spotstar-SG -Insert spots into live feeds
Used with Mediastar-SG or as a stand-alone device. The Spotstar-SG hardware holds 55 hours of
broadcast-grade MPEG2 content and can be triggered with network tones, DTMF or contact closure.
Automatically insert spots or MPEG2 shows of any length into live programming from satellite, microwave
feed, mobile truck or studio. Tthe Spotstar-sG does not generate the triggering signals.
Promise (NOS) -500 hours of additional storage at 8 Mbps (2Tb RAID—1.6Tb formatted)
Infostar-SG a robust, stand-alone interactive channel (VOD) option
Community topics are displayed on your local channel using a normal playback schedule. Viewers can dial-
in and request specific "pages" or "movies" from the on-air menu, After these play, the normal playback
schedule will resume. This is a perfect solution for hotels, city government PEG channels, tourist
information and community resource channels. The Infostar-sG system can be configured in a stand-alone
"kiosk" for retail, mall or public area use. Content can be created using a Mediastar-SG Production system,
or an off-the-shelf graphics package.
702 Mangrove Ave. #221° Chico, California 95926-3948
meo taster-SG@
T(530)82MEDIA F (530) 898-9588
www.Mediastar-SG.com Employee owned and
operated!
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street
Suite 950
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
January 28, 2007
In reference_tofableAdminsitration
Invoice#13934 T
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
1/25/2007 MRB Cable Administration for January and February,2007. 4,000.00
For professional services rendered 0.00 (4,000.00--)
Interest on overdue balance 86-
WA Excise Tax $60:00-
Total amount of this bill $4,117.86
Previous balance $4,000.00 }
Balance due $8,117.86
We appreciate your business!
.. . ... ..... . .. . ________
. .
2006 PURCHASE ORDER LOG
CITY CLERK DIVISION
il.j.001.0i-#:INM::::::::::::::::::::i:i:::i::: :Ke]: ::i:i: :::::::::]:::::j:::::i::i:i:K:i*::: :i:::X::K:i::i:i: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::isi:i:i:;i:i;:i: : : ::i:jNy_p.fcg: ::Tcr.119p.w.y..:i
4;46i614K0 ::AL:ii.di,iiiiiiiiii i :iin'S.46i.iii.O.IC : ::: MU :iid5:
_1/17/2007 js_ 12/0001320 Corporate Expless Office SuplIes, Inv.75784633 $869.68 1/17/2007 c 8,,m $869.68
1/17/2007 js 12/0001321 DMX Music Music on Hold-January January 2007-A630834 $63.83 1/17/2007 * $0.00
_
1/17/2007 ___ . 12/0001322_ LaConrick Communications City View#32: December 06, Inv.0631 $3,800.00 1/17/2007 _ BB $3,800.00
1/17/2007 is 12/0001323 Puget Sound Access Videography Services, Dec 06, Inv. 833 $300.00 1/17/2007 BB $300.00
1/19/2007 js 12/0001324 Bradley_&Guzetta, LLC _ Cable Franchi§p Renewal Seryices, Inv. 13883 _$14,815.63 1/19/200.7 _ EE $14,815.63
_1/19/2007 is 12/0001325 Bradley&Guzetta, LLC Cable Administration Services, Inv. 13908 $4,000.00 1/19/2007 BBB $4,000.00
1/22/2007 ..j 12/0001326 Code Publishing, Inc. Folio updates:Nov&Dec 06, Inv.27599 $141.44 1/22/2007 N $141.44
1/22/2007 __i.p 12/0001327 King County Finance Recording Fees-Dec 06, Inv. 1437863 $1,148.00 1/22/2007 L $38.00
_
1/22/2007 . js 12/0001328 King County_Journal Legal Ads-Dec 06, Inv. 1452063 $1,098.22 1/22/2007 I $1,098.22
1/31/2007 js 12/0001329 Botham, Helenanne Lobbyyolunteer,January 2007 $30.00 1/31/2007 H $30.00
1/31/2007 _ip f_12/0001330 Clough, Lorene Lobby_Volunteer,January 2007 $40.00 1/31/2007 H _ _$40.00
1/31/.2007_1s 12/0001331 Gain, Melanie LobbLyolynteer,January 2007 $50.op 1/31/2007 H $50.00
1/31/2007 is 1270001332 Grinolds,Ann Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 $50.00 1/31/2007 H $50.00
1/31/2007 _is 12/0001333 Johnson, Leone Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 $30.00 1/31/2007 H _ $.30.00
1/31/2007 js 12/0001334 Katzer, Flora Lobbyyolunteer,January 2007 $20.00 1/31/2007 H $20.00
1/31/2007 Is_ 12/0001335 Martin, Clarice Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 $10.00 1/31/2007_ H $10.00
1/31/2007 _js 12/0001336 Mead, Delores _ Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 $30.00 1/31/2007 H $30.00
_
1/31/2007 is 12/0001337 Moschetti,Joan Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 $40.00 1/31/2007 H . $40.00.
_.1/31/2007 is_ 12/0001338 Nord, Bert_ _ Lobby_yolunteer, Januqy 2007 $30.00 1/31/2007 H $30.00
1/31/2007 js 12/0001339 Slothower, Penny Lobby Volunteer,January 2007 - $30.00 1/31/2007 H -._ _ $30.00
---1 -..-. .------..-..---*--.-..----.-------.--- ---.....-...-....-..------- ----------------
*
------ - --- --*-
PO Log 2007.xls 1 2/1/2007
City of Renton Page 4
Additional Charges:
Date Description Amount
12/15/2006 Consulting Service-CBG Communications-Invoice#62-1106 in the amount of$9,425.71. 9,425.71
Consulting Service-Front Range Consulting-FCC Form 1240 Review-Invoice#290 for 3,000.00
$3,000.00.
1/25/2007 CBG Communications Invoice 62-1206 for$16,386.68. 16,368.68
Total costs $28,794.39
Interest on overdue balance
WA Excise Tax
Total amount of this bill $43,338.70
Previous balance $14,815.63 fb
Balance due $58,154.33
We appreciate your business!
City of Renton Page 3
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
12/12/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence re concerns from citizen with 0.25 48.75
survey. 195.00/hr
12/13/2006 BFL Researched issues surrounding economic development and 0,75 131.25
comprehensive planning that may require improvements in 175.00/hr
telecommunications infrastructure with systems such as
broadband/wireline.
SJG <SPLIT>Review comments filed in the FCC's video competition 1.00 195.00
notice of inquiry and draft notes concerning same. 195.00/hr
MRB Multiple e-mails with Mr. Robinson re Government Access planning. 0.75 146.25
Phone conference with Ms.Wine re renewal issues-rate reviews 195.00/hr
and government access planning..
12/14/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Review comments filed in the FCC's video competition 0.50 97.50
notice of inquiry and draft notes concerning same. 195.00/hr
MRB Coordinate review of Government Access needs with Mr. Robinson. 0.25 48.75
195.00/hr
12/27/2006 SJG Telephone conference with D.Treich concerning proposed 3.00 585.00
settlement of Form 1240 issues, Form 1235 issues and Comcast's 195.00/hr
failure to provide financial data for the franchise fee review; prepare
for telephone conference with R. Pepper from Comcast; telephone
conference with R. Pepper and D. Treich concerning possible
settlement; telephone conference with M. Bradley and D.Treich
concerning proposed settlement terms and preparation of a
memorandum setting from the proposed settlement terms.
12/28/2006 SJG Draft E-mail correspondence to M. Wine concerning the FCC order 0.50 97.50
on franchising and the City's FCC reply comments. 195.00/hr
1/16/2007 SJG Review/revise Form 1240/Form 1235 draft settlement letter prepared 2.00 390.00
by Comcast; discuss same with D. Treich; e-mail comments on draft 195.00/hr
settlement letter to P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast.
1/17/2007 SJG Respond to e-mails from P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast, 0.50 97.50
concerning comments on the company's proposed Form 1240/Form 195.00/hr
1235 settlement letter.
1/19/2007 SJG Review/revise drafts of the Comcast settlement letter; review and 2.50 487.50
respond to e-mails from P. Feinberg, counsel for Comcast, 195.00/hr
• concerning same; telephone calls with D.Treich concerning
Comcast's proposed language changes.
1/24/2007 MRB Review proposed FCC Form 1205, 1240, and 1235 settlements. 2.50 487.50
Prepare for and attend meeting via phone conference with Ms. Wine 195.00/hr
-prepare for on-site visit and meetings and update on renewal
projects. Phone conference with Tom Robinson re update on
projects-survey,technical audit,and use of government channel.
1/25/2007 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence update from Mr. Nielsen on 0.25 48.75
technical audit. 195.00/hr
MRB Review proposed FCC Form 1205, 1240, and 1235 settlements. NO CHARGE
Prepare for and attend phone conference with Ms. Wine re renewal 195.00/hr
For professional services rendered 93.25 $13,480.00
From: Marty Wine
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 11/15/2006 11:08:02 AM
Subject: Please hold Ashpaugh and Sculco invoice
Hi Bonnie,
You forwarded me an invoice for$1,811 sent to the City by Ashpaugh & Sculco for Form 1205 review to
verify that it's ok to pay. I think we should hold off paying it and ask Bradley& Guzzetta to pass the amount
through on their next quarterly invoice to us.
Mike, I am cc'ing you on this message. I reviewed our contract with Bradley& Guzzetta and it says we will
pay you based on quarterly invoices for actual services rendered to be paid within 30 days of receipt of
invoice, and final payment after all reports submitted and approved. While Front Range is an approved
subconsultant, and we gave notice,to proceed on the 1205 review, we haven't received, reviewed or
approved the 1205 form review that has been done by Ashpaugh and Sculco or Front Range Consulting
here in Renton...so before I pay a bill for it, could we please begin discussing this work and findings from
it? I am asking for this related to this invoice, but the broader issue I am wanting to address here is to
work with you on what we are finding in these reviews and what the findings mean. We need some
products from the work you are doing and to hear from you about how it all fits together in the review
process.
Thanks-
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Bradley, Michael
'`(7. ,,
ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs , PLC
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants
INVOICE NO.NR06012
November 7, 2006
AS 1050-04
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager CITY OF RENTON
City of Renton NOV 13 2006
City Clerk Div., 7th Floor
1055 S. Grad WayRECEIVED
y CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Renton,WA 98055
Project: Review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205
The City of Renton, Washington is participating in the national review of Comcast's 2006 FCC
Form 1205. This review is being performed jointly by Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC
("A&S") and Front Range Consulting, Inc ("FRC") with A&S being responsible for contracting
and invoicing.
Calculation of
Local Franchise Authority Subscription Amount
City of Renton, Washington
Projected Number.of Subscribers 18,114
Subscription Rate $.10
Total Based on Subscribers $1,811.00
Maximum Subscription Amount $10,000.00
Minimum Subscription Amount $750.00
TOTAL DUE (not to exceed maximum or be less than minimum) $1,811.00
If you have any questions regarding this invoice, please call me at(407) 645-2020.
Very truly yours,
ASHPAUGH& SCULCO, CPAs, PLC
CL -_
Garth T. Ashpaugh, CPA
President and Member
1133 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 106 •Winter Park, FL 32789 •407.645.2020 • Fax 407.645.4070
gashpaugh@ascpas.com •csculco@ascpas.com
MID FLORIDA PDC
ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs, PLC °"""
1133 Louisiana Avenue,Suite 106 •Winter Park,FL 32789 FL 327 I. T •U _r—
PM
11
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/ Cable Manager
City of Renton
City Clerk Div., 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
9005r 4-L?2;32
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street
Suite 950
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651) 379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
January 28, 2007
I eference to:Cable Franchise Renewal
Invoice#13935
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
11/11/2006 JK Review Washington case and statutory law concerning ownership of 4.00 NO CHARGE
the Insitutional Network. 125.00/hr.
11/12/2006 BFL Researched strategies for determining ownership interests related to 3.00 525.00-
the City of Renton's Institutional Network, including the law of 175.00/hr
fixtures, gifts, adverse possession, estoppel, and course of dealing.
11/13/2006 JK Legal Research. Conducted research on Washington case and 2.00 NO CHARGE
statutory law concerning ownership of the Insitutional Network. Also 125.00/hr
helped draft parts of a memo on the same issue.
BFL Researched issues related to ownership of the City of Renton 4.75 831.25
Institutional Network, including issues related to the law of fixtures, 175.00/hr
gifts, course of dealing,and estoppel.
SJG Receive/review City comments on telephone survey instrument; draft 4.00 NO CHARGE
notes concerning same; multiple telephone conferences with T. 195.00/hr
Robinson concerning same; work on I-Net ownership issue.
SJG Review City documents and draft notes concerning same; research 6.50 NO CHARGE
I-Net ownership theories. 195.00/hr
11/14/2006 BFL Drafted memorandum discussing the legal strategies available for 1.25 218.75
the City in seeking to assert ownership rights over the Institutional 175.00/hr
Network.
11/15/2006 BFL Reviewed City of Renton documents and correspondence in 1.75 NO CHARGE
connection with the matter of Institutional Network ownership. 175.00/hr
BFL Drafted memorandum dealing with parol evidence and issues of 2.50 NO CHARGE
ambiguous contract language;statute of limitations regarding 175.00/hr
contract claims in the State of Washington; and the legality of
municipal use of utility poles.
SJG Draft memorandum on I-Net ownership; discuss issues with M. 5.50 1,072.50
Bradley. 195.00/hr
11/16/2006 BFL Researched legal issues related to the institutional network 3.50 612.50
ownership disputed, contract interpretation, and the application of 175.00/hr
state, local, and federal law to the franchise agreement of Renton
and Comcast.
BFL Drafted and finished editing a legal memorandum on the contract 3.25 568.75
and I-Net ownership issues raised in the dispute between the City of 175.00/hr
Renton and its Cable Operator.
City of Renton Page 2
Date Init. Description Hrs/Rate Amount
11/16/2006 SJG Draft memorandum on I-Net ownership. 4.75 926.25
195.00/hr
11/17/2006 MRB Review FCC From 1240 Report. Review survey issues. Review 4.50 877.50
technical audit findings. Review FCC Form 1235 review. Review 195.00/hr
FCC Form 1205 review. Review I-Net memo. Review
correspondence from client. Draft status report to client.
SJG Draft and revise memorandum on I-Net ownership. 5.25 1,023.75
195.00/hr
JK Research. Researched Washington case law for the rules 1.50 NO CHARGE
associated with a contract for sale and construction contracts. This 125.00/hr
was in connection with the Renton I-Net memo.
11/18/2006 SJG Draft and revise memorandum on I-Net ownership. 4.75 926.25
195.00/hr
11/20/2006 MRB Review/revise memo on I-Net ownership. Additional research on 3.00 585.00
statute of limitations-declaratory judgments, UCC applicability. 195.00/hr
Review survey.
11/21/2006 BFL Researched issues surrounding declaratory judgments, statutes of 1.75 306.25
limitations, and other doctrines of application in the Washington 175.00/hr
courts.
MRB Final revisions to I-Net memo. Forward I-Net memo to Ms. Wine. 4.50 877.50
Phone conference with Mr. Robinson and Mr. Nielsen re project 195.00/hr
communications, survey and technical audit. Prepare for and attend
meeting via phone conference with Ms.Wine re renewal status
report. Follow up with Mr. Treich on Franchise Fee Review and FCC
Form 1240 review and FCC From 1205 review. Receive and review
e-mail correspondence from Ms. Pepper re 1235 review. Draft
correspondence to Mr. Davis re technical audit drive out findings.
Follow up with Mr. Robinson re PEG needs assessment. Follow up
with Mr. Nielsen re technical audit.
11/27/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail correspondence re Survey. Respond to the 1.00 195.00
same. Receive/review e-mail correspondence re 1235 review. 195.00/hr
Respond to the same. Phone conference with Mr. Treich re
Discussions with Comcast.
12/1/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Retrieve and review comments filed in the FCC's video 1.00 195.00
competition NOI; draft notes regarding same for reply comments. 195.00/hr
12/4/2006 SJG <SPLIT>Retrieve and review comments filed in the FCC's video 0.50 97.50
competition NOI; draft notes regarding same for reply comments. 195.00/hr
MRB Follow up with Mr.Treich on Renton 1240 review to see if Cocmast 0.25 48.75
had responded yet. They had not and instructed Mr. Treich to follow 195.00/hr
up with Comcast.
12/7/2006 SJG Telephone conference with M. Bradley and D. Treich concerning 1.50 292.50
possible terms for settling outstanding Form 1240, Form 1235 and 195.00/hr
franchise fee data request issues; telephone conference with
Comcast officials concerning same.
MRB Prepare for and attend meeting via phone conference with Mr. Treich 1.50 292.50
and Mr. Guzzetta and Comcast rate team to discuss possible 195.00/hr
resolution on 1235, 1240 and franchise fee review issues.
12/8/2006 MRB Receive/review proposal from CBG Communications re coordination 0.50 97.50
on government access needs. Respond to the same and ask for a 195.00/hr
revised(and cheaper)proposal.
12/11/2006 MRB Receive/review e-mail re government affairs and FCC Comments. 0.25 48.75
195.00/hr
de: Jay eouinôn
Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org> r�yv���
From: "NATOA
To: <lbeaty@hq.natoa.org> Linda �kt&Y
Date: 9/7/2005 8:21:23 AM /-
Subject: Video Choice Bills -Action Alert Zen Ulo`Te`s
ACTION ALERT
While I know that much attention is being devoted to the hurricane
relief efforts (as is most appropriate), and today the country is in
mourning over the loss of the Chief Justice (who served our country
admirably), at some point in the coming days/weeks, there are many who
will turn their attention to the business at hand, and many of them will
be focused on video entry by the telephone companies.
Over the August recess, NATOA members in Massachusetts met with
Congressman Markey, members in Oregon met with Senator Wyden, and
members in Illinois met with their congressional representatives. These
members and others came out of their meetings saying that local
governments are about to be sold down the river on the franchising
question.
The message is that franchising is a quick and easy target-that no
congressional member thinks they will lose an election bid over giving
up telco franchising-that they would gain the support and adoration
(and money)of the telephone and the cable companies if they preempt
local governments on franchising -that they have companion bills in the
House and Senate that already have upwards of over 30 co-sponsors and
that it's an easy means of saying that they got something done. Doing
the national franchise bills would not impede the work of Senator
Stevens, as it's only a small part of the telecom rewrite, and might
actually take some of the heat off of other issues he cares about.
So, our concern is that local franchising is an easy target-that local
government has been too lax about thinking we have more time-that the
industry has great momentum and we are way behind.
Congress may not vote this fall -they may wait until spring or later-
but anything introduced thus far and during the fall will set the marker
for what's to come.
Therefore, we believe that it is urgent that local elected officials
contact their state's delegation to Congress and ask them to oppose S.
1504, S. 1349 and HB 3146. NATOA has material on its web site to help
develop talking points, but keep it brief and to the point. These bills
will hurt our communities and WILL NOT lead to faster, more ubiquitous
or more affordable broadband service. Remind your Congressional
delegation that the telephone industry made these same promises in 1996.
Please note that NATOA, NLC, NACo and USCM have put together the
following material for your use. An official version with the
association logo's can be found on the NATOA website- Policy/Advocacy-
Communicating with Congress -
Please feel free to use this information in your discussions. Thanks!
Local Government: Partner in Promoting Video Competition
Local government strongly endorses promoting competition for all
consumers and treating like services alike. The elected leaders of our
nation's cities and counties stand ready and willing to welcome video
competition in their communities. Nationalizing franchising, however,
would limit the benefits of head-to-head video competition to a chosen
few, and would cause chaos in streets across the country.
Before Congress acts, it should consider:
* States where statewide or simplified franchising is currently in
place do not see greater or faster video competition deployment.
* Franchises do not just provide permission to offer video
services, they are the core tool local government uses to manage streets
and sidewalks, provide for public safety, enhance competition, and to
collect compensation for private use of public land. Eliminating
franchises will cause chaos and deprive local government of the power to
perform its basic functions.
* Competition is for everyone. Current national policy
implemented through franchises encourages competition throughout the
country, not just in urban or suburban areas and not just for the
wealthy. In less than 10 years, under the current system, broadband
service has been made available to 91% of all homes passed by cable.
* Congress should not try to manage local streets and sidewalks
from Washington; national franchising would abrogate a basic tenet of
federalism by granting companies access to locally owned property.
* Content deals, not local government, stands in the way of new
video service offerings. Companies have not yet seriously dedicated
resources to negotiate franchises in most markets. Potential video
competitors require relatively few franchises to implement their
announced business plans (for SBC 1,500-2,000 franchises, for Verizon
100-200 franchises).
Concerns with Current Bills
Video Choice Act --S. 1349 (Smith/Rockefeller)and H.R. 3146
(Blackburn/Wynn)
* Without a franchise agreement, many of the important mechanisms
that local government uses to manage their rights of way, ensure
competition for everyone, and collect franchise fees are eliminated.
* The bills do not allow local government to obtain support
funding for public educational and governmental (PEG)channels or to
obtain Institutional networks for local government needs such as fire,
police, or other government workers.
* While the bills prohibit economic redlining against poorer
citizens, they remove any enforcement of the provision.
Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act-- S. 1504 (Ensign/McCain)
* The bill would immediately abrogate all existing local franchise
agreements. The new provisions would be applicable to all video service
providers, both existing cable companies and new entrants.
Although the bill retains the current five percent gross revenue
cap on franchise fees, it limits the revenues from these fees in two
ways: 1) by limiting these fees to the cost of managing the
rights-of-way; and 2) providing four-and-a-half pages of exceptions to
what can be included in the gross revenue costs, gutting existing
contractual agreements.
The bill prohibits municipalities from charging fees for issuing
construction permits needed to install or upgrade facilities.
Under the bill, video providers would be required to offer only
four public educational and governmental (PEG)channels, far below what
many communities utilize today.
The municipal broadband provisions would impose additional
layers of useless bureaucracy and procedure on local government and
hamper broadband deployment. Existing municipal deployments would be
frozen.
The bill would remove the law that ensures cell phone towers,
like all other towers, are subject to local zoning laws.
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
703-519-8035
703-519-8036
lbeaty@natoa.org <mailto:lbeaty@natoa.org>
www.natoa.org <http://www.natoa.org/>
•
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Mark Your Calendars Now!
NATOA's 25th Anniversary and
25th Annual Conference
September 22-25, 2005
Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
•
CITY OF RENTON, CITY CLERK DIVISION C.). .( --.,
- CONTRACT VIDEOGRAPHER HOURS to 4=0
. ..0
NAME: .
FOR THE MONTH OF: , 20
-'..-:':..--..-----..:••• -.....-.•--++',....-..,,-',':'-',,,--"----T:F-:i.K..:',--....-v...Niftt:::: i:i*,..i::-:.,.'...:... .. .:-:y,...;.:.;':..;:.:•:.:.:::,;.:--...::..:::-;,,.-::..::.:.:a;::.;.. ;:..!:;..:,•:::.:.!,.:.:.,.:,-;p:..!.;.:.:..--:,.:-.-....::::i.:i-:;.-•.1...:i.:.::::::.::.:.::-,!. 1.".!,.:.:.:.;,:,.:!.:44,
..............,........ ............ „. .
DAV.:::-....'''...::::-:':DATE:::::::--i::,.'-...tiSI t... IN TIME.:.:',:'.:ii.E.;::'..01*..-'\i1;.::;ii!:::-:-:'.,::::::::..::',c*:.'iMig-Ii::'!,-'i.i;i::::::.'.::::::.-::::!:::.,:.)::',......,'.:',.'..:::::-...:'::::.!bE. S.,t:.1010.717::::I:-..20,1N.J:::::::::.'.:!!:'.•':::::...':-:::‘,::'::::1,..:i::.:.:::.1:--:;:i!.:E::"..1.::'::::::,...!,':'::.R7 ii,4ESA.T.:,,ED
e :
,..16-17.,.,14/r'-, c
•
•
APPROVED: DATE: ' TOTAL HOURS: -
Bonnie Walton,'City Clerk/Cable Manager
=CIty of=Renton-
=Ci y Clerks Offi Channel
:1055.=South=Grady:Way: , -"-= (((
=Renton WA_98055.
(425)430-651Qor..(425)-430-6573::.
REQUEST FOR VIDEO DUPLICATION
DATE REQUESTED
NAME OF REQUESTOR
ADDRESS
PHONE: (Home) (Business)
DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO TAPE REQUESTED:
One Copy Per Request.
Tape Duplication Fee: $15 per RMC 5-1-2.D.
If tapes are to be mailed,there will be an additional charge to cover postage.
Tape Duplication turnaround time is dependent on equipment availability and other factors.
(CITY STAFF ONLY): BLANK VIDEO TAPE SUPPLIED? Yes No
(City Staff is encouraged to use a VCR in one of the City Hall conference rooms to duplicate tapes as needed when it airs
on Renton Channel 21. The City does not have high-speed dubbing or multiple duplication video equipment.)
FOR OFFICE USE°ONLYl
AUTHORIZED BY
COPIED BY
DATE COMPLETED
AMOUNT CHARGED:
lk.
�r
11
SCit ai Renton...,, .... w: rZ.::* -
GityCl'erks:Office;='Ch�annel1±,
1�OSSSSouth�Gr-a if W iy ";;wui2;',": i
-.f.,“.1
Renron,WA 9$,055 = - ;. ��,:n
a(425)F430=GS1:O o�=w:(425)43Q 6571,
REQUEST FOR VIDEO DUPLICATION
DATE REQUESTED
NAME OF REQUESTOR
ADDRESS
PHONE: (Home) (Business)
DESCRIPTION OF VIDEO TAPE REQUESTED:
One Copy Per Request.
Tape Duplication Fee: $15 per RMC 5-1-2.D.
If tapes are to be mailed,there will be an additional charge to cover postage.
Tape Duplication turnaround is dependent on equipment availability and other factors.
(CITY STAFF ONLY): BLANK VIDEO TAPE SUPPLIED? Yes No
(City Staff is encouraged to use a VCR in one of the City Hall conference rooms to duplicate tapes as needed when it airs
on Renton Channel 21. The City does not have high-speed dubbing or multiple duplication video equipment.)
!FOR OFFICE USE ONLY]
AUTHORIZED BY
COPIED BY
DATE COMPLETED
AMOUNT CHARGED:
NfIT Cable Television-MylnfoTV - Your message, your way! Page 1 of 2
••;.. • •* 1 " . ' 1 ' ° 1,'"'N ''''': .e , , , ..„. ... ,
,,,,i6jil.. .,..,k,,--,a310,,,,,,,,,, _, ,.., u1/4.,„...5,,
.i. ..,.‘ /7- .,,,,, . .
.,.,, • ...„.
c` pt.
2 8 th 1 ar1
4 t A,T, ♦✓ it• .A
{ - x. : r MylnfoTV
n4 >s ;rpe• �� Ei
.. o•{ : ..,,,. 4 ; _ . Your message, your
way
.
Home ' Campus Broadcasting ,.,,rhari"ne1s edul�e t��� �.i�:' l . �� .
£4Bc
Subscription Services :.�,.n,s_ F,.,..,,..
p ' StreaMlT F+A'dus Connection
Operational Status Cable Services M
:,c. - My Info TV is MIT Cable's frE
promotion channel that show
message, your way!" My In
you to design your own mess
? , AMy TT
Info gym') choices of colors, fonts, pictu
i multimedia elements.
z. 174';' See a sample My Info TV pre
r$,,oi .,. .toY� , ._ ,IilI i1. clicking here.
Messages are restricted to ar
http►:l/web.mit.edu/mitcable of events, meetings, activities
`7 ' information for the MIT coma
My Info Tv can be seen on 11,
' and on the television set in LI
Using MylnfoTV:
1. Use our MylnfoTV temK
Microsoft PowerPoint. I.
template as a general g
out your message.
2. Add any design templai
background colors, clip
animations, logos, videi
http://web.mit.edu/mitcable/www/myinfotv.html 9/19/2005
MIT Cable Television- MylnfoTV -Your message, your way! Page 2 of 2
elements, etc. Do what
make your message un
visual appeal so that it
Click here to download
MyInfo TV messages that look gre
1. Type your message inside this box. Do not 3. Put your message insid
box. This border
use fonts smaller than 28 points. "safe area" that can be
2. Insert any clipart, etc. most television sets.
3'. Modify your design. See: 4. You can remove the T\j
http://web.mit.eduhnitcible/wwww/niyinfotv.html clicking on it and pressi
for details. key.
•
5. Email your completed s
4. Email to: MyInfoTvmit.edu attachment to MylnfoTv
Suggestions:
• Use our template. Click on the link and Open into PowerPoint or Save to Disk for la
• Design elements included inside the TV outline box will be visible on correctly adju:
sets.
• Areas outside the TV outline box can be used as a decorative border area, but ma
on all tv sets.
• If you want your message to be legible, do not use fonts smaller than 28 points.
• Avoid saturated colors, especially red. Pastels work well.
• Do not use white backgrounds!
• For more information, see the following article, Prepare Your Presentation for a TV
• Want to see some great samples? Click here.
Text Only Announcements:
To submit text only announcements, send email to tv-messages@mit.edu. We will use a
to process your message so that we can include it in MylnfoTv.
Maximize your event promotion exposure! Post your event to the MIT Events Cale!
a ��hecta I I I�'_ information Massachusetts Ir
Member, 1 5,1 Services & Page design t
Association of Higher Education Last update C
Technology Comm,
Cable Television Administrators
http://web.mit.edu/mitcable/www/myinfotv.html 9/19/2005
My Info TV
1 . Type your message inside this box. Do not
use fonts smaller than 28 points.
2. Insert any clipart, etc.
3 . Modify your design. See:
http:I/web.mit.edu/mitcable/www/myinfotv.html
for details.
4. Email to: MyInfoTvmit.edu
Tips for TV Presentation Page 1 of 3
Essential Tips for A erfe t TV Presentation
Visual Presentation Guidelines
There are several factors that are important when presenting your visual aids via a TV system. Visuals
designed for TV will work for classroom presentations.
Font Size
G The point size of your text should not be less then 32 points.
• A mix of upper and lower case lettering is easier to read than all upper case lettering and can be
made larger within the same given space.
Font Style
-9 Use sans serif type. Some desktop publishing fonts that work quite well are Helvetica and Aerial.
O Avoid fancy fonts such as Old English, Zapf Chance:fy, and Park Avenue.
Text Block Size
• No more than 6 words per line.
O No more than 7 lines per visual.
0 Create the visual to be seen from every seat in the house.
Colors
O Bright colors for backgrounds are not recommended (absolutely no white backgrounds) because
they distract rea.d.ers from the text and transmit poorly to the distant site.
O Dark colors for backgrounds (i.e.,black (must use drop shadow on the text), dark blue, Clark green,
etc) and neutral colors for. text (i.e., white, yellow, or any pastel color) tend to complement each
other and are readable from a distance.
O Limit your visual to 3-4 colors to avoid a rainbow effect.
O Try to avoid patterns in color presentations. They arc hard to distinguish.
• PowerPoint slides are FREE! Put less information on more slides.
Television Format
The aspect ratio of an analog television screen is four units wide and three units high. This is an
important fact to keep in mind if you choose to present in a distance education environment.
•
4 U nits Wide •
!.1111
•
http://www2.kumc.edu/instruction/academicsupport/tips_for_ty presentation.htm 9/19/2005
Tips for TV Presentation Page 2 of 3
4:3 Aspect Ratio
Every visual needs to have a "bleed area" because of the way television scans images. The "bleed area"
is a 10% frame around your information that can be sacrificed. Do NOT place pertinent information in
this frame.
(F
•
Iap
Your Information
•
.�
Body Language
There are three areas that are vital to the delivery of a presentation, especially in a distance education
environment. To help you prepare for such an occasion, a few tips have been provided for each area.
Appearance
9 Men: A medium dark blue, gray, or brown suit worn with a light colored shirt and a conservative
tie are a safe combination.
d Women: Solid,color dresses or tailored suits worn with a complimentary blouse are an acceptable
combination. Jewelry should be subtle and "noiseless."
® Colors to Avoid: Avoid bright reds, oranges, blacks, and whites, since these colors are harsher
and tend to draw attention away from the face. Also avoid clothes that have pinstripes (horizontal
or vertical), herringbones or houndsooth patters. No lab coats please.
Gestures
o Gestures to avoid: Arms folded tightly around the chest or keeping hands in pockets. Also avoid
drumming fingers on.the podium or any other gesture that might be picked up by the open
microphones on the podium.
O Exaggerated movements: Try to avoid using your hands and arms to gesture. At times these
movements distract the audience from .focusing on.the presentation/lecture. Also, if the
http://www2.kumc.edu/instruction/academicsupport/tips_for_ty presentation.htm 9/19/2005
Tips/or TV Presentation Page 3 of 3
presentation is delivered via a compressed video system, exaggerated movements can cause signal
overload allowing the picture on the television monitors to lag.
e Eye Contact: Eye contact is especially important in a distance learning environment. It opens the
channel of communication between the presenter and the audience. As a result, looking directly at
the far-end monitor ensures distant sites that they are not forgotten.
® SMILE! IT helps break.the ice and at the same time helps you and the audience relax.
Talk To Me
To encourage interactivity, especially in a distance education environment, the following methods have
been found to be helpful.
Make it interactive
a Class Discussions: Discussions help open communication channels and allows for the free flow
of ideas.
6 Group Projects: Allows learners to communicate with one another and ask questions.
O Brainstorming: Generates a large number of creative ideas/solutions in a brief period of time.
Check Your Visuals With US!
® See your visuals as your students see them (local and far end).
® Orient yourself with the distance education facility and technical support.
® See for yourself how these tips will improve your presentation!
Check Out Our Website!
To gain more insight on effective presentation techniques for a distance education environment please
check out the distance education training on the web at
h ttp://ww w 2.kumc.edu/instruction/a.cademicsupport/instructserv.htm
http://www2.kumc.edu/instruction/academicsupport/tips_for_ty presentation.htm 9/19/2005
UWTV Production PowerPoint Guidelines c1v TT v
PRODUCTION
for Television Presentations
INTRODUCTION Television-safe fonts, size, and style
Thin serif fonts such as Times do not work well
PowerPoint is a powerful multi-media presen- for television screens.
tation tool. A successful presentation is well These are examples of fonts that do work well:
organized and visually stimulating. The follow- Arial, Helvetica, Palatino, MS Sans Serif, Lucida
ing guidelines have been established by UWTV Sans
Production and can be used when creating Minimum font size for legible body text is 18
PowerPoint slide shows for television pro- points, 24-32 points is optimal
grams, lectures and other presentations.
Television-safe colors
VISIBILITY Avoid highly saturated colors: set the color
saturation level to 200 and the luminance level
Can you clearly see your presentation if you to 100 (Font Color/More Colors)
stand 10 feet from your computer monitor? Off-white and mild yellow work well
Computer monitors have a much higher reso- Backgrounds
lution than most television monitors. Presenta- Dark blue works best
tions created using a computer monitor that The background must be low contrast so the
will eventually end up on viewed on a televi- font will show up
sion monitor need special consideration. If a watermark graphic is used it should be
transparent or embossed in a solid background
CREATE A PRESENTATION: MASTER so that it does not interfere with the text
SLIDE TEMPLATE
Safe-Title Area
Please create your slide show using a Master The safe-title area of a television screen is the
Slide Template. This will create a master back- area where views can see all the most impor-
ground and font style that will carry through tant information you need to show them.
on all slides. Any changes of color or style will All text should be inset 1 " from all edges of
be easier to make on all slides if a master slide the screen.
is created. ° •
WORKING WITH TEXT
PowerPoint contains existing templates but
most do not work well for television. UWTV Thin (one point/pixel) horizontal lines will
Production has templates available for use in vibrate on a television screen.
creating Master Slide Templates.
Avoid too much text on each slide!
Any Master Slide Template for television pre- Ample space is need between lines. Set line
sentations should have the following design spacing to 1 1/2 or 150% of font size. Underlin-
specifications: ing should be avoided but when necessary use •
a thick line so that it does not create vibration
on the screen.
0
UWTV Production PowerPoint Guidelines Continued UWTV
PRODUCTION
COPYRIGHTS
You must get clearance for any image before
the scheduled video production date. Contact
the publisher or webmaster where you ob-
tained the image. Be aware! Usually clearance
takes 3 or more weeks to obtain.
TIMELINE
DAY
24 Outline of Presentation
Select appropriate images
21 Obtain copyright approval
12 Send images to be scanned and prepped
7 Import images into PowerPoint
presentation
4 Studio rehearsal with talent and
PowerPoint presentation
Complete final changes
0 Production day
All graphics and other visual elements should
be completed 1 week before inserting into the
PowerPoint slide show.
A rehearsal of your presentation with the slide
show and the hardware to convert the slides
to a television signal should take place at least
four days before the scheduled production
shoot date. This will allow a few days for final
changes, and you will make changes!
UWTV Production Presenter Guidelines u W T V
PRODUCTION
Each project at UWTV Production is unique chunky or charm bracelets can hit a table or
and will have specific requirements regarding chair arm and cause extraneous noise.
talent and presenter performance, wardrobe,
and visual aids. The following guidelines apply • Glasses are OK (especially if you need
to television production in general and can them)!
help you to prepare for that moment when
the camera is pointed in your direction. ♦ Some presenters will need to stand behind
a podium, counter, or desk so wear com-
fortable shoes.
WARDROBE
• Television studios are kept at a cool tem-
• Wear comfortable clothes that you feel perature to counteract the heat generated
good in. Keep in mind that your audience by lights, so don't wear your heaviest
should focus on you, not your outfit. clothes. If you get too cold we will be
happy to adjust the room temperature.
• Solid colors in pale shades work best. The
camera especially does not like bright
colors, black, white, or saturated red. HAIR & MAKE UP
• Avoid tweed, herringbone, small checks, • As with wardrobe, keep it simple and be
stripes, and other small patterns, unless yourself. Your daily hairstyle is fine and
they are very subtle. make up should be what you normally
wear. We can provide a light dusting of
• Avoid clothing made from a glittery fabric translucent powder to take away shine
or with jewels attached. from noses and temples.
• Avoid large logos, unless the logo is yours • We can provide a professional make up
and part of your presentation. artist for an additional charge.
• The small lapel-style microphones do not
attach well to pullover shirts or sweaters. PERFORMANCE TIPS
Jackets with lapels, shirts with collars,
button down blouses, and cardigan sweat- • If you've never been on television before
ers work best. you may be a little intimidated. Please,
relax! We will do everything we can to
• A microphone can be attached easily to a make your experience enjoyable and fun.
tie. Ties in muted tones and subtle patterns
work well, although solids work best. • Television is an intimate medium. Your
Scarves can rub on the microphone and program may be seen by a large audience
cause unwanted noise. but each person watches as an individual.
Think of your performance as reaching
• Keep jewelry to a minimum and especially many people - one at a time.
avoid big, bright pieces. Large, heavy
necklaces may hit the microphone and
UWTV Production Presenter Guidelines Continued UWTV
PRODUCTION
♦ Television is not theater. There is no need ♦ TIME CUES - are given to show the number
to speak loudly or exaggerate gestures. of minutes left in the production. A
The best performance is one that looks crewperson will give you the cues by hold-
natural, relaxed and unrehearsed. ing up either cards or fingers next to the
camera lens. Time cues are usually given to
♦ For lectures or other presentations without indicate 20 minutes left, 10 minutes left, 5
an audience, look at the camera. If there minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes, 1 minute
are others on the set involved in the pre- and 30 seconds left. This last cue is called
sentation, look at whoever is talking. When "wrap" and is the same hand motion as the
there is an audience presenters are usually speed up cue.
asked by the producer to ignore the cam-
eras. ♦ SPEED UP - a crewperson will put a finger
in the air and move it in a circular motion.
♦ Be aware of the cameras, there may be This means you should move on, time is
more than one. A red light on top of each running out.
camera comes on when that camera is
active. Check with the producer before ♦ When you have concluded your remarks,
production begins which camera to ad- stop talking, continue to look at the cam-
dress. era or others on the set and remain silent
until a crewperson says "clear" or some-
HAND SIGNALS & TIME CUES thing similar.
Members of the production crew will give you Taking cues is a good workout for peripheral
verbal and non-verbal cues. These cues will tell vision. Do not overtly acknowledge the cue by
you when to start, stop, speed up, slow down nodding or saying, "OK". Also, try not to shift
and which camera to address. your eyes. Cues are given close to the camera
lens to make it as easy as possible to take them
♦ STAND BY - get ready, things are about to within the flow of the production.
start.
♦ CUE - a crewperson will point at you. Take VISUAL AIDS
an intake of breath during the countdown
so you can begin speaking immediately ♦ When using pointers, either hand held or
when you get the cue. manipulated with a computer mouse, keep
your movements simple and direct. Point,
♦ CHANGE CAMERA - when a different shot is but don't wiggle. This can be especially
taken a crewperson will point to one of the distracting with mouse pointing.
other cameras. You should then begin
speaking to that camera.
♦ CUT - this means to stop. A crewperson will
pull a finger across his or her throat and say
"cut."
Presentations in Council Chambers
7 4,
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION GUIDELINES
For PowerPoint presentations to be legible on the television monitors you must follow
these simple guidelines:
• Always use a large enough font! Never use any font smaller than a 24-point
font! It's better to use more slides with less information. Overcrowding and/or
using too small of font will make it hard to read and your audience will lose
interest out of frustration.
• Choose a basic background and color scheme. Use a background and font that
have adequate contrast. An excellent example is using a dark blue background
and yellow or white font. Stay away from using red as your font color. Reds tend
to "dance" on the screen making it difficult to read.
• Avoid mixing in slides from other sources or presentations. This could create
format problems.
• Don't use too many different font types. Using too may font types can strain the
eyes and subliminally annoy the viewer.
POWERPOINT PRESENTATION GUIDELINES (continued)
• Limit the number of bullets per slide. Five or six points are plenty of information
to include on each slide. Too much information will force your audience to spend
too much time reading and not enough time listening.
• Avoid using spreadsheets if possible. Spreadsheets tend to contain too many
numbers. This makes the slide difficult to read. If you must use spreadsheets,
make sure you have printed handouts too.
• When using maps, make sure that the detail is not"too fine". To much fine detail
will make the map hard to read. If you can't avoid using finely detailed maps in
your power point presentation, make sure you supply printed handouts.
• "A picture is worth a thousand words." Use photographs in your presentation not
only to illustrate something, but also to add diversity. This will hold the viewers
attention.
• Always do a practice run through of your presentation prior to your meeting. This
is essential in ensuring that your power point is readable. Remember, a computers
• monitor has much better resolution than a television. The Council have television
9"television monitors to view presentations.
• Always leave yourself enough time to do last minute adjustments to your
presentation. Remember, Committee of the Whole and Council meetings are
cablecast"live".
• After you do your practice run-through, save your presentation to the Desktop.
Your presentation will run much faster and smoother, especially if your power
point contains a lot of graphics in it.
, ..iftWi
I
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Arnie Pelluer
Date: 8/5/2005 4:29:29 PM
Subject: Re: Needing permission to stream your program
Yes.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Arnie Pelluer" <arnie@pugetsoundaccess.org>8/5/2005 4:09:25 PM >>>
Dear PSA producers/content providers,
We have tested and are ready to stream our channel on the Internet.
Before we do, however, we need to get permission from all of you.
Streaming will allow anybody with an internet connection -and
especially a high-speed connection -to view what's being shown on our
channel. If you want to have your show(s)streamed, allowing more
people to view it/them, please reply to this e-mail with a"YES." In
order to stream,we will need a"YES"reply from every active PSA
producer. The faster we receive them, the sooner we'll be able to
stream our channel.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Arnie Pelluer
Programming Director
Puget Sound Access
www.pugetsoundaccess.orq<http://www.pugetsoundaccess.orq>
22412 72nd Ave S Bldg C
Kent, WA 98032
253.479.0200 ext. 115
253.479.0205 fax
1111r— .
From: Linda Herzog
To: Parkinson, Bang
Date: 9/26/2005 1:25:06 PM
Subject: Re: Franchise & Cable TV Revenues
Bang—Thank you so much for the quick response! Thanks also for the Fund 127 balance figure. I have
two questions on the revenue trend spreadsheet:
1 -The final column on your spreadsheet is labeled "2006 projected"—Do you mean "2005 projected"
instead?
2 -Why is the franchise revenue going down this year(for the first time in 5 years)? It looks like we were
expecting this to happen. We budgeted for a $120,000 drop in this revenue, so we must have anticipated
this decline. But I don't know what were the factors that caused this decline.
As you can see, I added Bonnie Walton to this e-mail. Please send your response to"reply all" so she
gets the answers also.
Thanks again!
Linda
>>> Bang Parkinson 09/26/05 1:16 PM >>>
Hi Linda,
Attached is the spreadsheet shown 5 year revenues from Franchise & Cable TV. Please let me know if it
is not what you want. thanks!
Bang
CC: Walton, Bonnie
CABLE TV FRANCHISE MGT & RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE
On page 1
Add section 2.2 and re-number sections 2.2 and 2.3 —
i ,
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise
Renewal Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006), the City will give
advance approval to initiate each task before billable work on that task
begins. Approval may be given by the Cable Manager or by the CAO or his
designee, in writing by letter or e-mail, or orally. If approval is oral, both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to
proceed.
On page 4
✓Re-number sections 4.2 and 4.3 so that City representatives are named in 4.2,
and timely review and approval of products is described in section 4.3.
Revise (new) section 4.3 to read: "The City, represented by the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Clerk/Cable Manager, will review and approve
' as necessary and in a timely manner the reports, survey instruments and
methods, and other documents, and each phase of work performed by the
Consultant."
✓Revise section 5.1.2 to remove the extra comma on the second line.
/ Modify the final sentence of section 5.1.2 to read: "The amount of compensation
will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit
"D" and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit, up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract."
From: Linda Herzog
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 9/28/2005 4:30:54 PM
Subject: visit from Bradley& Guzzetta tech guy
Bonnie—Please keep me posted on the plans for the B&G tech guy to be here on Friday Oct 7. I
mentioned to the dept heads yesterday that we were expecting someone to be in town that day and that
we might want to arrange a short meet&greet meeting with those Administrators who have an interest in
cable topics. We'll want to secure time on their calendars if the guy comes, and if you think it will be
useful to have such a meetig.
I
corncas
From: Gregg Zimmerman
To: Alexander Pietsch; Ben Wolters; Jay Covington
Date: 8/27/2004 3:53:20 PM
Subject: Fwd: Issue Advisory-Hwy Bill ROW Provision
I've given this issue a good deal of thought, and have arrived at the recommendation that we should stay
out of the controversy, not write a letter, and let others carry the water if they wish to. My reasoning
follows.
1) The issue is a provision in proposed federal law that would cause state and local governments to lose
authority over right-of-way in transportation corridors in which a type of Intelligent Transportation System
funded by federal grant and set up in a way that private sector interests partner with state and local
governments.
2) In normal circumstances I think that state and local governments should fight "tooth and nail"against
any federal legislation that would preempt local control of our rights-of-way.
' 3) However,there are special circumstances associated with this particular issue that need to be weighed
against the need to oppose a measure that would set a dangerous precedent.
4)The first special circumstance is that the issue is actually a small provision within the TEA-21
reauthorization Act versions before the Senate and House. These are behemoth pieces of funding
legislation between $250 and$350 B. This reauthorization is already highly controversial, with the White
House threatening to veto any bill that exceeds a certain spending level. Local jurisdictions must think
long and hard before entering this fray because of concerns about a fairly obscure provision within the
Acts. There will certainly be observers tallying negative letters and using them in ways that the sender did
not wish.
5) The circumstances outlined within the legislation that would allow a local jurisdiction's authority over
their right-of-way to be pre-empted appear to be very limited. It appears this would happen only in
specialized cases in which federal grant funding was used to help pay for a type of Intelligent
Transportation System built as part of a government partnership with the private sector. The legislation
seems to be aimed at preventing a private partner from investing in such a system and then being
hammered by local right-of-way regulations. It appears to me that a local jurisdiction who did not want to
lose their right-of-way authority over a certain corridor could "just say no" and not participate in the
program. As long as the local jurisdiction has such choices available, I don't feel threatened by the
legislation.
So, I think Renton should be silent on this issue.
Gregg
CC: Bonnie Walton; Karl Hamilton; Neil Watts; Sandra Meyer
4% 0
CITY OF RENT.ON
CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 19, 2004
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler and
Members,Renton City Council
FROM: L Bonnie Walton, City Clerk,x6502
SUBJECT: Our Cable Consultant,Lon Hurd
It is with great sadness I must inform you that Lon Hurd, the City's long-time cable consultant,
suffered a heart attack and died in his sleep early last Friday morning, July 16th. Lon was 48 years
old.
Services will be held on Wednesday,July 21, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. at the Northwest Family Church,
3535 Auburn Way S., Auburn, located on the Muckleshoot Hill, across from Chinook Elementary.
The church phone number is 253-833-8252. A fund for Lon's children (ages 16, 18 & 19)has been
set up at Sterling Savings Bank.
bw
CITY OF RENTON
CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 19, 2004
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler and
Members, Renton City Council
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: Our Cable Consultant,Lon Hurd
It is with great sadness I must inform you that Lon Hurd, the City's long-time cable consultant,
suffered a heart attack and died in his sleep early last Friday morning, July 16th. Lon was 48 years
old.
Services will be held on Wednesday, July 21, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. at the Northwest Family Church,
3535 Auburn Way S., Auburn, located on the Muckleshoot Hill, across from Chinook Elementary.
The church phone number is 253-833-8252. A fund for Lon's children (ages 16, 18 & 19) has been
set up at Sterling Savings Bank.
bw
natoa®
•
4,41P*4.
The National Association of 1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495
WOW Alexandria,VA 22314
•• Telecommunications Officers and Advisors®
1/1 703-519-8035
703-519-8036 Fax
Qom'=y~ ;•• CITY OF RENT ON
www.natoa.org
••• NOV I 0 2004
Dear NATOA Member: RECEIVED November 5, 2004
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
My,how time flies whether you're having fun or not! It's that time of year already, and so once again I
write to remind you of a number of different items. First, as is our custom, I am enclosing with this letter your
2005 Membership Update Form. Please be sure to fill out the Update Form and fax it back to NATOA no
later than December 3,2004 to ensure that you are properly listed in the Membership Directory for the coming
year. We will not be able to include any changes in the directory sent to Headquarters after December 3.We
have also enclosed a new authorization form that we are asking you to complete and send back to us.
For our consultant members,please note that in addition to the standard listing,we continue to provide
an opportunity to have a brief description of services included in the directory. We are continuing to make Web
site listings available at a nominal additional cost. The web site listing will be maintained for the entire year,
and may be updated or modified as needed.
Due to the request of some of our agency members,we have now provided you with a means of adding
additional people to your agency membership so you may now have more than five individuals receiving
member benefits. A special note has been attached to your update form with all the details.
Also enclosed with this letter is an invoice for the year 2005. As you are aware,our membership year
runs from January 1 to December 31 of each year. Hence,please note that your membership will expire on
December 31,2004,unless you renew! NATOA did not increase the membership dues at all during 2004,
however,pursuant to Article III, Section 6 B of NATOA's Bylaws, the annual dues for the association have
increased 5%beginning in January 2005. The base amount of the membership dues must be paid no later than
January 31, 2005. In the event dues are not paid in a timely fashion, all membership benefits will be terminated.
In addition to the standard dues listed on the attached invoice,you will note that there is a separate line
for Legislative/Regulatory Assessment. Pursuant to Article III, Section 6 C of NATOA's Bylaws,the Board
"may establish annual contribution levels and/or assess additional dues from members to support the costs
associated with NATOA's Government and Legislative Relations function." For the fiscal year 2005,the Board
has not increased the recommended contribution levels,but encourages all communities/individuals to
participate in this important aspect of NATOA's work. The assessment amount is shown as a part of the
membership dues for the 2005 fiscal year. Nevertheless,the assessment for the Legislative/Regulatory Fund on
the invoice remains voluntary and no member benefits will be denied for failure to participate in this aspect of
NATOA's overall program. For those unfamiliar with this program, or how the funds are used,please refer to
the attached summary of activity for the past year.
NATOA is dedicated to providing the best support possible to its membership and towards preservation
and protection of local government needs and interests. We rely on your support and trust and look forward to
improving and further enhancing our services to you in the years to come.
Best wishes,
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
Enclosures
Executive Director's Report
Legislative/Regulatory Activity 2004
NATOA's ability to represent local government needs and interests before federal regulatory
agencies, congress and the courts requires that we have funding sufficient to meet this need. Our
activity over the past year is evidence of the many efforts for which funding has provided a
means of meeting that need. For those who have lost track, or simply not had an opportunity to
keep up, this report provides a brief summary of the actions in which NATOA has been involved
over the course of the past year. Additional and more comprehensive information on each of
these items is available on the NATOA Web site within the monthly newsletters and also within
the Policy/Advocacy and Members Only pages. Given that the list is growing exponentially and
that most items have been updated in the NATOA News, I will provide herein only a summary of
recent cases and activities for your review.
As is not uncommon in many of the areas in which we are involved, a number of items carry over
from year to year, and so the report includes some of those items that commenced in 2003 for
which we had activity in the year 2004.
Before the Courts:
Brand X Internet, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission (The Cable Modem Case)—
On October 6, 2003 a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion
that Internet service provided over the cable modem platform are information services with a
telecom component. The Alliance of Local Organizations Against Preemption(ALOAP)which
NATOA helped form,filed a Petition for Rehearing En Banc (by the full court). On March 31,
2004,the 9th Circuit denied both ALOAP's and an FCC petition for a rehearing en banc.
Subsequently the Solicitor General/FCC and National Cable and Telecommunication Association
filed petitions for certiorari for a review of this case by the U.S. Supreme Court. ALOAP filed a
conditional cross-petition for certiorari arguing that if either of the aforementioned petitions is
accepted,the Supreme Court should also review the arguments contained in the ALOAP brief.
ALOAP is requesting that the Supreme Court review all of the various options pertaining to cable
modem classification, and further,that it find cable modem service within the definitions
contemplated by Congress within Title VI of the Act. The Solicitor General,NCTA and other
parties have filed oppositions to the ALOAP petition,to which the coalition will respond. A
decision on certiorari is expected in late November or early December.
City of Rome v. Verizon Communications(City of Rome, N.Y. v. Verizon Communications, Inc.,
362 F.3d 168, (2nd Cir.2004).) On March 25, 2004,the 2°d Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York issued its opinion that the Telecommunications Act does not preempt the franchise
agreement that the City of Rome sought to compel Verizon to negotiate pursuant to state law.
The court granted summary judgment for the City and vacated the lower ruling for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction,remanding the matter to the State Court. NATOA,NLC,NACo and USCM
were represented by the International Municipal Lawyers Association in an amicus brief in
support of the City. In addition,in a very rare move,the Court granted our attorney,Lani
Williams, seven minutes of oral argument in support of the Amici position that the federal court
lacked jurisdiction. The argument was successful,as the court found in the City's favor.
Nixon,Attorney General of Missouri v. Missouri Municipal League Et Al.,March 24, 2004.
By a vote of 8-1,the United States Supreme Court reversed the ruling by the 8th Circuit Court of
Appeals,and held that Sec.253(a)'s "any entity" language does not extend to political
subdivisions of a state.The Missouri cities,which were seeking to have the 8th Circuit opinion
upheld that the cities could provide telecommunications services,lost their battle.As a result,it is
now clear that a state government can impose absolute restrictions on the ability of a local
government to self provision or to provide telecommunications services,if the state constitution
so permits.
Abrams v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (9th Cir.Jan. 15,2004) This case involves the
commercial use of a tower(which was previously permitted as a HAM operator tower)and the
city's denial of the owner to continue commercial use. The citizen sued and also claimed
damages under the civil rights laws. At the request of the International Municipal Lawyers
Association(IMLA),NATOA,NLC,NACo and USCM joined in a petition for en banc review
by the Ninth Circuit in this case. The City of San Francisco and the League of California Cities
also submitted a brief in support of en banc review. On appeal,the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court and held that Section 1983 (civil rights)remedies are available for violations of
Section 332 of the Act on two separate bases: 1) Section 332's remedial scheme was not
sufficiently comprehensive to imply congressional intent to preclude Section 1983 relief,and 2)
the savings clause in the Section 601 of the Act demonstrated Congress' affirmative intent to
preserve Section 1983 remedies. As a result,cities and counties in the Ninth Circuit are liable for
attorney's fees for any violation of the Act, even if such violations are made in a good faith effort
to interpret the 1996 Telecommunications Act's complicated provisions. The case was appealed
to the U.S. Supreme Court,which granted certiorari to the parties. Again,NATOA and the other
local government associations filed an Amicus Brief in support of the City. Briefs in this case are
due to the Court on November 12,2004,with oral argument to be scheduled sometime thereafter.
MetroPCS,Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco NATOA joined in an Amicus Brief in
support of the City and County of San Francisco in this second of the two wireless cases arising
in California. San Francisco is seeking an appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit concerning local government authority under Section 332(c)(7)to regulate
siting of wireless telecommunications facilities. The appeal is from a district court order on
cross-motions for summary judgment in which the City prevailed in large part. The Ninth Circuit
agreed to hear an appeal from the district court's order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b),which order
was otherwise not subject to appeal. At issue in the case is whether the city's denial of the
MetroPCS application for a condition use permit prohibited or effectively prohibited the
provision of wireless services. The standard which has been applied in other circumstances is
whether there is a significant gap in service absent the grant. While the District Court granted the
City's motion in large part,MetroPCS, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco,259 F. Supp. 2d
1004(N.D. Cal. 2003),it then certified its order for immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Before the FCC and Executive Branch Agencies:
VoIP/Vonage Petition at the FCC (WC Docket.03-211) Vonage filed a petition requesting
that the Commission preempt an order of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requiring
Vonage to comply with state laws governing providers of telephone service. NATOA joined by
other national local government associations filed comments in this proceeding asking the FCC to
hold individual VoIP requests in abeyance pending a rulemaking on the issues. NATOA et al.
also filed reply comments in this proceeding. In early November NATOA joined with other local
and state government organizations in an ex-parte meeting at the FCC to ask that an eminent
decision on the Vonage petition be postponed.
IP Enabled Rulemaking NATOA led the Coalition of local government organizations in
comments before the FCC in the IP-Enabled Rulemaking proceeding,WC Docket No. 04-36 on
May 28,2004. Reply Comments were filed on July 14,2004. Both the comments and the reply
comments argue that the FCC has insufficient authority under Title I of the Communications Act
to put into place a comprehensive regulatory scheme for IP enabled systems. While the
Commission could act with respect to these services under Title II, III or VI, if it chose to act
under Title I it would do so without proper authority—of which the FCC would need to seek from
Congress.
FCC's Advanced Services Proceeding NATOA filed comments in the FCC's Inquiry
Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a
Reasonable And Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps To Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant
To Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. NATOA's comments on May 10,2004
and reply comments on May 24, 2004 addressed perennial claims by the telecommunications
industry that local government's management of the rights-of-way hinders broadband
deployment. Furthermore,the comments highlighted local governments desire to have robust
broadband networks in their communities,the actions that have been taken by local government
to precipitate broadband deployment and the need to allow flexibility at the local level so
communities can respond to their own broadband needs. The report to Congress based on this
proceeding,which was issued in September,makes no mention of industry claims in this
proceeding that rights-of-way management by local government stands as a barrier to broadband
deployment. Furthermore, the report and a comment accompanying the report by Commissioner
Copps mention efforts by municipalities to deploy broadband.
A La Carte Proceeding After receiving a letter from Congress making an inquiry on a la carte
programming, the FCC launched a proceeding entitled A La Carte and Themed Tier
Programming and Pricing Options, Cable and DBS(DA No. 04-1454). NATOA formed an A
La Carte Subcommittee of the Policy Committee to examine this issue. NATOA,through this
Subcommittee, filed comments on July 15, 2004,and reply comments on August 13,2004. In the
comments and reply comments NATOA came out neither for nor against a la carte,but makes the
case that the real issue underlying higher cable bills and lack of consumer choice is insufficient
competition in the multichannel video programming distribution marketplace.
Annual Assessment of Video Programming Competition NATOA filed comments in the
FCC's Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming Notice of Inquiry(MB Docket No.4-227). NATOA comments were filed on July
23, 2004,and reply comments were filed on August 25,2004. The comments highlighted the
need for increased competition as well as the anticompetitive practices of incumbent video
providers. The reply comments argued against Comcast's proposal that would have the FCC
presume"effective competition"exist throughout a state if DBS penetration is at least 15%and
against Verizon and SBC arguments that they should not be subject to franchise requirements in
deploying video programming.
Cable Tier Buy-Through The Cable Advisory Council of Enfield,CT filed a tier buy-through
complaint against Cox Communications for that operator's requirement that subscribers must
purchase a digital gateway tier in order to receive digital services. NATOA filed comments in
support of the Cable Advisory Council of Enfield,CT.
Rules Concerning Disruptions to Communications,ET Docket No. 04-35—NATOA joined
the City of New York in filing comments in the FCC NPRM on Dkt.No. 04-35,regarding carrier
reporting of service disruptions. The NPRM proposed significant revisions of the FCC's rules
concerning carriers'reporting of service disruptions. Relying on the demonstrated importance of
communications infrastructures for homeland security and pointing to the increased reliance on
wireless communications,the NPRM proposes,among other things,to extend the FCC's service
outage reporting requirements beyond wireline telephone carriers to wireless&satellite service
providers and to cable operator-provided telecom operations.
Regulatory Fee Treatment by Cable Operators—NATOA filed a petition for a declaratory
ruling seeking clarification that the FCC imposed regulatory fees paid by industry to the US
Treasury may not be deducted from franchise fees owed to local governments under the terms of
a franchise agreement.
Emergency Alert System Proceeding NATOA joined other national local government
associations and municipalities in filing comments in the FCC's Rulemaking in the Matter of
Review of the Emergency Alert System (FCC 04-189). The comments stressed that the FCC
should not and does not have the ability to preempt local emergency alert systems for municipal
use included in cable franchises. The comments also highlighted the value and importance of
local emergency alert systems.
Cable Rate Regulation (FCC Forms 1205 and 1235)-MB Docket No. 02-144. This pending
rulemaking,which commenced in 2002,has been the genesis of a variety of subsequent activity.
Most recently, in response to an ex parte meeting with Commission staff,Cox Communications
filed an extensive pleading with the Commission to encourage a change in the use of the FCC
Form 1235 which is the"upgrade" form. In response,NATOA commissioned and then filed a
White Paper which calls for either the complete elimination of the Form 1235 or, alternatively,
absolute restrictions on its applicability and use. In another related matter,Comcast
Communications filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling(CSR 6388-R) seeking the intervention
of the FCC in the requests for information made by a consortia of local governments in their
review of the National FCC Form 1205 (Equipment) filing. In response,the local governments
filed ari opposition. NATOA and other local government entities filed in support of the local
government coalition.
FCC Localism/Media Ownership Hearings NATOA assisted the FCC on their series of
localism/media ownership public hearings—the first of which was held in Charlotte,NC in
October 2003, and are still continuing to date.
Before Congress:
VoIP Legislation NATOA was very active advocating on behalf of and in conjunction with the
membership on VoIP legislation and initiatives in Congress. NATOA monitored hearings and
discussed issues of concern with congressional staff. NATOA sent a letter to the leadership and
members of the Senate Commerce Committee in July prior to their consideration of Senator
Sununu's VoIP legislation, S. 2281. The letter raised concerns over the legislation and the
Committee moving forward with its consideration of the legislation. There was also an Action
Alert issued at that time urging NATOA members to contact members of the Committee. At the
end of September,NATOA issued an Action Alert asking its membership to contact members of
the House of Representatives to ask that they not sign onto a letter by Representative Pickering to
urge the FCC to declare VoIP service interstate in jurisdiction,preempting state and local
government regulation of these services.
Internet Tax Moratorium NATOA, with the assistance of it membership and other local and
state associations was very active in the debate over S. 150,the Internet Tax Non-discrimination
Act. NATOA issued an Action Alert prior to consideration by the full Senate. Prior to passage in
the Senate, a compromise version was agreed to that was less harmful to state and local
government than the original and committee reported versions of this legislation. Local
government has been credited by some as being a force in this debate and helping to secure this
compromise. The Senate and the House remain deadlocked over their different versions of this
legislation.
NATOA's President Testifies on Cable Competition NATOA President Coralie Wilson
testified on Wednesday,February 11,2004,before the United States Senate, Committee on the
Judiciary, Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition and Business and Consumer Rights in their
hearing on Cable Competition—Increasing Price;Increasing Value? President Wilson's •
testimony pointed to some of the anti-competitive practices that incumbent cable operators
employ to keep competitors out of their markets.
Cable Rates NATOA submitted testimony for the record for the March 25,2004,U.S. Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing on Escalating Cable Rates:
Causes and Solutions. While the focus of this hearing was a la carte pricing,NATOA's
testimony points to the lack of competition as being responsible for higher cable rates. NATOA's
testimony also advocates that Congress revisit the statutory definition of effective competition,
look into anticompetitive practices by incumbents and take action to protect consumers until
markets are truly competitive.
A La Carte&Video Competition In July,the House Energy and Commerce's
Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee held a hearing entitled Competition and
Consumer Choice in the MVPD Marketplace Including an Examination of Proposals to Expand
Consumer Choice, Such as A La Carte and Themed-Tiered Offerings,which focused solely on a
la carte programming. Some members of the committee in statements commented favorably on
the increase in competition in the multichannel video programming distribution marketplace.
Having recently filed comments with the FCC on a la carte and in objection to the representations
by some members on competition,NATOA sent a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of
the Subcommittee on Telecommunications urging them to make a broader examination of
competition in the MVPD marketplace.
Transportation Reauthorization Rights-of-Way Provision With the assistance of its
membership,NATOA contacted Congress regarding a provision in both the House and Senate
Transportation Reauthorization bills. This provision would allow the federal government to
preempt state and/or local government's management and control of the public rights-of-way for
the deployment of a privately owned and operated intelligent transportation system on highways
on which federal funds have been used. NATOA sent a letter to the leadership of the Conference
working to reconcile the House and Senate bills stating its strong opposition to the inclusion of
this language. NATOA also put out an Issue Advisory on this provision so that local
governments could be made aware of this potentially harmful provision. Senate and House
Conferees have been unable to reach agreement on Transportation Reauthorization and there is a
good likelihood that they will have to start over with new legislation next Congress.
Other:
Comcast Privacy Policy A subcommittee of the Policy Committee was established to work with
Comcast staff to propose revisions to the Company's 2003 Privacy Policy.This Committee
issued a statement regarding the Company's final Privacy Policy revisions which was posted on
the NATOA website.
Converging Technologies A subcommittee of the Policy Committee was established to work on
developing a policy statement for NATOA Board/Membership review and adoption regarding re-
defining the roles of the federal, state and local governments in this era of converging
technologies.
Customer Service—Telephone Practices A subcommittee of the Policy Committee was
established to stimulate a discussion on(1)adopting standards for reporting data; (2)adopting
standards for normalization and"scrubbing"the data and(3)attaching this information to
NATOA's Customer Service Handbook.
Pasadena Pass-Through NATOA encouraged members to analyze the practices of their cable
companies in implementing the Pasadena Decision—as related to payments of franchise fees on
non-subscriber revenues. This has resulted in several cities initiating actions relating to
reasonableness of these practices and rate regulatory controls regarding these practices.
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Wolflvr66@aol.com
Date: 1/31/2005 11:57:17 AM
Subject: Re: Issues
Thank you for the update. The 360 number for Jim Hanson was probably his work number. That Jim
Hanson is the same one who later contacted you after I gave him your company number. So he is
apparently handled.
Regarding the FF issue, please let me know what he was told in response to his concerns.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> <Wolflvr66@aol.com> 1/31/2005 10:36:08 AM >>>
Bonnie-just to let you know,we have taken care of all the discount issues
and the FF issue. Lynne called and left a message for the lady that had a
problem with her HG-TV, but no response yet. The most recent issue with the
lady on Benson Rd.,we are in the process of getting this handled and will let
you know what happens with it.
One of the discounts you sent over for Jim Hansen in Mt.Vernon who was
calling for his mother in law,we called the 360 number you provided and this
gentleman had no clue what I was talking about although, the day before,we got a
phone call from another Jim Hanson who lived in Renton and processed the
discount for his mother in law who also lived in Renton. So, not sure where the
number came from in Mt.Vernon, but the other got processed. Thanks for
forwarding these over to us and please feel free to do so as you receive them.
Sincerely-Tammy Rogers, 3-H Management and Consultants
From: <Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 8/27/2004 4:25:51 PM
Subject: RE: Renton's Channel 21
Dear Bonnie-
I am responding to your concerns about Renton's Channel 21. The reason that
this channel cannot be broadcasted outside the city limits of Renton is that
they are under the King County franchise agreement which Comcast must follow.
The only way that this channel could be broadcasted with Renton's local
channel, would be for the City of Renton to get King County's approval and pay for
the headends transition, also keep in mind that growth management will not show
out of city limits at this time.
I hope that this helps and if you have any questions, please feel free to
call me.
Thanks,
Lynne
From: <Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 8/27/2004 3:35:35 PM
Subject: Re: Comcast
Bonnie-
In response to the Comcast issue you were questioning, this is not a
violation in Renton at this time.
Also, regarding the high priority issue with Renton's Channel 21, we are
working on this and will respond to you as soon as we are notified. Thank you for
your patience and we will talk to you soon.
Sincerely-
Lynne Hurd
253/833-8380
From: <Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 9/7/2004 3:40:45 PM
Subject: Re: Renton's Channel 21
Bonnie- What that meant was that if the city got King County's approval and
paid the headends transition to broadcast outside the city limits,that any
factors relating to how many people are watching, which is the growth factor,
would not show because it is out of the city limits.
Also I wanted to let you know that a formal letter will be going out soon
about the future of 3-H and the work they will continue to do for the City of
Renton.
Thank you for your patience. It is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Lynne Hurd
From: <Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 1 2/1 0/2004 10:43:55 AM
Subject: Re: Subscribers
Bonnie- I am sorry I haven't replied. I have been out of the office, but I
wanted you to know that I am working on this for you and will get back to you
with an answer as soon as possible. Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely- Lynne
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 1 2/1 0/2004 4:07:04 PM
Subject: Subscribers in Renton
BONNIE,
FIRST OF ALL I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS LYNNE'S NEW EMAIL
ADDRESS SO YOU CAN ADD THIS CHANGE TO YOUR ADDRESS BOOK.
THE MAIN ISSUE I AM WRITING FOR IS THAT I SPOKE WITH TERRY DAVIS AT COMCAST
AND HE GAVE ME THE NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS AS FOLLOWS:
TOTAL BASIC CUSTOMERS (LIMITED AND EXPANDED) IN THE CITY OF RENTON = 16,446
TOTAL LIMITED ONLY CUSTOMERS =2001
I HOPE THAT THIS HELPS AND IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE GIVE US A
CALL.
THANKS -TAMMY FOR LYNNE
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com
Date: 8/27/2004 3:35:35 PM
Subject: Re: Comcast(Out of the Office)
Your e-mail has reached Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager for the City of Renton. I will be out of
the office until Mon. August 30th. If you need assistance'now, please contact Michele Neumann, Deputy
City Clerk, at phone number 425-430-6504, or at e-mail address: mneumann@ci.renton.wa.us. Thank
you.
>>> Lynnehurd3hmc 08/27/04 15:34>>>
Bonnie-
In response to the Comcast issue you were questioning, this is not a
violation in Renton at this time.
Also, regarding the high priority issue with Renton's Channel 21,we are
working on this and will respond to you as soon as we are notified. Thank you for
your patience and we will talk to you soon.
Sincerely-
Lynne Hurd
253/833-8380
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com ,
Date: 9/1/2004 8:46:37 AM
Subject: RE: Renton's Channel 21
Thank you for your reply. We have one more question on this, however. What do you mean by"also
keep in mind that growth management will not show out of city limits at this time." We are not quite
understanding the statement.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>><Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com>8/27/2004 4:25:15 PM >>>
Dear Bonnie-
am responding to your concerns about Renton's Channel 21. The reason that
this channel cannot be broadcasted outside the city limits of Renton is that
they are under the King County franchise agreement which Comcast must follow.
The only way that this channel could be broadcasted with Renton's local
channel, would be for the City of Renton to get King County's approval and pay for
the headends transition, also keep in mind that growth management will not show
out of city limits at this time.
I hope that this helps and if you have any questions, please feel free to
call me.
Thanks,
Lynne
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com
Date: 10/7/2004 7:48:17 AM
Subject: Fwd: NATOA Action Alert- Need Your Help- S150 Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act
Lynne:
What is your opinion of the attached? Would you recommend our City write a letter? Are others locally
going to write?
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
•
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com
Date: 12/2/2004 1:58:02 PM
Subject: Subscribers
How many subscribers does Renton have to Limited Cable? (not Basic, as defined by Comcast)
Thanks.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lynnehurd3hmc@aol.com
Date: 1/19/2005 4:49:26 PM
Subject: Renton Records
Lynne:
As you know,the contract between the City of Renton and 3H expired December 31, 2004. I will probably
be advertising a Request for Proposal for cable consultant services sometime early spring.
For now, could you please box up and return to me any and all City of Renton records currently in the
possession of 3H, to include the Senior Discount files?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lon Hurd
Date: 6/17/2004 12:07:35 PM
Subject: Fwd: Dear Fellow NATOA Members
Lon,
Can you give us more information and your opinion on this, as attached? I need to pass the information
on to our CAO.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk, x6502
31/ - ,kf,,oe' (IA Api- o) aoce
I
• 111151
iii C S t® PERFORMANCE STANDARDS SUMMARY
Everett and Fife Call Centers Combined Report
Performance Standards Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 3rd-QTR
90% of Calls Answered within 30 seconds 92.3% 89.7% 94.0% 92.0% _
3% or less Busy Signal 0.01% 0.07% 1.03% 0.37%
Number of Calls Received 511,600 545,675 529,414 1,586,689
Average Speed of Answer :15 :19 :11 :15
Average Handle Time (Includes talk and
wrap-up) 4:39 4:47 4:34 4:40
Number of Calls Abandoned by Caller 6,387 8,408 5,173 19,968
7-day Installation
(average days out) 3.61 days 3.01 days 3.43 days 3.25 days out
Service Call Responsiveness
(no picture resolved in 24 hours) .96 days .99 days .96 days .97 days out
Comcast Cable
@omcast RECEIVED 19909 120th Ave NE,Suite 200
thell,WA 98011
N O° O 200' Tel:425.398.6000
MAYORS OFFICE
October 29, 2004 CITY OF RENTON
NOV 0 1 2004
RECEIVED
Sent Via US Mail CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Performance Summary Report- 3`d Quarter 2004
Dear Ms. Walton:
Enclosed please find the Performance Summary Report for 3rd Quarter 2004. If you have
any questions about this report,please contact me at (425) 398-6051.
Sincerely,
%XL„Vii_€ted-i
Ann Svensson
Franchise Contracts Administrator
Comcast- WA Market
End.
Cc: Janet L. Turpen,Comcast
Ken Rhoades,Comcast
Terry Davis,Comcast
/ee:
i, eevr,fr.teirt)
CITY OF RENTON
JAN 2 4 2005
Co m ca St® RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Contact:
Jeanne Russo
Comcast
215-981-8552
Jeanne Russo ,comcast.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Comcast Enhances Broadband Service with
New Speeds and More Apps for 2005
Comcast kicks off the New Year with formal announcement of new speeds—and unveils
plans for new online services for all high-speed Internet customers
PHILADELPHIA, Jan. 18, 2005—Comcast, the nation's number one broadband provider, is
upgrading its two residential speed tiers, as it prepares to introduce a full suite of innovative
online services and products throughout 2005.
The speed enhancements include increases in both upstream and downstream speeds to
enable faster uploads and downloads of large files (photos, videos, music), more online and
multiplayer gaming, easier home networking, and new innovative online services. These speed
increases will be offered to customers at no additional charge.
Comcast's current 3Mbps downstream/256kbps upstream tier will be upgraded to
4Mbps/384kbps, and its 4Mbps downstream/384kbps upstream tier will jump to a faster
6Mbps/768kbps.
The speed increases will be automatic, which means customers are not required to download
any special files or upgrade their connections.
The speed upgrades will be executed on a market-by-market basis, and are targeted to be
complete by the end of Q1 2005.
"Today, we're preparing our customers for the next generation of Comcast High-Speed Internet
by upgrading our speed tiers for all of our customers at no additional charge. We will continue
to differentiate our service in 2005 by introducing innovative built-for-broadband applications
that leverage the power of our 100% Pure Broadband network and provide value in our six
key customer areas of interest: communication, music, movies, gaming, sports and kids," said
Greg Butz, senior vice president, marketing & business development for Comcast Online. "This
mirrors our successful 2004 strategy, which enabled us to set an industry record for customer
growth as we began to showcase why 'it's not just speed but what you can do with it. "
Comcast's Winning Strategy: It's Not Just Speed, But What You Can Do With It
-,Comcast set the industry benchmark for speed in late 2003, when it announced it was doubling
its downstream speed from 1.5Mbps to 3Mbps, for all customers, at no additional charge.
Comcast then quickly followed up this news with the introduction of its award-winning, built-for-
broadband portal—Comcast.net—followed by a series of new services, applications and
content partnerships...all focused on enabling Comcast's large base of broadband customers to
take advantage of their new speeds. These services targeted Comcast's six key customer
areas of interest(gaming, kids, communication, sports, movies and music)to showcase the
benefits and value of a broadband lifestyle and included:
• Comcast Video Mail—which enables Comcast High-Speed Internet customers to easily
create video messages up to 45 seconds in length, using their personal computer and a
webcam.
• Comcast PhotoShow Deluxe—which allows users to create multimedia slideshows as
a special way to share their digital photos.
• EA SPORTS Fantasy Football presented by Comcast High-Speed Internet—which
goes beyond the traditional Fantasy Football experience by packaging the service with
Comcast Video Mail and its online Sports Channel.
• Games on Demand—which leverages the speed and convenience of Comcast High-
Speed Internet, to offer garners over 100 titles in categories ranging from action to
education, with new titles added every month.
This strategy proved its success in 2004, culminating in a record Q3 when Comcast added over
549,000 high-speed Internet customers—the highest number ever for any broadband ISP.
Mirroring this successful 2004 strategy, today's announcement paves the way for new
product introductions throughout 2005. Comcast's 2005 roadmap includes the infusion of
video into many new and existing applications, including Video Instant Messaging.
Comcast also plans to continue expanding its online Music Channel—to become the most
comprehensive online music offering to date. More than 62 percent of Comcast High-Speed
Internet customers actively engage in online music, and music content is among the most
popular on the Comcast.net consumer portal, accounting for 100 percent of the Top 10 Video
Searches on the site. Comcast also is planning enhancements to its online Sports, Kids,
Gaming, and Fantasy Sports offerings.
About Comcast
Comcast Corporation (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) (http://www.comcast.com) is the nation's
leading provider of cable, entertainment and communications products and services. With 21.5
million cable customers and more than 6.5 million high-speed Internet customers, Comcast is
principally involved in the development, management and operation of broadband cable
networks and in the provision of programming content.
•
The Company's content businesses include: Comcast SportsNet, E! Entertainment Television,
Style Network, The Golf Channel, Outdoor Life Network, G4techTV and International Channel
Networks as well as a minority investment in TV One. The Company also has a majority
ownership in Comcast-Spectacor, whose major holdings include the Philadelphia Flyers NHL
hockey team, the Philadelphia 76ers NBA basketball team and two large multipurpose arenas in
Philadelphia.
###
•
omcast®
4, ._ I WO 6 tf,,,,p'a z 0 3 5 2 ft
Comcast Cable IQ Ca .3r . * -
19909 120th Ave.NE,Suite 200 CC CC • *:
4. 14. , PB MTER *
Bothell,WA 98011
'. 7147198 u.s. POSTAGE *
*
in ra U5 pPE !, RT Tcpi E. EA •tit, 5t -.31
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
..*.:—I L.TiP?IP 91:4ri'-::rz iiiiitifilitilmillidiiiiiIhriiiiiiiluildrifirgidridifi
@omcast. Comcast Cable
19909 120th Ave.NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
CITY OF RENTON
JAN 2 4 2005
January 19, 2005
RECEIVED
CITY CLERICS OFFICE
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Ms. Walton:
In our continuing efforts to keep the City of Renton informed, Comcast would like to
advise you of upcoming changes we are making to our channel line-up on or shortly after
February 19, 2005.
Programming currently found on Pay-Per-View channels 823-830 will be moved to
channels 815-822. Programming currently found on channels 815-822 will no longer be
available.
These changes will be made automatically and will not result in the modification of our
current rates.
Customers will be notified of this change by DCT messaging. If you have any questions
about these changes,please contact me at(253) 288-7496.
Sincerely,
Terry Davis
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades, Comcast
Lynne Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
From: Jay Covington
To: Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us,Dtodd@ci.renton.wa.us_
Date: 12/1/2004 6:34:56 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: cable franchise
Derek and Bonnie, I also think we should focus most of our energies with our Southend neighbors.
However,to the extent our Franchise timeline links with the Eastside Cities, and our interests are similar,
there may be an opportunity for all of us to link up, which would surely help with Comcast (our whatever
their name will be by then). I think Bellevue will be the City we'll most want to deal with, as most of the
small cities are looking for"turnkey"franchise agreements, and don't have the capability to do head-end
stuff, and other services.
I do think all of us are interested in better service and quality.
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/01/04 6:25 PM >>>
Derek:
Our cable franchise expires 9/13/2008.
Starting even before Lon Hurd died,there has been discussion with and amongst some of my south-end
colleagues about forming a group as suggested, only I envisioned participation primarily with the same
cities who are involved with Puget Sound Access. That could be expanded, of course.The subject of
forming such a group came up again at a cable franchise seminar I recently attended in Kent, where we
were advised that there is strength in numbers. So I'd say I am in favor of participating in a consortium.
Before committing,though, I would want to check on the status of prior discussions with some of the
south-end cities that I more regularly collaborate with.
I'm curious, is Newcastle's Assistant City Manager also their cable manager? I wonder if he belongs to
any of the telecommunications organizations.
Anyway, let me know if I can provide further information.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Derek Todd 12/1/2004 4:41:51 PM >>>
Bonnie- I received this email from the Assistant City Manager of Newcastle. I am not sure what the exact
date is for the expiration of our cable franchise, so I was wondering if you could let me know. Also, I am
wondering what you think about his idea of a cable consortium. I don't have enough background with the
franchise to know if we would even be interested in entertaining this thought. Let me know your thoughts
when you get a chance. - Derek
>>> "Jeff Johnson" <JeffJ@ci.newcastle.wa.us> 11/30/2004 5:52:39 PM >>>
Derek,
When did Renton renew its cable franchise and when will it expire?
I ask because Newcastle is gearing up to renew in a consortium consisting of Clyde Hill, Medina, and
Hunts Point, and now possible Burien. I'm trying to find out if Bellevue is interested. They just renewed for
five years. So we would be looking at having an Eastside/South County Cable Consortium in place by
around 2006/7. If Bellevue and/or other cities are interested, then I will recommend to my Council a five
year franchise renewal agreement.
What do you think?Would Renton be interested?
The vision is a consortium from the Point Cities through Bellevue, Newcastle, Renton, and Burien.
Lastly,this larger scheme is exploratory at the moment. However, Newcastle, Clyde Hill, Medina, and
Hunts Point are planning to negotiate a template agreement that is 85%-95% in common.The remainder
would be up to the individual cities.
Rainier Communications is good example of a successful consortium.
Jeff-
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 1/21/2005 9:03:50 AM
Subject: 3-H
Bonnie- I wanted to take a moment to apologize. I thought that this letter
had been mailed out but it had not. I am sending you the letter via email
and also a hardcopy will go out today. Again, I am sorry and thank you so
much for the wake up call.
Sincerely, •
Lynne Hurd
January 21, 2005
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Bonnie
I would like to take this opportunity and offer my sincere thanks and appreciation for standing by 3-H
during this prolonged grieving period. We have suffered a huge loss and your patience has been more
than overwhelming.
As life offers us changes, 3-H Cable Communications Consultants is also making changes for to better
serve your city. You can expect from us the same outstanding quality that you have always known, but
with a new, experienced team involved.
3-H Cable Communications Consultants has recently reorganized as a result of the unexpected loss of its
former President,Lon Hurd in July 2004. We are moving forward strategically in an effort to uphold the
reputable business Lon and his family created, and to earn the sustained business of the City of Renton
and others in our client base. The Company is very excited and confident about the quality and the
diverse talents of our reorganized staff— many whom have collaborated with 3-H in the past. We are
also expanding our capability in technical expertise to meet new challenges presented by emerging
technology. 3-H is prepared to assign support to the City of Renton and we are ready to continue to work
for the City going forward.
In addition to our consultants, there are other reasons that we feel our firm is uniquely positioned to be of
service to the City of Renton. Not only do we have a long list of clients in Washington, we have also
previously provided a variety of other services to the City. We were directly involved in the, last
franchise renewal and have since provided rate regulatory services to the City. Because of our
involvement, we have a direct working knowledge of the existing franchise documents as well as an
established working relationship with the City's staff. What follows is a description of our process,
organization and services to give Renton a complete update on 3-H Cable Communications Consultant's
capabilities.
Company Mission & Philosophy
To provide the best services and solutions for franchising authorities by offering the best engineering,
legal, administrative, and social needs services expertise required in all phases of municipal relations
with commercial operators.
3-H Cable Communications Consultants will remain the leading cable television consulting organization
in the region and with cities and counties throughout the West, with a goal to become a nationally
recognized as a top telecommunications and regulatory relations advisory organization.
• Provide services consistent with the federal, state and local policies to achieve responsible,
efficient and effective municipal relations with commercial operators
• Maintain and enhance the convenience, reliability and efficiency of our services and
infrastructure
• Implement and monitor investments in appropriate, cost-effective technology
• Implement new, modified and existing services at an optimal level, tailored for client - specific
requirements and the welfare of community residents
• Coordinate operations and staff to optimize and deliver quality services
Offer the best full service franchise authority negotiation and support services in the market.
Below, please find a description of our operations and organization.
Facilities & Equipment
3-H Cable Communications Consultants has been headquartered in Auburn, Washington and will
continue to run its operations there. The office is located at 504 East Main Street Auburn, WA 98002,
and contact information is as follows: Phone: (253) 833-8380, Fax: (253) 833-8430, E-mail:
lynnehurd3hc@aol.com. This facility is owned and operated by the Hurd family. There is ample office
space for staff, complete with a conference room and receiving lobby. Equipment on site is above and
beyond the normal office stationery and office equipment requirements, as the Company also owns and
operates a printing company.
Contractor Sourcing
Attracting key professionals from both the private and public sector, 3-H Cable Communications
Consultants has assembled a team offering specialized areas of expertise and can customize that
expertise into professional service packages that meet the individual needs of each of our clients.
We have four(4) project-based professionals on call. The Company's management team consists of
experienced marketing, technical, legal and finance personnel — some carrying experience working 3-H
projects in the past. The Company's technical team consists of experienced communications and legal
professionals who have worked for large public and private communications organizations in the region.
3-H Cable Communications Consultants network of professional and technical services subcontractor
list is expanding and will provide four (4) analog/digital media engineers, one (1) web designer and (2)
streaming media experts to facilitate webcasting requests.
3-H Cable Communications Consultants is also building a list of attorneys specializing in utility, Right
of Way, telecommunications (cable modem/fiberBPL/WiFi etc.) local/state/federal regulatory and law —
to be brought on board on a project-by-project basis in areas of their specialty.
All subcontractor fees will be handled in a pass-through capacity administered by 3-H Cable
Communications Consultants.
Operations -
3-H Cable Communications Consultants projects are managed in a way that allows it to focus its
energies within a project based on the phase of the process. This allows team members to join the
project."in progress" at the time required, contribute their expertise, and then move on to other projects.
Administrative staff is organized to provide sustained capability addressing multi-client support
requirements in the areas of quality of service monitoring, data collection and report compilation, along
with day-to-day business operations.
Resumes
Lynne Hurd, President, 3-H Cable Communications Consultants
For nearly 27 years, 3-H Cable Communications Consultants has been a family-owned company
responsible for the oversight of franchise compliance for cities and counties with a total subscriber base
of over 125,000. Currently the company acts as the regulatory authority in cable television for a number
of cities throughout the State of Washington, as well as providing various administrative services for out
of state clients.
Having served on the Board of Directors since the start of the company in 1977, then becoming
President in July 2004, Lynne Hurd's mission is to assess the needs and priorities. of her client base,
reorganize the company and build a team of highly qualified professional resources for 3-H Cable
Communications to have in serving its clients.
Hurd is a graduate of the University of Washington where her field of concentration was Business. She
worked at The Boeing Company in Market Research and Financial Analysis.
Exercising her entrepreneurial skills, she has seen through the startup and operation of three successful
businesses in the last 22 years. She is a member of the Washington Association for Telecommunications
Officers of America(WATOA).
In addition to her professional responsibilities, Lynne has planned and coordinated several large
fundraising community functions in a volunteer capacity.
Susan Kruller,V.P./Senior Consultant-Policy and Technology
Susan Kruller brings a 24-year communications career to 3-H Cable Communications Consultants,
featuring broad experience in business management, media communications and digital technology.
Kruller has gained a strong familiarity with all aspects of cable regulatory and renewal policies and
procedures. In her capacity, she is responsible for monitoring cable operator's technical and operational
compliance with franchise agreements. She also conducts compliance reviews and community needs
assessment studies for franchising authorities in conjunction with franchise renewals. She also provides
policy update reporting and client communications.
Susan's professional track record includes business management, communications and technical work in
government, public relations, business development, international trade relations, corporate
communications, streaming media, commercial media production and television broadcasting. She
offers solid experience in contract negotiations, service-level agreements, needs assessment, strategic
planning, project management, process management, and capacity planning.
Highlights include five years working in regional broadcast television, eleven years in communications
and media production at the Boeing Company, holding press center build-out, media pool and frontline
media relations responsibilities with the World Trade Organization/Seattle Host Organization, managing
over 20-thousand streamed media webcast operations annually at Activate.net's Broadcast Operations•
Center, and moving web and new, media standards forward at the King County Department of
Transportation—Director's Office.
In order to benefit client cities with current information on federal, state and local policies related to the
cable industry, Susan keeps a close watch over emerging policy changes and potential impacts, through
the.Association for Community Media, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors, and the Washington State Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors.
In:addition to her other responsibilities, Kruller currently serves on the Board of Directors with Puget
Sound Access, a non-profit board, overseeing public access in South King County and the Board of
Directors for the Association for Women in Computing — Puget Sound Chapter, an organization
dedicated to staying current.on leading-edge developments in Information Technology. She holds a
Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications from Washington State University and a Masters in
Business Administration degree in Engineering Technology Management.
William E. Covington, Legal Counsel
William E. Covington is a graduate of New York University with a Bachelor of
Science Degree in Political Science. He holds a Juris Doctorate Degree from the University of Michigan
School of Law and licensed to practice law in the State of Washington.
Covington is currently an Assistant Professor and Director of the Technology Law and Public Policy
Clinic at the University of Washington Law School.
He was a principal with the North Star Group, a telecommunications consulting firm that drafted
telecommunications and land use legislation for cities and towns. The company also assisted cable
television companies, CLECs and OVS systems in acquiring necessary permissions to provide service.
Covington served as Counsel for AT & T Wireless Services and was closely involved with Land Use
and Environmental Policy and Director of Regulatory Affairs (Western Region). His responsibilities
include implementation of all corporate policy concerning'land use matters - legislation, managing state
and local government legislative relations, E-911 policy, pole attachments policy and site development
policies. He was also the corporate liaison with Federal Communications commission.
At Tele-Communications Inc. (TCI), Covington was the regional counsel responsible for franchising,
leasing, tax policy, lobbying and litigation coordination.
Covington has also worked for King County as a Director responsible for overseeing seven area cable
television companies, crafted first county wide master cable television ordinance, oversaw utility
permitting process and developed policies on telecommunications regulation.
As part of the"3-H Cable Communications Consultants, Covington has been a key player regarding the
telecommunications franchises for a number of the client cities we represent. His expert legal advice
comes with a background of extensive training in his field of expertise.
In addition to his responsibilities regarding 3-H Cable Consultants, William E. Covington a teaching
history with:
• Edmonds Community College - Instructor, responsible for developing materials for and
teaching, Business Law, Civil Procedure, Contracts, Legal Research and Workers
Compensation classes.
• Seattle African-American Academy Tutor(ed) elementary school students.
Covington also holds memberships and associations with:
Washington State Bar Association, Leadership Tomorrow, United Negro College Fund and the Center
for Community Alternatives
Jeanette Hahn, Senior Consultant-Financial Analysts, FCS Group
Jeanette Hahn is a graduate of the University of Washington where she obtained her B.A. in Economics.
As senior consultant she is skilled in financial and economic analysis with an emphasis in public finance
at FCS Group where she focuses on cost of service based user fee studies, impact fees, and utility rate
analyses.
Prior to joining FCS Group, she worked for the Washington Law School Foundation performing
revenue, price, and operations analyses and the University of Washington School of Business
Administration creating budget forecasts, researching and auditing program funds, and designing
technical models for faculty grants and other restricted budget allocations. She has also worked in county
government assisting finance officers with school investments, irrigation, and fire district funds and
performing support work involving property tax.
Since 1998, Hahn has teamed up with 3-H Cable Communications Consultants on more than 35 rate
analysis and tax related projects. She is a member of the Washington Finance Officers Association and
is a recognized expert presenter/speaker on Costing Government Services, Indirect Cost Allocation and
Cost Recovery.
Lisa Angle—Telecommunications Information Consultant
Lisa Angle is working with 3-H Cable Consultants on a project support basis, with expertise in creating
cable, fiber and data technology agreements. Angle originally came to work for 3-H Cable
Communication Consultants full time, with 16 years of experience in the telecommunication industry.
Prior to taking on her duties with 3-H, Lisa was employed by CompuCom, headquartered in Dallas,
Texas. While with CompuCom her services were contracted to the Microsoft Corporation at their
Campus in Redmond, Washington. Earlier in her career Lisa worked as a Network Control
Administrator for Security Pacific Bank. In her capacity as the Network Control Administrator, she was
responsible for monitoring, maintaining and troubleshooting their telecommunications networks.
Staff Assistance
In addition to the Consultants listed, our firm employs a full time office staff.
Thank you again for putting your complete trust in us and we want to reassure the city that you can count
on 3-H Cable Communications Consultants now and in the years to come.
In the next few weeks, I would like to schedule an appointment with the City of Renton to discuss
upcoming plans and resolve the issues that may need attention for the 2005 year. Please contact me at
your earliest convenience and Tammy, our Office Manager, would be happy to set up an appointment for
us to meet. I look forward to moving ahead and making this a better year to come!
Sincerely,
Lynne Y. Hurd,President
3-H Cable Communication Consultants
FAX TRANSMITTAL PAGE
3-1-f CABLE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS ;
• : 5,04 East:Main Street
Auburn, WA 98002
(243).8.0--8380 / FAX: (253) 833-8430
• PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING FAX TO: .
NAME: \e!.: \JO v : ;
FIRM: C> Vixricon ,
CITY: • .
PHONE: : FAX NBR: kiSt
Total #of pages (includin: cover sheet): Date: 1 2-0
Comments:
i 0 , : ` Y •
Sent by: _
• •
• •
. .
. . •
• City .of Renton
• • CERTIFICATION
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person's Bask Cable Television Discount
•
• .
•
Name: Date:
Address: Taken By:
•
. • .,
Phone Number:
Legal Owner/tenant of Reord at above address (circle one) Yes No
Date of birth: . #of dependents in household:
Disability I.D.#( required only if you are under the age of 65):
Income from all sources social security, pensions, etc.:
TO QUALIFY YOU MUST,MEET THE REQUI_REMENTS BELOW:
.• Age requirement:. Age 62 or legally disabled
Maximum income: Single- 2,271 monthly, Married-$ 2,595 monthly .
. MUST LIVE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS OF Renton
For Unincorporated King County Residents,
. please Call Brenda Fritz at zo6/296-388o
l•hereby certify that the statements are true and accurate to the best of
my knowledge. I understand that this information may be subject to verification •
by the cable operator. .. •
Applicant's Signature: • Date:
•
Please note that this servIce is offered by the cable operator as part of its negotiated
franchise agreement with theCity. It Provides a 30% discount from the limited cable
service Only. We also require that if you are under the age of 62, you must provide us with
a document that states Oiat you are disabled. (This document is provided by the state.
It should list your social security number.
Return to:. 3-H•Cable•CommunicatiOns Consultants
• 504 East, Main Street - Auburn, WA 98002
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed:. ,. . ' Approved:
Date Returned: • .. • To Comcast:
IMPORTANT: R.ETURN COMPLETED FORM TO ADDRESS LISTED ABOVE
• Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
•
•
. .
@omcast. Comcast Cable
19909 120th Ave.NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
CITY OF RENTON
February 11, 2005
FEB 1 5 2005
RECEIVED
Bonnie Walton CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Ms. Walton:
In our continuing efforts to keep the City of Renton informed, Comcast would like to
advise you of changes we are making to our channel line-up on or shortly after March 15,
2005, as detailed on the enclosure.
These changes will be made automatically and will not result in the modification of our
current rates.
Legal notification will be placed in the local newspaper on or shortly after February 12,
2005. If you have any questions about these changes,please contact me at(253) 288-
7496.
Sincerely,
Terry Davis
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
Enc.
cc: Janet L. Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades, Comcast
Lynne Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
IMPORTANT NOTICE TO COMCAST
CABLE CUSTOMERS
Effective on,or shortly after March 15,2005,Comcast will make the fol-
lowing changes to its Line-up in the following communities:
Auburn WA-0096 WA-0829,Algona WA-0054,Beaux Arts Village WA-0330,
Bellevue WA-0076 WA-0148 WA-0118,Bellevue-All Points WA-0384,Black
Diamond WA-0055,Bothell WA-0255,Burien WA-0539,Carnation WA-0334,
Clyde Hill WA-0604,Covington WA-0582,Des Moines WA-0121,East King
County WA-0570,Enumclaw WA-0057,Faii City WA-0259,Federal Way
WA-0544 WA-0554,Hunts Point WA-0398,Kent WA-0065,Kenmore WA-0598
WA-0595,Issaquah WA-0122 WA-0838,King County WA-0083 WA-0253
WA-0082 WA-0181 WA-0150 WA-0570 WA-0401,Kirkland WA-0310,
Maple Valley WA-0170,Medina WA-0081 WA-0443,Newcastle WA-0559,
Normandy Park WA-0188,North Bend WA-0051,Pacific WA-0061 WA-00597,
Redmond WA-0151,Renton WA-0068,Sammamish WA-0825,Seatac
WA-0541,Snoqualmie WA-0197,Tukwila WA-0205,Yarrow Point WA-0399
New Channel added to Digital Classic level of service:
Channel Channel#
Flix 586
New Channel added to Limited Cable
level of service:
Channel Channel#
NBC Weather Plus` 115
*may require a separate digital set-top receiver
This change will be made automatically and requires no action on your part.
If you have any questions,please feel free to call us at
1-888-COMCAST.These changes do not result in a modification of our
current Basic or Digital Cable service rates.
Questions? Please contact
Comcast
4020 Auburn Way N,Auburn,WA 98002•1-888-COMCAST
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/14/2005 3:34:22 PM
Subject: No Subject
Bonnie, The channel in question is a new weather channel offered by NBC
through King TV. King TV is broadcasting the new channel via digital format, and is
currently available to the general public over the public spectrum through
use of a digital antenna. Since the vast majority of folks don't use digital
antennas, King TV looks for other means of distribution for the channel.
Under Comcast's broadcasting agreement with King TV they are required to carry the
channel in their line-up (must carry provision). Comcast receives the
channel by the digital broadcast at their master head-end and they retransmit it on
their line-up in the same format in which they receive the signal. In order
to view the channel the customers will either need a digital ready television
set or lease a digital converter box.
Under the City of Renton Ordinance#4413 (Master Cable Ordinance), section
5-17-1(f) defines Basic Cable as"... the tier of service regularly provided to
all subscribers that includes the retransmission of local broadcast television
signals." The tier of service that fits this definition is called "Limited
Basic." To be in compliance with the
Franchise, Comcast placed the new channel in the Limited Basic service tier.
Also, the formatting question is in compliance as well, because the
Franchise has no terms or conditions as to the signal format within the Limited
Basic or Basic Service tiers. The notification that the City of Renton received
is part of their standard notification process regarding changes that occur
within the Cable System to keep The City apprised of issues you may receive
phone calls about from your citizens.
Bottom Line, Comcast is in full compliance with the Franchise regarding this
new channel.
If you have any questions, please contact my office. Thanks.
Lynne
• F:R=ANCHISING::` ..•. 'REFRANCH•ISING: ,COMMUNITY 'NEEDS:
-ASSESSMENTS:.. ORDINANCE• PREPARATION: • ',NEGOTIATION
::EVALUATION,. -:FRANCHISE'rADMINISTRATION` ` ACCESS. ..
•
Y
'.
'i%1
, ,,, ... ., „„,:,.,.. .:::„,:; ,, .„.,,,c ,, ,f .,0 .: „ _::::, .,..,:. .: , .., . ... ... ..., .. _ : :: ".,. .' "'.7,, , ''-' :','s;:':'?'..j..''.
r •
•1• - ,
le--'Ciiiif''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
March .15,2005-..
• - CITY OF.RENTON`
- Bonnie,Walton:: - _
City;Clerk:. ' .: - -; ,. -- : :MAR '•1.'7., ,
City'of.Renton
1055 South Grady.Way' - : • RECEIVED..
• - ,„CITY:CLERK'S OFFICE,'
.,, 'R'enton;WA.•98055,' , . - . . :; ..
r Dear Bonnie;' - : .: . _ • •,.
•The channel-in.question is -a:new weather,channel offered-by NBC,through. King TV:-King TV is. r
' :broadcasting the-new°,channel,via digital,format, and•is currently available to.the"general.public over the,
" public:spectrum'through':use,';of a digital antenna: Since the"vast majority:of.,folks don't use digital ',-
antennas,King-TV-looks for other means of distribution,for the channel'.—Under Comcast's,broadcasting'; ,
agreement with King TV they are,.required to`Carty the channel in their;line-up:(must carry,provision): -
Comcast receives the channel by the digital=broadcast at their master,head-end and they retransmit;it on. ' ;.:
their,line-up in the'same'format:in;which:they receive;the.signal::, .In;:order:to.view:the channel;the '`: :'
customers•will either need a digital,ready,television:•set or:leasea,digitalr converter box: :;' ,,
'Under the City of Renton..
Ordinance #4413 (Master:Cable Ordinance),section 5-17-1(f),defines,Basic::::'
' 'Cable;as" ,'the tier of service regularly`;provided:to all;,subscribers•that,includes:the'retransmission'of,-
'local broadcast television signals,:'.. The tier of service that fits'this-definition is called "Limited Basic:" r• : ,' :
To be in compliance with the Franchise;,Comcast placed'the new.channel:in.the Limited-Basic service'; ' '
tier."::Alp,'..-:the formatting question is--in compliance,as well,,because the Franchise has no'terms:or,
;conditions as,to the:signal format within the'Liinited Basic`or:Basic'Service:tiers: The:notification that. - .
the City of Renton received-is:part-of their standard notificationprocess:regarding..changes that occur '
`within,'the.Cable'System to keep-The City of issues:you.'May:receive phone calls:about•from '. :
- your citizens. .- r . - r . _ -
Bottom Line,,Comcastis in'full compliance with the Franchise:regarding this'new channel:. . • , -
- 'If you/have any questions, please contact my';officer'.Thanks: ,`,•. ; r
-Sincerely;.
`'3-U CABLE.COMMUNICATIONS:CONSULTANTS :. - ' -
yne-Y .Hurd
- L-YHar .
Enclosure '
'504 East'Main Street,;Auburn, Washington=98002 , .'-(253)033=8380. : • 1:'800-222-96971' FAX (253)833-8430. : '
411111°1 --
ORDINANCE NO.
5-17-2 : DEFINITIONS:
(a) "Access channels" means free composite channels to be used for
educational purposes and by government and public agencies and/or
_ their representatives (commonly referred to as "PEG" channels) .
(b) "The Act " means the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992, and any subsequent amendments.
(c) "Addressability" means the ability of a system allowing a
franchisee to authorize by remote control customer terminals to
receive, change or to cancel any or all specified programming.
(d) "Affiliate" means a condition of being united, being in
close connection, allied, or attached as a member or branch.
(e) "Applicant" means any person or entity that applies for a
franchise.
(f) "Basic cable" is the tier of service regularly provided to all
subscribers that includes the retransmission of local broadcast
f
television signals.
(g) "Cable services" means
(i) the one-way transmission to
subscriber of video programming or other programming service, and
(ii) subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the
selection by the subscriber of such video
programming or other
programming service.
(h) "Channel" means a single
g path or section of the spectrum which
carries a television signal.
(i) "Character generator" means a device used to generate alpha
numerical programming to be cablecast on a cable channel.
(j) "City" means _the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of
the State of Washington'_ .
4
-i 3iii Cable Communications Consultants= v .° '`- . - ' � 'r �` e¢=
J is fir _
'-504 East Main Street, Auburn,.Washington-9,8002:= i�,,
• .':.•� -:. � USA.
•
• . l
, , -
_ - . - - - ..1:.� . .. . - ihii:elf'?lief!!niFiE9i:I.'F?iE:".idifIiII:idii:ii?iiii ilI i - ,-
CITY )F RENTON
r City Clerk
Bonnie I.Walton
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
May 3, 2005
•
Lynne Hurd, President
3H Cable Communications Consultants
504 East Main St
Auburn, WA 98002
Re: Contract Addenda
Dear Ms. Hurd:
•
Enclosed please find a copy of fully executed Addendum#2 to CAG-04-016, the contract
agreement between the City of Renton and3-H Cable Communications Consultants for
services. Please note that the nionthly.invoice for services payable under this addendum
will need to be received by the first of each month in order to get it through our accounts
payable system by the 15t .
Also enclosed is a copy of Addendum.#1 to CAG-04-016, covering the first quarter 2005
services. You may already have this on file.
•
Your services are appreciated. The City has had a long and productive history working
with 3H Cable. Again, I am sorry you decided against responding to the Request for
Proposal advertised,but am glad we can work together on a month-to-month basis.
Sincerely,
•
651441,t.t. ill. W ait
Bonnie I. Walton •
City Clerk/Cable.Manager
Enclosures
•
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 R E lof�T
T O
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
43 This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
From: "Brady Benzley" <BradyB@pugetsoundaccess.org>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 6/3/2005 1:58:05 PM
Subject: RE: Fwd: Summer Events
Bonnie,
Thanks for the information on upcoming events. I will look them over -�
and see if we can help in filming some of these. As far as the staffer
that was out on the Fire dept shoot. I am unaware of just who that was.
I think the best way to resolve that happeningin the future. Is when a
videographer is needed if you would contact me and then I can set the
tone for the filming. We now have staff uniforms that will hopefully
make things more apparent.
Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.
All the Best,
Brady Benzley
Media Production Coordinator
Puget Sound Access
253-479-0200 x113
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 2:01 PM
To: Brady Benzley
Cc: Lori Wood; Keri Stokstad
Subject: Re: Fwd: Summer Events
Brady:
Lori has forwarded your email to me. The following information and the •
attachment I am providing both include information on summer events for
the City of Renton. Please feel free to call if you have any questions
on these.
It will be important that anyone you send to videotape for PSA
identifies themself as being with PSA, and not with the City of Renton.
We recently had an incident where someone videotaped a Fire Dept.
training event identifying themselves as taping for Renton Channel 21
and for our channel's video newsmagazine, CityView. But that was not
true. I had not sent any of my videographers to videotape that training
event for Channel 21 & CityView. I did find out who was doing the
taping, but I'm still getting to the bottom of why this outside person
was taping and why he apparently stated he was working on behalf of .
Channel 21 & CityView. Anyway, it is important that anyone involved in
videotaping Renton City staff and events clearly identify themselves as
to who they are with and the reason for the taping. If you can help
with that, it will be appreciated. Let me know if I can provide any
further information.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
SPECIAL EVENTS
Date: Saturday, June 4
Event: Kid's Klassic Fishing Derby
Location: Coulon Beach Park, 1201 Lk. Wa. Blvd. N, Renton
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Cost: $5, must pre-register
Contact:425-430-6700
Web: www.ci.renton.wa.us
Enter the 8th Annual Kid's Klassic Fishing Derby and fishing from the
dock at Coulon Beach Park into a stocked pen, children ages 5 to 14 have
the opportunity to catch a trout. Entry forms are available at the
Renton Community Center, Ivar's and Kidd Valley Restaurants, and Renton
area libraries.
Date:Thursday, June 16
Event: Renton City Concert Band
Time: 7:30 p.m.
Ticket Price: $5 for Students/Seniors; $7 for Adults
Location: Renton IKEA Performing Arts Center, 400 S. 2nd St., Renton
Contact: 425-430-6700
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Enjoy this 70-piece band performing music from Big Band to Broadway, to
Classics.
7:30 pm
Date: Saturday, June 18
Event: Skyhoundz Frisbee Championship at Cedar River Park
Time: begins at 10:00 a.m.
Cost: Free-register on site
Location: Cedar River Park, located at 1717 Maple Valley Highway next
to the Renton Community Center
Contact: 425-430-6700
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dogs of all sizes will be flying high at the Skyhoundz Frisbee
Championship. This event is open to all veteran and novice dogs that can
catch a flying disc. It is not necessary to have competed previously.
Dogs must be leashed when not competing. Owners must clean up after
their pets.
Date: Friday, July 15th through Sunday, July 31st
Time: Show times vary
Event: Carco Theatre's 20th Annual Summer Teen Musical, "Grease"
Location: Carco Theatre, 1717 Maple Valley Highway, Renton, WA
Box Office:425-430-6751
Ticket Prices: $10.00 for Students/Seniors; $12.00 for Adults
Web: www.ci.renton.wa.us
This is the 1950's rock'n' roll. Rydell High's spirited class of
'59--gum-chewing, hubcap-stealing, hot-rod loving boys with D.A.'s and
their wise-cracking girls in bobby sox and pedal pushers -capture the
look and sound of the 1950's in a rollicking musical.
Date:Thursday, August 11
Event: Kennydale Splash Day
Location: Kennydale Beach Park, 3601 Lake Wa. Blvd. N., Renton
Time: 12:30 p.m. -4:00 p.m.
Contact: 425-430-6700
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Cost: Free
Various games and competitions for children 16 years and younger will
include water balloon toss, life jacket races, sand castle building,
kickboard races, and a cannonball competition.Arts and crafts will also
be available. Registration is free and starts on-site at 12:00 noon.
Date: Friday, September 9
Event: Grateful for Grandparents - Ice Cream Social
Location: Renton Senior Activity Center, 211 Burnett Ave., Renton
Time: 6:30 p.m.
Contact: 425-430-6700
Web: www.ci.renton.wa.us
Cost: $7 per person
Ages 3 and up
SWIMMING POOLS AND SWIMMING BEACHES
Date: Saturday, June 18
Event: Henry Moses Aquatic Center opens
Season Ends: Monday, September 5
Cost: Admission prices vary by age and residency
Location: 1719 Maple Valley Highway, adjacent to the Renton Community
Center, Renton
Hours: Session One 12:00 a.m. -3:30 p.m. daily; Session Two 4:00 p.m.
-7:30 p.m. daily; Friday Family Float Night 8:00 p.m. - 10:00 p.m.;
Morning Swimming Lessons; Lap Swim only available from 6:00 a.m.-8:00
a.m., Monday-Friday, Monday and Wednesday from 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.,
and Saturday and Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.
Contact: 425-430-6780
Web: www.ci.renton.wa.us
Popular new pool features a leisure pool with zero-depth entry, wave
machine,water spray play area, lazy river, island lagoon, and water
slide, as well as a six-lane lap pool. The facility also has a toddler
water area, large sun and shade spaces, lockers, a bathhouse, and
concession area.
Date: Saturday, June 25
Event: City of Renton Swimming Beaches open
Location: Gene Coulon Memorial Beach, 1201 Lake Wa. Blvd. N., Renton;
Kennydale Beach Park, 3600 Lake Wa. Blvd. N., Renton
Cost: Free
Time: Life Guards are on duty daily at both locations from 12:00 noon -
8:00 p.m. through September 5th.
Contact: 425-430-6700
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
FARMERS MARKET
Date:Tuesdays, June 7th through September 23rd
Event: Renton Farmers Market at the Piazza
Location: Piazza Park in Renton, South 3rd St. between Logan and
Burnett Avenues, Renton
Time: 3:00-7:00 p.m.
Contact: 425-226-4560
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Downtown Renton will come alive with the tastes of summer at the Renton
Farmers Market. The Piazza will be filled with juicy berries, leafy
lettuce, vine-ripened tomatoes, and a virtual cornucopia of other farm
fresh produce every Tuesday. More than 50 vendors and farmers will sell
a bounty of fresh, locally grown farm products, including organic fruits
and vegetables, cut flowers, eggs, baked goods, herbs and more! The only
Tuesday farmers market in the Puget Sound region.
FOURTH OF JULY
Date: Sunday, July 4
Event: Freddie's Club of Renton Fabulous Fourth of July Celebration
and Fireworks in Renton
Location: Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park, 1201 Lk. Wa. Blvd. N.,
Renton
Cost: Free
Event Time: 10:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m.
Fireworks: 10:15 p.m.
Contact:425-430-6500
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Red,white, and blue decorations will decorate Renton's Gene Coulon
Memorial Beach Park and spectacular fireworks will reflect off Lake
Washington for the Freddie's Club of Renton Fabulous Fourth of July
event and fireworks display. A car show will kick off the day in
mid-morning, followed by a variety of activities for kids and exciting
stage entertainment. The event will end with a 25-minute fireworks
display to be launched from a barge in Lake Washington at approximately
10:15 p.m. Event parking is available just north of Fry's Electronics
and free Shuttle Express service will be provided from the parking lot
to Coulon Beach Park from 12:00 noon to midnight.
OUTDOOR SUMMER ENTERTAINMENT SERIES
Date: Wednesdays, June 29th thru Aug. 17th
Event: Kidd Valley Family Concert Series
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Location: Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park in Renton, 1201 Lk. Wa. Blvd.
N., Renton
Cost: Free
Contact:425-430-6700
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Join your friends and family in the City of Renton on Wednesday
evenings for delightful,free entertainment along the shores of Lake
Washington at Gene Coulon Memorial Beach Park.Various and diverse
entertainment will be featured throughout the 8-week series.
OUTDOOR MOVIE SERIES
Date: Saturdays, July 2nd through August 26th
Event:Valley Medical Center Cinema on the Piazza
Time: Saturday evening at Dusk
Location: Piazza, located on S. 3rd Street between Burnett Avenue South
and Logan Ave. S., Renton
Cost: Free
Contact: 425-226-4560
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
On Saturday evenings in July and August, downtown Renton will be in the
spotlight as a spectacular series of films are shown on the silver
screen at the Piazza, located on S. 3rd Street between Burnett Ave. S.
and Logan Ave. S.. Every Saturday night at dusk, families will enjoy the
best in comedy, drama, and classics at the free Cinema on the Piazza.
Prior to every film, a band will perform to entertain and warm-up the
crowd. There will also be food, soft drinks, and popcorn available for
purchase.
KIDS OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT SERIES
Bring your picnic lunch and enjoy a free, fun-filled day of
entertainment in a local park. Cost: Free; concessions will be available
for a nominal fee
Date: Thursdays, July 14th through August 11th
Event: Picnic Pizzazz Kids Entertainment Series
Location: Kiwanis Park 815 Union Ave. NE. Renton
FESTIVALS
Date: Tuesday, July 19th through Sunday, July 24th
Event: IKEA Renton River Days
Location: Liberty Park, Bronson Way N. & Houser Way N., and other
Renton locations
Contact: 425-430-6528
Web:www.rentonriverdays.org
IKEA Renton River Days is a weeklong family festival celebrating pride
in the Renton community. It is a time to get together with family,
friends, and neighbors to share the amenities and activities that make
Renton a great community in which to live,work, and play. Favorite
festival events include Kids' Day, a parade, the Rubber Ducky Races on
the Cedar River, an art show, a book sale, a golf tournament, and more.
Great, free entertainment throughout the weekend. Most activities take
place at Liberty Park in the heart of Renton.
SUMMER READING PROGRAMS AT THE LIBRARY
Date: mid-June through August
Event: Dragons, Dreams, and Daring Deeds-Renton Public Library Summer
Reading Program
Cost: Free
Location: Renton Public Library, 100 Mill Ave. S.; Highlands Library,
2902 NE 12th Street
Contact: 425-430-6610
Web:www.ci.renton.wa.us
During summer break in the City of Renton, children of all ages are
invited to participate in this free reading program and receive free
stickers for each book read or every 15 minutes read. Those who fill
their posters with stickers will have their names on display at each
library and receive a free paperback book!
DAY CAMPS/PARK PROGRAMS/YOUTH ATHLETICS
Registration Dates: May 5 to June 3
Renton Youth T-ball League
Ages: 5&6
League Dates: June 20 to August 11
Time: 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
Cost: $41 Resident/$49 Non-Resident
Locations: Maplewood Park, Kennydale Park, and Tiffany Park, Renton
Contact Number:425 430 6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Registration Dates: May 5 to June 3
Renton Youth Coach Pitch League
Ages: 7 &8
League Dates: June 20 to August 11
Time: 5:30 p.m. or 6:30 p.m.
Cost: $41 Resident/$49 Non-Resident
Locations: Kiwanis Park and Tiffany Park
Contact Number:425 430 6700
Website: www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: May 17 to July 14
Renton Youth Track and Field Team
Ages: 6 to 14
Time: 6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
Cost: $35 Resident/$42 Non-Resident
Location: Renton Stadium
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: June 27-August 19 (8 weeks)
Summer Fest Park Program
Ages: 6 to 11
Time: 11:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m. (park buildings open for drop-in
activities 11:00 a.m. -7:00 p.m.)
Cost: Free
Location: Kennydale Park, Kiwanis Park, Philip Arnold Park, Teasdale
Park, and Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: June 27 to August 26
Renton Youth Skyhawks Summer Sports Camps
Ages: 4 to 14
Time: 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Cost: $94 Resident/$122 Non-Resident
Location: City of Renton Parks
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: June 27-August 19 (8 weeks)
Itty Bitty Day Camp
Ages: 3 to 5
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
Cost: $70/Resident, $84/Non-Resident a week
Location: North Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: June 27-August 19 (8 weeks)
Kidz Kaleidoscope Camp
Ages: 6 to 11
Time: 9:00 a.m. -3:00 p.m.
Cost: $95/Resident, $114/Non-Resident a week
Location: North Highlands Neighborhood Center OR Liberty Park Community
Building, Renton
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: June 27-August 19 (8 weeks)
Sum-R-Craze Camp
Ages: 6 to 11
Time: 7:00 a.m. -6:00 p.m.
Cost: $140/Resident, $168/Non-Resident a week
Location: Highlands Neighborhood Center OR Renton Community Center,
Renton
Contact Number: 425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Great Escapes Teen Camp
Ages: 11 to 15
Time: 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.
Cost: $130/Resident, $156/Non-Resident a week
Location: North Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number: 425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: July 18-August 5 (3 weeks)
Young Picasso's Art Camp
Ages: 7 to 12
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Cost: $50.00/Resident, $60.00/Non-Resident
Location: Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number: 425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates: July 25-August 12 (3 weeks)
Young Picasso's & More Art Camp
Ages: 7 to 12
Time: 12:00 p.m. -2:00 p.m.
Cost: $50.00/Resident, $60.00/Non-Resident
Location: Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number: 425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates:August 23 -August 25 (3 days)
Dance &Cheer Workshop
Ages: 5 to 8
Time: 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.
Cost: $27.00/Resident, $33.00/Non-Resident
Location: Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
Dates:August 23 -August 25 (3 days)
Dance&Cheer Workshop
Ages: 9 to 13
Time: 12:00 p.m. -2:30 p.m.
Cost: $34.00/Resident, $41.00/Non-Resident
Location: Highlands Neighborhood Center, Renton
Contact Number:425-430-6700
Website:www.ci.renton.wa.us
>>> 'Brady Benzley" <BradyB@pugetsoundaccess.org> 5/23/2005 10:37:25 AM
>>>
Hello,
We at Puget Sound Access would like to help with any coverage of
Summer
Events you may have. In the past we have filmed many events for most
of
you and your cities. We would like to get a head start this year on
what events you may want televised. We will come out and cover the
event and turn it around to play on PSA, Channel 77 and your
government
station as well. This is a great way to share your local events with
citizens and other south county cities.
All the Best,
Brady Benzley
Media Production Coordinator
Puget Sound Access
253-479-0200 x113
From: "Kramer.Firm, inc." <kramer@cabletv.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 2/25/2004 11:40:56 AM
Subject: Article: Leveling the Playing Field for Cable-TV Franchise Renewal
I wrote an article on cable renewals that appeared in the December issue of Public Management
Magazine. I thought you might like a copy of the article. -Jonathan Kramer
Title: Leveling the Playing Field for Cable-TV Franchise Renewal
Re-published with permission courtesy of Public Management Magazine (ICMA.org)
December 2003 . Volume 85 . Number 11
Summary: The process of renewing a cable-television franchise often starts as an uphill journey on an
uneven playing field. The"tilt"comes from the fact that a local government may only deal with a franchise
renewal or transfer once every eight to 15 years, or even less frequently. For all but the smallest cable
operators, however, repeated franchise renewals are daily occurrences and are handled by experienced
negotiation experts who often work behind the scenes at the corporate level. Local cable-system
managers rarely have a real role in the process, other than to serve as mouthpieces for the corporate
cable negotiators. . .
Read the the entire article by clicking here: http://www.cabletv.com/articles/leveling/
Kramer.Firm, inc., 2001 S. Barrington Ave. #306, Los Angeles, CA 90025 USA
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Larry Warren
Date: 9/29/03 9:36AM
Subject: Draft letter to Comcast re: I-Net Ownership& Posting of Bond
I have reviewed the draft letter dated 9/26/2003, and have no changes or corrections to suggest.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
425-430-6502
: I
' •C�ITY�_OF''RENTON ,
'Off ce of'the''C_i t 'Attorne,
"" _ -, - - • - - 'Lawrence J.Warre , .
Jesse Tanner,Mayor.. „.
• Assistant-Ci `Attorne`ys
- A ty x.
1Vlark Barber',
Zanetta'L Fontes
Se temb'er:26 003
�� p ,'2.
Rus'sels'S ?Wilson
Nielsen.
t-
sasha`P.''Alessi'
Janet:Tu en :', : c.
P.O.''Box:C;8004.
o el 98 8 W� 0 2��80 t 04'
,
,_ ...,
C of Renton Oersh `:o--I=
,
f ,Net•aPostiri`Hof-Securt 'Bond� °'�
D `ai-1V1'e s•: ,.,u
':T e°
, '
_
r.
::B-. m n f -
ea s o t s', a ;,��.
lu 1 tter.•th e=Ci -
t f.Ren
- . . :"...... . .. . .. .. _ ,. 'o ton';wishes',t _
Y.. , o.addressawo issies::': reseritl-' �b�en ,'��
disc us ed:be s tween' -
Com cas h
t',and' e; i Ct ,Rri t o e tori
,Y.
,. tt•''•O', ... ,. RS OE CIT. .I_NET �The• ��": : .... ... . . ..
.�� X ,Cxt,.�of;Reritorilas evxewed,a'll-of:its.materials:-
concernt h ••- ... n .t e,transachons�that'lead�to'h� a "' ' ' ' � ' 'g, -The nstallatton;�fthe`�C" ��of Reriton`I=Net"and�has;come: '
..'''',to`t �e'concl: si._ 1,`,
usonahat` � •-
�e i h C t:':o'
at Net`: l' h'°Wh e�:t e:'Cit,:'-of.Rento�• :wt�ishes'to.� �n
negotiate;with.Comcastconcernin :a<mainten ce.a reement>if.one-cannot:be reached•.then'•the .'g
•har
g.
ill:'
Gt' w o,1 0' =�to>�k ousi ';'� t de°v end r 'f r..'os o h t at'm`i a n e `an e'='`
+ n c.Y- 4: ..y;;.
..ytc 1....;;;;,:.::•:.'.',.-:
t.
'I'
is'.
,
T.
- •
his.di s�ite::
:,eW
out��f ose`veal�• 'ol` �i aori` 'f r t so 11e�`vi ¢atle`lr`"'ri`
.p .....,�• ;.� ., _ ,�. h -the�predeces ors'
fran'.. chisee� -
`twice�r'em�,o ed Co cast v �-T'ese'�'voP`t � f,, h a ons`o the;>frariclu-se�l;ead''to:tlie:Ct
t
;calculatin otential .•enalties of': 73: 0
:r;
g=p., p. $ 0 OO�as�ofla'e'Jul `:-'of�1997:.;TC_I�:was:welh•aware�ofthe.'.
o `le b ms:ari d o ease d:a' ix� r: •f n Abe o s �l -�out `n�o s'�to�'tlie'Ci �:'orie�of.. ��hi'l �i.p. p., p n? t:` w c. ncluded:an acceleratied•`'
in 1 to at'i n. f`1 0 .,o the=Ci -
t .;of'R en n
' ,.- .,,,..,.. . .., ,. e s stem::.:This� ro"''osa�.�-:as,``'resented�to`the R`ri
i
-y: •,Y: <Y„ ,ay..'a.p., � ,P: a ton�.�
Ct ni Cou .,a" Y c s�'C.om` i' �r't mtt'e 'f
;1,..
e`` they:: e;�m'� ri`\
o "o eet wfi'ic �'sub 'iientl"�:re ort'''d:-t'' �-h ���� Y ,� e of e,fill:Cit
-� ' Council,.on:Se temb'
er'8''="l9'9
��S eci ic`
aI ;`.the,' � `p ,. C t"'�Cour4cil=authorized;`a;settlement=:` 'tfiTC
'h t pr't ovide� th a :`vv ',twen
p' . :�a?se"'.arate:,Cif -.owed'fb
..,:.' ,:_.. _.. n. ,,i�ontls�:TC Hall� 'ro�'id
t? a .P., -Y�, eToptic_; ;:
: bi`ca s.`s erri -
t conri ";'T e e •ri`ct ,ei h i t''en. ' `e C t;- ��ac liti` �t'es o�a`;� u �1'
'
Y.. ';£ b. created`.at.,he�new:':munc�"`aI�`hul' in`�
T 'I' r C e...
oc ed d'e .to':; i bu l`d�
such`' s..„s�em
:... .. ... ..
a t at..: .. ,,... , ,p. ,,..._. ,.. .....,, =estimateil':was>b en -
a co'sti':whefi�::the�Cit �etwe 5.
200.0 •.:
.•$ .that.l s ,at-a:fra i n -
cto of the-fi nes: ii° h�',. >, w c the;Cit.�,�could=Have'�le�ie`-a�'-airist�T I•
.,., y, d, C ;;it-,
:would seem it :'-
to is l -. '. .,_ "` -
-.• • .,._. a fo ..the.Ci ;. . ,:., . :.;:.�;
;. '•to acce . .:perfor
mance:•wortli U. �OO�or:,leS fy:a'.'
h.:
- �'muc tar er.-fin- e 4 so:title�to' . . theCit':for- h:�I-g • t e Net':would`�seemto�`kiavebeeri��iricluded notoil`: `•n''�-'
:the;Co incil.�action`„ . ,, but:b':to -
.X
i'c'and�far::dealri ;�
.g:
ha = i .t:C t Counci< r ;-'
.. . .;;;; ,• '. �.' o osal lead�ao n a e ., .. .. .,•'.
Y p ,a ement,:Uetween'TCICablevi'sion:o�f:Washiri �on�and�.i.
h ��C t f'e ='o R� e`n to n=exte �n`� -
`i'xt' �certa n�fr`d anc `�r' �,`-lose o'' �i�n r`v s s' an din h ..i,,
:. , • ,>;...,..Y,,.: o t t e-'add tional�•
time�:t'o`�iris all
the..Cit.
Net an d, n talc h''of er. u 'actio s:�''That�a'"'- •men con `ri``�
' ' • .... . Y�.. .:„.. . ee t tat ed a�xriaintenancesection:�w loch'-'
r i ov ded' h t atth
:�would-be' es onsi l 'f h'� b e, or:t e'`on �oiri� �>mainte 'ri�' `f'hi i -
�P. Y., na ce�o, t s�fU:er�optic
_
system.,but that TCI shall,.afthe Citys request,perform requested-maintenance to the City's =
i -
.fiber system on,a time;and materials'basisand;!then':onl if,f rst re uested:to:do,so;b.;':t',,,,,......,'city.,,,e. y >It'';:'::'' `,
Y , q.. Y.
is interesting=to note that'that par, gapli refers to"repairs to the..City's.'system".
,
PostOce'Box626; Renton,,Washington 9.8.05,7--'(425)255=8678,% AX(425)`'255,=5474',i.',-
-R ENT.O N
CURVE
♦�. ;,;,,, '�:•.:,"` ,.." . ,r. r:'AH.HA',D OF.THE'C _
.,This paper contains 50%recycled',Ili.
90%'post consumer
Yrs,t T
•
u`
e.2n`Jane . ' 6,
w 2ts
0�03
:
.
'i
' '° :.
T&T-.
>
:"tembe 'e` untl :A Se 2:• � 'nd u s ,qetha :thePage-. t %�TC L a sistece s-that` ament luoftheint",•believe ' :'n' `eagre e becase n.PThe CY•` T �:�Tf-
•
_
ysv_. _e
a
en,'
i
t
e
c.
:
: e e
tn s s
�.�
.,
ce
l,
_ of
h.:.
s
::::,"
� •a airitearcful :lar "+'ofRento - " 'tfiat' ecs ;that::`��.^' ' otate unsuccessttheCiY ',uon ` he�-preis "as' r `dtorieg been: -'ad no , e'ae.re uont 'ifuch
•
•
.0 ttY l tie ;" orts::have adbandn d'wr , �hased: p ,tion�...., .'. . The` :;. ;ThoseeffT&T Bro ` Re ton: h; heCity;� c •a=negofa '. oadband : TC `orAi' n:" �heC :o ra .wtelo m"es`suaintnance'Brbelon s oi..„` rslp, ' nance:eon:t ,r: ain1 weri�� � t ae,a msee`r :� fio' o wfatee a m �mh o`�:t e�,C tf '•l-fre to eo ;`therec rshesto: foteINe ,'tenttCiX ile moat�#o; o 'a Cmca .. th ownr:ob ahed..t '�`' i dor' __ ' . ., `�egtedCo7om' _.t e Ct „ en .canno �er ��veindor or recent :Vrr ` <a ou1d�C �:f. r. 'n.:.. . . .. . f:ana�;eemwt noutde5 o2e to ' ars°i'-Ytght -
��-
. c
s
e;
s
-,
;
ar
r.�
"
'
7;3L,•„ire s,ebo.
s�
o� �='=: .: ,ee et a t . :fro he � '. tae1Y�ret' `e ` '"ire aca 1e
''��"=A"� . , �� Y'ste e� f`�al o:roi "'t:,•'S ^a rqt � e Cit ` ; : ,S TING:O � • offri 1t TbCX _ tle �.m • " ta�lotrie ; TheP hecosto`frem 'tHsY m . � ;;acce ,. e ;wi s4 � a t ` n ori , d Scto .�. flier.su, . rkman: i' ..bo, d d" v' � ` v or�,a �,rY �f' Ybo d.or `� di'n��woi oe ate ' , �ide : nc.e :"tl �ari" ecoma`rnri`h Eva' sta erfom . e- rqm : - , ,. fttes
• ,:bha ts' g to Po . ib .don . v'':1, frts. acl f'':� :t i s 'sem, ork'w .I;�e er�moa ,o ` ghto -
o
tu
s e �e
'
, �_�•
. ,wina ion . torationw f b'ot ,th ; ehinthe'C,,Y:t =ico mm anutn : hat:allres � boA -
. n`..
�lf
' ma
sc ':#o., �c e.,.v, e irt: �.
ie `. .ts . s :
•is cu s s:a wtrt 'uste 'suc :;� 'estl a t bdndt,tona,.faci li ' ill ngQ .a- ''r..:-: q. : 'Com"�as ': iii oaay.addi t ouldbe-. .Y t ng;that1ri' 1Taton`. �fA.� , theCr , .�' . ; w: � nd,e•rsardi : " t he`-iat ��edru o �5 !ou ould' ;mY�'u s ', '''a ,.;, - ibea : se If y :;Itis .htb ,nc � ,';b0nd� :ycu� erit'iu _efee "freeto:hould ta ; ountofte � ri" ur,twor. - �pleas say� Ifthe-amdualP u o ' ` n resolvigo�. ,.s�bstro�r , :w �-frsuch.a t"atal st�i thi � 3<;. , >
l:"" " � • bond . r' ' t"b :;;a subs .n.airieonerniri , :" etter-wl . .00arifcto y�H ef11Y l_ sliot on :� R • i.,.. 4 • 'au r...,. oPY„furher' rd�" - _• ;( k" • ." +." lie:a ° ' und rrsne ,toct;t r....' + .:con ; ..
. .... • ..
,
•
,
City:Attorriey;i`
.a:
LJVV: m
t
f;.
O',�T� �9�U4'
I .3
'B 'ria;
cc��� 'a Ro,
rt be'
rt
- ie stock. � -
. �• :Hurd�� - -
=:V'ctor -
'
a kl
e
Geor e•M"
cB"de: ,
g..
Bonnie Walton ..
Ja ""Covin" on
.
TRANSMITTAL MEMO
•
WARREN BARBER&FONTES, P.S. CONFIDENTIAL PRIVILEGED
•
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
(425)255-8678 et od of Delivery
Mail
100 SOUTH SECOND STREET•POST OFFICE BOX 626
RENTON,WASHINGTON 98057 ) Hand Delivered
FAX NUMBER:425-255-5474 ( ) Fax No.
( ) Other
( ) Transmission Completed
This Fax contains confidential, privileged information intended only for the addressee. Do not
read, copy or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received this Fax in
error, please call us (collect) immediately at (425) 255-8678, and mail the original Fax to
P.O. Box 626 Renton, Washington 98057.
TO: (Teary rOCfriolQ-, 1)-Jo LO&Q Or 1 , 0--aC ovIj+lY1
FROM: LaC(j� GL�C��
DATE: q-a6 -O
RE: COO,r) (�] ke,a46n 014.1rMaLif :12 { a cQ PosiAio
We have enclosed the following document(s):
AA,44 dallf*
( ) FOR YOUR INFORMATION ( ) PER YOUR REQUEST
( ) FOR SIGNATURE AND RETURN ( ) PER OUR CONVERSATION
( ) FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT ( ) PER OUR AGREEMENT
( ) FOR NECESSARY ACTION ( ) SEE REMARKS BELOW
( ) FOR YOUR FILES ( )
( ) FOR YOUR APPROVAL
( ) APPROVED AS NOTED
FOR FAX TRANSMITTAL:
This transmission consists of pages, including this cover page. If for some reason
you do not receive all of the pages, or it is not legible, please contact our office immediately.
Remarks: pli2oze jvA)`ts-tom arc) ce"Yrks/A- ,
•
CITY OF RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Kathy Keol er-Wheeler,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren
Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zafetta L.Fontes
Russell S. Wilson
Ann S. Nielsen
MEMORANDUM Sasha P. Alessi
To George McBride, Finance &IS
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: January 13, 2004
Subject: City Utilized I-Net and Posting of Security Bond
Please fmd enclosed the latest missive from the attorney from Comcast concerning our claim of
ownership to the I-Net lines. I will follow through and provide him with copies of the City
Council motions and minutes. I am not sure that our cause is being advanced by these letters back
and forth and, as I stated before, believe that we have a reasonably weak case for ownership,
should there be litigation.
However, now that we have softened them up, perhaps it would be a good time to make a proposal
to them to settle our dispute, or sit down and have a bargaining session. Please let me know your
thoughts.
Lawrence J. arren
LJW:tmj
T10.39:43
cc: Bonnie Walton
Victoria Runkle
Jay Covington
Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 R E N T O N
COAD OF THE CURVE
.,. This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
Jan-09-2004 04:55pm From-Comcast 7Z0Z6(3"Z83 I-U 4 I'.UUZ/004 F-03Z
'
om ca s to comcast Cabla Communications.Inc.
�� 183 Inverness Vito West 2na floor
Englewood.CO 80112-5286
January 9, 2004
VIA FACSIMILE NO. (425) 255-5474
& U.S. MAIL
Mr. Lawrence J. Warren
City Attorney
City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 •
i RE: City Utilized I-Net and Posting of Security Bond
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
Foremost, Happy New Year! I would like to take the opportunity to respond to
your letter of November 13, 2003. I apologize for not responding sooner, however, with
the holidays (both Thanksgiving and Christmas) and other matters,I was unable to devote
as much attention to it as I would have preferred. Nevertheless, 1 appreciate your
response and your willingness to maintain a productive dialogue on this issue.
With respect to your point that Washington law permits collateral evidence to be
submitted in cases to clarify an ambiguity in a contract, I will reserve comment only
because I have not thoroughly researched the issue. However, I will point out that we do
nor believe an ambiguity in the extension agreement exists. Again, the agreement is clear
in that it requires the Company to provide "certain separate, dedicated, fiber optic lines
for the City's sole use . . ." Alleging ownership of the fiber optic lines, after the fact,
does not create an ambiguity nor do the four cornets of the agreement give rise to an
ambiguity at all. The issue of ownership of the fiber optic lines is completely absent
from the agreement and therefore cannot be considered an ambiguity of the contract.
Because we do not believe an ambiguity exists, we also do not believe collateral evidence
would be permitted for clarification purposes.
As for the collateral evidence itself, i.e. the City Council's motion accepting the
settlement proposal, this specific document was not provided to Comcast as part of the
records in the acquisition transaction. If you would care to provide a copy of it to me, I.
would be glad to review it as well as share a copy of it with my client_
Jan—uu—ZUU4 U4:5bpm rrom—Comcast rcuc�racyi i—uy4 r.uuaiuua r—uac
Mr. Lawrence Warren
January 9, 2004
Page 2
Having restated our position -- it appears that we may just have to respectfully
disagree with each other's opinion on the matter -- which is fine. However, that still
leaves us with trying to resolve the issue. Certainly, we would like to reach an amicable
resolution for both parties and we are willing to work toward that goal. With that in
mind, does the City have any suggestions for a resolution to this dispute? As previously
noted in my letter of November 4, 2003, and in additional conversations with our local
management team, we have offered the City a "maintenance agreement" in connection
with the fiber optic lines that also contains an indefeasible right of use to the fibers for the
City. If this concept is not an acceptable approach, then we are willing to consider
alternative resolutions. Please suggest acceptable alternatives.
Additionally, until the ownership and maintenance issues are resolved, we would
note that Comcast, and its authorized agents, are the only persons permitted to perform
connections of additional facilities, or modifications, to the fiber optic system utilized by
the City. Any unauthorized activity could jeopardize the integrity of the overall cable
system as well as place us in violation of third party agreements with other companies.
Finally, as a "step" in the direction to resolving our disputes, Comcast is willing
to provide a single bond, in an amount both reasonable and acceptable to each party, in
connection with its facilities located in the City's right-of-way, provided that the amount
of the bond applies to all users of the City's rights-of-way and that all users of the rights-
of-way are required to provide such bond. Please provide me with the amount that the
City believes is reasonable. I will then discuss it with our management team and
hopefully we can resolve the bond matter.
I look forward to hearing from you on an amicable resolution of the fiber
ownership, maintenance and bonding issues. Please feel free to contact me directly at
(720) 267-3236 if you would like to discuss the matter in greater detail.
Thank you for your cooperation and attention.
Sincerely,
Comcast Cable Communications
Michael D.Woods
Senior Attorney
Jan-09-2004 04:55pm From—Comcast rcucbracya r•uu4.uu'+ r—uac
Mr. Lawrence Warren
January 9, 2004
Page 3
CC: Ken Rhoades
Janet Turpen
Hans I-Iechtman
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton @ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/13/03 9:57AM
Subject: Re: Franchise Question
Bonnie,
I am just glad I can help. Many years ago the cable operator at the time set
aside an educational access channel for UW TV now on channel 27. This
arrangement was made without coming to the City for approval. I would just add that
it worked out well for everyone so no on questioned it. About three years
ago the Puget Sound Educational Service District (PSESD) serving the K-12
system, developed a plan to produce educational programming and to cablecast a full
time cable channel in the Puget Sound area. Their representatives came to all
of the cities in King County asking them to either request a second channel
from the operator or to preempt UWTV. The operator originally stated they did
not have channel capacity to put on a second channel which was putting the
cities in a difficult position to choose between the two entities. Just before
staff was ready to go to Council Committee on this the operator and PSESD
reached agreement and found a second channel on for them to program currently on
channel 26. Once again this was done without being formally directed to do so
by the City. Once again however we didn't argue as it kept us from having to
make a decision that was going to be unpopular with someone. About a year
later when AT&T finished their most recent upgrade giving them more channels
allowing them to develop a region wide channel lineup they added a regional
Community College Channel that had up until that time been cablecast on the Eastside.
This is now on channel 28 and once again it was done at their own choosing
without direction by the City. This has really been one of the few times that
the cable operator on their own has worked out a pretty good arrangement. In
conclusion we now have three channels 26, 27, 28 programmed by K-12, Community
College and University of Washington. The City of Renton does have the
ability to change these arrangements or to put the school board meeting on the City
channel but at the same time they may want to ask the PSESD to put it on
their channel. I do not have a contact for them but I could probably dig one up
if you wish. Please let me know your thoughts and if you need any further
information on this.
Lon
Comcast--Washington Market
CO rn
ca St® South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn,WA 98002
STATE OF COMCAST CABLE
CITY OF RENTON,WA
DATE: FEBRUARY 9, 2004
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
Since completing the change of control in November 2002, Comcast wants to
update our local community leaders about our progress to date and what.
Comcast is planning for 2004.
BUSINESS PHILOSPHY:
Comcast is a family-run cable company with local decentralized business philosophies
that is committed to the long term and we pride ourselves on operating on a solid
financial footing.
COMCAST STATISTICS: .
Nationally we service 21 Million Customers --
• 6.3 Million Digital Video subscribers.
• 4 million high-speed Internet subscribers.
To give you an idea of our size
• We have some 60,000 employees nationwide and 2,600 employees in
Washington State.
EXTREME COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT:
Across all product lines, Comcast faces stiff competition.
• . Video = several nation-wide satellite companies focused on residential and
multiple dwelling complexes
• Internet = Satellite and other telecommunication companies
2003 ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
• Completed the integration plan and decentralized business function back
to the local levels
• Invested $200 million into upgrading the cable system in the.State of
Washington to provide the most advanced and reliable systems
• Added more than 200 local customer service representatives to handle all
sales, billing, repair, and HSI calls locally f ou -
• Launched local and national high-definition channels
• Made always-on high-speed Internet service available to nearly 100
percent of our service area
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE CITY OF RENTON?
Renton is managed under our SE Puget Sound business office.
• # of Subscribers in the City of Renton = 15,905
• 2003 Franchise Fees Paid= $ 489,717.76.
2003
•• % of.SE Utility
Puget Sounnd Area Employees that reside in City of Renton = 5% 1#
• #.of Comp. Service Connections under Franchise =
34 sites --23 Schools.and..11 Municipal
WHAT TO EXPECT IN 2004:
Comcast looks forward to providing our customers the following advanced products and
services throughout the coming year:
• Additional local and national high-definition:channels
• Video-on-Demand that will give customers access to a library f mo_re than 1,000 (otA1
programming options with just a click of a remote control- �'+nJev t�- IN 'der"
• . Digital Video Recorders.
• Enhancements to residential and commercial high-speed Internet.product.
• Residential home networking product
COMMUNICATION LINE:
Mr. Terry Davis is the Company's designated liaison for the SE Puget Sound.area. If
there are any issues, questions, or concerns regarding the cable system operations in
the City of Renton please contact Mr. Davis at:
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast-- South East Puget Sound Area .
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell# 253/261-1586 .
Desk# 253/288-7496 .
Fax# 253/288-7500
E-mail Address: Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com
George:
1)Please describe your relationship with comcast in previous cable franchise
negotiations,what successes were you able to achieve for your client &what was left on
the table?
2) The city's existing franchise agreement and extension, calls for the franchisee to install
to the benefit of the city a dark fiber optic network. It was the city's intention that this
network be installed in lieu of significant penalties earned by the franchisee for failing to
meet the franchise requirements. The franchisee now claims the network is owned by the
franchisee not the city. How would you recommend the city proceed to resolve this issue?
3) The franchisee's system is not technically robust enough to serve the community's
long-term digital connectivity requirements. Shortly, two way digitial HDTV will
become common place. High speed broadband connectivity in 10's of megabits,will be
required to serve the needs & expectations of a vibrant, economically driven, well
educated community. Delivery of voice, data, video (conferencing & streaming)will
become common place. How would your recommend we fashion the city's franchise
agreement to insure rapid delivery of these services as they become available?
4) The cities of krgutTauburn,b 1 vue -ir-lanr� a of ers are all approaching franchise
renewal deadlines with Comcast. Should we be approaching this project on a regional
basis as opposed to going it alone? Advantages, disadvantages? Impact on the
franchisee's approach?
Part of the franchise renegotiationprocess is a communitysurveythan maycontain a
A� ` 5) g
1 mailing,public meetings, etc. Is it appropriate, as part of this information gathering
process to also obtain data on computer/technology literacy&use within the community?
How about community vision?
/ 6) What ecomonic development factors should the city be considering as part of this
effort?
7) Our city attorney fashioned our current franchise agreement. Given your firm's
capabilities and past experience, what role would you anticipate the city attorney playing
in this effort?
Bonnie:
• Describe experience you have had with cable channel management.
• How would you handle our day-to-day needs, such as requests for senior
discounts, complaints on billing, service or reception?
• If you are in a different time zone, how would you accommodate our citizens?
• Who would handle the annual rate review?
• As part of the franchise renewal process, would you:
Develop a work plan and negotiation strategies for that Plan?
Provide a written report after conducting a technical inspection &
assessment of the cable system?
•
. il(01/4// ktteVai-4)
)0/44016;"? IfMcr
Evaluate the past performance of Comcast?
Determine the level of customer satisfaction and review consumer
complaints?
Identify future city cable related needs and interests?
Identify franchise renewal goals, develop proposed franchise provisions &
draft model franchise and ordinances?
Facilitate negotiation of franchise renewal?
• Case senario: Comcast added a new channel, #115,NBC Weather Pius,to its Limited cable
line up,to access it requires a separate digital set-top receiver. It does not make
sense to me for Limited Cable, (formerly called Basic cable) over which the City
franchise has authority, to add a new three digit channel number and to make
citizens rent a receiver in order to access it. When questioned, Comcast stated
they had to do this because of an agreement with a station that required this be
available on the"lowest" level of service. What do you think of this decision and
what action, if any, would you take?
• Comcast has refused to : t a bond in the amount he City requested, saying it is
unnecessary to have a bond for ROW construction higher than$15,000. Our CA
wanted $it0;0170. What to do? 3StISir6
bOMR)
• Have you ever negotiated a franchise where the consultant's fees got reimbursed
by Comcast for work done in the renewal process'? Where new cablecast
equipment(booth& Chambers) was negotiated? Where staffing for government
access cable channel operations was negotiated?
f a l es 0-r w95 eAk
dikuryA nej
0),h1 UcIALte-
gm)
as PE65
I re
u,Aa. ant
bv•-, ymmar,
/LW
3
o
-4drefollil'hA
codefy-akii / &adatai;
thiturelex ;dab zy„.1/1404/
z91a ch-c
9u441 14-44) Njk
c'Atre
Aaamati ttax 4-d6 ptevw--
duciAti, a-i-gredeJk°2e)
dAide,
From: "Larry Warren" <ljwarren@seanet.com>
To: "George McBride" <Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 10/6/03 1 0:31 AM
Subject: Re: RE: Renton Fire Station#16
Blanket approval is not necessay, if the city has safety issues or utility
conflict issues. But the city must document it's issues. Otherwise,the
franchise controls.We have limited ability to reopen issues and, in
essence, renegotiate the franchise.
Original Message
From: "George McBride" <Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>
To: <ljwarren@seanet.com>
Cc: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>; "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>; "Jay
Covington" <Jcovington@ci.renton.wa.us>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2003 10:29 AM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Renton Fire Station #16
>Good morning.
>Attached is a recent email string from King County that includes text
>from the Comcast engineering department. I have forwarded this to you
>because they state that their current fiber plant has reached capacity
> (good planning). This admission would suggest that in the not too
>distant future Comcast will be looking to the City for assistance in
>adding additional cabling to their infrastructure. Is this something
>the City must approve and if so, does this give the City an opportunity
>to revisit our issues?
>gm
>This message has been scanned by the City of Renton's filtering gateway.
CC: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>, "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Jay
Covington" <Jcovington@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: "Hechtman, Hans" <Hans_Hechtman@cable.comcast.com>
To: "'Lahurd3hmc@aol.com" <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
Date: 7/1/03 10:54AM
Subject: RE: City of Renton
Lon, I thought I had responded to you, I apologize if I didn't. However
your proposal below is unreasonable as that level of coverage is not
necessary given the small amount of construction activity we have in the
City of Renton.
First, Ordinance 4413 is clear that the City may require a bond warranting
all restoration and workmanship on specific construction projects. It does
not require a franchise bond nor a bond for all of our infrastructure.
Second, although Redmond may be a similar sized City,they are not in the
same position as the City of Renton in that they haven't been upgraded for
several years. They were recently upgraded, and yes the bond was taken out
recently to cover all the necessary construction that was taking place. The
upgrade in Renton is complete and we simply don't have the same level of
construction activity in the two Cities.
I understand the City's desire to have some protection, however it should be
reasonable. As you know, bonds cost money to obtain and ultimately the
citizens of Renton will end up bearing those costs. It therefore seems
appropriate that the City keep these considerations in mind. That said, I
understand that the current$15,000 bond is not satisfactory and 'would be
willing to increase that amount to$35,000.
I appreciate your understanding.
Original Message
From: Lahurd3hmc@aol.com [mailto:Lahurd3hmc@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:08 PM
To: Hechtman, Hans
Cc: bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
Subject: City of Renton
Han's,
On June 4th we sent you an email asking you to submit to us on behalf of the
City of Renton a Bond in an amount proposed to meet the potential
liabilities.
Since we have not heard back we did do some research and found that had
recently agreed to a$500.000.00 bond with the City of Redmond. Since this
agreement is one of the more recent and with a community approximately the
same in
size we would formally request the same amount of bond for the City of
Renton.
Please see that the original bond is sent to the City Clerk with a copy also
submitted to us.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Lon
CC: <bwalton©ci.renton.wa.us>
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Hans_Hechtman@cable.comcast.com>
Date: 7/1/03 3:25PM
Subject: Re: City of Renton
Han's
I am in receipt of your last email regarding the bonding issue. I have had
many discussion with the city on this issue as well. At this time I can only
reiterate our position to you. The bond, as outlined in the Master Ordinance
is more than a construction bond. It covers other performance issues as well
and must cover the cities cost in a worse case scenario. For example, should
Comcast, for one reason or another, fail to operate their system and fail to
remove their facilities the city would then be required to remove all of the
facilities at their cost. The city actually has questioned if the$500,000.00
figure will be adequate to cover these costs. By ordinance the city has the
right to require Comcast to post a PERFORMANCE BOND acceptable to the city in an
amount specified by the city in favor of the city. Therefore, at this time
the amount of the bond is not negotiable, it must cover the entire performance
under the terms of your franchise and it must contain a six year period for
bringing suit.
We certainly understand your cost concerns and their potential impact on
rates. The City of Renton however, must insure that they are not left in a
position where their interests and the interests of their residence are unprotected.
Please review this issue and get back as soon as possible.
Lon
CC: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lon Hurd
Date: 9/11/03 11:13AM
Subject: Comcast/Bond
I assume by now you have received copy of our City Attorney's memo of August 28th concerning the City's
bond with Comcast. I assume you will be taking this matter up further with Comcast.
As for the I-net ownership/maintenance issue: I am meeting with our CAO tomorrow and will confirm
whether or not we are going to let the matter drop.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CITY OF RENTON
.al. ~ Office of the City Attorney
Jesse Tanner,Mayor Lawrence J.Warren
MEMORANDUM Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
Zanetta L.Fontes
Russell S. Wilson
Ann S. Nielsen
To: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager CITY OF RENT ON
Sasha P. Alessi
From: V Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
s-EO 0 2 200
Date: August 28, 2003
Subject: Comcast Cable . RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
By memo dated August 26, 2003, you forwarded along an e-mail from Lon Hurd by which
Comcast refused to provide us with more than a $35,000 bond except upon certain conditions.
They agree to provide a $500,000 bond if we would no longer require construction bonds for any
work they might do.
We are talking apples and oranges. The $500,000 bond is to insure that we have adequate funds to
remove Comcast facilities from the City right-of-way should Comcast abandon its facilities and
the City be required to do the removal work itself or hire some third party to do the work.
Individual bonds are normally required for doing construction within the City right-of-way. Those
bonds should not be rolled into the surety bond for removal.
While I believe that it is appropriate to have 6 years to sue upon any bond, I am willing to abide
by a 2 year window for suit as long as it is understood that these are rolling bonds and that they are
a requirement of the continuation, of the franchise by Comcast. As long as Comcast is doing
business within our streets, it needs.to provide us with a bond that will provide us with funds to
remove their facilities should they be abandoned.
If Comcast does`not wish to provide us with such a bond, then I would suggest that we change our
right-of-way use system to require it and then enforce our ordinance against Comcast.
Hopefully this will further the discussions.
Lawrence J. arren
LJW:tmj V
T10.38:40 .
cc: Jay Covington
George McBride V .
Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications
Neil Watts
Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 R E N T O N
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
C.
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <hans_hechtman @cable.comcast.com>
Date: 6/4/03 2:40PM
Subject: City of Renton
Han's
The City of Renton has been reviewing the most recent performance bond
submitted to the city on May 23rd of this year. It has been determined that the
bond is insufficient to meet the city needs. The reasons cited are as follows:
#1 The section permitting suits is limited to one year. The standard period
of time the city has to bring suit is six years. This must be the same for
Comcast.
#2 The area covered under the terms of the bond is for"work in the right of
ways." The city feels that the bond should be for the performance of any
portion of the franchise agreement.
#3 The amount of the bond is set at$15,000.00.The city believes the bond
should be in the amount of the cost to remove your facilities from city right
of way should you go out of business, go bankrupt and refuse or be unable to
remove the cables, vaults, etc. In this instance we suggest that you should
further review the cites needs and suggest an amount for the city to consider.
We would appreciate you efforts and hope to get this issue resolves as
quickly as possible.
Lon
CC: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <hans_hechtman @cable.comcast.com>
Date: 6/30/03 2:08PM
Subject: City of Renton
Han's,
On June 4th we sent you an email asking you to submit to us on behalf of the
City of Renton a Bond in an amount proposed to meet the potential liabilities.
Since we have not heard back we did do some research and found that had
recently agreed to a$500.000.00 bond with the City of Redmond. Since this
agreement is one of the more recent and with a community approximately the same in
size we would formally request the same amount of bond for the City of Renton.
Please see that the original bond is sent to the City Clerk with a copy also
submitted to us.
Thank you for your continued cooperation.
Lon
CC: <bwalton @ ci.renton.wa.us>
4%
CITY OF RENTON
NIL
CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 26, 2003
TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney
FROM: Bonnie Walton,City Clerk/Cable Manager,x6502 O./
SUBJECT: Comcast Cable
As you can see by the attached email, we have not yet resolved the issue of the Comcast bond
amount. Apparently in past years we have always had a$15,000 bond, but this year, when we asked
Comcast for a larger bond,they agreed to increase to $35,000,rather than to$500,000 as you had
advised.
I have not pursued this bond matter during the last few weeks as I wanted to wait and see if you
wanted to proceed on the I-net ownership and maintenance issues. Did you get a chance yet to look
through the material I sent over on July 28th to decide if we should move forward?
My thought is that, if we are going to pursue the I-net issues with Comcast, then we could tackle the
bond issue at the same time. If we are not going to pursue the I-net issues any further,then a
decision on the bond will need to be made separately.
Please advise.
Thank you.
bw
attachment
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
George McBride,IS
Lon Hurd, 3H Cable Communications •
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton @ ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/2/03 3:58PM
Subject: Comcast Bond
Bonnie,
I just had a very heated conversation with Han's regarding their bond. As
you recall we had three issues. First was the amount of the bond. Second was
the scope of what was covered. Finally how long of a period the city had to
initiate a suit.
On the amount we have been asking for$500,000.00 and they have offered up to
$35,000.00. Comcast has offered to go up to$500,000.00 but only if the city
agrees not to require any future construction bonds for any work they do.
On the scope of bond Comcast is insistent that the bond requirement is
limited to construction in the right of way and not on other performance issues. I
have been taking the position that the bond is to cover all aspects of the
performance within the terms of the franchise.
Finally Larry has been asking that the standard length of time that the
cities has to bring suit is six years. Han's insist that Comcast does not have any
bonds that allow more than a two year window.
I apologize for not being able to resolve this issue but at this time we
might want to sit with Larry, read over the franchise, discuss and get some
direction from him.
Please let me know what our next step should be.
Lon
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, <jwelsh@ci.auburn.wa.us>, <jperry@ci.kirkland.wa.us>,
<pkolacy@ci.port-townsend.wa.us>, <tpiasecki@desmoineswa.gov>, <BILL@CI.STANWOOD.WA.US>,
<Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>
Date: 6/20/2005 2:49:57 PM
Subject: 3-H will be closed
The office will be closed from July 1st-July 6th, 2005. Please mark your
calendars. We will be checking messages, so please feel free to leave one if
necessary.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
3-H Cable Communications Consultants
Lynne Hurd
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/7/2005 10:43:51 AM
Subject: Re: 3 Questions
Bonnie,
Phones should be working properly by the end of the day.
Rate review should be completed within this next week.
I will take care of the two Sr. discounts as requested
Thanks for the cities patience during this relocation process
New Location
3-H (still the same)
1486 Carol
Camano Island, WA. 98282
0.
CITY OF RENTON
PROPOSED BASIC (LIMITED) CABLE RATES
The City of Renton is in the process of reviewing rates charged by Comcast Cable
Communications to its subscribers for basic (limited) cable service. The FCC has
established guidelines for these rates and has empowered the City to review them to
determine whether or not they conform to FCC limits. Effective July 1, 2005, the rate
charged by Comcast Cable for basic service may increase from$14.08 to a maximum of
$14.56 per month, excluding all fees and taxes. Expanded basic service is not within the
review authority of the City. The City is interested in receiving written input regarding
the public's perception of the fairness of the basic cable rates. Written correspondence
will be received until June 27, 2005. Please direct comments to: City of Renton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, 1055 S. Grady Way, Renton, WA 98055.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: King County Journal: June 16 & 23, 2005
Account#50640
From: <lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/8/2005 11:39:10 AM
Subject: Re: Citizen Cable Request
Bonnie,
I have contacted the three citizens regarding Sr. discounts, also the cable rate review is complete and will
be electronically sent to you. So sorry about the delay apparently they sat in the wrong e-mail address
since June 1st. I will be sending a hard copy of this report to follow. If you have any questions don't
hesitate to contact our office. (maybe the phones will work now)
Sincerely Lynne
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
To: Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com; Wolflvr66@aol.com
Sent: Fri, 01 Jul 2005 08:15:07 -0700
Subject: Citizen Cable Request
Please call "Heidi" Hangdang at 206-226-3539 regarding Sr. discount for
her mother. She has tried to call your number, which we had supplied,
but the call apparently will not go through.
Please let me know when she has been contacted.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
July 8, 20051
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/ Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: 2005 Cable Television Rate Filing Review
Dear Ms. Walton:
This letter summarizes our review of the Basic Cable television rates that Comcast Cable
Communications has proposed for Renton residents from July 1st, 2005 to June 30th, 2006.
Because the City's authority to regulate cable television rates is confined to Basic Cable, this
review only considers the rates imposed for Basic Cable services—while charges for expanded
or premium packages may appear in these rate filings, such charges are not subject to
regulation by the City.
Background
Comcast Cable Communications submitted its required FCC rate filing forms to the City of
Renton on April 1st, 2005. These forms provide Comcast with a means of calculating and
justifying any rate and fee changes proposed for the upcoming twelve-month rate period (in this
case, July 1st, 2005 through June 30th, 2006). As of April 1st, regulatory cable television
franchises such as the City have 90 days to review and appeal, if necessary, the rate
adjustments proposed by the operator in the FCC forms.
Comcast's annual rate filings include the following two forms:
• FCC Form 1240: This form derives the Maximum Permitted Rate (MPR) for Basic Cable
services. The maximum rate is based on the following components:
- The current year's base rate
- Adjustments for cost inflation during the current rate period
- Adjustments for projected cost inflation during the coming rate period
- Retroactive "true-up" adjustments reflecting differences between projected and actual
revenues for the current year (may be either a surcharge or a credit)
- Changes in costs related to programming, channel additions, copyrights, and regulatory
fees
Because the Maximum Permitted Rate is directly linked to expected costs, it may increase
or decrease depending on how the projected costs for the coming period compare to the
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 2 of 4
costs incurred during the current period. Note that the MPR is established as a rate
ceiling—cable operators may select a lower rate if they desire.
• Form 1205: On this form, Comcast derives its equipment and installation charges based on
a sampling of Comcast's company-wide costs related to customer equipment maintenance,
installation costs, and labor costs supporting capital activities.
The ensuing review of these forms includes confirming the accuracy of Comcast's calculations
in Form 1240, referencing the source of key statistics used in the calculation of the proposed
Maximum Permitted Rate, and identifying the costs that drive the proposed rate adjustment.
Note that this review focuses on the derivation of the proposed rates given the expected costs
for the 2005 — 2006 rate period, confirming that the supporting calculations are correct—it does
not judge or otherwise address the basis of the aforementioned costs.
The.Maximum Permitted Basic Cable Rate (Form 1240)
The Maximum Permitted Rate consists of the following components:
• Base Rate: The base rate serves as the foundation for both the current and the new rate
period. It is the basis for comparing the calculation of the Maximum Permitted Rate to last
year's filing—any differences between the current MPR and the proposed MPR are
attributable to differing adjustments for inflation, other cost changes, and true-up
adjustments.
• Inflation Adjustments: This adjustment accounts for the impacts of simple cost inflation
incurred during the current rate period and projected for the coming year. Inflationary
adjustments are generally increases—Form 1240 provides a two-step method for computing
such adjustments, in order to ensure that the rate calculation does not include compounding
layers of costs driven by projections. In addition, the cable operator must always update
any inflation projections from the prior year's filing with actual inflation.
• External Costs: This component accounts for projected changes in programming costs,
copyright fees, and regulatory fees incurred by the cable operator, as well as the operator's
allowed profit markup of 7.5% on programming and copyright costs.
• True-Up Adjustments: Basic Cable rates are intended to recover the costs associated with
providing Basic Cable service, plus a defined margin of profit. Rates tend to be based on
projected costs, which may differ significantly from what the operator actually incurs while
providing service. The "true-up" adjustment acknowledges this, and (on a retroactive basis)
ensures that the operator collects what it should collect—it comes in the form of a surcharge
if the operator did not collect enough revenue, or in the form of a credit if the operator
collected more than it should have. This mechanism protects both the operator and Basic
Cable subscribers from the compounding effects of erroneous projections.
Having reviewed Comcast's Form 1240 submittal to the City of Renton, we conclude that the
calculation of the Maximum Permitted Rate proposed for Basic Cable service is sound and in
compliance with the structure and intent of the methodology established by the FCC. According
to Form 1240, Comcast intends to implement the calculated maximum rate of $14.56—this
corresponds to an increase of 16.7% over the current monthly rate of $12.48. Table 1
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 3 of 4
summarizes the calculation of the proposed Maximum Permitted Rate, comparing each cost
component to the prior year's rate calculation.
Table 1: The Maximum Permitted Basic Cable Rate
Monthly Basic Cable Cost Component Current Rate Proposed Rate
(per subscriber) (2004-2005) (2005-2006)
Base Rate $11.8198 $11.8198
Inflation for True-Up Period [included in base] $0.2688
Inflation for Projection Period $0.1994 $0.1756
Current Markup Method(Channel Additions) $0.1900 $0.1900
Channel Movement(from Basic to Expanded) $0.0000 $0.0000
True-Up Adjustment ($0.2186) ($0.0106)
External Costs $0.9289 $0.9551
A. Maximum Permitted Base Rate $12.92 $13.40
plus: Form 1235 Network Upgrade Capital Costs $1.16 $1.16
B. Total Maximum Rate Allowed $14.08 $14.56
C. Operator-Selected Basic Cable Rate from FCC Rate Filing $12.48 $14.56
D. Current Basic Cable Rate as of 1/1/2005 $12.48
The overall increase in the cost basis for the Maximum Permitted Rate is a result of the
elements described below:
• Inflation: The base rate is adjusted for cost inflation both in the true-up period (the current
year) and in the projection period (the coming year). The operator applied an inflationary
adjustment of 2.3% during the true-up period, and used the FCC's current inflation factor of
1.5% to project new cost changes. These inflation factors appear consistent with other
consumer price indices used nationwide, and are comparable local inflation factors.
Inflationary adjustments add slightly more than forty-four cents to the base rate.
• True-Up Adjustments: As described, the true-up adjustment is an annual evaluation of the
actual cost recovery performance of the current rate. If the operator did not collect enough
revenue to meet its Basic Cable costs, subscribers will reimburse the operator for the deficit
through their new rates; if the operator collected too much revenue, the new rates will reflect
a reimbursement to subscribers for the over-collection during the prior year.
While evaluating its costs and revenues, Comcast found a cost recovery surplus totaling
approximately $2,160. The true-up adjustment must refund this amount through a rate
credit of about one cent, given the revenue surplus mentioned above and the estimated
number of subscribers (17,040). This represents an increase of about twenty-one cents to
the comparable adjustment (a decrease in the size of the credit) included in the current
year's rate.
• External Costs: This component includes programming costs, copyright fees, regulatory
commission fees, and the operator's allowed 7.5% profit markup, all of which are passed
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 4 of 5
through to the subscribers in the Basic Cable rate. Note that this component does not
include any utility taxes that may also be passed through directly to subscribers. The
external cost component of the current MPR ($0.9289 per month) is based on an allocation
of $196,838 in external costs to an estimated 17,659 subscribers-Comcast expects the
total external costs to decrease by about 0.78% over the projected period. However, the
projected subscriber base in this year's Form 1240 is about 3.5 percent lower than the
projected customer base used to derive the current rate-given this, the net result is an
increase of about 2.82% in the external cost component for the proposed MPR.
Equipment and Installation Charges
Comcast uses FCC Form 1205 to update its equipment and installation charges, based on the
company-wide costs that it incurs. Section 76.924 of FCC rules permits the cable operator to
utilize an independent sampling of franchise cost structures as the basis for company-wide
equipment and installation charges. As a consequence of this method of estimating aggregate
costs, there are no franchise-specific fees-all Comcast subscribers pay equal charges for
equipment and installation activities. Table 2 summarizes the current and proposed equipment
and installation charges:
Table 2: Maximum Permitted Equipment and Installation Charges
Type of Service Current Charges Maximum Operator-Selected
Permitted Charge Charges
Hourly Service Charge $28.49 $37.14 $28.49
Install-Unwired Home(Aerial within 125 feet) $43.99 $51.34 $43.99
Install-Prewired Home(Aerial within 125 feet) $27.99 $32.72 $27.99
Install Additional Outlet-Connect Initial $13.99 $17.11 $13.99
Install Additional Outlet-Connect Separate $21.99 $26.30 $21.99
Other Install-Relocate Outlet $18.99 $23.44 $18.99
Other Install-Upgrade(non-addressable) $15.99 $18.27 $15.99
Other Install-Downgrade(non-addressable) $10.99 $14.37 $10.99
Other Install Upgrade/Downgrade(addressable) $1.99 $1.99 $1.99
Connect VCR-Connect Initial $5.99 $8.55 $5.99
Connect VCR-Connect Separate $12.99 $16.76 $12.99
Remote Control(All Units) $0.30 $0.28 $0.25
Converter Box(Basic Service Only) $1.18 $1.47 $1.18
Converter Box(All Others,Excluding HD) $4.80 $4.83 $4.80
Converter Box(HD, DVR&HDDVR) new $11.37 $6.45
CableCARD (N/A) $1.22 new
Customer Trouble Call $19.99 $24.74 $19.99
A benefit of this company-wide averaging of costs is that the cable operator can phase in
technological changes without causing spikes in subscriber fees. It is important to understand
that as with any fee based on statistical sampling and cost aggregation, franchises with lower-
than-average costs effectively subsidize franchises with higher-than-average costs. The
method implicitly creates local inequities in that franchise-specific costs may not directly relate
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 5 of 5
to the charges imposed in that area. In its oversight of this process, the FCC allows this
practice to continue.
The cost aggregation method of devising charges makes it difficult to sufficiently audit the
calculation of the proposed charges on Form 1205. A detailed review and verification of the
cost basis may be more expensive to a franchise than is practical—however, the charges
proposed for subscribers in Renton have been cross-checked with fees proposed in the rate
filings of several other local franchises to confirm that Comcast has allocated its expected
equipment and installation costs consistently across franchises.
Cable operators have historically charged fees below the established limits, as these fees are
closely linked to the operator's promotional activities. Given this, it is reasonable to expect that
Comcast will implement charges that are below the ceilings established by FCC Form 1205.
Conclusions
Having reviewed FCC Form 1240, we conclude that Comcast has complied with FCC
requirements in calculating its Maximum Permitted Rates. As of July 1st, 2005, Comcast may
set a maximum rate of $14.56, which corresponds to an increase of about 16.7% over the
prevailing monthly rate of $12.48. The overall increase in the Maximum Permitted Rate is
caused by the fact that growth in the local subscriber base has been slower than expected (and
as a result there are fewer ratepayers), though there is also a slight increase in total costs (likely
due to inflation). In addition, the current rate of $12.48 per month is lower than the MPR
calculated in last year's filing ($14.08); in fact, the proposed MPR of $14.56 is only 3.4% higher
than the current MPR. Given that Comcast has indicated that it intends to charge the maximum
allowable rate, customers in Renton can expect to see an increase of 16.7% in their Basic
Cable bill effective July 1st.
Given the charges shown in Table 2, it appears that Comcast is not proposing any material
changes to its equipment and installation charges aside from adding a couple of new equipment
items. Comcast is within the limits that Form 1205 imposes on equipment and installation
charges.
It has been a pleasure once again providing this review for the City of Renton. Please feel free
to contact us at (253) 833-8380 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Lynne Hurd
President
3H Cable Communications Consultants
1// gayt 'i eerfictildie
daa
*OVI 7/7
deze-0-04--0-4-d*
fruemd-41
aelt
&(-41
/M4clla We-tiod
If
Vi/12,774-'
el- ke4.4 . 1
71r1A-a,e :
ealtek" .ALA
2044,1eut,6 Gd19- 91,1FA
: 0252 goo e- „szezad Er-a."4.4i
ftc6i,Awttte) 4-efiv--&t
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Pepper, Robbin" <Robbin_Pepper@cable.comcast.com>
Date: 11/10/2006 3:17:49 PM
Subject: Renton FCC Form 1235
Robbin,
Attached please find a letter dated November 10, 2006.
Mike
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 UBS Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 ext. 2
M/(651) 592-7472
F/(651) 379-0999
CC: "Marty Wine" <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>,
"Warren O'Hearn" <wohearn@hotmail.com>, "Stephen Guzzetta" <guzzetta@BradleyGuzzetta.com>
Fil
}
4
Fes"` 11 ! .
•.-:, - • ,..
• ! November 10, 2006
' i VIA U.S. MAIL &E-MAIL
Bradley - Ms. Robbin A. Pepper
Guzzetta, I,I.0 Director, Rates &Regulatory
Comcast West Division
950 UBS Plaza 183 Inverness Drive West
444 Cedar Street Englewood, Colorado 80112
Saint Paul,MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 Re: City of Renton,Washington Information Request
F/(651)379-0999 Concerning FCC Form 1235 Filed March 1, 1999
Attorneys at Law
Michael R.Bradleyt Dear Ms. Pepper:
Stephen J.Guzzetta*
Brian F.Laule We are in receipt of your letter dated October 6, 2006, replying to the
Legal Assistants September 28, 2006, data request issued by the City of Renton, Washington (the
Thomas R.Colaizy "City") concerning the preliminary FCC Form 1235 (the"Preliminary Form
Joseph Krueger 1235") filed with the City by Comcast of Washington IV, Inc. ("Comcast") on
March 1, 1999. In your letter, you state Comcast will not respond to the City's
Of Counsel data request. As you know,the information solicited in the City's data request
Thomas C.Plunkett is needed to evaluate Comcast's network upgrade add-on for purposes of
Gregory S.Uhl determiningwhether the total basic service rate proposed byComcast(including
J.David Abramson p p
the allocated portion of the network upgrade add-on) is reasonable and
consistent with Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") rules and
decisions. To date, Comcast has not provided any legitimate basis for refusing
to respond to the September 28, 2006, data request. To the extent Comcast
continues to refuse to provide the requested information,the City will proceed
with developing a final FCC Form 1235 for Renton based on the "best
available" information.
Before addressing the points raised in your October 6 correspondence,the City
hereby notifies Comcast that it has not filed a final FCC Form 1235 with the
City, even though such a form has been requested by the City and is required by
FCC orders and the instructions to the Form 1235. In particular, the filing
instructions for FCC Form 1235 state that"[i]f the pre-approval option is
exercised,the operator must file the form again following the end of the month
in which upgraded services become available and are providing benefits to all
customers of rate-regulated services in the filing entity, using actual costs where
applicable." See FCC Form 1235, Instructions for Completion of Abbreviated .
Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network Upgrades,Purpose and Filing
Instructions, at 2. The FCC has clearly and unequivocally interpreted this
language to mean that"[w]hen . . . [a network] upgrade is complete, operators
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
Ms. Robbin A. Pepper
November 10,2006
Page 2 of 4
using . . . [the] phased-in approach must refile the form [1235] using the actual costs where
possible and substituting actual costs for the projected costs in the pre-approval filing."1 The
Preliminary Form 1235 filed with the City was clearly marked as a"pre-approval filing,"2 which
included only projected upgrade costs for the network upgrade that was ongoing at the time.
According to the Preliminary Form 1235,the entire upgrade was to be completed by June 1999
(three months after the filing was made with the City).3 A final FCC Form 1235 should therefore
have been filed with the City in July 1999, in accordance with the FCC's Form 1235 instructions.
To date, no final Form 1235 has been provided to the City. Consequently, a final FCC Form
1235 using actual costs must be filed with the City no later than close-of-business on Monday,
November 27, 2006.4 The City will then review the final FCC Form 1235 to determine whether
refunds and prospective rate reductions are appropriate.
Comcast has indicated that it believes the City has no jurisdiction to review the Preliminary
Form 1235. That conclusion is erroneous, as the FCC's Form 1235 decisions5 and the Form
1235 itself anticipate that local rate regulation authorities will examine and compare a final
Form 1235 with a preliminary Form 1235. Thus,the City retains jurisdiction over the
Preliminary Form 1235 until it has completed its analysis of Comcast's final Form 1235,which
form has yet to be filed, and taken any necessary action.
Comcast also believes the City cannot toll its review of Comcast's Preliminary Form 1235 and
final FCC Form 1235 because 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(a)-(c) is inapplicable to the FCC Form 1235.
The FCC's rules, however, make clear that the rate review process set forth in § 76.933(a)-(c) is
applicable to Form 1235 abbreviated cost-of-service filings. In particular, 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(b)
states that a local rate regulation authority may toll its review of a"cost-of-service showing"
pursuant §§ 76.937(c) and 924 of the FCC's rate regulation rules. Section 937(c)provides that a
cost-of-service filing must be utilized when a cable operator wishes to charge a rate for basic
service that exceeds its maximum permitted benchmark rate. The Form 1235 is used for that
specific purpose, as it allows cable operators who qualify to impose a network upgrade add-on
charge on top of their maximum permitted basic service rate. Accordingly,the Form 1235
See, In the Matter of Mountain Cable Company d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, et al.: Appeal of Local
Rate Order of the Public Service Board State of Vermont,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd. 11807,
11811-12(Rel.July 22, 1999). See also Marcus Cable Partners, LLC: Appeal of Local Rate Order Issued by the
City of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 8794,8797(Rel.May 15,
2000).
2 See Preliminary Form 1235 at 1.
3 See Preliminary Form 1235,Attachment 1.
4 As you know,this form was originally requested in the City's September 28,2006,data request.
5 See, e.g.,In the Matter of Mountain Cable Company d/b/a Adelphia Cable Communications, et al.: Appeal of
Local Rate Order of the Public Service Board State of Vermont,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd.
11807, 11811-12(Rel.July 22, 1999)and Marcus Cable Partners, LLC: Appeal of Local Rate Order Issued by the
City of Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 8794, 8797(Rel.May 15,
2000).
6 See FCC Form 1235,Instructions for Completion of Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network
Upgrades,Purpose and Filing Instructions,at 2.
7 See, e.g.,In the Matter of MCC Iowa, LLC d/b/a Mediacom: Appeal of Local Rate Order,Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 19 FCC Rcd. 1065, 1068(Rel.Jan.22,2004)("[t]he requirement than an operator fully use its
Ms. Robbin A. Pepper
November 10, 2006
Page 3 of 4
reflects the FCC's mandate in § 76.937(c). Moreover,the instructions for the Form 1235 make
clear the form is to be prepared in accordance with the cost allocation provisions of 47 C.F.R.
§ 924.8 As importantly,the FCC has clearly stated that its Form 1235 is a cost-of-service
showing that is to be prepared consistent with cost-of-service principles and accounting
practices.9 Accordingly,the FCC Form 1235 is in fact a cost-of-service filing for purposes of
47 C.F.R. § 76.933(a)-(c), and Comcast's Preliminary Form 1235 and any final Form 1235 are or
will be subject to those provisions, which imbue the City with authority to toll its review and to
order refunds and/or prospective rate reductions with respect to Comcast's Preliminary Form
1235 and final Form 1235. Contrary to Comcast's claims, the applicable procedures for acting
on the Preliminary Form 1235 and any final Form 1235 have not yet been completed because
Comcast has not yet submitted a final FCC Form 1235 to the City for review.
Comcast further posits that the annual rate adjustment scheme set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)
is applicable to its Preliminary Form 1235. Such a legal position, however, is untenable. First,
the network-upgrade add-on,which was established in the FCC's 1994 Cost of Service Order,
pre-dates the annual rate adjustment method established by the FCC on September 22, 1995.
This means 47 C.F.R. § 933(g),which sets forth procedural requirements for the annual filing
system, cannot possibly apply to a network upgrade add-on. Second, 47 C.F.R. § 933(b)
explicitly encompasses the abbreviated cost-of-service showing reflected in the Form 1235, as
discussed above. Finally,the FCC,when it incorporated the FCC Form 1205 into the annual rate
adjustment process, did not include the Form 1235, even though it could easily have done so.io
This evidences the FCC's intent to exclude abbreviated cost-of-service filings under FCC Form
1235 from the annual filing process (which makes sense, because they are covered by 47 C.F.R.
§ 76.933(a)-(c)).
benchmark rate prior to recovering the network upgrade add-on is consistent with the view that it is only to be used
if the benchmark rate alone is insufficient.")and In the Matter of Bresnan Communications Company: Petition for
Reconsideration,Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd. 15230, 15231-32(Rel. Sept.7, 1999)("[o]ur requirement
that Operator fully use its benchmark rate prior to recovering the network upgrade add-on is consistent with our
views and reasoning in developing the FCC Form 1235. It is only to be used if the benchmark rate alone is
insufficient."). See also 47 C.F.R. §76.922(j)(5)("[c]able operators that undertake significant upgrades shall be
permitted to increase rates by adding the benchmark price cap rate to the rate increment necessary to recover the net
increase in cost attributable to the upgrade.").
8 See FCC Form 1235,Instructions for Completion of Abbreviated Cost of Service Filing for Cable Network
Upgrades,Purpose and Filing Instructions,at 3 ("[t]he cost assignments and allocations reflected on the worksheets
shall be made in accordance with the provisions in§76.924(f)of the Federal Communications Commission rules.").
See also 47 C.F.R. §76.922(j)(4)("[c]able operators seeking a rate increase for network upgrades shall allocate net
cost increases in conformance with the cost allocation rules as set forth in§76.924.").
9 See In the Matter of Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act
of 1992: Rate Regulation and Adoption of a Uniform Accounting System for Provision of Regulated Cable Service,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,9 FCC Rcd.4527,4674-76(Rel.March 30, 1994)
(the"Cost of Service Order")(referencing the"general cost-of-service standard that only used and useful property
should be included in the ratebase"and specifying that an"operator must also allocate the net increase in costs in
conformance with the cost allocation rules for cost-of-service showings,to assure that only costs allocable to
regulated services are imposed on subscribers to those services").
10 See, e.g.,47 C.F.R. §933(g)-(h)and 47 C.F.R.§76.922(e)(1).
Ms. Robbin A. Pepper
November 10,2006
Page 4 of 4
Regardless of whether the annual rate adjustment process or the cost-of-service filing procedures
apply to Comcast's Preliminary Form 1235 and final Form 1235 (as prepared by Comcast or the
City), the City may, at a minimum, order prospective rate reductions based on its review of those
forms notwithstanding the City's separate review of Comcast's current FCC Form 1240.11 To
complete its review, and ascertain whether any prospective rate reduction or other action is
warranted with respect to the FCC Form 1235 filings, the City requires all the information
requested in its September 28, 2006,data request. Comcast is therefore directed to respond
completely to the September 28 information request, as required by 47 C.F.R. § 76.939 and FCC
precedent. All responses should be provided to the City no later than close-of-business on
Monday,November 27, 2006. If Comcast fails to furnish requested data,the City reserves its
right to establish rates based on best available information. In addition,the City reserves all
other rights and remedies it may have with respect to the regulation of Comcast's basic service
rate and network upgrade add-on.
Very truly yours,
BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC
V'etei7
Michael R. Bradley
c. Ms. Marty Wine
Ms. Bonnie Walton
Mr. Warren E. O'Hearn
Mr. Stephen J. Guzzetta
See, e.g., In the Matter of TCI Cablevision of Oakland County,Inc.: Appeal of Local Rate Order of the
Intergovernmental Cable Communications Authority,Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd.2542,2544
(Rel.March 1, 1996)("a franchising authority's failure to issue a tolling order or an accounting order does not result
in a loss of its general authority to regulate rates"and a franchising authority"limy still prescribe rates and order a
prospective rate reduction.");In the Matter of Chillicothe Cablevision, Inc. d/b/a Dimension Cable Services: Appeal
of Local Rate Order of the City of Washington Court House,Order, 10 FCC Rcd.6055,6056(Rel.March 14, 1995)
("[a]franchising authority that does not issue an accounting order before its allowable period of review expires may
still prescribe rates and order a prospective rate reduction.");and In the Matter of Bresnan Communications
Company: Complaint Regarding Cable Programming Services Tier and Petition for Reconsideration,Order on
Reconsideration and Rate Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 19615 (Rel.Sept. 18, 1998)(rate regulation authority may review
prior rate forms and"flow through"corrections to current forms).
From: Marty Wine
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 7/20/2006 5:05:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: cable franchise renewal - baton-passing &team meeting
Bonnie, I would like to hear from you what services from the B&G team affect you most. I am going to call
Mike Bradley tomorrow and ask for another status report to begin to prepare for the Aug 7 meeting, and I
need to get the City team together. George's note below is a concern to me- about what progress has
been made if one of the subs is not on contract yet. I'd welcome your thoughts about this contract and our
renewal next time we talk.
Thanks
Marty
>>> George McBride 07/18/06 3:55 PM >>>
marty, i hope i didn't miss the appointment but my early understanding was that one of the consultants
would be here the first week of August to begin the system technical review. we have also scheduled that
same consultant to begin work for the valley cities initiative at the same time. in speaking with dick from
CBG, he indicated that he does not yet have a contract from our consultant, B&G yet. this means that
they, CBG, can not begin their work of contacting comcast for data to be used during the technical review
stage and will now perhaps have to postpone the work.
anyway, this all came up during our discussion on the valley cities issues and i thought you might want to
know about it. thanks, gm.
>>> Marty Wine 7/10/2006 9:08 PM >>>
Hi all, attached is the briefing that Linda referenced below with a status report from Mike Bradley. This
helped me to get up to speed on our renewal status (I understand we're on step 3 and will pick up there in
August)and I'd welcome any background information you each may have to-offer about the renewal
process and what Renton's interests are. I would like to schedule a meeting among us, so look for a
Groupwise invitation from me for late next week.
Thanks- more soon.
Marty
x6526
>>> Linda Herzog 06/30/06 2:11 PM >>>
You may be wondering what's happening with the cable franchise renewal contract. Well, here's a brief
update . . .
Our new Asst. CAO Marty Wine will be taking over responsibility for management of the cable franchise
renewal effort under contract to Bradley& Guzzetta. Bonnie will, of course, continue to deal with Bradley&
Guzzetta on all the"daily franchise administration"and customer service aspects of the contract. Marty
and I will have a phone meeting with Mike Bradley on Thursday or Friday of next week, to be sure all of
Marty's questions are answered at the outset.
Mike Bradley will prepare a status report summarizing the work completed to date, and looking forward to
the next.phase. We'll distribute Mike's report when it comes in, likely mid-next week.
Marty will want to pull the in-house team together before August 7, so be on the look-out for a meeting
invitation from her. On the evening of Aug. 7 Mike Bradley and Dick Nielson will do a presentation to
Council at the opening of the Council meeting. Mike will describe the status of the contract work, and
introduce Nielson & his phase of the work.
The next day,Aug. 8, Mike and Dick will want to meet with our in-house work group. To prep for that
meeting you will want to read Bradley's status report(forthcoming) and review the materials in the "Cable
Franchise Renewal Workbook"you received back in March.
Last words from me: Thank you all for working so cooperatively with me over the past year. I've very much
enjoyed my time here, and have come to love this community as I'm sure you do. Best to all of you for
continued success!
Linda
ON BEHALF,� OF THE CITY OF RENTON
B37.
Title:hc5 tc UgMW i (* t
Date:11 2 /200
f b
ON BEHALF OF BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC
By:
Title:
Date:
ON BEHALF OF FRONT RANGE CONSULTING,INC.
By:
Title:
Date:
5
From: Marty Wine
To: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 10/23/2006 12:25:41 PM
Subject: Fwd: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
George, Bonnie,
Would like your review and comments on the attached - I am still reviewing & haven't yet scheduled time
to discuss w/Mike Bradley.
Thanks.
Marty
x6526
>>>"Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 10/17/06 10:06 PM >>>
Let's schedule some time to discuss. Let me know what your schedule looks like.
Mike
From: Thomas Robinson [mailto:robinson@cbecommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Connie Ledoux Book Ph. D.; 'Dick Nielsen'
Subject: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest Survey
Importance: High
Mike: Attached is a draft of the Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey, for your and the City's review. Let me know if it needs any modifications. If so, Connie and I will
make the necessary adjustments and send back a final version for approval before going forward. Issues
&Answers is ready to put the survey into pre-test as soon you and the City are satisfied with the survey
instrument. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom
REVIEW DRAFT 1
RENTON,WA
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY CABLE TELEVISION-RELATED
ATTITUDE AND OPINION SURVEY
INTRODUCTION: Hello, this is_ . I'm calling on behalf of the City of
Renton. Comcast is seeking renewal of its cable television franchise in Renton. As part of that
process, the City is gathering information from residents about the cable television service they
receive. Your responses will remain anonymous and will only be reported as part of a larger
group. Would you be willing to spend some time answering questions about Comcast cable
television service in Renton?
QUALIFIER:
Do you make or share equally in the decision as to whether your household subscribes to cable
television?
YES NO
(Could I speak to the person in your household who
does make or participate equally in that decision?)
IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, THEY MAY CALL Contact Name Inserted
AT
1a. First, may I verify that your household is located in Comcast's service area in Renton?
1. Yes, Renton
2. Other - Thank you and end.
lb. How old are you?
a. 18 -25
b. 26 - 35
c. 36 - 45
d. 46 - 65
e. 66 and older
2. Does your household currently subscribe to cable TV?
1. YES -> SKIP TO Q.6 2. NO -> CONTINUE
3. Have you ever subscribed to cable service from Comcast?
1. YES —> SKIP TO Q.5 BELOW 2. NO -> CONTINUE
REVIEW DRAFT 2
4. For what reasons have you never subscribed to cable TV service from Comcast?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED. AT END GO TO Q21).
a. Not available
b. Cost
c. Satellite Subscriber
d. Don't Want/Don't Watch TV
e. Very Dissatisfied Reputation of Cable Company
f. No time to watch TV.
5. Why did you stop subscribing to Comcast's service?
(DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. PROBE AND CLARIFY FULLY. ESTABLISH
NEW CATEGORIES AS NEEDED.)
a. Programming Issue
b. Cost
c. Service Issue
d. Satellite Subscriber
e. Moved
f. Other
SKIP TO Q.20b
6. How many years have you subscribed to cable service in Renton?
YEARS
7. Which of the following level of cable service do you subscribe to? (READ EACH
LEVEL OF SERVICE)
a. Limited Cable, contains only local broadcast, local access channels and a few
cable network, costs about $14 a month and has 32 channels.
b. Basic Cable service that costs about$46 a month and has about 75 channels
c. Expanded Cable serve that costs about $47 a month and has about 85 channels,
plus several music channel offerings and some on demand programming.
d. Digital cable packages, the cost between $60 and over$100 a month and can have
more than 200 channels with an interactive remote control that provides program
information, music channels and on demand programming.
8. Which of the following additional services offered by Comcast do you subscribe to?
a. Premium channels, such as HBO or Showtime YES or NO
b. High Definition Television Service YES or NO
c. Digital Video Recorder YES or NO
d. Comcast High Speed Internet YES or NO
REVIEW DRAFT 3
9. How much is your total monthly cable bill on average, including all services and fees?
10. Information about cable TV programming is available from a variety of different
sources. Which one source of information do you use most often to find information
about programming on cable channels? (DO NOT READ. CIRCLE ONE).
1. The TV section of the daily newspaper.
2. The TV program book placed in the Sunday paper.
3. A cable guide provided by the cable company.
4. TV Guide Magazine
5. Inserts in my cable television bill.
6. Interactive Remote Control with Digital Cable
7. TV Guide Channel (Channel 74)
8. I surf the channels.
9. Other:
10. Don't Know
11 a. My next few questions are about your cable operator, Comcast. Overall,how satisfied are
you with your current cable service? READ LIST)
1. Very Satisfied -* SKIP TO Q.12a
2. Somewhat Satisfied}
3. Somewhat Dissatisfied} CONTINUE
4. Very Dissatisfied}
5. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know - SKIP TO Q.12a
1 lb. For what reason are you not"Very Satisfied" -- that is, what could Comcast do better, to
make you consider an improved rating?
(DO NOT READ. ATTEMPT TO PLACE RESPONSE WITHIN ESTABLISHED
CATEGORY. CODE TOP THREE RESPONSES IN ORDER MENTIONED.
THESE CATEGORIES SHOULD CAPTURE RESPONDENTS IN THEIR OWN
WORDS)
a. OPEN CODE
REVIEW DRAFT 4
12a. Now I'm going to read you a list of cable TV service features. For each one I read,
please rate your cable television as Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. The first one is . . . (INSERT ITEM, STARTING AT
"X") Overall, how satisfied are you with(ITEM), Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied, or Very Dissatisfied? (ASK FOR EACH ITEM, REPEATING
SCALE AS NEEDED).
Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Don't
Satisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Know
A The picture quality 1 2 3 4 5
B The sound quality 1 2 3 4 5
C The reliability of your cable 1 2 3 4 5
service
D The repair service provided 1 2 3 4 5
by the cable company
E Your ability to get through to 1 2 3 4 5
the cable company on the
phone
F. The diversity of cable 1 2 3 4 5
channels offered
G The variety of cable 1 2 3 4 5
packages offered for
subscription
12b. In the past year, have you had any significant problems with reception, such as with
picture or audio quality? YES (Go to Q12c) NO (Go to 13a or Q14)
12c. If YES: Have you had significant reception problems constantly, every few days, a few
times a month or rarely?
1. Constantly
2. Every few days
3. A few times a month
4. Rarely
5. Don't Know
12c. On which channels do you most frequently experience reception problems?
© FIRST REFER TO Q6, IF RESPONDENT HAS HAD CABLE TV AT CURRENT
ADDRESS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR, SKIP TO Q14. ALL OTHERS ANSWER
Q13a.
13a. My next few questions are about the service you receive from Comcast's representatives
when they have visited your home.
REVIEW DRAFT 5
When you scheduled your home visit, did the Comcast customer service representative
offer you a four hour window when the installer would meet you at your home?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Remember
13b. Overall, how satisfied were you with the following'aspects of the service provided by
Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat
Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The available times for installation or service
b. The arrival time of the service technician.
c. The ability of the technician to explain your subscribing options.
d. The ability of the technician to demonstrate how to use your cable service.
e. The professionalism of the technician.
f. The ability of the technician to complete the installation with an acceptable level
of disruption to your property.
g. The ability of the technician to complete your request during their first visit.
•
ASK EVERYONE
14. My next few questions are about your satisfaction with how well Comcast communicates
with you. Overall, how satisfied are you with the following aspects of communication
provided by Comcast? Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied,
Somewhat Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW
OPTION)
a. The ability of Comcast to explain and address billing questions.
b. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding programming changes.
c. The ability of Comcast to inform YOU regarding rate changes.
d. The friendliness of Comcast's employees.
e. The ability of Comcast to resolve your problem.
15. During just the past year, have you visited a local Comcast office for any reason other
than installation?
1. YES --> CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.16A
3. DON'T REMEMBER--> SKIP TO Q.16A
REVIEW DRAFT 6
15a. How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your visit to Comcast's office?
Please indicate a rating of Very Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Somewhat Dissatisfied or
Very Dissatisfied. (WILL PROVIDE DON'T KNOW OPTION)
a. The location of Comcast's office? (Closest office is in Bellevue. Three full service
payment centers in Redmond).
b. The hours Comcast's office was open?
c. How your requests or questions were handled by Comcast?
16a. Now, I'm going to ask you about any phone contacts you may have had with Comcast.
During the past year, have you called Comcast for any reason other than installation?
1. YES --> CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.17a
3. DON'T REMEMBER} - SKIP TO Q.17a
16b. For what reason(s) have you called the Comcast office during the past year? (DO NOT
READ LIST. PROBE AND CLARIFY. CIRCLE ALL MENTIONS).
A. CABLE OUTAGE/LOSS OF SIGNAL
B. SIGNAL QUALITY PROBLEMS (PICTURE, SOUND)
C. BILLING QUESTIONS
D. TO CHANGE TYPE OF SERVICE SUBSCRIBED TO (ADD/REMOVE
CHANNELS)
E. TO CHANGE NUMBER OF TV SETS CONNECTED TO CABLE
F. ORDER PAY-PER-VIEW EVENT
G. REQUEST ADDITIONAL PROGRAMMING (CHANNEL OR PROGRAM)
H. REQUEST CABLE MODEM SERVICE
I. PROBLEM WITH MY CABLE MODEM SERVICE
J. DON'T KNOW/DON'T REMEMBER
K. ADD NEW CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED
16c. When you called Comcast's office:
Did you get a busy signal before you got through?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
16d. Was your call answered, including any time you were left on hold, within 30 seconds by
a Comcast customer service representative?
1. Yes
2. No •
3. Don't Remember(DON'T READ)
REVIEW DRAFT 7
16e. When you spoke with the customer service representative, overall how satisfied were you
with the following:
The helpfulness of the customer service representative?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16f. The ability of the customer service representative to satisfactorily address the reason you
called?
a. Very Satisfied
b. Somewhat Satisfied
c. Somewhat Dissatisfied
d. Very Dissatisfied
e. Don't Know (DON'T READ)
16g. If your call or visit to Comcast was to report a problem or request service, how long after
your contact did Comcast begin working on the problem?
Would you say...
a. The Same Day Reported
b. The Next Business Day
c. Days Later
d. About a week.
e. About a month.
f. Problem never resolved.
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
ASK EVERYONE
17a. If something happened and you were not satisfied with the service provided by Comcast
and were not able to work out a resolution with Comcast, what would you do? DO NOT
READ CATEGORIES.
1. File a complaint with Comcast.
2. Call an elected official.
3. Call the Federal Communications Commission, FCC
4. Disconnect service
5. Contact the City of Renton
6. Subscribe to a satellite service
7. Other
8. Don't Know
REVIEW DRAFT 8
17b. My next few questions are about cable signal outages. During the past year,have you
ever lost your entire cable signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more when you still
had electricity?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO} SKIP TO Q.18A
3. DON'T KNOW} - SKIP TO Q.18A
17c. During the past year, can you estimate how many times you've lost your entire cable
signal for a period of fifteen minutes or more?
NUMBER OF SERVICE OUTAGES IN THE PAST YEAR
17d. Did you contact Comcast's office to alert them to the outage(s)?
1. YES --> CONTINUE 2. NO -> SKIP TO Q.18a
17e If YES, was the customer service representative aware of the outage prior to your call?
1. YES - CONTINUE 2. NO —> CONTINUE
17f. How long did it take Comcast to restore your cable service? Would you say they restored
service . . . (READ LIST)
a. Within four hours of the outage (Go to Q18a)
b. The same day the outage was reported (Go to Q18a)
c. The Next Business Day (Go to Q18a)
d. Days Later
e. About a week
f. About a month
g. Don't Know/Can't Remember(DON'T READ)
17g. Did you receive a credit on your cable bill from Comcast for the amount of time you
went without cable television service?
a. YES
b. NO
c. Don't Know
ASK EVERYONE
18a. My next few questions are about some different types of cable channels or services that
may or may not be important to you. First, how important is it that you receive local
broadcast channels, like KIRO, the CBS affiliate, or KOMO, the ABC affiliate, as a part
of your cable subscription? Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER
Q.18.A)
REVIEW DRAFT 9
18b. Our nation's over-the-air local broadcasters have almost completed their transition from
an analog broadcast to a digital broadcast. As part of that transition some programs will
be available in high definition TV and other broadcasters will carry multiple channels.
How important is it to you that Comcast makes the digital programming of local
broadcasters available to you over cable? Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD
UNDER Q.18.B)
18c. How important would it be for you to have local emergency information available over
the cable system, such as local disaster alerts and weather emergency information?
Would you say . . . (READ LIST. RECORD UNDER Q.18.C)
Categories Q18A Q18B Q18C
Very Important 1 1 1
Important 2 2 2
Somewhat Important, or 3 3 3
Not at All Important 4 4 4
(DO NOT READ) DON'T KNOW 5 5 5
18f. Is there any type of programming or channel not currently available from Comcast that
you would like to see added to your cable television line-up?
18g. The cable company currently sets aside a portion of its channels to be used by the people
and organizations within Comcast service area. These channels are currently used by
local producers, educational organizations and the City of Renton. Some of the programs
you see on these channels include city council meetings, courses at the community
college, election forums with candidates, and religious programming. Are you aware of
these local access channels on your cable channel line-up?
a. YES
b. NO (Go to Q 20)
c. Don't Know (Go to Q 20)
18h. When considering the total time you spend watching these channels each week,which
statement best describes how often you watch local access programming, such as the
City's Channel 21, the College Channel on Channel 28 and Puget Sound Access on
Channel 77? Would you say you watch these local access channels 9
a. More than 5 hours per week. (GO TO Q 18i)
b. Less than 5 hours per week,but on a weekly basis. (GO TO Q18i)
c. Once or twice per month. (GO TO Q18i)
d. Once or twice a year. SKIP TO Q19q
d. Never } SKIP TO Q19q
e. Don't Know } SKIP TO Q19q
.R,
REVIEW DRAFT 10
18i. I want you to consider the programming you've seen on the City's Channel 21. This
channel cablecasts the city council meetings, the magazine program CityView and posts
information about local events. Please rate the following areas on a scale of excellent,
good, fair or poor.
Government Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channel
A City of Renton's, Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
picture quality
B City of Renton's Channel 21, 1 2 3 4 5
sound quality
C The programming on 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 21's informational
value.
D The informational value of the 1 2 3 4 5
readerboard on Channel 21
18j. Now consider the quality of the community access programs on Comcast, Channel 77.
Puget Sound Access. This channel cablecasts community productions like political
forums with the candidates,religious programming and shows by TV Toastmasters.
Community Access Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't Know
Channels
A Puget Sound Access, Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's picture quality
B Puget Sound Access, Channel 1 2 3 4 5
77's sound quality
C The informational value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
D The entertainment value of 1 2 3 4 5
Channel 77's programming.
REVIEW DRAFT 11
19. Considering the programs that appear on local Channels 21 and 77, as well as the State of
Washington's public affairs Channel 23 and The College Channel on Channel 28, I'm
curious about which programs you think our community needs more of, has the right
amount of or has too much of. Consider each category of programming and let me
know what you think. (READ CATEGORIES FOR A,B and C)
a. Minority focused programming.
b. Art and Culturally focused programming.
c. K-12 Educational programming.
d. Higher Education,University Programming
e. Local business programming.
f. Library information programs.
g. Local government programming.
h. Community or Neighborhood News.
i. Local sports coverage.
j. Programs in Foreign Languages
k. Local children's programming.
1. Informational programs about recreational activities.
m. Police and fire safety programming.
n. Freeway traffic information.
o. Religious programming
p. Is there any other local programming you have an interest in receiving?
Categories:
1. Needs more of
2. Has the right amount
3. Has too much of
19q. Puget Sound Access operates the local access studio and provides media training for local
residents.
Are you aware of these opportunities?
YES or NO (Go to Q20)
19r. Have you ever used Puget Sound Access TV studio, portable equipment or taken part in
access training or an access program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know (Go to Q20)
REVIEW DRAFT 12
19s. How would you rate the Puget Sound access facility and services in the following areas...?
Please rate each characteristic using a scale of EXCELLENT, GOOD, FAIR, POOR,
DON'T KNOW OR NOT APPLICABLE.
1. The location of the Puget Access Sound facility.
2. The quality of the equipment available for check-out at the facility.
3. The opportunity for video training provided by Puget Sound Access.
4. The quality of the video instruction provided by Puget Sound Access.
5. The quality of the studio at the facility.
6. The quality of the editing equipment at the facility.
7. The availability of the studio to you.
8. The availability of equipment for check-out by you.
9. The availability of editing equipment.
10. The friendliness of the staff at Puget Sound Access.
11. The hours the facility is open.
12. The playback of your programming on channel 77.
20. Would you be interested in taking part in a local access television program?
1. Yes
2. No (Go to Q20b)
3. (DO NOT READ) Don't Know
20a. How would you be interested in participating? (DO NOT READ LIST. CREATE
CATEGORIES AS MENTIONED.)
1. Produce a program
2. On-Air talent
3. Run camera
4. Other(DO NOT READ, LIST)
20b. Is there anything else you would like to say about cable television service provided by
Comcast? (OPEN-ENDED)
Background Questions
21. Do you own or rent your home? 1. OWN 2. RENT 3. REFUSED
22a. Do you have a personal computer in your home?
Yes or No (SKIP to Q23)
IF YES,
How many ?
REVIEW DRAFT 13
22b. How do you currently access the Internet from home?
a. Dial up modem
b. DSL
c. COMCAST Cable Modem
d. Wireless Internet Provider
e. Other(DO NOT READ, LIST)
23. Do you currently have children under age 18 in your household?
1. YES 2. NO 3. REFUSED
24. What is your race or ethnic background?
a. African American
b. Asian
c. Caucasian
d. Hispanic
e. Native American
f. Biracial
g. Other
25. And which of the following broad categories best describes your total annual household
income,before taxes? (READ LIST)
1. Under$25,000
2. $25,000 to less than$35,000
3. $35,000 to less than$50,000
4. $50,000 to less than$75,000
5. $75,000 to less than$100,000
6. $100,000 or more
7. (DO NOT READ) REFUSED/DON'T KNOW
Those are all my questions. My supervisor may wish to verify that I conducted this
interview. For this reason only, may I please have your first name or your initials?
FIRST NAME: And may I also verify that I reached you at
(NUMBER)?
•
Thank you very much for your time.
26. RECORD GENDER: 1. MALE 2. FEMALE
From: Marty Wine
To: Bradley, Michael
Date: 10/23/2006 12:49:24 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey
Hi Mike,
Here are some comments and thoughts in markup and comment mode after just briefly reviewing this
document. I have routed this draft to George and Bonnie for their comments and to determine the timing
of the valley cities survey, if it's moving. I thought we were going to have a more general discussion about
what we want from this survey.
A note about our sample-would it be useful to survey outside the city if possible, in our PAAs, or to mine
King County's survey data for their problems?They may have different service needs in the future than
our current city. Not sure if this is advisable, but if we renew based on today's service base, we may seek
help in areas that look like the problems of today, when our new neighborhoods, once annexed, may have
problems they are experiencing under the County's franchise.
What is the time from pre-test to topline results? Is the plan to complete surveying before the end of the
year?What's the target#of households?-could you or Connie please send me a survey design and plan
so we know what to expect?
Thanks. I will convey Bonnie & George's comments to you as well. My best time to talk this week is any
morning before 9 my time except Wednesday.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
>>>"Michael Bradley"<bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 10/17/06 10:06 PM >>>
Let's schedule some time to discuss. Let me know what your schedule looks like.
Mike
From: Thomas Robinson [mailto:robinson@cbecommunications.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Connie Ledoux Book Ph. D.; 'Dick Nielsen'
Subject: Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest Survey
Importance: High
Mike: Attached is a draft of the Renton Residential Community Cable Television-related Needs & Interest
Survey, for your and the City's review. Let me know if it needs any modifications. If so, Connie and I will
make the necessary adjustments and send back a final version for approval before going forward. Issues
&Answers is ready to put the survey into pre-test as soon you and the City are satisfied with the survey
instrument. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom
CC: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
CITY OF RENTON.
11 ® ♦ City Clerk
�O� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
N .
December 15, 2006
King Parker.
4601 NE 24th St:
Renton, WA 98059
Re: Puget Sound Access Board of Directors Resignation
Dear Mr. Parker:
Three years ago this month, former Mayor Jesse Tanner nominated you for membership
on the Puget Sound Access(PSA)Board of Directors as the City of Renton -
representative. Since then your service.on the PSA Board has contributed to:the success
of the new studio, ensuring that community access television is available to all residents
of the six South King County member-cities.
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for serving as a PSA Board member.
Your knowledge and ambassadorship in representing the City of-Renton are greatly ,
appreciated.
You are wished continued happiness and rewards in your retirement from the PSA Beard.
Happy Holidays!
•
Sincerely,.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
bw
cc:, Mayor Kathy Keolker
Members,°City Council "
Jay Covington;•CAQ
E N 'a LEI
: 1055 South Grady:Way-Renton,'Washington. 9.8057-(425)430-6510/FAX
(425)430-6516 ;
O�cY 0 ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
` `� ` Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 18, 2006
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: King Parker's Resignation from the PSA Board of Directors
Former Councilmember King Parker resigned from the Puget Sound Access (PSA)Board of
Directors after representing the City for nearly three years. At my request, and after completion
by the PSA Board of a revision to their Bylaws, I was supplied by PSA with their form for use in
nominating a new City of Renton representative.
Section 6 of the City's contract agreement with Puget Sound Access, (CAG-01-088) addresses
PSA Board of Directors nominations. I am enclosing copy of that section, as well as the
nomination form for your review and use. The form should be completed by the person or
persons the City would like to represent Renton on the Board. After completion of the form,
copy should be made for City files and the original should be mailed to PSA at the address
written on the form.
I would be happy to provide further assistance or information if needed.
bw
Attachments
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
SECTION 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PSA:During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall select at least one(1) employee,representative,or agent to nominate for
service on the Board of Directors of PSA. Upon approval of such nomination and
election of such nominee by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA, such Director shall take office at the time
and on the date specified by the Board of Directors of PSA and shall continue in office
for a term of two (2)years and thereafter until his or her successor has been elected and
has qualified or until his or her earlier death,resignation,retirement, disqualification, or
removal unless such Director shall have been elected to fill an unexpired term of a
directorship left vacant or unless such Director is designated as a member of the first
regular Board of Directors of PSA serving an initial term of only one(1) year. The City
shall have the right to notify the Board of Directors of PSA of its desire to remove a
Director nominated'for such service by the City,and the Board of Directors of PSA
agrees to consider such request at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors. If
any such Director is removed by the Board.of Directors.of PSA in accordance with its
articles of incorporation and bylaws,the City shall have the right to nominate a successor
for such Director who may be elected by the Board of Directors in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA and this Section 6.
";--- - -- . ;,..'L. ,,, 22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
s ,: )A, Kent WA 98032
,'.cif: ,k4`..:-.,,, SYa E:l
,f:
4,, soun ac cess.o
uge . , Dun PSA Board Membership Application
Aches `
Name:
Complete Business Address:
Complete Home Address:
Work Phone: Home Phone:
E-Mail: Fax:
Please check all boxes representing your skills and prior experience:
[ ] Television production [ ] Strategic planning
[ ] Fundraising and fund development [ ] Nonprofit management
[ ] Human resources [ ] Public relations and marketing
[ ] Finance and trust management [ ] Legal issues
[ ] Media literacy and technologies [ ] Arts and culture
[ ] Community development [ ] Free speech and democracy issues
[ ] Volunteer development and management [ ] Other:
Please mention any specific relevant education and/or employment:
Please mention any memberships and volunteer involvement in
charitable/professional/community organizations:
Membership on any City, County, or State boards or commissions, and dates of terms:
Please describe your interest in serving on the PSA Board of Directors, and if you have
any specific goals you would like to see accomplished during your service.
Personal Information (OPTIONAL):
PSA is looking for a diversity of backgrounds on its Board of Directors. The information
you furnish here will assist in this goal and is voluntary on your part.
[ ] Native American [ ] Hispanic Latino Birth Date:
[ ] African American [ ] Caucasian Sex: Male_ Female
[ ] Asian American [ ] Other: Disability:
References: Please list two people, not related to you, who have known you for at least
one year.
1) Phone:
2) Phone:
The Board currently meets on a quarterly basis on Wednesday evenings at 6pm.
Committee meetings are held monthly and are scheduled at the discretion of the
committee chair. If this schedule does not work for you, please list two days of the
month (i.e. First Tuesday, Third Thursday) and times that would work better:
Please return completed application form
Puget Sound Access
c/o Keri Stokstad
22412 72nd Ave. S
Kent, WA. 98032
For more information, please call Keri Stokstad at (253) 479-0200, or email at
keri@pugetsoundaccess.orq.
Applicant's signature: Date:
o ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
•41k, re Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 18, 2006
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: King Parker's Resignation from the PSA Board of Directors
Former Councilmember King Parker resigned from the Puget Sound Access (PSA)Board of
Directors after representing the City for nearly three years. At my request, and after completion
by the PSA Board of a revision to their Bylaws, I was supplied by PSA with their form for use in
nominating a new City of Renton representative.
Section 6 of the City's contract agreement with Puget Sound Access, (CAG-01-088) addresses
PSA Board of Directors nominations. I am enclosing copy of that section, as well as the
nomination form for your review and use. The form should be completed by the person or
persons the City would like to represent Renton on the Board. After completion of the form,
copy should be made for City files and the original should be mailed to PSA at the address
written on the form.
I would be happy to provide further assistance or information if needed.
bw
Attachments
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
Marty Wine, Assistant CAO
SECTION 6. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF PSA:During the term of this Agreement,
the City shall select at least one(1) employee,representative,or agent to nominate for
service on the Board of Directors of PSA. Upon approval of such nomination and
election of such nominee by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA, such Director shall take office at the time
and on the date specified by the Board of Directors of PSA and shall continue in office
for a term of two (2)years and thereafter until his or her successor has been elected and
has qualified or until his or her earlier death,resignation,retirement, disqualification, or
removal unless such Director shall have been elected to fill an unexpired term of a
directorship left vacant or unless such Director is designated as a member of the first
regular Board.of Directors ofPSA serving an initial term of only one(1)year. The City
shall have the right to notify the Board of Directors of PSA of its desire to remove a
Director nominated for such service by the City,and the Board of Directors of PSA
agrees to consider such request at the next regular meeting of the Board of Directors. If
any such Director is removed by the Board of Directors of PSA in accordance with its
articles of incorporation and bylaws,the City shall have the right to nominate a successor
for such Director who may be elected by the Board of Directors in accordance with the
articles of incorporation and bylaws of PSA and this Section 6.
•
fr
1'
22412 72nd Ave S. Bldg C
.
Kent WA 98032
pugetsoundaccess.org
Pu a M iuii+
P 2 p a PSA Board Membership Application
Name:
Complete Business Address:
Complete Home Address:
Work Phone: Home Phone:
E-Mail: Fax:
Please check all boxes representing your skills and prior experience:
[ ] Television production [ ] Strategic planning
[ ] Fundraising and fund development [ ] Nonprofit management
[ ] Human resources [ ] Public relations and marketing
[ ] Finance and trust management [ ] Legal issues
[ ] Media literacy and technologies [ ] Arts and culture
[ ] Community development [ ] Free speech and democracy issues
[ ] Volunteer development and management [ ] Other:
Please mention any specific relevant education and/or employment:
Please mention any memberships and volunteer involvement in
charitable/professional/community organizations:
Membership on any City, County, or State boards or commissions, and dates of terms:
Please describe your interest in serving on the PSA Board of Directors, and if you have
any specific goals you would like to see accomplished during your service.
Personal Information (OPTIONAL):
PSA is looking for a diversity of backgrounds on its Board of Directors. The information
you furnish here will assist in this goal and is voluntary on your part.
[ ] Native American [ ] Hispanic Latino Birth Date:
[ ] African American [ ] Caucasian Sex: Male_ Female
[ ] Asian American [ ] Other: Disability:
References: Please list two people, not related to you, who have known you for at least
one year.
1) Phone:
2) Phone:
The Board currently meets on a quarterly basis on Wednesday evenings at 6pm.
Committee meetings are held monthly and are scheduled at the discretion of the
committee chair. If this schedule does not work for you, please list two days of the
month (i.e. First Tuesday, Third Thursday) and times that would work better:
Please return completed application form
Puget Sound Access
do Ken Stokstad
22412 72nd Ave. S
Kent, WA. 98032
For more information, please call Ken Stokstad at (253) 479-0200, or email at
keri(a,pugetsou ndaccess.orq.
Applicant's signature: Date:
From: "Larry Warren" <ljwarren@seanet.com>
To: "'Marty Wine"' <mwine@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/27/2006 10:54:05 AM
Subject: RE: Renton I-Net Memorandum
Marty, I have been over this issue several times. What is new, in my
recollection, is mention of two letters from TCI to the then city clerk in
late 1998 and early 1999 referring to the city owned I-net. Without those
letters, all we had was one sided city documents i.e. Committee of the Whole
and Council minutes. With just those council documents it was our word
against theirs.
Even now, this is not an easy case to win. We need to make a business
decision whether or not it is worth the cost of a suit to try and secure
title to these assets. I have no idea what the value would be of the I-net.
I would guess that attorney's fees would be at least$50,000 and maybe more
depending on circumstances. Let's presume the city has a 60% chance to win.
Without factoring in staff time, if the I-net is worth more than $100,000,
then a business case can be made to file the suit.
Perhaps we need to meet internally to gauge sentiment and test recollection
and then meet with Mike Bradley.
Original Message
From: Marty Wine [mailto:mwine@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 4:54 PM
To: ljwarren@seanet.com
Cc: Bonnie Walton; George McBride; Michael Bailey; Neil Watts
Subject: Fwd: Renton I-Net Memorandum
Attached is a memo from Mike Bradley regarding the institutional network and
its status and relevance given current cable franchise negotiations. He
specifically requested your review of this, Larry, then we should have a
franchise renewal discussion about it within Renton regarding our
negotiating strategy. Could you each please review and comment as relevant
to you and relay your comments to me in the next week or two and we can
proceed once we have all reviewed? Thanks.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton,WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'George McBride"'
<Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Michael Bailey' <MEBailey@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Neil Watts"
<Nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: Marty Wine
To: ljwarren@seanet.com
Date: 11/26/2006 4:53:42 PM
Subject: Fwd: Renton I-Net Memorandum
Attached is a memo from Mike Bradley regarding the institutional network and its status and relevance
given current cable franchise negotiations. He specifically requested your review of this, Larry, then we
should have a franchise renewal discussion about it within Renton regarding our negotiating strategy.
Could you each please review and comment as relevant to you and relay your comments to me in the next
week or two and we can proceed once we have all reviewed?Thanks.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
CC:
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us,mebailey@ci.renton.wa.us,gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us,nwatts
@ci.renton.wa.us
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Marty Wine" <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/21/2006 7:58:09 AM
Subject: Renton I-Net Memorandum
Marty,
We have put together a memo addressing the ownership of the Renton
I-Net. The gist of the memo is that the City has legitimate claims
relating to ownership of the I-Net, but there are significant statute of
limitations concerns (i.e. the City could be time-barred if it does not
act quickly). I would ask that you review the memo and forward it to
the Larry for his review. I'm sure Larry will have very valuable input
to this given his experience with Washington law. We are not licensed
attorneys in Washington. I would then like to have a meeting on this
with you, Larry and perhaps Jay to discuss options and strategy in early
December. Please let me know what you think.
Mike
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 UBS Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 ext. 2
M/(651) 592-7472
F/(651)379-0999
CC: "Stephen Guzzetta" <guzzetta@BradleyGuzzetta.com>
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
MEMORANDUM
To: Ms. Marty Wine •
Ln Ms. Bonnie Walton
From: Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
Bradley& Re: City of Renton I-Net Ownership
Guzzetta, C.,I..0 Date: November 20, 2006
950 UBS Plaza INTRODUCTION
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The City of Renton, Washington (the"City") has asked whether it or Comcast of
P/(651)379-0900 Washington IV, Inc. ("Comcast") owns the fiber-optic system(the"Institutional
F/(651)379 0999 Network" or"I-Net") constructed pursuant to Section I of the December 23,
Attorneys at Law 1997 "Agreement Between TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. and the City of
Michael R.Bradleyt Renton—Extension of Certain Franchise Provisions" (the"Franchise Extension
Stephen J.Guzzetta* Agreement"). To address this question,we have reviewed the following
Brian F.Laule documents: (i) Ordinance No. 4412 (the "Franchise Agreement"); (ii) Ordinance
Legal Assistants No. 4413 (the "Master Cable Ordinance"); (iii) the Franchise Extension
Joseph Krueger Agreement; (iv) the Committee of the Whole Committee Report(Sept. 8, 1997);
Thomas Colaizy (v)the Renton City Council Minutes for the Meeting of September 8, 1997; and
(vi) numerous other agreements, documents and e-mails furnished by the City.
Of Counsel Based on our review of the foregoing materials, we believe the City could argue
Thomas C.Plunkett
Gregory S.Uhl in good faith that it owns the I-Net under a variety of legal theories, which are
J.David Abramson discussed below,provided it acts before any applicable statute of limitations has
expired, and provided that there is fully developed factual record that supports
one or more of the legal theories set forth in this memorandum.
BACKGROUND
Comcast's authority to utilize the City's public rights-of-way to construct,
maintain and operate a cable system is generally set forth in the Franchise
Agreement and the Master Cable Ordinance. The compensation owed to the
City for Comcast's use of public rights-of-way is delineated in the Franchise
Agreement,the Master Cable Ordinance,the Franchise Extension Agreement
and various other documents, which are not germane to the I-Net ownership
issue.
The City adopted and approved a Franchise Agreement with TCI Seattle,Inc.,
Comcast's indirect predecessor in interest, on August 9, 1993. The Franchise
Agreement became effective on or about September 13, 1993. Among other
things,the Franchise Agreement specified that"[u]pon completion of the cable
system upgrade, the Operator's system shall have the capability of bi-directional
Institutional Networks for educational and public safety communications . . .
Prior to implementation of any such service the Operator may request a public
hearing by the City Council, to discuss the benefits of said features to the citizens
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
'Also admitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
of the City . . . [T]he City Council may require the implementation of such features in accord
with the provisions of this agreement." See Section 8 of the Franchise Agreement. The cable
system upgrade was to be completed by September 13, 1997, which meant that I-Net capabilities
were to be available no later than that date.
On the same date the City adopted the Franchise Agreement, it enacted the Master Cable
Ordinance.' This ordinance does not contain a specific institutional network requirement, but
does define the term"institutional services." According to the Master Cable Ordinance,
"institutional services" are defined as "a cable communications system designated principally for
the provision of non-entertainment services to schools,public agencies or other non-profit
agencies, separate and distinct from the subscriber network, or on secured channels of the
subscriber network."2 When read together, § 8 of the Franchise Agreement and § 5-17-1(w)
countenance the existence of a dedicated institutional network in the City, which network is to be
provided by the franchised cable.operator.
By 1997, it had become clear that TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc. ("TCI"),the franchise
holder at the time, would not be able to complete the system upgrade and related obligations by
the deadlines established in §§ 5 and 7 of the Franchise Agreement. TCI would therefore be
subject to significant penalties pursuant to § 16 of the Franchise Agreement,unless the
September 13, 1997 deadline was extended. TCI therefore requested a 24-month extension of
the deadline to meet its obligations under §§ 5, 7 and 8 of the Franchise Agreement. In exchange
for granting the extension and in lieu of paying penalties, TCI agreed to provide the City with
certain in-kind compensation and benefits. Both parties engaged in negotiations concerning the
precise terms under which an extension would be granted. One such term was TCI's agreement
to install a fiber-optic system to eighteen City facilities that"will be owned by the City . . ."3
The agreed upon settlement terms were taken up by the Committee of the Whole of the Renton
City Council. In a Committee Report dated September 8, 1997,the Committee of the Whole
stated that"[i]n lieu of paying penalties, TCI has agreed to provide the following in-kind
considerations to the City of Renton in exchange for extension of the franchise .. . Within 24
months, TCI shall provide a separate City-owned fiber optic cable system connecting eighteen
City facilities to a hub located at the new Municipal Building . . ."4 (Emphasis added). The
Committee of the Whole ultimately recommended"approval of the proposed agreement with
TCI Cablevision outlined above . . ."5 At its September 8, 1997 meeting,the Renton City
Council concurred with and adopted the Committee of the Whole's recommendation, and
authorized the execution of the Franchise Extension Agreement.6
Renton,Wash.,Ordinance No.4413 (as noted above)(August 9,2003).
2 See Renton,Wash.,Master Cable Ordinance§ 5-17-1(w).
3 See Memorandum from Marilyn Petersen to Gregg Zimmerman concerning"Fiber Optic Conduit"(Sept. 16,
1997).
4 See Committee of the Whole Committee Report(Sept. 8, 1997).
5 Id.
6 See Renton City Council Minutes for the Meeting of September 8, 1997.
2
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
On December 23, 1997,the City and TCI entered into the Franchise Extension Agreement,
which extended the September 13, 1997 deadline until September 13, 1999, and required TCI,
among other things,to construct a fiber-optic I-Net for the City. Specifically, TCI agreed:
to provide a separate fiber optic cable to be separately hung or
attached to TCI systems, all connected to a hub at the Renton
Municipal Building, located at Main Avenue South and Grady
Way, to . . . [eighteen specified locations.] . . . Where available
and where capacity exists, TCI is authorized to utilize City-owned
underground conduit.8
Pursuant to § I.B. of the Franchise Extension Agreement, the "City shall be responsible for the
ongoing maintenance of this fiber optic system" and or furnishing"[a]11 electronics required to
put the system in operation . . ."9 TCI, on the other hand, "is responsible for supplying and
installing the specified fiber to the specified locations only."10 TCI did, at times, refer to the I-
Net as "City I-Net" fiber and did indicate that it would "turn I-Net structure over to the City of
Renton."11
On January 4, 1999,the City approved a request to transfer control of the franchise from Tele-
Communications, Inc., TCI's parent corporation,to AT&T Corp.12 As a condition of the City's
transfer approval, TCI, as a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T Corp., agreed to continue to
comply with the Franchise Agreement,the Master Cable Ordinance and any amendments
thereto, which would presumably include the terms of the Franchise Extension Agreement. The
City worked with TCI to construct the fiber-optic institutional network and to make City-owned
conduit available.13 It appears, in at least some cases,that I-Net fiber was installed in separate
sheaths (i.e., it was not installed in the same sheaths as Comcast's cable system) and that City
conduit was used.14 This seems to have been necessitated, at least in part, by the fact that TCI
would not include its fiber in conduit owned by another entity (presumably for security
reasons).15 However, there is evidence that suggests that some I-Net facilities in certain areas
are, in fact, included in the same sheath as Comcast facilities.16
During the course of construction,the City added sites to the Institutional Network(over and
above the original eighteen sites that were designated) and paid Comcast's predecessors to
City of Renton,Franchise Agreement Extension §I.
8 City of Renton,Franchise Agreement Extension§I.A.
9 See City of Renton,Franchise Agreement Extension§§I.B. and I.C.
10 City of Renton,Franchise Agreement Extension§I.C.
11 See Letter from Sean Bristol to Marilyn J.Petersen concerning"City I-Net"(Dec. 18, 1998)and Letter from Sean
Bristol to Marilyn J.Petersen concerning"City I-Net"(Jan.27, 1999).
12 See City of Renton,Resolution No.3368.
13 See, e.g.,Memorandum from George McBride to Karl Hamilton,et al.,concerning"AT&T Fiber Network
Maintenance Agreement"(July 11,2002).
14 See Internal City Notes dated April 1,2002.
IS See, e.g.,Memorandum from George McBride to Karl Hamilton,et al.,concerning"AT&T Fiber Network
Maintenance Agreement"(July 11,2002).
16 See E-mail from Hans Hechtman to George McBride(July 17,2002)("The map will not show shared sheath
verses [sic] separate,but should have all the other information your[sic] are requesting.").
3
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
extend fiber lines to certain sites, including Fire Station#12 and Fire Station#13. Based on
documentation furnished by the City, it appears TCl/AT&T Broadband was paid $11,500 to
install fiber to Fire Station #12 and approximately $10,000 to extend fiber to Fire Station#13
(because that station would not be connected to the King County I-Net).17 It also appears that at
least one of the original I-Net sites was deleted.'$
The fiber I-Net was tested at the City's direction, and test results were approved by the City
before the acceptance and use of the network.19 It appears that the fiber-optic institutional
network was completed in 1999. According to the City, the completed I-Net"is a mix of. . . [the
cable company's] cable in their conduits and overhead, and City owned conduit."20 Per the
Franchise Extension Agreement, the City has generally performed its own I-Net maintenance on
a time and materials basis.21
Beginning in late 2001 early 2002, the issue of I-Net ownership arose. At that time, TCI claimed
that it owned the fiber-optic facilities comprising the institutional network. The City has
consistently maintained that it owns the I-Net pursuant to the terms of the Franchise Extension
Agreement. The City and TCI were never able to resolve the ownership issue.
On June 24, 2002,the City approved a request to transfer control of the franchise from AT&T
Corp. to Comcast Corporation pursuant to Resolution No. 3575. That resolution conditioned
approval of the change in control upon TCI's compliance with"all valid local laws, franchise
requirements and agreements consistent with applicable federal and state law . . ."22 It appears
that Resolution No. 3575 would include compliance with the Franchise Extension Agreement.
Thus, Comcast should be bound by the terms and conditions of the Franchise Extension
Agreement pertaining to the fiber-optic institutional network. To date,the City and Comcast
have been unable agree on who owns the fiber-optic cables installed in accordance with the
Franchise Extension Agreement.
ANALYSIS
In this memorandum, we address certain legal theories and strategies which the City should
consider with respect to the I-Net ownership issue. This memorandum is not intended to be an
exhaustive explication of legal issues and causes of action, and it may be updated to reflect new
or revised facts and additional legal theories that may be developed after discussions with the
City.
12 Internal City Notes dated July 25,2002,and March 26,2003.
18 See Letter from Marilyn Petersen to Sean Bristol concerning"City of Renton I-Net"(Jan.5, 1999).
19 See, e.g.,Memorandum from George McBride to Karl Hamilton,et al., concerning"AT&T Fiber Network
Maintenance Agreement"(July 11,2002).
20 See Memorandum from George McBride to Bonnie Walton,et al.,concerning"Comcast/I-Net Ownership&
Maintenance"(July 7,2003).
21 Id.
22 See City of Renton Resolution No.3575.
4
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
A. Statute of Limitations
In pursuing the I-Net ownership claim,the City would most likely seek a declaratory ruling from
a state or federal court, asking a court to interpret the Franchise Extension Agreement in the
City's favor. Generally, a cause of action for declaratory relief does not accrue until there is
a justiciable controversy.23 One leading authority has stated: "that until there is a dispute as to
the making or interpretation of a contract, no right to maintain a declaratory action has accrued.24
Since the parties have expressed their differing interpretations of the Franchise Extension
Agreement to one another on the ownership of the I-Net, it appears there is a justiciable
controversy. Once there is a justiciable controversy, an action for declaratory judgment must be
brought within a reasonable time,which is generally measured by an analogous statute of
limitations.25 In this instance,the analogous statute of limitations would seem to be for breach of
contract. While RCW 4.16.160 generally provides that a municipality is subject to the same
limitations period as a private party, it does not always apply and the City could argue that it
does not apply in this instance.26 Reliance on such an argument is too much of a gamble in our
view and is not recommended. Additionally, as an equitable action, declaratory relief is subject
to the defense of laches (inexcusable delay causing prejudice to the other party).27 Therefore,
diligent pursuit of this claim is highly recommended.
Turning to the analogous breach of contract statute of limitations, under Washington law, "[a]n
action upon a contract in writing, or liability express or implied arising out of a written
agreement"must be"commenced within six years,"28 unless certain exceptions apply. For
instance, "[a]n action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within four years
after the cause of action has accrued."29 Typically,the statute of limitations for contract claims
begins to run when a party knows, or in the exercise of due diligence should know, of the other
party's breach.30 However, the statute of limitations applicable to contracts of sale begins to run
"when the breach occurs, regardless of the aggrieved party's lack of knowledge of the breach."31
The statute limitations for all claims or causes of action of any kind against any person arising
from the construction or repair of any improvement upon real property is six years and begins to
run "after substantial completion of construction or during the period within six years after the
termination of the services[,] . . .whichever is later."32
23 See Walker v. Munro, 124 Wn.2d 402,411,879 P.2d 920(1994);WASH.REV.CODE 7.24.020(2006);54 C.J.S.
Limitations of Actions§ 109,pp. 11-14(1948).
24 1 Anderson,Declaratory Judgments,§ 341,p.783 (2nd Ed. 1951).
25 See City of Federal Way v. King County,62 Wn.App.530,537,815 P.2d 790(1991);Neighbors&Friends of
Viretta Park v. Miller,87 Wn.App.361,372,940 P.2d 286(1997),review denied, 135 Wn.2d 1009,960 O.2d 937
(1998).
26 See Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. City of North Bonneville, 113 Wn.2d 108, 112,775 P.2d 953,955 (1989)(statute of
limitations did not apply to a municipality collecting B&O taxes in a sovereign capacity).
27 See Hsieh v.State of Wash. Dept. of Ecology,2001 Wash.App.LEXIS 3, 11 (2001).
28 See WASH.REV.CODE§4.16.040(2006).
29 See WASH.REV.CODE§62A.2-725(1)(2006).
30 See, e.g.,Architechtronics Constr. Mgmt. v. Khorram, 111 Wn.App.725,45 P.3d 1142(Wash.Ct.App.2002);
Parkridge Assocs. v. Ledcor Indus., 113 Wn.App.592,54 P.3d 225 (Wash.Ct.App.2002);and Tahoma Sch. Dist.
#409 v. Burr Lawrence Rising&Bates,2002 Wash.App.LEXIS 1483 (Wash.Ct.App.2002).
31 See WASH.REV.CODE§62A.2-725(2)(2006).
32 See WASH.REV.CODE§§4.16.300 and 4.16.310(2006).
5
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
The Franchise Extension Agreement and the Franchise Agreement, which obligated TCI to
construct the fiber I-Net, are written contracts. Accordingly,pure contract claims arising out of
those agreements are subject to the six year statute of limitations and must be brought within that
time period. For breach of contract actions,the 6-year statute of limitations is initiated when the
City knew, or in the exercise of due diligence, should have known of Comcast's breach of the
Franchise Extension Agreement and/or Franchise Agreement. It appears that the City became
aware of the I-Net ownership issue at the end of 2001 or at the beginning of 2002. Thus,to the
extent that Comcast's continued failure to turn ownership of the I-Net over to the City is a
violation of the Franchise Extension Agreement(and possibly the Franchise Agreement),the 6-
year statute of limitations may have been running for approximately five years on the
concomitant breach of contract claim. It is therefore important for the City to confirm precisely
when it became aware, or should have become aware, of the ongoing I-Net ownership dispute.
If the Franchise Extension Agreement is deemed a contract for sale,the 4-year statute of
limitations may be ready to expire or may have already expired, assuming the breach of contract
began in late 2001 or early 2002. It is possible that the breach began as early as 1999, when the
I-Net was completed but ownership arguably never vested in the City, based on Comcast's (and
its predecessors') continued claims that the fiber-optic institutional network was only constructed
for the City's use. Under such circumstances,the statute of limitations expired long ago.
Consequently,the City may want to avoid characterizing the Franchise Extension Agreement as
a contract for sale. It is possible that the Franchise Extension Agreement could be considered a
contract for sale if it is an agreement, at least in part, for the purchase of the fiber lines installed
by the Comcast's predecessors in interest. However, it would seem more likely that the
agreement to construct the I-Net would be construed as a construction contract, rather than a
contract for the sale of goods.33
The bottom line here is that the City must act now to determine when it first knew of the
differing interpretation between the parties relating to the ownership of the I-Net and then
diligently pursue its claims. To avoid being time-barred,the City should immediately consult
with the City Attorney to determine when to file its claim.
B. Legal Theories for Establishing City Ownership of the Fiber-Optic
Institutional Network
There a number of legal theories the City could pursue to establish its ownership of the
institutional network, depending on the facts that can ultimately be proven. This memorandum
will discuss some of the options that may be available to the City; it is not intended to be an
exhaustive discussion of rights, causes of action and remedies.
33 Washington case law is clear that construction contracts are not transactions in goods. Christiansen Bros., Inc. v.
State, 90 Wash.2d 872,877,586 P.2d 840(1978)(subcontractor bid to build a roof held not to be a contract for sale
of goods),and Arango Constr. Co. v. Success Roofing, Inc.,46 Wash.App.314,730 P.2d 720(1986)(contract to
construct two buildings held to be construction contract,not contract for goods); but see Tacoma Athletic Club v.
Indoor Comfort Systems, Inc.,79 Wash.App.250,902 P.2d 175 (1995)(installation of humidification system was
sale of goods).
• 6
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
1. I-Net Facilities Purchased by the City
The materials provided by the City suggest that the City has purchased the fiber-optic
connections to certain I-Net locations, including Fire Station#1234 and Fire Station#13.
Assuming the City paid for the fiber (as well as installation services), it would certainly appear
that title to the purchased I-Net segments would have transferred to the City upon payment of the
agreed upon purchase and installation price (approximately $11,500 in the case of Fire Station
#12 and approximately $10,000 in the case of Fire Station#13). This argument would be
bolstered if the City could produce an agreement, a purchase order or written correspondence
that shows the City was paying for the actual fiber lines, as well as the installation of those lines.
For example, an itemized City purchase order accepted by Comcast(or its predecessor(s) in
interest)that lists a specific purchase price for fiber lines would likely be interpreted to vest
ownership of the lines in the City after the City has tendered payment. If there is no
documentation detailing the specifics of these types of transactions between the City and
Comcast(including its predecessors), then there is the possibility that a court could find that the
City was only paying for installation of fiber-optic facilities and/or the use of those facilities, as
opposed to ownership.
2. The Plain Language of the Franchise Extension Agreement
Under general principles of contract construction, written instruments are to be given their
ordinary and usual meaning.35 Section I of the Franchise Extension Agreement specifies that
TCI was"to provide a separate fiber optic cable"to designated City locations. According to
BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, "provide" means to "make, procure or furnish for future use,
prepare. To supply; to afford;to contribute."36 Although this definition does not specifically
address the transfer of title in personal property,the references to "supply" and"contribute"
certainly suggest that providing property to person could convey title in that property. With
respect to the Franchise Extension Agreement,there is no limitation on the provision of the fiber-
optic lines, which means TCI's agreement to "provide"the fiber lines could be broadly construed
to vest ownership of those lines in the City.
Other terms of the Franchise Extension Agreement support the conclusion that TCI's agreement
to "provide" fiber-optic cables to various City sites clearly transferred ownership of the cables to
the City once they were installed. Section I.B., for example, states that the "City shall be
responsible for the ongoing maintenance of. . . [the] fiber optic system." If the City did not own
the fiber facilities installed by Comcast's predecessors in interest, then the City would not have
agreed to maintain those facilities at its own expense. Moreover, the City would not have
permitted Comcast to utilize City-owned underground conduit to construct the I-Net, as provided
in § I.A. Perhaps the most compelling language supporting the argument that Section I of the
Franchise Extension Agreement vests ownership of the I-Net in the City is provision wherein the
34 Fire Station#12 was one of the original sites to be connected to the I-Net free of charge pursuant to the Franchise
Extension Agreement. See §I and Exhibit B of the Franchise Agreement
35 See, e.g., Ladum v. Utility Cartage,Inc.,68 Wn.2d 109, 116,411 P.2d 868,873 (1966).
36 See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 1224(6th ed. 1990).
7
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
City is responsible for furnishing all the electronics need to make the fiber system functional.37
It would certainly be reasonable to assert that the City would not have purchased equipment for a
network that it did not own, because the fiber lines and the electronics are integrally related.
Thus, there is a colorable argument that the unambiguous language of the Franchise Extension
Agreement,taken as a whole,transfers ownership of I-Net fiber to the City upon its installation.
That said, the City must be cognizant of the fact that a court might find the Franchise Extension
Agreement to be ambiguous as to the issue of I-Net ownership because the language "to provide
a separate fiber optic cable . . . to the following City locations (described in Exhibit B) . . ." could
be subject to different interpretations.38 Indeed,the City and Comcast have interpreted the
provisions of the Franchise Extension Agreement very differently when it comes to the issue of
who owns the fiber-optic institutional network. As discussed below, it may therefore be
necessary to utilize extrinsic evidence to resolve the ambiguity.
3. The Intent of the Parties to the Franchise Extension Agreement
If the Franchise Extension Agreement is ambiguous with respect to the issue of I-Net ownership,
it may be possible to rely upon parol evidence to explain the ambiguity.39 A contract"is
ambiguous when its terms are uncertain or capable of being understood as having more than one
meaning."40 Given this definition of ambiguity, it is possible that a court could conclude that the
Franchise Extension Agreement is ambiguous, because the language addressing ownership of the
I-Net(i.e., the requirement that TCI (and now Comcast)provide the City with fiber links to
designated site) is susceptible to multiple interpretations (e.g., that"provide"means transfer title
or that"provide" means to furnish for use only).
Assuming that the Franchise Extension Agreement is ambiguous,there appears to be ample
extrinsic evidence to support the City's position that it owns the fiber-optic lines installed by
Comcast's predecessors in interest. First,the Committee of Whole Committee Report41 and the
minutes of the September 8, 1997 Renton City Council meeting clearly state that TCI agreed to
provide the City with"a separate City-owned fiber optic cable system connecting eighteen City
facilities to a hub located at the new Municipal Building." After being approved by the City, this
deal point was incorporated into Section I of the Franchise Extension Agreement (albeit without
the reference to a"City-owned" system). We have not seen any evidence that would suggest
37 See§I.C.of the Franchise Extension Agreement.
38 See Ladum v. Utility Cartage,Inc.,68 Wn.2d 109, 116,411 P.2d 868, 873 (1966)(approving the definition of
ambiguity as"an uncertainty of meaning in the terms of a written instrument"and finding that a contract which was
"susceptible of two or more meanings"was ambiguous.). See also Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Burlington Northern,Inc.,
15 Wn.App.314,319,549 P.2d 54,57(1976).
39 See, e.g., Spokane Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Charles O. Malone,28 Wn.App.377,382,623 P.2d 727,730
(Wash.Ct.App. 1981)("Parol evidence is admissible to explain ambiguities or supply material omissions in a
writing.");Ranier Nat'l Bank v. Inland Machinery Co.,29 Wn.App.725,730,631 P.2d 389,393 (Wash.Ct.App.
1981)("if the language is ambiguous,it is the'duty of the court to search out the intent of the parties by viewing the
contract as a whole and considering all the circumstances surrounding the transaction,including the subject matter
and the subsequent acts of the parties.").
40 Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Burlington Northern,Inc., 15 Wn.App.314,319,549 P.2d 54,57(Wash.Ct.App. 1976)
(quoting Murray v. Western Pac. Ins.,2 Wn.App.985,989,472 P.2d 611 (Wash. Ct.App. 1970)).
41 See Committee of the Whole Committee Report(Sept. 8, 1997).
8
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
TCI challenged the City's description of the I-Net that would be constructed pursuant to the
Franchise Extension Agreement. This would make sense, because it is logical to conclude that
TCI had agreed to the I-Net requirement described in the Committee of Whole Report and the
City Council minutes before it was proposed to those bodies. Accordingly, it is possible to
conclude that both TCI and the City intended that the fiber-optic system would be owned by the
City. If this is the case, Section I of the Franchise Extension Agreement should be interpreted to
transfer title to the I-Net to the City.
Second, it appears that TCI has arguably conceded that the I-Net is owned by the City. In letters
dated December 18, 1998 and January 27, 1999, TCI refers to "City I-Net fiber" and the"City I-
Net," and states that it will "[t]urn I-Net structure over to the City of Renton for evaluation and
use." These references to City fiber and the statement that the I-Net would be turned over to the
City strongly suggest that TCI believed Renton would own the fiber lines installed under the
Franchise Extension Agreement. TCI has also indicated that it would not place fiber in conduits
owned by another entity. However, documents provided by the City show that parts of the I-Net
were in fact installed in City-owned conduit(i.e., conduit not exclusively owned or controlled by
TCI). This is an indication that TCI did not consider the I-Net to be a part of its facilities (and
conversely that TCI believed the I-Net was the property of the City).
Third, the documentation made available to us states that the City directed the testing of the I-
Net, and approved test results prior to accepting the network. These are not frequently tasks
undertaken by an entity that is a mere network"user." Last, but not least, the City has performed
almost all maintenance on the I-Net(or at least paid for outside maintenance service) since the
fiber I-Net became operational. The performance of ongoing maintenance is typically a function
associated with the ownership of an asset.
Accordingly, when the totality of circumstances surrounding the Franchise Extension Agreement
are considered, and the City actions are taken into account,there is a strong argument that the
language of the Franchise Extension Agreement must be construed to transfer ownership of the I-
Net to the City. Because this is a fact-based determination, it may be necessary to obtain
affidavits from individuals with knowledge of the Franchise Extension Agreement and the
construction of the I-Net, and to perform additional document searches.
4. The I-Net May Be a Gift from Comcast and Its Predecessors in Interest
Even if the Franchise Extension Agreement does not vest ownership of the fiber-optic I-Net in
the City, Comcast's actions may have gifted the network to the City. In the State of Washington,
the requirements for a completed gift are: (i) an intention of the donor to presently give; (ii) a
subject matter capable of passing by delivery; (iii) an actual delivery; and (iv) an acceptance by
the donee.42 Actual delivery of a gift"absolutely and irrevocably divests the donor of present
dominion and control over the property, while conferring dominion and control upon the
donee.43 A donee's acceptance of a gift is presumed absent evidence of rejection.44
42 See, e.g., Sinclair v. Fleischman,54 Wn.App.204,207,773 P.2d 101, 103 (Wash.App.Ct. 1989).
4s Id.
44 Id.54 Wn.App.at 209,773 P.2d at 104-05.
9
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
Typically,the most difficult element to establish with respect to a gift is donative intent. In the
instant case, it may be possible to establish donative intent by looking at the September 8, 1997
Committee of the Whole Committee Report and the minutes of the September 8, 1997 Renton
City Council meeting. Both of those documents show that TCI agreed to provide Renton with a
separate City-owned fiber-optic network and that the City desired to accept the I-Net as
consideration for extending the deadline to comply with certain Franchise Agreement terms. We
have not seen any evidence that suggests TCI ever challenged this characterization of the
transaction that was memorialized in the Franchise Extension Agreement. This may be because
TCI considered the I-Net to be a gift, as evidenced by correspondence dated December 18, 1998
and January 27, 1999, in which it referred to the fiber system as "City I-Net fiber."
As for the other elements of a gift, it would certainly seem that the fiber lines installed pursuant
to the Franchise Extension Agreement are tangible assets that could be delivered to the City, by
placing those assets in the City's public rights-of-way and conduits for the City's exclusive use.
In addition, it would seem that the I-Net was actually or constructively delivered to the City
when Comcast and its predecessors completed construction of the network in the public rights-
of-way and in City-owned conduit, and turned it over to the City for operation and
maintenance.45 Finally, there is strong evidence that the City has accepted the gift of the I-Net
by installing necessary electronics, and consistently utilizing and maintaining the fiber system.
As discussed above, acceptance will be presumed.
Comcast would, of course, challenge whether there was any donative intent. Comcast's primary
argument would likely be that it never intended to give the I-Net to the City, but rather only
intended to provide the City with exclusive use of the fibers it continued to own. There may also
be issues as to whether the I-Net was truly delivered to the City. With respect to delivery,
Comcast might argue that the City does not possess absolute dominion and control over the
fibers installed pursuant to the Fiber Extension Agreement. It will therefore be important for the
City to further investigate and develop facts which show that TCI intended to donate the I-Net to
the City, and that the City exercises dominion and control over the fiber-optic network.
5. Portions of the I-Net Might be a Fixture Owned by the City
According to the Supreme Court of Washington, the test for determining whether personal
property is a fixture, when there is not express agreement is: "(1) actual annexation to the realty
or something appurtenant thereto; (2) application to the use of purpose to which that part of the
realty with which it is connected is appropriated; and (3) the intention of the party making the
annexation to make a permanent accession to the freehold."46 Intent is not determined by the
actual or secret state of mind of the person making the annexation, "but is to be inferred . . . from
45 See Old Nat'l Bank& Union Trust Co. v. Kendall, 14 Wn.2d 19, 126 P.2d 603 (1942)(delivery may be manual,
constructive or symbolic)and McCarton v.Estate of Watson,39 Wn.App.358,693 P.2d 192-94(Wash.App.Ct.
1984)(no absolute rule can be laid down as to what conduct will constitute sufficient delivery to support a gift in all
cases;whether what was done was sufficient to constitute a delivery depends on the nature of the property and the
attendant circumstances).
46 Strain v. Green,25 Wn.2d 692,700 172 P.2d 216,221 (1946)(citing Filley v. Christopher,39 Wash.22, 80 Pac.
834).
10
•
• PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION
the nature of the article affixed, the relation and situation to the freehold of the party making the
annexation,the manner of the annexation, and the purpose for which it is made."47 There is
generally a presumption that"chattel"which is annexed to real property is not intended to be a
fixture.48
Based on the information furnished by the City, it may be possible to argue that the fibers
installed underground in the public rights-of-way are annexed to real property or something
appurtenant thereto (e.g., conduits and ducts).49 The fact that the conduits and duct banks in
which the fibers are located are connected to the public rights-of-way and that the fiber would be
of little value without its attachment to public rights-of-way buttresses the existence of an
annexation. There is also evidence that suggests Comcast intended to make the annexation
permanent. For instance,the Franchise Extension Agreement does not contain an expiration
date. Moreover, because the I-Net is attached to conduits, ducts and buildings, it is property that
would be impractical and difficult to remove. As importantly, the purpose of the annexation was
to benefit the City,which militates in favor of classifying the I-Net as a fixture.
Given the presumption against treating annexed property as a fixture, absent an express
agreement, it will be important for the City to produce as much evidence as possible to establish
the requisite intent. However,perhaps the most significant issue that would need to be resolved
is whether the City actually owns the public rights-of-way, and can therefore claim ownership of
a fixture in public ways.
CONCLUSION
There are a variety of legal theories the City could pursue to assert ownership over the
institutional network, assuming any applicable statute of limitations has not expired. If the City
is interested in pursuing any of the theories discussed in this memorandum,we would strongly
recommend that the City take all steps necessary to establish the factual record, which may
involve interviewing City staff and performing a detailed review of City document archives.
Additional theories and strategies may be developed, and existing theories may be changed or
dropped, if new or different facts are uncovered. Because various statutes of limitation are likely
running, the City should quickly and aggressively decide whether it wishes to pursue any claims
with respect to I-Net ownership.
As always, please feel free to call to e-mail me with any questions you might have.
47 Id.at 699.
48 Id.at 699-700.
49 It is unclear whether fibers attached to poles have been annexed to real property. More research would be
required on this particular issue.
11
Bonnie Walton.- Re: Comcast Cable Franchise Renewal and PSA Page 1
From: Marty Wine
To:
Irempher@auburnwa.gov,Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us,Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us,mcarrin
gton@ci.kent.wa.us,jroegner@ci.burien.wa.us,sward@ci.seatac.wa.us,DDrake@ci.kent.wa.us,firiarte@ci.t
ukwila.wa.us
Date: 9/5/2006 10:31:25 PM
Subject: Re: Comcast Cable Franchise Renewal and PSA •
Lorrie, both George McBride and Bonnie Walton of our City forwarded your message to me. While I'm
working in a lead role with the firm assisting us with renewal, we have a team in Renton who are working
on the renewal process and I would like to include others from the City team in such a discussion. Please
let me know what you have in mind -as you probably know, Renton is in its renewal window. We would be
interested in discussing whether a common strategy for PEG TV would be a successful approach.
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
>>> "Lorrie Rempher" <Irempher©auburnwa.gov> 08/31/06 3:06 PM >>>
Puget Sound Access Members:
I believe most of the Puget Sound Access member cities are in or near
their Comcast franchise renewal period. As each City negotiates with
Comcast, we will want to negotiate continued support for our Public,
Education and Government (PEG) TV which includes continued funding for
Puget Sound Access. I believe that we would be more successful if we
had a common strategy on this part of our renewals.
Would anyone be interested in meeting to put together a strategy for our
individual renewals as it relates to PEG?
If I have misdirected this communications for your City, please forward
to your Comcast Cable Franchise Administrator.
Thank you,
Lorrie Rempher
Information Services Director
2 First Street SE
Auburn, WA 98002
•
www.auburnwa.gov
Phone: 253-288-3160
Fax: 253-876-1920
CC: Keri@pugetsoundaccess.org,plewis@auburnwa.gov,bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
OtircY am O CITY OF RENTON
FINANCE& INFORMATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 7, 1995
TO: Jay Covington
Marilyn Petersen
FROM: Victoria A. Runkle,Administrator
SUBJECT: Video Issues
Effective immediately the Finance Department is completely out of the video business.
The Council has requested two items for next Monday that should be provided to me and
someone should be available Monday night to respond to these questions.
First, effective Monday, December 11, 1995 the Council would like the Committee of the Whole
required. I asked Tim Rassmusen if he can be available, he stated yes. Someone needs to
contact him immediately and tell him to telecast the Committee of the Whole.
Also, the Council wanted to have some questions concerning the franchise resolved. Primarily,
does the franchise require that franchise fees be dedicated to a special fund. We need to answer
this question immediately. Further, if the answer is yes, then we have some serious concerns,
and we need to discuss the answer and how to strategize the issues prior to Monday night. We
anticipate using$197,000 from franchise fees for general governmental purposes.
I will turn over the bills from Tim to Marilyn effective immediately. Tim's billing is lagging a couple
of months. I was going to call and ask him to clean this up. I would like these to be cleaned up
over the next week, and go into 1996 with no more than December outstanding.
I did speak to Lon Hurd concerning his 1995 bill. We still owe him for the final quarter. I have
asked that he send that by the 15th to this office. We will pay it in 1995. However, in 1996 the bill
should be addressed to Marilyn's office, and she will be responsible for setting up the blanket
purchase order. Account number 000.000000.005.5190.0090.49.000010 is used for this
expenditure. In. 1996 there is only $13,068 dedicated for a consultant. Any remaining funds will
be used for other needs in the Non Departmental budget. If the contract is going to be larger,
please let us know immediately.
Finally, we have not developed a budget for the cable issues. Marilyn has asked for new
equipment and additional supplies. We have budgeted $12,000 total for 1996. We would like to
see a line item budget developed now that we are entering this phase somewhat aggressively.
Thank you for bringing closure to this issue. We will no longer respond to citizen complaints or
Council questions regarding this issue. The Clerk's office will be responsible for preparing this
part of the 1997- 1998 budget.
cc: Paula Henderson
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 7, 1995
TO: Victoria Runkle, Finance Director
FROM: Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Video Issues
In response to your memorandum of December 7, 1995 regarding designation of cable
franchise fees, although the city deposited franchise fees to the cable fund until about
1990-1991, the city is not obligated by the franchise to set the fees aside, and the fees
can be used at the city's discretion for any purpose. Since 1990-1991, franchise fees
have been deposited to the general fund. About $250,000 was spent from the cable fund
for the Council Chambers remodeling project, and the fund balance is $180,000 at this
time.
On the second issue, Tim Rasmussen has been informed by this office that his services
will be expanded to cablecast Committee of the Whole meetings, and he will also
cablecast the special meeting on December 18, 1995, for the swearing in ceremony.
Regarding the equipment, $5,000 was added to the 1996 cable TV professional services
account to purchase two additional VCRs to enable pre-programming of video cablecasts
which continue to increase in volume. It has not been cost effective to reprogram the
existing two VCR's by staff several times each day. I have ordered the equipment, and
with the addition of the mounting hardware, the total is $5,276.63. I have discussed this
slight overrun with Paula. As far as I know, no additional equipment will be required.
The cost of additional video tapes and Tim's time for Committee of the Whole meetings
may increase in 1996; however, I believe that the existing budget of $12,000 will
adequately cover these extra charges.
In response to your comment about notifying you if Lon Hurd's contract will exceed
$13,068 in 1996, the answer is yes. In 1995,.Lon Hurd's contract was $15,881.00. Since
the contract has increased each year, I am assuming that 1996 will be no different.
Thank you for your memorandum. I am looking forward to this new challenge and
appreciate your assistance in the transition. Likewise, if I can help you in any way,
please give me a call.
cc: Jay Covington
. We're taking television
/ into tomorrow.
TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc.
fiifnnir'n
June 13 , 1995 4341
Mr. Phil Jewett
Information Systems Director
City of Renton
200 Mill Avenue S
Renton, WA 98055
Re: ASCAP/BMI Licenses - Your 5/3/95 letter
Dear Phil :
WOW!
I had asked ,people within our organization to research your
concerns for me. As is always the case where attorneys are
involved, I got alot of gray back and very little black and white.
Here' s what I've been able to find out.
There are two layers of licensing in terms of producers and
broadcasters. Only producers/performers are required to obtain
licenses.
The only reason TCI needs licensing at all is because it is a
producer/performer in some cases, such as LO and local advertising.
We do .not need a license for re-broadcasting of a feed from Turner
(for example) because we are not "producing" anything.
I am told that a committee of the National Cable Television
Association is negotiating with ASCAP and BMI for. performing rights
license to cover music performances on public, educational and
government access channels.
In negotiations with ASCAP and EMI for a performing rights license
for our own local productions, we agreed to include PEG uses of
music. The reasons were: (a) it didn't cost us anything; (b)
ASCAP and BMI were in favor of including it in our license to avoid
having to license every city separately; and (c) we thought it
would be good PR in our relationships with cities. Coverage of PEG
in the TCI license is a "freebie" for the cities.
Tele-Communications, Inc is participating in these negotiations on
behalf of its subsidiaries, including TCI of Washington, Inc .
South Seattle Office
15241 Pacific Hwy S.
Seattle,WA 98188
(206)433-3434
FAX(206)433-5103
Because it is generally assumed by both sides that an agreement
will eventually be reached, and that the agreement will cover
performances of music on all channels, ASCAP and BMI do not
separately negotiate with users of these channels. ASCAP and BMI
have in the past informed users . of these channels that separate
licenses are not needed because "TCI is already licensed. "
Although this is not entirely accurate, we believe that it would be
impossible for the City of Renton to obtain separate licenses.
The tentative agreements with ASCAP and BMI do not cover other
types of copyright licenses that might be required for a particular
use of music, such as a synchronizationslicense from a songwriter
for a particular composition or from a record company •for a
particular recording: Likewise, the agreements do not cover any
copyrights applicable to theatrical productions. TCI of
Washington, Inc. has no agreements regarding these types of
licenses, the requirements for which depend on the facts and
circumstances of each use of copywritten work, and generally must
be obtained on a case by case basis.
The confusing part is that the performing rights license is only
one type of copyright license. The possible variations on the
types of other licenses is highly dependent on the facts and
circumstances. TCI has no license for these types of uses. They
are obtained, if at all, on a case by case basis. A whole
different set of rules would cover recorded music. This incredible
complexity is the reason that TCI does not use popular music on LO
or in locally-produced commercials, it simply is not worth the
trouble.
The reality is that very few users of music go through all of this,
but it is technically required. We are not in a position to advise
you on what licenses might be needed -for City use, because it
entails determining who owns each type of copyright in each
situation.
Hopefully this helps. . .
Sincerely
Gary A. okenson
General Manager
r .w-.- Have you ever watched €<;l! If you do not watch RCTV ` -‘:' ! Do you think Channel 28
Channel 28? =.thhannel 28 , how do you adds to your awareness
❑ No .E ,obtain information about ' and understanding of
-', the City of Renton? ;i cit
❑ Yes, occasionally =; y/community issues?
ti
A ❑ Yes, regularly (once a week or more) ❑ Renton Reporter ❑ Yes
j ❑ South County Journal , ❑ No
t
ti ❑ Web Site (www.ci.renton.wa.us)
What do you watch? 'R ❑ Other Newspaper
:s. i4
s,N . _ (check all that apply) p ❑ Utility bill inserts What else do you want
_° ❑ Neighborhood meetings ''❑ City Council meetings
`'' to see on Channel 28?
i ❑ Puget Sound Regional Council
❑ Quarterly Recreation Brochure ' Check all that apply.
ii
❑ Community events (concerts,
❑ Other ❑ A live, call-in show with city officials
variety shows, plays) E ❑ Coverage of other Renton boards
1'. ❑ CityView (the City's quarterly 1 and commissions
magazine program) Please indicate any L! ❑ Coverage of State Legislature and/or
topicsyou want added to x KingCountyCouncil meetings
❑ Land Use Update P g
,: ❑ TV-Washington : the readerboard. -i ❑ More documentary-style programs
❑ Environmental programs ' about Renton topics
`: ❑ Disaster/Emergency Preparedness E ❑ More arts programming
fi ❑ Health/Welfare Issues °' ❑ Other
,❑ Other: i ❑ Expanded coverage of community
C5 events (please give examples below)
vi
3 Do you use the
Z F;,-, information readerboard
to access information What is your best source
about Council meetin 7,- ,,°,,
g `°_.:',Y for finding out what' s We appreciate you taking the time to respond to.
.1 agendas , job openings, i'i on. Channel 28? this survey. Please use the space below to
s
,; senior activities, Pi make further comments about Channel 28.
construction bid open-
t,i ❑ Web site (www.ci.renton.wa.us)
ings , street closures ❑ Renton Reporter
rt community events , etc. _ ❑ Schedules shown on Channel 28
4 I at the top of the every hour
ty CIYes gI ❑ Utility bill inserts
t=
,. 0 No 0 Channel surfing
TV
Hgiro
J , t,,,_
cnca .41._
W
o. ui _V Z W
p W u- F-
a1 , »^
4
Channel
Eria...commo......• E 8''12
li
_ id Viewers
Q _ Mayor
Z
Jesse Tanner ! Survey
IL—
® 1-1-1 =
w Renton We want to know how we're doing!
cc co _co City Council
a _-
Bob Edwards, President RCTV Channel 28 is the City of Renton's
p >- a: Dan Clawson cable television channel: It is dedicated to
~_ 0. o o ® � Randy Corman government programming 24 hours a day and
® te' combines coverage of local government
re -- Et: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
� w �U � 9 w � meetings, community events, a quarterly
I� coce re B Toni Nelson magazine that highlights city services and
CIO _� t. -J
Jz King Parker programs, and a bi-monthly land use update
0 —' 0 Tim Schlitzeras well as an information readerboard.
2
Zg Q ® w
Ci7 1— U t, cv OC Please help us plan future programming for
po a Y this channel by completing a short sir— y.
g
12-
U .�� Pre-paid postage has been supplied for you.
EtCf) ♦ Simply re-fold and tape as indicated on the
— — reverse side and return via mailbox.
- N
_T0 Or, drop off the survey at one
I of the following convenient locations:
ct
City of Renton
n, ® a 200 Mill Avenue South • Main Library, 100 Mill Avenue South
? b Renton, WA 98055 • Highlands Library, 2902 NE 12th Street
:° ; o • Renton Community Center, 1715 Maple Valley Hwy.
f•es1 2! RCTV Channel 28 Contact:
0 + V'' It Marilyn Petersen, City Clerk Thank you for your input.
(425) 235-2502 We value your opinions!
0 Printed on recycled paper;20% Post Consumer content
)ail2l pd4
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@BradleyGuzzetta.com>
Date: 6/30/2006 8:37:26 AM
Subject: FW: [members] Summary of Senate Markup
FYI
From: Elizabeth Beaty[mailto:lbeaty@hq.natoa.org]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 10:20 AM
To: members@lists.natoa.org
Subject: [members] Summary of Senate Markup
The audio archive of the Senate Markup is now available- and might
actually work now that thousands are not attempting to access
simultaneously. It can be located at
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.AudioVid
eo
Summary:
On June 29, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
finished its three-day long markup of the Communications, Consumers'
Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S.2686). The bill, now
re-titled the Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act
(H.R. 5252), won final Committee approval by a vote of 15 to 7.
Over 200 amendments to the bill were filed by Committee members. Many
were withdrawn, some were adopted without objection, and others were put
to Committee vote. A final version of the legislation is not yet
available and it is impossible, at this point in time, to let you know
exactly what will be included in the final version of the bill.
However, the following is a summary-and outcome - of some key
amendments taken up by the Committee. We will continue to provide you
with details of the bill once they become known.
Title III
Manager's Package No. 1 was adopted that, among other things: (1)
clarified that local franchising authorities have 90 calendar days
within which to approve a franchise application; (2) provided that any
law or regulation pertaining to managing the public rights-of-way that
was reasonable, competitively neutral, nondiscriminatory, and consistent
with State statutory police powers, would not violate the bill's
prohibition on State or local laws that may prohibit or have the effect
•
of prohibiting video service; (3) includes one-time or lump sum payments
when calculating PEG and I-Net financial support on a per subscriber
basis; and (4) protected State and local taxing authority.
Senator Ensign withdrew a number of amendments that would have weakened
local control over the public rights-of-way and would have eliminated
per subscriber PEG and I-Net financial support.
Senator Dorgan sought to strike the repeal of Section 617, which
provides for local franchising authority approval of cable system sales
or transfers. The amendment failed by a vote of 13 to 9.
Senator Boxer's amendment to preserve basic tier regulation was defeated
by a vote of 12 to 10.
Following heated debate, Senators Kerry and Boxer's amendment imposing
build-out requirements on new entrants also failed by a vote of 12 to
10. It is expected that a similar amendment will be offered if and when
the bill reaches the Senate floor.
Senator Lautenberg offered an amendment that would have permitted States
to enact consumer protection and customer services laws, with State and
local enforcement authority. The amendment lost by a vote of 12 to 10.
The Senator also proposed an amendment that would have grandfathered in
recently enacted statewide franchising schemes. The amendment failed to
pass with a vote of 14 to 7.
Senator Inouye proposed an amendment providing for a substitute Title
III. While the bill contained many provisions favored by local
governments, it was defeated along party lines with a vote of 12 to 10.
In what may prove to be one of the more problematic amendments for local
governments, Senator Ensign was successful in getting his amendment
adopted that would exclude from the definition of"video service
provider"those providing satellite service, including if such service
is "bundled with, or offered in conjunction with, an Internet access
service or other broadband capability." The amendment appears to make
Title III inapplicable to AT&T, even though Senator Stevens had
previously assured local government associations that the legislation
would cover AT&T.
Local governments won a big victory when Senator McCain's amendment
dealing with a la carte programming was defeated by a vote of 20 to 2.
The amendment would have, among other things, reduced franchise fees and
PEG and I-Net financial support.
Title VII
An amendment offered by Senator Bill Nelson dealing with efforts to
increase public awareness of the digital television transition was
adopted without objection.
Title IX
The issue of ensuring net neutrality was the subject of several proposed
amendments, including one offered by Senators Snowe and Dorgan. After
spirited debate, the amendment was defeated by a tie vote of 11 to 11.
Proponents of net neutrality promise to bring their fight to the full
Senate.
Title X
Another amendment likely to find its way to the Senate floor is one
proposed by Senators Snowe, Burns, and Dorgan that will direct the FCC
to initiate a proceeding to reconfigure the upper and lower 700 MHZ
bands. Senator Snowe characterized the amendment as one that would help
ensure service to rural areas by small operators.
Local governments were blindsided when Senator Allen's amendment making
the current moratorium on Internet access taxes permanent passed by a
vote of 19 to 3. Local government associations made it quite clear in
discussions with Senator Stevens'staff that any amendment prohibiting
state and local taxing authority would result in opposition to the
entire bill.
In what may prove to be a very interesting debate, Senator Boxer
withdrew a number of amendments dealing with disclosures and access to
wireless telephone service plans and Internet records and promised to
introduce the amendments on the Senate floor.
Title XI
Local governments took another hit when the Committee approved - by a
vote of 21 to 1, Senators McCain/Allen/Nelson/Steven's amendment to
impose a three-year moratorium on any new discriminatory tax on cell
phone services. Senator Rockefeller of West Virginia, a state heavily
dependent on cell phone services, was the lone vote against the
amendment. Local government associations have made it clear that such a
provision would result in their opposition to the bill in the event it
makes it to the floor.
CC: "Stephen Guzzetta" <guzzetta©BradleyGuzzetta.com>
INSTRUCTIONS;-ALL AREAS IN [BRACKETS] MUST BE FILLED IN. ALL AREAS IN
;GRAY ARE EXPLANATORY FOR.THE COMMUNITY(INCLUDING THESE
INSTRUCTIONS)AND SHOULD BE DELETED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION.OF THE
COMMENTS, SEE ATTACHED DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO FILE T
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of )
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No. 05-311
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer )
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 )
COMMENTS OF [NAME OF COMMUNITY]
These Comments are filed by [Name of Community] in support of the comments filed by
the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA"). Like
NATOA, [Name of Community] believes that local governments can issue an appropriate local
franchise for new entrants into the video services field on a timely basis, just as they have for
established cable services providers. In support of this belief, we wish to inform the
Commission about the facts of video franchising in our community.
[IF IN YOUR COMMUNITY A CABLE FRANCHISE„GOES BY ANOTHER NAME; SUCH AS
:"LICENSE," :STATE. SOMETHING LIKE THE 'FOLLOWING] In our community a cable
"franchise" is termed a . The Federal Cable Act refers to this as a "franchise" so we will
use that term in these comments. Also, many communities have a cable ordinance which
operates in conjunction with the franchise agreement, the terms of which are often negotiated
with the cable company in conjunction with the franchise agreement. These documents
collectively referred to as the "franchise" below.
Cable Franchising in Our Community
Community Information
[Name of Community] is a [city/county/town, etc.] with a population of . Our
franchised cable provider(s) is/are [name of cable provider]. Our community has negotiated
cable franchises since [year first franchise was issued].
,
Our Current Franchise [USE THE FOLLOWING`PARAGRAPHS ONLY IF THEYAPPLY TO
'YOUR .FRANCHISE. IF YOU;'HAVE MORE .THAN ONE:FRANCHISE, PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION.IN.THE'FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS:FOR EACH1
Our current franchise began on [date] and expires on [date]. Under the statutory timeline
laid out in the Federal Cable Act, the cable operator has a 6-month window beginning 36 months
before the expiration of the franchise in which to request a renewal under the Federal Act. As a
result, at this time we [are/are not] currently negotiating a franchise renewal with the incumbent
provider.
Our franchise requires the cable operator to pay a franchise fee to the [city/county/town,
✓ etc.] in the amount of % of the cable operator's revenues. The revenues for franchise fee
purposes are calculated based on the gross revenues of the operator, in accordance with the
Federal Cable Act.
,,, 1 We require the cable operator to provide the following capacity for public, educational,
✓ W and/or governmental ("PEG") access channels on the cable system. We currently have _
channels (or capacity) devoted to public access; channels (or capacity) devoted to
educational access; and _ channels (or capacity).,devoted to government access. [ONLY_AS
NECE SSARY`-DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS IN:YOUR.FRANCHISE FOR:PROVISION BY
THE: `CABLE. ,'OPERATOR OF CHANNELS FOR PUBLIC,: EDUCATIONAL, AND
;GOVERNMENTAL; ("PEG') USE. BREAK THEM DOWN BY CATEGORY -- HOW MANY
CHANNELS FOR. PUBLIC, HOW MANY FOR-,EDUCATIONAL,<HOW µMANY rFOR
OVERNMEN,T4J ]
Our franchise requires that our PEG channels be supported in the following ways by the
✓ cable operator: [DISCUSS GRANTS (SPECIFY ONE-TIME` OR ONGOING, SUBSCRIBER-!
BASED ..OR FLAT RATE) ' YOUR COMMUNITY RECEIVES TO ASSIST WITH' PEG
FACILITIES. ALSO DISCUSS ANY IN-KIND PROVISIONS OF_ EQUIPMENT!OR SERVICES
IN AID; OF':PEG`"CHANNELS. . NOTE, THE FEDERAL STATUTE SPECIFIES THAT
COMMUNITIES.CAN'ONLY REQUIRE MONEY TO BE:,USED::.°FOR FACILITIES (NOT
OPERATIONS).: 'IF YOU ARE RECEIVING OPERATIONAL MONEY.BECAUSE THE CABLE
OPERATOR HAS OFFERED IT AND YOU ACCEPTED.SIT THAT IS ALLOWED BUT IT
SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY NOTED HERE THAT THE OPERATOR`OFFERED.IT-- THE
COMMUNITY DID NOT REQUIRE IT.]
Our franchise contains the following institutional network ("I-Net") requirements:
[DISCUSS ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY I-NET OR SIMILAR.TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES LINKING,MUNCIPAL BUILDINGS;;: :THE SAME AS MR' PEG SUPPORT
(ABOVE);`DESCRIBE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR.IN-KIND OR MONETARY SUPPORT OF
THESE FACILITIES] We use our I-Net facilities in the following ways: [DESCRIBE THE
FACILITIES THAT ARE CONNECTED VIA'THE;INET AND HOW IYOU USE THE CAPACITY
OF THE .INET -- E.G., SOME ,MUNICIPALITIES` USE THEM.'FOR "POLICE .OR
FIREFIGHTER REMOTE TRAINING, SOME.FOR CONTROL OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS,:ETC.]
2
Our franchise contains the following requirements regarding emergency alerts:
[DESCRIBE REQUIREMENTS FOR CARRIAGE OF EMER GENCY ALERT MESSAGES(FOR
EXAMPLE; DOES`IT REQUIRE CARRIAGE .OF STATE AND/OR LOCAL EMERGENCY
ALERTS? DOES IT ALLOW LOCAL OFFICIALS ACCESS.TO THE ALERT SYSTEM IN AN;,
EMERGENCY, OR REQUIRE FORCE:TUNING TO THE GOVERNMENT CHANNEL WHERE
EMERGENCY MESSAGES ARE CARRIED?)J;i These emergency alert requirements provide an
important avenue of communication with our residents in the event of an emergency. [USE THE
FOLLOWING.IF APPLICABLE] An example of when this function has been helpful is the
following: [PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OFYOUR COMMUNITY'S USE OR RELIANCE-ON THE
LOCAL EMERGENCY.ALERT SYSTEM AS CARRIED-OVER THECABLE SYSTEM]
Our franchise contains the following customer service obligations, by which we are able
to help ensure that the cable operator is treating our residents in accordance with federal
t standards and the terms it agreed to in its franchise. [DESCRIBE THE CUSTOMER SERVICE
PROVISIONS IN YOUR FRANNCHISE. . SUCH :PROVISIONS' MAY O INCLUDE. THE
FOLLOWING ENFORCEMENT OF FCC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS, CUSTOMER
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS,-STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER.:SERVICE OPERATORS,'
LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR AFTER HOURSDROP-OFF/BILL:PAY SERVICES, INSTALLATION
AND SERVICE CALL STANDARDS: CUSTOMER COMPLAINT PROCEDURES, AND 'THE
LIKE.]
Our franchise [or _if applicable: :;"Our:original franchise"] contains the following
reasonable build schedule for the cable operator: [DESCRIBE THE REQUIREMENT IN YOUR
CURRENT OR ORIGINAL FRANCHISE FOR THE CABLE OPERATOR'S.PHASED-IN BUILD
OUT TO ITS FRANCHISED SERVICE AREA:. THESE ARE°MOST COMMONLY FOUND IN
FIRST FRANCHISES, WHERE AN OPERATOR IS NEW AND REQ UIRES,TIME TO BUILD
;OUT TO_THEDEFINED:FRANCHISE AREA
__y
Our franchise requires that the cable operator currently provide service to the following
✓ V,I, areas of our community: [DESCRIBE THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR,FRANCHISE.
THESE ARE OFTEN;EXPRESSED AS DENSITY (HOMES;PER MILE):REQUIREMENTS IF
THERE ARE ANY AREAS-CURRENTLY NOT SERVED, POINT.THIS OUT.AND DISCUSS
!WHY (FOR:EXAMPLE, THE,P,POPULATION DENSITY IS TOO:LQW TO•MAKE PROVISION
OF-SERVICE.ECONOMICALLYFEASIBLE)J �
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications
,% u"'' technologies, our franchise contains the following rebuild or upgrade requirements: [DISCUSS
ANY REQUIREMENTS IN Y,,O UR FRANCHISE FOR REBUILD: OR UPGRADE OF THE;
SYSTEM- ALSO'DISCUSS WHETHER 'YOUR SYSTEM,'WAS.REBUILT IN THE LAST 19
YEARS, OR WHETHER: YOU ARE:NOT GETTING'THE :ADVANTAGES: OF. CURRENT
TECHNOLOGIES :AND".CAPACITIES FINALLY DISCUSS WHETHER , YOUR :SYSTEM
.__—SET, OFRESE.,.,
PROVIDES CABLE:. MODEM. SERVICE:,OTO THE:SAME OSET.OF RESIDENTS WHICH
RECEIVE CABLE VIDEO SER VICES.]
3
441
Our franchise [OR„ANOTHER .ORDINANCE]' contains a "most-favored-nations" [OR
I"LEVEL„:PLAYING• FIELD'] provision which states the following: [PROVIDE THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PRQVISIONFROMTHE FRANCHISE"OR ORDINANCE]]
/41€11 Our franchise contains the following insurance and bonding requirements: [PROVIDE A
BRIEF, SUMMARY OF THE;INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ANY:,BONDING Og
LETTER-OF-CREDIT OR.SIMILAR REQ UIREMENTSV
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way and
compatible easements for the purpose of providing cable television service. Apart from the
franchise, the cable provider [is/is not] required to obtain a permit from_ the appropriate
4' municipal office as well before it may access the public rights of way. [DESCRIBE ANY
,J RIGHT-OF-WAY %PERMIT. REQUIREMENTS, FEES, ETC ASSOCIATED WITH ANY
W SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMITL
J• The franchise agreement provides for the following enforcement mechanisms by which
J thatthe cable operator is abidingbyits agreement: [DISCUSS ANY
we are able to ensure eement:gr
y,A ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMSIN THE FRANCHISE; SUCH AS RIGHTS OF INSPECTION,1
RIGHTS OF A UDITANDLIQUIDATED"DAMAGES PROVISIONS OR'THE LIKE])
The Franchising Process
[IF YOU HAVE. EVER WORKED TOGETHER .WITH: OTHER COMMUNITIES,
FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY TO FRANCHISE;.OR RENEW:At.CABLE OPERATOR, :YOU
CAN SAY THE FOLLOWING - OTHERWISE DELETE:THIS PARAGRAPH:]jhe cable
system(s) serving our community also serves many adjoining communities: [insert as Many A
`Y.ou,easil_know In [year] our community worked together with approximately number other
communities to issue a cable franchise for the [name] cable company. This allowed the company
to quickly obtain franchises in these communities so as to be able to serve a large region, while
also allowing for individual provisions in specific franchises in order to tailor them to meet local
needs.
Under the law, a cable franchise functions as a contract between the local government
(operating as the local franchising authority) and the cable operator. Like other contracts, its
terms are negotiated. Under the Federal Cable Act it is the statutory obligation of the local
government to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests and to ensure that
these are addressed in the franchising process — to the extent that is economically feasible.
However derived (whether requested by the local government or offered by the cable operator),
once the franchise is approved by both parties the provisions in the franchise agreement function
as contractual obligations upon both parties.
7 1 Our current franchise provides that changes in law which affect the rights or
lj __ .. _. .lb . e ted follows:
�1,' re�onsibilities of either party under this franchise agreement_ will be treated as
[DESCRIBE HOW CHANGES IN LAW ;SUBSEQUENT TO ,ENTERING INTO _THE
FRANCHISE;ARE ACCOMODATED UNDER: THE FRANCHISE.';;FOR EXAMPLE, DOES;IT
PROVIDE.THAT THE FRANCHISE IS SUBJECT TO CURRENT'LAW AS AMENDED FROM;
4
TIME TO TIME,.-OR:DOES:IT CONTAIN A`PROVISION ENSURING,THAT TERMS MAYBE
MODIFIED = TO ENSURE. BOTH''PARTIES MAINTAIN;:,.THE: ,BENEFITS OF THE
AGREEMENT?]
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights, and consequent additional obligations
o the local government. For instance: [DESCRIBE:,' AND DISCUSS , .PUBLIC
`' AIDING/PUBLIC: HEARING/PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. FOR? INSTANCE, :IS
�" THERE:AN.ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH°SUCH%REQUIREMENTS? ARE THERE STATE
LAWREQUIREMENTS GOVERNING:TIHESEAREAS?°DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.]
Competitive Cable Systems
Our community[PICK.ONE OR FILL IN ASAPPROPRIATE]
V� • has never been approached by a competitive provider to provide service.
• was approached once [DISCUSS:WHEN], but the provider chose not to enter into any
oiformal discussions.
• has actively sought out competitive providers,but has not been successful.
• granted a competitive franchise to [name of company], a cable overbuilder, in [year]
t providing service in my community today. [IF
and that provider [is/is not]
PROVIDER IS, NO LONGER PROVIDING SERVICE,, _EXPLAIN WHY.. IF
PROVIDER IS STILL PROVIDING SERVICE; DESCRIBE ANY,DIFFERENCES IN
THE AGREEMENTS ' OF THE INCUMBENT ::.PROVIDER'S FRANCHISE
(DISCUSSED ABOVE) AND THE AGREEMENT HELD BY THEE O:VERBUILDER,j
INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF.WHYTHOSE DIFFERENCES,ARE PRESENT]
• has been threatened or sued by an incumbent provider when considering a grant of a
competitive franchise. [DISCUSS.THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS
EVENT]. a._..,.._ ... _ . ._.
• has recently been approached by a Bell Operating Company to provide service.
[DISCUSS THE STATE OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND-WHAT THE COMPANY
HAS-SOUGHT IN TERMS OF FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS AS COMPARED TO
THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER."
• has [OR has not] denied any provider the opportunity to serve in our community.
• does [OR does not] have mechanisms in place to offer the same or a comparable
franchise to a competitor upon request.
[IN GENERAL,-' WITH REGARD ' TO. THE ABOVE == WHERE;DISCUSSIONS:.AND/OR
NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED, PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION 'ON THE
NATURE.OF,THE'NEGOTIATIONS: SUCH AS WHEN FIRST APPROACHED, LENGTH OF
ACTUAL TIME SPENT IN DISCUSSIONS,'LENGTH.OF TIME:FROM RECEIPT OF FORMAL
APPLICATION TO GRANT OR DENIAL; ETC_ DESCRIBE: HOW COOPERATIVE THE
COMPETITIVE FRANCHISE APPLICANT,WAS IN;NEGOTIATING::THE:FRANCHISE (FORS
EXAMPLE WAS IT WILLING,.:TO'AGREE TO A FRANCHISE COMPARABLE TO THE
INCUMBENT'S IN TERMS:OF PEG AND I NET SUPPORT, ORDID IT INSIST ON USING ITS
OWN "FORM OF°FRANCHISE „WHICH WAS MORE'•FA,VORABLE:'TO IT THAN.'THE
INCUMBENT'S?), _ALSO, DISCUSS. WHETHER .YO UAO UGHT TO HAVE—THE NEW
5
'ENTRANT'BUILD OUT THE THE ENTIRE:,FRANCHISE AREA (OR..THE.SAME AREA AS.THE
INCUMBENT), AND IF SO:HOW MUCH.TIME YOU GAVE FOR THATPURROSE.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in [Name of community]. As the above
information indicates, we are experienced at working with cable providers to both see that the
needs of the local community are met and to ensure that the practical business needs of cable
providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that local cable operators are allowed access to the rights
of way in a fair and evenhanded manner, that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way, including maintenance and upgrade of
facilities, are undertaken in a manner which is in accordance with local requirements. Local
cable franchising also ensures that our local community's specific needs are met and that local
customers are protected.
Local franchises thus provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the
operations of cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with
applicable laws. There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy in Washington to handle
matters of specifically local interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including ours, to have a voice in how
local cable systems will be implemented and what features (such as PEG access, institutional
networks or local emergency alerts, etc.) will be available to meet local needs. These factors are
equally present for new entrants as for existing users.
The [Name of community] therefore respectfully requests that the Commission do nothing
to interfere with local government authority over franchising or to otherwise impair the operation
of the local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law with regard to either
existing cable service providers or new entrants.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name of Community]
By: [Name of Municipal Dfficiall
[Address]
cc: NATOA, info@natoa.org
John Norton,John.Norton@fcc.gov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Long@fcc.gov
6
Filing Instructions
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
("ECFS") or by filing paper copies. Instructions for both forms of filing are included below.
Comments must be filed by February 13, 2006 in order to be included in the comment
round. Otherwise, they can be submitted until March 14, 2006 to be considered in the
Reply Comment round. Comments must also be sent to FCC staff - John Norton
(John.Norton@fcc.gov) and Andrew Long (Andrew.Long@fcc.gov). We also ask that a copy
be sent to info@natoa.org.
Filing Electronically
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs or else they may be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. In completing the transmittal screen, electronic filers should
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number: which in this case is MB Docket No. 05-311. More detailed
instructions are available on the FCC website and on NATOA's website.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. These are instructions
for members of the public who want or need to send comments on FCC Proceedings via
Email instead of through the Electronic Comment Filing System's interactive web site. Click
on one of the links below to review instructions and information. If you need further
assistance, please contact the Help Desk at ecfshelp@fcc.gov or (202) 418-0193.
Instructions ; Blank Form ; Data Requirements ; Sample Forms
Filing by Mail or in Person
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies (for a total of
five) of each filing in MB Docket No. 05-311. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. However, note that comments must be received by the due date, regardless of when
the comments were mailed, and that U.S. Postal Service mail is typically delayed and may
make the filing late. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission to one of the
following addresses:
• Filings via U.S. Postal Service should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20554.
• Filings via commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service mail) must
be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• Filings via hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings must be delivered to the
Commission's filing location at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110,
Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this facility are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Note that in accordance with FCC rules, any local government named in the
comments of any party must be served with a copy of the comments to provide them with
an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, the comments may be disregarded as violating the
FCC's ex parte rules. See, Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings,
GC Docket No. 95-21, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18831 (October 28,
1999).
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria.VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoaorg
``' f0lc�TOc1
Call to Action
FCC Seeks Comment on Franchising
The Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
("NPRM") (MB Docket 05-311) in which it makes a number of assumptions and asserts that
franchising of cable services by local governments may be an unreasonable barrier to entry
for new telco video providers. To this end the FCC is seeking comment from local government
(and others) on "what can be done to ensure that local franchising authorities (LFAs) do not
unreasonably refuse to award cable franchises to competitive entrants.i1
This NPRM strikes at the heart of local government's authority over those using the public
property in their community to deliver video services, and could result in the preemption of
local governments' ability to control their rights-of-way. NATOA urges all local government
entities to participate in this process by filing comments. It is important that the FCC be
obligated to deal in facts and not anecdote, and that local government inform the FCC of the
important role it plays protecting local communities' needs and interests.
NATOA and other national organizations will be filing comments on the broad scope of the
FCC's authority in this matter. However, it is critical that individual local governments file
factual comments with the FCC to instruct them on the true value and importance of
franchising. NATOA is providing a template for your use in filing comments.
The industry is quick to make generalizations and accusations of wrong-doing by local
governments. It is important that local governments provide the FCC with the FACTS. The
FCC questions the willingness and ability of LFAs to expeditiously franchise new video
providers and ignores the long history of local government efforts to obtain such competition.
Local government must provide the FCC with the local perspective on inviting and issuing
competitive franchises, including typical timeframes for negotiation. It is important to share
with the FCC the challenges local governments face, and the creative solutions achieved when
opportunities presented themselves. It is equally important for the FCC to hear how few
communities have ever had the opportunity to welcome a competitive provider in their
community. The FCC and the industry must not be allowed to frame the issue - it is
important that you speak for yourself.
Your comments are needed to protect local government control over rights-of-way and the
cable franchising process. In addition, comments filed with the FCC in this rulemaking will
likely become part of the debate in Congressional rewrites of the Telecommunications Act. It
is important that local government present a strong case for retaining local control.
All initial comments to the proceeding are due by February 13, 2006, with replies due March
14, 2006. Do not delay - please review the attached template and begin preparing your
comments today. Use this link to access the Comments Template and Instructions.
Please join us in this critical endeavor and file your comments immediately!
' A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available on the NATOA website under
Policy/Advocacy and on the FCC's website at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/FCC-
05-189A1.doc
c$ NaTDa •
For Immediate Release: Contact: Libby Beaty, Executive Director
December 15, 2005 Phone: 703-519-8035
NATOA CALLS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN FCC
PROCEEDING ON LOCAL FRANCHISING AND QUESTIONS FCC'S AUTHORITY
Alexandria, VA — The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA) is working with all of its local government members in assisting with the preparation of
comments in response to the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) regarding local competitive franchising.
"NATOA has reviewed the NPRM and has identified a number of issues of concern and
interest to local governments, and we will be specifically responding to those issues in our
comments," stated Libby Beaty, NATOA's Executive Director. "We also believe the Commission lacks
the authority under the Cable Act to adopt or enforce rules in this area."
"It is critical that the Commission use this opportunity to learn the facts about franchising and
that policy should not be based on anecdote," according to Lori Panzino-Tillery, NATOA's President
from San Bernardino County, California. "We are urging all of our local government members to
prepare and submit comments that will provide the Commission with the facts about the benefits and
pro-competitive nature of local franchising —facts that seem to be lacking in the NPRM's discussion of
the issues."
NATOA is a national trade association based in Alexandria, VA, representing local government
jurisdictions and consortiums, including elected and appointed officials and staff, who oversee
telecommunications and cable television franchising.
###
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors♦ 1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495♦Alexandria,VA 22314
703-519-8035 Phone♦703-519-8036 Facsimile♦info@natoa.org•www.natoa.org
PETITION AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL AND
TELEPHONE COMPANY PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN OR USURP MUNICIPAL
CABLE FRANCHISING POWERS
This is to voice strong opposition to Congressional and telephone company efforts to weaken
and/or by-pass the important and historic role of municipalities in cable television franchising.
For decades, municipalities have followed the local cable franchising process to ensure that cable
system operators meet important community needs, including,but not limited to,provision of
public, educational and governmental access channels and facilities, all subject to applicable
law(s). . Municipal cable franchising has been critical to responsible right-of-way management,
preventing redlining, and ensuring operator responsiveness to consumers. Municipal
franchising has benefited this country's system of free speech by preserving a degree of
localism in the electronic media.
We emphatically suggest that the FCC could never provide the level of close-up
oversight, ascertainment and assistance as that provided by local officials in each community.
Cable companies have long thrived under local franchising. Congress and telephone companies
should not weaken,by-pass and/or otherwise usurp longstanding municipal franchising rights.
Under current law, all cable franchises are already non-exclusive. Competition will continue to
be promoted and facilitated by municipal officials. Congress should not"roll over"because a
powerful new entrant now wants to rewrite the rules to give it advantages never enjoyed by its
competitors.
Municipal officials, consumers and many others strongly oppose any attempts by
Congress and telephone companies to usurp the longstanding and successful system of municipal
cable television franchising. Maintaining municipal cable franchising is an important legislative
need of municipal officials. We therefore respectfully request strong action by Congress to
oppose any such usurpation of municipal powers.
NAME ADDRESS
[Date]
The Honorable Fred Upton
2161 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2206
The Honorable John Dingell
2328 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-2215
Dear Representatives Upton and Dingell:
Congress this year may rewrite our communication laws to address Voice Over Internet
Protocol (VOIP) technologies and Internet Protocol (IP) enabled services. If this occurs, please
make sure that cable franchising is preserved and that the role local government has traditionally
played in addressing their community's communications needs through the franchising process is
preserved. lP is simply the latest in a series of technologies that cable companies have used as
they expanded from 8-channel systems using vacuum tubes and analog technologies which
carried "I Love Lucy" to 500-channel systems using digital technology and fiber optic cables
which also carry "I Love Lucy". The need for local franchises is the same even though
technologies change.
Currently cable-type companies must obtain franchises from each municipality they
serve. This is important and is written into current law to ensure that the companies meet local
needs and requirements. For example, franchise provisions prohibit redlining; require the
carriage of local emergency alerts which are not carried on the federal emergency alert system;
provide cable channels (miniature C-SPAN's) for local units of government, schools, and public
access; help assure adequate customer service; protect the streets and highways when cable lines
are installed and maintained; provide compensation for use of the public rights of way; and allow
the municipality to resolve customer disputes when problems arise.
These types of provisions have been in cable franchises for 50 years, work well, are
needed, and should be continued. For example, in our City, it is only due to the franchising
process that we were able to prevent redlining and assure that all our city's residents get cable
service (excluding only thinly populated areas). Similarly, our franchise provides channels and
funding so that City Council meetings are televised so that citizens can observe and participate in
government, even though they cannot attend meetings in person. And the cable company
provides compensation for the thousands of miles of city streets it uses for its business.
The preceding is true of cities, townships and villages across Michigan, as they have
similar provisions in their cable franchises.
Page 2
Having two companies (cable company and now the phone company) providing cable
service will not remove the need for these provisions because having two near monopoly
suppliers is not enough to have real competition. For example, real competition in cell phone
rates and service only occurred in the last few years when the number of providers expanded
greatly beyond the initial two providers. And competition does not remove the need for
government to prevent redlining, provide for local emergency alerts, and receive compensation
for use of public property. So IP technologies do not remove the need for the consumer and
public protections that franchises provide.
And if Congress were to attempt to remove franchising and its protections for one type of
cable provider, they would likely disappear for all cable providers—for example due to
discrimination claims by providers who were omitted. Such a loss would be very harmful to our
city and all Michigan municipalities and their residents. In this regard, the U. S. Supreme Court
has ruled that cable companies are like newspapers and have some Constitutional freedom of
speech protections, which include restrictions on treating them differently than other similar
providers.
Many of these cable type franchise protections are needed for broadband (cable modem
or DSL type services) service as well. For example, the only reason broadband services are
broadly available in many communities is because the main provider is the cable operator, and
that company's cable franchise typically requires it to provide service throughout the community.
By contrast, some phone companies such as SBC are proposing to construct their broadband
system so as to provide VOIP and IP broadband services to only a portion (50%-60% of
residents) in the communities they serve.
Such redlining is not acceptable. Just as with cable, municipalities must be able to
prevent redlining and make sure that the information superhighway,just like regular highways, is
available to all their residents.
For these reasons we ask that you not support bills such as HR 214 or similar legislation
and ask you to support the continuation of cable-type franchising for cable and broadband
services.
Sincerely,
cc: Senator Debbie Stabenow
702 Senate Hart Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2204
Senator Carl Levin
Page 3
269 Senate Russell Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-2202
The Honorable Bart Stupak
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington,DC 20515-2201
The Honorable [Insert your Representative's name here]
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
bc: Ms. Cheryl Leanza
Principal Legislative Counsel
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 550
Washington D.C. 20004
Ms. Elizabeth Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 495
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mr. Jeffrey Arnold
Deputy Legislative Director
National Association of Counties
440 First Street, N.W.
8th Floor
Washington DC 20001
Mr. Ron Thaniel
Assistant Executive Director
U.S. Conference of Mayors
1620 I Street
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. William Mathewson
General Counsel
Michigan Municipal League
1675 Green Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1487
Page 4
Mr. David Bertram
Legislative Liaison
Michigan Townships Association
P.O. Box 80078
512 Westshire Drive
Lansing, MI 48908-0078
1101011_1.DOC
The Honorable [your U.S. Senator]
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Facsimile: 202-
The Honorable [your U.S. Senator]
Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Via Facsimile: 202-
Via US Mail and Facsimile:
Re: S. 1504 - Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act
Dear Senator and •
I write to respectfully request that you oppose the pending Broadband Investment
and Consumer Choice Act as introduced by Senators Ensign and McCain. This bill will
be harmful to your constituents in my community, and it will deprive us of badly-needed
funds that are currently part of our municipal budget. It is imperative that you not accept
the assertions of industry stakeholders that the bill does not cause such harms. Although
Senator Ensign indicated in his introductory remarks and in his summary of the proposed
legislation that he believes his bill will encourage investment and competition and
promote"widely affordable and high quality service, video and data services to all
Americans," I do not believe that will be the outcome if this bill were to become law.
While I fully support the introduction of competitive choice, and welcome
innovation, the language of the Senator's bill would not provide for such competitive
choice or innovation to the citizens served by our communities. It would instead give
windfall benefits to entrenched incumbent telephone and cable companies, deprive local
governments and their residents of competitive alternatives, deny consumers effective
means of redress, and suck millions of dollars of revenue per year out of local
government budgets.
I would be pleased to review with you in detail the vast array of problems this
proposed rewrite of our national communications law presents. To provide but a few
examples, allow me to point out that on its face, S. 1504 does the following:
• The bill would preempt all local authority over the provision of cable and video
services within the community, including the ability of local governments to
provide appropriate oversight of entities conducting business within their
jurisdiction and in their streets.
• Privately, previously negotiated contracts between local governments and cable
operators would be abrogated under the terms of the bill, creating a huge and
unnecessary subsidy to private industry, a subsidy paid for out of local
governments' budgets.
• The bill would eliminate the 5% cable franchise fee and replace it with a new
compensation methodology on video providers' use of local streets that would
deprive local governments of an agreed-upon bargain and substitute the federal
government's judgment for that of the contracting parties, further interfering with
the contract rights, obligations and benefits established under existing federal law.
These new requirements and restrictions would result in the creation of a huge
subsidy to the cable and telecommunications industries—again, a subsidy paid for
by local governments and their taxpaying residents.
• The bill would further substantially reduce the revenues that are encompassed
within the contractual and statutory definition of"Gross Revenues"in the current
Cable Act, meaning that the bill would guarantee that local governments' revenues
from franchise fees would be significantly less due to the smaller revenue base.
• The bill would substantially reduce the amount of capacity which may be required
by local governments to meet their communities' needs in the form of public,
educational and government("PEG") access, while stripping local government of
the ability to obtain support for the use of the capacity—part of the bargain
contained within currently negotiated franchise agreements. The result is that local
government will be unable to ensure that the community's needs and interests are
addressed.
• The bill would deprive consumers of the ability to address local issues locally, by
removing to the state all customer service issues, and further by denying consumers
any form of recourse for any actions of a communications provider.
• The bill would eliminate any build-out requirements for any video service provider
and thus permit video providers to discriminate in favor of upper income
neighborhoods in making their services available.
• The bill would preempt the applicability of any state or local law to the
communications industry that is not generally applicable to all businesses, therefore
potentially preempting any state or local law applicable only to certain classes of
businesses such as utilities or rights-of-way users (such as requiring utilities to
underground their facilities or ensuring electric code compliance).
• The bill would prohibit local governments from imposing any fee for issuance of
rights-of-way construction permits, yet would require local governments to act on
requests for permits in a federally-prescribed"timely manner,"thereby insinuating
inappropriate federal government involvement in the basic management of local
rights-of-way.
• The bill would prohibit municipalities and their utilities from providing
communications services without giving a right of first refusal to private industry,
•
and then would grant private industry unfettered access to all municipal facilities
and financing arrangements in the event private industry chooses to provide
services.
• The bill would deprive local government of the ability to establish and maintain
government owned and operated networks, known as institutional networks, that
may be utilized by first responders and other government officials in the day-to-day
management of the local government's business.
• The bill would eliminate current federal law protections against preemption of local
zoning decisions relating to the placement of cell towers, depriving local
government of the ability to ensure that such towers are safely and appropriately
located in areas to provide the greatest degree of services without unnecessarily
posing a hazard to the public health, safety and welfare.
• The bill would expose local governments to scores of new types of legal claims and
lawsuits by the communications industry, while eliminating the damages immunity
that local governments are granted under current federal law.
While some degree of reform to our existing telecommunications laws may be in order to
better address the changes and convergence of technology, such modifications should not
be made in the absence of reasoned and considered thought, which includes the
consultation with state and local elected officials who also represent the concerns of the
citizens of this great nation. To craft laws only for the protection and benefit of private
industry, to the exclusion of the public interest,would be a disservice to both our
constituents and our county. I trust that I may rely upon your good judgment to ensure
that your local and state partners are fully consulted, and the needs of their constituents
fully considered, before you take action on any pending rewrite of the
telecommunications laws.
Local governments support competition and are excited to see the introduction of new
services within our communities. We have a long and very successful history of
supporting the introduction of such services, and are proud of the extensive successful
deployment of broadband infrastructure by the cable industry, a successful deployment
made possible in large part by the current system of local cable franchising.
Unfortunately, S. 1504 fails to learn the lessons of that successful deployment, and we
believe the bill would result in less competition and less choice overall for consumers.
For these reasons, I ask that you oppose this legislation.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
• r
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 1504 KNOWN AS THE
"BROADBAND INVESTMENT AND CONSUMER CHOICE ACT" (S. 1504), URGING
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES TO REFRAIN FROM ANY FORM OF
SUPPORT OR CO-SPONSORSHIP OF S. 1504 AND TO VOTE IN OPPOSITION TO
S. 1504, AND DIRECTING THAT THIS RESOLUTION BE FORWARDED TO THE
(Insert State Name Here) CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION, OTHER MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE, AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on August 2, 2005, Senators John Ensign and John McCain
introduced the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act of 2005 (S. 1504); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the , , opposes the
passage of S. 1504 because:
• The bill would preempt all local authority over the provision of cable and
video services within the community, including the ability of the local
government to provide appropriate oversight to entities conducting business
within their jurisdiction and in the local public rights-of-way;
• The City's negotiated contract with its cable operator would be abrogated
under the terms of the bill;
• The bill would substitute a new compensation methodology on the parties to
the City's existing franchise contract, depriving the City of the agreed-upon
bargain by lowering the existing franchise fee and replacing it with a fee
which must be justified as being "reasonable" in the eyes of the user, limited
to management costs (which denies the rights of the property owner to
obtain fair and reasonable compensation for the use of public property for
private gain), and not in excess of 5%;
• These requirements and restrictions would result in the creation of a subsidy
to the cable and telecommunications industries; at the expense of the City's
taxpayers;
• The bill would further substantially reduce the revenues that are now
includable in the definition of"Gross Revenues" so that even if the franchise
fee did in fact remain at 5%, the City's revenues from the fee would be
significantly less due to the smaller revenue base;
• The bill would substantially reduce the amount of capacity which may be
required by local governments to meet their public, educational and
government ("PEG") access needs, while stripping the City of the ability to
RESOLUTION NO. Page 2
obtain capital support for the use of PEG capacity — part of the bargain
contained within the City's negotiated franchise agreement— with the result
that the community's cable-related needs and interests would not be met;
• The bill would deprive local citizens of the ability to address local issues
locally, by removing to the state all customer service issues, and further by
denying consumers any form of recourse for any actions of a communications
provider;
• The bill would eliminate any build-out requirements for any video service
provider, thereby allowing providers to discriminate based on the wealth of
the local neighborhoods they choose to serve;
• The bill would preempt any state or local law that is not generally applicable
to all businesses, thereby potentially preempting any law applicable to only
certain classes of businesses, such as utilities and rights-of-way users (such
as requiring undergrounding of facilities and ensuring electric code
compliance);
• The bill would prohibit the City from imposing any fee for issuance of
rights-of-way construction permits yet would require the City to act on
requests for permits in a timely manner as determined by the FCC, thereby
insinuating inappropriate federal government involvement in the basic
day-to-day management of local rights-of-way;
• The bill would prohibit municipalities and their utilities from providing
communications services without giving a right of first refusal to private
industry, and would then grant industry unfettered access to all municipal
facilities and financing in the event private industry chooses to provide
services;
• The bill would deprive the City of the authority to establish and maintain
government owned and operated networks, known as institutional networks,
that may be utilized by first responders and other government officials in the
day-to-day management of the City's business;
• The bill would permit broadened preemption of local zoning decisions relating
to the placement of cell towers, depriving the City of the authority to ensure
that such towers are safely and appropriately located in areas to provide the
greatest degree of services without unnecessarily posing a hazard to the
public health, safety and welfare; and
• The bill would eliminate the protection the City currently has against liability
for damages and attorneys fees in lawsuits brought by communication service
providers against local governments, a type of litigation that the bill would
seem to invite service providers to bring.
•
RESOLUTION NO. Page 3
WHEREAS, for these reasons, the City Council finds that it should oppose S.
1504 and urges the Congressional Delegation and other members of
Congress to oppose S. 1504; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution should be forwarded to the
Congressional Delegation, other members of Congress as deemed
appropriate, and to the President of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF , , THAT:
Section I. For the reasons stated above, the City Council of the City of
, declares its opposition to S. 1504 and urges the
Congressional Delegation and all other members of Congress to oppose S. 1504.
Section II. The City Council hereby directs that this Resolution be forwarded
immediately to the Congressional Delegation, other members of Congress as
deemed appropriate, and to the President of the United States.
Section III. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its
passage.
SIGNED this the day of , 2005.
, MAYOR
ATTEST:
, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
, CITY ATTORNEY
�ap.IC9tIpYS
jA a
s
o' v�
NEWS
Usk.•`
Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202/418-0500
445 12th Street, S.W. Internet: http://www.fcc.gov
Washington, D. C. 20554 TTY:1-888-835-5322
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v.FCC.515 F 2d 385(D.C.Circ 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE News Media Contact:
November 3, 2005 Rebecca Fisher(202) 418-2359
FCC Initiates Rulemaking to Ensure Reasonable
Franchising Process for New Video Market Entrants
Washington, DC—The Federal Communications Commission (FCC)today adopted a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on issues relating to the implementation of
Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934. The Notice seeks input on what can be
done to ensure that local franchising authorities (LFAs) do not unreasonably refuse to award
cable franchises to competitive entrants.
This Notice initiates a proceeding to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable
competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The FCC tentatively concludes that the
mandate of Section 621(a)(1) should be interpreted to prohibit not just the ultimate refusal to
award a franchise, but also a broader range of behaviors, and the Notice seeks comment on that
conclusion.
Specifically,the Notice addresses a broad range of questions, including:
• The Notice asks if local franchising authorities are unreasonably refusing to grant
competitive franchises. The Notice also asks what problems cable incumbents have
encountered with LFAs, including how best the Commission can ensure that the local
franchising process is not inhibiting the ability of incumbent cable operators to invest in
broadband services.
• The Notice also asks whether the Commission has authority to implement the pro-
competitive mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The Notice tentatively concludes that the
Commission is empowered by provisions of both Title I and Title VI of the
Communications Act to take steps appropriate to ensure that the local franchising process
does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive cable operators. The
Notice also tentatively concludes that the Commission may deem to be preempted and
superseded any law or regulation of a State or LFA that causes an unreasonable refusal to
award a competitive franchise in contravention of Section 621(a).
• The Notice tentatively conclude that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a
franchise,to "assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential
residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in
which such group resides"; "allow [a] cable system a reasonable period of time to
become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area"; and
r
w '
"require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public,
educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support."
• Assuming there is both the need and the authority for Commission intervention,the
Notice asks how the Commission should interpret the mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The
item tentatively concludes that the Commission should interpret the relevant language of
Section 621(a)(1) broadly in order to prohibit not only unreasonable refusals to award
competitive franchises, but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements
that unreasonably interfere with the ability of would-be new entrants to introduce quickly
their competitive offerings.
• The item seeks comment on what specific steps should the Commission take to
implement Section 621(a)(1).
• The Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission has authority to establish a
minimum amount of time for potential competitors with existing facilities to build out
their networks beyond their current service territories. It also seeks commenters to
address what would constitute a reasonable minimum timeframe.
• Finally,the Notice asks whether the Commission should address actions at the state level,
to the extent we find such actions create unreasonable barriers to entry for potential
competitors.
• The Commission announced it plans to hold an en banc hearing to supplement the record
in this proceeding.
The Notice will be available online at www.fcc.gov.
Action by the Commission,November 3, 2005, by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(FCC 05-
189). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps and Adelstein. Chairman Martin,
and Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein issued separate statements.
MB Docket 05-311
--FCC--
Media Bureau Contacts: Andrew Long(202) 418-1043
Mary Beth Murphy (202) 418-7200
.(VY.. 0 CITY OF RENTON
ru NT Mayor
= O� Kathy Keolker
'
•
February 14,2006
The Honorable Conrad Burns The Honorable Daniel Inouye
United States Senate United States Senate
187 Dirksen, Senate Office Building 722 Hart, Senate Office Building
Washington,D.C. 20510 Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senators Burns and Inouye:
On behalf of the City of Renton, Washington, I would like to thank you for putting forward a
thoughtful set of principles for Video Franchising reform. These principles promote both local
responsibility and market competition, and are consistent with the core values of the National
Association of Telecoimnunications Officers and Advisors, of which Renton is a member. I
have written separately to,Washington Senators.Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and
. Congressmen Jay Inslee, Dave Reichert, and Adam Smith to:encourage their endorsement and
support of your efforts.
The City of Renton believes local governments must be-responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens. At the same time,we recognize -
that time and predictability arse essential to business success; Renton's reputation for responsive,
timely, and efficient permitting clearly demonstrates that the City values its business;parinerships
and understands the advantages to the community of healthy competition among:multiple service•
'providers.
Recognizing the role of local government in the-franchising process is essential to the entry of
new competitors in the video Market. A framework that adapts to the unique needs.of .
communities like Renton will ensure smoother and,faster entry. Local video franchising.ensures
that cable and other video.providers can access the public rights-of-way in a fair rand even.
: handed manner, that other users of the rights-of=way are,:not unduly inconvenienced,.and that
uses ensure adequate protection of this valuable'asset,for the benefit of all the public. •
• : Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local,government franchising is not a barrier to. -
competition. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other local governments
welcome competition and are optimistic that your stated principles will promote competitive
entry in a timely and equitable manner.. .
Thank you again for your commitment to developing a balanced video franchising framework
that promotes competition while respecting the role of local governments and the prineiplees of
local responsibility.
•
Since ely, -
!//" /6.6-14.2..._ .
Kathy K;•lker
, .Mayor
—
cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,City of Renton •.
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425).430-6523
RENTON.
/��_ AHEAD OF THE CURVE
' C 0 sr'S- ?:>\., •T)4 CITY OF RENTON
Mayor
41, re .
, Kathy Keolker
C }
-c-•,,,,,Ar-c...,
February 14, 2006
• The Honorable Conrad Bums The Honorable Daniel Inouye
. United States Senate United States Senate
187 Dirksen, Senate Office Building 722 Hart, Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510 Washington,D.C. 20510
Dear Senators Burns and Inouye:
On behalf of the City of Renton, Washington, Iwould like to thank you for putting forward a
thoughtful set of principles for Video Franchising reforrn. These principles promote both local
responsibility and market competition,and are consistent with the core values of the National
Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,of which Renton is a member., I
have written separately to Washington Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and
'Congressmen Jay Inslee, Dave Reichert, and Adam Smith to encourage their endorsement and
support of your efforts.
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens. At same time, we recognize
that time and predictability are essential to business success. Renton's reputation,for responsive,
timely, and efficient permitting clearly demonstrates,thatthe City values its business partnerships
and understands the advantages to the community of healthy corripetifion among multiple service
providers.
Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising process is essential to the entry of
new competitors in the video market. A framework that adapts to the unique needs of
communities like Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry. Local video franchising ensures
that cable and other video providers can access the public rights-of-way in a fair and even-
handed manner, that other users of the rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced, and that
uses ensure adequate protection of this valuable asset for the benefit of all the public.'
Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local government franchising is not a barrier to
competition. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other local governments
welcome competition and are optimistic that your stated principles will promote competitive
entry in.a timely and equitable mariner.
. .
Thank you again for your commitment to developing a balanced video franchising framework
that promotes competition while respecting the role of local governments and the principles of
local responsibility.
Sincerely, • •
.-KCLI ettr-dc&—__.
Kathy Keolker S.
Mayor'
• cc: Jay Covingon,Chief Administrative Officer,City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430.6523 RENTON
0 • . '
h r
CITY OF REKatNy KTe.OikeN
• Mayor
+ ' " = - •
41
February 14,2006
. .
The Honorable Mani Smith
• United States Representative
227 Cannon HOB.
Washington,D.C. 20515-0001
Dear Representative Smith:
On behalf of the City of Reriton,I write to encourage you to endorse.and support the.set of principles
recently put forward by Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Conrad Burns for Video Pranchising reform
(enclosed). These principles promote both local responsibility and market competition and are consistent
with the core values of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,of which
• Renton is a member,
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their Citizens for careful
. ' management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens. At the same time,we recognize that time
and predictability are essential to business success, Renton's reputation for responsive,timely,and
• efficient perniitting clearly demonstrates that the City values its business partnerships and understands the
' , • • ' advantages to the Community of healthy competition among multiple service providers.
Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising process:is essential to the entry of new
Competitors in the video Market. A framework that adapts to the unique needs.of Communities-like
Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry. Local video franchising ensures that cable arid other video
providers can access the public rightS-of-way in a fair and even-handed manner,that other users of the
rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced,and that uses ensure-adequate protection of this valuable
asset for the benefit of all the public.
•
. .
Despite anecdotal:.claims to the contrary,local government franchising is not ahatrier to competition. In
fact, quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other Inca governments welcome competition and
-: are optimistic that principles like those introduced by Senator Inouye and Senator Burns will promote
competitive entry in 4 timely and equitable manner.
. .
The City of Renton is eager to work with you to legislate and:implement a balanced video franchising
framework that promotes competition and respects the role of local governments.
Thank you for considering my views,and please feel free to call me(425-430,6500)if I may be of any
assistance on this or other issues:
Sincerely,
,
Kathy Keolker
Mayor
• Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer;City of Renton
. , .
1055 South Grady Way:-Renton;Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 _IA
AT-Tr A 11 ClF TSTP e`TTDA/F
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Burns)
(202) 224-6137
Andy Davis(Inouye)
(202)224-4546
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON, DC -U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman,respectively, of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee, released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens deserves.a lot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront of the minds of the-Committee members,"said Senator Burns. "The
principles we've put forth will lay the groundwork for serious reform of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also allow new franchisees to enter markets'with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide,the Committee will draft an effective and
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms," said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain,principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the context of telecommunications reform."
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
' positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner,and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law, state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs,to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be
eliminated. If the current process results in unnecessary delay,procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless,the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee, so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote.Competitive Neutrality and a'Level Playing Field.
o The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
o The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and.to.promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that.community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
###
ticY CITY OF NTON •
♦ Mayor •
Kathy Keolker
NTH
February 14,2006
The Honorable Dave Reichert •
United States Representative
1223 Longworth HOB.
Washington,D:C. 20515
Dear Representative Reichert:
On behalf of the City of Renton,I write to encourage you to endorse and support-the set ofprinciples
recently put forward by Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Conrad'.B.urns far Video Franctisingreform
(enclosed). These principles promote bath local responsibility and market campetition and are consistent
with the core values of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,of which.
Renton is a member:
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
-management of the rights of way.that belong to those citizens. At the same time;we recognize that ti'tne
and predictability are essential to business success. Renton's reputation for responsive,:timely,and
efficient permitting clearly demonstrates that.-the City values its.business•partner-ships.and understands the
advantages to the community of i eaithy competition aniong.tnultiple service providers.
,Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising process: s esseritiatto-the..entry of new
competitors in the video market. A framework that adapts to the-unique needs of communities like
Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry. Local video franchising ensures that cable and other video
providers can access the Public rights-of-way in a fair andeven-handed'manner,that other users of the
rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced,and that uses ensure adequate protection of this valuable
asset for the benefit of all the public.
Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local government franchising is not a baxrier:.to.competition
fact, quite the opposite i true. The City of Renton and other local governments welcome competition and
are optimistic that principles-like those introduced by Senator Inouye and Senator Burns will promote
, competitive entry in a timely and equitable manner.
•
The City of Renton is eager to work with you to legislate and implement a balanced video franchising.
framework that promotes competition and respects the role of local govvernments.
- Thank you for considering my views,and please feel free to call Ime(424-430-6500)'if I may be of any
assistance on this.or other issues.
•
Sincerely,
KalAy eu-e4,_L
Kathy Keolker
Mayor
Enclosure
ec: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,City.of Renton.
•
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 FZ. E-1 V T O 1 V
Ls AT-TRAP f1F THE (1TUVF
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Bums)
(202)224-6137
Andy Davis(Inouye)
(202)224-4546
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON, DC-U.S. Senator Conrad Bums and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman, respectively, of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee,released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens deserves a lot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront Of the minds of the Committee members,"said Senator Bums. "The
principles we've put forth will lay the groundwork for serious reform of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also allow new franchisees to enter markets with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide, the Committee will draft an effective and
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms," said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the:context of telecommunications reform."
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the.Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner, and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law, state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs, to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets.for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be
eliminated. If the current process results in unnecessary delay,procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless, the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee,so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote.Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field.
o The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
o The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
Oil
0
' 0 CITY OF 'RENTON
, . Kathy Keolker
-. 1\Try0
February 14,2006
•
The Honorable Patty Murray
United States Senator
. 173 Russell Senate Office Building• .
Washington,D.C. 20510
Dear Senator.Murray:
On behalf of the City of Renton,I write to encourage you to endorse and support the set of principles
recently put forward by Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Conrad Burns for Video-Franchising reform
(enclosed). These principles promote both local responsibility and market competition and are consistent
with the core values of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers:and Advisors;of which -Renton is a member.
: •
The City of Renton believes local governments'lutist be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens. At the same time,we recognize that time
and predictability are essential to business success. Renton's reputation for responsive,timely,and
efficient permitting clearly demonstrates.that the City values it business:partnerships and understands the
advantages to the coinmunity of healthy competition among multiple service proViders,
Recognizing the role oflocal government in the franchising process is essential to the entry of new . .
competitors in the Video market. A framework that adapts to the unique needs of coMiuunities like . .
Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry. Local video franchising ensures that cable and other video
providers can access the public rights-of-way in a fair and even-handedmaneer,Oat other users of the .
rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced,and that uses,ensure adequate prOtectiOn of this valuable
asset for the benefit of all the public.
- .
Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local government franchising is not a barrier to competition. In .
• fact,quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other local governments welcome competition and
are optimistic that principles like those introduced by Senator Inbuye and Senator Burns will promote
competitive,entry in a timely and equitable manner. .
..
• The City of Renton is eager to work with you to legislate and 44-lenient a balanced video franchising
framework that promotes competition and respects the role of local governments,
Thank you for considering my views, and please feel free to call me(425-439-6500) if I may be of any
assistance on this or other issues. •
.
, . Sincerely,
6(tity
Kathy Keolker
Mayor
.
. Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,City of Renton
•
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)4306523 RENTON
_.. ......._ _. ....... ______
' FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Burns)
(202)224-6137
Andy Davis(Inouye)
(202) 224-4546
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman;respectively, of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee,released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens deserves alot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront of the minds of the Committee members,"said Senator Burns. "The
principles we've put forth will lay the groundwork.for serious reform of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also allow new franchisees to enter markets with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide, the Committee will draft an effective and
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms," said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. In the weeks ahead,I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the context of telecommunications reform."
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner, and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law,state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs,to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be
eliminated. If the current process results in unnecessary delay,procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless, the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee, so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote.Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field.
o The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
o The franchising.process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
###
U
•
frs`S-
• CITY OF RENTON
1/4)
Mayor
• Kathy Keolker
-eNrc0
February 14,2006
The Honorable Jay Inslee
United States Representative
4-3 Cannon HOB
Washington,D.C. 20515-471)1
Dear Representative hislee:
•On behalf of the City of Renton;I Write to encourage you to endorse and support the set of principles
•- recently put forward by Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Conrad Burns for Video Franehising reform
• (enclosed). These principles promote both local responsibility and market competition and are consistent
- with the core values of the National Association of Telec.ommUnications Officers and Advisors,of which
Renton is a member.
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
• management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens.. At the same time,we recognizethat time
and predictability are essential to business success. Renton's reputation for responsive,timely,and
• efficient permitting clearly demonstrates that the City yainei its:business partnershiPS and understands the
• advantages th:the community of healthy competition among math*service providers.
. .
Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising tailtess is essential to the entry of new
competitors in the video Market A framework that adiptato the unique needs of communities like
Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry. Local Oleo franchising ensures that cable and other video
providers can access the public 4W-of-way in a.fair and even-handed manner,that other Weis of the
rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced,and that uses ensure adequate protection ef this valuable
• asset for the benefit ocall the,public.
Despite anecdotal claims to the conitaiy, local government franchising is not a barrier to camPetition. In
fact,quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other local governments welcome cOmpettion and
are optimistic that principles like those introduced by Senator Inouye and Senator Burns will promote
• competitive entry in a timely and equitable manner. •
The City of Renton is eager to work with you to legislate and.implement a balanced video franchising
framework that promotes competition and respects the role Of local governments.
Thank you for considering my views,and please feel free to call me(425-430-6500)if 1 may be of any
• assistance on this or other issues. •
Sincerely,
•
Kathy Keolker
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,City of Renton
• • RENTON
1055
South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430--6523
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Burns)
(202)224-6137
: Andy Davis(Inouye)
(202)224-4546
•
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON, DC-U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman,respectively,of the Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee,released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens.deserves a lot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront of the minds of the Committee members,"said Senator Burns. "The
principles we've.put'forth will lay the groundwork for serious reform.of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also allow new franchisees to enter markets with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide,the Committee will draft an effective and . .
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms," said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. In the weeks ahead, I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the context of telecommunications reform."
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the.Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner,and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law, state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs,to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be-
eliminated. If the current process results in unnecessary delay,procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless,the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in a blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee, so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote.Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field.
0 The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
0 The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
ti�Y o� CITY OF RENTON
t : Mayor
O� •
Kathy Keolker
NT
February 14,2006
The Honorable Maria Cantwell
United States Senator
United States Senate,Hart 717
. Washington,D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Cantwell:
On behalf of the.City of Renton; I write to encourage you to endorse and support the set of principles
recently put forward by Senator Dan Inouye and Senator Conrad Bums for Video Franchising reform
(enclosed): These principles promote both local responsibility and market competition and are consistent
with the core values of the National Association.of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,of which.
Renton is a member.
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those.citizens. Attie same time,we recognize that time
and predictability are essential to business success. Renton's reputation:for responsive,timely,and
efficient permitting:clearly demonstrates that theCity values itabusiness partnerships and:understands the
advantages to the.community of healthy:competition among multiple service providers.:
Recognizing the role of local government in the franchising process is essential to the.entry'of new
competitors=inthe video market. A'frauiework that adapts.tthe unique needs of communities like
Renton will ensure smoother and faster entry: Local video.franchising.ensures that cable and other video
providers can access the public iights;of way in a fair and even-handed manner,that_other.users of the
rights-of-way are not unduly inconvenienced,and that uses ensure adequate protection of this valuable
asset for the benefit of all the public.
Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, local goverment franchising is not a barrier to competition. In
fact, quite the opposite is true. The City of Renton and other local governments welcome competition and
are optimistic that principles like those introduced by Senator Inouye and Senator Burns wili:promote
competitive entry in a timely and equitable manner.
The City of Renton is eager to work with you to legislate and implement a balanced video.franchising
framework that promotes competition and-respects the role oflocal governments.
Thank you for considering my views,and please feel free to call me(4.25-430-6500)if I-may:be of any
assistance.on this or-other issues.
Sincerely,
'KC4
Kathy Keo ,er
Mayor
Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington,Cliief Administrative Officer,City of Renton -
1 E •IN T C) 1 V
1055 South Grady Way Renton,Washington 98055 (425).430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523 .
•
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 2,2006
Contacts:
Derek Hunter(Bums)
(202).224-6137
Andy Davis(Inouye)
(202)224-4546
Burns, Inouye Release Principles for
Video Franchising Reform
Senators seek to foster competition and a fair process that recognizes local needs
WASHINGTON, DC -U.S. Senator Conrad Burns and U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye,
Senior Majority Member and Co-Chairman,respectively, of the Senate Commerce,
Science,and Transportation Committee,released today a series of principles that they
believe are essential for any legislation the Committee might consider on video
franchising reform.
"Chairman Stevens deserves:a lot of credit for bringing the issue of franchising reform to
the forefront of the minds of the Committee members,"said Senator Bums. "The
principles we've put forth will lay the groundwork for serious reform of franchising that
will not only benefit consumers through_ensuring honest competition for their business,
but will also.allow new franchisees to enter markets with level playing fields while
maintaining the local control so important to communities around the country. I look
forward to the coming debate on this important issue and have every confidence that,
with these guiding principles as our guide,the Committee will draft an effective and
important bill that will benefit all Americans."
"I applaud Chairman Stevens for turning the Committee's attention to the issue of
franchising reform and ways to increase video competition by promoting competitive
entry on fair terms,"said Senator Inouye. "While I look forward to an open and informed
debate, I believe that our analysis of these issues should be guided by certain principles,
which I hope will contribute to the debate. lathe weeks ahead, I look forward to
discussing these principles with Chairman Stevens and my colleagues as we consider
legislative proposals in the context of telecommunications reform."
V
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the.Video Franchising
Process.
o The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a type of
"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local authorities have
primary responsibility for administration of the franchising process within
certain federal limits. Because each community may be unique,this
framework recognizes that the local franchising authority is uniquely
positioned to ensure that video providers meet each community's needs
and interests in a fair and equitable manner,and are most effective in
seeing that provider obligations are enforced. The Federal government
has neither the resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
o Consistent with existing law,state or local franchise authorities should
retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use and recover the
associated costs, to require the payment of a reasonable franchise fee, and
to require sufficient outlets for local expression and appropriate
institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
o Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video services.
Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural delay should be
eliminated.. If the current process results in unnecessary delay,procedural
timetables could be established to ensure a decision by the relevant
franchising authority by a date certain.
o Nevertheless, the desire for a process facilitating swift entry should not
result in blank check for would-be competitors. Instead, franchising
authorities must ensure that similar(though not necessarily identical)
responsibilities attend to any would-be franchisee, so that consumers
throughout the franchise area can enjoy the benefits of such services on a
non-discriminatory basis.
Promote.Competitive Neutrality and a.Level Playing Field.
o The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of video services
where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the video content
offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a particular technology
should not be permitted.
o The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness for
consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field for
providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and conditions
for a franchise, other providers in that community should be entitled to
adopt those same terms and conditions.
m
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Jay Covington; Linda Herzog
Date: 1/11/2006 2:58:05 PM
Subject: Telecom Regulation
FYI: Here is a January 2006 article from www.governinq.com which I accessed via MRSC:
TELECOM REGULATION
A variety of telecom issues are on the legislative agenda. In addition to continuing efforts to limit the ability
of municipalities to offer broadband, a new issue is coming to the fore in statehouses nationwide: Many
states—likely including California, Connecticut, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North
Carolina and Virginia—will consider bills that would allow companies to receive statewide franchises to
provide video service.
Currently, to offer video service, companies have to apply for franchises at the local level, deals that
typically require them to pay fees and be subject to local regulation. Phone companies would like to break
into the cable business, but, with so many local governments involved, they have struggled to do so. Thus,
phone companies are leading this year's legislative push in the hopes of obtaining franchises for entire
states in one fell swoop.
Predictably, the biggest opponents of statewide franchise bills are cable companies, the sworn enemies of
the phone companies,who plan to jealously guard their turf against encroachment. Municipalities also are
concerned with the legislative push, worrying that they could lose out on franchise fees and regulatory
authority if such bills pass. On the other hand, advocates of the measures argue that they will increase
competition and lower prices for consumers.
Texas was the only state to approve a statewide franchise last year. The Texas legislation may represent
a model for others to imitate in order to win broad-based support. Initially, municipal representatives were
dead-set against the bill, but lawmakers offered concessions, grandfathering in existing franchises and
ensuring that fees from statewide franchises would be redirected to local governments. The result was
that although big cities still opposed the final bill, the Texas Municipal League stayed neutral, and the
legislation passed.
Congress may also get involved in the debate. Phone companies will seek a law to allow for federal video
franchises. If approved, the legislation would render local or state franchises unnecessary, a possibility
that has municipalities concerned. "It's an onslaught against the local franchising authority," says Marilyn
Mohrman-Gillis, director of the National League of Cities' Center for Policy and Federal Relations.
CC: Larry Warren
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: 'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/30/2005 8:43:12 AM
Subject: Latest FCC-A La Carte TV Pricing
Bonnie,
I thought you might be interested in this latest FCC update.
Tracy
FCC chief backs a la carte cable TV pricing
The agency's chairman told a Senate panel subscribers should be able to buy
only the channels they want. One foe called that concept"a very dangerous
idea."
David Ho, Cox News Service
Last update: November 29, 2005 at 7:57 PM
<http://www.startribune.com/stories/457/5751697.html>
WASHINGTON - Letting customers pick the cable TV channels they receive
instead of forcing them to buy programming packages probably would save
subscribers money and help them avoid violent and sexually explicit shows,
the nation's top communications regulator said Tuesday.
"It could end up being beneficial to consumers in many instances," Federal
Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin said at a Senate forum to
discuss television and radio decency.
It's not clear whether the FCC's stance,which reverses a position it took
last year,will lead to a new pricing system.
The agency cannot require the change, and Congress might be reluctant to
pass a law forcing cable providers to adopt it. However, an upcoming report
detailing the FCC's position will give ammunition to cable critics who say
consumers pay too much and lack the tools necessary to protect children from
objectionable programming.
The cable industry reacted with alarm.
Mandatory a la carte cable pricing is a "very dangerous idea," said Kyle
McSlarrow, president of the National Cable Television Association. He said
such a system would face technical hurdles, violate free speech protections
and hurt consumers by raising prices and curtailing channels.
"We have 390 cable networks, with programming for every taste," he said.
"The reason those networks survive is because they are bundled together,
allowing them an opportunity to be offered, to gain new subscribers and
viewership."
However, consumer groups praised Martin's comments.
"His support for a la carte pricing should help push it forward, giving
consumers'wallets a break," said Gene Kimmelman, senior public policy
director for Consumers Union.
Kimmelman challenged the pay TV industry's bundling argument. "Chairman
Martin has blown a huge hole through this fortress of deceit," he said.
Industry analysts had a more tempered reaction.
"We don't believe it will significantly increase the risk that the
government will require cable operators to offer a la carte programming, at
least anytime soon,"said Blair Levin, an analyst with the Legg Mason
investment firm and a former FCC official.
Levin said that the FCC lacks the authority to force the change and that
Congress is unlikely to act because of the potential disruption to the cable
industry.
Last year, an FCC report concerning cable pricing submitted to Congress by
Martin's predecessor, Michael Powell,found that giving consumers the
ability to select channels'would make cable more expensive and would hurt
the industry.
Martin said new research shows that the report was flawed and "presented
incorrect and, at times, biased analysis." For example, he said, it
understated the number of channels consumers would buy under an a la carte
system and relied on findings that people would watch less television.
"It seems unrealistic that we would see this kind of decline in viewership
simply because consumers could purchase only those channels that they found
most interesting," Martin said.
Under an a la carte system, consumers might buy a basic package and then
"opt out"of specific channels with their bills reduced appropriately,
Martin said. Another option would let consumers pick a certain number of
channels from a menu of programming.
Martin raised the possibility of a la carte pricing as one way for cable and
satellite TV providers to address the concerns of parents worried about
risque shows.
"Parents would then be able to receive and pay for only the programming that
they are comfortable with bringing into their home," he said.
Martin suggested at the forum organized by the Senate Commerce Committee
that pay TV might face more regulations.
"If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse to offer parents more
tools, such as family-friendly programming packages, basic indecency and
profanity restrictions might be a viable alternative that should be
considered,"he said.
But Martin called government intervention a last resort.
"Parents have a responsibility to pay attention to what their children
listen to and watch," he said.
From: "Judy" <jd@midvalleytv.com>
To: "Al Hubert" <mvtv9@charter.net>, "Ann Suter" <anns@scantv.org>, "Bart Preecs"
<bpreecs@gmail.com>, "Bernadette Castner" <bcastner@auburnwa.gov>, "Bill Oltman"
<boltman@co.pierce.wa.us>, "Bonnie Walton" <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Brenda Tate"
<brenda.tate@seattle.gov>, "Brian Pearson" <brian.pearson@cityoffederalway.com>, "Bruce Crest"
<bcrest@maccor.org>, "Calvin Schimpf' <fibernetinc@msn.com>, "Candess Andrews"
<candrews@ci.richland.wa.us>, "Carol Mathewson" <carol.mathewson@cityoftacoma.org>, "Cecelia
Duncan" <cecelia.duncan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Chas Hilton" <chilton@cityoftacoma.org>, "Chris Bacha"
<cbacha@cityoftacoma.org>, "Chris Givens" <chrisg@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Chris Jaramillo"
<chris.jaramillo@metrokc.gov>, "Chris Latham" <clatham@u.washington.edu>, "Churck Lare"
<chuck@lareassoc.com>, "Cindi Cruz" <cruz@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Corbitt Loch"
<cloch@desmoineswa.gov>, "Craig Fischer" <cfischer@medina-wa.gov>, "Craig Ward"
<cward@ci.seatac.wa.us>, "Dainel Dootson" <ddootson@edcc.edu>, "Dave Spencer"
<dspencer@noanet.net>, "David Jones" <djones@kpud.org>, "David Kerr" <dkerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us>,
"Dea Drake" <ddrake@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Diane Lachel" <dlachel@cityoftacoma.org>, "Don Kelly"
<dkelly@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "Donn Hedden" <donnh@scantv.org>, "Donna Mason"
<donna.mason@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "Doug Everhart" <douge@cityofanacortes.org>, "Duane Bowman"
<bowman@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Engel Lee" <engel.lee@seattle.gov>, "Eric Trimble"
<etrimble@ci.tumwater.wa.us>, "Gene Powers" <deborahk@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, "George Geyer"
<gfgeyer@co.kitsap.wa.us>, "George McBride" <gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>, "James Southworth"
<jims@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "Jan Roegner" <janr@ci.burien.wa.us>, "Janet Jensen"
<janet.jensen@seattle.gov>, "JD Fouts" <chamilton@cityofcentralia.com>, "Jeff Johnson"
<jeffj@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, "Jill Novik" <jill.novik@seattle.gov>, "Jim Demmon"
<jim.demmon@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "John S. Tennis" <tennisj@co.thurston.wa.us>, "Jon Funfar"
<jonfunfar@ci.enumclaw.wa.us>, "Joseph Meneghini" <joem@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Joyce Goedeke"
<joyce.goedeke@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Kate Reardon" <kreardon@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Kent Lundgren"
<kentlundgren@msn.com>, "Keri Stokstad" <keri@pugetsoundaccess.org>, "Kim Van Ekstrom"
<kvanekstrom@redmond.gov>, "Laura Blechen" <Iblechen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Linda Carl"
<carl@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Lorrie Rempher" <Irempher@auburnwa.gov>, "Lynne Hurd"
<lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>, "Lynne Masters" <Imasters@masterspllc.com>, "Marc Pease"
<mpease@co.pierce.wa.us>, "Marie Mosley" <marie.mosley@ci.kennewick.wa.us>, "Marie Stake"
<maries@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, "Mark Somers" <msomers@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Marlene Feist"
<mfeist@spokanecity.org>, "Marty Mulholland" <mmulholland@cob.org>, "Mary Owens"
<mary.owens@oakharbor.org>, "Matthew Micona" <mmicona@sammamish.wa.us>, "Maur Moore"
<spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Mehdi Sadri" <mehdi.sadri@cityoffederalway.com>, "Mike Charboneau"
<mcharboneau@ci.richland.wa.us>, "Mike Roberge" <michaelr@scantv.org>, "Mitch Wasserman"
<mitch@clydehill.org>, "Nancy Abell" <nabell@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "Nancy Johnson"
<njohnson@cityoftacoma.org>, "Pam Kolacy" <pkolacy@ci.port-townsend.wa.us>, "Pam Somers"
<psomers@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Patrick Hirsch" <phirsch@redmond.gov>, "Paul Dunn"
<pdunn@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Robert Beaumier" <reaumier@spokanecity.org>, "Rona Zevin"
<rona.zevin@seattle.gov>, "Ronald Hansen" <rhansen@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Russell Kasselman"
<RKasselman@cityofup.com>, "Sam Belcher" <belcher@ci.snohomish.wa.us>, "Sarah Hackett"
<shackett@maccor.org>, "Scott Staples" <sstaples@cityoftoppenish.us>, "Shannon Murphy"
<smurphy@cityofcentralia.com>, "Shawn Ward" <sward@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "SorToya Lowry"
<slowry@ci.seatac.wa.us>, "Stephen Clifton" <clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Teresa Slosar"
<Teresa.slosar@cityoftacoma.org>, "Tim Clark" <ttclark@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Timothy Smith"
<tims@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Tony Perez" <tony.perez@seattle.gov>, "Victoria Lincoln"
<victorial@awcnet.org>, "Walt Yeager" <walt.yeager@metrokc.gov>, "Wayne Collop"
<wcollop@ci.richland.wa.us>
Date: 2/13/2006 2:55:04 PM
Subject: Franchise Comments
Hello Members,
Please remember that today is the official filing day to the FCC for
your comments. If you notice in the filing instructions attached, if
you have missed this date you may also file until March 14th by
submitting your comments by email to John.Norton@fcc.gov
Ken Fellman is also submitting a filing on behalf of the membership of
WATOA. WATOA contributed $1,500.00. WATOA also recently contributed
$2,500.00 to NATOA's legislative efforts.
Please contact your Community Producers, colleges, Distance Learning
Programs, ROW authorities and inform them of the bills that will affect
the local franchise and right of way authority. Visit the NATOA
website,www.natoa.org <http://www.natoa.org/> for a complete listing
of all the bills being introduced.
Thank you,
Judy Devall
WATOA President
From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
To: "Elizabeth Beaty" <Ibeaty@hq.natoa.org>
Date: 3/22/2006 12:57:40 PM
Subject: RED ALERT- URGENT ACTION REQUESTED
LESS THAN A LITTLE"BIT"
Provisions in a proposed house bill that are favorable to local
governments are in jeopardy. We are getting reports that Congressman
Barton may be planning to introduce a bill which strips local
governments of franchise authority, eliminates all current cable
franchises, and does not protect us or our interests. It is imperative
that all members and their elected officials call their House Members as
soon as possible to express local governments' position. Below you will
find three main topics on which to focus on when speaking to Members.
In addition, working with our local government partner at the National
Association of Counties, we are using the following link to assist you
in quickly locating the phone numbers you will need for this call.
Please use this link, and please share the information and spread the
word! And, don't forget, if your House member is home for the week
(Congress is in recess), you should also call their local offices!
Thanks and remember- Keep it Local!
http://capwiz.com/naco/callalert/index.tt?alertid=8610841
<http://capwiz.com/nacoicallalert/index.Valertid=8610841>
Recognize and Reaffirm the Role of States and Localities in the Video
Franchising Process.
• The regulation of video services under Title VI relies upon a
type of"deliberately structured dualism"where state and local
authorities have primary responsibility for administration of the
franchising process within certain federal limits. Because each
community may be unique, this framework recognizes that the local
franchising authority is uniquely positioned to ensure that video
providers meet each community's needs and interests in a fair and
equitable manner, and are most effective in seeing that provider
obligations are enforced. The Federal government has neither the
resources nor the expertise to address such issues.
• Consistent with existing law, state or local franchise
authorities should retain the authority to supervise rights-of-way use
and recover the associated costs, to require the payment of a reasonable
franchise fee, and to require sufficient outlets for local expression
and appropriate institutional network obligations.
Promote Competition by Facilitating Speedy Entry on Fair Terms.
• Video Franchise Reform should promote competition in video
services. Obstacles to reform that result in unnecessary procedural
delay should be eliminated. If the current process results in
unnecessary delay, procedural timetables could be established to ensure
a decision by the relevant franchising authority by a date certain.
• Nevertheless, the desire for a process facilitating swift
entry should not result in a blank check for would-be competitors.
Instead, franchising authorities must ensure that similar(though not
necessarily identical) responsibilities attend to any would-be
franchisee, so that consumers throughout the franchise area can enjoy
the benefits of such services on a non-discriminatory basis.
Promote Competitive Neutrality and a Level Playing Field.
• The regulatory regime should be the same for providers of
video services where the operator, and not the consumer, controls the
video content offering. Definitional arbitrage on the basis of a
particular technology should not be permitted.
• The franchising process should be designed to promote fairness
for consumers in local communities and to promote a level playing field
for providers. If a competitive entrant negotiates better terms and
conditions for a franchise, other providers in that community should be
entitled to adopt those same terms and conditions.
From: "John W Pestle" <jwpestle@varnumlaw.com>
To: "Barbara A. Allen" <baallen@varnumlaw.com>
Date: 3/22/2006 8:09:24 PM
Subject: Federal Cable Legislation 2, Call to Action
The U. S. House is reportedly poised to introduce legislation eliminating local cable franchising. So please
call your U. S. Representative as soon as possible to oppose this. Please call as soon as you can*The
23rd or 24th if possible, as there are reports the bill in question may be introduced this week or early next
week.
Attached in this regard is an email from the International Municipal Lawyers Association with information
on this (the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors*the trade group for
municipal cable officials*has sent an identical email to their members). Although slightly technical,you
should be able to follow the drift of it*Title VI in English means the Cable Act.
John Pestle
Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt& Howlett LLP
ADDRESS FOR REGULAR MAIL:
Bridgewater Place
PO Box 352
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49501-0352
ADDRESS FOR OVERNIGHT DELIVERY, UPS:
Bridgewater Place
333 Bridge Street, N.W.
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49504
phone 616-336-6000 ex 6725
direct 616-336-6725 .
fax 616-336-7000
email jwpestle@varnumlaw.com
web site www.varnumlaw.com
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
HOUSE BILL 2676
59th Legislature
2006 Regular Session
Passed by the House February 8, 2006 CERTIFICATE
Yeas 98 Nays 0
I, Richard Nafziger, Chief Clerk
of the House of Representatives of
the State of Washington, do hereby
Speaker of the House of Representatives certify that the attached is HOUSE
P BILL 2676 as passed by the House
of Representatives and the Senate
on the dates hereon set forth.
Passed by the Senate February 28, 2006
Yeas 49 Nays 0
Chief Clerk
President of the Senate
Approved FILED
Secretary of State
State of Washington
Governor of the State of Washington
HOUSE BILL 2676
Passed ,Legislature - 2006 Regular Session
State of Washington 59th Legislature 2006 Regular Session
By Representatives Linville, Jarrett, Simpson, Ericksen, Ahern, Dunn
and Upthegrove
Read first time 01/12/2006. Referred to Committee on Local Government.
1 AN ACT Relating to making interlocal cooperative agreements
2 available in electronic format; and amending RCW 39 . 34 . 040.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 39. 34 . 040 and 1995 c 22 s 1 are each amended to read
5 as follows :
6 Prior to its entry into force, an agreement made pursuant to this
7 chapter shall be filed with the county auditor or, alternatively,
8 listed by subject on a public agency' s web site or other electronically
9 retrievable public source. In the event that an agreement entered into
10 pursuant to this chapter is between or among one or more public
11 agencies of this state and one or more public agencies of another state
12 or of the United States the agreement shall have the status of an
13 interstate compact, but in any case or controversy involving
14 performance or interpretation thereof or liability thereunder, the
15 public agencies party thereto shall be real parties in interest and the
16 state may maintain an action to recoup or otherwise make itself whole
17 for any damages or liability which it may incur by reason of being
18 joined as a party therein. Such action shall be maintainable against
p. 1 HB 2676. PL
1 any public agency or agencies whose default, failure of performance, or
2 other conduct caused or contributed to the incurring of damage or
3 liability by the state.
--- END ---
HB 2676. PL p. 2
i F
From: Ben Wolters
To: Covington, Jay; Herzog, Linda; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 1/18/2006 9:46:30 AM
Subject: Telecom op ed.
Below is a guest column that appeared in the PSBJ this week calling for the abolition of local cable
franchises as a way to expand broadband. A key point made is the time taken to negotiate a franchise
agreement is a significant barrier to entry(how long did our last franchise agreement take--did Comcast
drag its heels during the negotiation?). A sign the Telecomms are organizing to push for local franchise
abolition at both the local and federal levels.
http://seattle.biziournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/01/16/editorial4.html
CC: Pietsch, Alexander
Government rules stymie broadband expansion- 2006-01-16 -Puget Sound Business Jour... Page 1 of 2
Puget Sound Business Journal(Seattle)-January 16,2006
http://seattle.bizjpurnals.com/Seattle/storesl2006101116/editorial4.html
Buo 1 6 L T sou n 4
i
G!rkr.
OPINION
From the January 13,2006 print edition
Guest Opinion
Government rules stymie broadband expansion
Charles Ganske
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee,D-Wash.,recently noted that the United States has fallen from 13th to 16th place in the
world in terms of the availability of broadband, according to the International Telecommunications Union.
Most Americans with"high speed" Internet service presently make do with three megabits per second(Mbps)
or less,while South Koreans enjoy connections typically three times as fast as we do at lower prices.
Unlike firms in the United States, South Korean and Japanese companies hoping to build nationwide broadband
networks don't have to negotiate with thousands of municipalities. Reforming the local franchises that currently
place barriers to entry in cable television markets is absolutely necessary if we want to restore American global
leadership in telecommunications.
Inslee delivered his remarks at the Nov. 30 launch of Verizon's FiOS high-speed fiber optic network at the
University of Washington-Bothell campus. Verizon promises download speeds of up to 30 Mbps for customers
in King and Snohomish counties,but Verizon and competitors such as AT&T(formerly SBC) have a lot more
work to do before the United States can catch up with world leaders Japan and South Korea.
While Congress outlawed exclusive local franchises in 1992,the time and expense required to obtain video
licenses from municipalities has considerably delayed the rollout of a truly national competitive marketplace
for broadband.
Take Verizon as an example. The company currently serves 10,000 municipalities,but according to spokesman
Kevin Laverty,Verizon obtained only 16 local video licenses in 2005,in spite of employing nearly 100 lawyers
to negotiate with towns and cities in several states.
There are an estimated 30,000 municipal video franchises in the United States, and for a new competitor to
negotiate to enter all of those markets at the current pace would take 30 years.
Fortunately, several states are moving to eliminate local video franchising. In Texas,the state Legislature
created a single statewide franchise, though providers still pay a 5 percent charge to municipalities for use of
local rights-of-way. Not coincidentally,Texas has seen a surge in broadband investment,with AT&T and
Verizon competing to provide high-speed, fiber optic networks to consumers in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.
Other states considering statewide video franchises include New Jersey and Indiana.
While state legislatures can move the cause of deregulation forward,the biggest fight for consumer choice will
be at the federal level. U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.,has introduced a bill to abolish local video franchises
nationwide,while still permitting municipalities to collect 5 percent fees. Local governments nationwide collect
an estimated$3 billion in fees annually. More than protecting their right to collect these revenues, which would
be preserved in the Ensign bill,the municipalities want to reserve the ability to extract concessions from cable
television providers.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/01/16/editorial4.html?t=printable 1/18/2006
Government rules stymie broadband expansion- 2006-01-16 -Puget Sound Business Jour... Page 2 of 2
A recent article in The Wall Street Journal listed some of the demands local officials have made of companies
hoping to build fiber into their towns, including requests to build multimillion-dollar television recording
studios and traffic-light monitoring systems. While franchise agreements have funded many laudable
initiatives, such as wiring elementary school classrooms, surely taxpayers can be asked to fund these programs
rather than letting politicians quietly slip the costs into the customers' cable bills.Simply because these practices
have been accepted for 25 years is no reason that either franchised cable companies or new entrants to the
market should have to accept them today.
A 2004 study conducted by the General Accounting Office confirms that more competition for broadband
services means lower prices for consumers. Without new competition in video markets nationwide to provide
cheaper, faster broadband access for entertainment, teleconferencing and home health monitoring,the United
States is missing out on thousands of new, well-paying jobs,many of which would be created here in Seattle.
One option that has increasingly appealed to municipalities to spur this kind of growth is for local utilities to
provide high-speed Internet and digital television services. Here in the Northwest,the Seattle City Council has
discussed building its own wireless network, and Ashland, Ore.,built fiber connections for 9,000 homes.
However, a recent independent study of municipal broadband conducted by former Montana public utility
Commissioner Bob Rowe found that every municipal network surveyed, including Ashland,ran into significant
cost overruns. Municipalities have learned many costly lessons about their optimistic projections in the course
of trying to start up networks,but the real question is whether these losses should be paid by taxpayers or by
investors.
Without a clear and limited regulatory regime, investors will not put up the billions of dollars needed to build a
truly national broadband infrastructure. It's time for state legislatures and Congress to unleash the
telecommunications industry from increasingly irrelevant and outdated regulations, and let them build the
world's finest broadband network.
CHARLES GANSKE is a writer for the Technology and Democracy Project and Cascadia Center at
Discovery Institute in Seattle.
©2006 American City Business Journals Inc. 2 '!,:Add RSS Headlines
Become an Edward I Today's Featured Jobs powered by bizjournalsHire
Jones Investment E h and Jones • Senior Database Marketing Modeler-Numeric
Representative.
Run your business. ; •WFF._USC CREDIT MANAGER-Wells Fargo
Determine your compensation. • Finance Manager of Financial Reporting and Analysi-Tribune Company
Create your future. • Sr.Structural Engineer-Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc..
Apply today.
• Sales Consultant-Grow Professionally_and Financial-ARAMARK
»View all jobs frem_thjscompany More Local Jobs
4 Post Jobs I 4 Post Your Resume I -'Search Jobs
All contents of this site©American City Business Journals Inc.All rights reserved.
http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2006/01/16/editorial4.html?t=printable 1/18/2006
From: "Pike& Fischer" <ssleek@pf.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/24/2006 10:29:25 AM
Subject: Broadband Advisory Alert- March 24, 2006
BROADBAND ADVISORY ALERT
Market Intelligence for the Broadband, IP and New Media Industries from Pike& Fischer's Broadband
Advisory Services
March 24, 2006
Is Broadband Over Power Lines Ready for Prime Time?
Electric utilities control the only other third wire into American homes after cable and phone service. But
can utilities effectively use their lines to deliver broadband service reliably and cost-effectively?
Enthusiasm for this possibility has ebbed and flowed in recent years, but BPL's potential has received a
shot of increased credibility over the last year as companies ranging from Google to Goldman Sachs
Group have provided financial backing for BPL ventures. In an upcoming report,we consider key aspects
of BPL's evolution, current status and likely future development. We provide an overview of BPL
technology and a comparative review of its vendors. We also examine BPL business models, trials and
commercial deployments; utility attitudes and motivations with regard to BPL; and BPL regulation at the
federal and state levels. Look for this new report the week of March 27.
Order an advance copy: http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/researchReportsBriefs.asp
Fourth Quarter 2005 Analyses:
Telcos added 4.6 million new DSL customers in the final three months of last year. That fact and a variety
of other metrics are packed into our quarterly report examining the state of the DSL business among the
top four incumbent telephone companies:AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest. We compare the
companies on DSL availability, customer growth, and penetration of total access lines. Also, our Q4 and
year-end 2005 analyses of the top broadband players are now available. Each report details current and
historical financial performance data and provides unique analysis of their operational results. Reports are
free to Pike & Fischer Broadband Advisory Services subscribers.
Browse Financial Analyses http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/quatFA.asp
•
Browse Cross-Industry Comparisons http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/crosslA.asp
In the coming days, look for additional analyses on the cable and DBS industries, as well as our quarterly
comparisons of cable modem vs. DSL and the cable vs. DBS industries.
Broadband Policy Summit 2006: Charting the Road Ahead:
It's not too late to sign up for the early-bird discount for this event, to be held May 9-10 at The Madison
Hotel in Washington, D.C. More than 200 industry professionals are expected to attend the summit, which
will include panel discussions on legislative and regulatory activity, emerging technologies, net neutrality,
state and local issues and Wall Street forecasts.
NOTE: Broadband Advisory Services (BAS)subscribers enjoy discounted access to this event. Contact
Customer Care (customercare@pf.com)for more information.
Register Now: http://www.broadbandpolicysummit.com/registration.htm
Learn More: http://www.broadbandpolicysummit.com
FEATURED RESEARCH:
Broadband Business Analysis: AT&T's Proposed Acquisition of BellSouth:
AT&T stands to become the largest U.S. provider of high-speed Internet service once it closes its
proposed acquisition of BellSouth, and could expand its rollout of fiber optic services. What does all this
mean for other providers, such as Verizon and Time Warner? How will it affect the rollout of advanced
services such as IPTV and VoIP?These questions and more are examined in our new in-depth analysis.
Seven charts and graphs are included.
Broadband Business Analysis: EarthLink
EarthLink's plan to evolve from a typical ISP to a multi-faceted communications company is examined
in-depth in this 12-page report. We conclude that the company's best prospects are in the mesh Wi-Fi
market. The report includes detailed financial and operational data.
Browse All Reports: http://www.broadbandadvisoryservices.com/researchReportsBriefs.asp
NEWSLETTER HIGHLIGHTS
Broadband Daily(http://www.broadband-daily.com)
-AOL Video Service Launches with High-Resolution Technology
- BellSouth, AT&T Make Big Gains on DSL Penetration
- FCC Lets Verizon Forbearance Petition Take Effect
-TelecomNext Touts TV
-AT&T, Verizon Contrast Fiber Deployment with Public Internet
VoIP Monitor(http://www.voip-monitor.com)
-Cablevision Still Leads Peers in VoIP Penetration
-Covad Details Aggressive VoIP Pursuits
-Action Delayed on Senate VoIP Bill
-Yahoo! Has No Hubris When It Comes to VoIP
As always, if you have a question or a specific research need, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Scott Sleek
Director, Broadband Advisory Services
Pike& Fischer
A BNA Company
ssleek@pf.com
**************************************************************
Pike & Fischer-A BNA Company
1010 Wayne Ave., Suite 1400
Silver Spring, MD 20910
**************************************************************Click below to unsubscribe:
http://www.magnetmail.net/Actions/unsubscribe.cfm?message_id=168503&user_id=PikeFisch&recipient_i
d=15561253&email=bwaiton@ci.renton.wa.us&group_id=77829
broadband
communications art
(( zs6 First Avenue South,Suite 26o APR 1 3 2006
Seattle,Washington 98104
RECEIVE
206.652•9303 CITY CLERK'S FFICE
association a36.652.8297 fax
)1 wwwbroadbandwashington.org de:
_ K_
li ,(i/(GG���LL 4122/
• -a C4
April 7, 2006
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Dear Ms. Walton:
Unlike most of our communications competitors, the cable industry is regulated at the
federal, state and local levels. As a consequence, we believe the partnerships we enjoy
with elected leaders across Washington State make us uniquely sensitive to community
concerns.
There is a significant threat to our longstanding relationship with your community.
During the past year telecommunication giants such as AT&T and Verizon
Communications, Inc., have launched aggressive lobbying campaigns in several states.
Their aim is to circumvent existing local franchise laws in order to obtain easier terms
and conditions than those under which cable companies now operate. They want state or
federal governments to assume regulatory powers that today rest in your hands.
At stake is local control. Existing franchise laws give Washington State communities a
powerful tool used to ensure that local needs are met. These laws guarantee quality
service for all consumers in your community, not just those in neighborhoods deemed
most profitable. They bring transparency to city councils and county councils that have
chosen to televise proceedings on our public access, education and government channels.
They give you the final say over activities on your streets' rights-of-way.
Local control is undermined by legislation that promotes a single, one-size-fits-all state or
federal franchise. The most compelling arguments against the telephone companies'
position are offered in telecom executives' own words. They make clear that they feel no
obligation to serve all citizens in a given community, saying so in testimony before state
legislatures across the country.
When Verizon Virginia's president testified before lawmakers, he said his company did
not have to build its network to all parts of a community because it would be a barrier to
entry. Telecom executives view local franchise negotiations with cities and counties as
cumbersome and tedious. They talk of capping the number of public access, education
and government channels.
The threat posed by anti-local franchise legislation is real. In Texas the
telecommunications industry hired 161 lobbyists and spent more than$8.6 million to
push through a measure over local governments'objections. Cities and counties have
been essential to fending off anti-local franchise challenges in other states.
We would appreciate the opportunity to talk with you further about anti-local franchise
legislation. If you have any questions, please contact a representative of your local cable
provider or call the Broadband Communications Association of Washington at(206)652-
9303. Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Ron Main, Executive Director
Broadband Communications Association of Washington
. .. . .
, .
broadband - • - . . . , ,..
.,..
c,,mintinicition, SEATTLE WA 931
12. APR. 2006 PM- 2 T
(((
association 216 First Avenue South,Suite 26o
of wo..chi nfl-1 Seattle,Washington 98104
CITY OF RENTON
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City of Renton i: DR 1 3 2006
1055 S Grady Way
Renton WA 98055 CITY RECEIVE
iniiiiiii!IIHNtilithhilit;Nliii!IINWhilii;111Hillii
w ' . ,
WATOA NEWS fle. -
44,
it
APRIL WORKSHOP REVIEW May 2006
Friday, April 28, 2006
Woodinville City Hall
Presentations Made By:
HR5252
Jim Haggerton, City of Tukwila, City Council and
Technology Committee of the National League of Cities At the WATOA website are postings from the City of Tacoma
regarding comments for HR5252., known also as the COPE
Victoria Lincoln, Association of Washington Cities ACT. Please encourage your City Councils to adopt Resolutions
and send letters in opposition to National Franchising. Support
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee, staffer Brian Peters Net Neutrality and maintain local Right of Way authority.
Debbie Luppold, Comcast S. 2686
Petra Redchuk, Government Relations, Charter WATOA is invited to comment on the Steven's bill S. 2686 with a
Members received updates on legislative issues and a due date of May 22nd. Please provide your comments to Judy
or David by May 16th for inclusion in the letter.
visit from
iI im Members, now is not the time to stop providing the House and
� l Senate local views. Industry continues to lobby and send letters
� � I �. vai on their position. Please check the watoa and natoa websites
' ki - .,. ' regularly for updates. This legislation is moving fast. We need
- -"� IllS• to continue to be diligent.
i
v- n- "'' Thank you.
Congressman
Jay Inslee
Thank you to all ...
presenters, ... __._
participants and the NATOA NEWS
City of Woodinville for a successful conference.
COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESS-NATOA
Encourages Local Governments to Communicate
with Elected Officials. Visit www.natoa.org for
Brian Wilson Memorial Scholarship examples and information. The Policy/Advocacy
Entry due May 31st! page has information on Senate Commerce Telecom
Staff contact list, draft letters, and legislative issue
A$600.00 scholarship is available to attend the updates.
2006 NATOA conference in Florida.
Visit www.watoa.org for complete entry details. NATOA Annual Conference
August 22-26 in Orlando, Florida
WATOA in Action!
Eastern Washington Conference to be held in Yakima WATOA Contacts:
in October. Members we need your input and JudyDevall
preferences. Would you like to attend a Thursday/Friday jd@midvalleytv.com
conference or a Friday/Saturday or Saturday/Sunday David Kerr dkerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us
conference the first week of October. Yakima has many Jill Novik jill.novik@seattle.gov
wonderful events in October. One of them is the
Hop Festival occurring on Saturday evening. There is the Marie Stake maries@ci.woodinville.wa.us
Farmers Market downtown, wine tasting rooms, and shop- Chas Hilton chilton@cityoftacoma.org
ping. The conference will be held in the new Yakima
Garden Hilton Hotel. Please contact a board member be-
fore June 1st so arrangements can be firmed up.
Thank you.
From: Ben Wolters
To: Bailey, Michael; Corman, Randy; Herzog, Linda; Keolker, Kathy; McBride, George;
Walton, Bonnie
Date: 5/4/2006 8:59:10 AM
Subject: letter to our Congressman re: COPE
Linda, in addition to Reichert, I would also send it to Smith and Inslee (because he sits on the committee
overseeing this issue)
Mike's change is good for pointing out we've been cooperative.
>>> Linda Herzog 05/03/06 8:12 PM >>>
I finally got around to preparing a letter begging Reichert to oppose the bill when it comes to House vote.
My apologies to all of you for taking my sweet time doing this.
As you will see in this draft, I have a cpl of words [bracketed] that I especially need your help with.
Everything about this letter is open to your critique, of course. It wd be nice to fax it out tomorrow.
Comments very soon wd be welcome.
Kathy and Randy, can I stamp both of your names on the bottom of the letter??
CC: McMakin, Ben; Pietsch, Alexander
From: "Michael Bradley"<bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton"<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 5/31/2006 7:43:44 AM
Subject: FW: New Federal Cable Legislation
From: Michael Bradley
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 4:38 PM
To: Linda Herzog; 'Bonnie Walton'
Subject: FW: New Federal Cable Legislation
Good Afternoon,
I wanted to make you aware of 3 new bills. I am enclosing the
Democratic Staff and Senator Hutchison's (S. 2989)Telecommunications
Reform Bills, both of which were released yesterday. I have also
enclosed a draft of Senator McCain's draft Ala Carte Bill. I have not
fully reviewed these bills yet, and I have not yet come across any
summaries. These are different from the bills we have been following
(S. 2686 and HR. 5252).
Mike
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 ext. 2
M/(651)592-7472
F/(651)379-0999
From: Kathy Keolker
To: cjm@mail.house.gov
Date: 6/7/2006 6:58:21 PM
Subject: Miller/Davis amendment to Telecom Reform legislation
My staff who have been closely following action on the Telecommunications Reform legislation have
informed me about an issue of very great importance to the City of Renton. I understand that
Congressman Gary Miller and Congresswoman Susan Davis are seeking Rules Committee aproval to
offer an important amendment to the Telecom Reform legislation expected to reach the House floor today
or tomorrow, as you read this.
As you know, the management of our community's rights-of-way is very important to public safety. The
current language in HR 5252 federalizes our traditional role of rights-of-way management of our local
streets, sidewalks and traffic patterns. The Miller/Davis amendment protects the role played by local
governments in the deployment of telecommunications services.
I want to encourage Congressman Reichert to support the Miller/Davis amendment at both the Rules
Committee and on the House floor. Please contact Congressman Doc Hastings, a member of the House
Rules Committee, to encourage him to allow the Miller/Davis amendment to be offered on the House floor
this week. If I or City of Renton staff can provide additional information about this issue, please feel free to
contact us.
Thank you for considering this request. This matter is very important to Renton and local governments
throughout the State of Washington.
We appreciate your continued interest in Renton.
Sincerely,
Mayor Kathy Keolker
Kathy Keolker
Mayor, City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6500
425-430-6523 (fax)
mayorkathy@ci.renton.wa.us
PROTECT CITIES AND COUNTIES\ l IE'S BY VOTING "NO" ON THE COMMUNICATIONS,
OPPORTUNITY, PROMOTION, AND ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2006
l)RGENT ACTION NEEDED: HOUSE COMMITTEE VOTE STRIPS LOCAL GOVERNMENT A.UTIIORITY AND DOES
NOT ENSURE SERVICE TO ALL
Local governments strongly endorse promoting competition for all consumers and treating like services alike. Our nation's
cities and counties welcome video competition in their communities. Nationalizing franchising, however, would limit the
benefits of video competition to a few well-to-do neighborhoods,would threaten local budgets, and would undermine the
ability of local governments to protect their residents and manage public rights-of-way.
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WANT CABLE COMPETITION AND HAVE ACTIVELY SOUGHT IT FOR YEARS. BUT
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Do N()T FAVOR:
• Subsidizing multinational communications companies'use of local streets and rights-of-way at the expense of local
government budgets and local taxpayers.
• Giving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington,D.C., control and oversight over how
localities manage their local streets and rights-of-way.
• Subsicli7ing service to a few well-to-do neighborhoods while less well-to-do neighborhoods are left behind without
competition,and with higher prices and poorer service.
• Allowing telephone companies to provide new cable and broadband services only to some of their telephone
customers,leaving others behind.
• Cutting current levels of financial support for local community programming and emergency communications.
• Taking away local authority to handle their residents'cable customer service complaints.
THE TRUTH:
The bill's supporters make several claims about its supposed benefits, but they are not true.
• The bill would supposedly increase cable competition and lower cable prices.
The Truth: Only for a chosen few. Everyone else could see higher rates and poorer service. As currently worded,the
bill allows new entrants to pass by poorer neighborhoods completely, as long as they don't discriminate against poorer
residents in well-to-do neighborhoods.
• The bill would supposedly allow localities to continue to manage their rights-of-way.
The Truth:Local government rights-of-way management would be subject to oversight and second-guessing by the
FCC in Washington,D.C.
• The bill would supposedly preserve localities' 5% franchise fees.
The Truth: It would reduce the revenue base on which the 5%is paid,meaning less franchise fees for the critical
services local governments provides to its citizens,including public safety and transportation.
• The bill would supposedly prevent economic redlining.
The Truth: It would allow new entrants to bypass poorer and minority neighborhoods entirely as long as the new
entrant offers service to those groups that happen to be sprinkled about in otherwise more well-to-do neighborhoods.
• The bill would supposedly continue to provide support for public, educational and governmental ("PEG") access
channels and institutional networks (I-Nets).
The Truth: It fails to make communities whole on PEG and I-Net support. Many communities have made the
decision in their local franchises to obtain more than 1%worth of PEG and I-Net support,and in those communities,
local programming and emergency communications should not be diminished by the bill.
United States Conference of Mayors—htth,;f,j.yymy,.ii;nay;urs,n.r4;;National League of Cities—hlttp t/vww,nlc,org
National Association of Counties—http;,/f nacc.nr y National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors—httpil.Wynn oa..org;
Government Finance Officers Association—...tp;.1./mnv.gftra.nrs;International Municipal Lawyers Association—httT.:.//yryy_nti;imin_uin;
TeleCommUnity—httf;.b.its cQn.t a nity lli;u cg,:t ty;National Conference of Black Mayors—http;.LLwww;ng,b.m._arg
•
From: Linda Herzog
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 5/4/2006 3:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: letter to our Congressman re: COPE
It's gone. Here's a copy of the final.
>>> Bonnie Walton 05/04/06 2:21 PM >>>
I think the letter is very good as is. I'm glad it is going out today.
Bonnie
>>> Linda Herzog 05/03/06 8:12 PM >>>
I finally got around to preparing a letter begging Reichert to oppose the bill when it comes to House vote.
My apologies to all of you for taking my sweet time doing this.
As you will see in this draft, I have a cpl of words [bracketed]that I especially need your help with.
Everything about this letter is open to your critique, of course. It wd be nibe to fax it out tomorrow.
Comments very soon wd be welcome.
Kathy and Randy, can I stamp both of your names on the bottom of the letter??
May 4, 2006
The Honorable Dave Reichert
1223 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Reichert:
The City of Renton appeals to you to oppose the Communications, Opportunity, Promotion and
Enhancement ACT(COPE—HR 5252)when it comes to the floor next week.
There are numerous and serious flaws in this legislation.
■ By removing franchise authority from local governments, this legislation would erode the City of
Renton's authority over use of the rights of way that belong to our citizens. Legislation that affects
our ability to manage and protect our rights of way has the potential to expose our citizens to hazards,
inconvenience, conflict and financial loss. Such an action also gives a valuable public asset to a
profit-making private enterprise without compensation or accountability to the owner of the asset—
our taxpayers. This is clearly inappropriate and unwise.
■ This bill would enable telecommunication companies to effectively disadvantage the citizens in our
community who live in poorer neighborhoods where telecommunication service provision may be less
profitable. Because modern telecommunication services are so important to our citizens'well being
and their opportunities for success in education and employment, we reject any law or regulation that
"redlines" any portion of our community.
• The proposed legislation removes our ability to directly respond to our citizens' concerns about their
cable agreements, obtain the benefits and services due them, and resolve misunderstandings. There
is no way a federal agency has the resources or the ability to take on the customer service role that
local governments now perform as franchising agents.
• This bill arbitrarily modifies the definition of"cable services" by removing certain services from the
definition (e.g. cable internet service and on-demand video), thereby narrowing the revenue base on
which franchise fees are calculated. Franchise fees are the compensation citizens now receive for
use of the public rights of way. Changing the definition of cable services directly effects that
compensation.
The City of Renton fully supports competition among video and electronic communication providers. As
Renton has demonstrated, ours is a purposefully business-friendly city. Maintaining our ability to work
directly with telecom providers through mutually beneficial local franchise agreements is absolutely the
right thing to do.
The COPE legislation would set our community back, without any benefit to the people.
Please vote NO on HR 5252.
Thank you for your capable leadership and representation of your Renton constituents.
Sincerely,
Mayor Kathy Keolker Council President Randy Corman
cc: The Honorable John Dingell The Honorable Senator Patty Murray
The Honorable Edward Markey The Honorable Senator Maria Cantwell
Ms.Johanna Shelton, Minority Counsel
Page 2
bc: Ms. Cheryl Leanza fax 202-626-3043
Principal Legislative Counsel
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 550
Washington D.C. 20004
Ms. Elizabeth Beaty fax 703-519-8036
Executive Director
NATOA
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 495
Alexandria, VA 22314
Mr. Jeffrey Arnold fax 202-942-4281
Deputy Legislative Director
National Association of Counties
440 First Street, N.W.
8th Floor
Washington DC 20001
Mr. Ron Thaniel fax 202-293-2352
Assistant Executive Director
U.S. Conference of Mayors
1620 I Street
Fourth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
Mr. John Pestle fax 616-336-7000
Varnum, Riddering, Schmidt, Howlett LLP
Bridgewater Place
Box 352
Grand Rapids, MI 49501-0352
From: Ben Wolters
To: Bailey, Michael; Herzog, Linda; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 6/8/2006 12:11:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: telecom bill
From Ben. I think we should follow his advice. Ben W.
>>> "Ben McMakin" <BLM@vnf.com> 06/08/06 12:08 PM >>>
The Jackson-Lee amendment is a bit strange. If one wanted to look out for minorities, you'd think they'd
be fighting to assure the broadest technological build-out. But instead we have this amendment to lower
fees if a minority/women owned business is involved. I don't have a sense how the amendment will play
out, its strange, and unclear to me what the majority of Repbulicans will do with it. I suspect Reichert will
follow the majority of his Republican colleagues on this issue. I also think-- if it passes --that this
amendment is not likely to survive in conference.
Unless the city feels strongly, I just don't think the amendment is worth engaging on.
Ben
>>>"Ben Wolters" <BWolters(p,ci.renton.wa.us> 06/08/06 02:53PM >>>
• I concur with Ben's analysis. Reichert already knows where we are.
Ben, regarding the Jackson -Lee Amendment to reduce the frachise fee City's will get for paying PEG,
what about asking Reichert to vote against that? I think he would.
>>> "Ben McMakin" <BLM( vnf.com> 06/08/06 11:49 AM >>>
As far as contacting Reichert again, I'm lukewarm to be honest. It won't hurt, but we shouldn't expect
anything to come from it. Its my own belief that the opportunity to get some help from Reichert was on the
ROW issue. As Ben Wolters and I saw when he was here, we should expect that the
COPE/Telecommunications bill will pass the House, even with support from some Washington state
House Democrats (Inslee). So, I just don't think its reasonable to expect Reichert to oppose the bill. He's
been touched several times on the City's concerns. And he and his staff might be sympathetic, but they'll
say its a big bill with more positives than negatives, thus he'll join the masses and vote for it.
If it matters to the city's work with NATOA, NLC, or others, then send a letter. If not, we can skip it and
move on to Senator Cantwell and the Senate in hopes of doing better on the ROW language. Sen. Inouye
--Senior Democrat--on the Senate Commerce Committee has already said the proposed Senate bill
would have to be changed. I think our efforts are better spent on Cantwell than Reichert at this point.
If we end up in a conference, then we can go back to Reichert. For now, the House bill will pass with anti
municipal language. If we can do better in the Senate bill, there's hope a final conference product will also
be better than the House bill.
Let me know if you have other questions or would like to pursue a Reichert letter.
>>> "Alexander Pietsch" <Apietscha,ci.renton.wa.us> 06/08/06 12:37PM >>>
Ben McMakin is advising us on this. We did what he suggested. Ben, is other action necessary?
Alex Pietsch
Administrator
Dept. of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
City of Renton
425.430.6592 voice
425.430.7300 fax
www.rentonmarket.com
www.ci.renton.wa.us
>>> Linda Herzog 06/08/06 9:27 AM >>>
I know both of you have bigger fish to fry today, but I need a quick consult re: our message to Reichert (et
al???)on COPE.
Last nite I pretended I was Mayor& sent McMakin's note to Reichert's staffer(just like you said). That was
certainly a more explicit plea than what NATOA proposes here. But it did not convey the "no, no, a
thousand times no" message about unfunded mandates. I'm inclined to call it good with messages to
Reichert. My questions are:
a) do you agree?
b) shd we send an all points bulletin to all WA reps saying what NATOA advises here?
c)do you know what happened in Rules this morning?
>>> Bonnie Walton 06/08/06 8:09 AM >>>
>>> "NATOA Headquarters" < NATOAHQ q(�hq.natoa.orq> 06/08/06 7:55 AM >>>
ACTION ALERT- RED ALERT
Urgent Action Needed: COPE Is Unfunded Mandate
Vote No To COPE
House Floor Vote Expected This Afternoon or Friday On Telecom Bill
The Rule to establish debate on the Communications, Opportunity,
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE)will be debated this
morning between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. (CSPAN) and if passed the bill is
expected to be on the House Floor later today or Friday, June 9.
In addition to a vote"NO"on the bill, urge your members to vote"NO"
on the Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)Amendment-#19. Her amendment increases
the unfunded mandate impact of the bill by reducing the fee paid to
local government for PEG/I-NET from 1%to 0.5% if the video provider is
a minority or woman-owned business. Ironically, PEG is the one
communications vehicle which encourages minority and woman-owned
programming. In addition to the Jackson-Lee Amendment, the bill does
significant harm to consumers and cities in three significant ways:
First, the bill strips local governments of their authority to franchise
the use of their rights-of-way for video/cable services and gives that
authority to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington,
D.C. The FCC has never had the authority to regulate local public
rights-of-way and has no expertise concerning local streets, sidewalks,
public safety or traffic patterns.
Second, it gives the FCC the authority to oversee and second-guess all
local rights-of-way management practices and all customer service
issues. Incidents occurring in local rights-of-way are public safety
concerns and must be addressed immediately and locally. This bill
ignores the reality that the FCC is not able to respond in a timely
manner to these rights-of-way concerns. The FCC does not have the
resources to handle all customer complaints nationwide, and local
governments are best situated to respond to their residents' complaints.
Third, the bill allows providers of the broadband-video service, through
the national franchise, to use the public rights-of-way in a community
but pick and choose which neighborhoods they wish to serve while
bypassing all others completely. The bill would even allow
broadband/video providers to avoid maintaining or upgrading facilities
in poorer neighborhoods while affluent neighborhoods receive
cutting-edge services and lower prices.
Your urgent action is needed. Please contact your member(s) in the U.S.
House of Representatives and urge them to vote"NO"on the Jackson-Lee
Amendment-#19 and "NO" on the final vote for the Communications,
Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE/ H.R. 5252).
Simply dial the Capitol switchboard at (202)224-3121 and ask for your
member's office.
If you have questions contact NATOA Executive Director, Libby Beaty, at
(703) 519-8035.
CC: McMakin, Ben; Pietsch, Alexander
From: Linda Herzog
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 2/17/2006 7:06:10 PM
Subject: Re: saving municipal franchise authority. . . to-do list
I'll send our FCC comments to the other orgs.
As we discussed yesterday w/Tom, we'll invite our cmty access channel partners to our own meeting on
the 14th. But this I-net question is a different matter. I think George knows what we mean.
Re: Burns/Inouye, we sent sent thank you letters to them, & also a letter to each of our congresspersons.
>>> Bonnie Walton 02/17/06 5:50 PM >>>
Regarding item #2 for Bonnie: I submitted the City's letter to the FCC and NATOA on January 24th (see
attached). I did not send it to any other organizations. Since I am not involved in the other organizations,
maybe those of our group who are could be the one to relay a copy of the filing.
Regarding item #1 for George: I would suggest we be prepared to involve the cities who participate in our
Community Access Channel: Auburn, Burien, Kent, Renton, SeaTac and Tukwila.
Regarding item #3 for Ben regarding a Resolution: I am attaching a draft resolution from NATOA
regarding opposition to S 1504, but this was prepared a few months ago: We'd want to make sure any
resolution we ask Council to pass now reflects what is currently happening. On a somewhat related
matter, the current NATOA Action Alert asks for phone calls, faxes or emails to the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation to express appreciation to Senators Burns and Inouye for their
support.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Linda Herzog 02/17/06 1:47 PM >>>
Yesterday when we met, I passed out a copy of the"action plan"we developed when we first met the last
week in December, regarding federal action on telecom & local franchise authority. But since Tom
Robinson was our unexpected guest(thanks so much, Bonnie, for making this happen!), we didn't talk
about any of the items on the to-do list. Just to follow up, my notes indicate that every item on that work
plan is completed except these 3:
1. George, I don't know whether you have a list of strong allies among other cities whose I-net interests &
infrastructure are similar to Renton's (our item #2). It dznt look like we need to use these alliances at the
moment, but it wd be good to know you have a"stable"of people who can sing along with us if/when
needed.
2. Bonnie, I know you sent our FCC comment document to the Commission and I think to NATOA.
Toward the bottom of our work plan table there's a task assigned to me that says we shd share our
comments with our"institutional partners"who we defined as NATOA, NLC, USCM and GFOA. You can
either let me know who you've already sent our comments to, or ship off a copy to each of the orgs you
have not already covered. Let me know, pls.
3. The only other unfinished item on the list is the Council resolution. We had agreed we wd put a reso
on the Council agenda around Feb 15, when senate hearings began. Well, we missed opening day, but I
assume a Council reso would still be useful. Ben,wd you weigh in here? Or maybe McMaken can
advise?
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 1/11/2006 1:11:01 PM
Subject: Renton's comments to FCC re: cable franchise authority
Linda:
Attached is the draft FCC letter with paragraphs completed except those you requested from Larry Warren
and George McBride. (My input is in the 14 pt. italicized font.)
Please note that what the cable franchise document actually calls for and what has actually happened
may be two different things. For purposes of this letter, though, I believe it is the actual franchise
stipulations that we want to stress to the FCC, so that is how I drafted this.
Let me know if you have any questions or want me to provide anything further. If you need the instructions
for filing the City's letter, I can provide that.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Linda Herzog 01/10/06 11:40 AM >>>
I've got on today's "to do" list to start drafting the communication to the FCC. I have input from Larry and
George but no others.
Just a gentle reminder!!
>>> George McBride 01/09/06 2:26 PM >>>
try this, gm.
>>> Ben Wolters 1/9/2006 1:42:10 PM >>>
Should we also make reference here to our wireless network?
>>> George McBride 01/09/06 11:42 AM >>>
as requested, gm.
>>> Linda Herzog 1/4/2006 4:39:48 PM >>>
We agreed that we would get our"comments"to the FCC by the middle of January. I've just been looking
at my calendar and the substantial work that is already piling up this year.
I'm thinking we won't make that deadline(Monday Jan 16) unless we get all the pieces of the response
collected by the prior Wednesday evening (Jan. 11).
Please look at the third page of the new"Summary of Agreements"document you received Friday night,
and note which topics you are responsible for. (I'll attach another copy here.) Please send your
paragraphs (or sentences) by Wednesday evening.
Then Ben and I will pull it all together into the comments document and get it to Jay&the Mayor for review
/signing.
CC: Ben Wolters; Jay Covington
INSTRUCTIONS =ALL AREAS IN [BRACKETS] MUSTBE FILLED` N. ALL
AREAS IN GRAY ARE EXPLANATORY FOR THE COMMUNITY (INCLUDING
THESE INSTRUCTIONS) AND SHOULD BE DELETED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION
OF THE COMMENTS: SEE A_ T TACHED DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW
TO FILE:
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of )
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No. 05-311
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer )
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 )
COMMENTS OF [NAME OF COMMUNITY]
These Comments are filed by the City of Renton in support of the comments
filed by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
("NATOA"). Like NATOA, the City of Renton believes that local governments can
issue an appropriate local franchise for new entrants into the video services field on a
timely basis,just as they have for established cable services providers. In support of this
belief, we wish to inform the Commission about the facts of video franchising in our
community.
In our community a cable "franchise" is occasionally termed a Master Use and
Permit Agreement. The Federal Cable Act refers to this as a "franchise" so we will
use that term in these comments. Also, many communities have a cable ordinance which
operates in conjunction with the franchise agreement, the terms of which are often
negotiated with the cable company in conjunction with the franchise agreement. These
documents collectively referred to as the "franchise" below.
Cable Franchising in Our Community
Community Information
Renton is a city with a population of 56,840. Our franchised cable provider is
Comcast. Our community has negotiated cable franchises since 1977.
Our Current Franchise
Our current franchise began on September 13, 1993 and expires on
September 13, 2008. Under the statutory timeline laid out in the Federal Cable Act,
the cable operator has a 6-month window beginning 36 months before the expiration of
the franchise in which to request a renewal under the Federal Act. As a result, at this
time we are currently negotiating a franchise renewal with the incumbent provider.
Our franchise requires the cable operator to pay a franchise fee to the City of
Renton in the amount of 5 % of the cable operator's revenues. The revenues for
franchise fee purposes are calculated based on the gross revenues of the operator, in
accordance with the Federal Cable Act.
We require the cable operator to provide capacity for three public,
educational, and/or governmental ("PEG") access channels on the cable
system, with additional channels to be made available for City purposes
when use of existing channels meets certain criteria. We currently have one
channel (or capacity) devoted to public access; and one channel (or
capacity) devoted to government access.
Our franchise requires that our PEG channels be supported in the following ways
by the cable operator: 1) The cable operator is required to provide, install and
maintain equipment necessary for local government cablecasting as
required; 2) The cable operator is required to provide, without charge,
service to those public buildings and schools in Renton as specified in the
franchise; 3) In exchange for release of certain obligations, the franchise
provider agreed to contribute a sum of money to a Foundation to in turn be
granted over 10 years for construction, operation and maintenance of a
public access studio (Puget Sound Access) in South King County.
(George was assigned this,but here is my wording for the first part of this paragraphs
Our franchise contains the following institutional network("I-Net")requirements:
The cable operator's system must have the capability of bi-directional
Institutional Networks for educational and public safety communications.
An entity desiring activation of such feature will provide the City Council
demonstrated need of such use. Prior to implementation of any such service,
the Operator may request a public hearing by the City Council, to discuss
the benefits of said features to the citizens of the City. Upon a finding by the
City Council that such features are reasonably required to meet community
needs, taking into consideration the expense of providing such services and
the potential costs to subscribers, the City Council may require the
implementation of such features in accordance with the provisions of this
agreement. Additionally, the operator agreed to provide a separate fiber
optic cable to be separately hung or attached to the operator's systems, all
connected to a hub at the Renton Municipal Building and to sixteen specific
Renton locations
We use our I-Net facilities in the following ways: [DESCRIBE THE FACILITIES THAT
ARE CONNECTED VIA THE INET AND HOW YOU USE THE CAPACITY OF THE
INET--E.G., SOME MUNICIPALITIES USE THEM FOR POLICE OR
FIREFIGHTER REMOTE TRAINING, SOME FOR CONTROL OF TRAFFIC
LIGHTS, ETC.].
Our franchise contains the following requirements regarding emergency alerts:
The operator must establish a process to provide a character generated
scroll and make the best effort to furnish a voice override, notifying viewers
and listeners of the emergency. Subject to Federal and State laws and
regional planning authorities, control of these emergency override facilities
are the responsibility of the City. These emergency alert requirements
provide an important avenue of communication with our residents in the
event of an emergency.
Our franchise contains the following customer service obligations, by which we
are able to help ensure that the cable operator is treating our residents in accordance with
federal standards and the terms it agreed to in its franchise. a) The operator must
render repair service to restore the quality of the signal at approximately the
same standards existing prior to any failure or damage of any component
causing a failure and make repairs promptly and interrupt service only for
good cause and for the shortest time possible. Such interruptions, as
possible, shall be preceded by notice and shall occur during a period of
minimum use of the system. A log of all service interruptions must be
maintained by the operator for at least a period of one year. b) An
employee of the franchise operator must answer and respond to all
individual complaints received no later than 5:00 p.m. weekdays, and may
use an answering service after 5:00 p.m. weekdays, and on weekends and
holidays, and will respond to any system outage affecting more than five
subscribers. c) A technician shall be on call seven days a week, twenty-four
hours a day. The operator must respond immediately to service complaints
in an efficient manner. d) The operator must maintain a sufficient repair
force to respond to individual requests for repair service within two (2)
working days after receipt of the complaint or request, except Saturday,
Sunday and legal holidays. All complaints must be resolved within seven
days, to the extent reasonable. If subscriber has notified a franchisee of an
outage, no charge for the period of the outage shall be made to the
subscriber if the subscriber was without service for a period exceeding 24
hours, unless under certain circumstances. 3) The operator must supply at
the time of a new connection, and periodically at least once a year, the title,
address, and telephone number of the City official and his designee, to
whom system subscribers may direct their concerns. 4) In no case can a
franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established by the
National Cable Television Association. 5) The operator must maintain an
adequate force of customer service representatives as well as incoming
trunk lines so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsibly. A
summary of customer service measures must be provided by the operator
quarterly. Failure to improve customer service my result in the calling of a
public hearing by the City Council for the purpose of examining the reasons
for it.
Our franchise contains the following reasonable build schedule for the cable
operator: Service must be available to all City residents within 12 months
from granting of the franchise, and areas subsequently annexed to the City
must be provided with cable availability within 12 months, subject to
stipulated extraordinary installation conditions. (The City has annexed
nearly sixty areas during the term of the franchise so far.)
Our franchise requires that the cable operator currently provide service to the
following areas of our community: Cable service must be available to all
residents within the City provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per
street mile. In the event a request is made for service by a resident living in
an area not meeting such criteria, the operator shall enter into a contractual
agreement with the resident requesting service wherein the operator shall be
reimbursed for its construction costs. Whenever any subsequent subscriber
who did not contribute to the original cost of the extension connects to the
extended distribution service line, that subscriber shall pay his/her pro rata
share directly to the operator prior to obtaining cable service. The operator
shall than promptly tender such payment to the original subscriber so long
as the agreement remains in force.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications
technologies, our franchise contains the following rebuild or upgrade requirements: Our
franchise stipulates a schedule for reasonable upgrade completion of 48
months from date of franchise commencement. This deadline was
subsequently extended, and the upgrade was completed in the late 1990's.
Comcast offers internet service to the same City of Renton citizens who have
cable availability. Only a few small areas in Renton have not been able to
receive Comcast services.
Our franchise contains an 'Equalization of Civic Contributions"provision,which
states the following:
Additional Franchises; Proportional Payment Required:
1. In the event of one or more franchises being granted, the City may
require that such subsequential franchisees pay to the City an amount
proportionally equal to franchising costs contributed by the initial
franchisee. These costs may include but are not limited to such features as
access and institutional network costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable
installed to Municipal buildings and similar expenses.
2. On the anniversary of the grant of each later awarded franchise, such
franchisees shall pay to the City an amount proportional to the amount
contributed by the original franchisee, based upon the amount of
subscribers held by such franchisees.
Provision of Additional Channels: Additional franchisees shall provide all
PEG access channel(s) and emergency override systems currently available
to the subscribers of existing franchisees. In order to provide these access
channels, additional franchisees may interconnect, at their cost, with
existing franchisees, subject to any reasonable terms and conditions that the
existing franchisee providing the interconnection may require. These
interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees.
The City Council, in such cases of dispute of award, may be called upon to
arbitrate regarding these arrangements.
Our franchise contains the following insurance and bonding requirements:
INSURANCE:
The franchisee shall furnish to the City and file with the City Clerk and at all
times during the existence of any franchise, maintain in full force and effect,
at its own cost and expense, a general comprehensive liability insurance
policy,for the purpose of protecting the City and all persons against liability
for loss or damage,for personal injury, death and property damage, and
errors or omissions, occasioned by the operations of a franchisee under
such franchise, such policy to provide minimum limits of one million dollars
($1,000,000.00)for both personal injury and/or property damage. These
policies shall name the City as additional insured and shall contain a
provision that a written notice of cancellation or reduction in coverage of
said policy shall be delivered to the City thirty (30) days in advance of the
effective date thereof If such insurance is provided by a policy which also
covers a franchisee or any other entity or person other than those above
named, then such policy shall contain the standard cross-liability
endorsement.
PERFORMANCE BOND:
The franchisee shall promptly repair or cause to be repaired any damage to
City property caused by a franchisee or any agent of a franchisee. The
franchisee shall comply with all present and future ordinances and
regulations regarding excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary
by the City, shall be required to post a performance bond or other surety
acceptable to the City in an amount specified by the City in favor of the City
warranting that all restoration work will be done promptly and in a
workmanlike manner and that penalties, if any, after final adjudication are
paid to the City within ninety (90) days of such finding.
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way
and compatible easements for the purpose of providing cable television service. Apart
from the franchise, the cable provider is required to obtain a permit from the appropriate
municipal office as well before it may access the public rights of way. In the City of
Renton, a construction permit is required prior to any construction within
public ways, which shall include an approval/inspection fee per City Code
Section 4-1-180.D. Upon application for each construction permit the
franchisee must submit to the City its plan for advance notification for the
proposed construction project. In the event that an emergency situation
arises which precludes such advance notification, the franchisee shall
subsequently inform the City of the nature of the extraordinary event and the
action taken.
Larry The franchise agreement provides for the following enforcement mechanisms by
which we are able to ensure that the cable operator is abiding by its agreement:
[DISCUSS ANY ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN THE FRANCHISE, SUCH AS
RIGHTS OF INSPECTION, RIGHTS OF AUDIT, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
PROVISIONS OR THE LIKE].
The Franchising Process
[IF YOU HAVE EVER WORKED TOGETHER WITH OTHER
COMMUNITIES, FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY, TO FRANCHISE OR RENEW A
CABLE OPERATOR, YOU CAN SAY THE FOLLOWING-- OTHERWISE DELETE
THIS PARAGRAPH:] The cable system(s) serving our community also serves many
adjoining communities: [insert as many as you easily know]. In [year] our community
worked together with approximately [number] other communities to issue a cable
franchise for the [name] cable company. This allowed the company to quickly obtain
franchises in these communities so as to be able to serve a large region, while also
allowing for individual provisions in specific franchises in order to tailor them to meet
local needs.
Under the law, a cable franchise functions as a contract between the local
government (operating as the local franchising authority) and the cable operator. Like
other contracts, its terms are negotiated. Under the Federal Cable Act it is the statutory
obligation of the local government to determine the community's cable-related needs and
interests and to ensure that these are addressed in the franchising process - to the extent
that is economically feasible. However derived (whether requested by the local
government or offered by the cable operator), once the franchise is approved by both
parties the provisions in the franchise agreement function as contractual obligations upon
both parties.
Our current franchise provides that changes in law,which affect the rights or
responsibilities of either party under this franchise agreement will be treated as follows:
Regarding inconsistencies, if any portion of our franchise should be
inconsistent or conflict with any rule or regulation now or hereafter adopted
by the FCC or other Federal law, then to the extent of the inconsistency or
conflict, the rule or regulation of the FCC or other Federal law shall control
for so long, but only for so long, as such rule, regulation, or law shall
remain in effect;provided the remaining provisions of the franchise shall not
be effected thereby. Additionally, our franchise states that certain matters
involving technical standards, rates,franchise renewal,franchise fees,
compensation for involuntary abandonment and termination for non-
compliance are subject to Federal and State law.
Larry: While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights, and consequent additional
obligations on the local government. For instance: [DESCRIBE AND DISCUSS
PUBLIC READING/PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. FOR
INSTANCE, IS THERE AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH SUCH
REQUIREMENTS? ARE THERE STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING
THESE AREAS? DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.]
Competitive Cable Systems
Check with Larry: Our community was approached once several years ago by
a competitive provider to provide services, but the provider chose not to
enter into any formal discussions. The City of Renton has not denied any
provider the opportunity to serve in our community, and has a procedure in
place to allow a competitor to apply for a cable communications system
franchise.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in [Name of community]. As
the above information indicates,we are experienced at working with cable providers to
both see that the needs of the local community are met and to ensure that the practical
business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that local cable operators are allowed access to
the rights of way in a fair and evenhanded manner, that other users of the rights of way
are not unduly inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way, including maintenance
and upgrade of facilities, are undertaken in a manner which is in accordance with local
requirements. Local cable franchising also ensures that our local community's specific
needs are met and that local customers are protected.
Local franchises thus provide a means for local government to appropriately
oversee the operations of cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure
compliance with applicable laws. There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy
in Washington to handle matters of specifically local interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including ours, to have a voice in
how local cable systems will be implemented and what features (such as PEG access,
institutional networks or local emergency alerts, etc.)will be available to meet local
needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing users.
The [Name of community] therefore respectfully requests that the Commission do
nothing to interfere with local government authority over franchising or to otherwise
impair the operation of the local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal
law with regard to either existing cable service providers or new entrants.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name of Community]
By: [Name of Municipal Official]
[Address]
cc: NATOA, info@natoa.org
John Norton, John.Norton@fcc.gov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Long@fcc.gov
MEMORANDUM
To: Linda Herzog, Interim Assistant to the Chief Administrative Officer
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: January 10, 2006
Subject: Cable Franchise Questions
You have asked for some input from me concerning three issues on the cable franchising process.
The city has an extensive telecommunications licenses and franchises ordinance, Chapter 19 of
Title V of City Code.
The first question you ask concerned enforcement mechanisms by which the city is able to insure
the cable operators abiding by its agreement. City Code Section 5-19-5N provides that no
franchise shall be renewed until any ongoing violations or defaults in the grantees performance of
the franchise agreement or the requirements of City Code have been cured or planned detailing the
corrective action be taken by the grantee has been approved by the city. Similarly, Code Section
5-19-4P contains nearly identical language concerning nonrenewal of a telecommunications
license. Finally, Code Section 5-19-8U provides for revocation or termination of a franchise for
certain violations.
You have asked about due process rights for the franchisee. City Code Section 5-19-9V requires
the city to provide notice of the grounds for revocation of a franchise and provides the franchisee
with the opportunity for a hearing before the City Council. City Code Section 5-19-9X allows the
City Council the ability to provide a lesser sanction and outlines factors for determining whether
revocation or a lesser sanction would be appropriate.
In answer to your third question, to the best of my recollection, the city has been approached once,
a number of years ago, by a competitive cable system, but the provider chose not to enter into any
formal discussions. You might double-check this fact with Bonnie Walton.
Lawrence J. Warren
LJW:tmj
T10.44:33
cc: Jay Covington
Our franchise contains the following institutional network("I-Net")requirements: The
City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network made up of 12-strand
fiber runs to each of the following facilities from city hall:
Facility Address
1 City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way
2 Fire Station 11 211 Mill Ave. South
3 Fire Station 12 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE
4 Fire Station 13 17040 108th SE
5 Fire Station 14 1900 Lind Ave. SW
6 Renton Community Center 1515 Maple Valley Hwy.
7 Historical Society (Museum) 235 Mill Ave. South
8 200 Mill Building 200 Mill Ave. South
9 Main Library 100 Mill Ave. South
10 Liberty Park Community Bldg. 1101 Bronson Way North
11 City Central Parking 655 S. 2nd St,
12 Senior Center 211 Burnett Ave North
13 PBPW Shops Al 3555 NE 2nd St.
14 Airport Tower 616 Perimeter Rd.West
15 Highlands Community Center 800 Edmonds Ave. NE
16 Highlands Library 2902 NE 12th St
17 N. Highlands Community Center 3000 NE 16th St.
18 City Attorney's Office 100 S. Second Street
19 Grady Way Park N Ride
20 Edmonds Ave. NE &NE Sunset Blvd.
21 Harrington Ave. NE & NE 9th St.
These network links connect the noted city locations to the city's main data center at city
hall from which all telecommunications services are provided including voice (dial tone),
data, fire alarms, intrusion alarms,public safety communications and dispatch. In
addition, the city's network supports cashiering,back office business and data base
services as well as reservation, scheduling, financial and emergency management
applications. The city's network is critical to the day to day operation of the city. Along
with business applications, the city's traffic management system (signal timing &
adjustment) utilizes this same fiber network.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts, the city's dark
fiber network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition,
access to both the fire and police records management systems, from officers in the field,
also transit this network along with regional, state and federal emergency management
and public safety data.
From: George McBride
To: Ben Wolters; Bonnie Walton; Linda Herzog; ljwarren@seanet.com; Michael Bailey
Date: 1/3/2006 1:06:36 PM
Subject: Re: summary of our cable franchise protection strategy—this morning's meeting
interesting. qwest has made a decision to move out from under a regulatory umbrella and make their high
speed internet offering available using a commercial subscriber agreement.
http://www.gwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/fags.html
gm
>>> Linda Herzog 12/30/2005 6:54 PM >>>
see attached. Feel free to add, correct, other . . .
CC: Jay Covington
Qwest I Subscriber Agreement Page 1 of 2
LOCAL PHONE SERVICE INTERt ET/DSL WIRELESS LONG DISTANCE TV SERVICES IA
111
CUSTOMER SERVICE SEARCH
Qwe St. 0 Ail
Sioire of Service' HOME BESIDENTIAI. SMALL BUSINESS LARGE BUSINESS PARTNERS
Legal Notices
► Legal Notices High Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement Fregi
► Customer Proprietary Asked Questions
Network Information
Sharing What is being changed?
Effective 11/16/2005 companies providing high-speed Internet access hi
► Acceptable Use Policy choice of continuing to provide terms and conditions that govern the ser
FCC Tariff, or may use a commercial agreement. Qwest has made the dE
► Service Level move, effective 1/28/06, to a commercial agreement to govern the Qwe,
Agreement Speed Internet service.
► CPE Will my price change due to this change?
► Regulatory Documents No. The price of the High-Speed Internet (or Qwest DSL) services being
not impacted as a result of this change.
► Arizona Consumers
Why are changes being made?
► Washington Consumers In light of the regulatory flexibility and Qwests understanding of the evo
market demand for these services, Qwest has made a business decision
► Colorado Consumers the way in which these products are offered to the marketplace.
► Network Disclosures How will my High-Speed Internet service be impacted?
Qwest's decision to make the change will not impact your current service
► High-Speed Internet High-Speed Internet service will continue to be offered under the same t
Subscriber Agreement conditions to which you originally subscribed for a period of one year tha
on November 16, 2006, unless you make a change to your service (see I
► North America IP
Network Peering Policy What happens on November 16, 2006?
► International IP On November 16, 2006 your High-Speed Internet service will be govern(
terms and conditions covered in Qwest's commercial agreement. The Tel
Network Peering Policy Conditions are online at www.qwest.com/legal
► Electronic Signatures
What happens if I make a change to my High-Speed Internet sere
beginning January 28, 2006?
In the event you make a change to your High-Speed Internet service pri
November 16, 2006 your service will be governed by the terms and conc
covered in Qwest's commercial agreement as of the change date.
What constitutes a change to my service?
Changes may include, but are not limited to, any change in service optio
is speed upgrade or downgrade), feature change, moving service locatio
making changes to your account.
Who is moving to the Commercial Agreement?
Qwest decision to move to a commercial agreement will apply to all new
existing Qwest High-Speed Internet service customers. New customers E
starting January 28, 2006 will immediately be governed by the commerc
http://www.gwest.com/legallhighspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/faqs.html 1/3/2006
Qwest I Subscriber Agreement Page 2 of 2
agreement. Existing customers will be migrated on November 16, 2006 i
not made a change causing them to move prior.
Why are you telling me this now?
Qwest has made the decision to move, effective 1/28/06, to a subscribes
agreement to govern the Qwest® High-Speed Internet service. We valu(
customer and, therefore, wanted to provide you notice of this decision it
of a move. The subscriber agreement will be available online at
www.qwest.com/legal on or before January 28, 2006 -- Qwest encourage
review the agreement when it becomes available.
What geographies are impacted?
Qwest's decision to move to a commercial agreement applies to Qwest (-
Internet (or Qwest DSL) customers in Qwest's 14 state region (Washingt
Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexic'
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Iowa).
How do these changes benefit me?
Qwest believes the change in regulatory environment will lead to greate,
in the creation and delivery of products designed to meet changing mark
that ultimately benefit the customer.
What are my choices?
Regulatory guidelines prevent Qwest from offering both commercial tern
terms to the same product offering. You are deemed to have agreed to t
commercial agreement unless you call to cancel your service within 30 d
transfer to that agreement.
Where can I review the commercial agreement?
The commercial agreement will be posted on the Qwest web site at
www.qwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/ on or bef
1/28/06.
What action do I need to take?
None. Your service will automatically fall under the commercial agreeme
November 16, 2006 or the date that you make a change to your service,
occurs first. No action is required on your part.
BOUT QW :. . CAREER$AT OWES
Copyright © 2005 Qwest I All Rights Reserved I Legal Notices I Privacy Policy
http://www.gwest.com/legal/highspeedinternetsubscriberagreement/fags.html 1/3/2006
Cmc.4
Comcast sees surge ahead in cash flow : Page 1 of 1
Posted on Tue, Jan. 10, 2006
•
Comcast sees surge ahead in cash flow
The firm says it will sell customers more services.
By Akweli Parker
Inquirer Staff Writer
Comcast Corp. chairman and chief executive officer Brian L. Roberts said yesterday that the company will experience
double-digit cash-flow growth for the next three years - a result of getting customers to sign up for more services.
"We're going to have the whole company focused on running one bundled business," Roberts told investors at a Citigroup
Inc. telecommunications conference in Phoenix. Two years ago,40 percent of Comcast's customers bought a service in
addition to basic cable.Today, 60 percent do, Roberts said. One objective for 2006, he said, is to add 1 million digital
voice phone customers to the 1.2 million phone customers Comcast already serves.
Roberts attempted to appear nonchalant about his company's stock price -just above $27 yesterday, far off its one-year
high of$32.10 last August. During his presentation, Roberts told investors that, unlike the phone companies, Comcast's
days of big spending on its network were over. He added that the company had the technology it needed to attract
customers with new services and get them to pay more.
"My New Year's resolution is to not talk about the stock," Roberts said. "We have to execute and do our thing."
Comcast has not yet released 2005 financial results, but had a 2004 profit of$970 million on revenue of more than $20
billion. Earlier yesterday at the same conference, Verizon Communcations Inc. told investors it sees strong growth
because of investments it is making in its wireless and fiber-optic networks.
Verizon chief executive officer Ivan Seidenberg conceded nothing to cable operators,Verizon's main competitors. Some
observers have questioned the financial viability of traditional phone companies as cellular and cable networks, along
with the Internet, continue to bring down the cost of making telephone calls.
But Seidenberg said Verizon's expansion into providing video service similar to cable, through its "FiOS" fiber-optic
broadband system, will ensure the company's survival. The service has been offered in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. In
all, FiOS passes 3 million homes or businesses in 16 states. The company said its goal was to pass 18 million, or nearly
60 percent, of the homes and businesses in its territory.
Verizon was set back, at least temporarily, in New Jersey last week when state lawmakers failed to move on a Verizon-
backed bill. It would have given the company blanket permission to provide television service statewide. Instead,Verizon
must continue to apply for that right municipality by municipality.
Contact staff writer Akweli Parker at 215-854-5986 or aparker@phillynews.com.
2..006 Philadelphia Inquirer and wire service sources.All Rights Reserved.
http:i%www.philly.com
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/business/13587980.htm?template=contentModules/pri... 1/10/2006
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Terry Davis
Date: 4/27/2006 11:36:13 AM
Subject: Re: Comcast Rate Filing
Mr. Davis:
Thank you for your message. The rate filings are being reviewed now. We will let you know if any
hearings or Council presentations get scheduled.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
>>> "Davis, Terry J" <Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>4/20/2006 11:07:51 AM >>>
Bonnie:
Comcast's annual rate filing for adjustments to basic service, equipment
and installation prices was mailed to you, dated April 1, 2006. I'm not
sure of the exact process the City intends to use for reviewing our
filings, but please add me to the notification list for any hearings or
presentations to Council, so I can stay informed on the City's process.
As always, if you have any questions, please contact me anytime.
Thanks.
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast--South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell#253/261-1586
Desk#253/288-7496
Fax#253/288-7500
E-mail Address: Terry Davis@cable.comcast.com
CC: Greg Uhl
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Terry Davis
Date: 8/10/2005 3:07:06 PM
Subject: Rate Problem
Dear Mr. Davis:
I received a call from a Renton citizen who wanted cable hookup to his downtown business. I reviewed
our franchise and cannot understand why he cannot get the limited cable service and rate to his business.
Please review the following and then respond.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
"Dear Mrs. Walton:
I spoke with Trudy in the Auburn office (tel(253)-288-7526) for Comcast and
she told me that the LIMITED cable package was not available for our
non-profit. According to an earlier inquiry with your office it was
supposed to be in accordance the franchise agreement between Comcast and
Renton. Trudy with Comcast claims that copyright fees are higher for
businesses and thus the requirement we purchase the more expensive expanded
package. This is puzzling to me when the LIMITED package is supposed to be
only the "free over the air stuff"and they are required by law(from what I
know) to provide the LIMITED service. We are also only using the service to
record news programs, not using it for public viewing in a waiting area etc.
Additionally, I was told by a lady named Sally at the 1-888-824-8520 number
for Comcast business solutions that LIMITED was available but she was just
the middle person and then transferred my call to Trudy over in Auburn.
Could you please clarify what Comcast is required to do given their
franchise agreement and applicable statutes. I get different answers from
different folks over there at Comcast."
From: Ipanzino@sdd.sbcounty.gov
To: "'chapters @ natoa.org" <chapters @ natoa.org>
Date: 3/17/03 11:47AM
Subject: [Chapters] Call Center Tours
Dearest Presidents!!
While in Nashville your Board of Directors were invited to tour the
Comcast Call Center. It was an enlightening experience!! One of the
interesting facts was the divulgence of information from Call Center
personnel (not the reps we deal with)that the reports for each
franchise area that we are so interested in, and told can not be
generated, actually can! Shock huh?!
I was wondering if any of your chapter members would be interested in
Call Center tours in your area? I am willing to help set up those tours,
as they are available. If you are interested please let me know which
MSOs you have. I'll make contact with the cable companies and work with
you to set up the tours.
Look forward to hearing from you!!
Yours in NATOA,
Lori Panzino
You can't have everything, where would you put it?
A
From: George McBride
To: Bonnie Walton
Date: 7/7/03 1:55PM
Subject: Comcast
as requested.
CC: Victoria Runkle
O�(sY o CITY OF RENTON
' =° INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION
wN.ro
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 7, 2003
TO: BONNIE WALTON, CITY CLERK
CC: Victoria Runkle FIS Administrator
David Tibbot, I.S. Manager
Ronald Hansen, Network Systems Supervisor
FROM: George McBride—425.430.6886
SUBJECT: COMCAST/I-NET OWNERSHIP & MAINTENANCE
Thanks for your July 1, 2003 memo on this issue. There have been and continue to be
two (2) Issues for Information Services relating to the City's dark fiber network designed
and installed by TCI, subsequently AT &T and now Comcast.
Since completion of the network, AT&T's final testing and turning the network over to
the City for use, we have handled maintenance on a time and material basis. In the last
five (5) years we have had only one occasion to call due to a contractor cut. AT &T
was prompt in their response and met all of our requirements in terms of time of repair
and the conduct of the repair work itself. I am confident based on our experience that
we will continue to obtain first rate service for this type of outage. Our concern is a
major disruption of service, say in an earthquake. They, like all firms, have limited
resources. Where will they be deployed and when would the City obtain service. Most
of the City's remote facilities utilize the fiber network for not only data but voice service
and in some instances, fire and alarm monitoring.
Comcast's original response was to propose a yearly maintenance fee and to consider
the City secondarily in terms of where their efforts would be focused in an emergency
with little or no regard for the potential public safety issues involved with remote fire
stations or police sub-stations, E911 services, etc. This issue may not be resolvable
until the ownership issue is dealt with.
The ownership issue comes into play in that the network is a mix of Comcast cable in
their conduits and overhead, and City owned conduit. In addition, much of the City's
fiber runs in a star configuration from City Hall to remote sites thus providing very little
value to anyone other than the City. Our use of this network has been predicated on the
understanding that this was built for the City as restitution for TCI's failure to meet
franchise requirements. Use of this fiber providing a return on investment was that
there was no direct cost, exclusive of fire station #13, to the City.
Long term, should the City not have ownership of the fiber, the franchise holder then
holds the position of dictating to the City terms of use and costs that maybe
unacceptable to the City. For example, we are exploring a wireless network for the
, Citizens of Renton. One current franchise clause prohibits the transmission of
.C:\Documents and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\Comcast Fiber Ownership.DOC
commercial traffic. Does this mean that we can not back haul voice and data traffic from
the boathouse? And, there maybe other impacts that have not yet presented
themselves.
The City of Kent's issues are a bit cloudier in that they chose to partner with their local
school district. Neither the district nor the City want to own and maintain the cabling.
I believe it is in the best interests of the City to pursue the ownership issue. Once this is
decided we can get back to maintenance timing and priorities.
Thanks,
GM
•
.C:\Documents and Settings\mpetersen\Local Settings\Temp\Comcast Fiber Ownership.DOC
Comcast
@omcast. 19909 1 0thlAve NE,Suite 200
Bothell,WA 98011
Tel:425.398.6000
September 12,2005 CITY OF RENTON
SEP 1 4 2005
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFIC
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Dear Ms. Walton:
RE: Comcast Announces Redesigned Monthly Billing Statement
It is with pleasure that I provide you notice today that Comcast will soon be introducing a redesigned
monthly billing statement. This move is a direct result of our focus on improving customers' experiences
by listening to customer feedback on the appearance and readability of our bills, and responding to their
needs. The new format will be enlarged and the font updated. Icons will be added for each service,and
special offers and service information will be highlighted. The new statements will also clearly direct
customers to our call center phone number, or Comcast.com if they wish to go online to review account
status,order new service or handle bill payment.
•
Please take a moment to review the enclosed sample of our redesigned billing statement. I'm sure you
will agree with me that this new format is a vast improvement, and that it provides key information to
customers in a clearer and more inviting manner. You will also note that all Comcast services—cable
service,high-speed cable Internet service, and Comcast Digital Voice(when available)—can be included
on one monthly billing statement.
On or around October 12,2005, Comcast customers will begin to receive their bills in this new format.
Because we offer flexible billing options and customers can select the day they'd like to receive their bill,
it will take about a month for all customers to receive the new easier-to-read statement.
If you have any questions regarding the new bills,please feel free to call me at(253)288-7496.
Sincerely,
Terry Davi
Director,Franchising and Government Affairs
Enc.
cc: Janet L.Turpen, Comcast
Ken Rhoades, Comcast
Lynne Hurd, 3H Cable Communications Consultants
September 28,2005
c
0 ., f P_
m s
',Statement of Service /
'Pg BOX 650 «a�: %tz:
,-- ', obo i ' Vindicates the Comcast
CHEUdSFORD.MAt118240000{' ,,,`•. services you subscribe to
8773.1pOpdX;7 ti4292005 YNNNYY'; OOQa 04���ti;�i������
aW NJJ fi.
Q s '.Earn.
e Gr`
Y
ari er-.
�#2i31.
•it^`r
9
4 8658887�"�186`
��FA RC EYGRAN`
.t
G R �Contact'u s _
..534�. :y,yi
P B
is '''wc;.J:.
O OX12 34-
• oril,i°rie'at".wwinr;comcastcomisu� "ort
LEO I M NSTE RMA02
706 597 2=
:b :email. t'a �erv�ice
Y
s co'mcast:
o 'gig:':
II 111E I, y II�'111flGLllhill,Ik;Id�1►��I lht 1 or:b hone at•y1 1111 11 ,y p SbO=COMCAST-(1'-80U=2t 652278,,
TT Y-.1=88 8�)4=,
2 8 3
:4<
f• r e. t c at'
rVur
5;
• ;jgj ii a 3C Ie�Ave:d,
L'eomin''see MA: 06=5972,
`'; Acco
uri t'Inf •
;.. .. :. .., .:... ... $Ut111'1]8r `"See:fhe back for, ,.y o etails`'
.. ' ' " .Current Balance(message class 3)message. `',. ..rev s r".:,;•;' $1.17AQ.,
-. iou balance
would:print Here,regardless:if its built in mes=:-. ::` Payments':received.:,: ::,•;'.: ';, = —.117.00•^
sa a sectton 3 or;4. ..,. .. ; : :'.:
:. . .., .;..,` :'C ckage.Serwices for.10%1:; 10/31;;" ;`;$9'6.95 :.
omcast"Pa'
:Demand more.at Comcast . Cable`Video for'10/1 —10/31 $17.20"
n A value type message would print here.Based on Partial month services -27.53
RI TICKET I'll current services,etc.
One-time charges 15.99
A promotional message would print here.Maybe On-demand and pay-per-view 7.98
market additional service or features. High-speed Internet for 10/1 —10/31 10.00
•
One-time charges 10.00
Digital Voice for 10/1 — 10/31 9.95
One-time charges 10.00
Per-call charges 8.50
Adjustments,taxes and other fees 23.02
Total due by 10/15/05 $182.06
M05268 REG 052705 Includes your$25.multi-product discount
\� 'n,ix prM,v uax c,ss,d Cy,hc 1
" CSG Systems,Inc.Creative Design Services Group.
Thi,.smp.ic Grrpmen�iw pmpo.,n4 Srs nm,psRcm a fmal
'ONuaionprWua
p radJiiinnal infmmatiun nmtuCl Ter.a Zwirncr al dll?-'MG-171/�.
Payment options September 28,2005 Acct no.0000 00 000 0000000
PayDirectTM Visit www.comcast.com/paydirect or call PARLEY GRANGER
1-800-COMCAST any time to set up payments PO BOX 1234
directly from your bank account or credit card. LEOMINSTER, MA 02706-5972
Check Detach this coupon and send it together with your
check made payable to Comcast in the enclosed Total due by 10/15/05 $182.06
envelope.Write your account number on your check.
Amount you are enclosing: $
•
CUSTOMER NAME
co m ca st. PTREET ADDRESS
PO BOX OPTIONAL
CITY STATE ZIP PLUS FOUR
III II 11111l111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
• 800010009123456789123456
September 28,2005 page 2 of 3
FARLEY GRANGER
Account no. 0000 00 000 0000000
Charge details
Previous balance $117.00 4.0
Nor High-speed Internet(cont.)
Payment received 9/12-Thank you -58.50
9/18 High-speed Internet installation 10.00
Payment received 9/20-Thank you -58.50 One-time charges 10.00
Comcast Package Services
10/1 -10/31 Comcast Ultimate Value $96.95 Digital Voice
includes Basic Video Service,Comcast 10/1 -10/31 Comcast Voice Features $9.95
High Speed Internet and Unlimited includes Voicemail,Caller ID and
Telephone Service Three-Way Calling
Package Services monthly charges 96.95
Digital Voice monthly charges 9.95
4) Cable Video 9/18 Digital Voice installation 10.00
10/1 -10/31 HBO $14.95 One-time charges 10.00
10/1 -10/31 Promotional Discount -5.00 prior to 10/1 Operator assisted and Directory assistance 1.50
10/1 -10/31 HDTV Box and Remote 7.25 prior to 10/1 International calls 7.00
Cable Video monthly charges 17.20 Per-call charges 8.50
9/18-9/30 Digital Silver partial month -22.46 see www.comcast.com/viewbill for details
9/18-9/30 HDTV Box and Remote partial month 5.15
9/18-9/30 Standard Cable partial month -10.22 Adjustments,taxes and other fees
Partial-month services -27.53 9/25 Service Adjustment -5.00
9/20 Reconnect Fee 7.66
9/18 HDTV Upgrade 15.99 9/28 Administrative Fee 2.95
One-time charges 15.99
Cable video State sales tax 0.03
9/12 02:41p On Demand-Slap Shot 3.99 FCC fee 0.05
9/23 10:00p On Demand-50 First Dates 3.99 Franchise fee 0.15
On-demand and pay-per-view 7.98 Internet State sales tax 0.03
Digital Voice Federal excise tax 0.10
State sales tax 0.05
High-speed Internet Gross receipt tax 0.05
10/1 -10/31 Modem rental 10.00 State-authorized recovery fees 0.50
High-speed Internet monthly charges 10.00 Subscriber line charge and access fee 5.50
The FCC requires that we identify your local franchising authority.Do not contact them for regular cable business.Direct your everyday inquiries to Comcast customer
service at the number on the front.Your local authority is:Leominster City Administrator,Po Box 1234,Leominster,MA 02706,Phone:617-432-9876,FCC Community
ID:MA1234.
•
Hearing / Speech Impaired
Call 711 for Customer Service
MOVING? Call 1-888-COMCAST
3
•
September 28,2005 page 3 of 3
' a orncast®` PARLEY GRANGER
V Account no. 0000 00 000 0000000
Adjus
tments,stments,taxes and other fees(cont.) ,> .
Per-c
- ,. alt taxes" ,
• detail at www.comcast comtviewbiil
i©95- .
' Adjustments,faxes and other fees . 23,02. -
Total due by 10/15/05 „ $182.06
: Descriptive RCV message headline: '
A maximum of eight hundred forty six characters are available for'
this RCV message.That's equivalent.to eighteen fines offorty-seven . . "
characters.The.Message"will word wrap. • - ,
Comcast Cable
2/25/2005
Fee and Fee issue:
Franchise Fees (FF) and City Utility Tax (UT) are paid by our customers at a
higher rate because under the gross revenue definition Comcast is required
to pay the City fees on top of the fees collected for cable services. The
formula for calculating fees on fees has been determined using generally
applicable accounting practices and ends up with the following for the City
of Renton: UT of 6%= 7.23% and FF of 5%=6.03%
If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks.
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast-- South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell#253/261-1586
Desk#253/288-7496
Fax#253/288-7500
E-mail Address: Terry Davis@cable.comcast.com
om ca st® Comcast Cable Communications,Inc.
`/ 4020 Auburn Way N
Auburn,WA 98002
Tel:253.288.7450
October 14, 2005 Fax:253.288.7500
CITY OF RENTON
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7 AA)
OCT 1,4' 2005
Bonnie Walton CITY RECEIVEDLRK OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: FRANCHISE RENEWAL
Dear Ms. Walton:
We at Comcast appreciate the opportunity to serve the citizens.of Renton. It is our credo that
we will be the company to look to first for the communications products and services that
connect people to what's important in their lives. In living our credo, we look forward to
providing broadband services to our customers in Renton for many years to come. Therefore,
we are taking this step to ensure the renewal of our franchise with you.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("the 1984 Cable Act")encourages franchisors
and cable operators to reach renewal agreements at any time through an informal process of
discussion. However, Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act also provides for commencement of a
formal renewal procedure. To preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter
is our official notice to you invoking that provision.
This letter is not intended to introduce a new formality into our discussions, nor is that the
intention of the 1984 Cable Act. In fact, we prefer to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement
through informal negotiations, thus making many of the 1984 Cable Act's formal procedures
unnecessary.
I will be happy to discuss this matter with you, or provide any additional information that you
may require. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future and to continuing a
relationship that, we believe, benefits both the community and the residents of Renton.
Sincerely,
7-
Terry Davis
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
cc: Brad Dusto, Mountain Division President
Deborah Luppold, Mountain Division Vice President of Government Affairs
Sheila Willard, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
a
From: "Davis, Terry J" <Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 9/30/2005 11:17:23 AM
Subject: FW: Renton Bill
Bonnie: In reply to your e-mail dated 9/19, the attached screen print
from a customer's bill in the City of Renton does illustrate that the
breakdown is present under the new format. The billing sheet sent in
the letter was a corporate example and didn't take into consideration
all the local individuality. Thank you so much for bringing this to my
attention.
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast--South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell#253/261-1586
Desk#253/288-7496
Fax#253/288-7500
E-mail Address: Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com
Original Message
From: Arnold, Michael R
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2005 10:53 AM
To: Davis, Terry J
Subject: Renton Bill
Here you go Terry, let me know if this helps!
Michael R. Arnold
Comcast Cable Corporation
Senior Information Services (MIS) Specialist
Washington State Market-Fife Call Center
<mailto:Michael_Arnold2@cable.comcast.com>
Michael_Arnold2@cable.comcast.com
(253) 896-3173
TiltjESP Statement Wow through ACSI4 ;Z '7" . .;.' "i
File wirnbw help , .=, `t
Statement for 849834005006443�1 of T -' Yi »' �.
Ei _.
Cable WVideot Services
1 0/0b -11,95 Platinum Package 55.99
Indudes Digital Classic Digital Plus.Multiple Channels of 1-180,
Showtime.Cinemax TMC.STAPZI and 1 Standard Digital Set-Top
Receiver end Remote it applicable
10/06 -11 v05 Service Discount 55.99 a
10/06 -11r05 Basic Cable lndudes 42.99
(LiDiscount e$12.48 and Expended Cable$30.51)
1 Or06 -11�15 Service 42.99
Q
10/06 -11,05 Digital Extra 5.99
10/06 -11/05 Sauce Discount 5.99 a
10/06 -11 r05 Digtel Sports Tier 4.99
10/06 -11,05 Seance Discount 4.99 Cs
10/06 -11/05 Seledo Pack 6.99
10/06 -11p5 Service Discount 6.99a
10/06 -11 A5 Set-Top Converter end 5.10
Remote Control to Adddonet Outlet J
10/06 -11105 Set-Tap Converter end 5.10
Remote Control fa Additonet Outlet
09/01 Ond-adult Steel 5:59 P.M. 6.00
09/01 Ond-&dull Steel 6.26 P M. 6.00
09/16 VOD-Lemony Snidcet's S Stab 5'26 P.M. 2.00
09/16 Onil-million Ddlar Baby Start 8'52 P M. 2.00
0173 Ond-hesityShop Start 1209PM 200
Total Cale(Vilest Services $2&20
Comcast High Speed Internet
10/06 -11A5 High-Speedlnternet 55.95
'Plus'Speed Tier.Modem Lease and Muhi-Pradud Cable Discount
10/06 -11/05 Service Discount 45.95 a
Total C.ontc tst High Speed Mtteruet 3 10.00
Comcast Digital Voice
10106 -i 1 i05 Comas,Unlimited Ptcg 39.95
Voice Services Include$15 00 Bundle Savings with All The Popular
Ceiling Features end Enhanced Voice Melt
Vox Fr.od,.Alnorirjs None and Main It Col OP.,TOO Me Ave.Room VA90765 'Vox FCC CmanxiiUay IA VA9t%O.Servo Dolby
Man Payrr00o To Tow Frardua A**aiy.
_1
Devious I 01gw List I Pint I Ouse
34
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Michele Neumann
Date: 1 2/1 3/2005 8:07:29 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Final Invoice
See attached. I can't believe my luck, to have her coming in on a day I have to be out.
So,this could be tricky. The check for Lynne Hurd is located by the cash box. However, in exchange for
the check, she is supposed to be bringing in:
1) all of the Senior Discount records she has been processing for us for 2004&2005
2) a final report covering the work she has done for the City the last year
3) any and all other records she has that should be transferred to the City
Ask her for all of these. At the very least, she needs to give us the Sr. Discount records before giving her
the check. Hopefully she has a final report,too, but if not and she says she won't do it,just let it go. If she
says she has no other records, let that go,too.
Give her my apologies that I had to be out. If she hasn't come in before you leave for the luncheon, let the
others know of this information so they handle it correctly and professionally.
Sorry to leave you with this.
Bonnie
/1.'ez). _ — (ci
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton @ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 2/11/03 2:21PM
Subject: AT&T/Comcast
Bonnie,
I just wanted to drop you a quick note and let you know that we have started
to receive thirty day cancellation notices from AT&T's bonding company. We
would appreciate it if you would foreword to us any notice you may receive in
this regard. In the meantime we have talked to AT&T about this and they have
assured us that this is due to a change in the ownership to Comcast from
AT&T.They have also assured us that we would receive a new bond before the
thirty day cancellation period is up. We will continue to monitor this and
let you know if any problems arise.
Lon
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton @ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 2/20/03 3:11PM
Subject: Re: Franchise Utilities
Mr. Nelson,
I am in receipt of your email to the City of Renton. We work with the City
to help resolve cable and Internet problems on behalf of subscribers to AT&T
or as they are now know as "Comcast". We have already been in contact with
Comcast regarding some of the problems you are experiencing. We would
appreciate it, however, if you could contact us to further clarify some of
the issues you have raised.
Thank you very much and we look forward to working with you to get these
issues resolved.
Lon A. Hurd
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton @ ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 2/28/03 1:32 P M
Subject: Re: Map
Bonnie,
I will check into this and see what I can do.
Ion
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton @ ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/6/03 9:30AM
Subject: Re: ROW Permits
Bonnie,
I assume they are talking about a "blanket permit"which allows the operator
the ability to complete minor repairs or other projects without having to
complete the permit application each time. Personally I don't see a big
difference between one transfer and two. The franchise is still granted to
TCI and both AT&T before and now Comcast are bound by all terms and
conditions as if they were the original franchise holder. This being said
would like to do some further research and see if any other communities have
similar concern's or if they are considering any further action.
WCITY ••°•IP; NTN
City Clerk
ea ANBonnie I.Walton
Jesse Tanner,Mayor
November 27, 2002
Lon Hurd
3H Cable Communications Consultants
504 E. Main Street
Auburn, WA 98002
Re: Merger Letter of Agreement
Dear Lon:
Enclosed please find one fully executed, original letter agreement regarding the
AT&T/Comcast merger. Please forward this on to AT&T. I have retained the other
original for our file
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
Sincerely,
43e7044.4JL itiat6rL-
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
bw
•
Enclosure
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 E N T ® lam
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/18/03 2:25PM
Subject: Comcast
Bonnie,
On the 6th I sent you a response to a question you had on the Blanket Permit
process the city has with Comcast. I was just wondering if my response to
you did adequately answer your question. If not please let me know and I
will be glad to follow up further. I also got a call from the Mayors office
in regard to a meeting on Wednesday the 26th. Are you going to be there and
is there anything special you would like me to do to prepare? Let me know.
Lon
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton @ ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 1/28/03 10:00AM
Subject: Re:AT&T
Hi Bonnie,
First off, I am hopping to have Han's attend the Council Meeting on March
3rd. He gave me a tentative approval last week. He has now left the office
for vacation for the next two weeks. I had asked him to give me a firm
confirmation before he left but it never transpired. I will send him an
email so that on his return he will know we have schedule him in, which
should leave him little option to back out.
On the tax issue, we received a letter dated December 16, 2002 in which Han's
first mentions AT&T/Comcasts plan to change the methodology used to calculate
the non-subscriber revenue portion (Advertising and Shopping Channel) of the
franchise fee payments to the City. At that time we briefly spoke about the
issue and we followed up with a response to you via email after we had
researched the issue further. At that time there were a number of things
going on, plus the holidays, so I have just faxed over a copy of their
original letter and our response for your records. This most recent corr
espondence is a confirmation of the final impact on subscribers, of the
changes that will take place starting February 1st. I do believe our
original estimates made last month were pretty much on the mark as far as the
ultimate impact the changes would have on subscribers. If you need further
information please let me know.
Lon
CITY OF RENTON
FAX TRANSMITTAL PAGE . . J \N 2 8
zoo3
CITY RECEIVED
ERK OFFICE
3-II CABLE COMMUNICATIONS.CONSULTANTS
.504 East Main Street
Auburn, WA 98002
(253) 833-8380 % FAX: (2503) 833-8430
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING FAX TO:.
NAME: . n n►-t, :J-I-c/1
,
FIRM: � :
CITY: ,. , ,�
PHONE: . F' . . BR: . 42z� .42)Q •(05i6.
Total #of pages (including cover sheet): Date: —141Q- --
Comments: dOL,) 50 ;
0,0(sop .
Th- L ' i 0+<<-i
Sent by: h- Pt'
s.
•
Sabi: Re: AT&T Letter/Non-Subscriber Revenue
Date: Thursday, December 19, 2002 10:50:15 AM
• To: .'Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
•
_..... Bonnie,
I was copied on the letter from Han's dated the December 16, 2002 in which
he discussed the methodology used by AT&T to pass on the franchisee fee
they pay to the city:on non-subscriber revenue. I also found his letter a bit
confusing before I asked for clarification. We have been contemplating
sending a formal. letter to the city in .an attempt to clarify the situation.
The issue is actually. quite simple. Since the FCC decision, AT&T's policy was
to. `recover the fee by passing on to subscribers at a rate calculated on a
national per subscriber basis. Since Comcast has now taken over the local
operation, their policy of passing on this fee on to the subscribers based •
upon a calculation of the actual fees collected from a given market has been
implemented. The effect of the change on the local subscriber will likely be
unnoticed. Their may: be a penny or two change one direction or another on
'their monthly bill: This change is due to be effective February 1, 2003.
l hope this helps 'clarify the issue a bit however is you have additional
questions or would like further action on our part please let me know.
Lon
•
•
•
•
12/1 9/02 America Online Lahurd3hmc Page 1
•
• A
AT&T Broadband
wasnington Market • . ' 22025 30th Drive SE
• Bothell,WA 98021-4444
•
December.16, 2002 •
Sent Via US Mail
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way . • •
Renton, WA 9805.5
RE: ' Revised Method for Recovery of Franchise Fees on Non-Subscriber Revenue
Dear Ms. Walton:. .
As you may recall, last year the Federal Communications Commission issued an order
clarifying That cable operators may pass through the collection of franchise fees on non-
subscriber revenues, which includes revenues from advertising and home shopping.
Following that decision, AT&T Broadband implemented an increase in its pass-through
enabling recovery of.franchise fee payments made on non-subscriber revenues for the
period ofJuly 2000 throu'gh,June 2001.
This method used to calculate the amount of fees to.be recovered was based on national
• figures and resulted in an additional .23% franchise fee recovered on non-subscriber
revenues. AT&T Broadband also indicated that it would`refresh" this number on the
July 2001 through June 2002 payments. We also indicated that we would revisit whether
to continue use of a national average of calculate the recovery of those fees on a market-
by-market basis. On a going forward basis,beginning with the February 1, 2003
customer billing statement, we have decided to recover franchise fees paid on non-
subscriber revenue collected in the market. . .
Customers will be notified of this change in the franchise fee calculation in writing 30
days in advance of it's'implementation by way of a bill message. If you have any
questions about this matter, please caIlme at (253) 503-8016. •
Sincerely,
f /IR ii
1F
Hans Hechtman• DEC 1 7
Ai•ea.FranchselManager,AT&T Broadband Z002
• I-711 14—r—bLej
CO Janet.L. Turpen,Regional Director of Franchising and Government Relations,
AT&T.Broadband
Anne McMullen, Area'Director,'AT&T Broadband
Lon Hurd= 3H Cable Communications ConsultantsIP • .
t 4W Recycled Piper '
•
•
FRANCHISING •: RE,fRANCH.ISING" •�: :C:O:M°M;UNITY NE:EDS,:'_ f�.•
ESSMENTS ORDINANCE.',PREPARA 'ION.." • :NEGOTIATION
:-EVALUATION FRANCHISE ADMINISTRATION • ACCESS•,.: = :. •
}=J
`iT,
w
t
.
- - G1TY Q
:l 20 -
API 5:,
.B
. • _ REC�iVir[�
Ci C1erk/Cable-Mana er: • ,
g. . . : - - 'dry:Cf:ERK'�-Qtrr=��
City•of Renton
1035'S:.Grad.Wa
Y y- •
Renton WA.°98055
•
bear Bonne:
;Enclosed please find a:copy=of,.tiie C istomer Service Report•.'for-the;151 .Q,uar er 2003:`.
This.re ort•includes::the',number,of.subscriber contacts,our`office.hus::recerved`and
=we wree:able-:to.resolve.their issues: , `
As always;: :1f'`you: have:-"any. questions;;please::co 3-H
':Coinm�unic'ations C-onsultants 253/833-8380
L. A:.Hurd
`Pr si•
d
AH tr
Encl osure
: .. ... .. ..
504'East Main•Street;Auburn;Washington-98002,' •",(253)833=$380:: �:',1.-800722279697 FAXI(253)833=8430, ,:
Subscriber Contacts 1st Quarter 2003
(Reason for Contact)
Introduction
The following graph demonstrates the number of subscriber contacts our office processed on behalf of
the city. These figures include only those subscribers that reside within the actual city limits and we
have categorized them by the specific reason for their calls. We believe that the categories are self-
explanatory.
6 ./
5 � _ ❑ Serviceability
■ Outage
4 0 Construction
3 0 Customer Service
3 / ■ Picture Quality
2 2 ❑ Programming
2 ■ Other
1 _
1 %"0,31
IA 0
0
1
Summary
For the most part AT&T and now Comcast have seen some improved customer service and telephone
responsiveness. The most notable exception was a significant number of calls received from confused
customers who subscribed to the Operators "Everything Package" which was a special offer was
originally offered by AT&T to subscribers for $59.95 per month. This package was guaranteed for one
year ending December 31'2002. Many of these subscribers called in reporting that they did not recall
seeing notice that this rate would go up to $79.95 effective January 1.2003. A review by our office
found that individuals were notified at the time they signed up for this package that it was only
guaranteed through December of 2002 and subject to change after that time. Comcast also provided a
copy of a billing insert notifying subscribers of the change to this package and offering the opportunity
to change services before the increase took effect. It is possible that the notices may have been
discarded with all the advertisement stuffers that are routinely included in subscriber billings. In most
instances were able to resolve these issues by getting Comcast to agree to offer a partial billing credit
and directing the subscribers to Comcast supervisor that would offer a variety of service packages that
may more adequately met their needs.
2
Subscriber Contacts 1st Quarter 2003
(How contact was resolved)
Introduction
The graph below demonstrates the number of subscriber contacts that we received along with a further
breakdown of the actions required by our staff to resolve the subscribers concerns.
1 2 El Handled with Phone Call
5 • Required a Follow-up
..., ❑ Required E-mail
❑ Required Written
8 Correspondence
Summary
As discussed previously billing issues, for the second consecutive quarter, represented the largest
number of calls received by 3-H staff. In most instances, these calls were resolved with a series of
phone calls with the subscribers and Comcast. In those few instances we have been unable to resolve
the outstanding issue over the phone we have either done so by email or more formal letters.
3
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Lon Hurd
Date: 3/5/03 2:31 PM
Subject: ROW Permits
Lon, our Development Services Division has asked me the following questions and I'd appreciate your
input based on our franchise. They asked me:
"We are beginning to get right-of-way permits for Comcast-who took over A T&T, who took over TCI
Cablevision.
We're getting a few layers away from the original applicant for a franchise utility permit in Renton.
My question is: Are we going to require the latest company to submit a full application to do work in
Renton?
If not, are we going to ask for verification in writing of who the new company is, and what they plan to do?'
Thanks for looking into this."
From: Marilyn Kamcheff
To: Bonnie Walton
Date: 3/5/03 2:16PM
Subject: Franchise contracts
We are beginning to get right-of-way permits for Comcast-who took over A T&T, who took over ICI
Cablevision.
We're getting a few layers away from the original applicant for a franchise utility permit in Renton.
My question is: Are we going to require the latest company to submit a full application to do work in
Renton?
If not, are we going to ask for verification in writing of who the new company is, and what they plan to do?'
Thanks for looking into this.
mjk
CC: Jan Illian; Kayren Kittrick
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/6/03 9:30AM
Subject: Re: ROW Permits
Bonnie,
I assume they are talking about a "blanket permit"which allows the operator
the ability to complete minor repairs or other projects without having to
complete the permit application each time. Personally I don't see a big
difference between one transfer and two..The franchise is still granted to
TCI and both AT&T before and now Comcast are bound by all terms and
conditions as if they were the original franchise holder. This being said
would like to do some further research and see if any other communities have
similar concern's or if they are considering any further action.
,„'.:-,L.:'r'':',:':'..:--.f,:,:''':,,'!,,:,':::,-.,1,,•',:..-:„,--,:,'.::.-:..F.:12;‘',,,.:3•.,''';'.:-;:,'::':'''.'::j,,',".,-':",-:':;,',..:;..:L::'-,-,-.,::,':.:i:',',..'::,':,,,-';;,',,,.,':.,,.t:::-:>',:-'.;-'.',...',:-:;,-,:..;..i.%.-.-:'::.„.::i_,,':„`:::.-.'..'-..,,::--'":.,,';,;,,('?'',,,,.;:',.'.'''..:,.„::.;,:..,-,,.;,:'::;;.„,.,::`.,:',-''::,..:,:.,:.:,:,;:'',:,:,,T:-,.,2;,.;,:.':;,',f':,',,',2;:,;.:,'::!'-:,;'„'.„::.'s'1'?-,,'.,,..;::::.-n;,;:'-„':;',..i,:,,::,.:,,_::,;`,:,.:-2-.::.1'':-;.-'-,:..{;,-::,::--...,"'[':J':,::.;:.:,..;.':.,::,_,,,-..:.,,'':.:,/.,,,':,2,.,'r.,:,,.,::..::,;'',,,.;:.":::.'-.'.,,,'.:;::-,.::',,.:'.,.:,,::::'.,,':'::..::':,,).rr.;'',::,i,,,,,''t::':-,:i„::,':,:,...i.:;::',-::;j,,,.,:.i-,..:,.-,:.'`:-::.1.•..--',.-.,.,.,,',:;.,..'„.:[.,:::';:i,.',::.;,;'i,..,.,::-..:....,'',:-.:,,..:-'.',.4::<..':.:-.',,;',....',-;[.::-.;:-„:':;.'::::-':;:ie:;,',.-,,.)'!,-.,-,',.:-'-::,,,,,:-:::,:',C,:.,,,,'::::-y:_".:,,:_:;,::'-,,,.;k,::'.,,,:::':,:-:....1•,':.,:-:::,.--,-;-'.:::,:r.-:.?::.';.:,:.'/-,-,:,;,:1,-,:,:,:,.:):!-,;''.,,:.,.:-.,:,.z..:,,..;i,:.::'-',,,"-,...-•-.=".:,.::,'44,-'„--:::•:,':,,,Y, F,;" P.:..'-;,,::.:.-6',,'.,.,,",,,'',,:.„• ,,':--,,:,/• ,,.,,.:',.:;1''„,,/.'::-.:;.;,'.':,.',„.'.-I':..:::,,:,,:::•,:,-'r:;..,:,.,,':;.i.:1;FA-',,,,,'',;,,..--:,-!?,:.:,-.,.,.1.'..,,..'.;:,',.:;-7',,:,,i:..-.,:,:,i,,.c!,':,..::'::;•.,,',-f.:.,...;,...1,.7.,,.,':,:.,-,-.•,'-i::-.:'-:..:',::.7:T-,.:..,..-;,,,--,:,',..,2'%',..'..;':,.-„,,.,:,-.._::.':'.:'I:'f,,,:.'...,.'',..-:;,:.:,.-,.1::.,„.','-,2::•;..,,„-;.,•,':,..:.;.;?;::..:::.,.''.,:,::V:':::./,,,::..,.-:'..,:..';-.,-.
•
..:..!N.,7:..:-'.,?.,.‘4:..:..,‘.'-,..:--.',,.,.:,.-..1:;,:.;',..:;,,2..:„.,.-...„:•,......:.,,-,,',:.:'-?.,o:;-:,,?;..,.,'...,.,',,,.;;:-...•,,:-''.•:,1'„,..,,,,.:,-!,:',,,..;..i:'-±..t,;,,,1.-c'.,:,:--..:--:','...•',..--,S:.:,1,'„.,.:,::',,1.,,:-'1:,,.f,.1'-'s.,''.::,.:',:k,..'-,-,.'.'.;..-.-:'g.-:=.',,,.7:.t1i":::.7':..:'-..::>1';;.,;;.:,'.-P;..-.,,i.!,;.:.i,,;,,;-.''..;'_,,„'';'•',.:‘.„':.:'-_::i7.,,.:-'.:.,',',:.."-:',':,,'',.,:..-,,..'4.,.,.:;:.;,(..-:-::.;;,,';.,,,:,.'-::f.'Y.:-i:,,.:"':ii.,._..:.-,:.;,'
.L:.,,-::.',:'_-,,:.,.•.'.,,;,'.-:.:-'i';,'',:,..,.,i.,,.:::,,:,,",,;'7:.s:..:',,;'-,..',,:'-r.,:-:.....,'.1--.‘i4.c:.fv.:.:1,':.-:..,,'.;-",„..;:•:';,.)t.:.,2.,..1.'-'.:„J;.,':,,::.,,:.,,..:..,.:..`::..,.':-..,,:;,-:.:.:.,:.,1,.,,':..-.:--,.,i„;:,',;:i.::;,.:::j::„.,:::-':--'.:-:,.r:,.•:i':.;'r-::-;:j:v,,".,'p-:.,-,:r',:,'.,,-.,:.::±:'.,:..-*:;:.-.,'.:,;::.-.:::,:-::.-,,:..':::::.,.,';::.l,:,'=,,,':-','.,•,,i'..::.-':..-;:...':,.:::.,..:,:.'.:.„;:.''.c::.;i':,'4F-:„.,.:„_-...-.;:'.,.-,'.:;';,l-:.,'.:;':,.-,.:.:`):,,-':c:':',:,,:';y'•-:.,.'_!;':;;:.,'":,4,-.--:;-.:'::...,-i,.,:,'',i;'.:.,.-,:,„,.;.:.-:,r,',::',-:..','5:!:'',.';-:.'.,,:''?,.:,,.-..7,,-.,:;,;..,,''i,,,•,(.,;C,,...:1?r::,-::.,,,'.S':::-.,;:''.-.,',.:-';.:,:j-,:.::,,,4-,.:.,:.;:-;',7s,?,.;-,Y..::-',•,:'';.'-::.li..r,',:..,;2L;.;.",,'.:,.:;:':,:.-:,;:'..:.:f:,,.':`:.1::;.,.:J.:;,;:,.,.,: t.„-',''.,;:,.':,.,.-.-,r7: t,:.`:-,:-..,c.;:,..,:':-...::'.:„-'`,.r:t:,:..:.-i:.:.,:..:-...1,!..;-:-_:.i:.,''':,:''-`,,'.:?-':,'-,.,1.',.l,--:5;;-:,,.,.„'',:,,,.::.7;".:.,::::,•,,-,':..,;F;''s,;:.1,,,,-;:.,.-,r-,,.,,,.„,'..;,-:.1:'':,,.,:..-E.-''-c.,,,•,,?',,l'--:':,::,.-.,.:::,',-,,_7.:-,:::s',.:..:.,:..:s,.•'-;:.i;.,,i.';i.:,:'-.:-'-,.,::R,,\,,;::,r,.:!':,:,J.,,'-:.:,:::..I",•.;,:..::6:'.'i':,?,!-,',:,.'11,,,;:,::..-,..::.-:7,.:.:.;;E:,:..'-.-::..,,j•...-;.,'..:-:.:,1:.,:,",:•';.':..:::'..f;-.'‘.-::"-iJ;2,..:,,''":,,,,:.,'-'i;,,'::;:;:•::'.:-:,,,.';,:.'t:::,.,„..,:i::,:.,:,,,:-.:.,,s:-.:,,:..:,'‘..y,:,;-,„,:-:'c:,„.:''::",:'1:.:;.:,:,,,:,',,.,-Y'-.;,":;,'•":,:•:.•-.:":..:;",,::'.::,.,;:,-:,-',;1',•''','.:.:,l-:,:.,'ii'',:/:;.:',',,::.:,,:I...:'„,.:,,:.,,:.4..:,';:'.7i:::,F--..':.:-'.::::i.t..-::,.',;':‘.:..,.:7.,?,.'-'.;::'.',:,:;,,,.,'-:-.,::r•.':,,.;-,;,,,'.._,...';::',.,:.:„.,:i,;';;,-{.v...::.,.--4.::!-,::':;:.'.,,:P::',',':-:'\:,,,6:;-',,,,':,.-:,,:,..:",::::,1:;,-,.;-,:;-:‘:1,:-.r::,;:..,„..'-:,:.,..,:4-.::;:,f',":-:':-::::.'s::.:,,,.,,--!;:-;-:,.::",:':,.',,,,:4:;,,;,2:-.i.:,':.::,'',`:-.;',-:.-,;-:.,,,',,`,.;-,,.;,.::,':,:'.c'.,'-.,.,,',:.':,:-.,:,'i,,,;,-,,''.-,,-:,::.':.:.:,:',-4. 1:::-„,':'.-:.:H/.,,7-:-.:::r,:‘::,'-,(:c,'.--,:.:;:;.,.,..:,::-,.',;,:;.-,::.,,.i,:,;..',5,,...:...:i::":,,,•..s:.-r:.ii..,,e;',-.,'-,:,'.,,;,-../-.?.„:,-:,f.':,.-r,.;1:•.:,;,,:'„,,;,,,,:-,,j;'.-:.,-,,,:,;.:-,;-,,2;,,,',:,''',:,..;;7;'.;..,:,.,r:-,'-.7"...,r:'.,;1':,:„k.-,i,'--:.,!:-',;.,.1if.:,r-::..'::::,.'':.7-,...:..,,::':;.;.:':..,,2,,;:.':.:;;''r.:::.,.';:':,,:,.::,,',•/.';,:::,,-.'r.:??:,.,.N,.,-:-:.:._.,.-,:,`,-;'..,,,„;.:;:-,:?,''.:2':,..;.:-,,:,.:':,,,1.,:..-..,.!'..:,:.i,.:;',,.,!,:-,.',1^:,,,'.:.,::'‘:.,,'..-,,,',,,.,,.-.:,'[F..,.::,.•,,..t:.',!:,,:,.-.,:.-,i,,-:c-,:;:':,..',;;:;:;:!,',.;;,;:';,'„.:.,:.;::':':::'-,,,,..;:,:!:,,,:'.,:,.':.,..::;:,':',,,'/.*,,-,.;,,.;,:;':.!,!:-,.•;::-.-',',::,'[::',,';•1,„!'--.';:,::.•„i,:,.'2.':.-,:.!.,..;:Y..•--....-;,.....-.,:;.,,:;_:l:,.-',;,--,;,;y.,,-:..':,;-,.:,:`:,sf;::,:':,.'i:'.-.::',:,..•':::.,.,,:'..,,,',':.,,.:7,'',.;4.,.::..,.,.,,,::::;:i,:4--:.-::r:,•.,.:..,:.::'::,,:5.'',.,,:!:,...:';.::.Tf,:...':,.,:--x.':1:,'„i.,,-,.:-.--:;...i'?',-.,A,:--.::2i1,,:.,,',1:,4i.,;',,',,-':'z;:,.-,'1,,_-::..:;:.',',':',.-:,.'4-,;;:.':,.,-':,..„,,,,,,'.-',,,::,,..::.:-,:;'-.,"-7,.)',;..:,,,,-:::.•.:..,„.,.,i,.-'..:,;.;...,i.1,;,-:..,i‘,:;,:j.1-..-j';;-,.',.,1:.:,,''';='.:,!,,.?._,:,,,.':;.:-.:,:.,s:.;.:,,.:,::.'..‘;!',.:;,:,:.;_,'.---::;.,:,.:7::>_`..,:,,:.,;-.?--„:-,„,„,':,-,.:.:.:,':':!-''';„,.,-:'-,.2.,4',,,,,,.,:.,'.:-,'-,;.:',,,'':;:.:,'...,-:;-,.-,':.:,..-,,,.,,;'.:::':,;'..:.„,E.:--?,'.:,,,,.i„--,:---....•:.-:.,..;,'7,.'7;-;',,::.'',.,..--"..,,.:,-:7--.,;.7;-,.,;.:,:.'':I,,.--,t'-::',:,::,1,,'•.:.,,',-..:..:..'',-,.-i1...;.:...r:-:.,,..:'..:...'1,.,i:1:.;,,..'y.:$-6:..`.,.,;,:::..?',:,,.:.:.-.;I.'.,,.',K;.;:•::;:,-;:.,:;.,,..'&,.`-,,,k.-,.:,.-:f.,',....:.,.,2,;',:.:i..,,.::.',i',::„-'..:•4,:':,.;;'-,.:-.:.,-;,c,,'`.:.,,,::-..'i'.,e:,,..,..':/.:,;,I'4f.,,:..,...5:-.::.,::.,:;-:'..,,.,.,.-:2-..:,,.:,,::;,,:..,.:,,.',;:,!,.-',:..:.-=,..;..,•-'..;.::.,,.,'.::,:.,.!,;.,..,--.,:,.4':",i!::;;:::.''::...;'y:,',.:::::';.i:,,,.-,:;;:.,,'..:i/,.::-:,:.s,-:'.::;,;.-',:.,;:.,-:;,::,..:!!'.,..-:.,.-"-...,;r:..!,:-t:';''.:,1':,_-::,.,..,',::'A':',,f:,?,':,:,',,-.,::..,:.:,;.,.:;.'y..,'•i::.:•.:,,::',12-,-:':,.i.,....'3,.-:.,-.„,..,,--.„1,:v...,';:.:::;:.;.•;:,),;::„::?.::-.:'.i..1;,.::-,...:::,.-.,-,;•::7...:,:,:I::::l,:..,;:::',,'.!'=,,'-:.::.',46,.-?.::,,'.:,,,,T,:,:--:.,„.,,',.:!::.-:::',.,:.,.:':,,,,,'.:',:-,:;.-.,-..,..,.:_:_,2.:,,-::;.:,,:S-..:.,,.•-:::,2.:..e,..'.,:.-f.:::,::'-,:,,..',::_,.,''•,.,,,.:.:,...":,..,,:,'..,.,',,.;,.,..:...,.-..,::;,,',;,i'.m.,;:,:!,::.-.r.:.,,...::.,.:.,.,f.-..',.,:_,',',;:-_-;;:-;':•:.,'s.;,?:..',--''s.,•;:-,,...:=.:?,",::.:„,,.:.,'.'-;::'::,.:;-',,-:,,,::,(':::,.,,..:,..-,..'.:-:-'.:::-.'[:-,,..::-:::,.:',.1;;:.:.-;:,7i;:.,..:::1..:7,.',:.t::.:.:+-'.•2i`::..,...•,...;,;0`'.:(,:','',,'.:,..3:,'.`:;‘..,,,,,,.',,'..'-u,.,.'s,.1:-',,,7:;,,,1'.J-',,..-:4-,:-:.,.,7.•*'i,,,-,-,,,,::,",;;.::,.:.,.,.':',..,':,r,:.:,'„.,-,„;.;:::.:'-,.-.:'-.,,,-',-?::1::,',-_.,:.i:';,.,;.,/.;c,,-',:i,..:.:,,.:,,;f;;:-c..,!.:.;.:,.,,z„_.::._'„:„‘..!,1_'.:.n;;.,.':,.•:",.,;;!::.:.';:.',;,.:',:,::"),:„:"-.:.,,:y:.:::-:i::.,,,J,,.",:-;:..',,,-::.-27:;:'.,'.'::.:-'-.T':('.,::-?-;::;,'';:i!-'".„..,,..:...,::.:..,,:•:-.',:,,-:,,-.,',.,.,.,_„..',f':':,.!,.,.;r:,,,1„:‘-:,-,,'.-‘:.•,-T:-',;,,.,'-:'.,:.;,:.•-.,,:;,i:,':-'„,,:-.':,,-,..''..:,:::,::;;.,;:,..:..-...:,,:,;,:,:,,:.!:.,);':.,:-.-,-:„:,•,.;...,;.,':1..'..,;i.;:-',:.,,:::;i 4,",5=,:,i..::-.')..:f:,:..::,:t,,.,..,,;:i.:,,-,i.;,;'...,:',,.-..7,'.,.,_..,.,-;:':r„,!:,::.'.'::..:,',.,,:-‘"•,,•,::,,::,.:;,:,,:;:,:,!.-;,J.,:",;„.;,,;:,'::',.:.;:,_:.I:,:',,,.,:.',";i,::;-;.,,-:4,...,:;,:::...:•:::7,;.:i.,:-„,,:::,'.,,:,-:,.,',,':,e'',,:,;!,:-:::.::,.::,-:::.;::.::.:',.!•;:.,i.',,,,.„.-,,--::'.,'Y,.T''.::,:,::-:.;..-:;1,.,,:,,.:'..,,,..:,,!::,•;,',4.,.--,:'s.:,:,,.',,.,:':,!::-,!:,';.::.:..'.:',H..1;7,.,,.,.,-',.-.;,..:_'',-:;,'.,';ii,?.Li;,.'.,-':-,,,7-';....v;z:.'.:;,1',','.:,,.:-E'=:---.',•...;.:";,.,;,.-;i•-''.,.,::,'.,:;--::,:!...71''.:,.::„:,-,,i.,''.•:.:..f.,..,,T,r.:,::..,,,,;,.,,..:,.:::,:;:',,-. ;:•;.' 5,:);:',,::!:':.':'.!:.,:f,:.:„:,,'..-,2i.s:,.,.-i'„''.-:...•,',--'.,,',..-';,z,.,,;;.i::',_!;„.':::-.,,1-...;',,,.:':;,,,',;,:'4',:,::,,.;,;;'.';:-,.;;,',::";;::s,:..:-.g.:,-,,'f„,3,'2:.e;::•-:,;Y..,T';-';,.i,.‘:!':-,','1.,:i.',':f-:,,';,,:/:.:;''„''..,,,:-,,.,'i,..',;:.r.,:,:",.'-.:.',.':, pr,:,:..:,'-.,f:,..`.:,„"'•:.:',.,:.',::.:-2.fy.':.,-.,:,.,;':,..:,,,'::,,-,,..;.:-,j;:,::,-.,,:',::',.,:,.:,,,;.':,,',:,,;:.--::.,.,-_i,::.,.'-.-.,,;:.,;.,,;-',:,,:::,',..i,.;.,.-i.:,,.',.,,:'.,•:::;;::...,.-:,.,,...,,rr:.i::.::,:i:-...::.,';.•:,.:;".';,;:',.".:::;;,„:.:",,.'K7,':,-;,
•
1Qt5SbRENT$: !; 610! d ; cE'PF4340AT4„ : Kg99 .iiT':,,*7;,::::,:,::;.:':.:'':::i:-:,,,'.:'::''';'•:-.,,1.--,;:,,.-.''..:,':::''-:,•'.,,!,-:,.:.::,,-,:':,'.-:'::',-:.•,,',,J;:.‘,;,;,:,-::,,:,.,-.'•.(,7-:.,''c,,,.'-:.:.".,`:-.-.',.'.,,,.,:..'..:;',.,-.'':',,F,:.::,;.:.,,,,.:,-,::";'.',,;-,,,,.,,,,...,-,,:::',:4.:.:.::.,.,;:'';,:.:;::;,::.,':-.:,:'..,,:.:,5.:,e;.-,..-"‘'-:'...-'.::;5,,::,"'-,,,:..,;:,-;;:1'„;,•5•:,:,::.:'i:"::',,:".[:",:-:::•1,'L,:'.'-..:'Y.,1.,-.-:-:..":,„,:'.,'.,:.."'.:.:2•.,,,;.•N
i rcEVALUAT;As ' #; 0RANQP' t,ARTi4itTi ,: i64 ' : Ai6E';:',‘:.,''-..::.-.:..::,,,..,.,',-F,-,:,-'1,:',,:.,..:,:J-.'.•,„-;:':.':.','r,:,.,:-;y,,:t..:-"-:,,:,,:..,.:^.•-!.:;:..i.:..-,,':,:.,:.:..:.::.,.-,-1-.,-,,;i:4,-.::•.4,.':..:.,):. s) iautgiCommunications' cuqF1410415
4ty,0F,.mer6N
Jul„4;51i109 t . . 1% 3?2905
Bonnie Walton i itc4fiqPrceiil/:6451 ' 117k' i z CITY CLERK'S
it) )f.iiibi
i,s .:§::() 44 : ZRopt9P?.*A9o : 4
Dear Ms.
and
ti! thil14! n, fOPT,19v im.j.pg:aadt&§ .17 , iigo_ .ci5 ,?SO2I :-M,'i :0pY7 .AvA;
to:
14867ri,§f: t :
Qa106I1ard?-wA.n266
, : Tic ,isteqTRt6ts'f9T-9it'or4q`IaV0,1Pfie0:rrTis4 . ? Y9, e:ic,0-f7.1iirik)q: '609FT!' iity:ti94. (8,dtp ip;ihtioPP 'cf ir9r; 6zolt;.Td'appr94te:fhq;fq: is6d
1ce'bFTN& .1* P '7ii,04; irtk .4g1& ,‘..:.'.:-:.::.:.i:,.i1,,-::,.,..::'..:,..,4,,-,:,!..::'::,.:-,h;.::,:,:-'....`,::,..,.:-':,„:.„.,-.,.,';,:,.!,:!;-;:',:-;,':-,;-::-•,;,'.;:'.,;•,,:'.;,:,.'',.:'.:-,
ss
,--4.)•:-,;.,N/,.;'::..'7,..,.-:-:,,.i;;:,.:,'.,,':i:,'.2.,;:,-'.
;',,..,-',....-'',,:,.".,.":.,.,,,::.,':•.-,::':,;',,,,.:(,:',.':'r':,'::',...'.:'1?.:.::,,;,:,,'),.''.
..:,
..,
•,.,
-? ',•.`"-' ;2-k-s... .'-.,...:'''''.:.';',".."/-.-2-',';':-.;',.,-. --.....--,,1',1'.:::::"...-,'-',.V.';-..',.',.'•::''.:?,':-.:;.:',.••''..'',..'',;', .',:`,-,',.::''''.: •.,::;,L,.[:1.;"--:',.. ...,,i.Z.:;:::'-i,
..,.,..-...r.,::•..-:.;i''''il,. .'••,:','„•,y,',',-r.--',',f...v.::::::',.,,-.-:,'';'`,1-',,-`..,-:-..=-:;,...'-;-:,,i', '...',, -',,,-..-',,.-'-'.:';.;..,-:... :.::.,:.:..','.;y..',.,-,:,:-.',-..-,;..4,..„,':',.-,,,,-.,,,z-s2.,-.'....',,-.-.'..,:::::-..-.,:,-,„'-,.':•:„...,-,i',.',`,,-1:.. -„-:',...',,,.,',,.,:.-..':,.::..„.: '.-,-„,-,',,..,,':;::,„,,,,,',',,,.,",,,-,-,
''.`---?-:-.:::',',..''..:.-:'.-:::-.',' --'.'-,-!../A,i-i..,?•-:'.:.',-,.i.':::::',.:::.:1-,.:'4',,'''::::-'.1"..-',.,;:..,'.='''.--:.',,,.:!--,.'...',';'-'.:,'‘-'1._,'...,!?....':'?-,.::,„;',,-,,...:;7,::''.'.'. ..:'-:::.:',':-..'-'''.-; ''';'..,:,:-. ,,',-:z::: ).--'`,:::'L',.'''',.''';''.:::'. :'',;'""::''::,''',Y,,:',-:- ' .:,,T'',:.,?:,-;,:', :',,,-,',::,',...,-lc'
'.','/:':,,: ::';'-,'.-..; '7',,:,.:.•;:.,:':-.:..,,,.2::,..1,.-,. ely...........:,,,..t..;;;;.:,.:„-„,:s,.....,-,F'.„.,...-i-..:,‘.,;,..,,,,,,,,..;.-:„ ,..:„;:-..,-,-;„,"?,,z,,.-;...,.,.. :.::;,,...,-;.--.; ,..,,',.--..':,,..:,-,-..,,r':. •;',',.:,,.-1,-:::-,,,,,....:.:::,',,:::.:::,,':".;•:::.,:,::.:-.:',,,i''.,2,:f.-,:.',i',:.=%,;,,,'..,,,,.',,:.,-,.:•,,,:-',.;',,'',','";,..,....j.':,`'''',.,':,.1-..,:.,
,z1;7',..,,';'''';‘,...,:,,,11'.,,,l'',',;,;,-L":•;,=,:"::sInceL.,2.._.-::,,....:,,,..':,-,-,-,.,.-.,',.,-....,...•,'.-..,-,.:',....2;:,..•-.v.\.:....-,,,,,,,,,-....,,,,,,,,,,„..„--„.„.',...-.,:,.-p,,,....,...,,,,,,...,,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...., ,,, s.,....,,,,,,,:o.,....,,,:„...„,...,-,,,.L.,,,„,„„...,,-,„„,,,,,,.„.,..,,,,,,;„,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,.,,,,,...,.,.1.,;,,,-,;.,,,. .,,,,,,,,,:,7,, ,,,,,,.,....
,. ,,,,,,,„,.,,-,-,,,-.-....,,..,,.:.,,:-.,;:,„..,..,„;,.-„,,,-..,,..,:„..,,,,,,,.,..,;,?,,....,,j,-,,,,-..--.,,,::::„",:',...:,:-.-,f::,l:':','':';',"...-7-4,:,...k".;:.:',,,,-.1. ...';:':'-`,`.:.;:,:::?;;,: v....:;;;.:',,,,':";':':„.;.'r.1-':..;:.f.::;-,,,:.-,::::.,-;-!,:!--7,s',-"-,..::,;'..---'‘..,,,,,'„:',„,'.-"':,'•:,`,:,-:''.-,,v.:,,/..,. ;...:;,'•
,':',-,'.,':'-:',,!:.'-••;';,‘..'-":1 .--...,'-' ..'''''"'":‘' .7 7i-''''',(:,:',.,-..-:;';'::''';',:':;:''...1. ..:.;',,..,:r,''',",'::::::,.'',:,,'',.::'.:1;;;;'-`,' ,','.':,'";:,::::.•,',-;-,::;:': ''',..':',:'.':,''''-;,r„--' ,i.`',-','",-......;',v..`,-''',..-,,',,,:"]?-:.,7::":,:::::::::::" ';'''':,','",:.:'..;:--.-.,;:':".'.:','';',:'-'2.Y1;'',:',.',;,`•.:(-'''',..:;i1..%.-.i.:.'''..
''''''': ''''''.1:1:: :::;.:-:. .1':':::.[`::::::.?.:::',.. '::;:::.''-'1::::4';;':::;:.;;:::,.'";:..:1;:::t':''''-'':,:: :.::-•4.2.::57:'::'-:::'‘;:::. :-::'2';::: :::''::::::.,''''''.:::'` V,-::11';':::',.:7': :';',;.-i,:!.-::. 4.''. .:.:;:.'.,:;''.':..)-:-.1.1,, -:.",::i.':::::';',:::',',',,--:'.:),'.::..';'1,f-,':::.;-':;:-..:'1.,:".":::,!i'!:::::r1,,..,- ,:r .:',;:',''::';‘,.':::: ::''.':•:::1::::
:,,,,,,,:r.,_::'.2:::::::::-';;?: ,;,:1;1';',7,-,;::.:,,,-;.:,..,: ;!,'.7.,i:4-:',",:::,,,1,2,,,,':::;::::::_,..:'_ :";:.5::„..:;::::', .‘::: •./ .::;‘::''.., ,:::',-.::1-:::',.:''''::::::':::-;,',?-:.;:.1Y;Y'::::'!,..:^'::',':::;:,:::. :''''::::"?....,::: .. .,..;,)";''';:;:,;.":::!:"4.-::::71.:::::,-7,:,;f:I'::',1!,,,-: ,:lf.;.:::E:::::::':::::?:;:;?;::.,-;:':::.„:','',.-::::;',: ::::';;;.....:''..:'':,-.'.;,':['::::::,.::::,':.:
4:::;:.`f::.'-';-•:-:';' • ' i:_if-d ,
.:.-,.„,,,,•'::,..',..,,:....,:,.::::,:..',.,i, -,.:!,;...,,::,,:,,,-.,--....„::,?,.,,f-:_-;.i';;.:','. .,,--,,,,','•;,,„ :„.:•„;,...::',.- ,„‘,,,,:,,,,;,,v,',.,-,::,•„;-....;,.,,,,:;,.,,:.,::,,,,.,::;-.. -,:::,,-..„,,.-,..-,,;;:,,,,;,-:-,,;:„„,,.,,,,v,i-,-,,..-,:„,;.,-,,,,;;,:::::,i,,i,':-,,,...„,,T.:„:-,i,s-:„: ,..,,,,,:,,,.,,,,i;,,,,,....r,,,,,:,,:;,1,-;_,:,
Iyip h.,,,:...-,,?,,,,!:-,,,.,,,;p.:'c-:,;,',T,'-,:....: ',-::: Consultants1,
President
eatipp: .t,.,...:•,,,';'!„-:',.'../,.:.:'-;`),,,, ..,;,..:,.c'...,-;',--.,‘;':', -.:,:','':q.-,..-..:,:.','i:,:',:,.-;,---,,:.:;',',......"..''.'h,,,-,.'',-:.,1,.....-,L,::,.,'; ',.'.,.-`?.',,...'..';'..::..'(--...'..:..,-:.'rt.7,'".: "...'4',',, f'-i'.'-..:.,,
„,‘,....i,..,E..commp.pl.,.;,.;::;.:.-.-:,..:..,-;;,,.--:ii„,,,,;:?,:,.,-.;'_:;,.::;;;:.::,,..;;',..,-,-...,-;„,..!..:if.,,,,.:',-:•`:,.,;:::yi,,-...,-.-[$,:,,,I,.-;;.:,.,-,.,-;..--",::,'r...,,,...,.:.-..,:;.,..e.-„;:-,';'...":"..r..2,.,4'.2.-::.i,....7„'-,-•,'::„:„',.;.,,`„:„,....,-,,:::::.,,,,,,-:„,:•.','.,,,,,,-...,;',-:::,,•.•,,,,,I...,-....
.-...-.....',," Ec.a.R-i!, ':::,-,...,::: ::. .---1:::1;,-:.'-:'.,.::.:,';',,,;'::'-'..:-,,i'-',:::`:".:.:'.,'.,'.,,.;i'..-'•,.'.,'..?,:::..,',':',:,f.11,1..- .',,,,-;'..';',....'[;',:.:',.--,..2.'.:-.:':,'':: ::::':-..;!r,'.. ...'.-;:.--:i'.:::.,r.f...''';:-...-;-: :_ `..'i:7::,-.,:ir... .':.7:,..:.'':•.;,...'..'1.'";,;',.
',:'.,.,!:::: :::,,-,':',;:.,'-',.,..,„,..„?..,-.,;,,,,,,::..:.,;:',;,,,„•,-.;,:::::::,-53 .?-.:',..::',:.:2'..-,:),,'.1!':::.,:. .1,: :;,-,::. ,:-.;. -. :;,,,..:::.- -,...-..;,-„-',')L..,:-:',-..f:'-.4.,;,,,,k,.'..,:-,...-:-,:;•'i.--,,,,,.‘,..'-.;:2.:-,', ,i-::1;:'•. ',ii'-!:.,...';;;-..,,:',:'-';': ....:'..:::.';f:f,',.'''''', ::':';',..'','.-',..',.'..:-...,',':',':.::: ::',-;:.',',..`:.'.."':',;--- ,',':','•'::.,',`,'',',-;.,:.,..',:',:-..,..
,.,.:,..ii:-.-, :....::*:-..,:,:,;;`,. ,,..,-i-;.:,,::::-....,,,,::-,;;,::,:,-,...4„-:::,-:-.,,,,-:'.,:T',-:::?;7';,-„,::;::::::'...:,;:-.,;::,,,±i.)•-,,,,:...:.,,r.,..,..-,-,:1::'.2?!."..,:.:.::-;::4,,,...'„-:„,,,,•,,,,,,,;:,:v; ;;,.,,,,:.,-;-..-,..',i.,..,,.;,,:,;,,1-,ir,..:,.:?:.:;'.... .:'-:::i:',1•.,,-.',.Y.",,-":...;,-,-.:,-;11,..:,.....',..,,,,i.:3,,,, ,,,F....:,:.„--,,!--.:;:`;''',/-::::','L'54, -..--:'.i.:,?•.'7..;:''.:,-.:,::.'",::,'
'.'''., ,:,-,.....s.'.--;..;!.}',1'.=..'.'.'::::-.':;.',:r,:5';;;':."..-'-it4,,,,.'....,..,'=;;;-;,,,'.','-'.', .,: '-. '.:,',.,:;-`.•':,,,,:-.=,:...•''';".:',•, 'Y..:-,'-'',,,-._.'_",,?.:, ;:`, .,::-..:,...;:,;;;; ,,:-.'..):::-,.,:'..,..,_.,.`'..'..,,.-,,,'.-.,...,"?...,,_,,,,,.',.:',:=-,',-,....',-J,.:,,i-?..:"...4.:,.. ..,..,,-.:.,*,..'„;..,.',r.,-:,,,...,,,,,::,,;,,..L!.,.,,,.%-.-,y„,. ..,,r„,...:.
:7.,,:c,-:,, ;.,,,,,-;,,,I,;-,..:,,,,,..,,,,:;:!:-.,..,.;.,:-.,:)..,!,-,;;....:',,._;-:.::,,,,,...,.,,f.,,,..t,,..,,-,'„,....,,r;'.'..',..2-,.,.,..,‘.,:::,..5.,'..`:..1'.,..':-..,"....,.:.-,'..'y.":,'::,,-..:--:-:;;-,.;,,,,"::',;,-::...,,..';',..'k..i..,;.'.:;,,,',-;:.,:?,.;%':::.;':,.:,:':-..,..;,,,.....,,,-,,:.,,,,-..j-i....,.,-..•.,,,.,,,..:.,,,,:',.•,.. ;,'.'2.,.--.;;'-;..?.:-':-.::-.:','-',',•,:',.c!,.....1-:..,..,
,-,....::',:-...F.,...:',.,'.'-:',;'.....;.,'zii,',,,,,':::::,':f,,.:.,,,'... ,...:,..,,,s...e.„::,F.,:.;:::„.-,--:;,,,-.,,,...,,..s.,.;;:r., ..,,,.,,,?..,,:,-,7.,.',..._:-.:,,,,.:,:,,,,,,,i.,-,,...,,,,, :z1-„':...-...::,,,,J.:-.::,:,,...,:,.,,,...„.;.„!'„r,'.',-i:,,,,,:-.2:-.:,,,..,;,,,y.':,,,,,i.,-,...:,....,:,,:',,i-::::::::....:.,..-.,,,,:::,,...,,,,-;-...2_,.::.,1,,,,,,,,..:.,..--...„,::,:,-,...,">-..,...,;.,',.,.„:.,:',4',..„.,!„!'‘ .'.7,;...:,'„(:',:::•:,,,,:;.,-,.,„,
.. .,..,7,-:,c.•''',.::::.":-,--,''.,',',...,-'::.:7,.1,:•-i:',:::'z",,,:,,-.:•=',...-:-."'-',;'-,.,'',.--..,;,'",:;:g,f,:,!,:'•-•.'":-::::.. .:',`.,,: .'",","::::'-',';;;'''';:,,;-..;--:,':•--:;-:,,_':',,. .,':".',1,......,!'".:-i':',--...",::+4'''':.,::-..,'..;„':!:.:,?:';.:&:::::..•,''.',':r,''',."4 ':::'.'::'''..:":,:';:',,, '...;;;,',":;:,',,:,f-',' ',..',..'i.-:,,
‘`,`,,',-,,-,,,,,,,,,„;V,:,,,.:,'',,':,,,,,,sy...,:,r,;,,',.1-,..,:-:.-•,:,..---,.:,..,,,-;'„iy,,..,.:,,,,-;k;,.,..,,L'...,,,-.''.:,',1,,f„... '.,.'';::''..,.-”,,,'',,'-,:'-';;;,,'-`;',,j,:',';',.;',::,;;,;:' ,'.,',:-.`,:,-;;, ',...::-..:'..1.,'''.:,:;,:,';';',:',•‘;,',','...-,:,',.;,;;''."-"1;.,,,`.-(:':,',:-:.7.c;,--‘:,:,::',.:,::,';'':';,:'.1,-..'-',-.%',.;;,':, ''.:-',';::."-,,.:::---
,,,':','::...'-';:';',, ::•:.,:,:.-...j',?..-'.*:;,-,-,...,,,,',::.'::.',:-,:;,„-:',:::::?:::5.. '::::..T...'-:.;;.,.",';..;;:i".:,"';.,:'-.'.-:.,•,'‘ ;,:',:.,%.. '..,.':.."...',',..-:''...“,.:1,.;..`,::',..-;,, ,,,',.:,',..-,., :,:,:',.:: ,..,....;•.:',i-,.:„.-...,:„-.:.',-:..,:\,;,...-,.:...::.,•,,:',,',''..':,.:::,-,,',;'.',.::,..,,...'.,:;.-..':',..y,::.:,',„-...:.'L'-:,::',.';:,:,.-::,:--;:„.;„.;-`,:'.::,,,;,,,,:
.;;-,2,--,,,,,..,,,,.-,,E.':,..',...-,,-,..:,,,:,-.:,:,:i..,,, ,,,',„;,. .,,,:„T.;•..;‘1.:-,,:::,.. ..3 .,,::,,::P.,, ,,,,,„-.:,---„-:....,,-;.„',1,.,.s.,',."14,,:,..,,,-,-',,,,-'',,,.':',,,:;,2.,:.:.-;-,..;',,,,'-:•.',:-..,-,?.;:i'..:::','..- ..:: ,..i.,',. ..,N4-' .::::.:',.2::','":•-51.:‘ ,.:.''.'::..---';',';'..,..'.1 ':':.''''';':::"-:..(:-:..',/,'-i.ii'''',..";;','-'::-'.':',':-.7''5'1.:'''''.
-,,,::::-,:;,,,„?...„..:;-,..-).,,,.,.=,.:;,‘,-. ::,..,,.:',,,,,,';',::::::......,,:i2,„'..,.;,,,, ,,;!-;;;,',2:,?i,;..i.-,,...:?'-,,,,'..,..„,.. -:,,,-;,c:.,•..,,,:;;:,....,..;:::;'-',-:.,-...,"!..':'..,"--',-::.,,, ,''''.', „:',',.}.. '„,„:',','..':.:.,,.'-i,Y:„',',;.---., ,,.'" '•,,,,.:,..;',.--.::::,.'::..,:r-, :',',--:: ':.-',.,.?;',,;;'•;:',-,,-,,-.'.:',:.?.,...,','-',4,s.,':•.:„-::::-,-,,::.,-;;',.:...:,,..,.::,.1.,; :',,'?:•:,•:.
•::..,,,.!"-.,:;::::,..,.,),,::::-i.::;:,,,',.i;::-:3.,....-::'...'.,, T.,',7r.:,.:?;',-,-,, ,i. :,,, ,,,?-:,:.:-A- 9,,,,,,,:,,,,-,,-,,,,i,,,,,,,.:,,, :s:; ,-.:,-,,.,,,.,...';',...,,,,,,,,':;.-.;!,:4,;,,::',.?,s.)-:',;:,.y:;'i.,::::::. ., ',:..,:: :.!::;',-:::;;..- -?.,.:--4-;. :.,c.,,''..,.,:, :.',.,;',...,P.2.'.:"...:',',,'.'/,';31,,',,;'..';-':;','.. ,:;=7;-', ..".1.',:::"'.:ii-:4'.'.:::,",":-.'-;:'::::::-,'''
''',:•...:-;'i'l.,.. .:,'.;:.!,'•!:''.',.':;,"-.;,'",::,.:::',',-.A..::..;::::.,,--,.1::;,..,;'.4:,..'„,:.:.',,,, :',..,,,-1:. :...,:-,:,;;::. -,..,,•;i::1:::',:i:,,,'':,',:',..-,:r';,:',.‘„,;:',,..:.:-:',-.-..',,,'-`;?2,-:-_-.:';',.,':;',:4•L„. .', , : :.:''..-.`-':',.,.,'„,:.,;'-k"':':i,.:1,..1',,.: 71:1:,';:,',,,,' -'i.' .A"..it:,.',,.!:,..'.,-,.:2'.:._,.:,'-i...rr;.::.:-.J.,::.:';',;,;;:(:',,:,;.; :[...,:',:;;;,,:j„,,-,:?.:,,..:.,..;:..!. .:.,'„';'.,
',..::':''.'',''-;'.,''' '',:::,.,'...',1""":Y''''.-'- 'i;,l'o.:-.':!...?-:ti,.:-.."::::!-,.2::..,-,,:.,'::::,.';'.:-,',:.,,i.,..,',.:,',',.::„'.;;: rt,..,-,,.::::,:.,-,:2:,.-:.,..'.:::,',..,;,...',,,,,;;',.."... V.':',;?,;-.,....,,,:-.1:',:,:',... :1-::::,. .,.::J.,.,.:,:...,'.!",: -... .,..:,;,,',:..:;..-..:..;.-.f•-,-;..):.:'','.'''.''''''':::-..',-;',,-;.. .,-..:,'-j. ,-..,.:.. ..'--„-.1:-4,,,...:,.,:ii,..„,.:.,-.,..:::
,:.''''''.,L;';'.,;;;-;,;"4',..•:"..'z':-:';', .,-11.1.',.'::::-.:;',-..,;.4'.'.,\,"":.';', ..2.4.-': ,': -.;:';',,=7T5;i2;;''.1.':::,'.;:::-,' "..'s,;(;-:,,,,f,',,T,',.','-`,;.';,,,''',''.,:t.:,-;'..,--,i',2;',-., -.".: ',.!.:.:-•:;',•:: ...-::' '-`.,:-.,.. ',;`,-;:..-, -,';'.;.(.,,:-•,1)-::,,.,:'.'. .,:,f;',--r.'.'2.*.'-'.•:. ':.:,.':2::'',,:'''.',.'.1:.,.;.':,,,,-.,.,...,.,..,..,,,,...,.!„:Y-.,.':,;:,:4...':..,‘:.-.;;,.',,.f„,.,':c,.",.',).-'.,:,:.,.,,.,,.,,,,-':..,,::,..,,:„,,..,:,.:,';"::.';):-...,,.,,:,,:„,:,;;.,,,'',:,,',:.i'7.;„..,,i,,,7,,:;-',,..-.,,-:,.,::,:...-,:-`;-;,',.,,...,,,;,,:'.,-;:.-..`, 504-:,',:'.'....,:,•.,,-:'.,.:...,j,.:...,;.,.',-:,,:..-?..,'"',i,,,T.,-..:y,,,1;,,-=:,,:..;,•,..f Main: -,..'.'• ;„... ,:-..(:,q,.,.-,i,.'.•'„-,.,qt:,:..;.:...-r:::c.-:::‘s;;ee,...-':..'„t.,Az,.,:,,..-',4.,,;'-::.,1:.-.:.-.,:!1•-,,,',,.-.,..;,.i...:,,;....-.a..b-:.-.:-i,„,''.;'.--:,''ur„,.:,,r';.:,,,,-,:'-P1',.,.-.,'.,..,. ,::..,-.,,.'i,::Washington--,,''=
..;6T,. 8.,,,:!:'.,.,.,,..•.-:',,,:/,:;,,7.,,,Q.',. 9?,,,i-,":.,..,:'.i.4,,.
;,,.(:.:-.:' ,,:,,,-:,,y,: (''..;,-,L--:.;-..;,..,.:,.'.-.,-.°'„..,;;f.:;:.„
)„‘-,,?'rY,'„)•'.,3,6'-”.:'-,-,‘::.,-3.. 8., 0,'.','.-..''--'-
•
Z-,..,,',,,-,,'-?',-,. ' ;',:':..:';,::.-.,.;-'.,::'::'„:'),,.8:•.'. 0..-.-0':..:r'—....;,i2.:'.':,',
g.;::.,-;;,,.',.i:':,„,-'..;,•,•...,.:,,‘-..':;;,'--,-'.-.'7.,'-,,.‘,''r.-,'-.f..
. ,-.-,.:.•.F-.•.,,...,;:t;.'v‘„:';7•'..-.(.
.5,. )PP,71.,''t.,.4i-..,,'-.0.-,
',::',2:11` ,:::z.c:if=1:L.::::<:.';:;':.';:.-,:":":,,;:i•:':'i''':...''''--
July 8, 2005
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/ Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: 2005 Cable Television Rate Filing Review
Dear Ms. Walton:
This letter summarizes our review of the Basic Cable television rates that Comcast Cable
Communications has proposed for Renton residents from July 1st, 2005 to June 30th, 2006.
Because the City's authority to regulate cable television rates is confined to Basic Cable, this
review only considers the rates imposed for Basic Cable services—while charges for expanded
or premium packages may appear in these rate filings, such charges are not subject to
regulation by the City.
Background
Comcast Cable Communications submitted its required FCC rate filing forms to the City of
Renton on April 1st, 2005. These forms provide Comcast with a means of calculating and
justifying any rate and fee changes proposed for the upcoming twelve-month rate period (in this
case, July 1st, 2005 through June 30th, 2006). As of April 1st, regulatory cable television
franchises such as the City have 90 days to review and appeal, if necessary, the rate
adjustments proposed by the operator in the FCC forms.
Comcast's annual rate filings include the following two forms:
• FCC Form 1240: This form derives the Maximum Permitted Rate (MPR) for Basic Cable
services. The maximum rate is based on the following components:
- The current year's base rate
- Adjustments for cost inflation during the current rate period
- Adjustments for projected cost inflation during the coming rate period
- Retroactive "true-up" adjustments reflecting differences between projected and actual
revenues for the current year(may be either a surcharge or a credit)
- Changes in costs related to programming, channel additions, copyrights, and regulatory
fees
Because the Maximum Permitted Rate is directly linked to expected costs, it may increase
or decrease depending on how the projected costs for the coming period compare to the
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 2 of 5
costs incurred during the current period. Note that the MPR is established as a rate
ceiling—cable operators may select a lower rate if they desire.
• Form 1205: On this form, Comcast derives its equipment and installation charges based on
a sampling of Comcast's company-wide costs related to customer equipment maintenance,
installation costs, and labor costs supporting capital activities.
The ensuing review of these forms includes confirming the accuracy of Comcast's calculations
in Form 1240, referencing the source of key statistics used in the calculation of the proposed
Maximum Permitted Rate, and identifying the costs that drive the proposed rate adjustment.
Note that this review focuses on the derivation of the proposed rates given the expected costs
for the 2005 — 2006 rate period, confirming that the supporting calculations are correct—it does
not judge or otherwise address the basis of the aforementioned costs.
The Maximum Permitted Basic Cable Rate (Form 1240)
The Maximum Permitted Rate consists of the following components:
• Base Rate: The base rate serves as the foundation for both the current and the new rate
period. It is the basis for comparing the calculation of the Maximum Permitted Rate to last
year's filing—any differences between the current MPR and the proposed MPR are
attributable to differing adjustments for inflation, other cost changes, and true-up
adjustments.
• Inflation Adjustments: This adjustment accounts for the impacts of simple cost inflation
incurred during the current rate period and projected for the coming year. Inflationary
adjustments are generally increases—Form 1240 provides a two-step method for computing
such adjustments, in order to ensure that the rate calculation does not include compounding
layers of costs driven by projections. In addition, the cable operator must always update
any inflation projections from the prior year's filing with actual inflation.
• External Costs: This component accounts for projected changes in programming costs,
copyright fees, and regulatory fees incurred by the cable operator, as well as the operator's
allowed profit markup of 7.5% on programming and copyright costs.
• True-Up Adjustments: Basic Cable rates are intended to recover the costs associated with
providing Basic Cable service, plus a defined margin of profit. Rates tend to be based on
projected costs, which may differ significantly from what the operator actually incurs while
providing service. The "true-up" adjustment acknowledges this, and (on a retroactive basis)
ensures that the operator collects what it should collect—it comes in the form of a surcharge
if the operator did not collect enough revenue, or in the form of a credit if the operator
collected more than it should have. This mechanism protects both the operator and Basic
Cable subscribers from the compounding effects of erroneous projections.
Having reviewed Comcast's Form 1240 submittal to the City of Renton, we conclude that the
calculation of the Maximum Permitted Rate proposed for Basic Cable service is sound and in
compliance with the structure and intent of the methodology established by the FCC. According
to Form 1240, Comcast intends to implement the calculated maximum rate of $14.56—this
corresponds to an increase of 16.7% over the current monthly rate of $12.48. Table 1
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 3 of 5
summarizes the calculation of the proposed Maximum Permitted Rate, comparing each cost
component to the prior year's rate calculation.
Table 1: The Maximum Permitted Basic Cable Rate
Monthly Basic Cable Cost Component Current Rate Proposed Rate
(per subscriber) (2004-2005) (2005-2006)
Base Rate $11.8198 $11.8198
Inflation for True-Up Period [included in base] $0.2688
Inflation for Projection Period $0.1994 $0.1756
Current Markup Method(Channel Additions) $0.1900 $0.1900
Channel Movement(from Basic to Expanded) $0.0000 $0.0000
True-Up Adjustment ($0.2186) ($0.0106)
External Costs $0.9289 $0.9551
A. Maximum Permitted Base Rate $12.92 $13.40
plus: Form 1235 Network Upgrade Capital Costs $1.16 $1.16
B. Total Maximum Rate Allowed $14.08 $14.56
C. Operator-Selected Basic Cable Rate from FCC Rate Filing $12.48 $14.56
D. Current Basic Cable Rate as of 1/1/2005 $12.48
The overall increase in the cost basis for the Maximum Permitted Rate is a result of the
elements described below:
• Inflation: The base rate is adjusted for cost inflation both in the true-up period (the current
year) and in the projection period (the coming year). The operator applied an inflationary
adjustment of 2.3% during the true-up period, and used the FCC's current inflation factor of
1.5% to project new cost changes. These inflation factors appear consistent with other
consumer price indices used nationwide, and are comparable local inflation factors.
Inflationary adjustments add slightly more than forty-four cents to the base rate.
• True-Up Adjustments: As described, the true-up adjustment is an annual evaluation of the
actual cost recovery performance of the current rate. If the operator did not collect enough
revenue to meet its Basic Cable costs, subscribers will reimburse the operator for the deficit
through their new rates; if the operator collected too much revenue, the new rates will reflect
a reimbursement to subscribers for the over-collection during the prior year.
While evaluating its costs and revenues, Comcast found a cost recovery surplus totaling
approximately $2,160. The true-up adjustment must refund this amount through a rate
credit of about one cent, given the revenue surplus mentioned above and the estimated
number of subscribers (17,040). This represents an increase of about twenty-one cents to
the comparable adjustment (a decrease in the size of the credit) included in the current
year's rate.
• External Costs: This component includes programming costs, copyright fees, regulatory
commission fees, and the operator's allowed 7.5% profit markup, all of which are passed
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 4 of 5
through to the subscribers in the Basic Cable rate. Note that this component does not
include any utility taxes that may also be passed through directly to subscribers. The
external cost component of the current MPR ($0.9289 per month) is based on an allocation
of $196,838 in external costs to an estimated 17,659 subscribers-Comcast expects the
total external costs to decrease by about 0.78% over the projected period. However, the
projected subscriber base in this year's Form 1240 is about 3.5 percent lower than the
projected customer base used to derive the current rate-given this, the net result is an
increase of about 2.82% in the external cost component for the proposed MPR.
Equipment and Installation Charges
Comcast uses FCC Form 1205 to update its equipment and installation charges, based on the
company-wide costs that it incurs. Section 76.924 of FCC rules permits the cable operator to
utilize an independent sampling of franchise cost structures as the basis for company-wide
equipment and installation charges. As a consequence of this method of estimating aggregate
costs, there are no franchise-specific fees-all Comcast subscribers pay equal charges for
equipment and installation activities. Table 2 summarizes the current and proposed equipment
and installation charges:
Table 2:Maximum Permitted Equipment and Installation Charges
Type of Service Current Charges Maximum Operator-Selected
Permitted Charge Charges
Hourly Service Charge $28.49 $37.14 $28.49
Install-Unwired Home(Aerial within 125 feet) $43.99 $51.34 $43.99
Install-Prewired Home(Aerial within 125 feet) $27.99 $32.72 $27.99
Install Additional Outlet-Connect Initial $13.99 $17.11 $13.99
Install Additional Outlet-Connect Separate $21.99 $26.30 $21.99
Other Install-Relocate Outlet $18.99 $23.44 $18.99
Other Install-Upgrade(non-add-essable) $15.99 $18.27 $15.99
Other Install-Downgrade(non-addessable) $10.99 $14.37 $10.99
Other Install Upgrade/Downgrade(addressable) $1.99 $1.99 $1.99
Connect VCR-Connect Initial $5.99 $8.55 $5.99
Connect VCR-Connect Separate $12.99 $16.76 $12.99
Remote Control(All Units) $0.30 $0.28 $0.25
Converter Box(Basic Service Only) $1.18 $1.47 $1.18
Converter Box(All Others,Excluding HD) $4.80 $4.83 $4.80
Converter Box(HD, DVR&HDDVR) new $11.37 $6.45
CableCARD (N/A) $1.22 new
Customer Trouble Call $19.99 $24.74 $19.99
A benefit of this company-wide averaging of costs is that the cable operator can phase in
technological changes without causing spikes in subscriber fees. It is important to understand
that as with any fee based on statistical sampling and cost aggregation, franchises with lower-
than-average costs effectively subsidize franchises with higher-than-average costs. The
method implicitly creates local inequities in that franchise-specific costs may not directly relate
City of Renton Basic Cable Rate Review
July 8,2005
Page 5 of 5
to the charges imposed in that area. In its oversight of this process, the FCC allows this
practice to continue.
The cost aggregation method of devising charges makes it difficult to sufficiently audit the
calculation of the proposed charges on Form 1205. A detailed review and verification of the
cost basis may be more expensive to a franchise than is practical—however, the charges
proposed for subscribers in Renton have been cross-checked with fees proposed in the rate
filings of several other local franchises to confirm that Comcast has allocated its expected
equipment and installation costs consistently across franchises.
Cable operators have historically charged fees below the established limits, as these fees are
closely linked to the operator's promotional activities. Given this, it is reasonable to expect that
Comcast will implement charges that are below the ceilings established by FCC Form 1205.
Conclusions
Having reviewed FCC Form 1240, we conclude that Comcast has complied with FCC
requirements in calculating its Maximum Permitted Rates. As of July 1st, 2005, Comcast may
set a maximum rate of $14.56, which corresponds to an increase of about 16.7% over the
prevailing monthly rate. of $12.48. The overall increase in the Maximum Permitted Rate is
caused by the fact that growth in the local subscriber base has been slower than expected (and
as a result there are fewer ratepayers), though there is also a slight increase in total costs (likely
due to inflation). In addition, the current rate of $12.48 per month is lower than the MPR
calculated in last year's filing ($14.08); in fact, the proposed MPR of $14.56 is only 3.4% higher
than the current MPR. Given that Comcast has indicated that it intends to charge the maximum
allowable rate, customers in Renton can expect to see an increase of 16.7% in their Basic
Cable bill effective July 1st
Given the charges shown in Table 2, it appears that Comcast is not proposing any material
changes to its equipment and installation charges aside from adding a couple of new equipment
items. Comcast is within the limits that Form 1205 imposes on equipment and installation
charges.
It has been a pleasure once again providing this review for the City of Renton. Please feel free
to contact us at(253) 833-8380 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Lynne Hurd
President
3H Cable Communications Consultants
•I
• CAG-02-202
CABLE TELEVISION CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement made and entered into this 1st day of January, 2003 through
December 2003 by and between 3-H Cable Communications Consultants (hereinafter
"Consultant") and the City of Renton, a municipal corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the laws of the State of Washington (hereinafter "City"). The terms
"franchise agreement", "Ordinance", "Ordinances", and "franchise ordinance" shall refer to
Renton's Master Cable Television Ordinance and its Cable Television Franchise
Agreement.
CONSULTANT AND CITY, FOR THE CONSIDERATION HEREINAFTER SET
FORTH,PROMISE, COVENANT AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I. Project and Scope of Work: Consultant shall do, perform, or cause to be done and
performed in a good and professional manner the following described work in
accordance with all applicable state,federal and City laws, in a workmanlike manner
consistent with accepted practices for other similar services. This contract shall be
governed by the laws of the State of Washington.
�[ A. Performance Analysis. Consultant shall inspect and analyze the technical
{� and operational effectiveness of the City's present cable television franchise. A
report of such findings shall be made to the Mayor or his designee upon the
determination by the Consultant that non-compliance with the City Ordinance and/or
FCC regulations exists.
B. Upgrade Evaluation. Consultant shall inspect and verify that all features •
proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or
performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely basis. This will include, but not be
limited to such items as type and quality of new components, workmanship of new
construction, line extension density, system leakage, channel capacity, local access
equipment,public connections,rates and programming. A report of any deficiencies
discovered will be made immediately to the Mayor or his designee.
C. Consumer Protection and Complaints. Consultant shall assume
responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services. Consultant shall make every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible. On-site inspection of areas of dispute will be
performed when necessary for reconciliation between the citizen and the cable
operator.
D. Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts. Consultant shall be responsible
for certifying to the cable operator(s) that applicants meet age and income limitations
incorporated in Washington State guidelines.
E. Ordinance Compliance. Consultant shall monitor time or other triggering
criteria when appropriate that will permit the City to request additional non-
entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government (PEG) access
and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets). Additionally consultant will
analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
-I F. Compliance With the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
r Competition Act of 1992. Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent
submissions and justifications for determination of maximum permitted rates for
1
}
regulated cable services,FCC benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,
but not limited to, generally accepted accounting principles, justifications of cost of
services, external pass throughs and, if appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations.
Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, Consultant
shall advise Renton to either:
1. Approve submitted rates.
2. Disapprove in whole or in part and either:
a. Order a refund.
b. Prescribe reasonable rates.
This function shall also include verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations
such as carriage,positioning and must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation
minimums and mandated technical specifications. Consultant will also recommend
fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in event of non-compliance.
VG. Documents. Consultant shall assume responsibility for the development
and maintenance of current system maps showing the status of upgrading and
locations of such efforts and other projects. Consultant shall maintain records of
subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests, citizen's complaints as
well as all other franchise records.
XH. Access Utilization. Consultant shall review the status of citizen, educational
and governmental use of the access channels provided. Such review will include the
monitoring of the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
.I. Collection of Franchise Fees. Consultant shall determine through
comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the franchisee is paying fully such
fees as mandated by ordinance. Consultant shall follow up on delinquent payments
if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete payment of such fees on a
timely basis.
J. Bond and Insurance. Consultant shall maintain a complete record of all j
bonds and insurance required bythe franchise ordinances. Consultant shall
q
immediately advise the City of any default of any such requirements. Consultant
shall monitor performance bonds to make recommendations,if necessary,to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
K. FCC Regulations. Consultant shall maintain and update a file of FCC
regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise procedures. Consultant shall
advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation applicable.
V L. Annual Reports. Consultant shall furnish a report to the City not less than
once in a 12 month period, reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon activities in
this field during this period.
JM. Other Reports. Consultant shall prepare reports on other matters of
importance.to cable television franchise administration as they occur. These will
include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in federal or state law,
technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial information
pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar developments.
2
II. Duration of Services: The term of this contract shall begin upon the date of
acceptance aforementioned and shall expire on the last day of the 12th month
following such date.
III. Fee for Consulting Services. For the performance of all services described,
including transportation, lodging, meals and incidental expenses the City shall pay
the Consultant a fixed fee of Twenty-One Thousand Thirty Dollars and Twenty-Nine
Cents. ($21,030.29)
IV. Invoicing Procedure: Invoice shall be presented to the City by the Consultant on a
quarterly basis. The first payment will be payable at the first of the month following
the date of the effect of this agreement. Subsequent invoices for the quarterly charge
will be submitted by the Consultant every ninety (90) days thereafter and payment
will be made within thirty (30) days of presentation of the invoice.
V. Termination by the City: If the City decides to cancel the project, or if the Consultant
does not perform to the satisfaction of the City, or if Consultant refuses or fails to
provide required assistance or otherwise violates a provision of this contract, then
the City may recommend that sufficient cause exists to justify such action and may,
without prejudice to any right or remedy of Consultant, after giving Consultant five
(5) days'written notice terminate this contract and take possession of all records and
data pertaining to this project.
VI. Successors and Assigns: The City and the Consultant each binds himself to the
other party hereto in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained
in this contract. Neither party to the contract shall assign the contract or sublet it, in
part or as a whole,without the written consent of the other.
VII. Independent Contractor: It is understood and agreed that the Consultant is, and shall
be,acting at all times as an independent contractor herein and not as an employee of
the City. The Consultant shall secure at his expense, and be responsible for any and
all payment of income tax, social security, state disability insurance compensation,
unemployment compensation, and all other payroll deductions for the Consultant and
his officers, agents and employees and all business license, if any, in connection
with the services to be performed hereunder. In connection with the execution of the
Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race,religion, color, sex or national origin.
VIII. Subcontractors: The names of subcontractors submitted at the time of the
submission of the bid proposal to the City shall be assumed to be the subcontractors
which the Consultant shall use for work required to be done under the contract
documents. The Consultant shall make no substitution for any subcontractor,
person, or entity previously selected if the City makes a reasonable objection to such
substitution. Consultant shall not contract with any subcontractor to whom City has
made reasonable objection. Consultant shall not be required to contract with anyone
to whom he has made reasonable objection.
IX. Ownership of Reports and Documents: Original documents, drawings, designs, and
reports developed under this contract shall belong to and become the property of the
City.
X. Indemnification: The Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City, its agents and employees, from and against any and all liability arising from
injury or death to persons or damage to property resulting in whole or in part from
3
acts or omissions of the Consultant, its agents, servants, officers or employees,
irrespective of whether in connection with such act or omission it is alleged or
claimed that an act of the City, or its agents or employees caused or contributed
thereto. In the event that the City shall elect to defend itself against any claim or suit
'arising from such injury, death or damage, the Consultant shall, in addition to
indemnifying and holding the City harmless from any liability, indemnify the City
for any and all expense incurred by the City in defending such claim or suit including
attorney's fees.
XI. Rights and Remedies: The duties and obligations imposed by this contract and the
rights and remedies available hereunder shall be in addition to and not a limitation of
any duties, obligations,rights and remedies otherwise imposed or available by law.
No action or failure to act by the City or Consultant shall constitute a waiver of any
right or duty afforded any of them under the contract; nor shall any action or failure
to act constitute an approval of or acquiescence thereto unless specifically agreed to
by both parties in writing.
XII. Notice: Written notices shall be deemed to have been duly served if delivered in
person to the individual or entity for whom it was intended, or if delivered at or sent
by registered or certified United States mail to the last business address known to
him who gives the notice.
All notices and requests shall be addressed to the City and the Consultant as follows:
CITY: Renton City Hall
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton,WA 98055
CONSULTANT: 3-H Cable Communications Consultants
504 East Main Street
Auburn,WA 98002
Approv as to form: 3-H able C u is • s Consultants
r"4"--"P-AA-e-P?f1/14---r
City Attorney won A Hu , V.P./Director
A 1"1EST: City of enton
6.611Aut.J &a/ By *frAW"./0".,444%
City Clerk // _46D0Z ayor •
4
., kY CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
August 31, 2005 OFFICIAL NOTICE
Lynne Hurd, President
3H Cable Communications Consultants
1486 Carol Street
Camano Island, WA 98282
Re: Termination of Contract(CAG-04-016)
Dear Ms. Hurd:
As you know, last March the City of Renton advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cable
Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services. You elected.to not respond to
the"RFP. Since that time, the proposals received have been evaluated and a consultant has been
selected.
This letter is to serve notice that effective September 30, 2005, the City of Renton does hereby
terminate its contract with 3H Cable Communications Consultants'dated January 1, 2004, along
with contract addenda dated March 30, 2005 and April 29, 2005.
• Within 10 days of the termination date of September"30,2005, the City requests that all copies of
the files, reports, surveys and other documents,whether,or not completed, created,received or
`maintained by you or your consultants, if any,-;in conjunction-with the current and previous
contracts with 3H,be returned in good order to the City-Clerk/Cable Manager of the.City of Renton
to remain the property of the City.
Also, the City requests that a final consultant report be prepared and submitted.,by September 30,
2005, which addresses the project and scope of work as listed in the current,agreement, to include
background,'services performed since:the.last report; statistics; comparisons and recommendations:
The City has had a long and productive history working with 3H Cable. Your brother, Lon was a
friend to the City, as well as a consultant. We would like to thank you, Lynne, for continuing Lon's
work since his death:on July 16, 2004. We appreciate your services that continue through
September 30, 2005, and wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors.
Sincerely, .
C&/G
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager .
cc: Jay Covington,CAO
Linda Herzog,Assistant to the CAO
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON
��' AHEAD OF THE CURVE
4��.This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
•FRANC.HISIN,G•-` • :•R.EFRANCHISING'- ::COMMUNITY NEEDS'
-ASSESSMENTS- ,ORDINANCE-PREPARATION NEGOTIATIOW
EVALUATION ';FRANCHISE,ADMINISTRATION ACCESS •
, ,
t'a. ,
t -
1.
:ica Z .n : . lta _ •
•
. .. - - , . ' . - - .:. • � :. - - - - •January'25,'.2005.'_ : ' : .
CITY.OF REPITON' .
Bonnie Walton: -, .
'City Clerk/Cable'Manager -`"RECEIVED' •
•
City'•of,"Renton -., • CIl'1'CLERK'S OFFICE
1055'S: Grady,-:Way
Renton;WA .98055: _ . .
Dear:Bonnie,-.,
I would like•:to take,this.opportunity and offer my sincerest'thank;you for standing by 3-H during this." 'r:,:
prolonged;grieving•period We have suffered,:a huge 'loss,'and ,your patience has been•.more,than
appreciated:"As'life offers.us changes,,3=H''Cable Communications',Consultants`is also making:changes
to better"serve'•your.:city. You can expect-;from us the same.outstanding quality that. you_have always'
known,,but:With:a new,experienced team involved.
,'34 Cable'Communications Consultants has recently reorganized,as 'a're•sult of the;uexpected n loss.of its'
former President,Uri Hurd:in July 2004: We:'are moving forward•strategically in;an-effort-to uphold the
•,, :reputable business Lon and his family created;.and'to earn the sustained business'Of the City'of Renton. "=
and Other's 'Our,client;base.: :The:Company is very,excited;and confident=about:the quality and the
• diverse,tal•ents'•.Of =many whom ave,collaborated_.with'3-H in,,the;past.•',We'are
also.expanding'our capability in,'technical .expertise to meet new,challenges'presented-by•emerging •
• ' technology: 3=H:is prepared.'to•assign support to the City Of Renton and,we are ready to continue to'work.'
`'for"•the'city`going forward: - .,
'addition to our consultants;'there'are,other.reasons that we'feel:our firm•is.uniquely, positioned"'to:be.
• 'of:service to the City of Renton. 'Wehave,previously 'provided a-variety of other,services to the city;
-Such as:-the last franchise.renewal,:rate regulatory:services to the,city., ,Because:of our:involvement;`we
- have,a direct.;wor'king knowledge,of the existing.franchise documents•asawell'as'an established working " ,-: •
• ;.,' relationship with'the city's,staff:;What•follows is ar description;of_our'process, organization acid services. ;"
to give:the City of Renton'a.complete update on 3=H Cable,Communications•Consultant's.capabilities.
• '504.East-Main'Street,lAuburn,(.Washington:98002 • ;(253)833-8380 1 800=222-9697 '.F)9X::(253)833=8430. •
i_ - - _. sit •' - _ `1 ,, •( . , .
:Com an Mission&,P.hiloso by ;. :. _ • • •
;To;proiride the best services and solutions for franchising authorities'byoffering the best engineering, •
• - legal, administrati :e ve, and social'needs services xpertise,'required:in:all- f.m phases' ounicipal relations •;
• with commercial'operators: _ . • ,
-3-H Cable Communications Consultants'-will'remain'•the:leading cable television,consulting=organization :
•
in;'the region'along -with: other .cit'ies,•an&counties throughout the::Wrest, with,,a goal to'become at
• nationally'recognizedas,'a top;telecommunications and regulatory;relations'.advisory,,organization:'3-H :
'will: ;
!. ' Provide:services ;consistent with.the,. state-and ,local'policies,to .achieve..responsible;;
-Jefficient and effebtiVeeffective municipal-relations with commercial operator's: `
• • 'Maintain and enhance,,,the .convenience, reliability;.;and ',efficiency of.,our 'services. and-
infrastructure • _ • . • , • •
,Implement and monitor•investments in appropriate;•cost-effective technology.
• •: Implement new,,modified and existing,services'at an optimal levels tailored.for:-client - specific ..•
•requirements and'the welfare'of community residents: = , -
'• Coordinate,.operations and staff to optimize.and'deliver,quality,.services,:• . ,•
- • ,.Offer the best full'service,franchise authority negotiation and support services in the S...
Be_low,"please:find a`description of our operations-and`organization.. • '
Facilities&eEquppment: - - ;
• •3-H'Cable•Communications Consultants=has'been•headquartered in Auburn; ;Washington and 'will '"
'co• ntiuenoperations there The'offceis,locaed at.504 East Vain.•StreetAuburn, WA 9.8002,'
and contact =information,is;as' 'follows: 'Phone::•(253) .833-838.0, Fax: (253) '833-8430, E-mail:
•= lynnehurd3hc@a aol:com::This facility.is:owned and operated-.by-the'Hur d..family.;•There is•ample;office
• space for staff,,complete'with,:a conference.room and'receiving lobb);:. Equipment on site is•above.,and
-- beyond the.normal office'stationery and`office'equipment'requirements,:as'the company also:owns,and
operates'aprinting division. • . ' . :
•.Contractor Sourcing .. -
• 'Attracting key professionals from both the private .and public sector3-H Cable Communications'.', • • •
..Consultants`has.'assembled-'a team-offering,•specialized':areas of expertise and'can,customiz• e:that:• •;'':
• - . expertise into. professional service packages that meet•the.individual"needs-of each of our clients.
. We have'three:(3)•project-based•professionals on call :The company's,management team consists of,":' •
• •
• experienced marketing,.technical;.legal'_and,finarice,personnel, some;carrying.,experience working 3-H
2
projects in the;'past:•The company's techrncal team consists of experienced communications'and;legal
:: _professionals'who'have:•worked•for=large-public:and private'communications.organizations'in the region.:,
„3-H Cable Communications.'Consultants''is alsobuilding'a list,of attorneys:specializing in utility;Right 'r
Of.Way,telecommunications (cable modem/fiber/BPL/WiFi etc) local/state/federal,•regulatory,and_law
to be brought on,board on a project-by-project,basis in areas of their'specialty,,` •
'All. subcontractor,fees:will be handled:'in a: pass-,through capacity ,administered by 3=H Cable --
Communications:Consultants. : ,
Operations
'3-H''Cable,:Communications`;ConsultantSi projects'are'=managed':in •a'way;`that allows.it-.id focus its',
•• :energies within:a proje`ct..based.-one•the phases of the,process. :This',allows, team members to;join the
project;•`in progress"'at the time required,.contribute their expertise; and then':move on;to,other;projects.:,.
' '. `'•
Administrative staff is:.organized:to<provide,sustained.capability;addressing multi=client.•support
,requirements'in the-areas of,quality of service monitoring;'data,collection and report compilation, along
• `with'day-today business-,operations: ,
Resumes ' r
Lvnne:Hurd,'President,.3.-H.Cable Communications Consultants'
ti
For::nearlyr'27:,years;'3-HE Cable, Communications;:Consultants''.has'been, a 'family-owned company
• '':responsible for the o*rsight of franchise compliance'for cities`and counties with a total subscriber base '> r
- •of over 125,000. Currently the company:acts as the regulatory authority in cable television for.a number' :
- 'of cities''throughout the State.of Washington;-as well as providing various administrative services for out'
of state clients. , .
,Having.served-on:the.'Board of Directors"since the star'(`lof"the;company.in :1972; •then becoming
President in.ruly 20.04; Lynne:Hurd's•mission is,to assess•,the.needs'and,priorities of her client base,
reorganize 'the.`company:and:build a team of highly qualified professional resour`ces•'for.3-H Cable
Communicationsio utilize inserving its'clients.`' ' r,
_ Ms:.Hurd worked at•The.'Boeing"Company' in the Air;Force Division specializing in Research..and' :
Development,•and Special Test Equipment •
-Exercising:her;entrepreneurial,skills,:she has seen through•.the startup':and operation of three successful ': "
;`businesses,in the`last.22.years.'She is a'meinberrofthe Washington Association'•for Telecommunications's
•,• Officers"of America.(WATOA) •She is on the Washington'State Board of Realtors.and holds a current •
license on the'Washington State.-Board of Cosmetology;with a current'teaching,degree:•
In'addition.to her professional responsibilities, Lynne.has planned,-and coordinatedseveral:,large
fundraising community'functions-in a volunteer capacity r. _ :
• " '.�. _ i1 t' - ;. 1 , •r 1 1. C i +t . r ,
Susan Kruller,:V.P./Senior Consultant-Policy and Technology - ,
Susan''Kruller brings a 24-year communications:career to3-H' Cable Communications'Consultants,
featuring,broad experience in`business,management,_media communications'and digital,technology. •
='Sussan:has:_gained' a:strong,'familiarity with all`aspects of cable regulatory and renewal.'policies And• ,
procedures:,Iri her capacity,_'she is responsible-for,monitoring'cable operator's technical rand operational
compliance.with franchise:agreements. She;.also.'conducts compliance reviews and community-needs
• assessment studies for franchising authorities iri conjunction with,franchise renewals:,,She also provides,
•:,policy update reporting and client communications. .
Susan's professional'track record includes business management, communications and technical work in'
`government, public' relations; business,;development, international-trade relations, communications,
• "-streaming media; commercial media production and television'broadcasting. She-offers,solid experience •
in contract negotiations, `service-level agreements, needs' assessment, strategic planning, ,project
management, process'management,And capacity planning: _
"Highlights include five years working in regional broadcast television, eleven years in communications
:arid media production at the Boeing Company, holding press center build-out,media pool and:frontline .
media relations responsibilities with the World.Trade'Organization%Seattle Host Organization;managing'
over 20 thousand streamed media web cast operations annually at Activatenet's Broadcast Operations
Center, and moving web and;new media standards' forward''at the King 'County`Department 'of-.
Transportation Director's.Office. - • : `_
Iri Order to benefit client cities with-current information on federal, state;and localrpolicies related to the,
,cable industry Susan,keeps'a'close.watch.over emerging policy and potential impacts, through - '
the Association:for Community Media, the National Association:of Telecommunications Officers and:
•Advisors, and the'W•
ashington'S.tate Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors: • •
= In'additioii to her other responsibilities, Kruller currently ser• ves,o n the;,Board of Directors with;Puget
Sound:Access, a non-profit .hoard, overseeing public access in:South King County and the Board of ';
Directors for the Association for Women in, Computing — Puget Sound 'Chapter,'-an organization
,,dedicated to staying current.on';leading-edge developments in Information Technology.. She holds 'a '
Bachelor'of Arts:degree in Communications ,from-Washington'State:'University'and a 'Masters in
•
-Business Administration degree in Engineering Technology Management:..
William E:Covington,Legal Counsel , ;. ' ,- .
William E: Covington is ;a graduate of New York.University with a Bachelor of Science Degree in, „
Political Science.•:` He holds a Jurist Doctorate Degree.from.the.University of Michigan School of Law
and licensed'to practice law'i:n•the State of.Washington: I '. ; ' • '
•Mr. Covington is.rCurrently an:Assistant Professor and Director of the;Technology Law arid Public,
• Policy'Clinic at the Universityrof Washington Law School.
'was a principal with:the,North Star,Group,,..a`telecommunications consulting firm that drafted
telecommunications'arid.,land-use legislation for cities••and towns. The company_also assisted. cable;
television compa'nies;'CLECs and,OVS systems in.acquiring necessarypermissions:to provide service. .
5 4 r
Covington=served.as Counsel for_AT:'&-T Wireless Services and was closely involved with Land '.
•
Use and Environmental Policy and' Director.of. Regulatory,;Affairs, (Western, Region):. His
`'responsi'bilities:include implementation"of:all corporate policy,concerning.land use,matters:-legislation,'"
.:managing state arid local'government E-9.1'1 policy, pole attachments"policy'and,
site development policies: He: was;also'the corporate'-liaison with the Federal' Communications "
Commission: 1 .,
•
"AtsTele-Cominurii.eations .'Inc. (TCI);:'Mr Covington,:was,the regional counsel responsible for:
, =:franchising,.leasing;;tax policy, lobbying,and_liti'gation'coordination ' _
• Mr.''Covington has,also worked for King County as a Director responsible;for: overseeing' seven area•'
cable television companies-, crafted first county wide.master cable'television ordinance,,oversaw•utility
permitting process.and developedlpolicies on telecommunications•regulation: ' -
As part':ofthe:3-H Cable Communications,Consultants; Mr: Covington has been ,akey'player regarding
• the: -telecommunications'franchises for a'number=of ''w the client citiese represent. His expert'legal,�advice;:
comes with atbackground of-extensive;training in his:field.of expertise .
In'addition,'to his responsibilities:regarding 3=H;Cable:Consultants; William E:,Covington has a teaching,.
history with: ,
:• :Edmonds.Community College _Instructor, responsible:for developing'materials' for and
teaching, Busyness :Law;' Ci'vil''"Procedure, ,Contracts,, Legal' Research 'and•Workers
:Compensation classes: ` ' ' '
• 'Seattl 'African-Aifierican Academy,Tutored)elementary school students.` . - .
_Covington-also holds memberships and associations with: .
Washington State.,Bar::AssOciation, Leadership Tomorrow,:United Negro College Fund and the Center
,for Community-Alternatives: - ;
• -•;Jeanette'Hahn, Senior Consultant-Financial Analysts,FCS Group.
' - Jeanette Hahn'is•'a,graduate of the,University of Washington',whereishe,obtained her B.A. Economics
•} As`,;senior:consultant She is.skilled in financial and'economic analysis with an emphasis inrpublic finance,
at.FCS:Group where she focuses.-:on.cost of service based;user fee studies,-impact fees, and'utility.rate ✓;
.,analyses: ;
Prior.lto;joining FCS .Group; she'worked for.the Washington;:Law ,School Foundation performing;..
:revenue, price; 'and,'operations analyses and.' the'University .of Washington' School of;:B.usiness'
•
- Administration *king ,budget:forecasts,;.researching' and:auditing program funds;•-and`designing
technical models for faculty grants and'other restricted'budget,allocations.:,She has also worked`in
, „county:government.assisting'.finance officers With school investments;:,irrigation,'and fire'district funds ,
' , 'and performing'su ort work involviri • tax: 7 `'''
P g` PP .. .g.property • � •
Since'199.8, Hahn has;teained•'up With 3-H,Cable,Communications Consultants`on'more::than'35 :rate.`
analysis and tax'related projects:;She is a member of.the Washington Finance Officers,Association and
As'a recognized,eki4otf presenter/speaker on Costing Government;Services, Indirect Cost Allocation-and
:Cost Recovery.. >>
_
'T !
'J
Y.
!r '
z�s y-
t
..r
f.,
.p
In addition to the Consultants:listed'our firm<em 'lo s'a'futime''.`of+lce'st`' f`. -''Ta,,,. , p,.: y � of Ms.. mmy„Roger's:is:ouri-
'Office ana er, who worked"with'`Lori' rurd''fo`''over't n g,, H r e .years;: t Sl a:is''famil'iar with the;different"'.,' .
munici al°'rocesses`as`well;as'the different service=''rovided:to`the"ci' ' in:the; ast:' - '
p p -P. ' p.
- I,
_; " „
��Th" ou�a'an'��or•stand'in ''h �'�3=�Ii;�arid`we:''look�f` ` r'�ard�:`ank;y., g f g, y orw toservrig,the City',of.Renton w'ith'�our"`"riew�,:
e `eriericed'`team.
y I'
„p.
r-.,In::th"e',next:few weeks, I'•!would like•to.;schedule;ari',appointme ear:' tli"'you:to"discuss u'"comity lans:arid'.:
Y. p . g,p
resolve the- issues,"that-lmay;need::"attention for' ,the 2.005 year ."Please"contact'me.:at your''earliest.'
convenience to:set uf�•`�/' an;appointment`for.;us to meet:'':I,look:;forward.':to"movin'`.ahead''and.bein ,,,'of;' ':
i`service`to'th,e;cit,..Jfor`.•
,'ai : ears'.to��co 'e`'� :�,',
1}'1 111 - Y�
iu.
y y:.Y. 1
:i
1Si ncerel
y
r4"'.
1•;;I:;,',:r.';-,f4-:'•;.'•;;;•,I;;:••'":',;;;.;;',•,',-..';',,;;;::,;:-.1.2•.''L:;''.'";•;''•••,`',:',..e2H:;-•:,:',,;',.;'
" JI':
/ , i
'L e!Y:'�-Hurd President • -
Y�?
3�H' �'b e � o" n'c i Ca 1 C mmu i at on Consultants'
r:
'tr'
7
�j` .-
�'t
mil,
rt,1
,,
"%
t,'
: ` f
, ,
i
f`
1
t ,
- I
y,,ii�
YI
u
.fit
- u -
ti'' -
;F
5
l'
t, ;lJ
�I.
,.
1
(r
."1 1`.
1f
,{u
i
,
I
-
i,
r+
;l,
S-
1,
f.
e
f
I ,
(j
:I?
7s,
i" r::
.i'
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/14/2005 3:34:22 PM
Subject: No Subject
Bonnie, The channel in question is a new weather channel offered by NBC
through King TV. King TV is broadcasting the new channel via digital format, and is
currently available to the general public over the public spectrum through
use of a digital antenna. Since the vast majority of folks don't use digital
antennas, King TV looks for other means of distribution for the channel.
Under Comcast's broadcasting agreement with King TV they are required to carry the
channel in their line-up (must carry provision). Comcast receives the
channel by the digital broadcast at their master head-end and they retransmit it on
their line-up in the same format in which they receive the signal. In order
to view the channel the customers will either need a digital ready television
set or lease a digital converter box.
Under the City of Renton Ordinance#4413 (Master Cable Ordinance), section
5-17-1(f) defines Basic Cable as"... the tier of service regularly provided to
all subscribers that includes the retransmission of local broadcast television
signals." The tier of service that fits this definition is called "Limited
Basic." To be in compliance with the
Franchise, Comcast placed the new channel in the Limited Basic service tier.
Also, the formatting question is in compliance as well, because the
Franchise has no terms or conditions as to the signal format within the Limited
Basic or Basic Service tiers. The notification that the City of Renton received
is part of their standard notification process regarding changes that occur
within the Cable System to keep The City apprised of issues you may receive
phone calls about from your citizens.
Bottom Line, Comcast is in full compliance with the Franchise regarding this
new channel. •
If you have any questions, please contact my office. Thanks.
Lynne
From: <Lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, <jwelsh@ci.auburn.wa.us>, <jperry@ci.kirkland.wa.us>,
<pkolacy@ci.port-townsend.wa.us>, <tpiasecki@desmoineswa.gov>, <BILL@CI.STANWOOD.WA.US>,
<Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>
Date: 6/20/2005 2:49:57 PM
Subject: 3-H will be closed
The office will be closed from July 1st-July 6th, 2005. Please mark your
calendars. We will be checking messages, so please feel free to leave one if
necessary.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
3-H Cable Communications Consultants
Lynne Hurd
,,,,,
1 st ,
i
b .
,
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount op basic cable service for
eligible subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2)the legal owner
or lessee/tenant of their residence; and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD`Income Standard")for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is•required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence; or(Please circle the correct answer.)
(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my rental residential unit.
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purposd of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be
effective as of the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I
will not be eligible for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated
into a value package: I understand that this information may be subject`to verification by the cable operator.
` 4
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age-62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide photocopy of driver's license, or official government ID.
2) Disability—'Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide copy of Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS Form
1040) reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount, I agree to
promptly notify Comcast of any such change, or if I move from this address. I hereby apply for the discount
on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of my knowledge all
statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH:PROOF OF INCOME AND AGE OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St. Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application. For unincorporated King County Residents,
please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at 206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
January 23,2006
•
. 1
O ® CITY OF RENTON
.•LL Office of the City Clerk - '*'NIA
1055 South Grady Way - Renton Wa"shington�-98055 8 7 nr,,. := a _ -F _
_ _ 4 5 MAILED FROM ZIP C DE •= c •
•
Ms. Beatrice Clark
2828 NE 3rd Street
Renton, WA 98056
CITY OF RENTON i 6 f i
tu
MAY 23200fi
V"
CITY CLERK'SRECEIVED
C OFFICE -
h1IXSE ¶ 90 00 0Sl22106
RETURN TO SENDER
INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS
UNABLE TO FORWARD
BC: 9aos.sa2325.5 '23 3:1-.a 000E-:18--B9
_ice_= -Pp;_-1
960.5 Z3299 )1►)„i„),)),,,,),}„),},,,})>,►},)„}l,►,},),),}„),1,,,)),l ;
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Terry Davis
Date: 1/18/2005 4:41:05 PM
Subject: Senior Discount
What is the correct process for Renton citizens to apply for the cable TV senior discount? Are their certain
forms to be completed, and if so, where are they obtained?
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
w
From: "Tracy Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 12/22/2005 10:07:51 AM
Subject: New Cable Discount Form
Bonnie,
I wanted to forward a copy to you of the latest Cable Discount Form for your
records. I highlighted some of the areas for the lessee/legal owner
section, we will see if it works.
Happy Holidays,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4- phone
651-379-0999-fax
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for
eligible subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1)62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2)the legal owner
or lessee/tenant of their residence; and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard")for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account# (if known):
2. Email: Phone:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence; or(Please circle the correct answer.)
(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my rental residential unit.
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be
effective as of the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I
will not be eligible for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated
into a value package. I understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age—62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide photocopy of driver's license, or official government ID.
2) Disability—Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide copy of Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS From
1040) reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount, I agree to
promptly notify Comcast of any such change, or if I move from this address. I hereby apply for the discount
on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of my knowledge all
statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME AND AGE OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St. Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application. For unincorporated King County Residents,
please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at 206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
December 1,2005
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/23/2005 8:09:56 AM
Subject: Senior Citizen Discount Form
Bonnie,
I have made the suggested changes to the senior discount form. I also added
a section for the number of dependents/household, since we have no way of
knowing which income level to use with the former form. Please review and
let me know if you are ok with the changes.
Also, I wanted to know if you want us to send out the forms with Bradley&
Guzzetta printed envelopes or if you wanted to send me City of Renton
envelopes to mail the forms in City envelopes to the residents? Either way
is ok with me, I just didn't know the City's policy. We should also discuss
City letterhead as well. If we need to send a letter to a
resident/business, does the City want it sent on City letterhead or B&G
letterhead?
I did receive the additional residents that I have added to my list.
Have a great Thanksgiving,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence;and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the Housing and
Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area ("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding year. The
applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is $27,250 annually for a single person and $31,150 for a
married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: #in Household:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective
on the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible
for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Type of Discount Applying for:
62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of age and income status.
Disability with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of disability and low income.
6. Income Status: Proof of income may be provided by one of the following methods:
1) For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return(IRS From 1040)reflecting
an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
2) Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify Comcast and the City of Renton of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For Unincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
11/23/2005
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer"<schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: 'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/23/2005 8:09:56 AM
Subject: Senior Citizen Discount Form
Bonnie,
I have made the suggested changes to the senior discount form. I also added
a section for the number of dependents/household, since we have no way of
knowing which income level to use with the former form. Please review and
let me know if you are ok with the changes.
Also, I wanted to know if you want us to send out the forms with Bradley&
Guzzetta printed envelopes or if you wanted to send me City of Renton
envelopes to mail the forms in City envelopes to the residents? Either way
is ok with me, I just didn't know the City's policy. We should also discuss
City letterhead as well. If we need to send a letter to a
resident/business, does the City want it sent on City letterhead or B&G
letterhead?
I did receive the additional residents that I have added to my list.
Have a great Thanksgiving,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/23/2005 8:09:56 AM
Subject: Senior Citizen Discount Form
Bonnie,
I have made the suggested changes to the senior discount form. I also added
a section for the number of dependents/household, since we have no way of
knowing which income level to use with the former form. Please review and
let me know if you are ok with the changes.
Also, I wanted to know if you want us to send out the forms with Bradley&
Guzzetta printed envelopes or if you wanted to send me City of Renton
envelopes to mail the forms in City envelopes to the residents? Either way
is ok with me, I just didn't know the City's policy. We should also discuss
City letterhead as well. If we need to send a letter to a
resident/business, does the City want it sent on City letterhead or B&G
letterhead?
I did receive the additional residents that I have added to my list.
Have a great Thanksgiving,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence;and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the Housing and
Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area ("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding year. The
applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is $27,250 annually for a single person and $31,150 for a
married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: #in Household:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective
on the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible
for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Type of Discount Applying for:
62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of age and income status.
Disability with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of disability and low income.
6. Income Status: Proof of income may be provided by one of the following methods:
1) For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return(IRS From 1040)reflecting
an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
2) Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify Comcast and the City of Renton of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street,Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For Unincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
11/23/2005
d4c
( City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for
eligible subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1)62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2)the legal owner
or lessee/tenant of their residence; and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard")for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence; or(Please circle the correct answer)
(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my rental residential unit.
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury,to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be
effective as of the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I
will not be eligible for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated
into a value package. I understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age—62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide photocopy of driver's license, or official government ID.
2) Disability—Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide copy of Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS Pram or o^
1040) reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount, I agree to
promptly notify Comcast of any such change, or if I move from this address. I hereby apply for the discount
on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of my knowledge all
statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME AND AGE OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application. For unincorporated King County Residents,
please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at 206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
December 1,2005
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for
eligible subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1)62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2)the legal owner
or lessee/tenant of their residence; and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone:
3. Address:
I
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence; or
(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be
effective as of the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I
will not be eligible for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated
into a value package. I understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age—62 years or older with;combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide photocopy of driver's license, or official government ID.
2) Disability—Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide copy of Disability Award Letter from Social Security.a gill-
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard. o rrn
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS �n:
1040) reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount, I agree to
promptly notify Comcast of any such change, or if I move from this address. I hereby apply for the discount
on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of my knowledge all
statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME AND AGE OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application. For unincorporated King County Residents,
please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at 206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
December 1,2005
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1) 622 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence; and (3) combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: •
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
tek-
4. 'Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for th�
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective of
the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible for
the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information,may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods;
1) 'Age—62 years or older o�aabinedwdisp_usable-ifisome#bele be.H 3D=Inoortie-Standard- 0�— U ( 1 -'Q
• , Applicant must provide prop€of age-andincatnestatus. ph Oig't'1 t) V ±
2) Disability—Legally disabled with eombine&disposableaincomc-below=the-HUDalncome-Standards
. ppl•icanunaust.prorideliti if-legandisalaili udloa inec ro
• Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.,
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS From
1040)reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line,46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify Comcast a ity f erctonr of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street,Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For unincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
November 29,2005
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence; and (3) combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is $27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: i : or ( cl o
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective of
the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible for
the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator. N
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age—62 years or older ' come e
• Applicant must provide proof of age and income status.
2) Disability—Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide proof of legal disability and low income.
• Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS From
1040)reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify ComcastAtit of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For unincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
November 29,2005
LindP.sHersog- Senior Citizen Discount Form Page 1-1
14,16MINg
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer"<schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com> C°TO
To: "'Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/23/2005 8:09:56 AM
Subject: Senior Citizen Discount Form
riar,
Bonnie,
I
I have made the suggested changes to the senior discount form. I also added
a section for the number of dependents/household, since we have no way of
knowing which income level to use with the former form. Please review and
let me know if you are ok with the changes.
Also, I wanted to know if you want us to send out the forms with Bradley &
Guzzetta printed envelopes or if you wanted to send me City of Renton
envelopes to mail the forms in City envelopes to the residents? Either way
is ok with me, I just didn't know the City's policy. We should also discuss
City letterhead as well. If we need to send a letter to a
resident/business, does the City want it sent on City letterhead or B&G
letterhead?
I
did receive the additional residents that I have added to my list.
Have a great Thanksgiving,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley &Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
i
said ri/ i
/1
City of Renton //�•r,> /��-
Affi vit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount i ,4��`-' :` �jr
As part of its cable fran ise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence;and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed thelllousing and
Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area ("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding year. The
a licable HUD Income Standard for the current year is $27,250 annually for a single person and $31,150 for a
married ouple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary criteria.
W1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: #in Household:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable se ice at my residence. The discount will be effective
on the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City cny eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible
for the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or y services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator. 9
5. Type of Discount Applying for: �• Qiv
62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard. AJ4N"
Applicant must provide proof of age and income status. �'��
. 03.14.)2.(‘)‘).).6-Aoh)--
Disability with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of disability and low income. A.6. Income Status: Proof of income may be provided by one of the following methods: g \�I�
1) For the immediate preceding year,attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return(RS From 1040)reflecting
an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
2) Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security. P 'i
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptl v
* — A notify Comcast and the City of Renton of any such change,or if I move from this address. 2 ••
N ,,,,,p'� I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of U
a^ V 09- my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
V"/
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street,Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For nincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
20 -296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
11/23/2005
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton"'<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/29/2005 2:26:48 PM
Subject: Senior Discount
Bonnie,
I made all of the changes, so let me know what you think.
I added a section on the married couple, but do we want to ask if they are
married or the number in the household?
You could have a couple that is NOT married and the cable bill is under one
person's name. An unmarried couple wouldn't have to meet the higher income
standard as would a married couple in the same situation. Let me know if
you want to base it on marriage or number of adults the household. We can
change the check box and the 5th sentence in the first paragraph to read "or
2 adults in the household" and ask them to fill in the number of adults in
the household. (We wouldn't want to just say number in the household to
avoid a single parent with multiple children, so they can still apply for
the single income category.)
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Tracy
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:31 PM
To: schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
Subject: RE: Envelopes
Yes, I enclosed some of my letterhead yesterday for you to use as needed.
Let me know if you need more.
Also, I received comments from the Mayor's office regarding the Cable
Discount form. Here are the suggestions:
1) 1st Paragraph, 2nd line: Insert the words "all of" before the words
"the following criteria"
2) 1st Paragraph, 3rd line: Insert the word "federal"before the words
"Housing and Urban Development..."
3) Item 4 Purpose, 3rd line: Change the word "on"to the word "of"so it
reads"certification from the City of my eligibility"
4) Item 6 Income Status: 2)is not a proof of income; suggest this
section be changed from "Income Status"to"Proof of Eligibility"and then
list the things that must be provided to verify each of these three: 1)
age, 2)disability and 3) income. Give examples of what they need to send
back. (Doing this may make it possible to eliminate some of the other
sentences in the form regarding proof, such as in section 5.)
5) In the sentence just before the"For Office Use Only" box, do not
capitalize the word Unincorporated. Use lower case.
6) Should a box be added to mark their marital status or don't you need
that?
Hope this is not too confusing. Call me if I can clarify.
Bonnie
>>>"Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com> 11/29/05 7:50 AM
>>> >>>
Bonnie,
That sounds great. Do you also want to send me the City's letterhead, so we
can attach a cover memo? If you have it electronically that would be great
too. Also, any changes/comments on the Senior Citizen form.
Thank you,
Tracy
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 6:15 PM
To: schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
Subject: Envelopes
The Mayor's office thought it might be best if you would send out the senior
discount forms in a City envelope, so I am sending you a batch via postal
mail to get you started, with more to come later. Also attached is copy of
the City logo to use on the City form or as appropriate.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast,the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for eligible
subscribers that meet all of the following criteria: (1) 62 years of age or older, or disabled; (2) the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence; and (3) combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the federal
Housing and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding
year. The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150
for a married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone: Married:Y or N(circle one)
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible lessee/tenant of my
rental residential unit. (Please circle the correct answer.)
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective of
the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible for
the discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Proof of Eligibility: Proof of eligibility must be provided through the following methods:
1) Age—62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide proof of age and income status.
2) Disability—Legally disabled with a combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
• Applicant must provide proof of legal disability and low income.
• Enclose a copy of your Disability Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Income—Income must be below the HUD Income Standard.
• For the immediate preceding year, attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return (IRS From
1040)reflecting an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify Comcast and the City of Renton of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street,Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For unincorporated King County Residents,please contact the King County Office of Cable Communications at
206-296-3880.
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
November 29,2005
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/11/2005 9:10:34 AM
Subject: Phone & Discount Questions
Bonnie,
I spoke to our phone company and they can't establish a Seattle phone
number from St. Paul, so we will need to get the name of the phone
company, and any contact information you may have, that the City uses
for its phone services. I will need to speak to them about establishing
a local Renton line that we can be"answered" in St. Paul. After some
review, I realized that there are a number of phone carriers in the area
and adding an additional or market expansion line to the City's current
contract may be the best and most cost effective solution.
Also, I was able to locate the income limits that the former consultant
used. He used the FY 2003"very low income" limits, which I would have
to agree with using as well. Median income is probably a little high
and the low-income is also on the higher side for people to be able to
qualify. The very low income amount for FY 2003 is actually the same as
FY 2004. I have already checked FY 2005 and the figures are the same,
but we will check on January 1, 2006 to make sure HUD hasn't made any
adjustments.
The former consultant used 1 person -$27,250 or married (2-persons)
at$31,150.
1. Many times with HUD figures, they will also use the 4-person
(family), $38,950 for families. HUD does break it out up to 8 persons,
but most people follow 4 person income standard for a family. My
question for you is does the City want to also include a family status
or keep the lower"married" amount? It wouldn't be any more difficult
to check than the married (2-persons), but it may eliminate some people
from the program since the amount is higher;
2. I noticed on the Comcast form that they use only the figure of
$17,500, whether it is a single, married or family. I am not sure how
long the City has used both single and married.
I am making adjustments to the form and should have it to you by early
next week for your review. It is my hope that we can get it"approved"
before the end of next week, so that we can begin the process for the
individuals that have contacted the City.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/11/2005 12:38:14 PM
Subject: Senior Discount Form
Bonnie,
I made some changes, per our conversation, to the Renton Cable Discount
Form. Please review the attached form and let me know if you have any
changes and/or additions to the document. The one area that is really
up to the city is on the income limits.
Thanks,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza 4
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
City of Renton
Affidavit Certifying Eligibility for Cable Discount
As part of its cable franchise with Comcast, the City of Renton negotiated a discount on basic cable service for
eligible subscribers that meet the following criteria: (1)62 years of age or older,or disabled; (2)the legal owner or
lessee/tenant of their residence; and(3)combined disposable income from all sources does not exceed the Housing
and Urban Development standards for the Seattle-Everett area ("HUD Income Standard") for the preceding year.
The applicable HUD Income Standard for the current year is$27,250 annually for a single person and$31,150 for a
married couple. The City is required to certify to Comcast that applicants for the discount meet the necessary
criteria.
1. Name: Cable Account#(if known):
2. Email: Phone:
3. Address:
Street Apt.# City State Zip Code
(My residence). I certify that I am either: (a)the legal owner of my residence;or(b)the legally responsible
lessee/tenant of my rental residential unit.
4. Purpose. I make this Affidavit, under the penalties of perjury, to the City of Renton and Comcast for the
purpose of qualifying for a special discount on basic cable service at my residence. The discount will be effective
on the date that Comcast accepts certification from the City on my eligibility. I understand that I will not be eligible
for the•discount if I am receiving any promotional offer or my services are incorporated into a value package. I
understand that this information may be subject to verification by the cable operator.
5. Type of Discount Applying for:
62 years or older with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of age and income status.
Disability with combined disposable income below the HUD Income Standard.
Applicant must provide proof of disability and low income
6. Income Status: Proof of income may be provided by one of the following methods:
1) For the immediate preceding year,attach copies of Federal Income Tax Return(IRS From 1040)reflecting
an elderly/disabled credit claimed on line 46.
2) Enclose a copy of your Award Letter from Social Security.
3) Provide bank statements for the prior two months.
7. Changes in Circumstances. In the event that I am no longer qualified for the cable discount,I agree to promptly
notify Comcast and the City of Renton of any such change,or if I move from this address.
I hereby apply for the discount on my basic cable service and certify under the penalties of the law that to the best of
my knowledge all statements as marked on this form are true.
Signature Date
PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM WITH PROOF OF INCOME,AGE,AND/OR DISABILITY STATUS TO:
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
444 Cedar Street,Suite 950
St.Paul,MN 55101
Please allow six to eight weeks for processing the application.
For Unincorporated King County Residents,please call Brenda Fritz at 206-296-3880
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Date Mailed: Approved:
Date Returned: To Comcast:
Governing: Issues to watch/January 2006 Page 1 of 1
TELECOM REGULATION
A variety of telecom issues are on the legislative agenda. In addition to continuing efforts to
limit the ability of municipalities to offer broadband, a new issue is coming to the fore in
statehouses nationwide: Many states — likely including California, Connecticut, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina and Virginia — will consider bills that would
allow companies to receive statewide franchises to provide video service.
Currently, to offer video service, companies have to apply for franchises at the local level,
deals that typically require them to pay fees and be subject to local regulation. Phone
companies would like to break into the cable business, but, with so many local governments
involved, they have struggled to do so. Thus, phone companies are leading this year's
legislative push in the hopes of obtaining franchises for entire states in one fell swoop.
Predictably, the biggest opponents of statewide franchise bills are cable companies, the sworn
enemies of the phone companies, who plan to jealously guard their turf against
encroachment. Municipalities also are concerned with the legislative push, worrying that they
could lose out on franchise fees and regulatory authority if such bills pass. On the other hand,
advocates of the measures argue that they will increase competition and lower prices for
consumers.
Texas was the only state to approve a statewide franchise last year. The Texas legislation may
represent a model for others to imitate in order to win broad-based support. Initially,
municipal representatives were dead-set against the bill, but lawmakers offered concessions,
grandfathering in existing franchises and ensuring that fees from statewide franchises would
be redirected to local governments. The result was that although big cities still opposed the
final bill, the Texas Municipal League stayed neutral, and the legislation passed.
Congress may also get involved in the debate. Phone companies will seek a law to allow for
federal video franchises. If approved, the legislation would render local or state franchises
unnecessary, a possibility that has municipalities concerned. 'It's an onslaught against the
local franchising authority," says Marilyn Mohrman-Gillis, director of the National League of
Cities' Center for Policy and Federal Relations.
http://www.governing.com/articles/1 issues.htm 1/11/2006
natoa®
4\�
loofto.
`3}
Cable Television
s . .
Customer Sérké HandbOok
VERSION 2.0
A Guide for Local Franchising Authorities to Establish Customer Service
Standards by Ordinance
Last Updated: December 2004
©Copyright 2004
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 495
Alexandria, VA 22314-2308
Telephone: 703/519-8035 * Fax: 703/519-8036
E-mail: info ac natoa.orq*Web site: www.natoa.org
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
I.
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated:December 2004
PREFACE
In this Handbook, NATOA members share first-hand experience and best practices in drafting
and implementing customer service standards, reporting requirements, and enforcement
provisions. This Handbook is presented as a guide for local and national discussion about how
local franchising authorities (LFAs) can promote and protect the rights of cable system
customers so they may receive quality service and adequate resolution of customer service
complaints. This Customer Handbook has been drafted to address both basic issues for
communities that have not previously taken an active role in customer service regulation, and
advanced issues for communities interested in updating existing customer service standards.
Typically, at a minimum, cable operators must meet federal cable television customer service
standards, most of which are contained in Title 47 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) and Title
47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.). LFAs and cable operators may often negotiate
these and other customer service issues during initial franchise, franchise assignments/transfers
of control, or franchise renewal negotiations. To the extent permitted under local, state and
federal law, an LFA may also establish customer service standards by ordinance using general
police power authority. Where permitted by state and local law, local customer service
standards may exceed certain federal standards. NATOA members and other LFAs should
obtain competent legal advice to ascertain their communities' authority to adopt any revised or
additional customer service regulations.
As defined by this Handbook, customer service is divided into the following topics: Introduction—
Section 1; General Standards & Definitions — Section 2; Installation — Section 3; Basic Service
& Repair — Section 4; Telephone Answering — Section 5; and Customer Communications —
Section 6. Each section begins with an overview of the topic and a presentation of the
applicable federal standards, followed by a discussion of practical methods for drafting specific
types of standards as derived from the best practices and experience of NATOA members.
Each section concludes with a discussion of compliance and reporting requirements applicable
to each topic.
The initial version of this Handbook was created by the 2002-2003 Customer Service
Committee (CSC). Supplemental provisions to the Telephone Answering Standards section
and provisions were created by the 2003-2004 and the 2004-2005 NATOA Customer Service
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittees (TPRS). NATOA offers its appreciation
to the many committee members who contributed to this effort.
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 2
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
FCC STANDARDS
Sec.76.309 Customer service obligations. (B)After normal business hours, the access
line may be answered by a service or an
(a)A cable franchise authority may enforce automated response system, including an
the customer service standards set forth in answering machine. Inquiries received after
paragraph (c) of this section against cable normal business hours must be responded to by
operators. The franchise authority must provide a trained company representative on the next
affected cable operators ninety(90) days written business day.
notice of its intent to enforce the standards.
(ii) Under normal operating conditions,
(b) Nothing in this rule should be construed to telephone answer time by a customer
prevent or prohibit: representative, including wait time, shall not
exceed thirty(30) seconds when the connection
(1)A franchising authority and a cable is made. If the call needs to be transferred,
operator from agreeing to customer service transfer time shall not exceed thirty(30)
requirements that exceed the standards set forth seconds. These standards shall be met no less
in paragraph (c) of this section; than ninety(90) percent of the time under
normal operating conditions, measured on a
(2)A franchising authority from enforcing, quarterly basis.
through the end of the franchise term, pre-
existing customer service requirements that (iii)The operator will not be required to
exceed the standards set forth in paragraph (c) acquire equipment or perform surveys to
of this section and are contained in current measure compliance with the telephone
franchise agreements; answering standards above unless an historical
record of complaints indicates a clear failure to
(3)Any State or any franchising authority from comply.
enacting or enforcing any consumer protection
law,to the extent not specifically preempted (iv) Under normal operating conditions,the
herein; or customer will receive a busy signal less than
three(3) percent of the time.
(4)The establishment or enforcement of any
State or municipal law or regulation concerning (v) Customer service center and bill payment
customer service that imposes customer service locations will be open at least during normal
requirements that exceed, or address matters business hours and will be conveniently located.
not addressed by the standards set forth in
paragraph (c)of this section. (2) Installations, outages and service calls.
Under normal operating conditions, each of the
(c) Effective July 1, 1993, a cable operator following four standards will be met no less than
shall be subject to the following customer ninety five(95) percent of the time measured on
service standards: a quarterly basis:
(1) Cable system office hours and telephone (i) Standard installations will be performed
availability-- within seven (7) business days after an order
has been placed. "Standard"installations are
(i)The cable operator will maintain a local, those that are located up to 125 feet from the
toll-free or collect call telephone access line existing distribution system.
which will be available to its subscribers 24
hours a day, seven days a week. (ii) Excluding conditions beyond the control of
the operator,the cable operator will begin
(A)Trained company representatives will be working on"service interruptions" promptly and
available to respond to customer telephone in no event later than 24 hours after the
inquiries during normal business hours. interruption becomes known.The cable operator
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 3
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
must begin actions to correct other service service conditions which are within the control of
problems the next business day after notification the cable operator.Those conditions which are
of the service problem. not within the control of the cable operator
include, but are not limited to, natural disasters,
(iii)The"appointment window"alternatives civil disturbances, power outages,telephone
for installations, service calls, and other network outages, and severe or unusual
installation activities will be either a specific time weather conditions.Those conditions which are
or, at maximum, a four-hour time block during ordinarily within the control of the cable operator
normal business hours. (The operator may include, but are not limited to, special
schedule service calls and other installation promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases,
activities outside of normal business hours for regular peak or seasonal demand periods, and
the express convenience of the customer.) maintenance or upgrade of the cable system.
(iv)An operator may not cancel an (iii) Service interruption--The term "service
appointment with a customer after the close of interruption"means the loss of picture or sound
business on the business day prior to the on one or more cable channels.
scheduled appointment.
Note to Sec.76.309: Section 76.1602
(v) If a cable operator representative is contains notification requirements for cable
running late for an appointment with a customer operators with regard to operator obligations to
and will not be able to keep the appointment as subscribers and general information to be
scheduled,the customer will be contacted. The provided to customers regarding service.
appointment will be rescheduled,as necessary, Section 76.1603 contains subscriber notification
at a time which is convenient for the customer. requirements governing rate and service
changes. Section 76.1619 contains notification
(3)Communications between cable operators requirements for cable operators with regard to
and cable subscribers-- subscriber bill information and operator
response procedures pertaining to bill disputes.
(i) Refunds--Refund checks will be issued
promptly, but no later than either-- [58 FR 21109,Apr. 19, 1993, as amended at 61
FR 18977,Apr. 30, 1996; 65 FR 53615, Sept. 5,
(A)The customer's next billing cycle following 2000; 67 FR 1650, Jan. 14,2002]
resolution of the request or thirty(30)days,
whichever is earlier, or Sec.76.1602 Customer service--general
information.
(B)The return of the equipment supplied by
the cable operator if service is terminated. (a)A cable franchise authority may enforce
the customer service.
(ii)Credits--Credits for service will be issued
no later than the customer's next billing cycle Standards set forth in paragraph (b)of this
following the determination that a credit is section against cable operators.The franchise
warranted. authority must provide affected cable operators
90 days written notice of its intent to enforce
(4) Definitions-- standards.
(i) Normal business hours--The term "normal (b) Effective July 1, 1993,the cable operator
business hours"means those hours during shall provide written information on each of the
which most similar businesses in the community following areas at the time of installation of
are open to serve customers. In all cases, service, at least annually to all subscribers, and
"normal business hours" must include some at any time upon request:
evening hours at least one night per week
and/or some weekend hours. (1) Products and services offered;
(ii) Normal operating conditions--The term
"normal operating conditions"means those
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 4
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(2) Prices and options for programming cause of the rate change(e.g., inflation, change
services and conditions of subscription to in external costs or the addition/deletion of
programming and other services; channels).When the change involves the
addition or deletion of channels, each channel
(3) Installation and service maintenance added or deleted must be separately identified.
policies; For purposes of the carriage of digital broadcast
signals, the operator need only identify for
(4) Instructions on how to use the cable subscribers,the television signal added and not
service; whether that signal may be multiplexed during
certain departs.
(5) Channel positions of programming carried
on the system; and (d)A cable operator shall provide written
notice to a subscriber of any increase in the
(6) Billing and complaint procedures, including price to be charged for the basic service tier or
the address and telephone number of the local associated equipment at least 30 days before
franchise authority's cable office. any proposed increase is effective.The notice
should include the name and address of the
(c) Subscribers shall be advised of the local franchising authority.
procedures for resolution of complaints about
the quality of the television signal delivered by (e)To the extent the operator is required to
the cable system operator, including the address provide notice of service and rate changes to
of the responsible officer of the local franchising subscribers,the operator may provide such
authority. notice using any reasonable written means at its
sole discretion.
Sec.76.1603 Customer service--rate and
service changes. (f) Notwithstanding any other provision of part
76 of this chapter, a cable operator shall not be
(a)A cable franchise authority may enforce required to provide prior notice of any rate
the customer service standards set forth in change that is the result of a regulatory fee,
paragraph (b)of this section against cable franchise fee, or any other fee,tax, assessment,
operators.The franchise authority must provide or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal
affected cable operators 90 days written notice agency, State, or franchising authority on the
of its intent to enforce standards. , transaction between the operator and the
subscriber.
(b)Customers will be notified of any changes
in rates, programming services or channel Note 1 to Sec. 76.1603: Section 624(h)of the
positions as soon as possible in writing. Notice Communications Act,47 U.S.C. 544(h), contains
must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty additional notification requirements which a
(30)days in advance of such changes if the franchising authority may enforce.
change is within the control of the cable
operator. In addition,the cable operator shall Note 2 to Sec. 76.1603: Section 624(d)(3) of
notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. 544(d)(3),
significant changes in the other information contains additional notification provisions
required by Sec. 76.1602. pertaining to cable operators who offer a
premium channel without charge to cable
(c) In addition to the requirement of paragraph subscribers who do not subscribe to such
(b)of this section regarding advance notification premium channel.
to customers of any changes in rates,
programming services or channel positions, Note 3 to Sec. 76.1603: Section 631 of the
cable systems shall give 30 days written notice Communications Act,47 U.S.C. 551, contains
to both subscribers and local franchising additional notification requirements pertaining to
authorities before implementing any rate or the protection of subscriber privacy.
service change. Such notice shall state the
precise amount of any rate change and briefly [65 FR 53617, Sept. 5, 2000, as amended at 66
explain in readily understandable fashion the FR 16554, Mar. 26, 2001]
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 5
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Sec.76.1619 Information on subscriber bills. (b) In case of a billing dispute,the cable
operator must respond to a written complaint
(a) Effective July 1, 1993, bills must be clear, from a subscriber within 30 days.
concise and understandable. Bills must be fully
itemized,with itemizations including, but not (c)A cable franchise authority may enforce
limited to, basic and premium service charges the customer service standards set forth in this
and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly section against cable operators.The franchise
delineate all activity during the billing period, authority must provide affected cable operators
including optional charges, rebates and credits. 90 days written notice of its intent to enforce
standards.
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 6
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
•
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 9
2. GENERAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS 11
2.1 General Definitions—Best Practices 12
2.1.1 Normal Business Hours 12
2.1.2 Normal Operating Conditions 13
2.1.2.1 Force Majeure Exception 13
2.1.3 Appointment Window 14
2.2 General Compliance Reporting and Enforcement Requirements-
Recommendations 14
2.2.1 General Reporting Requirements 14
2.2.2 General Enforcement Requirements 15
2.2.2.1 Initial Franchise Agreement or Regulatory Ordinances 16
2.2.2.2 Modifications During Franchise Transfers 16
2.2.2.3 Monetary Penalties and Liquidated Damages 17
2.2.2.4 Credits of Money and/or Service to Customer 17
2.2.2.5 Drawing on Letters of Credit, Bonds and Security Funds 18
2.2.2.6 Procedural Requirements 18
2.2.2.7 Withholding LFA Consent to a Request for a Cable Franchise Renewal 19
2.2.2.8 Revocation of the Cable TV Franchise 19
3. INSTALLATION: BASIC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS 21
3.1 Installation—Best Practices 21
3.1.1 Standard Installations 22
3.1.1.1 Aesthetic Concerns and Location Requests 22
3.1.1.2 Density 22
3.1.1.3 New Subdivisions 22
3.1.1.4 New Urban Housing and Business Customers 23
3.1.2 Non-Standard Installations 23
3.1.2.1 Limiting Non-Standard Installation Costs 23
3.1.3 NCTA On-Time Guarantee 23
3.2 Installation Compliance Reporting and Enforcement Requirements—
Recommendations 23
4. BASIC SERVICE AND REPAIR CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS 26
4.1 Service and Repair Standards— Best Practices 26
4.1.1 Defining System Outages and Service Interruptions 27
4.1.2 Repair Time Requirements for a "System Outage"v. a "Service
Interruption" 27
4.2 Service Repair Compliance Reporting and Enforcement Requirements—
Recommendations 28
4.2.1 Service and Repair Reports 28
4.2.2 Separate System Outage from System Interruption Data 29
4.2.3 System Outage Data 29
4.2.4 Service Interruption Data 29
4.2.5 Customer-Reported Service Problems and Repair Request Data 30
4.2.6 Technical Repair Personnel Data 30
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 7
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
4.3 Service and Repair Enforcement Provisions 31
4.3.1 Reception Quality 32
4.3.2 Customer Credits for Pay-Per-View or Special Events 32
4.3.3 Cable Modem 32
5. TELEPHONE ANSWERING: BASIC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS 33
5.1 Telephone Answering Standards— Best Practices 34
5.1.1 Properly Trained Company Representatives and Sufficiently Staffed
Telephone Call Centers 35
5.1.2 Local Call Centers 36
5.1.3 Answering Time 36
5.1.4 Automated Voice Response Units(VRUs) 37
5.1.4.1 Glossary of Automated Telephone Answering Terminology. 37
5.1.4.2 Language and Operator Override Options 39
5.1.4.3 Supplemental Phone Numbers 39
5.2 Telephone Answering Compliance Reporting and Enforcement Requirements—
Recommendations 39
5.2.1 Standard Reports 40
5.2.1.1 Basic Telephone Response Data 40
5.2.1.2 CSR Staffing and Training Data 40
5.2.1.3 Call Center Data, Call Processing, and Reporting Information 41
5.2.2 Customer Service Reporting and the Cable Operator 43
5.2.3 "Data Scrubbing" 44
5.2.4 Data Adjustment Conditions 45
5.2.4.1 Inclement Weather 45
5.2.4.2 Excluding Data Generated After Normal Business Hours 46
5.2.4.3 Cancellation of Pay-Per-View("PPV") Events. 47
5.2.4.4 Telephone System and Power Outages. 47
5.2.4.5 System Malfunction Caused by External Force. 48
5.2.4.6 Vandalism/Sabotage 48
5.2.4.7 Labor Issues. 48
5.2.4.8 Traffic and/or Right-of-Way Issues. 48
5.2.4.9 Provision of Broadband Services. 48
5.2.4.10 Permitting and/or Licensing Delays. 49
5.2.4.11 Sunspots. 49
5.2.5 Cable Operator Treatment of"Abandoned" Calls. 49
5.2.6 Comparing LFA Data to Cable Operator Reports 49
5.2.6.1 Independent Verification of Reported Telephone Answering Data. 49
5.2.7 "Historical Record of Complaints." 51
6. CABLE OPERATOR COMMUNICATIONS TO CUSTOMERS 52
6.1 Customer Communications Standards—Best Practices 52
6.1.1 All Notices 52
6.1.2 Construction-Related Notices 53
6.1.3 Billing and Service Termination Notices 53
6.1.4 Identification and Installation/Service Repair Notices 53
6.2 Cable Operator Communications to Customers—Recommendations 54
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 55
©2005 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 8
1
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
1. INTRODUCTION—CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS UNDER FEDERAL LAW.
Federal law states: "A franchising authority may establish and enforce (1) customer service
requirements of the cable operator; and (2) construction schedules and other construction-
related requirements, including construction-related performance requirements, of the cable
operator." 47 U.S.C. § 552(a). Further, 47 U.S.C. § 552(d) states:
(1) Consumer protection laws—nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit
any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer
protection law, unless specifically preempted by this subchapter.
(2) Customer service requirement agreements—Nothing in this section shall be
construed to preclude a franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to
customer service requirements that exceed the standards established by the Federal
Communications Commission under subsection (b) of this section. Nothing in this
subchapter shall be construed to prevent the establishment or enforcement of any
municipal law or regulation, or any State law, concerning customer service requirements
exceeding the standards set by the Commission under this section, or that addresses
matters not addressed by the standards set by the Commission under this section.
In addition, in 1992, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to
"establish standards by which cable operators may fulfill their customer service requirements".
Such standards shall include, at a minimum, requirements governing—
(1) cable system office hours and telephone availability;
(2) installations, outages, and service calls; and
(3) communications between the cable operator and the subscriber (including standards
governing bills and refunds)."
47 U.S.C. § 552(b). These federal regulations are embodied in 47 C.F.R. §§ 76.309, 76.1602,
76.1603, and 76.1619. Subsection 76.309(b) addresses LFA authority to adopt stronger
standards than those set forth by the FCC.
FCC STANDARDS—LFA ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY, 47 C.F.R. §76.309(a)—76.309(b).
(a) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards set forth in
paragraph (c) of this section against cable operators. The franchise authority must
provide affected cable operators ninety (90) days written notice of its intent to enforce
the standards.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 9
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(b) Nothing in this rule should be construed to prevent or prohibit:
(1) A franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service
requirements that exceed the standards set forth in paragraph (c) of this section;
(2) A franchising authority from enforcing, through the end of the franchise term, pre-
existing customer service requirements that exceed the standards set forth in
paragraph (c) of this section and are contained in current franchise agreements;
(3) Any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer
protection law, to the extent not specifically preempted herein; or
(4) The establishment or enforcement of any State or municipal law or regulation
concerning customer service that imposes customer service requirements that
exceed, or address matters not addressed by the standards set forth in
paragraph (c) [telephone answering standards] of this section.
Most customer service regulations in 47 C.F.R. § 76.309 have not been updated since
enactment in 1993. However, a number of the standards in 76.309 which addressed
requirements for cable operator notices to customers were recoded and moved to 47 C.F.R.
§ 76.1601 et seq. A number of customer notice-related provisions have been provided in
Section 5 of this Handbook.
Finally, the federal statute and federal regulations discussed in the Handbook apply to cable
operators not to non-cable service provided by cable operators. Therefore, depending on
applicable law and franchise agreements, a cable operator may or may not be required to fulfill
customer service standards for non-cable services provided by the cable operator over the
cable system. However, the specific applicability of the cable customer service standards
discussed herein to non-cable services will require further legal analysis.
Again, this Handbook should be used only as a guide for discussion and not a substitute for
specific legal advice. The NATOA Customer Service Handbook will be revised periodically and
feedback is always appreciated.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 10
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
2. GENERAL CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS
This section addresses definitions and general guidelines for drafting effective customer service
standards and enforcement provisions. Certain definitions discussed in this General section are
crucial to understanding the scope of terms, standards and enforcement provisions discussed in
other sections. For example, Installation, Service & Repair, and Telephone Answering
standards typically apply only during "Normal Operating Conditions." Therefore,
recommendations as to how "Normal Operating Conditions" should be defined, as well as
similar terms of general applicability, are primarily addressed in this General section.
Customer service standards' primary purpose is to ensure that customers receive the highest
quality of service and that cable operators comply with applicable subscriber service contracts
and franchise agreements. The best standards and enforcement provisions are often the result
of trial and error. LFAs gain valuable experience working with specific operators; thus, LFAs will
often benefit by seeking advice from nearby communities or other LFAs who share the same
cable operator. Periodic reports from cable operators and well-written reporting and
enforcement provisions in customer service standards can provide the means to measure and
ensure franchise compliance and can also provide LFAs with other tools to evaluate the
performance of cable operators,their employees and their subcontractors (if any).
Customer service standards should always contain the general requirements that the cable
operator provide information necessary for LFA enforcement of the franchise and that this
information be provided in the form requested by the LFA. This provision ensures that the LFA
will be able to obtain relevant data in a useful format. However, such requirements should also
state that the LFA will use such authority for legitimate purposes related to franchise compliance
and enforcement.
FCC STANDARDS:
NORMAL HOURS AND CONDITIONS DEFINITIONS, 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(4)(i)—
76.309(c)(4)(ii).
(i) Normal Business Hours— The term "normal business hours" means those
hours during which most similar businesses in the community are open to
service customers. In all cases, "normal business hours" must include
some evening hours at least one night per week and/or some weekend
hours.
(ii) Normal Operating Conditions — The term "normal operating conditions"
means those service conditions which are within the control of the cable
operator. Those conditions which are not within the control of the cable
operator include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil
disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or
unusual weather conditions. Those conditions which are ordinarily within
the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, special
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 11
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases, regular, peak or
seasonal demand periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the cable
system.
APPOINTMENT WINDOW REGULATIONS, 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(2)(iii)—76.309(c)(2)(v).
(iii) The"appointment window" alternatives for installations, service calls, and other
installation activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum, a four-hour time block
during normal business hours. (The operator may schedule service calls and other
installation activities outside of normal business hours for the express convenience of
the customer.)
(iv)An operator may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of
business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment.
(v) If a cable operator representative is running late for an appointment with a
customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer will
be contacted. The appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time which is
convenient for the customer.
2.1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS—BEST PRACTICES
To the extent permitted under law, an LFA may find it helpful to incorporate within customer
service standards a general provision that all terms and definitions will be construed in favor of
the customer.
Standards can be drafted to be specific or broad, e.g., requiring at least 100 full-time customer
service representatives (CSRs, also known as CAEs, customer account executives) versus
requiring an "adequate number" of CSRs. Choices in this area will often depend on an LFA's
authority under state or local law, provisions of a specific franchise agreement, and/or an LFA's
oversight capabilities. Specific standards may be simpler to enforce, but may provide an LFA
with less flexibility to address issues as they change and/or arise over time. Alternatively,
enforcement of generally-worded standards may require an LFA to devote more resources to
discuss with cable operators how such standards should be interpreted, but may ultimately
provide an LFA stronger enforcement powers.
2.1.1 Normal Business Hours.
Customer service standards requiring specific business hours or a specific number of
business operation hours per week may be incorporated into an ordinance, regulation, or
franchise agreement, depending on LFA authority under applicable law. It is preferable
to discuss implementation by ordinance of specific business hour standards with the
cable operator prior to implementation. LFAs typically have the authority to impose
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 12
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
business hours standards equivalent to those contained in the FCC standard, 47 C.F.R.
§ 76.309(c)(4), but may need to rely on additional police powers or rights contained
within franchise agreements to require additional business hours if the cable operator is
not voluntarily willing to add additional business hours.
2.1.2 Normal Operating Conditions.
"Normal operating conditions" must be clearly defined because the operator typically will
not be required to satisfy customer service standards if a problem occurs outside
"normal operating conditions." Although 47 C.F.R. § 76.309(c)(4) addresses this term,
LFAs would be well-advised to address ambiguities in franchise agreements or
regulatory ordinances.
2.1.2.1 Force Majeure Exception.
A cable operator may argue that its performance during certain periods of time
should not be required to meet customer standards because of an event beyond
the cable operator's control, also known as a force majeure event or an "act of
God." Therefore, it is crucial for an LFA to carefully craft a force majeure
provision to clarify those circumstances which will be considered beyond the
cable operator's reasonable control. It is equally useful to clarify what is not a
force majeure, i.e., those circumstances which are not considered to be beyond
the cable operator's reasonable control. When drafting standards and
enforcement provisions the LFA should consider whether a situation presents a
condition so extreme that the cable operator could not reasonably be expected to
satisfy customer service standards during that condition. LFAs may also reserve
the right to excuse non-compliance during abnormally severe conditions upon
request from the cable operator.
Specific examples of force majeure and non-force majeure circumstances may
be very useful. Severe weather is a common form of force majeure. However,
when considering this matter, an LFA should consider past weather patterns. If a
community normally receives a large amount of snow or rain, it may be
reasonable to expect a cable operator in that community to meet customer
service standards during such weather, particularly, if it is reasonable to expect
that other utility, telephone and municipal systems will continue to function during
periods of heavy snow or rain. In areas where bad weather is common, an LFA
may find it useful to define the "severe weather" element of a force majeure
provision as weather compelling official agencies to advise residents to avoid
unnecessary travel or weather conditions triggering the implementation of official
emergency guidelines. Customer service standards could also be drafted so the
operator takes appropriate measures to ensure compliance, such as having extra
repair technicians available when severe rain, snow, solar storms or heat waves
are predicted. Cable operators should also take the necessary steps to ensure
compliance during high volume promotional events.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 13
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
An LFA can also provide customers with additional protection by requiring an
operator to comply promptly with customer service standards immediately after
the cessation of a force majeure event, or to establish a satisfactory substitute for
normal performance, subject to LFA approval. For example, if a flood washes
out a road carrying a cable and the road will take six weeks to repair, the LFA
would want the authority to require the cable operator to restore service and
meet customer service standards during this lengthy six-week period, e.g., by
installing a temporary overhead cable.
2.1.3 Appointment Window.
It is useful to specify the number of hours for operator installation and service
appointment windows. Typically such windows are two or four hours in length (e.g., the
cable operator is required to inform a customer that an installation will occur between 1
PM and 5 PM). The LFA may also mandate or negotiate a requirement with the cable
operator that appointments be offered during extended business hours, such as 8 AM to
8 PM Monday through Friday with the same or slightly shorter hours on Saturday. It is
less common to require cable operators to offer Sunday appointments, but that is a
condition some operators have agreed to meet. Many jurisdictions require free
installation or equivalent credits for a missed appointment if the appointment is cancelled
without 24-hour notice or if the installation is not completed within a single visit. Some
jurisdictions require cable operators to provide advance notice of an appointment
cancellation and may require that the appointment be rescheduled at the customer's
convenience.
2.2 GENERAL COMPLIANCE REPORTING & ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS—
RECOMMENDATIONS
2.2.1 General Reporting Requirements.
Regardless of how comprehensively an LFA's franchise addresses various reporting
requirements, it is prudent for the LFA to include a general franchise enforcement
provision which permits the LFA to require relevant reports on compliance issues that
may arise during the franchise term. The following is sample language to consider:
At any time during the term of this Franchise, Grantor may mandate
additional reports, information, records and documents to be provided by
Grantee so long as they reasonably relate to the scope of the Grantor's
rights under this Franchise. Reports shall be in a form reasonably
prescribed by Grantor and shall be provided by Grantee within thirty (30)
days of the date of request or such other reasonable time as the Grantor
may determine at its sole discretion.
Furthermore, to the extent reasonably possible, LFAs and cable operators should
agree on measurement time frames. Incorporation of specific definitions into
customer service standards can help avoid disagreements later when such
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 14
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
standards must be enforced. Ambiguities in the FCC telephone standards lead to
numerous questions. For example, with respect to satisfying telephone
answering standards 90% of the time, as measured quarterly, is an operator in
compliance if it meets the standards at least eighty-one days in a ninety-day
quarter? What if violations occur during no more than 216 hours in a 2160-hour
quarter? What if 300 of 330 calls meet the standard? Different approaches to
these questions may be equally acceptable, but it is very useful for an LFA and
cable operator to reach agreement as to how compliance will be measured
before a dispute arises. Furthermore, some LFAs have found it necessary to
define "quarterly"—e.g., as standard calendar quarters (Jan-Mar; April-Jun; etc.),
three consecutive months, or specific months based on the effective date of the
franchise. Many other LFAs have found it necessary to specify how penalties for
non-compliance will be measured (see Section 2.2.2.3).
2.2.2 General Enforcement Requirements
Clear and enforceable standards with reporting requirements to measure and assess
compliance can be strengthened by including penalties for non-compliance. In
combination, these tools permit LFAs to recognize violations and implement corrective
actions to bring about improved/corrected operation by the cable operator. In practice,
most LFAs find that non-compliant cable operators respond to the real possibility that
penalties or franchise agreement liquidated damages will actually be assessed; thus,
having in place franchise agreement or ordinance language which can actually be
enforced may be crucial. In many cases, negotiated resolution of customer service
violations has occurred on the eve of a scheduled public hearing constituting the final
procedural requirement to enforce penalties.
Monetary penalties intended to address franchise violations must be consistent with
state law but may be used for any obligation of the franchise if permitted by state law.
Because some states limit the authority of local governments to impose monetary
penalties for ordinance violations, local authority to enact monetary penalties should
always be carefully reviewed. Many franchise agreements or ordinances allow a cure
period for many types of violations and usually require a public hearing as a pre-
condition to issuing penalties. These additional procedural protections for cable
operators may be the result of negotiations or may be required by applicable state or
local law. The nature, circumstances (e.g., new offense, voluntary disclosure), extent
(e.g., frequency of violation, number of subscribers affected), and gravity (e.g., material
franchise provision) of a violation typically affect the determination of an appropriate
penalty.
Measures intended to address operator non-compliance with franchise agreements
(including compliance with franchise terms as well as other federal, state, and local
requirements incorporated in these franchise agreements) may include:
(a) assessing monetary penalties, including fines;
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 15
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(b) drawing on security instruments, such as letters of credit,
performance/security bonds, and certificates of deposit;
(c) obtaining liquidated damages (which may be regulated by state law);
(d) obtaining credits of money and/or service to customers;
(e) ensuring compliance with applicable insurance policy provisions calling for
compensation to injured parties;
(f) requiring more stringent reporting provisions;
(g) withholding LFA consent to a request for a cable franchise renewal;
(h) revoking a cable franchise; or
(i) employing other remedies not prohibited by federal, state, or local law.
Remedies, however, should be non-exclusive, to the extent permitted by law. The use
of one remedy should not prevent the exercise of another remedy or the exercise of any
other rights of the LFA.
2.2.2.1 Initial Franchise Agreement or Regulatory Ordinances.
If not prohibited by applicable law or a franchise agreement, it may be possible
for an LFA to unilaterally modify a regulatory ordinance by relying on general
police powers or other sources of authority (e.g., language in a regulatory
ordinance or franchise agreement permitting such changes). Such regulatory
and/or police power authority may also exist under federal, state, or local law
even if such specific language is not contained in a local regulatory ordinance.
Furthermore, state common law may invalidate provisions in a franchise
agreement which would otherwise permit or require LFAs to contractually waive
their police powers.
2.2.2.2 Modifications During Franchise Transfers.
If an existing franchise grants an LFA the authority to review and approve
transfer of control or ownership of the franchise, this may provide an additional
opportunity to resolve franchise compliance issues. Arguably, outstanding
compliance problems should be resolved before the transfer is approved. It is
helpful for a regulatory ordinance to include provisions allowing the LFA to
address past non-compliance issues by requiring franchise modifications (such
as additional reporting requirements or stronger penalties for non-compliance) as
a condition of a franchise transfer request, or to be able to deny consent to a
transfer request if there are uncured franchise violations.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 16
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
2.2.2.3 Monetary Penalties and Liquidated Damages.
Monetary penalties are imposed under police powers to cure violations of a
regulatory ordinance or for a material breach of franchise agreement. Liquidated
damages are a contractual remedy used to cure violations of franchise
agreements where it is difficult to ascertain actual damages. State law may
regulate use of monetary penalties or liquidated damage remedies. Penalty
calculations typically consider the nature and extent of the violation, a history of
similar violations, the cable operator's acknowledgement or denial of the
violation, and other appropriate circumstances.
The basis for the calculation of penalties or liquidated damages may include: a
daily fine calculated for the time period of the violation; a set amount calculated
on the measurement period of the violation (for example, per month or per
quarter); and/or a calculation based on the number of subscribers affected by the
violation. It may be useful to include a description as to how such penalties
should be calculated. For example, assume that a franchise agreement or
ordinance: (a) requires service interruptions be successfully resolved within 36
hours; and (b) establishes a penalty of $100 per day for a violation of a service
repair standard. If service is not restored for 72 hours to 3,000 subscribers, the
cable operator may view the non-compliance as a $200 violation, whereas the
LFA may view the non-compliance as worthy of a much larger penalty based on
the large number of subscribers affected. If compliance is measured quarterly,
local standards should specify whether a single non-compliance penalty would
be assessed for the entire quarter, or whether the failure to meet the quarterly
measurement triggers separately penalties to be assessed for each day, call,
customer, etc., on which the standard was not met. (E.g., how is a "$200 per
occurrence" penalty calculated if the same violation affects many subscribers for
several days in one quarter?)
2.2.2.4 Credits of Money and/or Service to Customers.
LFAs may require that cable operators provide "automatic" or "upon request
only" subscriber credits as a means to compensate subscribers for sub-par
service and also to create an incentive to further ensure compliance with
franchise and customer service requirements. An automatic credit is paid to
customers without requiring the customer to contact the cable operator to
complain about service.
Credits may be based on a pro rata calculation of the amount of time the
subscriber fails to receive service (e.g., $4.00 for up to three days without
Expanded Basic cable service) or a full day's credit for outages which exceed
four or six hours in length. However, a credit of$0.50 to $2.00 per subscriber
may only be of marginal benefit to the subscriber who has been inconvenienced.
Credits of$5 to $25 to $200 are among the flat fee credits to customers required
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 17
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
by some LFAs for violations ranging from missed installation or service
appointments to a violation of privacy policies.
2.2.2.5 Drawing on Letters of Credit, Bonds, and Security Funds.
LFAs may use security instruments to address deficiencies in cable operator
satisfaction of customer service requirements or other franchise agreement
provisions. By drawing against such instruments, LFAs are able to recover
penalties or liquidated damages and may also discourage the recurrence of such
problems. Having the authority to draw against security instruments sometimes
discourages potential deficiencies even if such authority is not actually exercised.
A cable operator may also value maintaining a record that the LFA has never had
to draw on these funds, and so may have an incentive to work with the LFA and
comply with assorted customer service provisions.
Many franchise agreements state that failure by the cable operator to maintain
appropriate franchise-related security instruments will constitute a material
breach of the franchise. Types of and amounts of security instruments that will
be required are typically products of negotiations between a cable operator and
the LFA.
2.2.2.6 Procedural Requirements.
Franchise agreements and regulatory ordinances may allow cable operators to
avoid penalties by curing a customer service violation within a reasonable period
of time (for example, within 30 days). The enforcement process typically starts
with the LFA issuing a finding that the cable operator is in violation of the
franchise agreement, then providing the cable operator an opportunity to respond
and cure. In some cases, if the non-compliance is not cured, the LFA may
provide notice that a public hearing will be held for the purpose of authorizing
appropriate penalties. An operator may make a last minute offer to settle and
cure the violation only after an LFA has completed numerous time-consuming
procedural enforcement steps. Therefore, to the extent it is both reasonable and
consistent with applicable law an LFA may want to streamline procedural
requirements. An LFA may anticipate that all procedural steps will be
implemented before an operator cures a violation and therefore, should only
incorporate procedural requirements demanded by law or fairness.
Although there may be no monetary relief provided to subscribers due to a
franchise violation, the finding of a franchise violation is often of great concern to
a cable operator. A cable operator may be required to notify one or more
regulatory authorities if the operator has ever been held in violation of a franchise
agreement. A franchise violation may also affect loan covenants with the cable
operator's lenders. Thus, many cable operators take a violation proceeding
seriously and may ultimately attempt to seek resolution with the LFA prior to a
formal finding of a franchise violation.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 18
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Procedural requirements as an enforcement tool can be cumbersome, depending
upon the language in the franchise agreement. On occasion, cable operators
have spent more time disputing an alleged violation and exercising their
procedural rights than it would have taken to correct the underlying service
problems. Furthermore, certain violations may not be curable. For example, if a
cable operator fails to provide the required advance notice of a programming
change to customers or the LFA prior to making such a change, the cable
operator, arguably, cannot fully cure the violation by later actions.
2.2.2.7 Withholding LFA Consent to a Request for a Cable Franchise
Renewal.
Under certain conditions, an LFA may deny a cable franchise renewal application
due to properly noticed but uncured cable operator customer service violations.
(See 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)—546(d))
2.2.2.8 Revocation of the Cable TV Franchise.
Many franchise agreements and regulatory ordinances allow the LFA to revoke
the franchise if the cable operator fails to cure a material breach or provide
adequate assurances that it will cure the breach within a reasonable amount of
time. When a customer service violation rises to the level of a material breach,
most franchise agreements or ordinances require that the LFA follow specific
procedures (usually including at least one public hearing) prior to revocation of a
franchise.
47 U.S.C. §546(c)—546(d):
(c)(1) Upon submittal by a cable operator of a proposal to the franchising authority for the
renewal of a franchise pursuant to subsection (b) of this subsection, the franchising
authority shall provide prompt public notice of such proposal and, during the 4-month
period which begins on the date of the submission of the cable operator's proposal
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, renew the franchise or, issue a preliminary
assessment that the franchise should not be renewed and, at the request of the operator
or on its own initiative, commence an administrative proceeding, after providing prompt
public notice of such proceeding, in accordance with paragraph (2)to consider whether—
(A) the cable operator has substantially complied with the material terms of the
existing franchise and with applicable law;
(B) the quality of the operator's service, including signal quality, response to
consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard to the mix or
quality of cable services or other services provided over the system, has been
reasonable in light of community needs; . . . .
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 19
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(d) Any denial of a proposal for renewal that has been submitted in compliance with
subsection (b) shall be based on one or more adverse findings made with
respect to the factors described in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of subsection
(c)(1) of this section, pursuant to the record of the proceeding under subsection
(c) of this section. A franchising authority may not base a denial of renewal on a
failure to substantially comply with the material terms of the franchise under
subsection (c)(1)(A) of this section or on events considered under subsection
(c)(1)(B) of this section in any case in which a violation of the franchise or the
events considered under subsection (c)(1)(B) of this section occur after the
effective date of this subchapter unless the franchising authority has provided the
operator with notice and the opportunity to cure, or in any case in which it is
documented that the franchising authority has waived its right to object, or the
cable operator gives written notice of a failure or inability to cure and the
franchising authority fails to object within a reasonable time after receipt of such
notice.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 20
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
3. INSTALLATION: BASIC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS.
Installations standards help ensure that all residents of a franchise area will receive installations
within a reasonable period of time. These standards also protect residents from unreasonable
installation charges, especially those residents who reside in less-dense or hard-to-reach
locations. Uniform installation requirements across a geographic area may level the playing
field where there may be a greater financial incentive to provide more timely installations to new
customers, customers purchasing higher-priced cable services packages, and cable modem
customers. In contrast it creates less of a financial incentive to provide rapid installations in
areas which require labor-intensive cable drops, installation of new wiring (especially inside
wiring in large multi-dwelling buildings), or to customers purchasing only lower-priced basic
service tiers.
FCC INSTALLATION APPOINTMENTS: 47 C.F.R. §76.309 (c)(2)(i), 76.309(c)(2)(iii)—
76.309(c)(2)(v)
(c)(2) Under normal operating conditions, each of the following four standards will be
met no less than ninety five (95) percent of the time measured on a quarterly
basis:
(i) Standard installations will be performed within seven (7) business days
after an order has been placed. "Standard" installations are those that are
located up to 125 feet from the existing distribution system.
(iii) The "appointment window" alternatives for installations, service calls, and
other installation activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum, a
four-hour-time block during normal business hours. The operator may
schedule service calls and other installation activities outside of normal
business hours for the express convenience of the customer.
(iv) An operator may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the
close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled
appointment.
(v) If a cable operator representative is running late for an appointment with a
customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the
customer will be contacted. The appointment will be rescheduled, as
necessary, at a time which is convenient for the customer.
3.1 INSTALLATION— BEST PRACTICES
The FCC standards address the scheduling of installation appointments. LFAs may want to
supplement these standards with additional qualitative and quantitative standards. Specific
examples which do not limit enforcement authority only to the cited examples may be very
useful to the LFA.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 21
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
3.1.1 Standard Installations.
A standard installation is typically defined as one located within a specific number of feet
from the franchisee's distribution system or activated cable plant (e.g., 125 ft., 150 ft.,
etc.) More installations are likely to be considered "standard installations" if the distance
from cable plant limit is greater (e.g., 250 ft. vs. 125 ft.). Standard installations are
typically entitled to stronger consumer protections. For example, franchises typically
require that standard installations be completed within seven days of the customer's
request. A standard installation is usually the same price throughout the franchise area
(regardless of whether it is more difficult or easier than the average installation), may be
subject to rate regulation, and may be provided for free as part of a promotional
discount.
3.1.1.1 Aesthetic Concerns and Location Requests.
Some jurisdictions also require cable operators to comply with owners' aesthetic
concerns or requests to install wires in specific locations, especially if installation
is performed in a multi-dwelling unit, such as an apartment building,
condominium, or commercial/residential building.
3.1.1.2 Density.
When large homes are built on large lots, or a group of homes is built at the end
of a long road (resulting in homes being close together but a significant distance
from an existing cable plant), associated installations may fall outside the
definition of a "standard installation" unless specific home density language is
included to address these kinds of situations. One way of addressing these
situations may be to require standard installation rates if a specific minimum
number of subscribers (e.g., ten) requests service within a greater than a
standard installation distance, such as one-quarter mile from the existing
distribution cable.
3.1.1.3 New Subdivisions.
It can be useful to coordinate intra-governmental and inter-governmental
departments so that notices of new subdivisions or new residential construction
are sent to all cable system operators at the time developers receive construction
permits. This advance notification process may better facilitate operator
budgeting of a new installation. However, a cable system operator may be
reluctant to construct new facilities necessary to pass new subdivision homes
until a profitable occupancy rate has been met. Therefore, it may also be useful
to require the cable operator to provide installations within a specific number of
days once a threshold number of subdivision foundations have been laid (e.g.,
installation within thirty days after fifty percent of a subdivision's foundations have
been laid).
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 22
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
3.1.1.4 New Urban Housing and Business Customers.
New housing may develop in established urban areas by converting commercial
buildings into mixed-residential space (e.g., loft apartments over retail stores and
office space, or co-ops and condominiums). Cable plant has often not been
placed in commercial areas although some recently upgraded systems have
wired commercial areas to facilitate sales of cable modem service to small
businesses. LFAs may want to consider drafting standard installation
requirements in a manner that requires construction of new plant in all areas
zoned for at least mixed-residential use. Alternatively, existing requirements may
need to be enforced on a case-by-case basis as new urban housing develops.
3.1.2 Non-Standard Installations.
A cable operator may have to perform a non-standard or custom installation if a home is
located a significant distance from a main road, is in a rural area, or is in a multi-dwelling
building that has not been previously wired. A non-standard installation typically is
required to be completed within thirty days of the customer's request.
3.1.2.1 Limiting Non-Standard Installation Costs.
In at least one instance, instead of leaving all non-standard installation costs to
the discretion of the cable system operator, customer service standards have
included requirements limiting the cable system operator to charging the
subscriber the incremental portion of materials and labor costs above and
beyond the materials and labor costs of a standard installation. Some
jurisdictions have also limited the ability of a cable operator to mark up the
incremental materials and labor costs required for a non-standard installation.
3.1.3 NCTA On-Time Guarantee.
The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and certain members of
the cable industry have promoted various forms of"on-time guarantees" for installations
and service appointments that are not completed as scheduled. For example, the
NCTA's website discusses guarantees of "[o]n-time installation appointments or the
installation is free," and "[o]n-time service appointments or the customer receives $20."
Although many cable operators provide or honor such on-time guarantees as a general
business practice, many cable operators resist a commitment to such on-time
guarantees in franchise agreements or ordinances.
3.2 INSTALLATION COMPLIANCE REPORTING & ENFORCEMENT REQUIREMENTS—
RECOMMENDATIONS
Typically, LFAs receive fewer consumer service complaints regarding the amount of time taken
by operators to initiate installations; this phenomenon may be due to cable operators' business
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 23
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
incentive to quickly install service so that they may begin receiving revenue for such service.
More frequently, installation-related complaints will arise over the quality or completeness of
installations, and such complaints may be more frequent when the cable operator has hired
subcontractors who will not be paid until installations are complete. For example, if a drop wire
between the street and home should be buried, a subcontractor would have a financial incentive
to hook-up the wire to the home so that service can be initiated, but will also have less financial
incentive to come back and bury the wire after initial installation.
Monthly installation reports provide LFAs with information which can be used to verify
compliance with installation requirements and to identify other service repair related issues.
The level of detail of required information may vary based on the LFA's ability to make use of
such data. The raw data may be a useful back-up or verification if the LFA has the resources to
analyze it, and it may also be stored for use in a future compliance audit. Useful installation
report data may include:
• Number of installations requested per day on each day of the reporting period (e.g., in a
monthly report, the number of installations requested on each day of the month versus
the total installations requested divided by the number of days in that month).
• Number of installations performed per day on each day of the reporting period.
• Number of installations performed by subcontractors on each day of the reporting period.
a Number of installations performed within seven days of a customer's installation request.
• Number of installations performed more than seven days after a customer's request, in
accordance with the customer's desire. For example, if a customer initially requested an
installation on a Thursday, and the cable operator were to offer an installation at any
time beginning on the following Wednesday (within six days of the request), the
customer might request and the cable operator might agree to an installation on the
following Saturday. The installation would occur more than seven days after the initial
request, but some operators will likely remove such requests from summarized reports
noting "percentage of installations completed within seven days of request."
• Percentage of installations completed within seven days of request.
• Number of service repair requests within three weeks of installation.
• Number of service repair requests within three weeks of installation, where installation
was performed by subcontractors.
• Number of installation credits or substitute credits provided for delayed appointments.
• Number of installation credits or substitute credits provided for missed installation
appointments.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 24
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
• Number of installation credits or substitute credits provided for faulty installation.
Failure by the cable operator to comply with installation requirements should subject the cable
operator to penalty provisions under the franchise agreement or ordinance. Many franchise
agreements and customer service ordinances require a mandatory subscriber credit if an
installation is not performed within a specified time period or the installation appointment is
delayed as a result of the cable operator's actions or omissions.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 25
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
4. BASIC SERVICE & REPAIR CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS.
Service and repair standards help to ensure that all customers will receive an adequate level of
service, create a mechanism to compensate customers when they do not receive adequate
service, provide an operator with incentives to reduce the number of service problems, and
provide LFAs with the means to measure overall operator franchise compliance. As discussed
in the General Standards section, reserving a right to require reporting of necessary information
in a format acceptable to the LFA permits LFAs to obtain compliance data over the life of the
franchise.
Service standards may be ineffective if they cannot be objectively measured, rely too heavily on
consumer complaints or voluntary operator reporting as an enforcement means, or do not
require cable operators to report compliance data in a meaningful way. Operators who use
subcontractors should not be relieved of their burden to provide quality service.
Enforcement of service and repair standards is more effective if the LFA drafting the standards
understands what kind of service disruptions a cable system can measure and how the cable
system reports and records service problems to the cable operator. Enforcement will also be
influenced by the LFA's oversight capability and the community's willingness to impose
penalties and/or require automatic customer credits for service disruptions. LFAs may also
want to consider their own internal staff resources and ability to analyze cable operator reports
when establishing the number of and level of detail of cable operator reporting requirements.
FCC STANDARDS: SERVICE INTERRUPTION DEFINITION, 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(2)(ii), 47
C.F.R. §76.309(c)(4)(iii).
(c)(2) Under normal operating conditions, each of the following four standards will be
met no less than ninety five (95) percent of the time measured on a quarterly
basis:2. . .
(ii) Excluding conditions beyond the control of the operator, the cable
operator will begin working on "service interruptions" promptly and in no
event later than 24 hours after the interruption becomes known. The cable
operator must begin actions to correct other service problems the next
business day after notification of the service problem. . . .
(iii) Service interruption — The term "service interruption" means the loss of
picture or sound on one or more cable channels.
4.1 SERVICE & REPAIR STANDARDS—BEST PRACTICES
Customer service repair standards commonly determine the cable operator's varying duties to
respond, repair, credit the customer, report to the cable regulator, and/or to incur various
compliance penalties based on whether a defined "system outage" or "service interruption" has
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 26
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
occurred. The FCC standards do not use this distinction between "system outages" and
"service interruptions," or equivalent terms, but because many franchise agreements and
ordinances do, this Handbook discusses these two terms in some detail. The practical
difference between a system outage and a service interruption (other terms may be used based
on local practice and custom) is that an "outage" usually refers to a service disruption severe
enough in duration or number of customers affected that the cable operator is or should be
aware that a service problem has occurred, whereas, an "interruption" addresses a service
disruption that is so limited in duration or number of customers affected that the cable operator
could not or should not be reasonably expected to be aware of the service problem unless or
until a customer reports the service problem.
4.1.1 Defining System Outages and Service Interruptions.
The definitions of system outages and service interruptions typically use a combination
of three factors: (1) the length of time the service disruption lasts; (2) the number of
customers whose service is disrupted; and (3) the number of channels that a
customer(s) cannot receive during the service disruption. To distinguish system outages
from service interruptions, LFAs either make one of these factors more important than
others, or establish higher versus lower thresholds for all three factors.
For example:
Chicago, IL: A loss of one or more channels is a service interruption, and a
service interruption to 500 people or more is a system outage.
Washington, DC: A loss of one or more channels to five or fewer customers is
an interruption, whereas a loss of all channels to five or more subscribers is a
system outage.
Los Angeles, CA: An outage is a loss of service for at least four hours that
affects at least 10% of the consumers in a franchise area.
Cleveland Heights, OH: A loss of service of one or more channels to one or
more customers is an interruption, while the loss of service of one or more
channels to 5% of subscribers is an outage.
Many communities try to strike a balance by requiring cable operators to meet more
rigorous service repair standards if the service disruption is lengthy or widespread, i.e., a
system outage of which the operator should be aware, and permitting longer repair times
for smaller disruptions that are likely to affect very few customers or affect them for very
short periods of time, i.e., a service interruption.
4.1.2 Repair Time Requirements for a "System Outage" Versus a "Service
Interruption."
Typically, cable operators must respond to system outages within two to four hours and
have repair personnel and equipment trucks available to make system outage repairs
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 27
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
seven days-a-week, twenty-four hours a day. Service interruption repairs typically must
be repaired within twenty-four hours. Alternatively, service repair work must be started
within twenty-four hours and completed within three days. If temporary repairs of service
interruptions are made, permanent repairs may be required to be completed within three
days. In cases where repairs of service interruptions require work inside a customer's
premises, the operator may be required to offer an appointment within twenty-four hours
of the interruption. Service interruption repair appointments typically must be offered
Monday through Saturday, but in many communities, these appointments must be
offered during extended hours, such as from 8 AM to 8 PM. The appointment time
window is typically two to four hours (e.g., between 9 AM and 11 AM, between noon and
4 PM).
4.2 SERVICE REPAIR COMPLIANCE REPORTING & ENFORCEMENT
REQUIREMENTS—RECOMMENDATIONS
4.2.1 Service and Repair Reports.
Monthly outage reports may help the LFA determine if a pattern of system failures is
affecting a particular portion of the franchise area. If so, such a pattern may affect
additional LFA rights under the franchise regarding enforcement of technical
specifications. Unfortunately, it may be difficult for an LFA to verify compliance with
established service repair criteria without cooperation from the cable operator; to a large
degree, LFAs depend on cable operators to submit monthly or quarterly reports
identifying outages and interruptions and the manner in which these problems are
handled by the cable operators. Absent of written reports from a cable operator, an
LFA may initially be forced to rely on written and/or oral customer complaints in order to
ascertain whether service interruptions have occurred and whether a cable operator
has followed the applicable franchise requirements for reporting service problems and
issuing credits.
When an LFA receives monthly system outage and service interruption reports, the LFA
can roughly verify the reports' accuracy by comparing them against customer complaints
previously received by the LFA. Thus, if an LFA receives an unusually large number of
customer complaints in a given reporting period but the cable operator does not report
any increase in the number of subscriber complaints it receives, the LFA may have
reason to question the accuracy of the data provided to the LFA by the cable operator.
LFAs may also find it helpful to compare the cable operator's monthly outages and
interruptions reports against the monthly or quarterly telephone answering statistics
provided by the cable operator. Generally, one may expect some correlation between
increased call volume and an increased number of system outages. If automatic credits
are specified in the franchise agreement, the LFA may also want to require the cable
operator to provide information regarding the number of customer credits issued during a
specific time period.
Although LFAs may find it useful to require monthly service interruption reports from
cable operators, cable operators may argue that it is much more difficult to provide
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 28
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
detailed service interruption reports because service interruptions generally affect far
fewer customers, are shorter in duration, and the number of customers impacted may
not be immediately known due to the cable operator's reliance on customer reports
rather than an automated outage reporting system.
4.2.2 Separate System Outage From System Interruption Data.
It can be important for LFAs to require that cable operators report system outages or
interruptions separately from customer requests for service repair. For example, if 100
customers request service repairs due to isolated service interruptions, and the cable
operator restores service to 70 of these customers within 24 hours, the operator has a
70% compliance rate with a 24-hour service interruption repair standard. Assume,
however, that a general power outage also caused an additional 200 customers to lose
service, but the power company restores service within 24 hours. If the cable operator
combines the 200 power outage customers with the 100 service repair requests to claim
credit for 270 service repairs, the 24-hour compliance rate may appear to be 90%, and
will mask the fact that only 70% of customers who reported a service problem had their
problem repaired by the cable operator within 24 hours.
4.2.3 System Outage Data.
Many LFAs require monthly reports from the cable operator identifying some or all of the
following:
• All system outages;
• Duration of the outages;
• Number of customers affected;
• General locations of the outages within the franchise area;
• Number of outages repaired within 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, and still not
repaired after 72 hours;
• Cause of the disruptions; and
• Time periods within which the outages were corrected.
4.2.4 Service Interruption Data.
Many LFAs require or may require monthly reports from the cable operator identifying
some or all of the following:
• Number of interruptions;
• Duration of the interruptions;
• Number of customers affected;
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 29
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
• Number of planned and unplanned outages;
• Number of nodes affected;
• General location of the interruptions within the franchise area; and
• Number of interruptions repaired within 24 hours, within 48 hours, within 72
hours, or still not repaired after 72 hours.
4.2.5 Customer-Reported Service Problems and Repair Request Data.
Many LFAs require or may require monthly reports from the cable operator identifying
some or all of the following:
• Number of system outages or service interruptions reported by customers;
• Number of system outage and/or service interruption repairs requested by
customers;
• Number of requested service repairs provided within 24 hours, within 48
hours, within 72 hours, and still not repaired after 72 hours;
• Time periods within which requested service repairs were provided;
• Number of service truck rolls responding to requests for service repair; and
• Applicable system outage, service interruption or other service repair-related
credits provided to customers.
4.2.6 Technical Repair Personnel Data.
To assess the quality of an operator's response to system outages and interruptions, an
LFA may also want to request reports concerning the cable operator's technical
workforce, including some or all of the following information. The training reports should
include two parts: the first part addressing full-time and part-time employees, and the
second addressing subcontractors. The information LFAs require of operators might
include:
(a) Number by title of full-time equivalent technical employees and/or
subcontractors working in the LFA's franchise area:
• Number of service calls in each 8-hour work day;
• Type of service calls;
• Average time spent on each type of service call.
(b) The length of service of each technical employee, and/or sub-contractor,
with the cable operator. This information can be grouped for reporting
purposes (e.g., 10 full-time employees with two years experience, 50
part-time employees with six months experience, etc.);
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 30
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(c) List all formal training courses that each technical employee and/or
subcontracted employee has received;
• Name of training course, name of provider, e.g., NCTI or SCTE,
and the training completion dates;
• List of all safety training courses and description of which
standards (e.g., OSHA, NEC, NESC) were covered in the
courses;
• List of the safety courses which address consumer safety (such as
courses involving proper system grounding);
• Cable operator training programs or plans to develop training
programs on evolving technology for the operator's technical
employees and/or subcontractors.
(d) Lists of the tools and equipment (including meters) that all technical
employees and/or subcontractors have available on their vehicles on a
daily basis.
4.3 SERVICE AND REPAIR ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS.
If credits must be automatically provided to customers, cable operators may have a strong
incentive to prevent system outages and interruptions and to quickly repair service problems.
However, cable operators typically favor providing credits for system outages only if customers
contact the operator to report the service problem. Examples of credits for service interruptions
and system outages may include:
• a pro rata credit reflecting the actual number of hours service is disrupted;
• a full one-day credit if a service disruption exceeds a minimum number of hours
(such as two, four or six hours);
• a full one-day credit regardless of the duration of the service disruption;
• a percentage of a customer's monthly bill (such as 10%); and/or
• a fixed amount, such as$10 or$25.
For example, "Community One" requires a pro rata credit; thus, a one hour service interruption
entitles customer to one-twenty-fourth of a day's rate credit, while a six-hour service interruption
entitles a customer to a one-quarter-of-a-day's rate credit. Compare with "Community Two," in
which a credit is required only if the service interruption exceeds four hours, but in such cases a
full day's credit will be required; thus in the second community, an hour service interruption is
entitled to no credit but a six-hour service interruption is entitled to a full day's rate credit.
Credits are also often required for missed repair appointments. Charging customers for service
repairs is usually prohibited unless the customer caused the damage requiring repair.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 31
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
4.3.1 Reception Quality.
An LFA may want to consider requiring customer credits if the cable operator's
equipment is the cause of poor audio or visual reception or if the cable operator's service
does not meet FCC technical standards for satisfactory television reception.
4.3.2 Customer Credits for Pay-Per-View or Special Events.
Because of the special nature and additional costs to customers associated with pay-
per-view or special events, an LFA may want to require that a system outage, service
interruption or any material loss in picture or sound quality during a pay-per-view or
special event entitles the customer to a full credit equal to the value of the special event
service, regardless of the length of the service disruption.
4.3.3 Cable Modem.
Depending on applicable law and the jurisdiction in question, an LFA may be able to
apply some or many of the service repair requirements applicable to traditional cable
service to cable modem service. However, because the law concerning an LFAs'
authority to promulgate customer service standards with respect to cable modem service
is unsettled, LFAs should proceed carefully in this area.
Where an LFA has police power authority or some other pertinent authority with respect
to cable modem service, the LFA may be able to mandate that repairs to cable modem
service be made within the standards applicable to traditional cable service. Similarly,
an LFA may have the authority to revise its definitions of system outages or interruptions
so that this definition specifically references "or loss of cable modem service" in addition
to loss of video channels. However, this Handbook is only a guide for discussion and
LFAs should seek legal advice regarding their specific authority to regulate cable modem
service provided over a cable system as such authority may vary, depending on state
and local law.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 32
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
5. TELEPHONE ANSWERING: BASIC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS.
With the exception of paying bills by mail, the majority of customer interaction with cable
operators will take place over the telephone. Therefore, well-written telephone answering
standards should be a core requirement of cable customer service standards. Timely and
accurate response to telephone inquiries by the cable operator requires well-trained and helpful
customer service representatives (CSRs) in sufficient numbers. If a cable operator has a high
turnover rate, poorly trained CSRs, or inadequate staffing levels, it will be difficult for the cable
system operator to provide customers with the proper level of service.
Unfortunately, many LFAs have learned directly that their cable operators are failing to meet
applicable federal, state, or local telephone response standards and their residents' most
vociferous complaints against cable operators often involve allegations of unacceptable cable
operator telephone answering practices. When investigating such complaints, or when taking
proactive measures designed to promote good cable operator customer service, LFAs have
often found that cable companies' telephone answering operations are complex, arcane, and
subject to manipulation.
To provide timely and quality telephone answering, a cable operator must retain a sufficient
number of well-trained and helpful CSRs (customer service representatives). If a cable operator
has a high turnover rate, poorly trained CSRs, or inadequate staffing levels, it will be difficult for
the cable system operator to provide customers with the proper level of service required by:
FCC and LFA customer service standards; the terms of the franchise agreement, and/or
settlement and transfer agreements, if any; and customer service contracts, advertising and
promotional offers. Requiring the cable system operator to report CSR staffing levels —
especially during peak periods, CSR-to-manager ratios, and the training and employment
duration of CSRs can provide an LFA with another tool to assess the quality of an operator's
customer service.
By enacting meaningful telephone answering standards, an LFA can create objective standards
against which the quality of a cable system operator's telephone answering can be measured
and evaluated. Measurement criteria should be clearly defined. Telephone answering
standards should address a cable system operator's use of automated telephone answering
equipment and establish criteria to permit or prohibit adjustments to operator-reported data.
See Sections 5.2.3 and 5.2.4, below, for an extensive discussion of"data scrubbing" and other
forms of data adjustments undertaken by cable operators.
LFAs should learn to address the ambiguities that exist in the federal telephone answering
standards. LFAs should evaluate their standards, technical knowledge of the cable system, and
access to appropriate company representatives, to determine whether they have the means to
independently verify operator-reported data, resolve any inaccuracies in an operator's
compliance reporting, and ensure overall compliance with all applicable telephone answering
standards. LFAs should make themselves aware of similar standards adopted by other state
and local governments, and the compliance rate of their cable system operator in other
jurisdictions.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 33
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Finally, LFA initiation of a statistically valid number of test telephone calls to the cable system
operator's call center can be a cost-effective means of verifying operator-supplied telephone
answering statistics. Incorporating monetary fines/penalties, customer credits, and/or liquidated
damages into customer service standards, ordinances, and franchise agreements may provide
an added incentive for operators to comply with customer service standards. And maintaining a
historical record of complaints and compliance rates will be important in any enforcement
proceeding.
FCC STANDARDS: TELEPHONE ANSWERING REQUIREMENTS, 47 C.F.R.
§76.309(c)(1)(i)—76.309(c)(1)(iv).
(i) The cable operator will maintain a local, toll-free or collect call telephone access
line which will be available to its subscribers 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
(A) Trained company representatives will be available to respond to customer
telephone inquiries during normal business hours.
(B) After normal business hours, the access line may be answered by a
service or an automated response system, including an answering machine.
Inquiries received after normal business hours must be responded to by a trained
company representative on the next business day.
(ii) Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by a customer service
representative, including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds when the
connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall not
exceed thirty (30) seconds. These standards shall be met no less than ninety
(90) percent of the time under normal operating conditions, measured on a
quarterly basis.
(iii) The operator will not be required to acquire equipment or perform surveys to
measure compliance with the telephone answering standards above unless an
historical record of complaints indicates a clear failure to comply.
(iv) Under normal operating conditions, the customer will receive a busy signal less
than three (3) percent of the time.
5.1 TELEPHONE ANSWERING STANDARDS— BEST PRACTICES
LFAs should adopt the FCC's minimum telephone answering standards. Subject to authority
under state and/or local law, including the terms of applicable franchise agreements, an LFA
can strengthen the FCC's telephone answering standards by adopting or negotiating clear
definitions for ambiguous terms in the FCC standards and by addressing matters not treated by
the FCC standards. LFAs should review their technical knowledge of the cable system and the
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 34
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
operator's call center to enhance LFAs' ability to draft effective and enforceable telephone
answering standards.
Several LFAs who have evaluated their operators'telephone response performance have
experienced confusion, as well as the provision of misinformation and/or the withholding of vital
data or documentation by their cable operator.. LFA's attempting to enforce telephone
response standards whether through administrative proceedings or other means (including
imposing penalties or pursuing franchise agreement liquidated damages provisions) often find
that one or more of the following important questions or issues arise:
(a) Whether the cable operator has provided the LFA with adequate reports to
measure performance (including performance in all measurable categories such
as speed to answer, trunks busy, and call abandonment);
(b) Whether a company's use of automated telephone answering technology affects
the company's measurement of telephone response performance including the
30-second transfer standard;
(c) Whether a company is "normalizing" or otherwise "adjusting" data and whether
such adjustments comply with the LFA's standards.
(d) Whether the LFA is hampered by a lack of technical knowledge and/or access to
appropriate company representatives who can verify data, fix inaccuracies, and
ensure proper compliance;
(e) Whether the LFA knows about the loopholes and ambiguities that exist in the
federal telephone response standards, as well as many similar standards
adopted by state and local governments; and
(f) Whether the LFA knows about the substantial differences that often exist
between cable companies, between regions, and sometimes within the same
company, regarding operator approaches to these issues.
These issues are often characterized by substantial differences in interpretation and
considerable debate between companies and LFAs. Not surprisingly, many LFAs have
investigated and/or considered alternatives to measuring cable operator telephone response
performance.
5.1.1 Properly Trained Company Representatives &Sufficiently Staffed Telephone
Call Centers.
In addition to customer complaints received by LFAs regarding excessive answering
delays that include those caused by telephone busy signals and long hold times, many
customer complaints center on the frustration of encountering a CSR who appears to
know very little about the operator's offerings or policies. Customers are also frustrated
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 35
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
when they pose the same question to different CSRs and/or supervisors and receive
considerably different responses of varying and uncertain credibility.
Some customer service standards may require cable operators to "sufficiently staff'
telephone call centers with "adequately trained representatives" as a means of assuring
the quality and sufficiency of CSRs. Some LFAs have also negotiated specific numbers
of trained CSRs and/or minimum ratios of supervisors to CSRs, and some ordinances
require a minimum level of CSR training.
5.1.2 Local Call Centers.
Typically, a requirement that one or more call centers be located within the franchise
area is negotiated in a franchise agreement and is not initiated in a regulatory ordinance
unilaterally adopted by an LFA. If a regional call center serves an LFA's residents, the
operator should provide its procedures for equipping regional call centers to respond to
local franchise area conditions and to comply with specific local franchise requirements
which may not be applicable to all areas served by the regional call center. For
example, the operator should explain how, if a downed utility pole disrupts service in a
five-block portion of a franchise area, that information will be reported to the call center
so that it may expeditiously assist customers affected by the disruption.
At least one cable system operator has begun to consolidate calls into subject-specific
national calls centers. Under this approach, when a customer calls the cable system
operator, the customer will hear voice prompt asking the caller to dial a specific number
based on the type of inquiry. So, for example, if the caller selects "billing,"the call will be
routed to the operator's billing call center in state A. If the caller selects service repair,"
the call will be routed to one of three technical centers in states B, C, or D. The
aggregated nature of the calls will make it more difficult for the operator to break out
telephone answering response by franchise area. A cable system operator will be
unlikely to invest the extra time and effort to generate the franchise-specific report data if
the LFA does not request such. data. In these cases, it is important for an LFA to
understand the operator's call center equipment and call routing technology.
5.1.3 Answering Time.
FCC standards require that, under normal operating conditions and during normal
business hours, no more than 30 seconds should elapse between the point at which the
customer's telephone call is connected to the call center (e.g., the customer hears a
"ring") and the point at which a knowledgeable CSR begins speaking with the customer.
If this CSR needs to transfer the call to another cable operator representative, the
transfer time experienced by the customer should not exceed an additional 30 seconds.
LFAs should be aware that operator use of automated telephone answering equipment
(see Section 5.1.4) to resolve customer inquires will affect the total call answering time.
For example, if a customer uses such equipment to obtain an account balance and pay
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 36
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
the bill over the phone without any CSR assistance, the transaction will likely take longer
than 30 seconds. Thus, after the call is connected, the customer will have spent more
than 30 seconds of transfer time because the call was not transferred to a CSR within 30
seconds. The LFA will need to work with the operator to resolve this issue. Options
include creating acceptable data adjustment parameters, receiving call break-down
information, or other means to correct the problem. If the cable system operator is using
an automated call answering system with bill payment or other non-CSR call resolution
options and there is no impact on the operator's reported telephone answering times,
this may be a signal that the operator has an exceptional CSR staff or is adjusting data
before reporting data to the LFA.
5.1.4 Automated Telephone Answering Systems.
The use of automated telephone answering systems, commonly called IVRs (integrated
voice response units), may add complexity to the data which provided to LFAs and to the
analysis of such data. Although the FCC telephone response standards do not
expressly address IVRs, because the majority of cable operators now use such
equipment, LFAs should draft local customer service standards under the assumption
that IVRs will be used.
A cable subscriber who calls his or her cable provider may be greeted by an IVR which
asks that a button be pressed for a choice of primary language, and which may then
request the caller to classify the purpose of the call — e.g., payment/billing inquiry,
installation request, service/repair request, outage report, and so on — through use of
touch-tone buttons, before reaching a CSR. As discussed above, some customers may
have their question(s) satisfactorily answered without ever talking to a person. It is
important that LFAs adequately understand how the use of IVRs affects telephone
answering data.
5.1.4.1 Glossary of Automated Telephone Answering Terminology.
The following terms are frequently used when discussing IVR telephone
answering:
• Abandoned calls (ABA)—Calls during which the caller selects the option to
speak with a CSR, but are disconnected or hang up before a CSR answers.
Some cable operators attempt to distinguish in their reports between "good
abandons" (customer-initiated disconnections from IVRs after the IVRs have
addressed customers' needs/inquiries to the customers' satisfaction)from
"bad abandons" (customer-initiated disconnection from IVRs resulting from
customer dissatisfaction).
• After Call Time (ACT) or After Call Work(ACW)—Average time CSRs are
not available to take another incoming call as they finish work on the previous
call. Call centers generally try to minimize ACT.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 37
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
• Automated Call Distribution (ACD)— A system which works with an IVR to
transfer calls to CSRs. Older ACSs answer calls at a call center, place them
into a holding queue, and then transfer to CSRs on a first-come first-serve
basis. Newer ACDs can route calls to multiple call centers based on the
number dialed by the caller, keep logs of call activity, and can route calls to
CSRs ahead of previously received calls based on a variety of criteria.
• Auto Number Identifier(ANI)—Technology used by an operator to identify
the phone number of an incoming call. (For example, operators often use
this technology to process requests for Pay-Per-View events.)
• Average Talk Time(ATT)—Average time(usually measured quarterly)that
a CSR spends talking to any particular customer.
• Average Time to Answer(ATA), Average Speed of Answer(ASA),
Average Hold Time(AHT) or Average Delay Time(ADT)—Average time
over a specific measurement period for all calls from the time callers select
the option of speaking with a CSR. The start of these time periods is their
definition of when the"clock starts."
• Busy—When a caller reaches a "fast busy" signal when calling the company,
indicating that there are no incoming lines available. Typically reported as
the percent of callers receiving a busy signal for a measured time period.
•
• Calls Offered—Generally, the term used by operators to describe all calls
that come into their call center.
• Calls Handled—Generally, the term used by operators to describe all calls to
a call center that are connected to a CSR vs. those that use the IVR.
• Handle Time—Average time for a caller to complete a transaction once
answered by a CSR.
• Integrated Voice Routing Unit(IVR)—An inbound call processing system
that offers menu choices to callers and then plays recorded information
(including information extracted from a database or the Internet), transfers
calls to outside extensions, or routes calls to CSRs when used with an ACD.
Also called an Automated Response Unit(ARU), Interactive Response
Unit(IRU), or Automated Voice Response Unit(VRU).
• IVR Handled Calls—Generally, callers that chose to use the recorded
information system to get the information they need about their account
and/or services. This would not include callers who opt out of the IVR,
requesting to speak with a CSR.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 38
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
5.1.4.2 Language and Operator Override Options.
LFAs may want to consider requiring cable operators to offer certain language
options on the first tier of VRUs. For example, in a community with a large
Hispanic population, a Spanish language route through the VRU should be
offered in the first menu presented to the caller. Some communities require VRU
menus to be offered in any language in which the cable system operator offers
promotional materials. Other communities require additional VRU language
options based on community demographics.
LFAs may also want to consider requiring that cable operators offer an override
to reach a live CSR — preferably by dialing zero (0) — in the first or second VRU
menu. However, operators, especially those using national issue-specific call
centers (see Section 5.1.2), may be reluctant to offer override options.
Whether such options may be mandated by the LFA or must be negotiated with
an operator will depend on state or local law, the franchise agreement and/or any
historic record demonstrating necessity. Therefore, LFAs should maintain
records of VRU-related complaints and address such complaints with the
operator and/or by ordinance if necessary.
5.1.4.3 Supplemental Phone Numbers.
In some cases, a VRU or CSR will provide a customer with a different phone
number to call to resolve a specific type of complaint. Calls handled through
supplemental or secondary phone numbers should also comply with a
community's telephone answering standards.
5.2 TELEPHONE ANSWERING COMPLIANCE REPORTING & ENFORCEMENT
REQUIREMENTS—RECOMMENDATIONS
LFAs should require reports from their cable operators which enable an evaluation of the
operators' telephone response performance within the context of specific LFA standards. If
possible, such reports should be franchise area-specific; if not specific to the franchise area,
reports should at least provide a reliable proxy measurement of the operator's performance.
The FCC's telephone answering standards provide for measurement on a quarterly basis. LFAs
should consider whether more frequent reporting is necessary based on their individual
experience with the cable system operator and their authority under applicable law. Finally,
effective monitoring of the cable system operator's telephone answering performance can help
ensure compliance with local and federal customer service standards.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 39
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
5.2.1 Standard Reports.
LFAs should consider requiring cable system operators to provide the following
telephone response and CSR data in their reports:
5.2.1.1 Basic Telephone Response Data.
• Total number of calls received;
• Daily number of calls received;
• Number of calls answered within 30 seconds;
• Number of abandoned calls;
• Average time to answer, speed to answer, or hold time;
• Total number of calls handled;
• Average handle time per CSR; and
• Percentage of calls met with busy signals.
5.2.1.2 CSR Staffing and Training Data
Reports to evaluate the quality of a cable operators' telephone response
performance may include some or all of the following items:
• Number of trained CSRs responding to the calls;
• Length of service for each CSR;
• Type and date of training for each CSR; and
• Any additional items reflecting pertinent information needs related to a cable
operator's telephone response history in a community.
The LFA should work with the cable operator to establish mutually acceptable
reporting categories for CSR statistics if summary data is going to be provided:
e.g., CSRs with less than 1 month's experience, between 3-6 months, 6-12
months, 1-3 years, 3-5 years, 5-10 years, more than 10 years, etc...
In addition, the following types of information may be useful for purposes of
ascertaining the quality of CSR training, but may need to be updated on a less
frequent than monthly basis:
• Description of the on-going training for CSRs regarding special offers, new
service packages, new services, other offerings, etc., as well as whether
CSRs are required to become familiar with the offerings on a computer as
CSRs are talking with customers.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 40
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
• The acceptable "average response time" established by the cable operator
for purposes of employee practices.
• In addition to the problems and questions raised by the customers, the
number of other matters the CSR is expected to initiate when contacted by
customers. Examples of other matters include requesting that the monthly
bill be automatically charged to consumers' credit cards; encouraging
consumers to pay their accounts on-line; and trying to sell new services or
offerings.
• CSR turnover rate over the previous twelve months.
5.2.1.3 Call Center Data, Call Processing, and Reporting Information.
LFAs will better understand the call center data being reported by cable system
operators if they better understand how calls are being processed by the call
center. The following are examples of questions that LFAs can use to better
understand the call center processing technology. Not all LFAs will necessarily
want to require such detailed information, but all LFAs should review their
general reporting or information request provisions (see Section 2.2.1) to ensure
that they have sufficient authority to require such information if requested.
LFAs would be well-advised to direct many, if not all of the following questions to
their cable operators:
Procedural
a) How are incoming calls counted and reported? By account number?
Telephone number?
b) At what point does the clock start for the FCC 30-second telephone
transfer answering standard?
c) What qualifies as a"handled"call?
d) What queues (billing, sales, etc.) do you use for routing calls? Do you
reroute calls to other call queues if the queue selected by the caller is
full?
e) Do you track the reasons subscribers contact the call center? (e.g.
subcategories of any particular queue— billing disputes vs. questions,
to report an outage vs. check on a technician appointment, etc.)
f) Under what circumstance would a caller receive a fast busy signal?
Does the call center ever"block calls,"giving them a busy signal?
g) Under what circumstances have you closed a queue? Are calls that
reach a closed queue (and only hear a recorded message) counted
towards meeting the 90% calls answered standard?
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 41
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
h) How does a customer reach a CSR? Are customers given
instructions to press a certain button or button combination? Is "0" for
an operator/assistance an option? At what level in the menu tier is
the option to reach a CSR first offered?
i) What is the average length of time callers spend getting information
through the IVR (i.e., from the time they enter the IVR to when they
hang up or request a CSR)?
j) Does your company's IVR allow customers to reach a trained CSR
within 30-seconds of the start of the IVR? What is the minimum time
it would take a caller to get from the start of the IVR to a CSR? What
is the maximum time?
k) If a caller reaches a recorded message, for example detailing a power
outage, are they given other options to further navigate the IVR? For
example, can a caller in an outage area speak to a repair
representative; can a caller in an outage area reach a billing
representative?
I) Does your IVR allow for special messages to be inserted locally? Do
you use such messages to route callers into specific queues? If so,
what information about the caller do you use to be able to direct them
to such messages (e.g., account telephone number, zip code, etc.)?
Do you use any special messages for all callers?
m) How are calls that terminate in the IVR reported? Does your company
want to include IVR handled calls in the 30 seconds/90% of the time
standard?
n) What is the maximum number of tiers (clouds) you currently
use/would ever use in your IVR? Do you have a limit on the (time)
length of IVR messages?
o) Are CSRs cross-trained? Is a billing CSR qualified to competently
handle a repair question and vice versa?
p) Do you offer customer assistance in languages other than English? If
so, what languages? How are these calls counted and/reported?
Does the caller have to leave a message on a recorder if no such
CSRs are available or do they have the option to continue in English?
q) Under what circumstances would you request an "adjustment"
(exception) to your telephone answering statistics? How would
statistics be adjusted to reflect an exception? What "force majeure"
criteria do you use when making an exception request? Will you
request an exception at the time of the event or at the end of a
quarter?
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 42
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
r) Are requests for adjustments (exceptions) submitted to the LFA for
approval? If taken automatically, is the LFA informed about every
instance where telephone answering reports are adjusted?
s) How many franchise areas/what jurisdictions are served for a regional
call center? How many subscribers are served by this call center?
What is the subscriber-to-CSR ratio?
t) Does the regional call center also handle calls for other products such
as high-speed data/ cable modem, or digital telephone? Are these
calls included in the total calls reported for the center? Are they
reported separately?
Technical
u) What brand of telephone switch or switches do you use? What are
the functions of the switches if more than one?
v) What is the center's trunk capacity(i.e., #of trunks per CSR)?
w) What software do you use for reporting? Are the reporting functions
fixed or are you modifying the reporting criteria from what the software
provider offer?
x) Is your IVR system programmed in-house or through a vendor? If so,
how are IVR functionalities and or menus modified? How often are
modifications made to the system?
Outsourcing
y) Do you currently outsource any calls?
z) If yes, what types of calls (e.g., billing, sales, repair, etc.) do you
outsource? What percentage of all calls do you outsource?
aa) If yes, where (geographically)will these calls be taken?
bb) If yes, how are outsourced calls counted? Are they countedin
statistics reported to the LFA? If so, how is that done?
cc) If yes, do all CSRs from outsourced services qualify as "trained
CSRs"?
dd) If no, do you have any plans to outsource area calls in the future?
5.2.2 Customer Service Reporting and the Cable Operator.
The level of detail which an operator can provide to an LFA regarding the operator's
telephone answering statistics will vary depending upon the type of system the operator
has chosen.. An operator may raise various arguments to counter proposed
requirements to track and/or report telephone answering statistics. Operators may
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 43
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
assert that they should not be required to provide statistical reports evidencing their
telephone response times unless there is a particular problem raised by subscribers.
Operators may also maintain that if they do provide such statistics they can do so based
only on all calls received at the call center, even if the call center receives incoming calls
from an entire metro area, state, or region encompassing numerous communities and
franchise areas. An operator may also maintain that if it provides franchise-specific
statistical information for its call center, it is entitled to eliminate all data collected at all
times during which the operator was not— in the operator's judgment— operating under
"normal operating conditions." (See"data-scrubbing," discussed below.)
In response to these arguments the following information is relevant. Federal law does
not prohibit an LFA from mandating statistical information from an operator
demonstrating the operator's compliance with the telephone answering statistics.
Although the FCC regulations include a provision which requires a historical record of
complaints clearly indicating a failure to comply, an LFA has a right to adopt standards
more stringent than these federal standards, unless prohibited by state or local law. An
operator's assertion that it can provide statistical data only for the entire call center is
often incorrect, although it may be true that it would be nominally more expensive for the
operator to purchase the necessary equipment or to configure its telephone system so
that separate reports and information can be coded for each individual jurisdiction.
Many jurisdictions require telephone answering statistics specific for their jurisdiction; in
these cases, the operator is often able to provide such statistics.
LFAs with sufficient staffing resources may also want to consider requiring the reporting
of all raw data (all unscrubbed and unadjusted data), i.e., require the cable operator to
report all required data without any adjustments or removal of selected data in its
quarterly reports. All data that shows poor performance due to abnormal operating
conditions or force majeure events, would be included in the quarterly or monthly report.
Data that the cable operator would like the LFA to exclude or waive due to abnormal
operating conditions, force majeure, or other events would be submitted with the monthly
or quarterly report in a "Request for Waiver" letter or form. Please keep in mind that
telephone calls placed outside of normal business hours may or may not result in
justifiable data adjustments, as discussed in Section 5.2.3.3, below. The cable operator
should provide sufficient evidence for exclusion with such a waiver request to allow the
LFA to effectively evaluate the request.
5.2.3 "Data Scrubbing"
Essential to understanding the telephone response data provided to an LFA is knowing
what the cable operator does with the telephone response information it gathers. "Data
scrubbing" or"data cleansing" is a term referring to the process of removing or amending
data prior to calculation of monthly or quarterly reports. In cable operator reporting, data
which may be unfair to the operator, usually data reflecting poor performance due to
conditions beyond the control of the operator, can be excluded from the performance
data report evaluated by the LFA, if sufficient justification is provided by the cable
operator. See section 5.2.4 for a discussion of specific types of data adjustments
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 44
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
conditions. However, when data is scrubbed or removed in a subjective manner without
the knowledge or concurrence of the LFA, the data likely becomes biased and likely
does not reflect true operator performance. Such removal of data may constitute an
unjustifiable adjustment of data.
Therefore it is recommended that the cable operator submit a request for penalty waiver
for abnormal circumstances or exception as a part of the regular quarterly or monthly
customer service report. Cable operator reports should include all required data
unscrubbed,without any adjustments or removal of incorrect data. Note that a well-
crafted "normal operating condition" provision in the franchise agreement (see section
2.1.2 Normal Operating Conditions), force majeure provision (see section 2.1.2.1 Force
Majeure Exception) and required reporting of unscrubbed data can help ensure that a
cable operator provides comprehensive and accurate data useful to an LFA.
5.2.4 Data Adjustment Conditions
Cable operators may request data adjustments designed to excuse potential or arguable
non-compliance created by various circumstances. LFAs may want to consider the
factors discussed below in determining when to permit data adjustments. This
discussion does not take categorical positions that particular justifications provided by a
cable operator should be considered "acceptable"or"unacceptable." Rather, the
discussion is intended only to provide guidance to LFAs in evaluating data adjustments
or requests to adjust data.
5.2.4.1 Inclement Weather
"Bad weather" is one of the most frequently cited justifications for adjustments to
call center data. In considering a request to adjust data that a cable operator
believes has been adversely influenced by poor weather, the LFA should review
both federal and local law. The FCC cable customer service standards address
the problem of poor weather in the context of defining "normal operating
conditions." See 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(4)(ii): "Those conditions which are not
within the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, natural
disasters...and severe or unusual weather conditions." (Emphasis added.)
However, local cable customer service standards or a franchise agreement may
further describe or limit the types of weather events for which data adjustments
may be sought. As discussed above, some local standards also define what is
not unusual weather or a force majeure.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 45
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Determining if inclement weather justifies an adjustment of cable operator call
center data requires consideration of the nature and severity of the specific
weather event, the way in which the event is alleged to have affected the
operator's data, and a close examination of the particular facts and
circumstances against applicable standards and definitions. For example, LFAs
may want to consider the following:
• What was the specific weather event?
• Was it predicted sufficiently in advance that the operator could/should
have effectively increased staffing levels in response?
• Was the effect on call center performance the result of weather
affecting subscribers, such as heavy winds downing cables,
interrupting service and leading to an increased call volume? Or did
weather affecting the call center itself, such as a lightning strike at the
call center that incapacitates all or part of the center lead to
diminished performance at that center, a related center, or overflow
facility?
Natural disasters such as earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes or tornados are
typically outside the cable operators' control and circumstances for which
exceptions should be granted. But when should heavy rainfall or snowfall be
considered "severe" or "unusual?" The definitions and thresholds used by the
National Weather Service may be helpful in analyzing if a particular weather
event was sufficiently severe to justify an adjustment of data. See
www.crh.noaa.gov/mpx/nwseventdef.html ("National Weather Service Event
Definitions/Thresholds.") Local emergency management alerts, such as travel
advisories requesting that drivers avoid all non-essential travel due to weather
conditions, can provide another criteria. It is helpful if ordinances or agreements
specifically provide that that force majeure provisions and permissible data
adjustment conditions will be deemed to be in effect when weather conditions
meet NOAA or other emergency management agency weather definitions. If
references to these sources have not been incorporated into local ordinances or
agreements, these sources may still serve as a yardstick standard against which
to measure the assertion of a cable operator that the weather was so bad that
the operator should be permitted to adjust its call center performance data.
5.2.4.2 Excluding Data Generated After Normal Business Hours.
Cable system operator reports may or may not exclude data that occurs outside
of normal business hours. For instance, a service outage call at 2 AM may not
be as promptly answered as a similar call received during business hours; in
such cases, the cable operator usually will want to exclude the response to the 2
AM call from the operators monthly or quarterly report. Adjustments related to
"normal business hours" could be allowed, provided these hours are defined in
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 46
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
the ordinance or contained in the franchise agreement. However, in cases where
the ordinance or franchise agreement establishes after-hours remedies and
responses, or otherwise requires reporting of all data on a 24 hr/ 7 days-a-week
basis, operators should be expected to submit all appropriate data.
5.2.4.3 Cancellation of Pay-Per-View("PPV") Events.
Call centers may be negatively affected by an increase in call volume because of
the unexpected cancellation of one or more popular pay-per-view events. If the
cause of the cancellation is external and the cable operator does not contribute
to the decision, the adverse effect on call center performance may be excusable.
As always, before making a final determination about whether data adjustment
should be permitted, the LFA should acquaint itself with the causes of the
cancellation and how far in advance of the scheduled time of the PPV event the
operator knew of the cancellation.
LFAs should also consider the reasonableness of the steps the operator took to
prevent or ameliorate the adverse effect(s). A PPV event cancellation should be
distinguished from other effects on call volume that may result from the
promotion of a PPV event or other sales promotion. Because such promotional
campaigns generally are within the control of the cable operator, related poor call
center performance will usually not be excusable and will generally not justify
adjustment of call answering performance data reported to the LFA. This
distinction is supported by the FCC's customer service provision stating: "Those
conditions which are ordinarily within the control of the cable operator include,
but are not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases,
regular peak or seasonal demand periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the
cable system." See 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(4)(ii).
5.2.4.4 Telephone System and Power Outages.
An outage or malfunction in the telephone company's system or a related system
or component, or a power outage, may negatively affect call center performance.
For example, if half of the lines serving a particular call center are inoperative,
the volume of calls handled by the remainder should be expected to double. Or,
if an entire call center is taken off-line by a telephone or power outage, calls that
would normally be handled by that center may roll to another center, leading to
slower answer times, longer wait and transfer times and, potentially, increases in
busy signals and disconnections. Exclusion of diminished call answering
performance caused by telephone system outages may often be determined by
LFAs to be an allowable data adjustment. But a fact-specific inquiry into the
specific effect of the outage and if that effect could have or should have been
mitigated through better preventative maintenance, better trunk line capacity,
advance planning, availability of back-up power sources, call re-routing options,
and relevant factors, may need to be considered before determining that an
operator should be permitted to adjust data.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 47
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
5.2.4.5 System Malfunction Caused by External Force.
Cable systems may also be affected by traffic, construction or other forces, such
as the severance of a cable line during street construction or utility work, or when
an automobile accident brings down a cable-carrying utility pole. Data
adjustment may. often be justified under such mitigating circumstances.
However, as with other justifications that may be given, the LFA should require
full details about the incident in connection with any request to adjust data or to
excuse noncompliance with the LFA's standards.
5.2.4.6 Vandalism/Sabotage.
If a cable operator's plant or any other component of its system is sabotaged or
vandalized by an outside party or a rogue employee that purposely cuts an
operator's cable, the operator may experience an increase in calls to its customer
service center or call center from affected subscribers and may result in
diminished telephone answering performance. Alternatively, if the operator's call
center itself is sabotaged, call answering performance may be negatively
affected despite an unchanged call volume. But it may be relevant, both in
connection with a contemporaneous request to adjust data and in connection
with any future such request for similar reasons, to know what remedial and
preventive actions have been taken by the cable operator following such an
incident. For instance, in the case of the "rogue employee," the LFA should be
provided with full details of the investigation of the incident and any resultant
disciplinary action. Vandalization of the operator's plant or equipment may also
be a criminal act in many jurisdictions.
5.2.4.7 Labor Issues.
Adverse effects created by labor disturbances or strikes may merit data
adjustments. However, evaluating non-compliance under such circumstances
would likely be highly fact-specific.
5.2.4.8 Traffic and/or Right-of-Way Issues.
Traffic congestion and/or street closures typically would not merit a data
adjustment.
5.2.4.9 Provision of Broadband Services.
Increased call volume related to cable modem/ high speed data services typically
would not merit a data adjustment.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 48
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
5.2.4.10 Permitting and/or Licensing Delays.
An operator's delay in obtaining permits, licenses, etc., except when
governmental delays are unusually excessive and directly affect a cable
operator's telephone response performance, typically would not merit a data
adjustment.
5.2.4.11 Sunspots.
Sun spots may create service problems, but they are highly predictable and
staffing can be increased accordingly. Therefore, sunspots typically would not
merit a data adjustment.
5.2.5 Cable Operator Treatment of"Abandoned" Calls.
A call answered by an IVR may be abandoned by the customer before being connected
to a CSR, either because the customer's inquiry was satisfied by the IVR and became a
"good abandoned call", or because the customer became frustrated with the IVR or the
wait time and became a"bad abandoned call". Some cable operators' telephone reports
attempt to distinguish between these two types of abandoned calls. However, the ability
of operators or their IVRs to distinguish between "good abandons" and "bad abandons"
with a high level of accuracy may be questionable. Therefore, LFAs should determine
how their operators intend to treat abandoned calls in their telephone reports and
determine whether said treatment is acceptable.
5.2.6 Comparing LFA Data to Cable Operator Reports.
Anytime an LFA experiences a significant increase in resident complaints related to an
operator's telephone answering practices, the operator's compliance with the applicable
telephone standards should be examined. An increase in call volume of 5-10% or more
with respect to the number of complaints received by an LFA may be an appropriate
threshold justifying greater LFA monitoring or enforcement activity. In order to determine
whether such an increase in the level of complaints indicates a "clear failure to comply,"
those LFA representatives receiving the complaints should request from the
complainants all reasonably obtainable information related to compliance with the
franchise's telephone answering requirements. The more detailed the written notices
and records maintained by the LFA, the more likely the LFA will be successful in
enforcing the telephone answering standards.
5.2.6.1 Independent Verification of Reported Telephone Answering Data.
LFAs may also verify operator-reported call center response data by performing
sample calls to the cable system operator customer service telephone number
over a three-month quarterly reporting period. The following call verification
guidelines were developed with the assistance of Thomas O'Rourke, Ph.D.,
MPH, CHES, Professor Emeritus, Department of Community Health and College
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 49
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
of Medicine at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ideally, an LFA
should make 300 calls during the quarter (10 calls x 30 days = 300 calls);
nevertheless results will have a high degree of statistical validity if at least 200
calls per quarter are made (10 calls x 20 days = 200 calls). A.statistically valid
sample must meet the following criteria:
• Ideally, 300 calls per quarter, but at least 200 calls per quarter.
• Randomly select 20 to 30 days of a 3 month quarter as days on which calls
will be made.
• Make 10 calls per day.
• Make no more than 5 calls during any weekday morning. Make the other 5
calls during hours in which telephone answering standards are required to be
met.
• Make no more than 3 calls per hour.
• Allow at least 10 minutes between calls.
• Spread calls over several hours.
If an IVR is being used by the cable system operator, chose a prompt. Because
telephone answering standards typically do not vary based on the type of call,
such as billing, service outage, sales, or foreign language option, any prompt
may be selected. However, LFAs may find it useful to select each option offered
by the IVR at least one or two times per call day to identify such trends as billing
questions being answered much faster than service questions. Record the
following information about each call:
• Date.
• Day of the week.
• Time of day.
• Busy signal, if any.
• Time between the first ring and the connection to a CSR or IVR.
• If an IVR is used, record the prompt selected. If a CSR answers and must
transfer the call, record the type of inquiry requested by the LFA caller.
• Transfer time between connection to IVR and connection to CSR, or total
hold time between CSRs if no IVR is used.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 50
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Calculate the percentage of calls answered within 30 seconds and transferred
within 30 seconds according to the criteria set forth in the local franchise,
ordinance, or customer service standards. For example, under the FCC 90%/30
second telephone response standard, if at least 270 of 300 calls or 180 of 200
calls are answered within 30 seconds and transferred within 30 seconds, the
cable system operator has met the 90% compliance rate.
5.2.7 "Historical Record of Complaints."
47 C.F.R. 76.309(c)(1)(iii)states: "The operator will not be required to acquire equipment
or perform surveys to measure compliance with the telephone answering standards
above unless an historical record of complaints indicates a clear failure to comply."
However, the FCC standards do not define what it means to create a "historical record of
complaints" or any explanation as to how one proves that such complaints indicate a
"clear failure to comply."
Therefore, a prudent LFA will address in the franchise agreement or in a separate
customer service ordinance, how telephone answering complaints will be measured and
what standards will be used to determine compliance failures. In many cases, large
cable operators already have equipment in place to measure compliance with these
standards; therefore, no additional burden is placed on many operators by requiring
them to provide an LFA with monthly reports verifying compliance with telephone
answering standards. For smaller cable operators or cable operators operating in
regions where the call center is not presently equipped with such equipment, the LFA
may wish to clarify how many complaints will trigger a requirement mandating that the
operator obtain such equipment.
•
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 51
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
6. CABLE OPERATOR COMMUNICATIONS TO CUSTOMERS.
This section discusses the federal standards codified by the FCC in other Sections of 47 C.F.R.
which address cable operator communications affirmatively directed to customers such as
billing and rate information provided to subscribers. The FCC standards for certain types of
cable operator-generated written information available to customers but not affirmatively
directed to them such as, public inspection files in 47 C.F.R. Part 76, Subpart U, are not
addressed in this Handbook.
Although Section 6 includes text from 47 U.S.C. §551 pertaining to notices cable operators must
provide to customers regarding privacy rights, NATOA will address customer privacy rights
more comprehensively in future versions of the Customer Service Handbook. Many federal,
state, and local statutes, regulations, and other provisions not primarily directed to cable
television service also bear expressly or implicitly on cable operator communications directed to
customers. Such provisions may address, for example, fraud, truth-in-advertising, and false
business practices. Thus, LFAs may have authority under non-cable specific laws to address
cable operator communications to customers.
Finally, where effective competition exists, the FCC standards discussed in this section related
to rate regulation (specifically 47 C.F.R. §76.946, 47 C.F.R. §76.952, and 47 C.F.R. §76.985)
may not be applicable. However, if an LFA has adopted similar standards in a regulatory
ordinance or negotiated similar standards in a franchise agreement, those analogous standards
may very well apply.
6.1 CUSTOMER COMMUNICATIONS STANDARDS—BEST PRACTICES
Local and state governments have taken many steps to improve the effectiveness of
communications cable operators directed to customers. Among these steps is the adoption of
statutes or ordinances requiring that:
6.1.1 All Notices.
(a) The cable operator submit all customer notices, within the control of the operator
to the LFA so that the LFA may review and comment on the notices, prior to their
finalization and at a minimum fifteen (15) days prior to the notices being
transmitted to customers.
(b) The initial, annual, or upon request notices described in 47 C.F.R §76.1602
incorporate more comprehensive and/or detailed written information than the
information required by 47 C.F.R §76.1602.
(c) Cable operators report annually on their performance in meeting their customer
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 52
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
service standards and include these reports in initial and annual customer
notices.
(d) Customer notices be in a clear and conspicuous format and are printed in ten-
point type or larger.
(e) Certain customer information and materials be available in non-English
languages.
6.1.2 Construction-Related Notices.
(a) Prior to commencement of construction, the cable operator exercise its best
efforts to inform the residents of the nature and timetable for such construction
and provide residents with the procedures for filing complaints.
(b) (1) During cable system construction and upgrades or rebuilds, cable operators
provide affected persons with reasonable advance written notice, no less than 24
hours prior to commencing such activities; and (2) during such activities, all
construction personnel and equipment be clearly identified with the name and
telephone number of the cable operator and any pertinent subcontractor.
(c) Cable operators provide reasonable notice to property owners or legal tenants
prior to entering upon private premises with a notice specifying the work to be
performed, except in the case of an emergency involving public safety or service
interruption to a large number of customers.
6.1.3 Billing &Service Termination Notices.
(a) Cable service termination notices should contain specific information, including
the amount of the delinquency, the date by which payment is required in order to
avoid termination of cable service, and the telephone number of a cable operator
representative who can provide additional information concerning the service and
charges in question.
(b) Cable television late fees not be imposed unless customers first receive a written
notice at least ten (10) days prior to the date a fee is imposed, stating that a late
fee will be imposed if a customer's delinquency is not paid and specifying the
date on or after which a late fee will be charged.
6.1.4 Identification and Installation/Service Repair Notices.
(a) All cable operator officers, agents, and employees, contractors, and
subcontractors who are in personal contact with customers, have visible City-
approved identification cards bearing their name and photograph.
(b) Where a cable operator's representative realizes that he or she cannot timely
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 53
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
execute an installation or service appointment, the representative shall attempt to
expeditiously notify the customer of this failure.
6.2 CABLE OPERATOR COMMUNICATIONS TO CUSTOMERS -RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to adopting the above statutory and ordinance provisions, LFAs can take other steps
to educate themselves about the written communications that cable operators are disseminating
to customers. Steps which allow LFAs to discover errors in these communications and require
that cable operators take corrective action include:
(a) Requiring that cable operators provide to LFAs generic copies of all standard documents
that customers receive in the normal course of business. Standard documents include
service termination notices and all installation package documents, such as work orders.
Reviews of these documents may lead to discoveries of boilerplate or other language
that is inconsistent with the applicable franchise agreement or applicable law.
(b) Requiring that cable operators provide LFAs with sample monthly bills and copies of
associated bill inserts received by customers on a monthly basis.
(c) Reviewing cable operator Websites to determine whether the information conveyed by
the Websites is accurate and is otherwise consistent with franchise and statutory
requirements.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 54
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Additional Information
The following are examples of some, but not all, of the provisions of the Code of Federal
Regulations and United States Code that address cable operator-generated written information.
47 C.F.R §76.802(b) Disposition of cable home wiring
47 C.F.R §76.946 Advertising of rates
47 C.F.R §76.952 Information to be provided by cable operator on monthly subscriber
bills
47 C.F.R §76.985 Subscriber bill itemization
47 C.F.R §76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals
47 C.F.R §76.1602 Customer service-general information
47 C.F.R§76.1603 Customer service-rate and service changes
47 C.F.R §76.1604 Charges for customer service changes
47 C.F.R §76.1618 Basic tier availability
47 C.F.R §76.1619(a) Information on subscriber bills
47 C.F.R §76.1620 Availability of signals
47 C.F.R §76.1621 Equipment compatibility offer
47 C.F.R §76.1622 Consumer education program on compatibility
47 C.F.R §76.1700 Records to be maintained by cable system operators
47 U.S.C. §544(d)(3) Cable Service Unprotected by Constitution
47 U.S.C. §544(h)(2) Programming Changes
47 U.S.C. §551(a)(1) Notice to subscriber; "personally identifiable information"defined
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 55
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
Code of Federal Regulations- Cable Related Sections
47 C.F.R§76.802(b) Disposition of cable home wiring
(b) During the initial telephone call in which a subscriber contacts a cable
operator to voluntarily terminate cable service, the cable operator--if it owns and
intends to remove the home wiring--must inform the subscriber:
(1) That the cable operator owns the home wiring;
(2) That the cable operator intends to remove the home wiring;
(3) That the subscriber has the right to purchase the home wiring; and
(4) What the per-foot replacement cost and total charge for the wiring
would be (the total charge may be based on either the actual
length of cable wiring and the actual number of passive splitters
on the customer's side of the demarcation point, or a reasonable
approximation thereof; in either event, the information necessary
for calculating the total charge must be available for use during
the initial phone call).
47 C.F.R§76.946 Advertising of rates
Cable operators that advertise rates for basic service and cable programming
service tiers shall be required to advertise rates that include all costs and fees.
Cable systems that cover multiple franchise areas having differing franchise fees
or other franchise costs, different channel line-ups, or different rate structures
may advertise a complete range of fees without specific identification of the rate
for each individual area. In such circumstances, the operator may advertise a
"fee plus" rate that indicates the core rate plus the range of possible additions,
depending on the particular location of the subscriber.
47 C.F.R§76.952 Information to be provided by cable operator on monthly
subscriber bills
All cable operators must provide the following information to subscribers on
monthly bills:
(a) The name, mailing address and phone number of the franchise authority
unless the franchising authority is writing requests the cable operator to
omit such information;
(b) The FCC community unit identifier for the cable system
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 56
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
47 C.F.R§76.985 Subscriber bill itemization
(a) Cable operators may identify as a separate line item of each regular
subscriber bill the following:
(1) The amount of the total bill assessed as a franchise fee and the
identity of the franchising authority to which the fee is paid.
(2) The amount of the total bill assessed to satisfy any requirements
imposed on the cable operator by the franchise agreement to support
public, educational, or governmental channels or the use of such
channels.
(3) The amount of any other fee, tax, assessment, or charge of any
kind imposed by any governmental authority on the transaction between
the operator and the subscriber. In order for a governmental fee or
assessment to be separately identified under this section, it must be
directly imposed by a governmental body on a transaction between a
subscriber and an operator.
(b) The charge identified on the subscriber bill as the total charge for cable
service should include all fees and costs itemized pursuant to this section.
(c) Local franchising authorities may adopt regulations consistent with this
section.
47 C.F.R§76.1601 Deletion or repositioning of broadcast signals
Effective April 2, 1993, a cable operator shall provide written notice to any
broadcast television station at least 30 days prior to either deleting from carriage
or repositioning that station. Such notification shall also be provided to
subscribers of the cable system.
47 C.F.R§76.1602 Customer service-general information
(a) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section against cable operators. The franchise
authority must provide affected cable operators 90 days written notice of its intent
to enforce standards.
(b) Effective July 1, 1993, the cable operator shall provide written information
on each of the following areas at the time of installation of service, at least
annually to all subscribers, and at any time upon request:
(1) Products and services offered;
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 57
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(2) Prices and options for programming services and conditions of
subscription to programming and other services;
(3) Installation and service maintenance policies;
(4) Instructions on how to use the cable service;
(5) Channel positions of programming carried on the system; and
(6) Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and
telephone number of the local franchise authority's cable office.
(c) Subscribers shall be advised of the procedures for resolution of
complaints about the quality of the television signal delivered by the cable
system operator, including the address of the responsible officer of the
local franchising authority.
47 C.F.R§76.1603 Customer service-rate and service changes
(a) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards
set forth in paragraph (b) of this section against cable operators. The
franchise authority must provide affected cable operators 90 days written
notice of its intent to enforce standards.
(b) Customers will be notified of any changes in rates, programming services
or channel positions as soon as possible in writing. Notice must be given
to subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of such changes
if the change is within the control of the cable operator. In addition, the
cable operator shall notify subscribers 30 days in advance of any
significant changes in the other information required by§76.1602.
(c) In addition to the requirement of paragraph (b) of this section regarding
advance notification to customers of any changes in rates, programming
services or channel positions, cable systems shall give 30 days written
notice to both subscribers and local franchising authorities before
implementing any rate or service change. Such notice shall state the
precise amount of any rate change and briefly explain in readily
understandable fashion the cause of the rate change (e.g., inflation,
change in external costs or the addition/deletion of channels). When the
change involves the addition or deletion of channels, each channel added
or deleted must be separately identified. For purposes of the carriage of
digital broadcast signals, the operator need only identify for subscribers,
the television signal added and not whether that signal may be
multiplexed during certain departs.
(d) A cable operator shall provide written notice to a subscriber of any
increase in the price to be charged for the basic service tier or associated
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 58
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
equipment at least 30 days before any proposed increase is effective.
The notice should include the name and address of the local franchising
authority.
(e) To the extent the operator is required to provide notice of service and rate
changes to subscribers, the operator may provide such notice using any
reasonable written means at its sole discretion. [Note: When the FCC
adopted 47 C.F.R. §76.964 in 1996, the FCC stated: "[Customer notices
concerning service and rate changes] provided through written
announcements on the cable system or in the newspaper will be
presumed sufficient. . . . We will address any disputes that may arise in
this area on a case-by-case basis."]
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of part 76 of this chapter, a cable
operator shall not be required to provide prior notice of any rate change
that is the result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, or any other fee, tax,
assessment, or charge of any kind imposed by any Federal agency,
State, or franchising authority on the transaction between the operator
and the subscriber.
47 C.F.R§76.1604 Charges for customer service changes
If a cable operator establishes a higher charge for changes effected solely by
coded entry on a computer terminal or by other similarly simple methods, as
provided in § 76.980(d), the cable system must notify all subscribers in writing
that they may be subject to such a charge for changing service tiers more than
the specified number of times in any 12 month period.
47 C.F.R§76.1618 Basic tier availability
A cable operator shall provide written notification to subscribers of the availability
of basic tier service to new subscribers at the time of installation. This notification
shall include the following information:
(a) That basic tier service is available;
(b) The cost per month for basic tier service;
(c) A list of all services included in the basic service tier.
47 C.F.R§76.1619(a) Information on subscriber bills
Effective July 1, 1993, bills must be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must
be fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and
premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly delineate
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 59
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
all activity during the billing period, including optional charges, rebates and
credits.
47 C.F.R§76.1620 Availability of signals
If a cable operator authorizes subscribers to install additional receiver
connections, but does not provide the subscriber with such connections, or with
the equipment and materials for such connections, the operator shall notify such
subscribers of all broadcast stations carried on the cable system which cannot be
viewed via cable without a converter box and shall offer to sell or lease such a
converter box to such subscribers. Such notification must be provided by June 2,
1993, and annually thereafter and to each new subscriber upon initial installation.
The notice, which may be included in routine billing statements, shall identify the
signals that are unavailable without an additional connection, the manner for
obtaining such additional connection and instructions for installation.
47 C.F.R§76.1621 Equipment compatibility offer
Cable system operators that use scrambling, encryption or similar technologies in
conjunction with cable system terminal devices, as defined in § 15.3(e)of this
chapter, that may affect subscribers' reception of signals shall offer to supply
each subscriber with special equipment that will enable the simultaneous
reception of multiple signals. The equipment offered shall include a single
terminal device with dual descramblers/decoders and/or timers and bypass
switches. Other equipment, such as two independent set-top terminal devices
may be offered at the same time that the single terminal device with dual
tuners/descramblers is offered. For purposes of this rule, two set-top devices
linked by a control system that provides functionality equivalent to that of a single
device with dual descramblers is considered to be the same as a terminal device
with dual descramblers/decoders.
(a) The offer of special equipment shall be made to new subscribers at the
time they subscribe and to all subscribers at least once each year. . . .
47 C.F.R§76.1622 Consumer education program on compatibility
Cable system operators shall provide a consumer education program on
compatibility matters to their subscribers in writing, as follows:
(a)The consumer information program shall be provided to subscribers at the time they
first subscribe and at least once a year thereafter. Cable operators may choose the time
and means by which they comply with the annual consumer information requirement.
This requirement may be satisfied by a once-a-year mailing to all subscribers. The
information may be included in one of the cable system's regular subscriber billings.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 60
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(b)The consumer information program shall include the following information:
(1) Cable system operators shall inform their subscribers that some models of TV
receivers and videocassette recorders may not be able to receive all of the channels
offered by the cable system when connected directly to the cable system. In
conjunction with this information, cable system operators shall briefly explain, the
types of channel compatibility problems that could occur if subscribers connected their
equipment directly to the cable system and offer suggestions for resolving those
problems. Such suggestions could include, for example, the use of a cable system
terminal device such as a set-top channel converter. Cable system operators shall
also indicate that channel compatibility problems associated with reception of
programming that is not scrambled or encrypted programming could be resolved
through use of simple converter devices without descrambling or decryption
capabilities that can be obtained from either the cable system or a third party retail
vendor.
(2) In cases where service is received through a cable system terminal device, cable
system operators shall indicate that subscribers may not be able to use special
features and functions of their TV receivers and videocassette recorders, including
features that allow the subscriber to: view a program on one channel while
simultaneously recording a program on another channel; record two or more
consecutive programs that appear on different channels; and, use advanced picture
generation and display features such as "Picture-in-Picture," channel review and
other functions that necessitate channel selection by the consumer device.
(3) In cases where cable system operators offer remote control capability with cable
system terminal devices and other customer premises equipment that is provided to
subscribers, they shall advise their subscribers that remote control units that are
compatible with that equipment may be obtained from other sources, such as retail
outlets. Cable system operators shall also provide a representative list of the models
of remote control units currently available from retailers that are compatible with the
customer premises equipment they employ. Cable system operators are required to
make a good faith effort in compiling this list and will not be liable for inadvertent
omissions. This list shall be current as of no more than six months before the date the
consumer education program is distributed to subscribers. Cable operators are also
required to encourage subscribers to contact the cable operator to inquire about
whether a particular remote control unit the subscriber might be considering for
purchase would be compatible with the subscriber's customer premises equipment.
47 C.F.R§76.1700 Records to be maintained by cable system operators.
(a) Recordkeeping requirements. The operator of every cable television system having
fewer than 1,000 subscribers is exempt from the public inspection requirements
contained in Sec. 76.1701 (political file); Sec. 76.1715 (sponsorship identification);
Sec. 76.1702 (EEO records available for public inspection); Sec. 76.1703
(commercial records for children's programming); Sec. 76.1704 (proof-of-performance
test data); and Sec. 76.1706 (signal leakage logs and repair records). The operator of
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 61
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
every cable television system having 1000 or more subscribers but fewer than 5000
subscribers shall, upon request, provide the information required by Sec. 76.1715
(sponsorship identification); Sec. 76.1702 (EEO records available for public
inspection); Sec. 76.1703 (commercial records for children's programming); Sec.
76.1704 (proof-of-performance test data); and Sec. 76.1706 (signal leakage logs and
repair records) but shall maintain for public inspection a file containing a copy of all
records required to be kept by Sec. 76.1701 (political file). The operator of every cable
television system having 5000 or more subscribers shall maintain for public inspection
a file containing a copy of all records which are required to be kept by Sec. 76.1701
(political file); Sec. 76.1715 (sponsorship identification); Sec. 76.1702 (EEO records
available for public inspection); Sec. 76.1703 (commercial records for children's
programming); Sec. 76.1704 (proof-of-performance test data); and Sec. 76.1706
(signal leakage logs and repair records).
(1)-(2) [Reserved]
(b) Location of records. The public inspection file shall be maintained at the office
which the system operator maintains for the ordinary collection of subscriber charges,
resolution of subscriber complaints, and other business or at any accessible place in
the community served by the system unit(s) (such as a public registry for documents
or an attorney's office). The public inspection file shall be available for public
inspection at any time during regular business hours.
(c)All or part of the public inspection file may be maintained in a computer database,
as long as a computer terminal is made available, at the location of the file, to
members of the public who wish to review the file.
(d)The records specified in paragraph (a) of this section shall be retained for the
period specified in Sec. Sec. 76.1701, 76.1702, 76.1704(a), and 76.1706,
respectively.
(e) Reproduction of records. Copies of any material in the public inspection file shall be
available for machine reproduction upon request made in person, provided the
requesting party shall pay the reasonable cost of reproduction. Requests for machine
copies shall be fulfilled at a location specified by the system operator, within a
reasonable period of time, which in no event shall be longer than seven days. The
system operator is not required to honor requests made by mail but may do so if it
chooses.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 62
•
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
UNITED STATES CODE
47. U.S.C. §544(d)(3)(a-B): Premium channels
(A) If a cable operator provides a premium channel without charge to cable
subscribers who do not subscribe to such premium channel, the cable operator
shall, not later than 30 days before such premium channel is provided without
charge--
(i) notify all cable subscribers that the cable operator plans to provide
a premium channel without charge;
(ii) notify all cable subscribers when the cable operator plans to offer
a premium channel without charge;
(iii) notify all cable subscribers that they have a right to request that
the channel carrying the premium channel be blocked; and
(iv) block the channel carrying the premium channel upon the request
of a subscriber.
(B) For the purpose of this section, the term "premium channel" shall mean
any pay service offered on a per channel or per program basis, which offers
movies rated by the Motion Picture Association of America as X, NC-17, or R.
47 U.S.C. §544(h)(2) Programming changes
(h) A franchising authority may require a cable operator to do any one or
more of the following:
(2) Inform subscribers, via written notice, that comments on
programming and channel position changes are being recorded by
a designated office of the franchising authority.
47 U.S.C. §551(a)(1) Protection of Subscriber Privacy(Subscriber Notices)
(1) At the time of entering into an agreement to provide any cable service or other
service to a subscriber and at least once a year thereafter, a cable operator shall
provide notice in the form of a separate, written statement to such subscriber
which clearly and conspicuously informs the subscriber of--
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 63
I
NATOA Customer Service Handbook version 2.0—Best Practices-Last Updated: December 2004
(A) the nature of personally identifiable information collected or to be.
collected with respect to the subscriber and the nature of the use of such
information;
(B) the nature, frequency, and purpose of any disclosure which may be made
of such information, including an identification of the types of persons to
whom the disclosure may be made;
(C) the period during which such information will be maintained by the cable
operator;
(D) the times and place at which the subscriber may have access to such
information in accordance with subsection (d)of this section; and
(E) the limitations provided by this section with respect to the collection and
disclosure of information by a cable operator and the right of the
subscriber under subsections (f) and (h) of this section to enforce such
limitations.
In the case of subscribers who have entered into such an agreement before the
effective date of this section, such notice shall be provided within 180 days of
such date and at least once a year thereafter.
©2004 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors Page 64
n egis a ive
1
ASSOCIATION
CiTiE°S B U L L E T I N
Volume 29,Interim No. I • May 19,2006
From the Director
Congressional Action on Telecommunication Bill
Over the past several months,activities and discussions on The bill would also allow providers of broadband-video
the federal telecommunications issues have heated up.The service,through a national franchise,to use the public
House of Representatives is scheduled to vote on federal rights-of-way in a community,but pick and choose which
telecommunications legislation any time now and there is neighborhoods they wish to serve while bypassing others.
plenty at stake for cities.As technology changes and there The bill would even allow broadband/video providers to avoid
is an increased reliance on the Internet,local governments maintaining or upgrading facilities in poorer neighborhoods
are concerned with the preservation of a fair and effective while affluent neighborhoods receive cutting-edge services and
universal service program,as well as meeting our obligations lower prices.
for managing the public's investment in rights-of-way,cable The latest we hear is that the COPE bill won't be on the
customer service,land use,and public safety matters.The House floor until May 25.In addition to cities and other local
interoperablity of critical equipment and effective use of the governments,the police unions are now very engaged and are
public safety spectrum are crucial communications tools for trying to slow down the bill.The House Judiciary Committee is
our first responders to protect our cities. now asking for a referral of the bill before it goes to the floor
AWC has been working with the National League of -- this will slow it down further.However,it is still an uphill
Cities (NLC) to urge local government officials to contact battle.
their Representatives and ask that they"Vote No",on the Congressional members need to hear from city officials now.
Communications,Opportunity,Promotion,and Enhancement Please contact them by mail,email,or phone and express your
Act of 2006 (COPE/ Barton-Rush) Bill. concerns with this legislation.NLC has crafted a template that
The bill would"federalize" local government video/cable can be used to personalize this issue for your city.To view this
franchising,potentially limit the benefits of broadband-video template and for more specifics on how to take action,please
competition to more affluent neighborhoods,and more see our website at www.awcnet.org/telecom.
importantly,undermine the ability of local governments to ,
protect consumers and manage public rights-of-way. AWC 5 Annual Conference
This year's Annual Conference will be held in Spokane from
More specifically,the bill would strip local governments of June 20-23.We've listened to our member's suggestions and
our authority to franchise the use of rights-of-way for video/ will offer a myriad of workshops to respond to city needs,
cable services and provide that authority to the Federal ranging from communicating with your citizens to public/
Communications Commission (FCC) in Washington,D.C.It is private partnerships that promote economic development.In
important to note that the FCC has never had the authority addition,more time for networking is also on the agenda.
to regulate local public rights-of-way and has no expertise
To find out more details and register for this event,please see
concerning local streets,sidewalks,or public safety.
www.awcnet.org/awcconference.
The COPE bill would give the FCC the authority to oversee
and second-guess all local rights-of-way management practices Table of Contents
and all customer service issues.Incidents occurring in Energy&Telecommunications 2
local rights-of-way are public safety concerns and must be Environment&Water 3
addressed immediately and locally.This bill would completely General Local Government 3
ignore the reality that the FCC is not able to respond in a Land Use& Housing 4
timely manner to these rights-of-way concerns.The FCC Law&Justice 6
does not have the resources to handle customer complaints Municipal Finance& Economic Development 7
nationwide,and local governments are far better situated to Personnel & Labor Relations 9
respond to residents' complaints. Transportation &Infrastructure 10
1076 Franklin St SE • Ol mpia, WA 98501-1346 • 360-753-4137 • 1-800-562-8981 • Fax 360-753-0149 • www.awcnet.org
energy & telecommunications
Small Renewable Tax Incentives Energy Security Initiative Gathers
The Department of Revenue is holding Signatures
two public hearings and taking written Supporters of a renewable energy
comments this month on their new initiative are a third of the way along
rule which will put into place a tax in gathering the requisite number of
incentive for customer generators of signatures to put this initiative on
small renewable generation systems. the ballot in November.The initiative
If municipal electric utilities have sponsors have gathered 100,000
customers that generate their own signatures so far,and their goal is to
power,the customer may be eligible for turn in about 300,000 by the July 7
a tax incentive from the Department deadline.
of Revenue (DOR),as specified in In a nutshell,Initiative 937 will require
SB 5101,which passed in 2005.It is electric utilities to get 15 percent of
most likely to be a small solar system their power from conservation or
that would qualify for this incentive, renewable resources,such as wind and
although wind generation and anaerobic solar,by 2020.Utilities that don't meet
digesters will also qualify as a renewable the target would pay penalties to the
generation system.Anyone individual, state.It affects electric utilities that
business or local government(light and serve more than 25,000 customers,so
power utilities do not qualify),that has it would apply to Seattle City Light and
a system with a revenue grade meter as Tacoma Power.The other 15 municipal
of August 2005 will be eligible for the electric utilities have fewer than 25,000
incentive payment. customers.However,any utility that hits
If municipal electric utilities have any that customer mark in the future will
customer-generators that may be need to ramp up and comply.In addition,
eligible,cities should at review the DOR if the renewable power costs cause
rules to find out how it will affect the the utility to increase rates more than
utility.Many of the smaller municipal 4 percent,the renewable requirement
electric utilities probably do not have would be waived.
any of these customers at this time. There is mixed support for this
However,this tax incentive will be initiative.The Washington PUD
available each calendar year,from 2006 Association has come out in support of
through 2014. the initiative and so has the Mayor of
AWC staff has additional information Seattle.Some members of the business
about this rule-making process and community and some utilities do not
the incentive program.Please contact support the initiative.For further details
Victoria Lincoln at victorial@awcnet.org about the initiative,visit the Secretary of
or Sheri Sawyer at sheris@awcnet.org State's website,www.secstate.wa.gov/
further details. elections.
AWC Legislative Bulletin—Copyright©2006 Association of Washington Cities.All rights reserved.
2 AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
environment & water
Ecology Accepts Comments on AWC is asking that DOE continue listen to our concerns and suggestions
Proposed Municipal Stormwater consultations with impacted cities and and hope a final permit applicable in
Permits others following the public comment Eastern and Western Washington will
On May 19,2006,the Department of period.Because we anticipate that there be something that cities can successfully
Ecology(DOE) closes the window will be conditions in the permit that implement.
for comments on the draft Municipal exceed minimum federal standards,we A number of cities remain concerned
Stormwater (NPDES Phase II) permits. think it's appropriate that the Legislature that there are major issues with the
The permits are required under be given an opportunity to hear about permit that will lead to extended
provisions of the Federal Clean Water and consider those differences which appeals and delay in implementation of
Act.DOE is the state's designated will have programmatic and fiscal the permit provisions,if not addressed.
enforcer of these sections of law. impacts on implementing cities.It's It is essential that management
unlikely that can be accomplished by techniques and program components
Drafts have been out and available for year's end.
review and discussion at workshops in included in the NPDES Phase II
both Eastern and Western Washington AWC has consulted with a number of permit should be cost effective as well
-the permits differ based upon climactic impacted cities as this permit draft has as attainable.We are finalizing our
and hydrological differences.Following been developed and considered.We comment letter which will be posted
receipt and consideration of comments, have consulted with other interests on our website by early in the week of
DOE was expected to issue permits and have held a number of meetings May 22.For more information,please
impacting close to 100 cities by early fall with DOE officials - most recently contact Dave Williams at AWC.
of 2006.Indications are now that this with its Director,Jay Manning.We are
date may be postponed somewhat. appreciative of DOE's willingness to
general local government
Initiatives and the Elected Official a complete list of all initiatives filed listened to a presentation on the
Did you know there have been more with the Secretary of State,visit www. Citizen's Initiative Review (CIR)
than 30 initiatives filed this year,with secstate.wa.gov/elections. proposal.This proposal is designed to
each sponsor group gathering signatures What are the rules for local elected bring more detailed information to the
right now to garner a spot on the officials and city staff when it comes voters on initiatives after they have
been certified to appear on the ballot.
November ballot?A number of the to discussing and debating the impact The process would pull together 24
initiatives would have an impact on of various initiatives?AWC will hold a randomly-selected citizens to take an in-
city government,should they make the workshop on this subject at the annual
ballot and get approved by a majority of conference in Spokane June 22 titled depth look at each initiative and publish
voters.These initiatives would include: "EducatingYour Community on Initiative their findings in the Voter's Pamphlet for
• Land Use:I-933
Issues".A representative of the Public all voters to see.
Disclosure Commission will be on hand Last year,the AWC Board voted to
• Transportation:1-9 17 to cover the do's and don'ts for elected endorse the CIR program as a way of
• Sex Offenders:I-92I,1-936,1-938,and officials and city employees.With all shining more light on the details and
1-939 these issues on the ballot,you will want impacts of initiatives on government
to know the rules! operations.The CIR proponents
• Energy:1-937 listened to suggestions from the State
For a more information on these Citizens Initiative Review Government Committee members of
initiatives,please see our website at The House State Government& ways to improve the program,with
www.awcnet.org/initiatives.For Operations Committee this week the tentative plan to bring a bill to the
legislature in 2007.
AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006 3
land use & housing
City Land Use Authorities • If applying or enforcing existing Frequently asked questions:
Under Attack regulations would decease to
any extent the value of property, How does 1-933 affect current
The Washington State Farm Bureau is zoning and regulations adopted
circulating petitions to gather sufficient government must pay for decrease under the Growth Management
signatures to place their Property or not apply or enforce. Act (GMA)?
Rights Initiative (1-933) on the ballot How this all works,which regulations It prohibits adoption of any new GMA
this fall.For full text,please visit are included and how it applies to regulations that don't allow a use that
www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/ new as compared to already in place has been permitted in the past.A city
initiatives/text/i933.pdf.They have regulations is not clear—in part because can't adopt a new,more restrictive use
until July 7 to collect at least 225,000 provisions apply retroactively in several and then pay for it.
valid signatures. instances.To many legal and land use
interests,I-933's language is considered How are critical area regulations
Proponents (www.propertyfairness. 'impacted?
vague and ambiguous.If it is adopted,
com/) and opponents (www. • Cities or counties can't enforce
protectcommunities.org) have the courts likely will define its scope.
critical area regulations adopted after
begun to characterize their positions Initiative overview: January I, 1996 that impose greater
-and each other's. restrictions on the property without
• Consideration of Impact:Before
AWC is nearing completion of our own adopting a regulation or ordinance first compensating property owners
somewhat detailed analysis of what it for any decline in use.
Y that may impact private property
does or doesn't do.Please look at our values,local governments must • Regulations tied to the environment,
website right before Memorial Day evaluate an array of issues,including like prohibiting development in
weekend where it can be found within reason for the regulation,impact, wetlands,steep slopes or buffers
our listing of potential initiatives - less restrict alternatives,and around streams,no matter when
www.awcnet.org/initiatives. compensation. they were adopted,can't be enforced
The following is a general description • Redefines"damage"to include without compensation.
of 1-933,an overview of what it includes prohibiting or restricting uses that • 1-933 includes a list of regulations
and answers to some questions that were legal as of January I, 1996. exempted from compensation,
have arisen by those that have studied it: including a regulation that prevents
• Applies to both real and personal
an immediate threat to health and
What would 1-933 require state property.
safety.
and local governments to do? • Requires compensation in advance
The initiative fundamentally impacts of enforcing a regulation that results What is an immediate threat?
how the state,cities and counties in"damaging the use or value of Unsure.A direct discharge that
regulate land use.The basic idea is that: property" contaminates drinking water probably
Prior to adopting regulations that qualifies.Courts likely would have
• P g g Local governments can avoid liability to determine what constitutes an
limit the use of private property, byrefrainingfrom takinga regulatory
"immediate"threat—for instance
alternatives should be considered action.
and impacts determined on specific whether or not locating structures in a
properties; • No fees for seeking waivers.Can't I00-year flood would qualify.
charge applicants a fee when
• If proposed regulations decrease determining whether the local or
values—no matter how small, state government should grant a continued
government shouldn't impose them variance or waiver to avoid liability.
or must pay;and
• Development regulations adopted
under GMA can't prohibit existing,
legal uses.
4 AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
What other regulations are In what cases would the state be Cities Eligible For
exempt? liable instead of cities? Deferral of GMA Updates
This is one of the most debated If regulation is completely local,the 114 smaller cities and towns were made
questions.I-933 language exempts state isn't liable.It might have some eligible to defer local GMA updates for
several regulations if they're"applied compensation liability if a local law is up to three years based upon passage
equally"within a jurisdiction.It isn't adopted due to a state requirement of SSB 6427 during this past legislative
known what that means.Zoning (such as under the Shorelines session.Letters to eligible cities have
regulations exist in large part to Management Act,but not necessarily been sent by CTED reminding them
differentiate between allowed or the Growth ManagementAct).This isn't of this opportunity and asking to be
restricted uses within different parts clear in the Initiative. informed if the deferral will be taken
of a community.For instance,building
height limits vary from one part of Could a city choose to waive a advantage of.
town to another.Would having differing regulation instead of paying? It's important that eligible cities respond
height limits in within residential and It appears a city can waive a regulation so CTED can plan for how to allocate
commercial zone require compensation? to avoid compensation.However,it's not or shift state planning grant funds that
clear if 1-933 grants this waiver authority have been set aside from these updates.
What are the regulations that or whether the city must already have If those eligible need assistance or have
may damage use or value of this authority.It also isn't clear what questions,please feel free to contact
private property? additional liability waivers might create. Dave Williams at AWC.
The list is very broad,and the list is not
exclusive. Does the initiative impact
eminent domain?
How does this apply to new cities No,1-933 does not address eminent
incorporated after 1996? domain except in the initiative's intent
1-933 impacts cities incorporated since session which has no legal operative
January 1, 1996 differently than"older" effect.
ones.Basically the Initiative affects any
regulations that are more restrictive
than those that existed before January
I, I996.Those cities incorporating after
then would have to revisit all their
regulations and couldn't apply,without
compensation,those regulations that
are more restrictive than those that
were in place before incorporation.
AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006 5
law & justice
Next Steps with Sex Offender Court Contracting Case to be offenders are very limited.Last year,
Legislation (SSB 6775) Heard Before the Supreme Court more than 42,000 vehicles were stolen
The 2006 Legislature passed SSB 6775, in Mid-June in Washington.Estimates are that the
creating the crime of criminal trespass The State Supreme Court unexpectedly yearly cost of auto theft to residents,
against a child.The law allows public relieved the court of appeals from businesses,and governmental entities
entities to prohibit certain level II or III consideration of Medina v Primm—the exceeds $238 million.
sex offenders who have offended against case that will ultimately decide if cities Because auto theft if a felony offense,
a child,from facilities where children have the authority to contract together counties—not cities—must file the
gather.Examples of those facilities may for court services.It is now scheduled charges.Unfortunately,these crimes
be a community center,public pool or for oral arguments the week of June compete with violent offenses like
park. I 2.Thirty three cities currently provide rape or murder for scarce prosecutor
court services in this manner,relying and court resources.So,theyoften go
The City of Bellevue,with help and on authority granted in the interlocal
support from the Attorney General's uncharged.
agreement statute to do so.
office,is developing draft procedures, Interested stakeholders,including some
notification letters,and policies to Liability for Offender Supervision cities,law enforcement,and prosecutors
properly implement this law.AWC is beginning are to look toward the 2007
Though none of the proposals regarding
convening a broader stakeholder group limits on governmental liability passed Session for assistance in curbing auto
to provide input on the draft.The in the 2006 Legislature,considerable thefts.As with any criminal justice
intent is to ensure cities that wish to interest was shown regarding a narrow enhancement,additional resources for
implement the law have the necessary enforcement,prosecution,adjudication,
tools to do it well.Those are intended fix to liability for supervision of third 1
parties—including offenders under . and incarceration would be needed to
to be made available during the AWC community supervision.AWC has effectively deal with this issue.Look for
Annual Conference in June. developed a list of different approaches more information about how you can
SSB 6775 is very specifically tailored to the issue of governmental liability, get involved in a legislative fix for this
to apply only to certain sex offenders, and has begun reaching out to other issue in 2007.
and requires actual notice to be given interested stakeholders.Our hope is to
to covered offenders prior to expelling develop support on a unified approach Recidivism Task Force Holds
them from a facility.A careful balance well before the start of the 2007 Planning Meetings
between protecting children and Session. Preliminary planning meetings have
recognizing the constitutional rights of begun for the Joint Task Force on
every person,including sex offenders, Auto Theft Offenders Programs,Sentencing&
must be maintained if this law is to Washington ranks fourth in the nation Supervision created by SSB 6308 in
withstand the court challenges expected in the number of vehicles stolen per preparation for the convening of the
as implementation occurs. capita,yet resources for making arrests, full task force later this summer.AWC
pursuing convictions,and punishing will be participating with the task force
and following the issues considered
for recommendation to the 2007
Legislature.
6 AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
municipal finance &
economic development
Streamlined Sales Tax(SST) Tribal Tax Work Group Hotel/Motel Taxes
The 2006 legislation included language On May I,the first meeting of the The Attorney General has recently
outlining a study of the"warehousing Governor's Tribal Tax Work Group met. released an Opinion outlining
issues including future fiscal impacts" The group was formed to continue appropriate expenditures of Hotel/
associated with the SST agreement. discussions that began at the Centennial Motel tax proceeds.The opinion
Although the bill did not pass and Accord with the state's tribes last mirrors a previous Attorney General's
the study is not mandated,we have November. Opinion regarding the limitation of the
contacted the Directors of the AWC was invited to participate in appropriate uses and calls into question
Departments of Revenue (DOR) the work group with the county how some cities spend these proceeds.
and Community,Trade and Economic association,a number of state agencies, We are in the process of working with
Development(CTED) about moving and representatives from the state's the Attorney General and State Auditor
forward with the study.Those two 29 federally recognized tribes.Led by to clarify the Opinion.We don't expect
agencies would have taken the lead on Tom Fitzsimmons,the Governor's Chief significant changes from the Opinion
the study if the bill passed.They have of Staff,the group was invited to lay but want to provide you specific
agreed to move forward with the study out issues,which included discussion information on what the Auditors will
and have asked AWC,the counties and regarding overlapping tax jurisdictions, be looking for during the audit process.
potentially others to help refine the services,and funding needs,and discuss We hope to have this information to
study. a process on how to address them. you within the next month.We also
We have yet to meet but expect to The next meeting is scheduled for June expect the AWC Legislative Committee
soon.The study will be of particular 8,from 2—5 pm at the Little Creek to review the need for legislation in
interest to cities that have zoned but Casino and Hotel in Shelton.The agenda regards to how this revenue source may
not yet developed"retail warehouse" will include a presentation to educate be spent.Please contact Jim Justin or
land. the group on each government's taxing Sheila Gall if you have any questions on
AWC has a good email list of those authority and the services that are this issue.
cities interested in the SST issue and supported by those taxes.
will use this email list and other forums continued
to keep city officials informed of the
study.Please contact Jim Justin or Sheila
Gall if you have any questions on this
issue.
AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006 7
Municipal Finance (continued)
Department of Licensing to State Auditor Meets with Cities
Hold Meetings with Cities to Get Feedback on the State's
with Employee-based Business Required Budgeting,Accounting
Licenses and Reporting System (BARS)
A number of cities with employee-based The State Auditor has planned
business license fees have expressed several meetings around the state
interest in partnering with Department to discuss the usability of the state's
of Licensing's (DOL's) master business required accounting system for local
license service to offer city business governments and to brainstorm
licenses.DOL is holding two meetings, suggestions for changes to meet current
June I in Fife and June 26 in Kennewick, accounting and reporting needs as
to begin a discussion with cities they look into revising the system.Two
on the best way to accommodate meetings have already taken place in
employee-based fee calculations in the Olympia and Lynnwood,and additional
state's application system and to see if meetings are planned in Moses Lake and
common definitions or approaches are Spokane.
possible. Dates &locations
For more information or to RSVP, (all meetings 9 am - 12 pm)
contact • May 24,Moses Lake—Moses Lake
• Joe Mitchell of DOL's Get on Board Fire Station
program at jitchell@dol.wa.gov or
(360)-664-6578 or • June 14,Spokane—Spokane
Intercollegiate Research &
• Josh Amos at(360)-664-6473 or Technology Institute
jamos@dol.wa.gov.
For more details,see the invitation
Include your name,job title,work on the AWC website:www.
address,e-mail address and telephone awcnet.org/documents/
number. barsRESTRUCTUREflyer.pdf.To
Dates and locations: RSVP to one of the meetings,contact
Lisa Tagman of the State Auditors
• June I,2006,from I —5 pm Office at tagmanl@sao.wa.gov or
Fife City Hall (360) 725-5599.If you are unable to
5411 23rd St E,Fife,WA attend,you may e-mail comments to
• June 26,2006,from I —5 pm barschart@sao.wa.gov.
Kennewick City Hall
210 West 6th Avenue,Kennewick,
WA
For more information about the Get
on Board grants or Master License
Service,see www.dol.wa.gov/mis/
grantprogram.htm.
8 AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
personnel & labor relations
Pension Contribution Rate Update
The State Actuary has revised the 2006 pension contribution rates to reflect legislation
that passed during this past Session.The following charts outline the rates,through
June 30,2010,for the Public Employees' Retirement Systems (PERS 12&3) and the
Law Enforcement Officers'and Fire Fighters' Retirement Systems (LEOFF I &2).
Note that the rates for 2007 and beyond are preliminary estimates based on current
plan provisions and funding policy.The rates may change if plan experience and
investment returns differ from the current assumptions,or if the Legislature approves
future benefit enhancements.
Pension Contribution Rates for EMPLOYEES (revised 4/06) .
Current Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Rate 7-1-06 9-1-06 7-1-07 7-1-08 7-1-09
PERS I 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00% 6.00%
PERS 2 2.25% 3.50% 3.50% 4.06% 4.74% 4.20%
LEOFF I 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
LEOFF 2 6.99% 7.79% 7.85% 8.60% 8.79% 8.68%
Notes on Member Rates:
• The PERS I member contribution rate is set in statute at 6%.
• Although the LEOFF I member contribution rate is set in statute at 6%,members
make no contributions when the plan is fully funded.
• A LEOFF 2 supplemental rate goes into effect 9-1-06.
• PERS 3 members do not make contributions to the defined benefit portion of
their retirement benefit.Employees are required to contribute at least 5%of salary
to their defined contribution benefit,and may choose to contribute an additional
amount from a schedule of options.
Pension Contribution Rates for EMPLOYERS (revised 4/06)
Current Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective
Rate 7-1-06 9-1-06 1-1-07 7-1-07 7-1-08 7-1-09
PERS I/2/3 2.44% 3.69% 3.70% 5.47% 6.01% 7.57% 7.53%
LEOFF I 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19%
LEOFF 2 4.39% 4.87% 4.91% 4.91% 5.36% 5.47% 5.40%
Notes on Employer Rates:
• Employer rates include a DRS administrative expense rate (currently.19%).
• There is a supplemental PERS employer rate increase of 0.01% (for SB 6453)
effective September I,2006.The PERS employer rate then increases an additional
1.77% effective January I,2007,to reflect resumption of the PERS I unfunded
liability payment(ESSB 6896).
• Although the LEOFF I employer contribution rate is set in statute at 6%,employers
make no contributions,except the administrative fee,when the plan is fully funded.
continued
AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin-May 19,2006 9
transportation &
Personnel (continued) infrastructure
• A LEOFF 2 supplemental rate goes Regional Transportation The Federal Transportation Act
into effect September I,2006. Governance (Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient
• The PERS employer rates do not Regional Transportation Governance will Transportation Equity Act:A Legacy
include a rate to pre-fund the be the primary summer transportation for Users (SAFETEA-LU)) includes a
PERS I and PERS 3 gain-sharing issue.To date,we are still waiting on new federal funding program for the
benefit.Depending upon what the the appointment of a nine member Safe Routes to School program.ESSB
Legislature decides to do about gain- commission to evaluate transportation 6091,also includes a state funding
sharing,rates could further increase governance in central Puget Sound. commitment to support pedestrian
beginning July 1,2007,by as much as Governor appointments are expected in and bicycle safety projects such as safe
0.71%. the first week of June. routes to school,transit and pedestrian
and bicycle paths.For more information,
PSERS Rates NotYet Available Grant funding: please contact:Charlotte Claybrooke
The new Public Safety Employees' Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program: at 360-705-7302 or claybrc@wsdot.
Retirement System Plan 2 (PSERS 2), WSDOT Highways and Local Programs wa.gov
primarily intended for corrections division will be issuing a call for projects SixYearTransportation
officers and probation officers,goes into beginning next week,with applications Improvement Program (TIP)
effect on July I,2006.The new plan has due by the third week of September.
As a friendly reminder,the Statewide
a normal retirement age of 60 with 10 The Pedestrian& Bicycle Safety Transportation Improvement
years of service,and allows members program is to address the nearly 400 Program development schedule is
to take early retirement as early as age statewide fatal and injury collisions rapidly approaching.Metropolitan
53,with just a 3 percent reduction in involving pedestrians and bicycles Planning Organizations and Regional
benefit per year of early retirement, each year.The Legislature recognized Transportation Planning Organizations
rather than the full actuarial reduction. this problem and included $74 million consolidate your TIPs into the
The State Actuary is working on over the next 16 years to support respective regional TIPs which in turn is
determining the employer and member pedestrian and bicycle safety projects used to create the State Transportation
contribution rates for PSERS 2,but they such as pedestrian and bicycle paths, Improvement Program.
are not yet available.We will let you sidewalks,safe routes to school and
know the rates—which will be effective transit.For more information,please In order to meet the regional and
July 1,2006—as soon as we receive contact:Paula Reeves at 360-705-7258 state schedules,please send a copy of
word from the Actuary. or reevesp@wsdot.wa.gov your adopted TIP to your appropriate
MPO or RTPO for inclusion into their
To give you an idea of what the rates The Safe Routes to School Program: regional TIP and to your Regional Local
might be,the fiscal note prepared in WSDOT Highways and Local Programs Programs Engineer no later than July 3 I,
2004 for the legislation creating the division will be issuing a call for projects 2006.Your information is used in three
plan estimated an initial contribution beginning next week,with applications very important ways:
rate 6.57%for both the employer and due by the first week of October.This
member.The employer rate that goes program is supported by both the 1. determines project eligibility for
into effect July 1,2006 will be increased
Federal Government and the Legislature Transportation Improvement Board
by 1.77%on January I,2007,because through recent legislation. funding,
employers must also pay the rate that is 2. meets federal requirements,and
directed towards the unfunded liability 3. allows AWC to use this information
in PERS I on the salaries of their PSERS to explain to the legislature the state
2 employees.In addition,employers of city transportation funding(and
would also pay the .19%administrative our needs.)
expense fee.
continued
I 0 AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
Public Works The draft proposal for public owners using GC-CM is as follows:
The Capital Projects Advisory Current Public Owners New Public Owners
Board (CPARB) is still on schedule •
to complete recommendations for Projects $10M Inform a proposed Project Project Review Board Approval
the 2007 legislature.The CPARB is or greater Review Board
represented by local public owners, Projects under Inform a proposed Project Project Review Board Approval.
contractors,subcontractors,state $10M Review Board A limited number of projects
legislators,and state agencies.The Board will be authorized for all new
is tasked with the review of General public owners (TBD).
Contractor-Construction Manager A third charge of the CPARB is to review Job Order Contracting(JOC).Currently,this
(GC-CM),Design-Build (DB) projects, authority has had limited application due to constraints within the legislation.
and Job Order Contracting (JOC).The
current city authority to use GC-CM We are seeking your feedback on Job Order Contracting.Job Order Contracting
and DB is as follows: (jOC) is a systematic process for repair,renovation,remodel,and alteration of
construction projects that are delivered on an on-call basis.The cost for services is
• Projects must be complex in nature determined by using a fixed unit price to for construction costs.The owner partners
and exceed$10 million. with the professional contractor and prepares a realistic maximum allowable scope
• Cities must be over 70,000 in of work with a minimum contract guarantee,and work is performed based on a fixed
population.An exception is made price for each delivery order.
for certain cities meeting certain The following link is a draft proposal to expand this authority:www.awcnet.
financial criteria within counties org/documents/jocdraftlang.pdf.Please review and email Ashley Probart at
that are already eligible to use this ashleyp@awcnet.org with your feedback on either alternative public works contracting
authority. proposals or Job Order Contracting.
The GC-CM and DB authority will
sunset in 2007.The CPARB has
consensus to extend the sunset another
six years.In addition to refining nuts
and bolts components of the legislation,
there is a proposal to create a new
Project Review Board that would
authorize alternative public works
projects.Defining the roles of the
Board is still a work in progress.The
general concept would be to serve in
a consultative role with public owners
that currently have the authority,and
would serve as an approval mechanism
for new public owners.Under this
proposal,all cities would be eligible to
use this process if they receive Board
approval for their proposed project.This
could also serve the dual function of a
public meeting.
AWC Interim Legislative Bulletin—May 19,2006
• t052
. AWC Legislative Contacts o o y
During the legislative session,AWC's lobbyists often are unable to return your phone 3 oV. "o
calls immediately.If you have a legislative or specific issue question,please request w• ,, ?;.
AWC's analyst staff,or send them an email directly. g g
D o
Call AWC at (360) 753-4137 or I-800-562-8981 0ct
CD N
7 T
Stan Finkelstein Victoria Lincoln m o
' AWC Executive Director Municipal Policy Associate, n
• - stanf@awcnet.org victorial@awcnet.org fp
Issue areas: Issue areas:
• Fiscal Policy-Taxes&Budgets • Energy
• Transportation Policy&Financing • State Building Code Issues
• General Local Government • Telecommunications
• Municipal Utilities -
- ' • General Local Government
Jim Justin Analyst&primary contact:
Asst.Dir.for Intergovernmental Relations Sheri Sawyer,sheris@awcnet.org ' xf I-(c)W
jimj@awcnet.org n ccnh
Issue areas: o Ashley Probart , No nr =
H.
• Municipal Finance&Taxation -6,-
• Economic Development Municipal Policy Associate �)z SD
• Insurance Issues ashleyp@awcnet.org a°o-m
Analyst&primary contact: Issue areas: co o
Sheila Gall,sheilag@awcnet.org Transportation Finance&Policy Cr'SU
' cnX
Issue areas: • Public Works
w
• Personnel&Labor Relations Analyst&primary contact: w
• General Local Government. Sheri Sawyer,sheris@awcnet.org IV
Analyst&primary contact:
Deanna Krell,deannak@awcnet.org
Dave Williams
Municipal Policy Associate
Tammy Fellin davew@awcnet.org
Municipal Policy Associate Issue areas:
tammyf@awcnet.org • Planning&Land Use -
Issue areas: • Water
• Social&Human Services • Environment
• Criminal Justice • Affordable Housing
• Health Care Analyst&primary contact:
Analyst&primary contacts: Vacant
Sheila Gall,sheilag@awcnet.org
73rn Or y7373
-1 3 D • O Z EEn
O > EI
o D m
From: "Judy" <jd@midvalleytv.com>
To: "Ann Suter" <anns@scantv.org>, "Bart Preecs" <bpreecs@gmail.com>, "Bernadette
Castner" <bcastner@auburnwa.gov>, "Bill Oltman" <boltman@co.pierce.wa.us>, "Bonnie Walton"
<bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Brenda Tate" <brenda.tate@seattle.gov>, "Brian Pearson"
<brian.pearson@cityoffederalway.com>, "Bruce Crest" <bcrest@maccor.org>, "Bruce Roberts"
<bruce.roberts@oakharbor.org>, "Calvin Schimpf' <fibernetinc@msn.com>, "Candess Andrews"
<candrews@ci.richland.wa.us>, "Carol Mathewson" <carol.mathewson@cityoftacoma.org>, "Cecelia
Duncan" <cecelia.duncan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Chas Hilton" <chilton@cityoftacoma.org>, "Chris Bacha"
<cbacha@cityoftacoma.org>, "Chris Givens" <chrisg@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Chris Jaramillo"
<chris.jaramillo@metrokc.gov>, "Chris Latham" <clatham@u.washington.edu>, "Churck Lare"
<chuck@lareassoc.com>, "Cindi Cruz" <cruz@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Corbitt Loch"
<cloch@desmoineswa.gov>, "Craig Fischer" <cfischer@medina-wa.gov>, "Craig Ward"
<cward@ci.seatac.wa.us>, "Dainel Dootson" <ddootson@edcc.edu>, "Dave Spencer"
<dspencer@noanet.net>, "David Jones" <djones@kpud.org>, "David Kerr" <dkerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us>,
"Dea Drake" <ddrake@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Diane Lachel" <dlachel@cityoftacoma.org>, "Don Kelly"
<dkelly@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "Donn Hedden" <donnh@scantv.org>, "Donna Mason"
<donna.mason@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "Doug Everhart" <douge@cityofanacortes.org>, "Duane Bowman"
<bowman@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Engel Lee" <engel.lee@seattle.gov>, "Eric Trimble"
<etrimble@ci.tumwater.wa.us>, "Gene Powers" <deborahk@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, "George Geyer"
<gfgeyer@co.kitsap.wa.us>, "George McBride" <gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>, "James Southworth"
<jims@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "Jan Roegner" <janr@ci.burien.wa.us>, "Janet Jensen"
<janet.jensen@seattle.gov>, "JD Fouts" <chamilton@cityofcentralia.com>, "Jeff Johnson"
<jeffj@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, "Jill Novik" <jill.novik@seattle.gov>, "Jim Demmon"
<jim.demmon@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "John S. Tennis" <tennisj@co.thurston.wa.us>, "Jon Funfar"
<jonfunfar@ci.enumclaw.wa.us>, "Joseph Meneghini" <joem@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Joyce Goedeke"
<joyce.goedeke@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Kate Reardon" <kreardon@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Kent Lundgren"
<kentlundgren@msn.com>, "Keri Stokstad" <keri@pugetsoundaccess.org>, "Kim.Van Ekstrom"
<kvanekstrom@redmond.gov>, "Laura Blechen" <Iblechen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "Linda Carl"
<carl@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Lorrie Rempher" <Irempher@auburnwa.gov>, "Lynne Hurd"
<lynnehurd3hc@aol.com>, "Lynne Masters" <Imasters@masterspllc.com>, "Marc Pease"
<mpease@co.pierce.wa.us>, "Marie Mosley" <marie.mosley@ci.kennewick.wa.us>, "Marie Stake"
<maries@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, "Mark Somers" <msomers@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Marlene Feist"
<mfeist@spokanecity.org>, "Marty Mulholland" <mmulholland@cob.org>, "Maur Moore"
<spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Mehdi Sadri" <mehdi.sadri@cityoffederalway.com>, "Mike Charboneau"
<mcharboneau@ci.richland.wa.us>, "Mike Roberge" <michaelr@scantv.org>, "Mitch Wasserman"
<mitch@clydehill.org>, "Nancy Abell" <nabell@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "Nancy Johnson"
<njohnson@cityoftacoma.org>, "Pam Kolacy" <pkolacy@ci.port-townsend.wa.us>, "Pam Somers"
<psomers@ci.everett.wa.us>, "Patrick Hirsch" <phirsch@redmond.gov>, "Paul Dunn"
<pdunn@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Robert Beaumier" <rbeaumier@spokanecity.org>, "Rona Zevin"
<rona.zevin@seattle.gov>, "Ronald Hansen" <rhansen@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Russell Kasselman"
<RKasselman@cityofup.com>, "Sam Belcher" <belcher@ci.snohomish.wa.us>, "Sarah Hackett"
<shackett@maccor.org>, "Shannon Murphy" <smurphy@cityofcentralia.com>, "Shawn Ward"
<sward@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "SorToya Lowry" <slowry©ci.seatac.wa.us>, "Stephen Clifton"
<clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Teresa Slosar" <Teresa.slosar@cityoftacoma.org>, "Tim Clark"
<ttclark@ci.kent.wa.us>, "Timothy Smith" <tims@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Tony Perez"
<tony.perez@seattle.gov>, "Victoria Lincoln" <victorial@awcnet.org>, "Walt Yeager"
<walt.yeager@metrokc.gov>, "Wayne Collop" <wcollop@ci.richland.wa.us>, "William Murphy"
<wmurphy@cityoftoppenish.us>
Date: 6/30/2006 9:20:47 AM
Subject: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch
FYI,
This would be good news.
Judy
From: Chuck Sherwood [mailto:chuck.sherwood@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 6:28 AM
To: members@natoa.org
Subject: [members] [Fwd: [ANNOUNCE] MyDD :: The Seventh Inning Telco
Stretch]
Original Message
Subject:
[ANNOUNCE] MyDD :: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch
Date:
Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:01:51 -0400
From:
Robert McCausland <rob@bevcam.org> <mailto:rob@bevcam.org>
To:
Alliance-Announce@Lists. Alliancecm. Org ((E-mail))
<alliance-announce@lists.alliancecm.org>
<mailto:alliance-announce@lists.alliancecm.org>
hey y'all -
Here's some good reporting from Matt...
but also check out the thoughtful analysis from commenters mitchipd and
ducktape, towards the end.
—Rob McCausland
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/29/13346/5943#commenttop
The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch
by Matt Stoller<http://Matt_Stoller.mydd.com/> , Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
03:42:13 PM EST
Ok, so I spent awhile on the phone last night with super duper secret
Senate sources and super duper secret lobbyists. The Wall Street
Journal
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1 1 51 531 641 20893476.html?mod=politics_pr
imary_hs> , the Washington Post
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/28/AR20060
62802176.html> , Investors Business Daily
<http://www.investors.com/editorial/I BDArticles.asp?artsec=17&issue=2006
0628> , and USA Today
<http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techpol icy/2006-06-28-telecom-reform-
net-neutrality_x.htm?POE=TECISVA> confirm what my sources are telling
me, which is that the issue of net neutrality and the contentious fights
over the Snowe-Dorgan amendment (as well as a few other amendments)
could scuttle the whole bill.
Yesterday's events threw a lot of pieces into place for a hardened
opposition to this bill. While telco lobbyists were probably
celebrating last night's passage of the bill through the Commerce
Committee and the failure of the net neutrality amendment, today the
landscape is probably making them a lot less sanguine about their
prospects. They won the Committee vote, but lost a lot of ground.
The Committee's audio servers were overloaded so I couldn't listen to
the hearings. From what I'm told, here's how it went down. The scene
in the room was surreal, with Senators debating in front of a room full
of Blackberry-armed lobbyists. There were aides behind the Senators who
would pass their bosses arguments and information, with the lobbyists
passing arguments and information to the aides based on the arguments
Senators were making. There were over 50 Bell lobbyists alone,
including 12 employees of Verizon. Some Senators were simply proxies
for lobbyists to argue through. Lunatic arguments were apparently in
vogue; Senator Demint said that he couldn't understand why the broadband
market wasn't considered competitive. In a few years, he asserted,
there would be as many broadband providers as there are search engines
on the internet. Stevens was angry and ranting, pushing aggressively to
get his bill through the Committee. He ultimately succeeded, but rubbed
the Senators so raw that he now realizes that this bill cannot make it
through the floor in its current shape.
In terms of the committee members, all of the Dems stood by net
neutrality, including Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, and Mark Pryor. George
Allen was sitting on the fence, visibly uncomfortable, and undecided
until the last minute. John McCain left his vote with a staff by proxy,
and wasn't there for most of the hearings. Always the showboater, he
came in only to offer his own amendment, and for final passage of the
bill. His own amendment was a pet issue of the Christian right, a la
carte cable TV, which was destroyed by 20-2. He also voted against net
neutrality and for passage of the final bill, per his orders from the
Republican establishment. John McCain 2008 showed up, not maverick
McCain. Quel surprise.
When the vote came, we held on for an 11-11 tie, keeping all the
Democrats. I'm as critical of the Democratic Party as you'll find among
liberal bloggers, but I have to acknowledge that the Democrats on the
Commerce Committee (except for Inouye)were exceptional and just hung in
there. I am very much learning that having votes in there matters a
great deal, and that these people are under extraordinary pressure to do
the wrong thing.
John Kerry was the major surprise in the hearings. Ted Stevens was
deeply angry about the bill, and said at one point that the net
neutrality provision was a poison pill that would prevent the larger
telecom reform bill from passing. "If we include net neutrality in the
bill, we won't have 60 votes to pass the bill", he said, to which John
Kerry responded with something along the lines of"If you don't put net
neutrality in the bill, you won't have 60 votes to pass the bill
either." Ouch. This was vintage kickass Kerry, the Kerry that showed
up for the debates in 2004.
Bill Nelson of Florida was another happy surprise. He has spent the
last 6 months flirting with John Ensign, and is a big fan of video
franchising. Not only did he vote correctly on net neutrality, but he
prevented Stevens from holding the vote before he could make his
strongly worded statement. In his statement, he said he really wants
national video franchising, he thinks that this legislation is very
important, and he's worked to pass it. But, he is now convinced that
without network neutrality and without effective cable build-out
provisions, he could not support it.
Now, a word on rhetoric and the Senate. While words are often
unimportant in PR battles, the Senate has a very different set of
rhetoric rules. The Senate does work via collegiality; one Senator can
seriously screw up the works if he/she wants to, so there's a really
strong incentive towards being polite and effusive. The sharp language
exchanged in this fight have a political impact, in other words, and
will make it harder to get onto the floor. You can't just cram things
through.
Byron Dorgan, who is one of the most underappreciated and populist
Senators in that body, was out there fighting with everything he had.
He went absolutely toe to toe with Stevens. After Olympia Snowe gave a
great opening speech, stating that non-discrimination principle is the
basis for the internet, Ted Stevens got so angry that he went on a rant,
that was just all over the map. He insisted that net neutrality would
create a two-tiered internet, confusing which policy would create a
two-tiered internet. He kept repeating 'we will not have a two-tiered
internet', going on and on, making arguments for and against net
neutrality. It was very awkward for all the lobbyists in the room.
It's good that the audio servers were overloaded, because otherwise
Stevens' rant would be all over the internet. Well good for Stevens,
anyway. I got this description of the Stevens screed from someone in
the room:
Stevens, at one point in his rant, aimed some serious blows at the
Internet companies. He said he felt that the 5 big Internet companies
(all of whom wanted a "free ride"on the Internet) had cooked up this
network neutrality amendment and were pushing it through the Congress.
He said that in his opinion, more money had been spent by these 5
companies on this amendment than on any other amendment in history.
The irony of the moment was almost too much to bear. In the audience at
the mark-up were around 200 people. I counted 8 from Internet
companies. The total of telephone company lobbyists was more like 50 or
75. And of course, they are spending $15 million a week on advertising
(update: I'm told it's closer to $15 million a month, which doesn't
include lobbying costs, though no one except the telcos are really sure)
to push the bill and kill network neutrality. The Internet companies
have bought almost no advertising, and they are outgunned by a factor of
10 to 1 in lobbying clout.
When Stevens was done, Dorgan just took him to the woodshed. Dorgan
said, "You're such a passionate speaker,when you're finished, I'm not
always sure whether you're carrying a strong hand or a weak hand.
You've argued both sides of this case quite well." Everyone laughed.
Dorgan then broke out the Hands off the Internet television commercial
which claimed that telco-sponsored legislation prevented discrimination
on the internet. Dorgan said, "Can you explain why it is that your
supporters are lying on television? They say that nondiscrimination is
in your bill. Can you show me where it's in your bill?" Dorgan
hammered the point until Stevens wouldn't respond.
It was a dramatic moment.
In terms of other members, Barbara Boxer and Maria Cantwell made good
speeches to the issue, and the vote was an 11-11 tie.
Final passage of the bill was the next step for the net neutrality
issue. The count moving the bill out of committee was 15-7. We lost
four people from the 11-11 tie to the final passage, Ben Nelson, Mark
Pryor, Olympia Snowe, and Inouye. Inouye gave a speech before passage,
the first of the day for him. He went through all the problems with the
bill, and then said that Stevens had been more than fair with the bill,
so he's going to vote for moving the bill out of Committee anyway. This
was a surprise, but I've been warned all along that Inouye really likes
compromise. He is a very old man who believes in the old-school
compromise mentality,where you work in comity with the other side, and
he has very good relations with Ted Stevens. Nelson wanted to vote for
the bill all along, and while Pryor voted for moving the bill out of
committee, he did mention that he's not happy with the bill in its
current form and may vote against it on the floor. Snowe didn't explain
why she voted for final passage, though it was probably out of respect
for Ted Stevens.
Ok, to the big picture. As you can see, this fight was contentious and
polarizing. Three controversial amendments drew close votes. First of
course is the 11-11 tie on net neutrality. Second was a 12-10 amendment
loss on build-out requirements, which makes it easier for cable
companies to avoid servicing certain areas. Third was a 12-10 loss on
consumer protection, which strips state and local laws that protect
consumers in wireless, telephones, and cable and vests power in the
often toothless FCC. There was also contention over the broadcast flag
provisions in the bill, which will come out on the floor. Senators love
their TIVOs.
Because of all this contention, Stevens flatly said he does not have 60
votes for the bill, and it would likely not get floor time unless he has
those votes lined up. We need 41 Senators that will vote against
cloture. This seems doable. Immediately after final passage, Ron Wyden
went to the floor denouncing the bill and announcing that he has put a
hold on the bill, which will make it hard for the bill to move through.
We need to get him a few more supporters that will help him, but with
the fire and brimstone shown by several members of the committee
(Dorgan, Kerry), as well as several high profile Senators off of it
(Clinton, Obama), that's not as hard as it might look.
The telecom companies feel deeply misunderstood by this fight. I can't
tell if they really care that much about net neutrality or if they are
trying to keep wiggle room so they can manage their networks. I imagine
that the executive suites are split on its importance. Video
franchising is what they are definitely after, and they are going to
slug this out on a local, state, and national level. It's really kind
of ridiculous, they should probably be able to sell video services, but
they have so badly misplayed their hand on net neutrality that it's
looking less and less likely that a bill will get through. From my
perspective, that's a good thing. We can push network neutrality
legislation next session, which the telcos, if they really don't care
about their brands,will still fight. More to the point, the FCC isn't
enforcing network neutrality now, but it could at any point do so.
I'm willing to wait this one out and not go for the compromise language
pushed by the CDT, and others. This fight has definitely seen a lot of
heat and viciousness. The telcos have been spending $15 million a week
on TV ads, and have been smearing me and people on the internet as
know-nothing hippiies. Scott Cleland, for instance, took a joke I made
at Yearly Kos when I was on a panel with a lot of wonks and joked I knew
nothing about communications policy, and is using it to delegitimize me.
Mike McCurry has been all over the place, using top-down approved
talking points on net neutrality that are simply incoherent. Trolls are
all over the MyDD comment threads, refusing to disclose whether they are
paid by telecom lobbyists.
It's sad, because AT&T, for instance, is a company I'm inclined to like
because of its union-friendly policies, and I admire Verizon's stance on
IP issues (the company was critically important to defeating the
iPod-crushing INDUCE Act, for instance). Yes, these are big bad
oligopolistic companies, but they are not monolithically bad. Being on
the other end of their bad behavior, though, has left a really nasty
taste in a lot of peoples' mouths, and that's going to hurt them if they
don't start wizening up.
So that's where we are. I'm hearing rumors about Stevens trying to put
together a slimmed down telecom bill, and he's clearly working hard to
salvage something that can get through the floor and through a
conference committee. Unlike in the House, where the vote crushing the
Markey amendment on the floor really crumpled our momentum, on balance,
yesterday was a good day for our side.
Permalink <http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/29/13346/5943> :: 18
Comments :: Post a Comment
<http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/29/13346/5943#comment_form>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/1?mode=alone;showrate
=1#1> )
I think your description of the problem is dead on. There is one more
consequence of the Wealth Primary, which is that not just millionaires
but scions of political dynasties have an almost insuperable political
advantage. It's no accident that the last few years have seen an
explosion in the number of candidates for high office who are directly
related to current or past officeholders. It's a tremendous shortcut for
political fundraising.
The Wealth Primary has also had a lot to do with the awesome
centralization of power in the new Republican political machine, since
those who are in a position to direct that money have used it to
dominate and corrupt the nation's dominant political party.
Sometimes I feel that we are headed to a version of the old Roman
Republic, when voters had the ability to choose which member of one of
the Famous Families would be governing them. Not that it made any
difference, since they were all the same.
by thirdestate <http://thirdestate.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
03:46:57 PM EST<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/1#1>
sanguine means hopeful (3.00/ 1
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/2?mode=alone;showrate
=1#2> )
Is that what you meant?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanguin e
<http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sanguine>
by Pachacutec <http://Pachacutec.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
03:49:48 PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/2#2>
Kevin Martin of the FCC wants to let AT&T (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/com m ents/2006/6/29/13346/5943/3?mode=alone;sh owrate
=1#3> )
prioritize traffic.
You wrote:
"...the FCC isn't enforcing network neutrality now, but it could at any
point do so."
http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/1 83701554
<http://www.networkingpipeline.com/news/183701554>
In a question-and-answer period in front of the keynote audience, Martin
said that"I do think the commission has the authority necessary"to
enforce network neutrality violations, noting that the FCC had in fact
done so in the case last year involving Madison River's blocking of
Vonage's VoIP service.
"We've already demonstrated we'll take action if necessary," Martin
said.
However, Martin also added that he supports network operators'desires
to offer different levels of broadband service at different speeds, and
at different pricing --a so-called "tiered" Internet service structure
that opponents say could give a market advantage to deep-pocket
companies who can afford to pay service providers for preferential
treatment.
To avoid having some websites treated as high-priority(fast) and some
as low-priority(slow) by AT&T, we need legislation.
by EricJaffa <http://EricJaffa.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
04:18:23 PM EST<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/3#3>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/5?mode=alone;showrate
=1#5> )
I hope this becomes a regualr habit of the internet folks. Fighting
against bad bills and pushing the Democratic party to do the right thing
feels good. Keep up the great leadership on this, and hopefully other
things.
by jbou <http://jbou.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 04:28:21 PM EST
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/5#5>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/com m ents/2006/6/29/13346/5943/6?mode=al one;sh owrate
=1#6> )
I'm curious as to what happened here. As of maybe an hour ago, I had a
reply to this thread posted, and it seems to no longer be here. Was it
for some reason removed?
by ThinkAboutlt<http://ThinkAboutlt.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
04:55:25 PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/6#6>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/7?mode=alone;showrate
=1#7> )
You were troll-rated by the community, I believe.
by Matt Stoller<http://Matt_Stoller.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
05:11:06 PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/7#7>
[Parent<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/6#6> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/com ments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/9?mode=alone;showrate
=1#9> )
Sad to see that. My post was germane to the topic at hand, was a
legitimate argument, and was in no way offensive that I could tell. My
apologies if it did offend, though I cannot imagine how.
I don't suppose the individual who troll-rated my post could somehow
reverse it? Makes it rather difficult to carry on a reasonable dialogue
when any and all opposition is squelched. Not to mention rather counter
to your site's position on net neutrality, isn't it? ;)
by ThinkAboutlt<http://ThinkAboutlt.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
05:15:56 PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/9#9>
[ Parent<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/7#7> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/com m ents/2006/6/29/13346/5943/8?mode=alon e;sh owrate
=1#8> )
Matt,
Great reporting and much appreciated by this one of many who, like you,
couldn't get the audio feed to work on the critical day of the markup.
At this point I'd prefer to see the bill die in the Senate and see if
the Dems can win back one or both houses of Congress and revisit the
whole thing. This bill, with few exceptions, is driven by the telcos,
and it'd be great to start from a new vantage point. Maybe the web/tech
companies will weigh in more actively if they have more time, and maybe
the netroots influence can be brought to bear even more effectively.
Later today I'm going to give the muni-broadband provisions another read
and try to get more clear on their likely implications (I have to do
this for a report I'm writing anyway). As I've said before, I think
these are extremely important, perhaps even more so than NN provisions.
It was great to see the 11 votes on the Amendment, and your commentary
on the discussion was also heartening.
I think that the technical issues related to NN really are pretty messy
and complicated and, as I've said, I have concerns about implementation.
But the important thing to me is that this issue has potency (as it
should), and so does the netroots effort that kept steady pressure on
during the various phases. At the very least, its been good practice
for future legislative battles, and also consciousness-raising for
Congress, the tech and blogging community, and probably for lots of
citizens. One of the benefits of all the anti-NN ad spending is that it
may have gotten people to think about the issue. The more difficult
step, amidst the BS, is to actually clarify the issue.
by mitchipd <http://mitchipd.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:13:08
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/8#8>
Re: Stevens (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/10?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#10> )
What ever happened with his promise to quit the Senate after the defeat
of ANWR drilling last year? Didn't he sulk off to Alaska vowing never
to return? Can we please hand him a few more defeats so he will make
good on the promise? He is a real piece of work.
Good, good work on this one, Matt.
by Mimikatz<http://Mimikatz.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:32:13
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/10#10>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/11?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#11> )
Here's a link to Stevens rant...his fuses appear to be blown...
He seems to misunderstand so much, its amazing that he chairs this
committee (its actually hard to say for sure, since he's really not
making any sense). Worth distributing the link, I think,just to make
the point that the Republican chair seems deeply out of touch with the
subject matter he's supposed to write laws about.
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/497
<http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/497>
If anyone finds any more audio from the NN session, please provide
links. As Matt indicated, it sounds like it was a doozy. Stevens rant
appears to reflect the intensity.
by mitchipd <http://mitchipd.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:32:42
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/11#11>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/12?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#12> )
Hey guys!
Somebody with real knowledge of this stuff please join the Rocky
Mountain Internet Users (rmiug)Yahoo group and help me!
I started this thread on the group and have recommended this diary and
the DK stuff to them, but now I'm out of control!
HELP me please!
Vicki
by victoria2dc<http://victoria2dc.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
05:36:54 PM EST
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/12#12>
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/13?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#13> )
I can't tell if they really care that much about net neutrality or if
they are trying to keep wiggle room so they can manage their networks.
I imagine that the executive suites are split on its importance. Video
franchising is what they are definitely after, and they are going to
slug this out on a local, state, and national level.
Matt, the telcos care very much about it ... they just didn't think the
fight was going to come this early.
The telcos right now are gearing up to compete with the cable companies
in the video business--that's what Verizon's FIOS and SBC's Project
Lightspeed are all about.
Thing is, broadband has the potential for letting us go around the cable
companies and their telco competitors and watch what we want via direct
Internet download. If lots of people start doing that, and lots of
companies start providing content that way, it kills their"cable"
gatekeeper business model and just makes them carriers again.
The reason that it's so contentious is that they are the gatekeepers to
the consumer--the broadband connection is basically either cable modem
or DSL. So despite being able to charge the consumer for access to
content on the Internet, they also want to be able to charge content
companies for access to their consumers.
Two things have been "givens" up until recently: one was that Internet
TV was at least 5 years or more in the future, and the other was that
the major content companies like the networks and cable channels
wouldn't threaten their relationships with cable and telco to run around
them in a direct-to-consumer sale.
Last year, some trade journalists from cable confused IPTV (that's the
"telco as cable" using Internet Protocol for delivery)with Internet TV
(user-retrieved programming via the Internet) in magazine coverage, and
that mistake was then picked up Business Week and Forbes. Suddenly, the
world was talking about Internet TV as if it were right around the
corner, and that lit a fire under the telcos about net neutrality, to
keep Internet TV from happening.
The other thing that happened was that the Video iPod began to prove the
business model for user-requested video content, and already there ARE
newscasts, etc., available via podcast and TV episodes that can be
downloaded. So that also moved Internet TV a lot closer to reality.
Yes, net neutrality is critical, or FIOS and Project Lightspeed won't
ever get the numbers the telcos are projecting.
America will never again be the land of the free... Until she again
becomes the home of the brave.
by Ducktape <http://Ducktape.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 05:41:02
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/13#13>
Re:The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/15?mode=alone;s howrat
e=1#15> )
That's very interesting.
Yes, net neutrality is critical, or FIOS and Project Lightspeed won't
ever get the numbers the telcos are projecting.
Can you explain this sentence a bit more?
by Matt Stoller<http://Matt_Stoller.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at
06:37:34 PM EST
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/15#15>
[Parent <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/13#13> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/17?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#17> )
Verizon and SBC (AT&T) are projecting that, by 2010, they'll have
between them some 27 million housholds as their FIOS and Project
LightSpeed (video) subscribers.
That's a pretty amazing number, when you think about it--with only
around 100 million households in the US, they think they're going to get
upwards of 25% of them, and be the size of Comcast and bigger than
TimeWarner Cable.
Personally, I think they're dreaming --they may eventually have that
kind of penetration, but not in 4 years, and neither cable nor satellite
are going to stand idly by and let that happen. There also are technical
•
issues--they're placing a HUGE bet on Microsoft TV being able to
actually work, and then to scale, and it hasn't shown yet that it can.
Nonetheless, that's the plan. Put a Google news or Yahoo news
notification on IPTV, Fios, Project Lightspeed, and Microsoft TV and it
should keep you somewhat up to speed.
America will never again be the land of the free... Until she again
becomes the home of the brave.
by Ducktape <http://Ducktape.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 08:43:26
PM EST<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/17#17>
[Parent<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/15#15> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/16?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#16> )
Good analysis Ducktape. Wall Street's already ambivalent about telco
upgrades to deliver video. If you add what they call "over the top"
content delivery(i.e., by content owners directly via the Internet),
you're right that the telco economic model for upgrading networks
becomes even more iffy.
This is also partly true for the future cable model, though they're not
putting that much new money at risk, since they already upgraded their
networks over the past 10 years (not with fiber, but with a mix of fiber
to pockets of about 500 homes and then coax the rest of the way, and
also with really lousy"upstream" bandwidth). They also have
longstanding business relationships and substantial ownership stakes in
content companies, so are somewhat less vulnerable, and have less "new"
investment at risk.
I'd love to see the telcos eat some humble pie and team up with
municipalities and use their technical and construction expertise to
help local communities build open-access fiber muni-nets and also to
become one of multiple service providers using the network to serve
customers.
With an all-fiber net they could kick cable's butt in video and advanced
services, but they would no longer be the swaggering monopolist, so
probably wouldn't go for this model,which I admit would have its own
set of signficant risks and unknowns. Better, they believe, to use
their main skill--brute political/legal power--to continue down the
duopoly gatekeeper road and try to pursue an IP version of the cable TV
model in video and use their duopoly-gatekeeper market power to extract
profits from the innovative services provided by other companies (or to
copy those services and then capture all the profits by killing the
business model of the original innovator).
But as Ducktape notes, the video business and telecom in general is
shifting under their feet, thanks to Apple and many others. While this
might make some companies think creatively and make big changes to their
business model, this is not likely to happen for the telcos. This is
understandable, but I don't think its wise, even for their own future,
but most definitely for the future of the Internet and the country.
The ability to exert their gatekeeper market power in this way is key to
their future and Wall Street's valuation of that future. They may not
exert it much right now(really don't need to), but having a law that
prohibits or seriously restricts it could be enough to see some negative
reaction from Wall Street.
Both sectors are burdened by substantial legacy network and business
model issues. Telcos, for example, are losing access lines in large
numbers and have to pay large dividends to keep their stock price up.
And, over the years, cable operators paid $3,000-$4,000 per subscriber
(maybe$1.8k-$2.4k per home passed, depending on penetration)and
sometimes more to acquire other operators' systems (some not even
upgraded yet, and none with all-fiber networks). When they start losing
video customers to telco TV, the cost of their acquisitions on a
per-paying-customer basis will increase accordingly.
But it might cost only about $1,500 or so per household to build an
all-fiber network. If a municipality can justify a third of that cost
in terms of public agency efficiencies, operating cost savings and other
"public" benefits, it would have only$1k per household to finance from
commercial services.
And if this fiber network started delivering open-access "Internet TV"
on a large-scale basis, it would provide a REAL alternative to cable TV
and telco IPTV. In many respects, content providers would love this,
because they'd get to keep a larger portion of total revenue. That
doesn't mean that major content providers will flock en masse to such a
network (they already have deals with cable operators and are grappling
with gnarly issues themselves with regard to their"digital-era"
business models). But I would think that, if such a high-capacity
open-access network was available, that they'd, over time, be more and
more attracted to using it.
by mitchipd <http://mitchipd.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:38:06
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/16#16>
[ Parent <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/13#13> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/18?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#18> )
IPTV in general is critical to telcos, as part of their"quadruple play"
strategy: wired telephony, wireless telephony, broadband data, telco tv
(IPTV).
Ever since the Telecommunications Act allowed cable and telco to go into
each others' markets, telco has been in a world of hurt. That's been
exacerbated by wireless getting so ubiquitous (and reliable)that a
wired phone line just isn't critical any more. Cable started offering
"regular" phone service (which is what I have) and VOIP, and of course
there's Vonage, Skype, etc. which can give you a phone line without any
phone company at all, if you have a cable modem.
What has made this all SO threatening (and threatens their stock
valuation) is the way telcos run their businesses. If you think about
it, for 100 years, they were able to have confidence that 100% of the
businesses, and almost 100% of the homes in their service area would be
their customers.
That guarantee let them amortize their plant over decades-- in some
cases, they were amortizing it over 40 years! (It's one reason they were
never very innovative until they were forced to be-- it wasn't just the
lack of competition, but also that they were still paying off equipment
they'd bought decades before, and it was still in use.)
That's all very well as long as you have that 100% market share
guarantee. But now your market share drops to 92% or 88% of the
households in your service area... and you are screwed deeper in the
hole every month, at the same time that you're having a demand to
upgrade your network.
So the telcos have been making their shareholders aggressive promises
about what this is going to mean. In fact, in Jan 2005, SBC alone had
even projected more than 1 million subs by the end of 2005 (which they
didn't make, of course--they were still in their in-house tests).
BTW, do NOT trust Microsoft to stay on the side of the angels in this.
Both SBC and Verizon have selected Microsoft TV as their delivery
platform, which will make those two companies the largest Microsoft
server farms in the world.
Microsoft is not the only platform game in town and they haven't proven
themselves yet. They are the ones who will be blamed when the telcos
don't make their dates and numbers, and they might decide at some point
that it's in their interest to move to the other side. Which I suspect
means that we could lose Cantwell if that happens...
America will never again be the land of the free... Until she again
becomes the home of the brave.
by Ducktape <http://Ducktape.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 09:12:10
PM EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/18#18>
[ Parent <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/16#16> ]
Re: The Seventh Inning Telco Stretch (none/0
<http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/14?mode=alone;showrat
e=1#14> )
Thanks for the recap, but the story about Dorgan on the telco ad is a
little off. Dorgan called the ad misleading and said that the
protections it mentioned weren't in the bill - but the ad was explicitly
talking about the House bill, and didn't really have anything to do with
Steven's legislation.
It was really kind of an awkward moment- Stevens' response wasn't very
good, but Dorgan's attack didn't make any sense.
by WADem <http://WADem.mydd.com/> on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 06:07:01 PM
EST <http://www.mydd.com/comments/2006/6/29/13346/5943/14#14>
VOLUME 29, NUMBER 14 1 APRIL 3, 2006 • .
Local OfficialBill
s Have ConcernsWith Telecom
by Christina Fletcher Loftus
` I picture of the status of cable franchising
The National League of Cities has in the market today, as well as how that
identified several provisions in proposed franchising supports the desired delivery
draft telecommunications legislation that — of new competitive entrants and services.
are of serious concern such as a preemp- x " "Local government remains concerned
tion of local government authority,while that rhetoric and not facts have led mem-
some provisions of the draft would keep bers of Congress to believe that competi-
local government whole. tion and innovation will flourish only if
The "Communications Opportunity, local government is removed from the
Promotion, and Enhancement Act of Po
equation," Fellman told the committee.
2006," co-sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton Ey.
"We are here today to help you under-
(R-Texas),would create a national cable stand that nothing could be farther from
franchise for both new entrants and somethe truth.Throwing away local franchising
incumbents in the video market.Without is not the solution that will bring competi-
a local franchise agreement, the onlytion or rapid entry by competitive
effective mechanisms that local govern- WOW providers This legislation does not solve
ment has to manage its public rights-of44
the many questions associated with accel-way,ensure competition for everyone and
erated entry into the video business."
audit and collect franchise fees are elimi- The draft legislation would designate
nated. Ken Fellman, mayor of Arvada, Colo., testifies before the House Energy and the Federal Communications
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Ken Fellman,mayor of Arvada,Colo., Commission (FCC) as the issuer of a
testified last week on behalf of NLC and He opened his testimony by saying legislation. Having said that,we are verynational cable franchise.New entrants to
other members of a coalition to protect 'We believe this draft is more responsive concerned that this new structure will the market could npofy to the national FCC and
_ local franchise authority,on the proposed to those issues we have raised with the lead to difficult and lengthy litigation,that receive withincer 30tion s. a cubn agree-
.
legislation before the House Energy and committee in the past,and stand ready to will cost everyone dearly."Y g companiesmen days. Incumbent tonal
Commerce Committee's Subcommittee continue working with the committee to Fellman pledged to be a"myth-buster" could apply for the national
on Telecommunications and the Internet. correct what we perceive as flaws in the for the committee, providing a truthful see page 8,column 1
8 NATION'S CITIES WEEKLY APRIL 3, 20C
Telecom, from page I
franchise once a new entrant compliance. While the legisla- national system, franchise fees sive authority to the FCC to By abrogating the local fray
offers service in the local fran- tion provides that local fran- are remitted and whether any determine if discrimination has chise, local government
chising area, thus terminating chising authorities are responsi- entity would have authority to occurred.The FCC is also given authority to enforce right-o
their local franchising agree- ble for managing local rights-of- audit. authority to ensure that the dis- way disputes,protect consum<
µ ments. way, the draft is silent on the The proposal provides 1 per- crimination is remedied, yet complaints, and impose buil(
Under certain circum- appropriate forum for resolving cent of gross revenues for pub- enforcement details are not out provisions so that compet
stances, incumbents could also such disputes, thus, by default, lic,educational and governmen- provided. tion is available to all is weal
apply for the national franchise the FCC would likely become tal channels and institutional While local government wel- ened.
upon the expiration of their the arbiter. networks for local government comes competition for all con- NLC, the Nation.
current franchises if no new While the proposal would needs;however,for some juris- sumers and treating like servic- Association of Counties, tY
entrant has entered the local keep local government whole dictions,1 percent will not keep es alike, the current version of U.S. Conference of Mayors ar
franchise area. by requiring an operator to pay the locality whole. Barton's proposal for national the National Association I
Though the legislation pre- a 5 percent franchise fee upon Finally, while the proposed franchising would undermine Telecommunications Office:
serves local authority over the gross revenues and utilizing a legislation prohibits a cable the ability of local government and Advisors will continue 1
management of rights-of-way,it comprehensive definition of provider from refusing to pro- to protect their residents and work with House staff to pri
fails to provide sufficient "gross revenues,"the legislation vide service to any group based effectively manage their public vide input on local governmel
enforcement authority to assure fails to specify how, under a on income,the draft gives exclu- rights-of-way. concerns regarding the bill.
n
•
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington,D.C.20554
In the Matter of )
)
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable )
Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended ) MB Docket No.05-311
by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and )
Competition Act of 1992 )
)
)
)
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
Adopted: November 3,2005 Released: November 18,2005
Comment Date: [60 days after publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [90 days after publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission: Chairman Martin,and Commissioners Abernathy,Copps and Adelstein issuing
separate statements.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ("NPRM" or "Notice"), we solicit comment on
how we should implement Section 621(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Communications Act" or the "Act"). Section 621(a)(1) states in relevant part that "a franchising
authority ... may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."' While the
Commission has found that, "[t]oday, almost all consumers have the choice between over-the-air
broadcast television, a cable service, and at least two DBS providers,"2 greater competition in the market
for the delivery of multichannel video programming is one of the primary goals of federal
communications policy.3 Increased competition can be expected to lead to lower prices and more choices
for consumers and, as marketplace competition disciplines competitors' behavior, all competing cable
service providers could require less federal regulation. Moreover, for all competitors in the marketplace,
the abilities to offer video to consumers and to deploy broadband networks rapidly are linked
intrinsically.4 However, potential competitors seeking to enter the multichannel video programming
147 U.S.C.§541(a)(1).
2 Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, 20 FCC
Rcd 2755,2757(2005).
3 See 47 U.S.C. §521(6) (stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is "to promote competition in cable
communications").
4 The construction of modern telecommunications facilities requires substantial capital investment, and such
networks,once completed,are capable of providing not only voice and data,but video as well. As a consequence,
the ability to offer video offers the promise of an additional revenue stream from which deployment costs can be
recovered.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
distributor ("MVPD") marketplace have alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local
franchising process serves as a barrier to entry. Accordingly, this Notice is designed to solicit comment
on implementation of Section 621(a)(1)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award
competitive franchises,and whether the franchising process unreasonably impedes the achievement of the
interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment and, if so,
how the Commission should act to address that problem.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Communications Act provides new entrants four options for entry into the MVPD
market.' They can provide video programming to subscribers via radio communication,6 a cable system'
or an open video system,8 or they can provide transmission of video programming on a common carrier
basis.9 Any new entrant opting to offer"cable service"10 as a"cable operator" becomes subject to the
requirements of Title VI. Section 621 of Title VI sets forth general cable franchise requirements.
Subsection (b)(1) of Section 621 prohibits a cable operator from providing cable service in a particular
area without first obtaining a cable franchise,12 and Subsection (a)(1) grants to local franchising
authorities ("LFAs") the authority to award such franchises.13 Other provisions of Section 621 provide
that, in awarding a franchise, an LFA"shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group
of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which
such group resides;"14 "shall allow [a] cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of
providing cable service to all households in the franchise area;"15 and "may require adequate assurance
that the cable operator will provide adequate public, educational and governmental access channel
capacity,facilities,or financial support."16
3. The initial purpose of Section 621(a)(1),which was added to the Communications Act by
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984(the"1984 Cable Act"),17 was to both affirm and delineate
5 See 47 U.S.C.§571(a).
6 See 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(1).
7 See 47 U.S.C.§571(a)(3)(A).
8 See 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(3)(B).
9 See 47 U.S.C. §571(a)(2).
1° 47 U.S.C. §542(6) (defining "cable service" as "(A)the one-way transmission to subscribers of (i)video
programming, or (ii)other programming service, and (B)subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the
selection or use of such video programming or other programming service").
11 47 U.S.C. §542(5)(defining"cable operator"as"any person or group of persons(A)who provides cable service
over a cable system and directly or through one or more affiliates owns a significant interest in a cable system, or
(B)who otherwise controls or is responsible for,through any arrangement,the management and operation of such a
cable system").
12 47 U.S.C. §541(b)(1) ("Except to the extent provided in paragraph(2) and subsection(f), a cable operator may
not provide cable service without a franchise.").
13 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1)(stating that"[a]franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this
title, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction").
14 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(3).
15 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(A).
16 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B).
17 Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984,Pub.L No.98-549,98 Stat.2779.
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
the role of local franchising authorities("LFAs")in the franchising process.'s A few years later,however,
the Commission prepared a report to Congress on the cable industry pursuant to the requirements of the
1984 Cable Act.19 In that Report, the Commission concluded that in order "[t]o encourage more robust
competition in the local video marketplace, the Congress should ... forbid local franchising authorities
from unreasonably denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide
service."20
4. In response,21 Congress revised Section 621(a)(1) through the Cable Television
Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (the "1992 Cable Act")22 to read as follows: "A
franchising authority may award, in accordance with the provisions of this title, 1 or more franchises
within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may
not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise."23 As the legislative history
18 See, e.g., H.R. REP.No. 98-934,at 59(1984) ("Subsection 621(a) grants a franchising authority the authority to
award one or more franchises within its jurisdiction. This grant of authority to a franchising authority to award a
franchise establishes the basis for state and local regulation of cable systems.");see also id.("This provision grants
to the franchising authority the discretion to determine the number of cable operators to be authorized to provide
service in a particular geographic area."); id. at 19 ("Primarily, cable television has been regulated at the local
government level through the franchise process.... [The 1984 Cable Act] establishes a national policy that clarifies
the current system of local, state and federal regulation of cable television. This policy continues reliance on the.
local franchising process as the primary means of cable television regulation, while defining and limiting the
authority that a franchising authority may exercise through the franchise process. The bill establishes franchise
procedures and standards to encourage the growth and development of cable systems,and assure that cable systems
are responsive to the needs and interests of the local communities they service. Municipal authorityto franchise and
regulate cable television systems has been under an increasing number of challenges on three fronts: in the courts,
at the Federal Communications Commission, and at the state public utility commissions. [This legislation] will
preserve the critical role of municipal governments in the franchise process, while providing appropriate
deregulation in certain respects to the provision of cable service."); id. at 24("It is the Committee's intent that the
franchise process take place at the local level where city officials have the best understanding of local
communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet those needs. However, if
that process is to further the purposes of this legislation,the provisions of these franchises,and the authority of the
municipal governments to enforce these provisions, must be based on certain important uniform federal standards
that are not continually altered by Federal,state and local regulation.").
19 See generally Competition, Rate Deregulation and the Commission's Policies Relating to the Provision of Cable
Television Service,5 FCC Rcd 4962(1990)("Report").
20 Id. at 4974;see also id.at 5012("This Commission is convinced that the most effective method of promoting the
interests of viewers or consumers is through the free play of competitive market forces."). The Report also
recommended that Congress "prohibit franchising rules whose intent or effect is to create unreasonable barriers to
the entry of potential competing multichannel video providers,""limit local franchising requirements to appropriate
governmental interests (e.g., public health and safety, repair and good condition of public rights-of-way, and the
posting of an appropriate construction bond),"and"permit competitors to enter a market pursuant to an initial,time-
limited suspension of any`universal service' obligation." Id.at 4974.
21 See H.R. REP.No. 102-628,at 47(1992) ("The Commission recommended that Congress, in order to encourage
more robust competition in the local video marketplace, prevent local franchising authorities from unreasonably
denying a franchise to potential competitors who are ready and able to provide service."). The Commission has
recognized that its recommendations to Congress were implemented through the language added to Section
621(a)(1): "Congress incorporated the Commission's recommendations in the 1992 Cable Act by amending
§621(a)(1) of the Communications Act ...." Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the
Delivery of Video Programming),9 FCC Rcd 7442,7469(1994).
22 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460.
23 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1) (emphasis added). In the House version of the 1992 Cable Act, the provision that
eventually became Section 621 included specific examples of reasonable grounds to deny additional franchises:
(continued....)
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
makes plain, the purpose of this abridgement of local government authority was to promote greater cable
competition:
Based on the evidence in the record taken as a whole, it is clear that there
are benefits from competition between two cable systems. Thus, the
Committee believes that local franchising authorities should be
encouraged to award second franchises. Accordingly, [the 1992 Cable
Act,] as reported, prohibits local franchising authorities from
unreasonably refusing to grant second franchises.24
Section 621(a)(1), as revised, established a clear, federal-level limitation on the authority of LFAs in the
franchising process.25 In that regard, Congress provided that "[a]ny applicant whose application for a
second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final
decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635...."26 Section 635, in turn, states that "[a]ny cable
operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising authority under section
621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such determination" in
federal court or a state court of general jurisdiction.27
5. As potential new entrants seek to enter the MVPD marketplace, there have been
indications that in many areas the current operation of the local franchising process is serving as an
unreasonable barrier to entry.28 For example, Verizon recently filed comments in the Commission's
(...continued from previous page)
"For purposes of this paragraph,refusal to award a franchise shall not be unreasonable if,for example,such refusal
is on the ground (A)of technical infeasibility; (B)of inadequate assurance that the cable operator will provide
adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support; (C)of
inadequate assurance that the cable operator will, within a reasonable period of time, provide universal service
throughout the entire franchise area under the jurisdiction of the franchising authority; (D)that such award would
interfere with the right of the franchising authority to deny renewal; or(E)of inadequate assurance that the cable
operator has the financial,technical,or legal qualifications to provide cable service." H.R. REP.No. 102-628, at 9
(1992). This version of the amended Section 621 ultimately was not adopted.
24 S.REP.No. 102-92,at 47(1991).
25 Cf.City of Dallas, Texas v. FCC, 165 F.3d 341,347(holding that Section 653(c)(1)(C)'s directive that the federal
franchise requirement found in Section 621(b)(1)does not apply to open video systems did not constitute the"clear
statement" required by the Supreme Court to expressly preempt the traditional authority of LFAs to impose
franchise requirements).
26 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1).
27 47 U.S.C. §555(a). See also Charter Communications, Inc. v. County of Santa Cruz, 304 F.3d 927, 931, 935
(2002) (noting that, "[w]hen reviewing disputes emerging from this franchise agreement, a court must determine
whether the County could have deemed it reasonable to deny consent" and stating that "even if we thought the
County had acted unreasonably, our view would be deferential not only because precedent so commands, but also
because methods exist to promote self-correction in the future: citizens can vote out their local representatives and
cable operators can refuse to enter into franchise agreements with notoriously difficult LFAs"); Board of County
Comm'rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 678 (1996) (noting the government's "interest in being free from intensive
judicial supervision of its daily management functions" and finding "[d]eference is therefore due to the
government's reasonable assessment of its interests").
28 See, e.g., Comments of the Broadcast Service Providers Assoc., MB Docket No. 05-255 at 19 (filed Sept. 19,
2005) (arguing that build-out requirements are "inherently anticompetitive" because, in most instances, "the
incumbent has had decades to build,upgrade and expand its network with limited or no competition");Comments of
Consumers for Cable Choice, Inc., MB Docket No. 05-255 at 3 (filed Sept. 19, 2005) (observing that, to compete
nationally,new entrants must negotiate agreements with 33,000 LFAs); Comments of Alcatel, MB Docket No.05-
255 at 9 (filed Sept. 19, 2005) (reasoning that because each LFA adheres to its own processes and timelines,
(continued....)
4
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
annual investigation into the state of video competition arguing that "[t]he single biggest obstacle to
widespread competition in the video services market is the requirement that a provider obtain an
individually negotiated local franchise in each area where it intends to provide service."29 In its
comments, Verizon contends that the local franchising process impedes cable competition in the
following ways: (1)it "forces a new entrant to telegraph its deployment plans to the incumbent video
competitor,"thereby"allow[ing]the incumbent not only to take steps to prolong the franchise process and
delay the onset of competition, but also to entrench its position in the market before the new entrant has
the opportunity to compete;"30(2)it"simply takes too long,"as a result of"factors such as inertia, arcane
or lengthy application procedures, bureaucracy or, in some cases, inattentiveness or unresponsiveness at
the LFA level;"31 (3)it triggers so-called "level playing field" laws, "which require the new entrant to
build-out and serve an entire franchise area on an expedited basis or to match all of the concessions
previously provided by the incumbent in order for it to gain its original monopoly position in the local
area, despite the vastly different competitive situation facing the new entrant;s32 and (4)it involves
"outrageous demands by some LFAs,"which "are in no way related to video services or to the rationales
for requiring franchises."33
6. The efficient operation of the local franchising process is especially significant with
respect to potential new entrants with existing facilities, for a number of reasons. First,because they seek
to provide video programming to large portions of the country, they contend that the sheer number of
franchises they first must obtain serves as a competitive roadblock. Verizon, for example, has stated that
it would have to negotiate with more than 10,000 municipalities in order to offer service throughout its
current service area.34 Second, because the existing service areas of potential new entrants with existing
facilities do not always coincide perfectly with those covered by incumbent cable operators' franchises,
they argue that build-out requirements demanded by LFAs create disincentives for them to enter the
marketplace.35 We note that SBC has told investors that Project Lightspeed, an "initiative to expand its
fiber-optics network deeper into neighborhoods to deliver SBC U-versesM TV, voice and high-speed
Internet access services,"36 will be deployed to approximately ninety percent of its "high-value," seventy
(...continued from previous page)
securing agreements from several LFAs "could delay competitive wireline video service entry for years");
Comments of BellSouth Corp.,et.al.,MB Docket No.05-255 at 3 (filed Sept. 19,2005)(stating that,on average, it
takes eleven months to finalize a franchise agreement and that in some cases it has taken three years to conclude
negotiations);id.at 6(arguing that the franchising process is"costly,time-consuming,and susceptible to abuse by a
variety of parties, but especially by incumbent cable operators which have every incentive to use all measures to
delay or burden new entrants through regulatory gamesmanship").
29 Comments of Verizon,MB Docket No.05-255 at 6(filed Sept. 19,2005).
30Id.at 7-8.
31 Id.at 8-9.
32 Id.at 9-12.
331d.at 12-14.
34 David Ranii, Options abound for phone TV, THE NEWS & OBSERVER, Jul. 28, 2005, available at
http://www.newsobserver.com/business/technology/story/2633725p-9070222c.html(visited Sept. 15, 2005) (stating
that"if Verizon offered TV service in every market it now offers phone service, [the alternative to federal or state
legislation]would be to negotiate with more than 10,000 municipalities").
35 See, e.g., Linda Haugsted,Franchise War in Texas, MULTICHANNEL NEWS, May 2, 2005 (noting that, although
Verizon has negotiated successfully a cable franchise with the city of Keller, Texas, "it will not build out all of
Keller: It only has telephone plant in 80%of the community. SBC serves the rest of the locality").
36 News Release,SBC CIO Confirms Project Lightspeed Timing, Milestones at Analyst Conference,Nov. 3, 2005,
available at http://www.sbc.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=21874 (visited Nov. 9,
2005).
5
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
percent of its"medium-value,"and less than five percent of its"low-value"customers.37
7. According to the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,the
National League of Cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the National Association of
Counties, local governments "want and welcome real communications competition in video, telephone
and broadband services,"38 and they "support a technology-neutral approach that promotes broadband
deployment and competitive service offerings.i39 While acknowledging that consumers "demand real
competition to increase their options and improve the quality of services,i40 local governments argue that
franchising "need not be a complex or time-consuming process.i41 They argue that the current
framework "[s]afeguards [a]gainst [a]buse and [p]rotects [c]ompetition.i42 Furthermore, local
governments maintain that local franchisors take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously and strive to
"manage and facilitate in an orderly and timely fashion the use of[local]property."43
8. Anecdotal evidence suggests that new entrants have been able to obtain cable franchises.
In that regard,we note that SNET44 and Ameritech"both obtained cable franchises before being acquired
by SBC. Bellsouth46 and Qwest47 have obtained franchises, as have many cable overbuilders—RCN has
37 See Leslie Cauley, Cable,phone companies duke it out for customers, USA TODAY, May 22,2005, available at
http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2005-05-22-telco-tv-cover-usat x.htm (visited Nov. 9, 2005) ("During a
slide show for analysts, SBC said it planned to focus almost exclusively on affluent neighborhoods. SBC broke out
its deployment plans by customer spending levels: It boasted.that Lightspeed would be available to 90% of its
`high-value' customers—those who spend$160 to$200 a month on telecom and entertainment services—and 70%
of its `medium-value' customers,who spend$110 to $160 a month. SBC noted that less than 5%of Lightspeed's
deployment would be in`low-value'neighborhoods—places where people spend less than$110 a month.").
38 Testimony of Kenneth Fellman, Mayor, Arvada, California, on behalf of the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,the National League of Cities,the United States Conference of Mayors,
and the National Association of Counties, before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and
Commerce, Apr. 27, 2005, at 3, available at http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/
04272005hearing1488/Fellman.pdf(visited Nov. 15,2005).
39 Id.
4o Id.at 12.
41 Id.at 13.
42 Id.at 16.
43 Id.at 11.
44 See Applications for Consent to the Transfer of Control of Licenses and Section 214 Authorizations from Southern
New England Telecommunications Corporation, Transferor, To SBC Communications, Inc., Transferee, 13 FCC
Rcd 21292,21294(1998)(noting that a subsidiary of SNET at the time was providing cable service throughout the
state of Connecticut"pursuant to a statewide franchise that was granted in September 1996")(citation omitted).
45 See In re Applications of Ameritech Corp., Transferor, and SBC Communications Inc., Transferee, For Consent to
Transfer Control of Corporations Holding Commission Licenses and Lines Pursuant to Sections 214 and 310(d)of
the Communications Act and Parts 5, 22, 24, 25, 63, 90, 95 and 101 of the Commission's Rules, 14 FCC Rcd 14712,
14720 (1999) (describing how Ameritech's "cable television subsidiary, Ameritech New Media, Inc., provides
competitive cable service to more than 200,000 consumers in over 75 communities in the Chicago, Cleveland,
Columbus,and Detroit metropolitan areas")(citation omitted).
46 See Comments of BellSouth Corporation, MB Docket No. 05-255 at 1-2 (filed Sept. 19, 2005) ("BellSouth
currently holds 20 franchises to provide cable `overbuild' service in local markets throughout its telephone service
area,representing approximately 1.4 million potential cable households.").
47 Comments of Qwest Communications International Inc., MB Docket No. 05-255 at 2-3 (filed Sept. 19, 2005)
(describing how, "[u]ntil recently, Qwest has been focusing its efforts on obtaining either geographically limited
(continued....)
6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
acquired over 100.48 Verizon has stated that it "has obtained nine local cable franchises for FiOS TV
from various local franchising authorities ("LFAs") in California, Florida, Virginia, and Texas"49 and "is
negotiating franchises with more than 200 municipalities."50 According to a survey of 161 National
Telecommunications Cooperative Association ("NTCA") members, "[f]orty-two percent of survey
respondents offer video service to their customers. Ninety-four percent of those offer video under a cable
franchise,while six percent offer video as an Open Video System(OVS)...."51
9. In addition, there have been recent efforts at the state level to facilitate entry by
competitive cable providers. For example, legislation was passed in Texas in September 2005 enabling
new entrants in the video programming distribution marketplace to provide service pursuant to state-
issued certificates of franchising authority.52 Upon the submission of a completed affidavit by an
applicant, Texas regulators now are required to issue a certificate of franchising authority within
seventeen business days.53 Similar bills have been introduced in Virginia and New Jersey although they
are yet to be enacted.54
10. With this Notice, we seek to determine whether, in awarding franchises, LFAs are
carrying out legitimate policy objectives allowed by the Act or are hindering the federal communications
policy objectives of increased competition in the delivery of video programming and accelerated
broadband deployment and,if that is the case,whether and how we can remedy the problem.55
III. DISCUSSION
11. Potential competitive cable providers have alleged that the local franchising process
serves as a barrier to entry, and that State and local franchise requirements serve to unreasonably delay
competitive entry. Given the interrelated federal goals of enhanced cable competition and rapid
(...continued from previous page)
`pocket' franchises to serve newly constructed communities or`market' franchises where Qwest obtains a city-wide
agreement with the ability to overbuild the incumbent operator at its own pace"and noting that"Qwest already is in
the process of obtaining CATV franchises in a number of... communities throughout the western United States").
48 See New competitors still drawn to U.S. business telecom field, TELEPHONY, Oct. 24, 2005, available at
http://lw.pennnet.com/news/display news story.cfm?Section=WIREN&Category=&NewsID=126977 (visited Nov.
7,2005)("RCN operates a total of 130 video franchises in its market areas,which include the metropolitan areas of
Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, along with New York/New Jersey and eastern
Pennsylvania.").
49 Comments of Verizon,MB Docket No.05-255 at 5(filed Sept. 19,2005).
5o News Release, Verizon Seeks Franchise to Bring Fairfax County Residents Choice for Their Cable TV Service,
July 28, 2005, available at http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroonl/release.vtml?id=92782 (visited Nov.
9,2005).
51 NTCA Broadband/Internet Availability Survey Report, Sept. 2005, available at
http://www.ntca.org/content documents/2005NTCABroadbandSurveyReport.pdf (visited Nov. 9, 2005). NCTA
represents more than 560 small and rural telephone cooperatives and commercial companies. See generally
http://www.ntca.org/ka/ka-3.cfm?content item id=60&folder id=44(visited Nov.9,2005).
52 See TEx.UTIL.CODE ANN.§66.003(West 2005).
53 See TEX.UTIL.CODE ANN. §66.003(b)(West 2005).
54 See Bells Get Another Shot With Texas Bill, CBS News, July 24, 2005, available at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/24/ap/business/mainD 8BI 1 TF82.shtml?CMP=OTC-
RSSFeed&source=RSS&attr=Business-APDigital D8BI1TF82(visited Nov.2,2005).
55 We note that the Commission previously has neither adopted rules implementing this specific provision of Section
621 nor had the opportunity to interpret its impact on the local franchising process.
7
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
broadband deployment, below we seek comment on a number of issues relating to the cable franchising
process generally,and, in particular,the process by which competitive cable franchises are awarded.
A. Potential Competitors' Current Ability to Obtain Franchises
12. We request comment on the current environment in which would-be new entrants attempt
to obtain competitive cable franchises. How many franchising authorities are there nationally?S6 How
many franchises are needed to reach 60 or 80 percent of cable subscribers?57 In how many of these
franchise areas do new entrants provide or intend to provide competitive video services? Are cable
systems generally equivalent to franchise areas? To what extent does the regulatory process involved in
obtaining franchises — particularly multiple franchises covering broad territories, such as those today
served by facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services — impede the realization of
our policy goals? Are potential competitors obtaining from LFAs the authority needed to offer video
programming to consumers in a timely manner? What is the impact of state-wide franchise authority on
the ability of the competitive provider to access the market? Is there evidence that such state-wide
franchises are causing delay? What impact has state-level legislative or regulatory activity had on the
franchising process? Are competitors taking advantage of new opportunities provided by state
legislatures and regulators? How many, competitive franchises have been awarded to date? How many
competitive franchises have potential new entrants requested to date? How much time, on average, has
elapsed between the date of application and the date of grant, and during that time period, how much
time,on average,was spent in active negotiations? How many applications have been denied?
13. How many negotiations currently are ongoing? Are the terms being proffered consistent
with the requirements of Title VI? How has the cable marketplace changed since the passage of the 1992
Cable Act, and what effect have those changes had on the process of obtaining a competitive cable
franchise? Are current procedures or requirements appropriate for any cable operator, including existing
cable operators? What problems have cable incumbents encountered with LFAs? Should cable service
requirements vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Are certain cable service requirements no
longer needed in light of competition in the MVPD marketplace? To what extent are LFAs demanding
concessions that are not relevant to providing cable services?58 Commenters arguing that such abuses are
occurring are asked to provide specific examples of such demands. Parties should submit empirical data
on the extent to which LFAs unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises. We seek record
evidence of both concrete examples and broader information that demonstrate the extent to which any
problems exist.
14. We also ask commenters to address the impact that state laws have on the ability of new
entrants to obtain competitive franchises. Some parties state that so-called "level-playing-field"
statutes,59 which typically impose upon new entrants terms and conditions that are neither "more
56 We note that the Television & Cable Factbook indicates that, excluding wireless cable systems, there are 8,409
operating cable systems in the United States. TELEVISION&CABLE FACTBOOK 2005 at F-13.
57 According to the Television & Cable Factbook, 301 cable systems serve 60 percent of total cable subscribers;
while 706 cable systems serve approximately 80 percent of total cable subscribers. Id.at F-2.
58 See,e.g.,Comments of Verizon, MB Docket No. 05-255 at 12(filed Sept. 19,2005)(arguing that"[m]any local
franchising authorities unfortunately view the franchising process as an opportunity to garner from a potential new
video entrant concessions that are in no way related to video services or to the rationales for requiring franchises").
59 See CONN. GEN. STAT. § 16-331(f) ("Each certificate of public convenience and necessity for a franchise issued
pursuant to this section shall be nonexclusive,and each such certificate issued for a franchise in any area of the state
where an existing franchise is currently operating shall not contain more favorable terms or conditions than those
imposed on the existing franchise."). We note that LFAs themselves sometimes incorporate "level-playing field"
provisions into their cable ordinances or the franchises they award.
8
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
favorable" nor "less burdensome" that those to which existing franchises are subject,60 create
unreasonable regulatory barriers to entry. Others state that they create comparability among all
providers.61 We seek comment on these issues. We also seek comment on the impact of state laws
establishing a multi-step franchising process 62 Do such laws create unreasonable delays in the
franchising process?
B. The Commission's Authority to Adopt Rules Implementing Section 621(a)(1)
15. We tentatively conclude that the Commission has authority to implement Section
621(a)(I)'s directive that LFAs not unreasonably refuse to award competitive franchises. As an initial
matter,the Commission is charged by Congress with the administration of Title VI,which, as courts have
held, necessarily includes the authority to interpret and implement Section 62163 Moreover, we believe
that the 1992 Cable Act's revisions to Section 621(a)(1) indicate that Congress considered the goal of
greater cable competition to be sufficiently important to justify the Commission's adoption of rules.
Under the Supremacy Clause,64 the enforcement of a state law or regulation may be preempted by federal
law when it stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives
of Congress.65 The Supreme Court has held that federal regulations properly adopted in accordance with
an agency's statutory authorization have no less preemptive effect than federal statutes and, applying this
principle, the Court has approved the preemptive authority that the Commission has asserted over the
regulation of cable television systems.66 In addition, Section 636(c) of the Act states that"any provision
of law of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority or any provision of
any franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with [the Communications] Act shall be
deemed to be preempted and superseded."67 Thus, we tentatively conclude that,pursuant to the authority
granted under Sections 621(a) and 636(c) of the Act, and under the Supremacy Clause, the Commission
may deem to be preempted and superceded any law or regulation of a State or LFA that causes an
unreasonable refusal to award a competitive franchise in contravention of section 621(a). At the same
time, however, we recognize that Section 636(a) states that "[n]othing in this title shall be construed to
affect any authority of any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority,
regarding matters of public health,safety,and welfare,to the extent consistent with the express provisions
6° In The Fallacy of Regulatory Symmetry: An Economic Analysis of the "Level Playing Field" in Cable TV
Franchising Statutes, Thomas W. Hazlett and George S. Ford characterize level-playing-field statutes as
"mandat[ing] that municipal governments not license a second cable TV operator in their community without
imposing franchise requirements as `burdensome' as those levied on the first entrant, and typically require formal
public hearings to determine the impact of new rivalry." 3 BUSINESS AND POLITICS 21, 22 (2001). According to
Hazlett and Ford,as of 2001 at least 11 states had passed such laws. Id.at 27.
61 See, e.g., Position Paper of the California Cable and Telecommunications Association opposing California
Assembly Bill 903, available at http://www.senate.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/ENERGY/_home/
03-15-05mangers.htm (visited Nov. 9, 2005) (stating that California's "Legislature passed the level playing field
statute to insure regulatory neutrality as video competition evolved").
62 See MASS.REGS.CODE tit.207, §3.03 (establishing a number of steps in the franchising process,each providing
the LFA between seven and 90 days to act).
63 See City of Chicago v. FCC, 199 F.3d 424(7th Cir. 1999)(rejecting the townships' argument that the Commission
was not granted regulatory authority over Section 621, the statute setting out general franchise requirements, and
finding the FCC is charged by Congress with the administration of the Cable Act which includes the authority to
interpret section 621 and to determine what systems are exempt from franchising requirements).
64 U.S.Const.,Art.VI,c1.2.
65 Capital Cities Cable,Inc. v. Crisp,467 U.S.691,698-99(1984).
66 See id. at 700,708.
67 47 U.S.C.§556(c).
9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
of this title."68 Finally, we note that the Commission is empowered by Section 1 of the Act"to execute
and enforce the provisions of this Act"69 and by Section 4(i)"to perform any and all acts,make such rules
and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
execution of its functions."70 We seek input from commenters on our tentative conclusion that the
Commission is authorized to implement Section 621(a)(1) as amended. We also seek comment on the
manner in which the Commission should proceed. Do we have the authority to adopt rules or are we
limited to providing guidance?
16. The first sentence of Section 621(a)(1)states that a franchising authority may award"1 or
more franchises"and may not unreasonably refuse to award"an additional competitive franchise."71 We
tentatively conclude that Section 621(a)(1)empowers the Commission to ensure that the local franchising
process does not unreasonably interfere with the ability of any potential new entrant to provide video
programming to consumers. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
17. Section 621(a)(1) states in relevant part that "[ajny applicant whose application for a
second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final
decision pursuant to the provisions of section 635 for failure to comply with this subsection."72 Section
635,in turn, sets forth the specific procedures for such judicial proceedings.73 Apart from those remedies
available to aggrieved cable operators under Section 635, we tentatively conclude that Section 621(a)(1)
authorizes the Commission to take actions, consistent with Section 636(a), to ensure that the local
franchising process does not undermine the well-established policy goal of increased MVPD competition
and, in particular, greater cable competition within a given franchise territory.74 We seek comment on
this tentative conclusion as well. How might the Commission best assure that the local franchising
process is not inhibiting the ability of incumbent cable operators to invest in broadband services?
18. Finally, we seek comment on possible sources of Commission authority, other than
Section 621(a)(1), to address problems caused by the local franchising process. For example, given the
relationship between the ability to offer video programming and the willingness to invest in broadband
facilities identified above, could the Commission take action to address franchise-related concerns
pursuant to Section 706?
C. Steps the Commission Should Take to Ensure that the Local Franchising Process
Does Not Unreasonably Interfere with Competitive Cable Entry and Rapid
Broadband Deployment
19. We seek comment on how we should define what constitutes an unreasonable refusal to
68 47 U.S.C.§556(a).
69 47 U.S.C.§ 151.
70 47 U.S.C.§ 154(i).
71 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1).
72 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1).
73 See 47 U.S.C. §555("(a)Any cable operator adversely affected by any final determination made by a franchising
authority under section 621(a)(1) ... may commence an action within 120 days after receiving notice of such
determination,which may be brought in(1)the district court of the United States for any judicial district in which
the cable system is located; or (2)in any State court of general jurisdiction having jurisdiction over the parties.
(b)The court may award any appropriate relief consistent with the provisions of[Section 621(a)(1)] and with the
provisions of subsection(a).").
74 See¶14,infra,for a discussion of the range of state and local government actions Section 621(a)(1)authorizes the
Commission to address.
10
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
award an additional competitive franchise under Section 621(a)(1). While that section refers to the
"unreasonable refus[al] to award an additional competitive franchise,"75 we tentatively conclude that
Section 621(a)(1) prohibits not only the ultimate refusal to award a competitive franchise, but also the
establishment of procedures and other requirements that have the effect of unreasonably interfering with
the ability of a would-be competitor to obtain a competitive franchise, either by(1)creating unreasonable
delays in the process, or (2)imposing unreasonable regulatory roadblocks, such that they effectively
constitute a de facto "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise" within the
meaning of Section 621(a)(1). We tentatively find that this interpretation is consistent with the language
in the statute and appropriate because it allows us to capture more appropriately the range of behavior that
would constitute an "unreasonable refusal to award an additional competitive franchise.s76 We seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
20. Further, we tentatively conclude that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a
franchise, to "assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable
subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides;"77"allow
[a] cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all
households in the franchise area;i78 and"require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide
adequate public, educational and governmental access channel capacity, facilities, or financial support."79
These powers and limitations on franchising authorities promote important public policy goals.
21. We solicit comment on what, if any, specific rules, guidance or best practices we should
adopt to ensure that the local cable franchising process does not unreasonably impede competitive cable
entry. What would the appropriate remedy or remedies be for violations of such rules, guidance or best
practices? Should the Commission establish specific rules to which LFAs must adhere or specific
guidelines for LFAs? For example, should the Commission address maximum timeframes for
considering an application for a competitive franchise?8° Are there certain practices that we should find
unreasonable through rules or guidelines? If so,what are these practices?
22. In addition, we note that it is not clear how the primary justification for a cable franchise
— i.e., the locality's need to regulate and receive compensation for the use of public rights of way —
applies to entities that already have franchises that authorize their use of those rights of way. Does
Section 621(a)(1)provide the Commission with the authority to establish different—specifically,higher—
standards for "reasonableness" with respect to such entities? In that context, we seek comment on
75 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1)(emphasis added).
76 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1). The Commission in the past has emphasized that the purpose of Section 621(a)(1) is
broader than simply providing would-be entrants with a civil remedy upon the ultimate denial of a request for a
competitive franchise. See Implementation of Section 19 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and
Competition Act of 1992 (Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming),9 FCC Red 7442, 7469 n.127(1994)(noting that"[a] concern has been raised that the provision of
Section 621 that allows an appeal only from afinal decision of denial by a franchising authority potentially could be
used by a franchising authority to delay or preclude a potential entrant from availing itself of the remedies of the
Act" and soliciting comment regarding whether "any such alleged frustration of the purpose of Section 621" has
occurred).
77 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(3).
78 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(A).
79 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B).
80 We note that Section 617 of the Communications Act limits the time in which an LFA may consider a request for
approval of the sale or transfer of a cable franchise to 120 days. 47 U.S.C. §537. If the LFA does not rule upon the
request within that window, "such request shall be deemed granted unless the requesting party and the franchising
authority agree to an extension of time." Id.
11
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
whether Section 621(a)(1) permits the imposition of greater restrictions on the authority of LFAs with
respect to those entities (e.g., facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services) that
already have permission to access public rights of way.
23. We also seek comment on whether build-out requirements are creating unreasonable
barriers to entry for facilities-based providers of telephone and/or broadband services. It is our
understanding that the areas served by such entities frequently do not coincide perfectly with the areas
under the jurisdiction of the relevant LFAs. We also note that Section 621(a)(4)(A) states that, "[i]n
awarding a franchise, the franchising authority shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable
period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area."81
(For purposes of this discussion, we distinguish between(1)requirements that may function as barriers to
competitive entry for providers of telephone and/or broadband services with existing facilities, and
(2)prohibitions against discriminatory deployment of cable services based upon economic
considerations.82) We seek comment on the FCC's authority in this area. Given the language of Section
621(a)(4)(A), does the Commission have authority under Section 621(a)(1)to direct LFAs to allow such
new entrants a specific, minimum amount of time to expand their networks beyond their current
footprints? If so, and in light of the fact that a new entrant generally faces competition from at least one
incumbent cable operator and two direct broadcast satellite ("DBS") providers, what would constitute a
reasonable amount of time to do so?
24. Finally, Section 602 of the Act defines "franchising authority" as "any governmental
entity empowered by Federal, State, or local law to grant a franchise."83 In some cases it may be the state
itself, rather than the LFA,that has taken steps which unreasonably interfere with new entrants' ability to
obtain a competitive franchise. We ask commenters to address whether it may be appropriate for us to
preempt such state-level legislation to the extent that we find it serves as an unreasonable barrier to the
grant of competitive franchises.84
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
25. With respect to this Notice, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA"), see
generally 5 U.S.C. §603, is contained in the attached Appendix. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM specified infra.
The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the IRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration.85
81 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(A).
82 Cf.47 U.S.C. §541(a)(3) ("In awarding a franchise or franchises, a franchising authority shall assure that access
to cable service is not denied to any group of potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the
residents of the local area in which such group resides.").
83 47 U.S.C.§522(10).
84 In this regard, we note that at least one court has found that Section 621(a)(1) preempts inconsistent local
requirements. See Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d. 1236, 1243(D.Colo.2001)
(holding that a franchise provision in the Boulder,Colorado charter requiring voters to approve any cable franchise
was preempted by Section 621(a)(1) because it conflicted directly with that provision's mandate that the
"franchising authority"be responsible for granting the franchise).
85 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a). In addition, the Notice and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.
12
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
B. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
26. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s) subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified "information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees," pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C.3506(c)(4).
C. Ex Parte Rules
27. Permit-But-Disclose. This proceeding will be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
proceeding subject to the "permit-but-disclose" requirements under section 1.1206(b) of the
Commission's rules.86 Ex parte presentations are permissible if disclosed in accordance with
Commission rules, except during the Sunshine Agenda period when presentations, ex parte or otherwise,
are generally prohibited. Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that a memorandum
summarizing a presentation must contain a summary of the substance of the presentation and not merely a
listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and
arguments presented is generally required.87 Additional rules pertaining to oral and written presentations
are set forth in section 1.1206(b).
D. Filing Requirements
28. Comments and Replies. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules,88 interested parties may file comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
("ECFS"),(2)the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal,or(3)by filing paper copies.89
29. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing
the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting comments. For ECFS filers,
if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit
one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In
completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address,and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment
by Internet e-mail.To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov,and include the
following words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and directions will be sent in
response.
30. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of
each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission.
86 See 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1206(b);see also 47 C.F.R.§§ 1.1202, 1.1203.
87 See 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1206(b)(2).
88 See id.§§ 1.415, 1419.
89 See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 13 FCC Rcd 11322(1998).
13
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,NE., Suite 110,
Washington,DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail)must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive,Capitol Heights,MD 20743.
• U.S.Postal Service first-class,Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
31. Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will
be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., CY-A257, Washington, D.C., 20554. These
documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word
97,and/or Adobe Acrobat.
32. Accessibility Information. To request information in accessible formats (computer
diskettes, large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This
document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format(PDF)at:http://www.fcc.gov.
33. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, contact John
Norton, John.Norton@fcc.gov, or Andrew Long, Andrew.Longna,fcc.gov, of the Media Bureau, Policy
Division,(202)418-2120.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that,pursuant to Sections 1,4(i), 621(a)(1), and 636(c)of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 541(a)(1), and 556(c), this
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby ADOPTED.
35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H.Dortch
Secretary
14
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
APPENDIX
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (the "RFA"),1 the
Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ("IRFA") of the possible significant
economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in this Notice on a substantial number of small
entities.2 Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Notice provided in
paragraph 28 of the item. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration("SBA").3 In addition,the Notice and
IRFA(or summaries thereof)will be published in the Federal Register.4
A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Proposed Rules
2. The Notice initiates a process to implement Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, in order to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable competition and
accelerated broadband deployment. Specifically, the Notice solicits comment on how to best ensure that
local franchising authorities ("LFAs"), which are the governmental entities responsible for regulating
cable providers at the local level,5 do not "unreasonably refuse to award ... additional competitive
franchise[s]."6 The Notice also seeks comment on the specific approach the Commission should take in
order to implement Section 621(a)(I). Specifically, it asks whether the Commission should establish
(1)specific guidelines and/or model terms for competitive cable franchises, or(2)general principles that
are designed to provide LFAs with the guidance necessary to ensure that competitive franchises are
awarded in a timely fashion.
B. Legal Basis
3. The Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission has authority to implement Section
621(a)(1)'s mandate that LFAs do not "unreasonably refuse to award ... additional competitive
franchises." In that regard,the Notice finds that Section 636(c)makes plain that"any provision of law of
any State, political subdivision, or agency thereof, or franchising authority or any provision of any
franchise granted by such authority, which is inconsistent with this Act shall be deemed to be preempted
and superceded."7 Finally, the item notes that the Commission is empowered by Section 1 of the
Communications Act "to execute and enforce [its] provisions"8 and by Section 4(i) "to perform any and
all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be
The RFA,see 5 U.S.C. §§601 —612,has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996("SBREFA"),Pub.L.No. 104-121,Title II, 110 Stat.857(1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. §603. Although we are conducting an IRFA at this stage in the process, it is foreseeable that
ultimately we will certify this action pursuant to the RFA,5 U.S.C. §605(b),because we anticipate at this time that
any rules adopted pursuant to this Notice will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
3 See 5 U.S.C. §603(a).
4 See 5 U.S.C.§603(a).
5 The Communications Act defines "franchising authority" as "any governmental entity empowered by Federal,
State,or local law to grant a franchise." 47 U.S.C.§522(10).
6 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(1).
47 U.S.C.§556(c).
8 47 U.S.C.§ 151.
15
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
necessary in the execution of its functions."9 The Notice is adopted pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
621(a)(1),and 636(c)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended.10
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed
Rules Will Apply
4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.l 1 The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."12 In addition, the term "small business" has the
same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.13 A "small business
concern" is one which: (1)is independently owned and operated; (2)is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3)satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
("SBA").14
5. Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small
businesses,according to SBA data.l5
6. Small Organizations. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small
organizations.16
7. The Commission has determined that the group of small entities possibly directly affected
by the proposed rules herein, if adopted, consists of small governmental entities (which, in some cases,
may be represented in the local franchising process by not-for-profit enterprises). A description of these
entities is provided below. In addition the Commission voluntarily provides descriptions of a number of
entities that may be merely indirectly affected by any rules that result from the Notice.
1. Small Governmental Jurisdictions
8. The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is defined as "governments of cities, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand."17
As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.18 This
number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546
947 U.S.C.§ 154(i).
10 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),541(a)(1),and 556(c).
11 5 U.S.C.§603(b)(3).
12 5 U.S.C.§601(6).
13 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of"small-business concern" in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. §632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §601(3),the statutory definition of a small business applies"unless an
agency,after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s)in the Federal Register."
14 15 U.S.C.§632.
15 See SBA,Programs and Services,SBA Pamphlet No.CO-0028,at page 40(July 2002).
16 Independent Sector,The New Nonprofit Almanac&Desk Reference(2002).
17 5 U.S.C.§601(5).
18 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and
492.
16
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
(approximately 96.2 percent)have populations of fewer than 50,000,and of which 1,498 have populations
of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be
84,098 or fewer.
2. Miscellaneous Entities
9. The entities described in this section are affected merely indirectly by our current action,
and therefore are not formally a part of this RFA analysis. We have included them, however,to broaden
the record in this proceeding and to alert them to our tentative conclusions.
a. Cable Operators
10. The "Cable and Other Program Distribution" census category includes cable systems
operators, closed circuit television services, direct broadcast satellite services, multipoint distribution
systems, satellite master antenna systems, and subscription television services. The SBA has developed
small business size standard for this census category,which includes all such companies generating$12.5
million or less in revenue annually.19 According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were a total of
1,311 firms in this category, total, that had operated for the entire year.2° Of this total, 1,180 firms had
annual receipts of under $10 million and an additional 52 firms had receipts of$10 million or more but
less than $25 million. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this
service category are small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
11. Cable System Operators (Rate Regulation Standard). The Commission has developed its
own small-business-size standard for cable system operators, for purposes of rate regulation. Under the
Commission's rules,a"small cable company"is one serving fewer than 400,000 subscribers nationwide.21
The most recent estimates indicate that there were 1,439 cable operators who qualified as small cable
system operators at the end of 1995.22 Since then, some of those companies may have grown to serve
over 400,000 subscribers, and others may have been involved in transactions that caused them to be
combined with other cable operators. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are now fewer
than 1,439 small entity cable system operators that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
herein.
12. Cable System Operators (Telecom Act Standard). The Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system operators, which is "a cable operator that,
directly or through an affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all subscribers in the
United States and is not affiliated with any entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
exceed $250,000,000."23 The Commission has determined that there are 67,700,000 subscribers in the
United States.24 Therefore, an operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a small
19 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)code 513220(changed to 517510
in October 2002).
20 U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, "Establishment and Firm Size
(Including Legal Form of Organization),"Table 4,NAICS code 513220(issued October 2000).
21 47 C.F.R. §76.901(e). The Commission developed this definition based on its determination that a small cable
system operator is one with annual revenues of$100 million or less. See Implementation of Sections of the 1992
Cable Act: Rate Regulation, Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393
(1995).
22 Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable TV Investor,February 29, 1996(based on figures for December 30, 1995).
23 47 U.S.C.§543(m)(2).
24 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator,Public Notice DA 01-158
(2001).
17
•
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not
exceed $250 million in the aggregate.25 Based on available data, the Commission estimates that the
number of cable operators serving 677,000 subscribers or fewer,totals 1,450.26 The Commission neither
requests nor collects information on whether cable system operators are affiliated with entities whose
gross annual revenues exceed $250 million,27 and therefore is unable, at this time, to estimate more
accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify as small cable operators under the size
standard contained in the Communications Act of 1934.
13. Open Video Services. Open Video Service ("OVS") systems provide subscription
services.28 As noted above, the SBA has created a small business size standard for Cable and Other
Program Distribution 29 This standard provides that a small entity is one with $12.5 million or less in
annual receipts. The Commission has certified approximately 25 OVS operators to serve 75 areas, and
some of these are currently providing service.30 Affiliates of Residential Communications Network, Inc.
(RCN) received approval to operate OVS systems in New York City, Boston, Washington, D.C., and
other areas. RCN has sufficient revenues to assure that they do not qualify as a small business entity.
Little financial information is available for the other entities that are authorized to provide OVS and are
not yet operational. Given that some entities authorized to provide OVS service have not yet begun to
generate revenues, the Commission concludes that up to 24 OVS operators (those remaining) might
qualify as small businesses that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
b. Telecommunications Service Entities
14. As noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the
pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and "is not dominant in its field of operation."31 The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends
that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not"national"in scope.32
15. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("LECs"). Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.33 According to
25 47 C.F.R.§76.901(f).
26 See FCC Announces New Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operators, Public Notice, DA 01-
0158(2001).
27 The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case basis if a cable operator appeals a local
franchise authority's finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator pursuant to §76.901(f) of
the Commission's rules. See 47 C.F.R. §76.909(b).
28 See 47 U.S.C.§573.
29 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,NAICS code 513220(changed to 517510 in October 2002).
30 See http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/csovscer.html (visited October 11, 2005), http://www.fcc.gov/mb/ovs/
csovsarc.html(visited October 11,2005).
31 15 U.S.C.§632.
32 Letter from Jere W.Glover,Chief Counsel for Advocacy,SBA,to William E.Kennard,Chairman,FCC(May 27,
1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of"small-business concern,"which the RFA incorporates into
its own definition of"small business." See 15 U.S.C. §632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. §601(3) (RFA).
SBA regulations interpret"small business concern"to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. See 13
C.F.R.§ 121.102(b).
33 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002).
18
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
Commission data,34 1,303 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent
local exchange services. Of these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer employees and
283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by our action. In addition,
limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers
increased approximately 34 percent from 1997 to 2002.35
16. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), "Shared-
Tenant Service Providers,"and "Other Local Service Providers." Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.36 According to Commission data,37
769 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider
services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 12 carriers have reported
that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service Providers." Of the
39, an estimated 38 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service,
competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers"
are small entities that may be affected by our action. In addition,limited preliminary census data for 2002
indicate that the total number of wired communications carriers increased approximately 34 percent from
1997 to 2002.38
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
17. We anticipate that any rules implementing Section 621(a)(I) that result from this action
would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions (e.g., one-time proceedings
to amend existing procedures regarding the method of granting competitive franchises). LFAs today must
review and decide upon competitive cable franchise applications, and will continue to perform that role
upon the conclusion of this proceeding; any rules that might be adopted pursuant to this Notice likely
would require at most only modifications to that process.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
18. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,
34 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service"
at Table 5.3, page 5-5 (June 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source uses data that are current as of
October 1,2004.
35 See U.S.Census Bureau,2002 Economic Census,Industry Series: "Information,"Table 2,Comparative Statistics
for the United States (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513310 (issued Nov. 2004). The
preliminary data indicate that the total number of"establishments" increased from 20,815 to 27, 891. In this
context,the number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence than is the number of
"firms," because the latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or control. The more
helpful 2002 census data on firms,including employment and receipts numbers,will be issued in late 2005.
36 13 C.F.R.§ 121.201,NAICS code 517110(changed from 513310 in Oct.2002).
37"Trends in Telephone Service"at Table 5.3.
38 See supra note 35.
19
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following
four alternatives (among others): "(1)the establishment of differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2)the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for
such small entities; (3)the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4)an exemption from
coverage of the rule,or any part thereof,for such small entities."39
19. As discussed in the Notice, Section 621(a)(1) states that LFAs must not unreasonably
refuse to award competitive franchises4° Should the Commission conclude ultimately that the procedures
by which LFAs currently award competitive franchises conflict with the mandate of Section 621(a)(1), it
may adopt rules designed to ensure that the local franchising process does not create unreasonable
barriers to competitive entry. Such rules may consist of specific guidelines (e.g., maximum timeframes
for considering a competitive franchise application) or general principles designed to provide LFAs with
the guidance necessary to conform their behavior to the directive of Section 621(a)(1). As noted above,
these rules likely would have at most a de minimis impact on small governmental jurisdictions. Even if
that were not the case, however, the interrelated, high-priority federal communications policy goals of
enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment would necessitate the establishment
of specific guidelines and/or general principles for LFAs with respect to the process by which they grant
competitive cable franchises. The alternative(i.e., continuing to allow LFAs to follow procedures that do
not ensure that competitive cable franchises are not unreasonably refused) would be unacceptable, as it
would be flatly inconsistent with Section 621(a)(1). We seek comment on the impact that such rules
might have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would have on those entities. We also
invite comment on ways in which the Commission might implement Section 621(a)(1)while at the same
time impose lesser burdens on small entities.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
20. None.
39 5 U.S.C. §§603(c)(1)-(4).
40 47 U.S.C. §541(a)(1) ("A franchising authority ... may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional
competitive franchise.").
20
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN
Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,MB Docket No. 05-311
Telephone companies and other facilities-based new entrants to the multichannel video
programming distribution(MVPD)market have the potential to provide strong competition to incumbent
cable operators. These new entrants are making significant investments in the infrastructure that enables
them to offer video service along with telephone and broadband services to consumers. We are hearing
from some providers that local authorities may be making the process of getting franchises unreasonably
difficult. New video entrants,regardless of the technology they employ,should be encouraged—not
impeded from entry.
In passing the 1992 Cable Act,Congress recognized that competition between multiple cable
systems would be beneficial. Indeed,Congress specifically encouraged local franchising authorities
(LFAs)to award competitive franchises. Congress recognized that it is important to have multiple
competitors in the video market.
Congress also recognized that LFAs had played,and would continue to play,an important role in
the cable franchising process.However,Congress restricted their authority in this area in order to promote
cable competition. Specifically,Section 621 of the statute prohibits LFAs from granting exclusive
franchises and from unreasonably refusing to award additional competitive franchises.
It is the Commission's responsibility to remove unreasonable roadblocks to competition.
Through the proceeding we commence today,we seek to ensure that local authorities are not thwarting
competition by unreasonably refusing to award additional competitive franchises. This Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking is a critical first step. I look forward to working with my colleagues to conclude
the rulemaking process.
21
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q.ABERNATHY
Re:Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No.05-311
With the issuance of this Notice we begin the process of answering a complex question: when,if
ever,do cable franchising requirements become unreasonable barriers to entry by competing cable service
providers,and how should"unreasonable"barriers be defined and dealt with?
This question is complex for several reasons. First,as the Notice points out, local franchising
authorities clearly have authority over many of the operational aspects of local cable service: granting or
denying franchises,imposing buildout requirements,and requiring specific access channel facilities and
support. Nevertheless,this authority is not absolute: it is limited by the explicit provision of Section
621(a)(1)of the Communications Act,which states that they may not unreasonably refuse to grant a
franchise to a competing cable service provider.
Determining what constitutes an"unreasonable"requirement in real-life terms will require a
particularly careful study of the legal predicates and the factual record. We need to correctly interpret not
only the provisions of the Communications Act,but also the holdings of federal preemption case law.
Taken together,these laws require that we accurately separate franchising obligations that are costly and
time-consuming from those that are so burdensome and irrelevant that they constitute de facto entry
barriers. This is an exacting standard,and meeting it will demand that we have a full and fair factual
record. I believe the Notice we are adopting today will help us compile that record.
And if we can successfully identify and remedy franchising requirements that are precluding
competitive entry,we will have accomplished much. Increasing cable competition will help consumers
by lowering cable rates and giving consumers more choices and better service. Fully functioning markets
invariably do a better job of maximizing consumer welfare than regulators can ever hope to achieve. That
is why the added discipline of marketplace competition helps the FCC move in the direction of less
federal regulation.
We can move away from economic regulations designed for a monopoly environment and focus
our sights more narrowly on regulations designed to respond to social policy concerns that are not
addressed by market forces.
Increasing competition and less burdensome regulatory oversight will also help broadband
network deployment by all providers. And there is no doubt that cheaper,faster,and more accessible
advanced broadband services will further our individual and national welfare.
Both new entrants and incumbent cable providers will benefit from the elimination of terms and
conditions found to be unreasonable. Both will be freed to reallocate their resources to more productive
uses.
A vigorously competitive market is a marvelous thing,and ensuring that the benefits of
competition and new technology flow to cable consumers is one of the best actions the Commission can
take. I am happy to support this Notice because it will help us do that.
22
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J.COPPS
Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No.05-311
There is no doubt in my mind that more competition in the delivery of video services would bring
significant benefits to consumers. When people have more options,they reap big rewards—better
services,higher technology and,critically,lower prices. This is precisely why Congress laid out the goal
of promoting competition so clearly in the Communications Act.
Cable and telephone companies are beginning to compete to offer consumers the much-heralded
triple play—bundles of telephone,video and Internet services. Cable companies have already jumped
into the voice service market,and telephone companies are entering the video fray. This crossover is
exciting,and it means that old industry boundaries are eroding,giving way to a new and hopefully more
consumer-friendly future.
The Communications Act provided a process for entry into the video services marketplace under
which cable operators must secure franchises. This process recognizes the important role that franchising
authorities play—ensuring public health, safety and welfare;preventing economic red-lining;managing
public rights-of-way;and ensuring access for public,educational and governmental channels.
This system has generally worked for consumers, incumbent cable operators and municipalities.
It also appears to be working in numerous communities for new entrants. It is important that it works for
new entrants if we are going to be able to reap the rewards that competition brings to consumers. In the
current environment, it may be that some changes are called for,and certainly we have an ongoing
obligation to consider ways to improve the process. That is why we initiate this proceeding today. If we
find hard record evidence of problems that need to be repaired,and can be repaired within the parameters
of the existing law,then the Commission must consider taking those steps. I would also note that there is
Congressional interest in looking more broadly at how the statute itself is accommodating new
marketplace developments.
What this Commission decides about the specific issues before it will be significantly influenced
by the record this notice elicits,and that is why we seek a full record and why I emphasize the importance
of widespread participation in the proceeding. Until we obtain a full record,I do not believe the results of
this proceeding are foreordained. At the end of the day,I am hopeful we can develop a thoughtful and
balanced approach,one recognizing that local input and diversity are values we are always charged to
nurture even as we meet our responsibilities to encourage consumer-friendly competition by promoting
more choices in the video services market.
23
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S.ADELSTEIN
Re: Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as amended by
the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, MB Docket No.05-311
I support the issues raised in today's item because Congress clearly sought to promote
competitive cable offerings and to facilitate the approval of competitive cable franchises in the Cable Act
of 1992.1 While it remains far from clear whether Congress specifically intended any role for the
Commission in preempting and superseding the practices of local governments in the local franchising
process,the questions we raise in today's NPRM will give us a better record to determine whether we do
indeed have such authority,and, if so,a clearer sense of its possible limits.
It is a goal of Congress,this Commission,and me personally to promote video competition and
broadband deployment. Consumers will benefit if they are given more choices of video providers in a
world where cable and satellite form a duopoly that some have argued has constrained price competition
and alternative voices. In my long effort to constrain media consolidation,I have called for more
diversity in the distribution and production of video content. Nothing we have seen in recent years offers
more hope for consumers to gain new choices than the serious entry of our largest telephone companies
into the video marketplace. It is a long-awaited and welcome development that this Commission needs to
encourage with all of the tools available to us. We should help new entrants in every reasonable way we
can to enter and succeed in providing more consumer choice in video services.
Competition in the video marketplace is not only critical as a means to constrain prices,which in
itself is a worthy goal after year upon year of price hikes. It is critical to the future of our democracy
itself that our citizens have access to as many forms of video content as possible so they can make up
their own minds about the issues of the day and not remain subject to a tiny number of gatekeepers who
can decide what deserves airing based on their own financial or ideological interests.
Broadband competition and an open Internet are also critical components of what the Supreme
Court called the"uninhibited marketplace of ideas."2 The award of competitive cable franchises will
encourage broadband deployment by new entrants,such as telephone companies,by granting them a new
revenue source that helps justify investment in new high capacity fiber networks. So the award of new
franchises will improve access not only to innovative new cable services but also to more robust
broadband networks. Both of these promote the open exchange of video content,ideas,and indeed all
communications. So the decision to enter the video marketplace by some of the largest telephone
companies heralds an historic opportunity to improve our communications networks.
The larger question that hangs over this proceeding,though,is whether the local franchising
process truly is a hindrance to the deployment of alternative video networks,as some new entrants assert.
It is clear that most, if not nearly all, local authorities welcome competition in their communities. Even if
for some reason they wanted to resist, it will prove very difficult for local officials to try to prevent
services from reaching their citizens who thirst for new choices. As the CEO of one major new entrant
recently noted,"Any place it's come to a vote,we win."'
Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Pub.L.No. 102-385, 106 Stat. 1460. See 47
U.S.C. §521(6)(stating that one of the purposes of Title VI is"to promote competition in cable communications").
2 Red Lion Broadcasting v.FCC,395 U.S.367,390(1969).
3 Dionne Searcey,As Verizon Enters Cable Business,It Faces Local Static Telecom Giant Gets Demands As It
Negotiates TV Deals,Wall St.J.,Oct.28,2005,at Al.
24
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
What I hear from local officials is that they really want to ensure that these new advanced video
services are deployed in a fashion that serves all of their communities,in a manner that maximizes the
benefits for everyone. This is a vital role,not an anti-competitive one. Most importantly,it is a role
granted to them by Congress. The franchising process and the role of local governments are products of
specific policy decisions made by Congress. For example,Congress specifically allocated to local
franchise authorities(LFAs)the authority to ensure that all households are served;to seek public,
educational,and governmental(PEG)channel capacity;and to recover PEG capital costs.4
The Commission needs to tread with caution and care before it asserts any authority to interpose
itself with LFAs to the extent Congress specifically delegated power to local officials. We are going out
on limb already by creating a"de facto"refusal theory and tentatively concluding that the Commission
has the ability to determine whether an LFA is"unreasonably refus[ing]to award a competitive
franchise." I eagerly await a vigorous debate in the record,a public hearing,and,if necessary,a
Commission report,before agreeing to make that tentative conclusion final.
I would not have been willing to support this NPRM if we had not also made clear that we will
consider it reasonable for local officials to carry out their basic responsibilities as Congress intended.
Specifically,we tentatively conclude that it is"not unreasonable"for an LFA to carry out its statutory
mandate to prevent economic redlining,to establish reasonable build-out requirements to"all households
in the franchise area,"and to"provide adequate public,educational and governmental access channel
capacity,facilities or financial support." We should not and indeed cannot usurp for ourselves the
authority granted by Congress to local governments. This tentative conclusion makes clear we respect the
powers specifically enumerated by Congress for the LFAs.
I am also pleased that we acknowledge the deference the courts have granted to LFAs in making
determinations pursuant to the powers granted under Section 621. We ask important questions about how
much deference this imputes to the Commission to grant to LFAs in the exercise of their authority. My
opinion is that to the extent they are operating in a manner to carry out the responsibilities Congress
intended,they deserve substantial deference,and the courts have clearly afforded them such deference.
We can learn more about the LFA process by examining the record we generate. We have heard
allegations by some new entrants that LFAs have made demands completely unrelated to what Congress
intended. If such"shakedowns"are occurring,and particularly if they are creating unreasonable refusals
to award franchises,the Commission is fully justified to explore ways to promote Congressional goals.
That should be the focus of our efforts,not a larger undertaking to undermine the entire franchising
process,as new entrants have urged upon us. Even if the Commission were to agree from a policy
perspective that the franchising process is cumbersome and unwieldy,as competitors argue passionately,
those arguments are better made before Congress,not the Commission. The franchising process and local
powers are spelled out clearly in statute,and only Congress can provide such relief.
Still,we can play an important role in combating abuse,to the extent it is occurring,and by
encouraging best practices. The good news is that both the LFAs and the Commission share the goals of
promoting vigorous competition. If all parties would simply apply themselves to working through the
process,rather than seeking to subvert it through federal or state regulatory or legislative efforts,they
would make greater progress in getting franchises awarded,as many competitors already have done. I
support this NPRM because it provides an opportunity to get beyond the rhetoric to the facts of what is
actually happening in local communities.
Finally, I am especially pleased we have agreed to hold a hearing to explore these issues directly
with the parties involved. That forum should provide an excellent opportunity to explore best practices,
4 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 541(a)(2),(3)and(4).
25
Federal Communications Commission FCC 05-189
get to the bottom of what is really happening and encourage progress under the framework that Congress
has established.
26
PETITION AGAINST CONGRESSIONAL AND
TELEPHONE COMPANY PROPOSALS TO WEAKEN OR USURP MUNICIPAL
CABLE FRANCHISING POWERS
This is to voice strong opposition to Congressional and telephone company efforts to weaken
and/or by-pass the important and historic role of municipalities in cable television franchising.
For decades, municipalities have followed the local cable franchising process to ensure that cable
system operators meet important community needs, including,but not limited to,provision of
public, educational and governmental access channels and facilities, all subject to applicable
law(s). . Municipal cable franchising has been critical to responsible right-of-way management,
preventing redlining, and ensuring operator responsiveness to consumers. Municipal
franchising has benefited this country's system of free speech by preserving a degree of
localism in the electronic media.
We emphatically suggest that the FCC could never provide the level of close-up
oversight, ascertainment and assistance as that provided by local officials in each community.
Cable companies have long thrived under local franchising. Congress and telephone companies
should not weaken,by-pass and/or otherwise usurp longstanding municipal franchising rights.
Under current law, all cable franchises are already non-exclusive. Competition will continue to
be promoted and facilitated by municipal officials. Congress should not"roll over"because a
powerful new entrant now wants to rewrite the rules to give it advantages never enjoyed by its
competitors.
Municipal officials, consumers and many others strongly oppose any attempts by
Congress and telephone companies to usurp the longstanding and successful system of municipal
cable television franchising. Maintaining municipal cable franchising is an important legislative
need of municipal officials. We therefore respectfully request strong action by Congress to
oppose any such usurpation of municipal powers.
NAME ADDRESS
2��1111
.N f iVc1Toa
r Newsletter January 2006, ,s
Volume 5,Issue 1
The Official Newsletter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors®
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 495, Alexandria, VA 22314 - 703-519-8035—703-519-8036 fax
Contents:
• President's Message
• Executive Director's Message
• Committee Reports:
• Communications HAPPY NEW YEAR!
• Conference
• Government Programming Awards NATOA wishes to thank each and every one of
• Customer Service you for your dedication and hard work! We'll
• Membership be working hard for you this year, and we
• Multimedia & Programming appreciate your support!
• Policy & Legal -•---
• State Chapters
• Technology
• Membership Notices
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT
By Lori Panzino-Tillery
Happy New Year!!
2006 is already off to running start- no time to catch our breath, legislative break or
not!
eNATOA kicks off the new year on January 9th with "What's happening at the FCC"?
This should be a very informative session. I am looking forward to the eNATOA series
and am hopeful you will find the sessions a worthwhile monthly career resource.
Not making any predictions for 2006- there are lots of events peeking on the horizon,
whether they materialize or not. Although not a complete list, it appears we will be
dealing with; House and Senate national video franchising legislation, Senate hearings
on many local government issues, state attempts at statewide video franchising,
defining municipal provisioning, finalizing the Adelphia/TW/Comcast transfers, local
governments negotiating with telcos for agreements, the FCC NPRM, NATOA
"produced"video promotions of government access programming just to mention a
few.
From the short list above it is apparent that this is the time for local governments to
stay aware of the issues at both the State and Federal levels of government and
continue to keep your decision makers informed as to the status of these issues. When
NATOA issues an Action Alert your decision makers will be better prepared to act
quickly and understand the urgency in doing so. NATOA vows to stay involved and
advocate for the issues near and dear to local government, but the work is always
lighter with many engaged in the task.
2006 looks to be a fast paced, ever changing landscape of legislation and new
challenges. I figure that's why most of us are in the jobs we're in- always looking
forward to new challenges.
Stay alert and stay engaged,
Yours in NATOA,
Lori Panzino-Tillery
President
Message From Headquarters
Reminders —
FCC Franchise Rulemaking: NATOA is seeking the participation and support of all local
governments in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking pertaining to franchising. A
template is available on the Policy/Advocacy page of the NATOA website for anyone's
use, and NATOA, joined by other national organizations will be filing comments on the
legal issues. Please do your part and provide the FCC with information about your
community's franchise.
Congressional/Legislative Support: All members received a request from NATOA to
provide additional support, to the extent they are able, to help us combat the challenge
to local government authority currently underway before Congress and a variety of
states. We are grateful to those of you who have already sent support, or have
indicated that you intend to do so. However, we are far from having sufficient
response — so I will send reminders to encourage anyone who is able to lend additional
support to do so at this time. Thank you.
Year-End Congressional Wrap-Up: This is just a brief summary of the items we've been
tracking on Capitol Hill, and those which we will be monitoring closely over the coming
weeks.
Digital Age Communications Act of 2005 ("DACA")
DACA was introduced on December 15, 2005 by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC). Its
stated purpose is"[t]o promote the widespread availability of communications services
and the integrity of communications facilities, and to encourage investment in
communication networks." Since it was introduced late in the year, the bill has not yet
gained momentum, but there is still some cause for concern regarding a number of
provisions in the bill.
DACA effectively preempts local governments by vesting exclusive authority in
the federal government, specifically the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC")
with little state regulation. The FCC will have full rulemaking authority to define the
acts and/or practices that constitute unfair methods of competition or deceptive action
which are prohibited under this bill. The FCC also gains authority to hear complaints
and resolve disputes. Customer service and privacy issues are also federalized,
therefore, for practical purposes, eliminating them because their federalization will
inevitably lead to no enforcement. In essence, there will be a full "integration"of
Federal, State and Local regulation of all communications networks which will be solely
governed by Federal law.
Particularly problematic is the bill's prohibition on franchise agreements. The bill
states a time table that will cause existing franchises to cease to exist at either their
date of expiration or four (4) years after the enactment of the bill, whichever comes
EARLIER. Therefore, within four years of enactment, all franchise agreements,
regardless of when they were created or when they expire will be void.
By the same token, right-of-way usage will be automatic. The bill specifically
states that:
[a]II communications service providers shall be authorized to
construct or operate an electronic communications network over
public rights-of-way and through easements as long as it would not
affect the safety, function or appearance of the property, the
convenience and safety of any person who has a right to use such
easement and the cost of the installation is born by the provider.
However, the bill also states that the "owner of the easement must be justly
compensated." Arguably, this could be interpreted as to state that the fair market
value of the land used would have to be paid to the owners of the property.
Though not specifically addressed in the bill, one true victim of this legislation is
Public, Educational, and Government Access Channels (PEG) and Institutional Networks
(I-Net). With the prohibition on franchise agreements, local governments will have little
to no bargaining power to require new entrants to provide for these vital services. Even
more problematic is the four year expiration of existing franchise agreements. Thus,
when the agreements expire, there is nothing to bind the providers to comply with their
existing PEG and I-Net obligations.
Universal Service is also completely changed by this bill. A new contribution
method is developed that is based on phone numbers and exempts low income
households from paying into the fund entirely. A $3.6 million dollar cap is placed on the
USF and States may use it to provide single connections to all low income and high cost
households, support underlying infrastructure for basic communications services, fund
or reimburse ETCs for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of services, and
additionally, unused funds can be used by States for non-basic communications service
or to help fund public safety infrastructure or E-911 systems.
Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act ("STFSA")
STFSA was introduced Wednesday December 20, 2005 by Senators Michael Enzi
(R-WY) and Byron Dorgan (D-SD). The bill's stated purpose is "[t]o promote
simplification for the administration and collection of state sales and use taxes." This
new bill has caused quite a stir since its introduction because of its new internet sales
taxing regime. IT calls for the simplification of sales and use taxes at the state and
local level. Under current law, purchases over the internet are not taxed and consumers
are supposed to pay taxes on them at the end of the year, this bill will tax the
purchases upfront. The current lack of enforcement on this issue has cost states
millions of dollars in lost revenue. The bill works hand-in-hand with the Streamlined
Sales and Use Tax Agreement which has already been adopted by 34 states and the
District of Columbia.
Unfortunately, STFSA as written will heftily cost local governments in revenue as
it imposes taxes and fees on telecommunications services. Under the bill, member
states will apply the simplification requirements of the agreement to telecomm services
and one (1) tax rate will apply to all services. The bill expands will encompass the
same taxes, charges and fees in 4 USC 116, except that it will replace "Mobile
Telecommunications Services"with "Telecommunications Services." STFSA also states
a more inclusive definition of"Telecommunications Services"to include Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP).
Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act ("BICCA")
BICCA was introduced in July, 2005 by Senator John Ensign (R-NV). The bills
stated purpose is"to establish a market driven telecommunications marketplace, to
eliminate government managed competition of existing communication service, and to
provide parity between functionally equivalent services."
This bill will serve to pre-empt most state and local governments and take away
their power to regulate broadband voice services. BICCA states that no video service
provider shall be required to obtain a state or local franchise agreement, nor be
required to build out. In essence, current local cable franchising authority is eliminated
and all existing cable franchises are terminated as of the date of enactment. The bill
also states that when occupying an existing right-of-way, the provider is only obligated
to pay up to 5% of gross revenues, costing local governments dearly because it will
receive less fee revenue than it currently does due to a smaller gross revenue base.
Additionally, localities cannot assess any fee above the 5% fee for Rights-of-way
construction permits.
Consumer protections are federalized and the FCC is mandated, under BICCA, to
establish customer service and protection standards that are exclusively enforced by the
States. And though PEG is not eliminated, capacity is limited to no more than 4
channels.
Video Choice Act of 2005 ("VCA''
Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR)joined forces with Senator Rockefeller (D-WV) to
introduce a Senate version of the bill in late June 2005. Rep. Wynn (D-MD) and Rep.
Blackburn (R-TN) also joined together to introduce a House bill the same day. Both
bills state their respective bill's purpose is"to promote deployment of competitive video
services, eliminate redundant and unnecessary regulation, and further the development
of next generation broadband networks."
The Senate bill states that no competitive video services provider may be
required to obtain a franchise in order to "provide any video programming, interactive
on-demand services" in any area that the provider already has "any right, permission,
or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any cable franchise[.]"
Additionally, all existing franchise agreements entered into before the enactment of the
Act would be exempt from the provisions and would stay in place.
Both bills eliminate local government's right to collect fees, require PEG channels
and manage their ROW. Additionally, both bills remove local enforcement because all
local franchising authority is prohibited and full authority is vested to the FCC. Both
bills preempt local government's right to require build out—which is currently granted
under the Cable Act.
Broadband Internet Transmission Services ("BITS')
While not formally introduced, Representatives Barton (R-TX) and Upton (R-MI)
have circulated two drafts of the BITS bill. BITS I showed promise towards the goal of
keeping local governments whole and protecting the consumers. BITS II, however, did
away with that promise. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet has twice held hearings to
discuss the staff draft and a mark up is expected early in 2006.
BITS II is especially disillusioning to local governments because it fails to follow
through on commitments made to us in the drafting process of BITS I. BITS II gives
telcos a fast track video franchising process they have been yearning for, however, this
also allows them avoid social obligations such as supporting PEG and I-Nets. The draft
also allows"cherry picking"which, aside from being discriminatory, leaves consumers
without the competitive offerings promised in BITS I.
The second draft also treats like services under different regulatory regimes. An
uneven playing field is thus created, leaving only incumbent providers with their existing
obligations and allows new entrants to avoid them.
Rights-of-ways fees are limited to the recovery of management costs, providing,
in essence, "free rent"to the telecom occupants of the public property. Video franchise
fees are limited to 5% of subscriber revenue, not the 5% of gross revenues which is
standard today and video franchise fees will be significantly reduced based on
definitions in the new draft.
Universal Service Reform Act of 2005 ("USRA")
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) teamed up with Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) to draft this
piece of legislation that states that its purpose is"[t]o redirect and reform the universal
service provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, and for other purposes." The
draft is set to be introduced in early 2006.
This bill is the first to address contributions into the Universal Service Fund
("USF") as intrastate as well as interstate. The bill states that all who currently pay into
the USF will continue to do so. Additionally, the umbrella has been broadened to
include anyone who provides telephone service (as its major function of the service)
with a telephone number or IP address and any provider that sells a connection to the
network. Terry stated in a briefing that, "all who play must pay." Thus, VoIP, DSL,
cable modem, BPL, and wireless providers will all pay into the fund, where services
such as"Xbox Live" by Microsoft will not. The USF support to providers will be limited
to actual costs, not based on the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier's ("ILEC's") cost.
In terms of distribution, a very new concept under this bill is that broadband
service will now qualify to receive USF support. Additionally, within five years, all USF
recipients must provide broadband services at a speed of 1 megabit per second —
though this may be waived for good cause (such as technical unfeasibility). The bill
caps the total amount of Universal Service support to their current levels plus the
annual growth factor and high cost support cap for rural areas will be increased. The
schools and libraries, rural health care, and lifeline and linkup programs, however, will
not be affected.
Membership Services
Announcement
Announcing eNATOA
NATOA is proud to announce the launch of our monthly electronic learning event,
eNATOA. eNATOA will begin in January, 2006 and will feature a monthly
teleconference led by an expert on a given subject, and supplemented with an
electronic learning booklet that will be distributed to participants in advance.
eNATOA is designed to offer a high-quality learning experience to NATOA members and
supporters, including those with limited technology access. NATOA's webinar offerings
over the past year were well-received, but were not available to all members because
some communities do not have sufficient bandwidth or other technical capabilities to
participate in a web-based conference. Other members were not able to participate
because their jurisdictions'security settings made web-conferencing technically difficult.
In light of the wide range of technical issues that arose, NATOA made the decision to
offer the electronic learning events over a traditional conference call bridge, with a
supplementary electronic learning booklet that will be emailed to all participants in
advance.
The topics for eNATOA learning events will be announced in six-month series.
Registration is available over the NATOA website (www.natoa.orq). The schedule and
topics for January through June are listed below, as are the prices for each conference.
January 9, 2006: What's Happening at the FCC?
February 6, 2006: What's Happening in the Congress? A look at the BITS legislation
and other congressional activity
March 6, 2006: Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Why, Why Not: wireless technologies explained
April 3, 2006: Using the System to Protect our Communities: A primer on lobbying--
content and techniques
May 1, 2006: Copyright 101 for PEG Producers
June 5, 2006: What's Happening in the State Legislatures?
Call-in and technical trouble-shooting information will be provided to registered
participants the week before the seminar.
The cost for each seminar is $40 for members, $60 for non-members. A series of three
seminars is available for $100 for members, $150 for non-members. A series of five
seminars is available for $150 for members, $250 for non-members.
Please note: The April 3 seminar on lobbying will be offered to government members
and advisors only and will be offered at no charge to NATOA members.
If you have any questions or recommended topics for eNATOA events, please email
Joanne Hovis at hovis@natoa.org.
Technology Committee Report
By Joanne Hovis
Safecom
Skip Munster gave the Committee a briefing on his and NATOA's efforts with respect to
Safecom, the organization under the Department of Homeland Security that was set up
after 9/11/01 to establish standards, goals, and plans for national public safety radio
interoperability.
Safecom's overall goal is as follows: By 2023, to develop "an integrated system of
systems in regular use that allows public safety personnel to communicate, using voice,
video, and data, with whom they need, on demand, in real time, as authorized."
Skip discussed Safecom's goals and efforts for 2005:
• To develop interoperability baseline and from that determine what needs to be
done
• develop voluntary consensus of standards (available on Safecom website--
http://www.safecomprogram.gov/SAFECOM/)
• To engage industry to design systems that are more easily interoperable
• To develop coordinated grant guidance (also available on Safecom website)
• To test Safecom ideas through regional interoperability pilots, and then share the
results on the Safecom website
Emergency Local Override
Discussion concerned the fact that existing FCC policy has permitted local emergency
override so long as it does not override any emergency message at the presidential
level. There is now a question of whether the FCC will change or eliminate this right in
the context of its ongoing franchising proceeding. According to some Committee
members, the cable industry makes the argument that local override is too difficult to
accomplish with regionally-clustered systems.
Skip Munster reported that Fairfax County, VA had enforced its local override right
under its franchise agreement with Cox, despite Cox's initial claim that such override
was not technically feasible. Cory Gherkins, Mesa, AZ Broadband Development
Administrator, had a similar experience and will be briefing the Committee on next
month's call.
The Committee also expressed interest in having a detailed engineering and legal look
at this issue as part of the eNatoa series for 2006.
SCTE WG7
Bill Pohts reported on significant recent movement in the ongoing discussions among
local governments and the industry (under the auspices of SCTE Working Group 7)
concerning interpretation of codes regarding bonding, grounding, and other
construction issues. WG7 is trying to wrap up the entire process by the time of the
Society of Cable and Telecommunications Engineers (SCTE) conference on Emerging
Technologies in January. Bill recommends that NATOA members who are interested try
to attend. The next meeting of WG7 will be held during the SCTE meeting.
FEMA PEG Opportunity
Bruce Anderson reported that his community, Hoffman Estates, IL, has taken advantage
of FEMA's offer of free satellite and receiver equipment to carry FEMA's channel for
emergency information. According to Bruce, Hoffman Estates will also receive free
monthly service and will get local cable channels as well as the FEMA channel.
Information on the program was emailed to NATOA members by Libby Beaty earlier this
year. The following is a link to FEMA's On-line Request Form.
Technology Committee meetings are held by conference call on the second Tuesday of
each month at 3pm, EST. All interested NATOA members are welcome to join. If you
are interested, please send your email address to Joanne Hovis at
jhovis@internetCTC.com.
Conference Committee Report
By Doris Boris
NATOA's 26th Annual Conference will be held at the Buena Vista Palace — Walt Disney
World in Lake Buena Vista, Florida — Tuesday, August 22nd thru Friday, August 25th,
2006.
Planning continues per our established schedule. The Conference Agenda has been
blocked out — and the co-chairs for each track are studiously reviewing the various
submissions for track sessions. The Conference Planning Committee includes the
following members — if you would like to work with any of these committees — please
notify one of the committee co-chairs.
STEERING COMMITTEE:
Doris Boris; Joanne Hovis; Libby Beaty, Jennifer McKinney; Lori Panzino-Tillery
OUR HOST COMMITTEE IS: FLATOA
CONFERENCE PLANNING/TRACK COMMITTEE CO-CHAIRS ARE:
GENERAL SESSIONS TRACK—Leslie Stout & Coralie Wilson
PROGRAMMING TRACK—Donna Keating & Kathy Sherman
REGULATORY TRACK—Catharine Rice & Paul Valle-Riestra
TECHNICAL TRACK—Randy Davis &Cheryl Johnson
The Committee is also seeking suggestions and contacts for potential sponsors and
exhibitors— please submit these names directly to Jennifer Harman at NATOA
Headquarters.
Government Programming Awards Subcommittee
By Jerry Musial, Chair
The Call for Entries Brochure is on its way to design and print. It should be mailed out
the second week in January. Again the deadline for entries has changed from last year
due to the National Conference being moved to August. The deadline for entering the
Government Programming Awards will be March 31, 2006. Entries must be postmarked
by that date. The GPA Committee now begins work on revising the scoring sheets and
instructions and guidelines for the Moderators and Judges.
If you would like to be involved in the GPA Committee your help is always appreciated.
Please contact me at (414) 302-8350 or imusial©ci.west-allis.wi.us
Policy & Legal Committee Report
By Mary Beth Henry & Gary Resnick
The P & L Committee met on December 15. In attendance were: Akers, Ashpaugh,
Barenberg, Day, Fellman, Finnerty, Fuentes, Hackett, Hawkins, Henry, Hobson, Lederer,
Rice, Risk, Sepe, Sherwood, Torem, Ware, Wilson. BOD Members reported that P&L
are responsible for coming up with 4 topics for the eNATOA sessions and requested that
members email speaker suggestions to the Co-Chairs of the committee. The P&L
eNATOA sessions are: What's Happening at the FCC, What's Happening in Congress,
How to Lobby and What to say, and What's Happening in the states. Beaty is working
on a solicitation piece for NATOA members to raise monies for the on-going pre-
emption battle on Capitol Hill. The BOD had a strategic planning retreat in Washington,
D.C. Nov. 18 and 19. Fellman reported on the Customer Service information that he
presented the BOD.
Henry reported that she appreciated the feedback on the proposed legislative language
and would provide more language for comment in the future. The House Commerce
Committee delayed mark-up until after the New Year. NATOA members are
encouraged to set up meetings during the Congressional break for the holidays in
December. Lederer reported that the Senate is circulating draft language which takes a
different approach than the House. The language purports to set a timeframe by which
an agreement must be reached, if not, the incumbent's cable franchise becomes the
franchise for the new entrant. Lederer reported that the House usually leans towards
industry approach while local governments typically do better in the Senate. Lederer
suggested that local governments identify champions to carry our language in
Congress. Suggestions in the House include Rep. Wilson New Mexico, Rep. Terry,
Nebraska, Rep. Upton, Michigan, and Rep. Walden Oregon. The House has been in the
press because they got started on the issue with hearings. However the Senate will
become more visible in the debate beginning in January with the hearings.
Lederer reported that there are many upcoming opportunities for local government
lobbying in Washington D.C.
Jan 25, 2006- Jan 27, 2006 - United States Conference of Mayors
Feb 05, 2006- Feb 08, 2006 - National Lieutenant Governors Association Winter
Meeting.
Feb 18, 2006- Feb 25, 2006 - National Governors Association Winter Meeting
March 4 - 8, 2006 - National Association of Counties 2006 Legislative Conference
March 11-15, 2006 - National League of Cities 2006 Annual Congressional City
Conference
March 23-24 - NATOA Legal/Regulatory Workshop - Hotel Washington
The NCTA reported that the following states could be targeted for state-wide franchises
in 2006: Missouri, New Jersey, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Washington, Alabama, Arizona, Virginia, Ohio and California.
Swat Team Reports
Op Ed's and Letters to the Editor. Wilson reported that she put together a list of
contacts in each state who can recruit Mayors and other electeds to submit Op-Ed
pieces in local papers.
PSA's are in process.
Resolutions. Fellman/Resnick have many samples which will be posted on NATOA's
members only web page.
Congressional Letters and talking points. Lederer suggested doing a cover letter
and attaching the agreed-upon talking points that are posted on the NATOA listserv.
Risk provided a letter with a merge file that localities can use to send to their own
delegation as well as committee members. He also recommended that members meet
with their Congressional delegation during the upcoming break.
Legal/Regulatory Conference—Wilson reported that the NATOA conference will be
March 23-24 in Washington D.C. at the Hotel Washington. Room rates are $187. Some
time for lobbying will be available Thursday afternoon or members can arrive early and
lobby on Wednesday. More program information will be available very soon.
NATOA Advocacy Solicitation — NATOA will be asking members to contribute funds
for the battle on Capitol Hill.
FCC. Pestle, Lundgren and Lay will be conducting the eNATOA session on January 9 to
review the filing approach. Pestle and Lundgren will provide a template for local
governments to use to file on their own. Lay will cover the legal issues in the NPRM.
Lay will be preparing and filing the NATOA comments before the FCC.
The next meeting is January 19, 2006 at 2:00 pm Eastern, 1:00 pm Central, 12:00 Mountain
and 11:00 am Pacific.
Customer Service Committee
By Ken Fellman
In December, the Customer Service Committee finalized its report describing
customer service issues and deficiencies in customer service provisions contained in
telephone company cable franchise documents. That report was delivered to NATOA's
Board of Directors, and final approval should be forthcoming after the Board's January
meeting.
The Committee also completed, and delivered to the Board, a template that will
be used for NATOA membership to identify categories and numbers of consumer
complaints over the last year. NATOA's Board has suggested creating a template that
would be used by the membership to provide broad national data on how LFAs handle
consumer complaints. This information will be useful in our lobbying efforts both at the
federal and state levels. The Board provided feedback after its December meeting, and
further discussion ensued among the Committee members. A final decision from the
NATOA Board is expected in January, with distribution of the template to members
immediately thereafter.
The next Customer Service Committee conference call will be February 1, 2006
at 2:00 p.m. EST.
Multi-Media & Programming Committee
By Jennifer McKinney
The MM&P committee held a meeting on Monday, December 19. Those present:
Jennifer McKinney (chairman), Brad Clark, Donna Keating, Joe Keefe, David Miller, Joe
Murphy, Jerry Musial, Marc Pease, and Matt Schuster.
Sub-committee reports:
• Policy—The Policy Matrix is ready to be loaded onto the NATOA web site for
members' use. The current web site, however, is unable to support the matrix
format. The Policy Matrix will be loaded to the new and improved web site after the
first the year. The policy sub-corn will begin working on the benchmarking/audience
research matrix, which will also be available on the web in the future.
• Continuing Ed/Info Sharing —Donna Keating and Kathy Sherman met with the
Conference Programming Track sub-committee in December to brainstorm a
preliminary program and possible speakers. The following topics were presented for
discussion:
1. Marketing Your Channel - cross promotion, branding, designing a logo that
identifies your channel, working with your cable channel, events, giveaways
2. Management— budgeting, strategic planning, manager's role in government
television, revamping a channel, part-time, full time and volunteers: how to
manage creative people
3. Innovative Ideas/Video Profiles— award winning tapes from a variety of
categories, including bulletin board, graphics
4. Making Government More Accessible —Town Hall Meetings, emergency alerts,
interactive models, election coverage
5. Full-day Production Workshop- all day session on storytelling with emphasis on
lighting, shooting, editing, internet research
Session descriptions and tentative speakers are due by the end of January.
MM&P is working on the copyright eNATOA workshop to be held in May. Keith
Reeves will take the lead on finding a speaker(s) e-NATOA web series.
We discussed ideas for the Summer Journal. The topic will be "The Best of PEG".
We're looking for articles that show why the money spent on PEG facilities and
programming has been a great investment for communities across the country. The
sub-corn is looking for eight articles. We identified several ideas:
1. The Best Of"P"—Alliance (Donna will contact)
2. The Best of"E"— Fairfax County (Dave Miller will contact)
3. The Best of"G"— small, medium, large budget
4. 1st Government Channel...or longest running
5. Starting Up a New Channel
We're still looking for ideas...so give Donna a call with any suggestions. We're
looking at a March deadline for written copy!
• Program Acquisition-
FEMA launched a survey on the NATOA listsery and Commet listsery in December.
If you haven't filled it out, please take a couple of minutes to do so. FEMA and
MM&P are trying to ascertain who is currently airing the Recovery Channel, who has
pre-produced emergency response programming that could be shared via the
Recovery Channel, who may want to produce specific emergency response videos,
and what subject matter jurisdictions are most interested in for future programming.
FEMA is still offering to install Dish TV and to pay the monthly fee for one year for
anyone who wishes to receive its programming. The sub-corn will continue to
explore ways to enhance the existing MOU with FEMA to share programming and to
get info to NATOA members on programming that is already available.
• PEG PSA's-Work on developing PSA's about the national telecommunications
debate is progressing. Tucson is set to start production on a Right-of-Way PSA in
January. Tacoma is working on a PSA re: PEG programming, and Louisville on Public
Safety/I-net Use. In addition, we will provide a "Mayors"script that can be
produced locally. Holly Hanson from the Policy Committee is helping to craft the
messages. We are looking at a January-February launch date for all. The PSA's will
be widely distributed to government access channels. In addition, MM&P will be
working with the Policy Committee to review the Fred Johnson "Video Action
Project"scripts. This work will place the current policy debate in a historical
framework and look at the latest round of deregulatory rollback attempts.
• Miscellaneous: The staff of the House Commerce Committee has recommended
that NATOA put together a 10-minute DVD of excellent PEG programming from
jurisdictions represented by committee members. Joe Murphy from TelVue
Corporation (TVTN) has stepped up to the plate and offered to have his staff
produce two montage videos (House and Senate) for distribution to the committee
members. The DVD's will include examples of great P, E, and G programming.
Thanks in advance for helping Joe gather video clips/information for this vitally
important project.
Reminder: We're always looking for ideas for"Reel Tips: Fresh Ideas for
Programmers". Everyone is welcome to submit"Reel Tips"to Donna Keating at
donna.keating©montgomerycountymd.gov.
Due to the Martin Luther King Holiday...Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday,
January 23 at 3 p.m. EST
Membership Committee
By Rondella Hawkins &Jennifer McKinney
The Member Services Committee met by conference call on December 7th. Committee
members on the call included: Sandra Allen, Holly Hansen, Susan Littlefield, Jeff
Leuders and John Risk, Rondella Hawkins and Jennifer McKinney (co-chairs)
The Committee's goal is to launch the membership drive in February of 2006. The
Committee discussed membership and conference registration discount incentives to
new members and existing members that was approved by the NATOA Board of
Directors at their November retreat. The Committee made some revisions to the
membership incentives and asked for Jennifer and Rondella to take these changes back
to the Board of Directors for reconsideration. The Board approved these revisions.
Details will be announced when the membership drive is launched. Announcements will
be made on the NATOA list serve and sent to NATOA members who are not on the
NATOA list serve. The Committee also reviewed and commented on the membership
drive post card that will be mailed out to potential members.
Our next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, January 4th at 3:00 EST.
State Chapter News
By
Rondella Hawkins
Baltimore/Washington
Baltimore-Washington NATOA did not meet in December but is scheduled to meet on
Friday, January 6th.
Submitted by,
Lonni Moffett
FLATOA - Florida
FLATOA had a Legislative workshop this month in Orlando to discuss the upcoming
state legislative session. Our discussions were focused around the Verizon and SBC
cable franchising issues and the various state franchising bills and /or proposals that
have been showing up in many states; New Jersey, South Carolina, California among
others. Gary Resnick provided an update on the Federal situation and what was going
on at the FCC.
We spent a great deal of time in getting to understand the Texas legislation and
reviewed South Carolina as possible models that could appear in Florida during the
coming session. The group talked about a list of problem issues that are present in
Texas and South Carolina documents to begin crafting an educational campaign for
local legislators and to create a unified position for FLATOA members. It is important for
the same message to get through on all fronts. The summary of the education
campaign and a position statement will be distributed within the next two weeks.
Submitted by,
David Rivera
KATOA— Kentucky
,
The Kentucky Association of Telecommunication Officers &Advisors (KATOA) will hold a
meeting on January 13, 2006 to discuss the FCC's issuance a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking ("NPRM") and the important of filing comments. We will also be discussing
recently activity on Capital Hill and in Frankfort regarding cable and telecommunications
issues.
Submitted by,
Linda Ain
MACTA - Minnesota
MACTA Legislative Committee recommended and the MACTA Board approved their
recommendation at a December 21, 2005 Board meeting to move forward in the
process of developing an RFP to send out to cable attorney's for assistance in writing
response comments to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making. We will utilize the NATOA
template and give additional information from our Chapter that will benefit the cause.
We are awaiting a response from the League of Minnesota Cities with regard to their
desire to join us in this effort.
The MACTA Conference Committee now under the direction of Jeff Renner (Savage,
MN) has selected the dates of October 11th through the 13th of 2006 for MACTA's
Annual Fall Conference. The conference will again be held at the Mermaid Event Center
in Mounds View, Minnesota.
MACTA Vice President Sally Koenecke will be taking a look at a wide variety of web sites
this year, as one her 2006 goals is to head up a redesign of the entire MACTA
Web Site. It is our hope that it will become more user friendly and an informative web
site that offers people from within and outside the organization information that
they need to either get questions answered or to contact someone who can assist
them.
We also take this opportunity to "wish the best of luck" to former MACTA Board Vice
President Patrick Toth on his departure from the state of Minnesota. Patrick, his wife
and child have moved to Tennessee. We wish him and his family the very best as they
begin a new life in a new community.
We also want to again thank out-going MACTA Board members Diann Kirby
(Bloomington), Jerry Abraham (Little Falls) and Heidi Arnson (North Metro-Blaine) for
their hard work, dedication and continued commitment to the success of MACTA and
NATOA over the past few years. HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Submitted by,
Jeff Lueders
MO-NATOA— Missouri
Mo-NATOA's annual meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 22, 2006
at the Capitol Plaza Hotel in Jefferson City. It is held in conjunction with the Missouri
Municipal League's Annual Legislative Conference, which will be particularly useful this
year as we anticipate "Texas-style" legislation courtesy of the local phone company.
Besides legislation, topics usually include franchise issues, customer service standards
enforcement, and of course crystal-balling the telecom future.
A decision was handed down 12/19/05 in Level 3 v. City of St. Louis. All aspects of our
public right-of-way management ordinance adopted in 1991 were found to be
reasonable, including: bonds, insurance, maps, indemnification, application, permits,
transfer approval, etc.
The Judge also ruled that Level 3 could not recover its attorney's fees from the City,
which L 3 had wanted under Sec 1893 of federal code.
The Judge found that linear foot charges ($1.91) were NOT reasonable under the 96
Act because they were not based on costs.
We have been told that one or both parties will appeal the decision.
Submitted by,
Susan Littlefield
OH- NATOA - Ohio
Members met on December 15th in Columbus, Ohio at the offices of Schottenstein, Zox
and Dunn to review HB 3246, the Bits I &II house draft legislation, and CALEA. On the
state level, a new draft bill has been created and will be pushed by the local exchange
carriersi lobbyists in early 2006 (dubbed the ALEC bill for the moment). OHNATOA
members will need to focus much attention on the statehouse next year. Greg Dunn
explained the importance of lobbying our elected officials and will draft a letter that our
members can distribute to communities throughout the state explaining that while we
welcome the competition, without a franchise agreement, cities could lose franchise
fees and PEG access stations.
Members formally adopted NATOAis Core Values as requested by NATOA. Members
also approved making a $200 contribution to support the National
Regulatory/Legislative Fund. The bylaws were revised to change the definition of a
quorum ("Five voting members in attendance at a meeting shall constitute a quorum.")
A written or email proxy may be granted to any voting member.")
Elections for 2006 were held, with the current board being returned to office: President
- Kathie Pohl (City of Mentor); Vice President -Dave Muntean (City of Akron); and
Secretary/Treasurer - Chip Bergquist (Waycross Community Media).
Finally, meeting dates for 2006 were set as follows: March 16 in Akron; June 15 in
Cincinnati; August 24 in Orlando, FL during the National Conference; and November 16
in Upper Arlington.
Submitted by,
Kathie Pohl
SCAN NATOA—California and Nevada
SCAN NATOA has a meeting scheduled for January 19, 2006 to discuss SBC-Verizon.
The meeting will be held in two locations - a Northern California venue, Walnut Creek
and a Southern California venue, the City of Carson. A roundtable discussion regarding
how communities should be addressing the issues involved in physical plant upgrades
being
implemented by SBC (now AT&T) for Project Lightspeed and Verizon for FIOS.
The discussion will also review proposed changes in laws and regulations in the
Legislature, in Congress and at the FCC. Full details with speakers, times, locations and
registration information are available at www.scannatoa.org
Happy New Year from the SCAN NATOA Board!
Submitted by,
Deborah Steller
TATOA - Texas
The TATOA board met in November and established goals for 2006. The goals included
each board member recruiting 5 new members, a regional TATOA conference in West
Texas area in late spring - our first ever regional conference, increase entries in the 5th
Annual Programming Awards Competition in 2006 and start an online scrapbook of
TATOA on our website: www.tatoa.org
The Board also appointed Sheena Harden from the City of Austin to fill the unexpired
term of the vacant Secretary position.
Board members continue to be involved in educating the Texas PUC, the Texas
Congressional Delegation and TATOA members on the effects of SB5.
Submitted by,
Margaret Somereve
Communications Committee Report
By Doris Boris
The Communications Committee held a conference call meeting on December 6th. The
Committee conference calls are held the 1st Tuesday of each month — 2:00 — 3:00 PM —
Eastern Time.
Committee membership now includes: Greg Fuentes, Cheryl Johnson, Jennifer
McKinney, Peter Thurston, Rick Maultra, and Rondella Hawkins. Additional NATOA
members are invited to join this Committee — please contact Doris Boris at
dboris(@ci.charlotte.nc.us
Any NATOA member interested in participating on one of the following Sub-committees
should contact the committee's coordinator listed:
1. PUBLICATIONS — NATOA Journal/NATOA Newsletter— Rick Maultra —
cable©inetdirect.net
2. PUBLIC INFORMATION/MARKETING — Press Releases
Development/Research/Strategizing — Peter Thurston —
peter.thurston@ co.lane.or.us or Cheryl Johnson —telecomgal2000@yahoo.com
3. NATOA WEBSITE —Website Redesign — Jennifer McKinney—
imckinn 1@ci.tucson.az.us
The Committee's Mission Statement for the upcoming year is:
To assist the Executive Director in developing the information to be distributed to
the membership in a professional manner and on a regular basis, including public
information, marketing, the NATOA Journal, the NATOA Newsletter and the
NATOA Website.
The Committee approved the following list of topics for the upcoming NATOA Journal
issues:
SPRING: THE VALUE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT FRANCHISING — deadline —January 7,
2006.
SUMMER: MULTIMEDIA— deadline — April 3, 2006
FALL: BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT/ CONNECTIVITY— deadline —July 6, 2006
WINTER: LEGISLATIVE REVIEW — deadline — September 25, 2006
Members interested in doing an article should contact— Rick Maultra —
cable@inetdirect.net
+ i
The 20th day of each month is the deadline for submissions for the monthly NATOA
Newsletter— send information to Publications subcommittee chair— Rick Maultra —
cableOinetdirect.net
The Committee's Public Information/Marketing subcommittee — working with the Policy
& Legal Committee — has set up a rapid response group to attempt to quickly hit the
field with press releases, etc. on key issues dealing with legislative and other issues.
Members interested in participating on this committee should contact one of this
subcommittee's co-chairs — Peter Thurston —peter.thurstonPco.lane.or.us or Cheryl
Johnson — telecomga12000@iyahoo.com
NATOA is actively involved in the redesign of our website — members interested in
participating should contact the Website Redesign subcommittee chair—Jennifer
McKinney—jmckinn1@ici.tucson.az.us
The Winter issue of the Journal is off to the designers. That issue will focus on much of
the legislation being contemplated at present to amend the Communications Act and
change the way franchising is conducted.
Journal Guidelines:
The NATOA Journal of Municipal Telecommunications Policyis a quarterly publication of
the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. Each publication
addresses a specific or general topic of interest, including perspectives of individual
local governments, advisors to local governments, the industry and other
knowledgeable and interested entities. Submissions are welcomed and encouraged.
All submissions become the property of NATOA and may not be individually reproduced
or distributed without prior written consent. Any interested individual may submit an
article for consideration. Contributing authors are requested to submit articles that
provide insight into any aspect of the subject matter including legislative information,
legal analysis, economic impact, technical considerations and issues affecting local
governments generally.
All submissions should be in either Word or WordPerfect, approximately 1,500 words,
spell and grammar checked, accompanied by a one-paragraph biography of the author,
with appropriate contact information (including mailing address, phone, fax and e-mail
address. Please inform Rick Maultra, Publications Committee Chair, at 317-327-4594 if
you plan on making a submission or would like to discuss future issues of the Journal.
Submissions should be e-mailed to Rick Maultra at cable@inetdirect.net with copies to
lbeaty©natoa.orq and jharman©natoa.orq. Only electronic submissions will be
considered.
2006 Membership Renewal
It's 2006 — have you renewed your membership? If not, you'll be losing your privileges
soon — something you'll certainly not want to have happen. Contact NATOA HQ today
to ensure that your 2006membership is paid in full!
Member Contact Information — E-mail addresses
DO WE HAVE YOUR CORRECT E-MAIL ADDRESS? If you're not receiving the Newsletter
in an e-mail, it's likely because we don't have your correct address! NATOA is actively
working on a number of projects that would be facilitated through the use of member
e-mail addresses. While our records indicate e-mail addresses for a vast majority of
members, there are some who have not provided that information. In light of the fact
that we use e-mail for the distribution of this Newsletter, as well as action alerts and
new opportunities are all facilitated in an economical fashion through the use of e-mail,
I would like to request that ANY member who has not provided their e-mail address do
so. It's our goal to keep you informed in an effective and efficient manner - you can
help ensure we are able to do so. Thanks!
2005-2006 Board of Directors Listing
President:Lori Panzino-Tillery
President-elect: Doris Boris, boris©natoa.org
Past President:Coralie Wilson, cwilson@mail.ctv15.org
Director:Ken Fellman, fellman@natoa.org
Director: Mary Beth Henry, henry@natoa.orq
Director:Jennifer McKinney, mckinney@natoa.orq
Director:Rondella Hawkins, hawkins@natoa.orq
Director: Joanne Hovis, hovis@natoa.org
Director:Gary Resnick, Resnick@natoa.orq
Director Jerry Musial, musial@natoa.org
STAFF:
Executive Director: Elizabeth (Libby) Beaty, Ibeaty©natoa.org
Legislative & Regulatory Counsel: Pilar Camus, pcamus@ natoa.orq
Operations Manager: Jennifer Harman,jharman@natoa.org
Administrative Assistant: Melissa Robinson, mrobinson@ natoa.orq
NATOA, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and its
logo are registered trademarks and may not be used or reproduced without permission.
©Copyright 2006 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. All
Rights Reserved.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OFFICERS AND ADVISORS NATOA®
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 495 Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 519-8035
Fax: (703) 519-8036
E-Mail: Info@natoa.org
Web Address: www.natoa.org
notooeNational Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Core Values Executive Summary
Background
In anticipation of state and federal legislation that may impact local government's telecommunications
authority in a variety of areas, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors'
Convergence Sub-Committee developed a set of "Core Values" (Values) which were adopted by
NATOA's Board of Directors at its January 12, 2005 meeting. Each Value identifies a specific local
government concern/issue.
The Values have been created in a consistent format that quickly identifies each Core Value, its
significance, the issues related to it, and primary talking points for NATOA members to use when
educating their own officials and/or state and national representatives. The Values conform to NATOA's
Policy Platform.
NATOA and the National League of Cities have coordinated their efforts in this regard and have ensured
that we have consistent Values for our respective use. Further, NATOA will continue to work closely
with its other sister associations, the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of
Counties and the Alliance for Community Media, providing them with this material and encouraging the
use of these Values in their own educational and advocacy activities.
NATOA's Core Values
There are a total of nine Core Values. Alphabetically they are:
• Competition and Access to Products and Services
• Economic Development
• Homeland Security and Emergency Communications
• Localism Achieved Through Diverse Media and Telecommunications Ownership and Content
• Municipal Authority to Provide Telecommunications
• Police Powers
• Preservation of Local Government Taxing Authority
• Rights-of-Way Authority
• Universal Service
Call to Action-Advocacy and Education of Officials
The Board of Directors is asking its members to use the set of Values to educate their own officials, and
then for either those officials, or their designee(s), to use the Values to educate and advise state and
federal representatives. The Values and their format have been developed so that each NATOA member
is able to quickly select the Values that have significance to their locality. For example, one member may
•
have concerns with homeland security issues while another is concerned with rights-of-way authority. By
using the Core Values format, a consistent, unified and strong message will be provided to state and
federal elected officials.
Questions, and any anecdotal stories regarding the communications of NATOA's Core Values, should be
referred to NATOA headquarters, 703-519-8035.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
"°t° National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
11 a 25 Years of Communications Leadership
4144t... Competition and Access to Products and Services
Core Value
Competition provides greater choice, better quality and competitive pricing for communications products and
services,and access to new technologies affords greater communications options for a community.
Core Value Fundamentals
• The nation's communications policy increasingly relies on less regulation of the communications
market and more on competition and competitive forces to regulate it.
• Local governments share the Congressional goal of establishing meaningful competition in the local
communications markets.
• Although there is competition in some communications sectors, most sectors are not truly
competitive.
• Furthermore, a trend toward industry consolidation has reduced competition.
• In the absence of genuine competition, local governments should have the ability to ensure consumers
are treated fairly and that their community's communications needs are met.
Local Government Concerns
In updating the Communications Act, Congress could remove consumer protections and local government
oversight of critical communications technologies before genuine competition for communications services
exists. Congress will likely attempt to create regulatory parity (i.e., common rules) for communications
companies such as cable and telephone companies that with convergence of technologies will be able to offer
similar services (voice, video and data). Based on this ability to compete against one another or convergence,
communications companies will argue for full deregulation and the preemption of traditional state and local
authority, irrespective of whether genuine competition within individual markets exists. This may subject
consumers to the abuses of a monopoly or a duopoly communications market in many communities.
Legislative Action
• Recognize that local government shares the Congressional goal of establishing meaningful
competition.
• Develop a meaningful, and local, competition standard, where deregulation is tied to significant
evidence of"price competition" and price restraint.
• Guarantee local government authority to protect consumers where market forces fail.
• Maintain local government authority over the public rights-of-way to rightfully allow the
determination of access policies at the local level.
• Prevent communications providers from cross-subsidizing competitive service with non-competitive
service revenues;
• Prevent consolidation that results in the ownership of both the distribution facilities and the content
transmitted on those facilities by a single company.
• Develop policies which encourage Federal, state and local governments to work together:
• to ensure that consumers are protected from market power abuses, and;
• to develop local information infrastructure and services that enable all segments of the
community to participate in the global economy.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
"°'° National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Economic Development
Core Value
The promotion and advancement of economic development is a key responsibility of local
government.
Core Value Fundamentals
• The future of any local community depends on its ability to create jobs, stimulate
commerce and provide a high quality of life for its citizens.
• Local economic development strategies have shifted in the last twenty years as local
communities discover that their economic survival now depends on their ability to compete in a
global economy dependent on the rapid flow of information.
• Access to affordable and reliable high-speed broadband infrastructures and a highly
trained and educated workforce must be available in a community to ensure economic success.
• Competition based on the flow of ideas and intellectual property results in economic
freedom and prosperity.
Local Government Concerns
The future economic survival of America's local communities depends on the widespread and
rapid deployment of affordable broadband infrastructures. Legislation that hinders local ability to
act is a direct threat to the economic viability of our communities. Local governments must be
able to ensure the availability of the infrastructure necessary to compete in an information-based
global economy and to maintain a tax base that is tied to this information economy.
Legislative Action
• Allow local governments the broadest array of authority to support local economic
development.
• Amend the nation's tax code such that it no longer unfairly favors Internet merchants at
the expense of main street merchants.
• Amend the Communications Act to compel the FCC to curb anti-competitive incumbent
practices that place new competitors at disadvantage vis-à-vis incumbents.
• Preserve local governments' authority to prevent social and economic discrimination
(redlining) of residential and commercial areas by broadband providers who wish to serve only
the most profitable areas of a community.
• Amend the Communications Act so that the authority of municipalities to provide
telecommunications facilities and/or services is clearly preserved.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
°t°°® � National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Homeland Security and Emergency Communications
Core Value
Local government must have access to and use of effective and reliable emergency communications
systems.
Core Value Fundamentals
• With few, if any exceptions, every emergency is local.
• Local governments' police and fire departments are first responders in the overwhelming
majority of disasters.
• Emergency communications systems are part of government's broader responsibility for
emergency management.
• Emergency communications systems are used to inform and protect the public in the
event of terrorist threats, natural or man-made disasters and other public safety matters.
Local Government Concerns
Local government is in the best position to determine how best to use homeland security funds and
technical assistance from the Department of Homeland Security that is targeted to localities, and should
be provided that deference. Funding must be provided and local government must evaluate whether the
federal government is providing support commensurate to the critical role of first responders. Sufficient
spectrum must be made available for public safety uses, and non-interference with public safety
communications must take priority over commercial transmissions. The utilization of private
communications resources for governmental and public emergency use must be preserved, and the
decisions relating to such use must remain at the appropriate local, state and federal levels.
Legislative Action
• Provide sufficient spectrum for public safety and mandate that commercial transmissions
will not interfere with public safety communications.
• Require the FCC to accelerate E911 deployment, including next generation technology
deployment of emergency information and systems.
• Preserve and protect local emergency alert systems where identified and requested by
local government in order to meet their emergency response needs.
• Adopt and implement the National Emergency Alert System and require industry
participation to ensure that messages of all levels of government relating to national emergencies
are provided via all available communications systems.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
•
°'° 4 National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Preservation of Local Government Taxing Authority
Core Value
The ability of a government to impose and collect taxes to fund its operations is an essential authority of
any government, including local government.
Core Value Fundamentals
• The long-established authority of localities to tax is critical in order to ensure that local
governments have adequate resources to provide all of the vital local public services that their
residents expect and demand.
• Local governments levy taxes to raise revenue that enables them to provide vital public
services to their residents, including public health, safety, education, economic development and
social welfare.
• The proximity and accessibility of locally elected officials to their constituents is the
ultimate example of taxation with representation.
Local Government Concerns
If the federal government continues to erode, limit or preempt local governments' taxing authority, they
will become increasingly unable to provide the vital public services on which their residents depend.
Federal government revenue sharing has already been cut to the bone and state revenue sharing is
trending in the same direction. Local governments can not simultaneously be told that they are on their
own to find revenues to provide essential services, be burdened with federal and state mandates in terms
of what they must do, and then be told that various forms of potential tax revenues are absolutely out of
bounds. Proposals by the federal government to limit or preempt local taxing authority violate the
fundamental concept of political accountability that is built into our system of federalism.
Legislative Action
• Reassert and preserve local governments' authority to tax.
• Oppose any legislation that limits local governments' taxing authority.
• Allow local residents to continue to decide for themselves if and how they wish to be
taxed by their local government.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
°'°°® - National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
A25 Years of Communications Leadership
Vim+
Localism Achieved Through Diverse
Media and Telecommunications Ownership and Content
Core Value
In order to ensure that local community communications achieve their fullest potential, all
communications networks of the future must support the widest diversity of speech.
Core Value Fundamentals
• A democracy depends upon an educated and informed population, and an educated and
informed population depends upon the availability of a wide variety of opinions and viewpoints.
• The country's growing diverse population requires, now more than ever, the ability for
each locality to meet community needs through as many communications media as possible.
• The concentration of media ownership in a few large companies poses grave danger to
the freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment because large companies are
unaware or unconcerned about local issues.
• Locally produced content and accessibility to open networks are more inclusive,
regardless of what entity produces the content.
Local Government Concerns
The regulatory restructuring needed to address new technological realities, without recognition of the
value of localism, threatens to eliminate the capacity and resources for equipment, facilities and training
currently provided to localities by cable companies. As companies providing voice, video and data
services all shift to Internet protocol technology, the local community benefits established by Congress
under the Communications Act may vanish without additional Congressional action. As gatekeepers of
information in our society, companies using public (federal, state or local) property for the provision of
communications services should be required to set aside capacity and resources in order to preserve the
ability to create and deliver local content.
Legislative Action
• Authorize local governments to develop local media solutions and resources that meet
their constituents' needs.
• Mandate the establishment of electronic greenspace, i.e., capacity on all
telecommunications infrastructure for use by members of the local community and others who
are unaffiliated with the owner of the infrastructure.
• Mandate a set formula for funding that all infrastructure providers must contribute in
support of the equipment, facilities and training that people will need to create content.
• Affirm that local governments are the appropriate jurisdiction to oversee community
needs ascertainments for community media and related public service obligations.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
"°'°°e , National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
.ti 4,+` 25 Years of Communications Leadership
Municipal Authority to Provide Telecommunications
Core Value
Local governments should have the ability to provide their local communities with telecommunications
facilities and/or services.
Core Value Fundamentals
• Municipalities are not motivated by profit maximization and are often in a position to
meet the telecommunications needs in their communities earlier and better than private
providers.
• Municipalities may be the only potential providers of robust and advanced
telecommunications facilities and/or services in many communities.
• Municipal provision of telecommunications services offers an effective, and often the
only, source of competition that results in better services and/or lower prices for the consumers.
Local Government Concerns
Private telecommunications providers seek to have legislation enacted that prevents, or has the
effect of preventing, municipal telecommunications services even when they are not providing
comparable services.
Legislative Action
• Amend the Communications Act so that the authority of municipalities to provide
telecommunications facilities and/or services is clearly preserved.
• Prohibit any legislation that prevents, has the effect of preventing, or in any way impairs
the ability of municipalities from providing telecommunications facilities and/or services, if a
local government determines that it is in the best interest of its community.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
•
nereeSNational Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Police Powers
Core Value
The preservation of local government's police powers is essential for the health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
Core Value Fundamentals
• A key purpose of government is to protect and promote the public health, safety and
welfare of its citizens.
• Under our federal system of government, this purpose is carried out at each level —
federal, state, and local —with respect to the issues appropriate to each level.
• Federal and state agencies are ill-suited for individual enforcement in every locality.
• Local government needs to retain the clear authority to deal with local issues, such as
land use and zoning (which require extensive knowledge of local conditions), building and safety
codes (because local conditions and history may affect the importance of particular concerns),
and consumer and privacy protection.
Local Government Concerns
Communications providers seek to neutralize local communities' police powers in order to
minimize their costs, maximize their profits, and simplify their compliance requirements.
Frequently, they seek to use federal or state legislation, or agency action, to preempt local
authority and thus (since federal and state agencies cannot deal with every local issue) effectively
escape from oversight in these areas. For example, wireless carriers often seek to unnecessarily
constrain local zoning authority without justification. Communications providers also seek to
use irrelevant distinctions as excuses to eliminate local authority—for example, to claim that any
system using Internet Protocol (IP) technology somehow makes consumer protection rules
unnecessary.
Legislative Action
• Prohibit language that would place undue restrictions on local governments' ability to
enforce their land use and zoning authority.
• Encourage the use of already established general procedural requirements (such as
federal procedural requirements for siting of wireless communications facilities, 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7))that do not pretend to substitute for the substantive judgment of local governments.
• Prohibit laws that would preempt local building and safety codes, rules and conditions,
and prevent local enforcement.
• Adopt consumer and privacy protection laws that may set national standards, but still
recognize that these standards may need to be adapted to meet local needs and interests, and in
any case will have to be enforced by local governments.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
,
"°'°°e National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
25 Years of Communications Leadership
Ot
"''' ►'`� Rights-of-way Authority
Core Value
Local government must be able to maintain local ownership and control of local public rights-of-
way.
Core Value Fundamentals
• Public rights-of-way form an essential part of the local infrastructure.
• Local governments are responsible for the protection and management of the public rights-of-way
by regulating construction and usage practices.
• The federal government does not own these assets, nor is it capable of making day-to-day
decisions about their use.
• Local governments must be able to charge a fair market price for private use of these public
resources and thus to ensure that the community is fairly compensated for their use.
• Rights-of-way fees represent a major source of revenue for local governments, and payment of a
fair price promotes efficient allocation of economic resources.
Local Government Concerns
Private parties using the public rights-of-way frequently promote federal and state legislation to
preempt, reduce or eliminate local government control of the public rights-of-way, in order to
gain free or below-market use of these resources and immunity from conditions that protect the
public and other rights-of-way users. They also seek to employ the courts and the FCC to
override local community rights in these areas. In effect, these private users seek to profit by
expropriating resources owned by the whole community.
Legislative Action
• Ensure that state and local property rights and regulatory rights over public rights-of-way
are preserved in any legislation.
• Reject legislation that would directly or indirectly give away a right to use local
communities' property at below-market prices and thus deprive localities of their property rights,
which violates of the Unfunded Mandates Law and the Fifth Amendment prohibition against
taking of property.
• Clarify federal language (47 U.S.C. §253) to ensure that fair and reasonable rights-of-
way compensation is not limited to cost reimbursement.
• Reject requests for unfunded mandates in favor of broadband providers in the form of
discounted access to local public rights-of-way unless the federal government is willing to use its
own money to pay this subsidy.
• Recognize that the FCC is ill-suited to ensure that local public rights-of-way are used
safely, efficiently, and without unnecessary disruptions. These goals can only be achieved at the
local level.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
•
notaaeNational Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
yam 25 Years of Communications Leadership
4. 4
Universal Service
Core Value
Local government supports universal service and the nation's long held communications policy
to provide affordable service to all Americans.
Core Value Fundamentals
• Universal Service Fund programs provide benefits to communities and assistance to low
income residents for telephone service, reduced telecommunications and Internet rates for rural
health care providers and lower telephone rates for residents that live in rural and high cost areas.
• Over $2 billion Universal Service Funds are distributed annually to local governments
under the Schools and Libraries program (E-rate program) to wire and maintain connections to
the Internet.
• In the absence of Universal Service funding local government would have the difficult
choice of providing this support from general funds, or doing without.
Local Government Concerns
There are five programs at the federal level and a wide variety of programs at the state level that
fall under the universal service umbrella. In recent years, funding support for universal service
at the federal level, based on interstate and international communications, has continued to
shrink. With the proliferation of Voice Over Internet Protocol service, support based on
intrastate communications for state programs will be threatened. As communications networks
continue to evolve Congress will need to consider how to restructure a universal service system
currently based on legacy networks. Additionally, Congress must ensure that residential
consumers receive universal service support for essential new technologies, such as broadband
connections. Also, while 94% of schools are wired for Internet access, E-rate funding is also
currently used to help pay for recurring Internet access charges. Cuts in the E-rate program
threaten broadband connectivity for schools and libraries. Finally, new legislation could threaten
preemption of state-run universal service programs.
Legislative Action
• Preserve the concept of Universal Service while finding a new mechanism for ensuring
continuation of the public benefits this program provides our communities.
• Empower local governments to determine the direct support their communities receive in
both federal and state universal service funds.
• Expand Universal Service Funds to include broadband connectivity.
NATOA -2005—Core Values
natoa®
i ��C►
tv�1 v`i'��
TELEPHONE COMPANY CABLE FRANCHISES—AN ANALYSIS
Introduction
The long-awaited entry of the traditional telephone company into the video
marketplace finally appears to be occurring, albeit almost ten years after Congress
passed landmark legislation to ease their competitive entry. Today, a number of
incumbent local exchange telephone companies are upgrading their existing plant
and are building fiber optic networks into residential and business areas currently
served by the company. This upgraded facility will allow these providers the ability
to offer a bundle of services including phone, video and high speed Internet access at
levels not previously available through the traditional copper network. Some of these
telephone companies now offer, or will soon offer, video services.
Some phone companies have directly approached local government for the
requisite authorization to provide video services within that community. At the same
time, these and other `phone companies are seeking other forms of regulatory relief
at the local, state, or federal level, or all three. Some companies are seeking specific
relief action by the Federal Communications Commission while others seek federal
legislation exempting them from state and local regulation. Meanwhile, telephone
companies are negotiating special agreements with local governments that give them
advantages over other carriers and grant them money-saving exemptions. Telephone
companies claim that the use of Internet Protocol (a series of instructions that allow
the transmission of data between two computers linked by the internet) somehow
provides a basis upon which to grant special exceptions. Other telephone companies
rely on prior Commission determinations pertaining to "information service" to claim
that such terms should be applied to their product or service and result in preemption
of state, local and federal rules.
A significant degree of uncertainty remains with respect to how these services
or systems may eventually be regulated. Until such time as local, state and federal
laws change, providers of video services within most states or communities will
require some form of authorization to have services in a community- most frequently
referred to as a "franchise agreement." In those cases where a phone provider has
presented what it deems to be its preferred franchise agreement, local government
has had a glimpse into the nature of those proposals. What follows is general
information to be considered when assessing the proposal to serve from a phone
company, as well as an analysis from a municipal perspective on the general form of
franchise that has been proposed by some companies.
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 1 of 6
General Background Information
Telephone vs. Cable Franchise - What's the Difference?
Most cable operators have built their cable plant infrastructure within the
community pursuant to the terms of a specific cable franchise agreement. This cable
plant may be coaxial cable, fiber optic or a hybrid of the two systems. The cable
operator was likely required by local, state and federal law to obtain the franchise
(contract) with the local government prior to any construction taking place. At all
times the operator must comply with local rules pertaining to any additional
construction.
With the incumbent phone company's competitive entry into the market
against cable, it may have been noted that the phone company already constructed a
fiber optic system under the auspices of their existing phone company authorization
to use public rights-of-way. Generally speaking, the phone company was permitted
by the state to install fiber optic network capacity either on top of or in place of its
older plant, without notifying or otherwise obtaining permission from the local
government. However, prior to offering video service, federal law, as well as most
local and state laws require the phone company to obtain the necessary permission
from the state or local government in the form of a cable franchise.
What Rules Govern?
Local governments should look to their own ordinances relating to existing
cable franchise agreements; to state law pertaining to the grant of franchises; and to
federal law in the form of Title VI of the Communications Act (also referred to as the
Federal Cable Act). Local governments should be familiar with "level playing field"
requirements under local or state law, as well as "most favored nations" clauses
within existing contracts. In other words, where there are one or more current
providers of video services within a community, the authorizing documents - whether
in the form of a franchise, ordinance or rule should be carefully reviewed prior to the
grant of any additional or competing contract.
Analysis
Requirement to Serve:
Phone: Seek agreements which authorize, but do not require, the company to
provide cable service by a certain date. Some agreements are weak or are unclear in
the requirement to continuously provide cable service thereafter.
Cable: Cable franchises typically require the provision of service by a certain date
and then continuously throughout the franchise term.
Who Will Be Served:
Phone: Some agreements require the company to provide cable service (without any
line extension charge) where there are thirty homes or more per mile, which is too
high a density requirement. The agreements often lack provisions requiring service to
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 2 of 6
business, commercial or mixed business/commercial areas even though the company's
facilities are or will be installed in those areas.
Cable: While each community may vary, generally speaking the cable franchise will
require the cable operator to provide service without any line extension charge where
there are twenty or more homes per mile. With respect to business or commercial
areas, the cable agreements usually require service throughout the "franchise area"
regardless of such zoning considerations.
Use of Streets:
Phone companies ask municipalities in some franchises to agree that their facilities in
the streets are part of a telephone system and that these "tangible facilities" are not
part of a cable system, employing a definition of cable system differing from that in
the Federal Cable Act. In other franchise agreements, phone companies have agreed
to the Cable Act definition. Deviating from the Federal Cable Act definition may set
the municipality up for legal challenges, such as whether the Federal Cable Act
applies. under the Federal Cable Act, a cable system includes a system that uses
public rights-of-way without regard to who owns or leases the facilities, or whether
they are also telephone facilities.
Franchise Before Construction: Many state laws and local ordinances require
that a cable franchise be obtained before the cable company constructs a cable
system. This is done in order to prevent redlining; to provide that an INET for
municipal telecommunications facilities use is built; to ensure that points for
receiving the signals for public, education and government channels are at
appropriate locations; and to ensure that schools, public buildings and other facilities
that need to receive these channels will be served. Franchises also ensure that
construction is done on a timely basis. Some companies construct a cable system and
only then seek a franchise. This should not relieve them from the necessity of
complying with local requirements, even though construction after the fact would add
additional cost.
Costs Reimbursed: Cable operators routinely reimburse municipalities for their
costs associated with the initial grant of a franchise (and transfers, see below). Such
reimbursements are allowed by Federal law and help assure that a municipality has
adequate resources to negotiate and obtain a franchise meeting community needs and
protecting its residents when negotiating against large companies. The phone
company franchises often contain no reimbursement provision.
Franchise Fees: The phone company franchise's definition of gross revenues, on
which franchise fees are computed, often does not expressly include the definition
approved by the Federal courts increasing such revenues by 5%. They also have
exclusions for affiliate revenues, some programming launch fees and combined
services such as telephone and cable, which are inappropriate. The use of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is problematic. There is often no provision for
interest or penalties for underpayments or paying municipalities' audit costs if an
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 3 of 6
audit reveals an underpayment. Often the franchises do not require sufficient detail
to accompany each franchise fee payment, and the audit period is too short.
PEG Channels: The phone companies may tailor franchise sections dealing with
public, education and government channels for individual communities to mirror the
obligations of the existing operator. The definitions of these channels in the
franchises issued to date are often too restrictive in terms of who may use the
channels, and do not provide adequate funding for their facilities or operation. The
provisions to obtain such channels by interconnection with the existing cable company
are often weak. It would be preferable to have the phone companies obtain the
signals directly from the source rather than through interconnection.
Public Service Outlets: The provisions requiring certain cable channels to be
provided to municipal buildings and schools without charge do not provide a sufficient
number of outlets per building and should provide more channels without charge.
Customer Service: Many telephone company cable franchises set forth
customer service requirements that, in several respects, are weaker than existing
Federal and/or state customer service standards. However, customer service
requirements less than the Federal customer service standard minimums may only be
implemented with prior FCC approval. The franchises often purport to prevent a
municipality from altering customer service standards except with the phone
company's consent. State and Federal law expressly allow a municipality to
unilaterally change or strengthen customer service requirements, such as by
ordinance.
Emergency Alert System: Many of the franchises contain no provision for
locally triggered emergency alerts by a local municipality or county. Such local alert
systems, which exist independently of the Federal Emergency Alert system, are
commonly required in cable franchises and have been expressly approved by the FCC.
Transfer: To protect the municipality and its residents, cable franchise
agreements typically require municipal approval for either a sale of the franchise or a
change in control of a cable company, with all the municipality's costs to be borne by
the cable company. Federal law allows a broad scope of review for such approvals.
The franchises often limit such approval and do not require cost reimbursement,
which is commonly required.
Early Franchise Termination: Some franchises allow the company to
unilaterally terminate service after several years, if they do not believe they have
achieved a commercially reasonable number of subscribers. Such provisions are
objectionable for many reasons. First, if a municipality grants a franchise, then
service should be provided for the full term, especially if the franchise has
concessions not in the incumbents franchise. Second, the Cable Act already provides
protection for unforeseen events, and the largest cost of building the cable system
would have been incurred years ago, and thus should not be counted against current
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 4 of 6
revenues. Vague wording in such provisions may allow the operator to attempt to use
them improperly to escape franchise obligations.
Most Favored Nations: There often is a "most favored nations" clause regarding
other cable franchises issued by the municipality that may improperly restrict a
municipality's ability to issue other franchises, and this is objectionable.
Waiver of Rights: The franchises often require municipalities to waive in
advance any legal objections they may have to state or Federal preemption of the
terms of the franchise. Such provisions are present because the phone companies are
hopeful of Federal preemption as previously discussed. There are specific standards
that federal courts use to determine whether Congress intended a particular statute
or regulation to preempt state and local restrictions. Municipalities should not agree
to waive in advance valid legal objections to unknown future Congressional or FCC
actions that may benefit them.
Enforcement: Meaningful enforcement provisions, such as liquidated damages
or civil infraction provisions, often are not included in franchise agreements.
Enforcement provisions are necessary to provide municipalities with a meaningful
enforcement tool for violations. Enforcement provisions should allow a municipality
to correct a minor situation without revoking the franchise, or to revoke one if
needed. For example - where the phone company violates customer service
provisions, electric, or safety codes.
Police Powers: Some of the franchises improperly attempt to restrict a
municipality's police powers by requiring modifications to the franchise if an exercise
of the police power creates any material alteration in the terms and conditions of the
franchise. The Supreme Court has ruled that police powers cannot be so constrained.
For example--rate regulation affects a cable company but a municipality is not
required to reimburse all monies the company loses due to a reduction in rates. This
provision also violates Federal cable law, where municipalities have broad powers to
act on customer service matters, whether the cable company agrees or not. In some
agreements the company wants to terminate the franchise if a municipality is
unreasonable in exercising its police powers, but this is also unwarranted according to
the Supreme Court and can be used arbitrarily against the municipality.
State Law Changes: Franchise provisions, which state that if a change in state
law materially affects the franchise the agreement shall be modified in a manner
agreeable to the cable company or telephone company or they can terminate the
franchise, are objectionable to local municipalities.
Records: Franchise provisions preventing the phone or cable company from
turning over documents it claims to be proprietary or confidential are inappropriate,
as are provisions restricting municipal access to noncable-related business records.
Noncable-related business records access may sometimes be necessary to make sure
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcominittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 5 of 6
there has been a proper allocation between cable and noncable services, such as
franchise fees.
Security Funds: Adequate financial security, insurance and indemnity
provisions are necessary to protect a municipality and its residents. Often there are
no security fund provisions, such as performance bonds, letters of credit or similar
financial insturments to provide funds for the municipality should the phone company
fail to pay monies that are due from liquidated damages or monetary penalties.
Security funds are also needed if the municipality has to incur expenses due to
defaults by a phone or cable company. Such provisions should be present because
competition involves entities entering a market, leaving it, or filing for bankruptcy,
such as MCI and Adelphia.
Insurance: The types of insurance coverage necessary to protect a community
and its residents from the hazards associated with operating a cable company often
are not present, the amounts are often too low, and there often is no provision for
revisions in coverage during the franchise term. The municipality needs to be an
additional named insured, and provisions regarding this often need to be
strengthened.
Indemnity: Indemnification provisions need to be reviewed by each
municipality's attorney but often are too narrow and contain inappropriate procedural
restrictions.
I:\Advocacy\RBOC Video\Phone Company Cable Franchise Analysis - LB3405.Doc
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 6 of 6
...
Kreines &Kreines, Inc. 0 rk PlanWireless has been talking about cell sites in the right-of-way for the past nine years. They're here.
Consultants to Cities &Counties G, i usA39 r a ca t X ,x�.x a•x,. , e __.�__ �bg�_rx
on Planning for Personal Wireless 2 rA U G ,' �,
Service Facilities 0 0 , 1 ,4�9 •M'a ' ' - iral a•.>-, ` ��r� Vol. 11, No. 4 p, August&September 2006
58 Paseo Mirasol • ,-
Tiburon,CA 94920 - ' - _ '
Departments of Public Works &Governing Bodies in Multiple Choice: A Local Government Can
After reading, please route California Told to Get Out of the Right-of-Way Control Wireless in its Rights-of-Way (Yes,
Permitting Business When it Comes to DAS No, It Doesn't Matter)
to: Bonnie Walton, Cable Mgr, City
• City of County Attorney I Clerk In a stunning victory over the City and County of San Let's go back to San Diego County where,in.past
• Public Works Director
Nwatts@ci.renton.wa.us Francisco, a Distributed Antenna System(DAS)provider: issues,PlanWireless reported.-to you that:
Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us won a finding by the U.S. District Court in the Northern
• CATV Coordinator District of California that: • A California Superior Court judge found that San
City of Renton Diego County could enforce its Wireless
- • Planner Renton City Hall • Allows the DAS provider to deploy in the public Telecommunications Ordinance in the right-of-way,
- 1055 S. Grady right-of-way with a ministerial permit rather than a• even.though Sprint PCS claimed that the Public
Renton, WA 98055_ _ - permit that is discretionary,and which must be Utilities Code in California precluded San Diego
approved by fate governing body. County's right to regulate wireless in the public right-.
Now,Fauquier County happens to be one of the more - That's-what we think PEC had. It seems to help that • Repeats,from Q vest. Communications v. Berkeley: that of-way.
beautiful places in the Eastern U.S.,but they just haven't PEC,along with a supportive Board of Supervisors and the local government may have"control over the
right-of-way itself,not control over companies with
• Sprint then sued in federal District Court on a slightly
heard of putting cell sites on short utility poles in that an active citizenry,.has had 40 years of successful open g • different issue: that the Telecommunications Act
area of the world. So Kreines&Kreines,Inc.provided space,historic resources and quality of life preservation. facilities in the right-of-way."
PEC with some photographs of utility pole mounts and . Here's what PEC said to convince the Board of Section 253 supersedes the provisions of Section
• Interprets Section 253(a) of the Telecommunications
�___ �. t..k�,>_� r;r. ,:, �. _n <.,,.,� 332(c)(7). Sprint prevailed.
informed them that: - .- int presentation Act(which pre-empts a local government from
• If one utilitypole-mount won' ?is resources of prohibiting the provision of telecommunications) as • Sprint then appealed the Superior Court ruling to the
liiiiliiii'liill'illil'I{.11ill,lir 'laid}'nil'liiilli'tl - ' well as precluding the requirement of a discretionary permit.' California Court of Appeals which reviewed the case
three will. There's no law that
wants coverage,it must be provided by one cell site. pnvlUgiapirs"1 al`en LCtI Ve7,—L-�`u`e y-vt Kreines & • Interprets Section 253(b) of the Telecommunications without"reference to the trial court's determination."2
Kreines,Inc.:
Act of 1996 which contains the phrase"protect the On June 20,2006, the Court of Appeals
• On the other hand,there is federal case law that says safetyand welfare" as not savinga local
CaliforniaL pI
• Thoroughfare Gap is rich in Conservation Easements. public upheld the Superior Court's decision after reviewingthe
multiple small sites are a valid alternative to one tall p p
Thoroughfare Gap is rich in history,including a Civil government from pre-emption under Section 253(a),at facts and legislative record/intent of California Public
site. • least in this case.
War Battlefield National Historic District. Utilities Code Sections 7901.and 7901..1..
• There's also no law(yet),including the The latter point may be of interest to all cities,
Telecommunications Act of 1996,which says Cellular • Thoroughfare Gap has designated scenic byways. counties, towns,villages and boroughs in the U.S. The Equipment Needed for Wireless is Considered
or PCS coverage must be"seamless." We provided • An 80-foot silo or monopole is inappropriate in this According to the Judge: Equivalent to the Equipment Needed for Landline
the quote from one of the Act's authors that states: location because it is highly visible,and it would
"The Act neither mandates nor prohibits seamless g yThe City has offered no coherent explanation as to which PlanWireless had previously agreed with San Diego
coverage." provide a precedent that would make it harder to of its permitting requirements fiirthers the public safety County that wireless is not"telephony" as Sprint
deny similar applications in the future. and welfare, In particular, the court cannot conceive of maintains. The California Court of Appeals disagreed,
But Verizon had also done its homework. Not only how the City's retention ofcomplete discretion to deny a
• There are alternatives. J retention p saying that wireless falls under the jurisdiction of Section
_ did they have a;Section 106'(National Historic permit altogether could all under section 253 b).
$ f � 7901,which clearly was written before personal wireless •
PreThor
oughfare ation Gap,Verizo study n had adno impact
Fauquier Countyrelatively The public
salein coverage.ty tests in 004 showed the area scoring San Francisco failed to demonstrate public safety and services were introduced as"Cellular" in 1986.
gwelfare and,even if the City and County tried,it could •
public safety representative testify that: The Appeals Court said that,while Section 7901 was
• Verizon May want,but is not required to have, not show how outright denial would be justified.
• The County had a brand new 800 MHz trunked public seamless coverage: not amended, the definition of a telephone Iine was
safety system,built in 2004. • This decision could be appealed by San Francisco to changed in the Public Utilities Code in 1951 to include
y The Fauquier County Board of Supervisors voted 5 to the Ninth Circuit. PlanWireless would argue that the "whether such communication is had with or without the
• Nevertheless,back-up for law enforcement,fire- 0 to deny the application. All they needed were the State of California and the federal government are in use of transmission wires."
protection,EMS and even Homeland Security was arguments,which PEC gave them. PlanWireless will direct conflict over local control of wireless in the right- Continued on the next page
needed in the form of cell service. follow upto see what the judge says. If the judge's the page
I g- ) g of-way and the issue may eventually reach the U.S.
finding goes on to the Fourth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Su ieme Court.o
When it comes to public safety,and you are in p
Virginia 50 miles from Washington D.C.,you'd better Appeals,we maysee some fancy case law made. -Slniut'Ietepirony rCS z.County of San Diego.
have an unassailable argument to convince the governing 1 In other words,a city or county may dictate how(ministerial permit)
body to deny a cell tower. telecommunications are provided but not if(discretionary permit).
Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning Published by Kreines & Kreines, inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415) 435-1522 fax 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415) 435-1522 fax
e-mail:mall@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com - e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www:planwireless.com
determine what constitutes a reasonable use of the road,
Time, Place & Manner this language does not seem to enhance greatly the
WD
Prior court decisions have held that California local City's regulatory latitude—certainly not to the extent CD You ��� t® ®n�lnt��'. Receiving ��e'�li� %!'e®£°5'S ®Q
governments have discretion over"when,where and necessary to engage in aesthetic regulation." Cities and counties that have not received a free subscription in the past can receive a free subscription to
how" (ministerial permit) but not"if" (discretionary The preceding is from the Sprint PCS v. City of La PlanWireless. Cities and counties that have received free subscriptions in the past can subscribe for$30 for 6 issues.
permit) a telecommunications carrier can deploy in the Canada Flintridge decision by the Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Private companies &individuals can subscribe for$60 for 6 issues. If you would like to receive a subscription to
right-of-way. The nuance of"time,place and manner" is Court of Appeals. PlanWireless,please send the following information to Kreines&Kreines,Inc.by mail(58 Paseo Mirasol,Tiburon,CA
significant because it implies that a local government's 94920),phone (415-435-9214),fax(415-435-1522),or e-mail(mail@planwireless.com):
latitude is restricted. And here is what the California Court of Appeals said
about the Ninth Circuit's decision: Name/Title:
Back in 1996, the California Public Utilities Staple Your
Commission issued General Order 159-A,which In that case, the court's published opinion peremptorily Jurisdiction/Company:
maintained that PUC has jurisdiction over"cell siting." states that any analogous local ordinance regulating Mailing Address: Business Card Here
However,CPUC ceded to"local authorities the primary cellular tower installations in a ROW is preempted by
State law ... but theprecise basis or rationale forthis City,State,Zip Code:
authority on issues relating to the right-of-way access
authorized by Section 7901,including the power to statement is shrouded. Fo the reasons articulated Back Issues ($10 each):Please let us know the back issues you wish to order(March 1996 to June/July 2006).
and issue discretionarypermits,..." below, we believe the federal ipse dixit is wrong and
process should not be followed. This newsletter is designed to provide information about planning for personal wireless service facilities. It is sold and
The Appeals Court found that placement of distributed free with the understanding that PlanWireless is not providing legal, planning or any other professional advice
So,you see,whether you believe in ipse dixit or not, or services with this newsletter. Please contact Kreines&Kreines,Inc.ifyou would like to obtain professional planning
equipment in the right-of-way was not the general p 8
province or previous concern of the State of California the State and federal judges disagree. o services. If legal or other expert assistance is required,the services of a competent professional should be obtained.
and that,indeed,local regulation was contemplated by Kreines &Kreines,Inc.has always believed that a • Several years ago, Kreines &Kreines,Inc.was
the Legislature. Telecommunications Act Reform telecommunications plan,as adopted policy, that tells a instrumental in helping County staff, PEC,and a
The California Legislature enacted Section 7901.1 ofpermittee,under zoning,what they can do and what they broad array of citizens craft a County
g Readers have probably heard the term"net
the Public Utilities Code in 1995,and this is where"time, neutrality"which is what current debate over S. 2686 is can't,must be complied with before anyone can do telecommunications ordinance with an 80-foot tall
place and manner" is promulgated. But,says the Court still about. Basically, there will be fast Internet lanes for anything,whether it's in the right-of-way or not. height limit(not exactly perfection,but much better
of Appeals,Section 7901.1 was clearly intended for the some of us,but slow lanes for most of us. These are If the reader considers the other articles in this issue,it than the 190-foot model),
local governments to strengthen their control over important concerns,but PlanWireless has found other becomes clear what a telecommunications plan should • The 80-foot mark was selected by the Board of
"construction management issues" and not to limit or issues to alert our readers about. say: Supervisors because Fauquier County is also silo
pre-empt cities.and_counties., ,_ -, ._,_ , •. country,and that is the height of most farm silos.
Title VI of H.R.5252(S. 2686's companion) calls for • The plan furthers public safety and welfare.
The California Court of Appeals found for San Diego "seamless mobility." In wireless, that means a call can go • Along comes Verizon Wireless who wants to place an
County andaffirmed the trialcourt's finding. „ • The plan deals with the right-of-way as part of the
forever without gaps,dead spots or no service areas. 80-foot monopole at the Thoroughfare Gap,an historic
Question: So, It's Over Then? Answer: Not By a Long HR.5252 defines"seamless mobility" as: jurisdiction rather than regulates who can use the gateway to this beautiful area.
right-of-way.
Shot the ability of a communications device to select between a
• The plan is concerned with much More than When Citizens protested that this was inappropriate
Sprint still has a case pending in the Ninth Circuit of and utilize multiple Internet protocol-enabled technology „ „ because it would be visually obtrusive in the County's
platforms, and networks in real-time manner to aesthetics. gateway,U.S. Court of Appeals,where many of the same. . facilitiesmost scenic and historic Verizon proposed a
arguments ruled on by the State of California have been provide a unified service. What does your telecommunications plan say?o "stealth" silo.Citizens agreed that the silo was worse
found to the contrary by the federal District Court. And It seems to us that some of the carriers' attorneys than the monopole because it was even More visually
if the reader is interested in how the Ninth Circuit ruled could call a cell site a"device" and this bill's mandate A Success Story from Virginia That May obtrusive and located in the right-of-way of a highway,
- previously on"time,place and manner," here's a quote would support a federal pre-emption of local regulation End Up in Court where a real silo would not logically occur.
from the.April/M.ay 2006 issue of PlanWireless of personal wireless service facilities in no service areas. To further emphasize the point to the Supervisors,
Just when PlanWireless was putting the finishing
"Further,Section 7901 had been amended years ago PlanWireless suggests this can be clarified now,not in touches on this story,we learned that Cellco Partners (the photographer Jack Kotz(who grew up in the area)
by Section 7901.1 court five years from now. unfurled a 10-foot long panoramic photograph of the
name that Verizon uses to sue local governments)had
to determine the extent of local regulatory authority HR 5252 mandates that cable and other landline filed a lawsuit. We decided to run with the original landscape that the silo would intrude upon.
under§ 7901.1:first, the breadth of'time, place, and carriers are to be franchised at the federal level. So, all of report anyway. PEC,supported by some great citizen allies,made the
manner,'and second, the meaning of'are accessed'. these court cases over the right-of-way probably don't argument that,just because there's an 80-foot height
matter anyway. And who will do the franchising? The Kreines &Kreines,Inc. was asked by a long-time
S Y limit, doesn't mean you can just place an 80-foot"stealth"
The City of La Canada Flintridge hoped that aesthetic client, the Piedmont Environmental Council (PEC),to
FCC;need we say more? (Maybe they could use from, silo anywhere ... there are alternatives.
considerations fell under the'time,place and manner' provide materials for a presentation to the Fauquier
help from FEMA.)
provision but the three-judge panel felt otherwise: County (Virginia) Board of Supervisors in June 2006. The That was the key argument: the fact that alternatives
Once the carriers have an FCC franchise in the right- issue seemed simple: had to be considered by the Board of Supervisors.
While the authority to restrict building based on 'time,
place, and manner'gives cities more authority to of-way, the unregulated placement of cell sites in the
right-of-way will surely follow.
Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415) 435-1522 fax 58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415)435-1522 fax
e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.ptanwireless.com
natoa®
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors®
♦� v
♦ TELEPHONE COMPANY CABLE FRANCHISES—AN ANALYSIS
Introduction
The long-awaited entry of the traditional telephone company into the video
marketplace finally appears to be occurring, albeit almost ten years after Congress
passed landmark legislation to ease their competitive entry. Today, a number of
incumbent local exchange telephone companies are upgrading their existing plant
and are building fiber optic networks into residential and business areas currently
served by the company. This upgraded facility will allow these providers the ability
to offer a bundle of services including phone, video and high speed Internet access at
levels not previously available through the traditional copper network. Some of these
telephone companies now offer, or will soon offer, video services.
Some phone companies have directly approached local government for the
requisite authorization to provide video services within that community. At the same
time, these and other 'phone companies are seeking other forms of regulatory relief
at the local, state, or federal level, or all three. Some companies are seeking specific
relief action by the Federal Communications Commission while others seek federal
legislation exempting them from state and local regulation. Meanwhile, telephone
companies are negotiating special agreements with local governments that give them
advantages over other carriers and grant them money-saving exemptions. Telephone
companies claim that the use of Internet Protocol (a series of instructions that allow
the transmission of data between two computers linked by the internet) somehow
provides a basis upon which to grant special exceptions. Other telephone companies
rely on prior Commission determinations pertaining to "information service" to claim
that such terms should be applied to their product or service and result in preemption
of state, local and federal rules.
A significant degree of uncertainty remains with respect to how these services
or systems may eventually be regulated. Until such time as local, state and federal
laws change, providers of video services within most states or communities will
require some form of authorization to have services in a community- most frequently
referred to as a "franchise agreement." In those cases where a phone provider has
presented what it deems to be its preferred franchise agreement, local government
has had a glimpse into the nature of those proposals. What follows is general
information to be considered when assessing the proposal to serve from a phone
company, as well as an analysis from a municipal perspective on the general form of
franchise that has been proposed by some companies.
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 1 of 6
General Background Information
Telephone vs. Cable Franchise - What's the Difference?
Most cable operators have built their cable plant infrastructure within the
community pursuant to the terms of a specific cable franchise agreement. This cable
plant may be coaxial cable, fiber optic or a hybrid of the two systems. The cable
operator was likely required by local, state and federal law to obtain the franchise
(contract) with the local government prior to any construction taking place. At all
times the operator must comply with local rules pertaining to any additional
construction.
With the incumbent phone company's competitive entry into the market
against cable, it may have been noted that the phone company already constructed a
fiber optic system under the auspices of their existing phone company authorization
to use public rights-of-way. Generally speaking, the phone company was permitted
by the state to install fiber optic network capacity either on top of or in place of its
older plant, without notifying or otherwise obtaining permission from the local
government. However, prior to offering video service, federal law, as well as most
local and state laws require the phone company to obtain the necessary permission
from the state or local government in the form of a cable franchise.
What Rules Govern?
Local governments should look to their own ordinances relating to existing
cable franchise agreements; to state law pertaining to the grant of franchises; and to
federal law in the form of Title VI of the Communications Act (also referred to as the
Federal Cable Act). Local governments should be familiar with "level playing field"
requirements under local or state law, as well as "most favored nations" clauses
within existing contracts. In other words, where there are one or more current
providers of video services within a community, the authorizing documents - whether
in the form of a franchise, ordinance or rule should be carefully reviewed prior to the
grant of any additional or competing contract.
Analysis
Requirement to Serve:
Phone: Seek agreements which authorize, but do not require, the company to
provide cable service by a certain date. Some agreements are weak or are unclear in
the requirement to continuously provide cable service thereafter.
Cable: Cable franchises typically require the provision of service by a certain date
and then continuously throughout the franchise term.
Who Will Be Served:
Phone: Some agreements require the company to provide cable service (without any
line extension charge) where there are thirty homes or more per mile, which is too
high a density requirement. The agreements often lack provisions requiring service to
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 2 of 6
business, commercial or mixed business/commercial areas even though the company's
facilities are or will be installed in those areas.
Cable: While each community may vary, generally speaking the cable franchise will
require the cable operator to provide service without any line extension charge where
there are twenty or more homes per mile. With respect to business or commercial
areas, the cable agreements usually require service throughout the "franchise area"
regardless of such zoning considerations.
Use of Streets:
Phone companies ask municipalities in some franchises to agree that their facilities in
the streets are part of a telephone system and that these "tangible facilities" are not
part of a cable system, employing a definition of cable system differing from that in
the Federal Cable Act. In other franchise agreements, phone companies have agreed
to the Cable Act definition. Deviating from the Federal Cable Act definition may set
the municipality up for legal challenges, such as whether the Federal Cable Act
applies. under the Federal Cable Act, a cable system includes a system that uses
public rights-of-way without regard to who owns or leases the facilities, or whether
they are also telephone facilities.
Franchise Before Construction: Many state laws and local ordinances require
that a cable franchise be obtained before the cable company constructs a cable
system. This is done in order to prevent redlining; to provide that an INET for
municipal telecommunications facilities use is built; to ensure that points for
receiving the signals for public, education and government channels are at
appropriate locations; and to ensure that schools, public buildings and other facilities
that need to receive these channels will be served. Franchises also ensure that
construction is done on a timely basis. Some companies construct a cable system and
only then seek a franchise. This should not relieve them from the necessity of
complying with local requirements, even though construction after the fact would add
additional cost.
Costs Reimbursed: Cable operators routinely reimburse municipalities for their
costs associated with the initial grant of a franchise (and transfers, see below). Such
reimbursements are allowed by Federal law and help assure that a municipality has
adequate resources to negotiate and obtain a franchise meeting community needs and
protecting its residents when negotiating against large companies. The phone
company franchises often contain no reimbursement provision.
Franchise Fees: The phone company franchise's definition of gross revenues, on
which franchise fees are computed, often does not expressly include the definition
approved by the Federal courts increasing such revenues by 5%. They also have
exclusions for affiliate revenues, some programming launch fees and combined
services such as telephone and cable, which are inappropriate. The use of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is problematic. There is often no provision for
interest or penalties for underpayments or paying municipalities' audit costs if an
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 3 of 6
audit reveals an underpayment. Often the franchises do not require sufficient detail
to accompany each franchise fee payment, and the audit period is too short.
PEG Channels: The phone companies may tailor franchise sections dealing with
public, education and government channels for individual communities to mirror the
obligations of the existing operator. The definitions of these channels in the
franchises issued to date are often too restrictive in terms of who may use the
channels, and do not provide adequate funding for their facilities or operation. The
provisions to obtain such channels by interconnection with the existing cable company
are often weak. It would be preferable to have the phone companies obtain the
signals directly from the source rather than through interconnection.
Public Service Outlets: The provisions requiring certain cable channels to be
provided to municipal buildings and schools without charge do not provide a sufficient
number of outlets per building and should provide more channels without charge.
Customer Service: Many telephone company cable franchises set forth
customer service requirements that, in several respects, are weaker than existing
Federal and/or state customer service standards. However, customer service
requirements less than the Federal customer service standard minimums may only be
implemented with prior FCC approval. The franchises often purport to prevent a
municipality from altering customer service standards except with the phone
company's consent. State and Federal law expressly allow a municipality to
unilaterally change or strengthen customer service requirements, such as by
ordinance.
Emergency Alert System: Many of the franchises contain no provision for
locally triggered emergency alerts by a local municipality or county. Such local alert
systems, which exist independently of the Federal Emergency Alert system, are
commonly required in cable franchises and have been expressly approved by the FCC.
Transfer: To protect the municipality and its residents, cable franchise
agreements typically require municipal approval for either a sale of the franchise or a
change in control of a cable company, with all the municipality's costs to be borne by
the cable company. Federal law allows a broad scope of review for such approvals.
The franchises often limit such approval and do not require cost reimbursement,
which is commonly required.
Early Franchise Termination: Some franchises allow the company to
unilaterally terminate service after several years, if they do not believe they have
achieved a commercially reasonable number of subscribers. Such provisions are
objectionable for many reasons. First, if a municipality grants a franchise, then
service should be provided for the full term, especially if the franchise has
concessions not in the incumbent's franchise. Second, the Cable Act already provides
protection for unforeseen events, and the largest cost of building the cable system
would have been incurred years ago, and thus should not be counted against current
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cabe Franchise Analysis Page 4 of 6
revenues. Vague wording in such provisions may allow the operator to attempt to use
them improperly to escape franchise obligations.
Most Favored Nations: There often is a "most favored nations" clause regarding
other cable franchises issued by the municipality that may improperly restrict a
municipality's ability to issue other franchises, and this is objectionable.
Waiver of Rights: The franchises often require municipalities to waive in
advance any legal objections they may have to state or Federal preemption of the
terms of the franchise. Such provisions are present because the phone companies are
hopeful of Federal preemption as previously discussed. There are specific standards
that federal courts use to determine whether Congress intended a particular statute
or regulation to preempt state and local restrictions. Municipalities should not agree
to waive in advance valid legal objections to unknown future Congressional or FCC
actions that may benefit them.
Enforcement: Meaningful enforcement provisions, such as liquidated damages
or civil infraction provisions, often are not included in franchise agreements.
Enforcement provisions are necessary to provide municipalities with a meaningful
enforcement tool for violations. Enforcement provisions should allow a municipality
to correct a minor situation without revoking the franchise, or to revoke one if
needed. For example - where the phone company violates customer service
provisions, electric, or safety codes.
Police Powers: Some of the franchises improperly attempt to restrict a
municipality's police powers by requiring modifications to the franchise if an exercise
of the police power creates any material alteration in the terms and conditions of the
franchise. The Supreme Court has ruled that police powers cannot be so constrained.
For example--rate regulation affects a cable company but a municipality is not
required to reimburse all monies the company loses due to a reduction in rates. This
provision also violates Federal cable law, where municipalities have broad powers to
act on customer service matters, whether the cable company agrees or not. In some
agreements the company wants to terminate the franchise if a municipality is
unreasonable in exercising its police powers, but this is also unwarranted according to
the Supreme Court and can be used arbitrarily against the municipality.
State Law Changes: Franchise provisions, which state that if a change in state
law materially affects the franchise the agreement shall be modified in a manner
agreeable to the cable company or telephone company or they can terminate the
franchise, are objectionable to local municipalities.
Records: Franchise provisions preventing the phone or cable company from
turning over documents it claims to be proprietary or confidential are inappropriate,
as are provisions restricting municipal access to noncable-related business records.
Noncable-related business records access may sometimes be necessary to make sure
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 5 of 6
•
there has been a proper allocation between cable and noncable services, such as
franchise fees.
Security Funds: Adequate financial security, insurance and indemnity
provisions are necessary to protect a municipality and its residents. Often there are
no security fund provisions, such as performance bonds, letters of credit or similar
financial insturments to provide funds for the municipality should the phone company
fail to pay monies that are due from liquidated damages or monetary penalties.
Security funds are also needed if the municipality has to incur expenses due to
defaults by a phone or cable company. Such provisions should be present because
competition involves entities entering a market, leaving it, or filing for bankruptcy,
such as MCI and Adelphia.
Insurance: The types of insurance coverage necessary to protect a community
and its residents from the hazards associated with operating a cable company often
are not present, the amounts are often too low, and there often is no provision for
revisions in coverage during the franchise term. The municipality needs to be an
additional named insured, and provisions regarding this often need to be
strengthened.
Indemnity: Indemnification provisions need to be reviewed by each
municipality's attorney but often are too narrow and contain inappropriate procedural
restrictions.
I:\Advocacy\RBOC Video\Phone Company Cable Franchise Analysis - LB3405.Doc
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 6 of 6
Satisfy Your CLE Requirements !
0
Vol.43,No.7,January 1
PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE ®
1 1
I II
.
Competition in Video,
Internet & Telephony
Will telco video obtain FCC or Congressional relief from Cable's franchising obligations?
Are cable set top boxes headed towards further design regulation?
What is the fallout from the re-transmission consent/must-carry negotiations?
Have the plaintiff bar's class actions on late fees,tier buy-through,franchise fees and
other consumer issues made recent significant headway?
How do the FCC's new rules on children's TV programs affect cable?What about its new
proposals on closed captioning?
What is the state of broadband competition today?
and much more... look inside ,- —"�►� "
NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 9- 10, 2006
SAN FRANCISCO, MARCH 6-7, 2006 }
Register Online at www . pli . edu or Call (800) 260 - 4PLI
.
PRACTISING LAW INSTITUT ' • • • ' ' . O 0 6
Competition in Video, Internet & Telephony
NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 9-10, 2006 SAN FRANCISCO, MARCH 6-7, 2006
REGISTRATION/HOTEL INFORMATION Education Course Credit:States have widely varying regulations regarding Continuing Education credit,therefore,
please contact PLI for more information concerning approval.
New York City Seminar Location:PLI New York Center,810 Seventh Avenue at 53rd Street(21st floor),New York, New York State CLE Credit:In accordance with the requirements of the New York State Continuing Legal
New York 10019.Message Center,program days only:(212)824-5733. Education Board,this non-transitional continuing legal education program is NOT approved for the newly admitted
New York City Hotel Acconnnodations:The New York Hilton&Towers,1335 Avenue of the Americas,New York, attorney within the first two years of admission to the Bar.It has been approved for experienced attorneys for a
NY 10019.Reservations(877)NYC-HILT.Please mention you are booking a room under the Practising Law Institute maximum of 11.0 credit hours,of which 1.0 credit hour can be applied toward the ethics requirement and 10.0 credit
Corporate Rate and the Client File Ni is 0495741.You may also book reservations on line at www.hilton.com and enter hours can be applied toward the professional practice requirement.
the same Client File!in the Corporate ID I field to access Practising Law Institute rates. California MCLE Credit PLI is a State Bar of California approved MCLE provider.This activity has been approved for
San Francisco Seminar Location:PLI California Center,685 Market Street,San Francisco,California 94105. MCLE credit in the amount of 9.25 hours,of which 1.0 hour will apply to legal ethics.PLI will retain the required MCLE
records for this program.
(4151498 2800
San Francisco Hotel Accommodations:The Palace Hotel,2 New Montgomery Street,San Francisco,California California Paralegals:You can satisfy your new continuing legal education requirements by attending Ill's
94105.Call(8001 91 7-74 56 seven days a week from 6:00 am to 12:00 am(PDT)and mention you are attending this PLI nationally acclaimed Institutes and Programs!
program at Practising Law Institute to receive the preferred rate.For online reservations,go to www.SFPALACE.com SPECIAL NEEDS:If you have special needs as addressed by the Americans with Disabilities Act,please notify
and enter SET No.287179 to receive the preferred rate. Customer Relations at least two weeks prior to your program.
Payment Policy:Registration fees are due in advance.Attendees may pay by check,Visa,MasterCard,American Sponsorship/Exhibit Opportunities:Practising Law Institute,the leader in continuing legal education for 70 years,
Express or Diners Club. draws top lawyers from major law firms and corporations to over 250 comprehensive programs annually.Don't miss
Cancellations:All cancellations received 3 business days prior to the program will be refunded 100%.Cancellations this chance to target decision-makers in specific areas of the legal market with sponsorship opportunities from PLI.
after that time will not be refunded,however course materials will be sent.Please note that if you don't cancel and Sponsor a breakfast,coffee break or luncheon at a PLI program for invaluable opportunities to network with industry
don't attend,you are still responsible for payment.Substitutions maybe made at any time leaders.Or,set up an Exhibit of your product/service at specific program with a display and/or sales representative.
Our staff will help you choose which option is right for you.Please contact Melissa Wellman at 212-824-5862 or email
PU's Scholarship/Financial Hardship Policy:Full and partial scholarships to attend PLI programs are available to mweltmanepli.edu to make sure you don't miss out!
judges,judicial law clerks,law professors,attorneys 65 or older,law students,pro bonattorneys,librarians and Basic Upkeep Service:In order to keep you abreast of the latest developments in your field,the purchase of PLI
paralegals who work for nonprofit organizations,legal services organizations or government agencies,unemployed treatises includes Basic Upkeep Service,so that supplements,replacement pages and new editions may be shipped to
attorneys and others with financial hardships.To apply,send your request on your employer's letterhead,stating the you immediately upon publication for a 30 day examination.This service is cancelable at any time.
reason for your interest,along with the completed registration form on this brochure,to the PLI Scholarship
Committee.All applications must be accompanied by a$25 non-refundable application fee(applicants may pay by PLl Bookstores:Current Publications,Training Materials,Audio/DVD and related products are available for purchase
check or credit card),and must be submitted four weeks before the date of the program you wish to attend.Students at the PLI New York Center,810 Seventh Avenue at 53rd Street(21 st floor),New York,NY,and at the PLI California
must submit a copy of their student ID card. Center,685 Market Street,San Francisco,CA,Monday to Friday,10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.All PLI Publications can also be
PLI Group Discounts:Groups of 4-14 from the same organization,all registering at the same time,for a PLI program purchased online at www.pli.edu
scheduled for presentation at the same site,are entitled to receive a group discount.For further discount information, Email:info@pli.edu•Visit Us On The Web:www.pli.edu
please contact membershiprpli.edu or call(800)260-4PLI.
elliV MIME MEW 11
REGISTRATION/ORDER FORM When Registering,Please Refer to Priority Code:LRV6
Make necessary corrections on mailing address.
YES, please register me for the following session:
Cable Television Law 2006: Competition in Video, Internet & Telephony
❑8518 New York City Seminar,*February 9-10,2006,PLI New York Center,$1,295 CI Please check if you are a PLI Privileged Member.
❑Please send me information on PLI membership.
❑8519 San Francisco Seminar,*March 6-7,2006,PLI California Center,$1,295 ❑Please send me PLl's catalog of publications.
❑Please send me PLI's catalog of Institutes and Programs.
❑8522 Two-Volume Course Handbook only,$199 i
❑4906 Advertising and Commercial Speech,2nd Ed.,' 1 looseleaf volume,$185 FREE Shipping and Handling on all Audio/DVD and Treatise purchases.PLI I
will absorb shipping and handling charges on all pre-paid Course Handbook
orders in the United States,U.S.Possessions and Canada.California,Illinois,
El My Email address is: Please send me Email updates. '
New Jersey,Pennsylvania,Rhode Island and Virginia residents please add
applicable sales tax to price of publications and audio and DVD products.
`Includes Two-Volume Course Handbook. I 'All treatises require prepayment and can be returned within 30 days for a full refund. PRIORITY CODE:LRV6
$ check enclosed(Payable to Practising Law Institute) ❑Bill me ❑PLI Privileged Member Please Charge to: ❑Visa ❑MasterCard ❑American Express ❑Diners Club
Credit Card No.: Exp.Date: Signature Required: Phone No.:
PLI NEWS Periodicals Postage Paid at New York,N.Y.
ISSN 0479-0219
Practising Law Institute and at additional mailing offices
810 Seventh Avenue ..x..•a>.
New York,N.Y.10019
#BXNSBLC**** ******"" *AUTO -DIGIT 980
i#C01013 LRV6 9A7626#
RouicIlrlrrlrtltllrtrtltlrtlr1111Ilrrtltlrrllrttlrltlrlrrltlrttlltl
Pttfx C01013
Ms.Bonnie I.Walton Priority Code: LRV6 9A762
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City Of Renton
Administrative
City Clerk Div.,7th Fl.
S20 P3
1066 S Grady Way
Pro Bono Efforts
Please plan to arrive sufficiently advance of the conference start time to
register A continental breakfast will be available upon your arrival. Since 1933,PLI has been the comprehensive resource for the training and
development needs of legal professionals.PLI is heavily involved in pro bond and
research and development activities to ensure that all practicing attorneys and law
SECOND DAY: 9:00 A.M. — 12:30 P.M. students remain on the cutting-edge.These activities include awarding full and
partial scholarships to our institutes and programs,assisting several public interest
9:00 Overview organizations in their training needs,and helping law students become first-rate
attorneys by posting free lectures on our web site and offering free MPRE courses.
9:15 Dealing with Competition and For more information,go online to pro-bono.pli.edu.
Consumer Complaints Part I: Mergers, PLI Scholarships
Tying/Conditioning Access to Different Please check the Registration Information section of this brochure for more
Programming Inputs, Bundling Service information about PLI scholarships.
Offerings to Consumers PLI is now wireless! Courtroom Connect is powering a high-speed
•FCC,DOJ and FCC scrutiny of DBS,cable,and cross-industry mergers wireless network in our Conference Centers in New York and
•Tying/leveraging issues in retransmission consent and programming access San Francisco.Stay in contact with your firm while you're at
contexts one of our PLI Conference Centers. For more information,visit
•"Triple-play"and beyond:Risks/rewards in bundling and discounting video www.courtroomconnect.com
channels/tiers,Internet access,wired and wireless voice,video-on-demand,
personal video recording,and home networking
•Lessons and insights from recent antitrust and misuse jurisprudence in Other Relevant Products From PLI
neighboring and converging high tech industries
•The Supreme Court Trinko decision and more recent anti-BOC litigation TWO VOLUME COURSE HANDBOOK
NY: David J. Saylor Cable Television Law 2006:Competition in Video,Internet&
SF: Richard R. Patch Telephony,$199. The Course Handbook will be available on the first day of the program.
10:15 Break TREATISES
Advertising and Commercial Speech:
10:30 Dealing with Competition and A First Amendment Guide,Second Edition
Consumer Complaints Part II: Steven G.Brody(King&Spaldirig,LL1'New York City)and
Predatory/Discriminatory Pricing, Bruce E.H.Johnson(Davis Wright Tremaine,LLP,Seattle)
MDU Access, Overbuild Strategies and This expanded new edition of Advertising and Commercial Speech examines
the origin,practical meaning,and legal evolution of the Supreme Court's
Counter-Strategies, and Class Actions commercial speech doctrine,showing how the doctrine's rights and restrictions
•Litigation and FCC rulings on access to MDU premises affect advertising in nearly 50 industries and professions.
•"Predatory pricing"pitfalls in dealing with bulk rates in MDUs,other 1 looseleaf volume,740 pages,$185(Revised annually or as needed:
competitive situations with new entrants No charge for revision issued within 3 months of purchase)
•Consumer class actions on bundled services,pricing,franchise fees, All treatises require prepayment and can be returned within 30 days fora full refund.
discounts,late fees and other consumer issues For information on quantity order discounts,please contact
NY: W. Kenneth Ferree PLI's Customer Relations Department at(800)260-4PL1.
SF:John F. Gibbs Program attendees save up to 50%on Books,Audio and Video Products.
FREE WEEKLY EMAIL NEWSLETTERS
11:30 Cable Online Services
The Compliance Counselor features commentary to help you clear the
•What are the legal issues involved in offering online services and high speed
Internet access to cable customers? endless hurdles you and your clients face.
•What are the privacy,indecency, and copyright im implications of Lawyers Toolbox features links to downloadable forms and checklists that will keep
P Y YP you up-to-date on a range of current practice issues.
offering these services? Pocket MBA provides everything an attorney needs to know about finance.
•RIAA efforts to stop file-sharers after Grokster PLI's All-Star Briefing
presents thought-provoking insights to keep you
•How should a cable company's agreement to provide these services be at the top of your game.
structured? NEW FREE MONTHLY EMAIL NEWSLETTER
NY: Gerard J. Lewis, Jr.
PLI's In-House Insights offers ideas law department managers can use to manage
SF: Karen S. Frank, Chris Kelly outside counsel better,improve productivity,control costs,and boost their value to
the organization they serve.
Don't miss a single issue!Go to www.pli.edu,
click on Free Newsletters and subscribe today!
FOUR EASY WAYS TO REGISTER
WEB:www.pli.edu PHONE:(800)260-4PLI ItP FAX: (800)321-0093 p7I MAIL: Practising Law Institute
Monday-Friday,9a.m.-6p.m.,Eastern Time o"I Open 24 Hours' 810 Seventh Avenue,New York,NY 10019
Fax or mail completed Registration/Order Form on back cover
�ii� ■ Faculty
•
CHAIR: Frank W. Lloyd
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Washington, D.C.
1 A I �
Maria Arias Donna Gregg Nicholas P. Miller
Vice President,Law and Government Affairs Chief,Media Bureau Miller&Van Eaton,P.L.L.C.
Adelphia Communications Corporation Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.
Greenwood Village,Colorado Washington,D.C. Thomas R. Nathan
Jud Cary Todd G. Hartman Senior Vice President,Law&Regulatory Affairs
Assistant General Counsel Robins,Kaplan,Miller&Ciresi L.L.P. Comcast Cable Communications
Cable Television Laboratories,Inc. Minneapolis Philadelphia
Louisville,Colorado Howard B. Homonoff Michael E. Olsen
Maurita K. Coley Program Director Vice President for Law and Regulatory Affairs
Cole,Raywid&Braverman,L.L.P. Paul F.Harron Graduate Program Cablevision Systems Corporation
Washington,D.C. in Television Management Bethpage,New York
Stephen R. Effros Drexel University,Philadelphia David J.Saylor
President
President Homonoff Media Group LLC Hogan&Hartson L.L.P.
Effros Communications Washington,D.C.
Clifton,Virginia Tenafly,New Jersey
Cherie R. Kiser Alexandra M.Wilson
W.Kenneth Ferree Mintz,Levin,Cohn,Ferris,Glovsky and Popeo,P.C. Vice President,Public Policy
Sheppard,Mullin,Richter&Hampton LLP Washington,D.C. Cox Enterprises,Inc.
Washington,D.C. Washington,D.C.
Gerard J. Lewis,Jr.
Vice President,Deputy General Counsel&
Chief Privacy Officer
Comcast Cable Communications
Philadelphia
SAN FRANCISCO
Daniel L. Brenner John F. Gibbs Cherie R. Kiser
Senior Vice President,Law&Regulatory Policy Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs, Mintz,Levin,Cohn,Ferris,Glovsky and Popeo,P.C.
National Cable&Telecommunications Association Midwest Division Washington,D.C.
Washington,D.C. Comcast
St.Paul,Minnesota Richard R. Patch
Jud Cary Coblentz,Patch,Duffy& Bass,LLP
Assistant General Counsel Paul Glist San Francisco
Cable Television Laboratories,Inc. Cole,Raywid&Braverman,L.L.P. Stephanie M. Phillipps
Louisville,Colorado Washington,D.C.
Arnold&Porter LLP
Christopher C. Cinnamon Todd G. Hartman Washington,D.C.
Cinnamon Mueller Robins,Kaplan,Miller&Ciresi L.L.P. Jeffrey Sinsheimer
Chicago Minneapolis
Vice President,Law&Public Policy
Karen S.Frank Chris Kelly California Cable&Telecommunications Association
Howard,Rice,Nemerovski,Canady,Falk&Rabkin,PC Vice President,Corporate Development Oakland
San Francisco &Chief Privacy Officer Joseph Van Eaton
Facebook Miller&Van Eaton,P.L.L.C.
Palo Alto,California
Washington,D.C.
Program Attorney: Howard G. Maurer
•
Summary of Findings Concerning Cable Operator Telephone
Response Practices and Methods for Implementing and Ensuring
Effective Enforcement of Applicable Customer Service Standards and
Related Recommendations
October 2004
TELEPHONE PERFORMANCE AND REPORTING SUBCOMMITTEE
NATOA CUSTOMER SERVICE COMMITTEE
Introduction
Telephone answering practices of cable television operators are among the most important topics
addressed by NATOA's Customer Service Handbook("Handbook"). As the Handbook notes in
the beginning of its Section 5 (devoted to telephone answering): "With the exception of paying
bills, most customer interaction with cable operators takes place over the telephone."
Unfortunately,many local franchising authorities("LFAs")have learned directly that: (a)their
cable operators are failing to meet applicable federal,' state,or local telephone response standards;
and (b) their residents' most vociferous complaints against cable operators often involve
allegations of unacceptable cable operator telephone answering practices. When investigating
such complaints, or when taking proactive measures designed to promote good cable operator
customer service,LFAs have often found that cable companies'telephone answering operations
are complex, arcane, and subject to manipulation.
1 The Handbook comprehensively addresses federal customer service standards
promulgated by the United States Congress as well as by the Federal Communications
Commission("FCC").
2 To address this need, the Subcommittee relied upon the Handbook as a springboard
for drafting more detailed recommendations on how the data is collected, adjusted, and
reported by cable companies.
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 2
Consequently, NATOA's Customer Service Committee ("Committee") formed the Telephone
Performance and Reporting Subcommittee("Subcommittee")in order to accumulate and distribute
additional useful information and recommendations regarding the effective enforcement of cable
operator telephone answering standards and reporting of operator performance in this area. The
Subcommittee, chaired by John Risk, has gathered much information from LFAs and also has
obtained significant input from persons with expertise in management of cable television customer
call centers. Please see Attachment 1 for a complete roster of Subcommittee members.
Using information from the Subcommittee's investigative activities,this report("Report")elaborates
on several cable operator telephone answering practices and related topics that are already addressed
in the Handbook. In addition to providing recommendations,this Report provides several tools to
assist LFAs in enforcing telephone response standards. In many cases, these tools are sample
documents that an LFA may wish to use (either in the forms presented or customized to more
precisely address specific situations faced by that LFA). Based on the fmding of this Report, the
Subcommittee believes that the Handbook could be edited or modified to reflect these findings.
[Note:NATOA's Customer Service Committee should reach a policy decision as to how much of
this report and its related attachments should constitute addenda or amendments to the Handbook.]
The Subcommittee believes that the LFA's primary goal in this area is to ensure that cable operators
offer the best customer service reasonably possible. Accordingly,LFAs and their residents benefit
most when LFAs actively enforce customer service requirements to the greatest extent feasible. By
getting the information necessary to fully understand their cable operators'practices in the area of
telephone answering, LFAs are taking an important step to prevent unacceptable situations,
preparing them to take necessary additional preventive measures, and—if worse comes to worst—
properly preparing them for administrative remedial proceedings.
Background
Many LFAs have discovered that cable television operators are failing to meet applicable
requirements governing cable operator customer service call center performance. In many cases,
when an LFA evaluates an operator's telephone response performance there is much confusion,
misinformation, or withholding of vital information by the cable operator.
LFA's attempting to enforce telephone response standards whether through administrative
proceedings or other means (including imposition of liquidated damages or monetary and other
penalties) often find that one or more of the following important questions or issues arise:
(1) Whether the cable operator has provided the LFA with adequate reports to measure
performance(including performance in all measurable categories such as speed to
answer,trunks busy, and call abandonment);
(2) Whether a company's use of integrated voice routing units("IVRs")--also known as
interactive response units("IRUs"),automated routing units("ARUs"),or automated
voice response units("VRUs")--affects the LFA's measurements of the company's
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 2 OF 14
•
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 3
telephone response performance, including the "30-second speed to answer"
standard;
(3) Whether a company is"normalizing"or otherwise"adjusting"data and whether such
adjustments comply with the LFA's standards.
(4) Whether the LFA is hampered by a lack of technical knowledge and/or access to
appropriate company representatives who can verify data, fix inaccuracies, and
ensure proper compliance;
(5) Whether the LFA knows about the loopholes and ambiguities that exist in the federal
telephone response standards,as well as many similar standards adopted by state and
local governments;
(6) Whether the LFA knows about the substantial differences that often exist between
cable companies, between regions, and sometimes within the same company,
regarding operator approaches to these issues.
These issues are often characterized by substantial differences in interpretation and considerable
debate between companies and LFAs. Not surprisingly, many LFAs have investigated and/or
considered alternatives to measuring cable operator telephone response performance.
Recommendations from the Subcommittee
1. Modify NATOA's Customer Service Handbook3 to reflect the considerable gains in
knowledge achieved by the Subcommittee concerning cable operator telephone response
practices and LFA enforcement of applicable customer service standards.
Based on the Subcommittee's extensive research concerning cable operator telephone response
practices and LFA enforcement of applicable customer service standards,the Subcommittee has
drafted many proposed modifications to the Handbook. Among the major topics addressed by
these revisions are cable operator customer service call centers,automated telephone answering
systems,"data scrubbing,""normalization"of data,normal operating conditions,cable operator
telephone response reports prepared by operators and requested by LFAs,and abandoned calls.
The proposed modifications also include:
3 The cable industry's only written response was contained in a May 12,2004 two-page
letter to Elizabeth Beaty,NATOA's Executive Director, from Jadz Janucik, Senior Vice
President,Association Affairs, of the National Cable&Telecommunications Association.
Unfortunately,despite NATOA's provision of a draft version of the Handbook to cable operators
so that they could comment on it, cable operators chose to provide very limited written
observations.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 3 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 4
(1) A glossary of terms related to cable operator call centers and automated telephone answering
systems; and
(2) A comprehensive list of procedural, technical, and"outsourcing"-related questions LFAs
would be well-advised to direct to cable operators concerning the workings of the operators
call centers and their automated telephone answering systems.
By November,2004,the Committee will provide these proposed Handbook modifications to
NATOA's Board for the Board's review.
5.1.1. — New Section: Properly Trained Company Representatives & Sufficiently Staffed
Telephone Call Centers.
5.1.2 - Local Call Centers needs a paragraph about consolidated call centers. Use a
transitional paragraph discussing how calls might be nationally consolidated by subject
matter to bridge into next section.
5.1.4—Automated Telephone Answering Syhstems.
5.1.4.1 —Glossary of Automated Telephone Answering Terminology.
5.1.6—Renumbered to 5.1.4.2: Language and Operator Override Options.
5.1.7—Renumbered to 5.1.4.3: Supplemental Phone Numbers.
5.1.8—Renumbered to 5.2.5: Historical Record of Complaints.
5.2.1.1 — Revised. Break it into three subsections, Telephone Response Data, CSR
Data and Call Center Data.
5.2.2—Renamed-Customer Service Reporting and the Cable Operator.
5.2.2.2—Renumbered and revised to 5.3.2—Data Scrubbing.
2. Develop specific policies for cable operator telephone statistics adjustment criteria and
reporting adjustments.
In compiling telephone answering performance data for reporting to the LFA,a cable operator may
take the position that it should be permitted to eliminate or adjust certain data. The adjustment of
call answering data is sometimes referred to as data"scrubbing"--i.e.,scrubbing out incorrect data
or"normalization"(referring to the exclusion of data that result from other than"normal operating
conditions").
Adjusting data may be acceptable, under certain circumstances. The principle justification for
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 4 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 5
permitting adjustment of telephone answering performance data is that it would be unfair to hold a
cable operator accountable for poor call answering that is the result of events or conditions that are
outside the cable operator's control. In other words,adjustment should be done in a manner that is
consistent with the force majeure provisions of the governing ordinance or franchise agreement.
Excusing non-compliance on the basis of the force majeure provision should generally require the
cable operator to demonstrate that the conditions causing the statistics at issue were outside of
"normal operating conditions,"as defined in the governing document(s).
A number of the justifications cable operators offer,which may or may not be acceptable to LFAs
under particular circumstances,are discussed below. This discussion is not intended as a categorical
statement that any particular justification that may be asserted by a cable operator should be
considered"acceptable" or"unacceptable,"but rather to provide guidance to LFAs in evaluating
data adjustments or requests to adjust data. The specific justifications are discussed in order of
decreasing probability that the asserted justification will be valid or acceptable,as determined in a
process of discussion and ranking by the members of the Subcommittee.(Those justifications listed
first are most likely to be valid adjustments whereas those justifications at the end are more likely to
be invalid because they reflect situations under the control of the cable operator).
Vandalism/Sabotage
If a cable operator's plant or any other component of its system is sabotaged or vandalized by an
outside party (or a rogue employee) -- for example, if an operator's cable is purposely cut-- the
operator will likely experience an increase in calls to its customer service center or call center from
affected subscribers,leading to diminished telephone answering performance. Alternatively,if the
operator's call center itself is sabotaged, call answering performance may be negatively effected
despite an unchanged call volume. In this situation,the independent act of the party vandalizing the
operator's plant or equipment may well be a criminal act in many jurisdictions. The Subcommittee
has determined that,in most instances,an act of vandalism or sabotage will likely be outside of the
cable operator's control.4
Telephone System Outages
An outage or malfunction in the telephone company's system, or some component of it, may
negatively affect call center performance. For example,if half of the lines serving a particular call
center are inoperative,the volume of calls handled by the remainder should be expected to double.
Or, if an entire call center is taken off-line by a telephone outage, calls that would normally be
handled by that center may roll to another center, leading to slower answer times, longer wait and
transfer times and,potentially,increases in busy signals and disconnections. The Subcommittee has
determined that diminished call answering performance caused by telephone system outages will
often merit being considered allowable adjustments by LFAs. But, a fact-specific inquiry into the
4 But it may be relevant,both in connection with a contemporaneous request to adjust data and in
connection with any future such request for similar reasons,to know what remedial and preventive actions are taken
by the cable operator following such an incident. For instance,in the theoretical case of the"rogue employee,"the
LFA should be provided with full details of the investigation of the incident and any resultant disciplinary action.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 5 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 6
specific effect of the outage and whether that effect could have or should have been mitigated,
through advance planning or otherwise,may be required before determining that the operator should
be permitted to adjust data.
Inclement Weather
"Bad weather"is one of the most frequently cited justifications for adjustment to call center data. In
considering a request to adjust data that a cable operator believes has been adversely influenced by
poor weather, it is important to remember that FCC cable customer service standards address the
problem of poor weather,in the context of defming"normal operating conditions." See 47 C.F.R.
§76.309(c)(4)(ii): "Those conditions which are not within the control of the cable operator include,
but are not limited to,natural disasters. . ..and severe or unusual weather conditions." In addition,
local cable customer service standards or a franchise agreement may describe the types of weather in
connection with which adjustment may be sought. Excusing noncompliance associated with
weather-related flooding,or a blizzard,maybe acceptable,while breezy spring or fall weather may
not qualify for such excuse.
Therefore,the determination of whether inclement weather justifies an adjustment of cable operator
call center data requires consideration of the nature and severity of the specific weather event, as
well as the way in which the event is alleged to have affected the operator's data. What is the
weather event involved? Was it predicted sufficiently in advance that the operator could/should
have effectively increased staffmg levels in response? Is the effect on call center performance the
result of weather affecting subscribers (heavy winds downing cables, interrupting service and
leading to an increased call volume)or weather affecting the call center itself(a lightning strike at
the call center that incapacitates all or part of the center and thus leads to diminished performance at
that center or a related or overflow facility)?
Most LFAs would agree that natural disasters such as earthquakes,wildfires,hurricanes or tornados
are outside cable operators'control and circumstances for which exceptions should be granted. But
rain or snow events may present a less obvious answer. For example, in construing the FCC's
standards,when should rainfall be considered "severe"or"unusual?"
Defmitions and thresholds the National Weather Service uses may be helpful in analyzing whether a
particular weather event was sufficiently severe to justify an adjustment of data. See
www.crh.noaa.gov/mpx/nwseventdef.html ("National Weather Service Event Definitions/
Thresholds.") On the other hand,unless the applicable ordinance or agreement specifically provides
that these standards will apply in connection with a force majeure provision, it is unlikely that
reference to them will conclusively resolve most questions. Instead,the standards may provide a
yardstick against which to measure the claim of a cable operator that the weather was so bad that the
operator should be permitted to adjust its call center performance data.
In summary, although weather may often provide a valid basis for adjusting call center data, the
particular facts and circumstances involved should be closely examined against applicable standards
and definitions.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 6 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 7
System Malfunction Caused by External Force
From time to time, cable systems are affected by traffic, construction or other forces, such as the
severance of a cable line during street construction or utility work,or when an automobile accident
brings down a cable-carrying utility pole. The Subcommittee believes that data adjustment will
often be justified under such circumstances. However,as with other justifications that may be given,
the LFA should require full details about the incident in connection with any request to normalize or
otherwise adjust data or to excuse noncompliance with the LFA's standards.
Cancellation of Pay-Per-View("PPV')Events
Call centers may be negatively affected--primarily by an increase in call volume--by the cancellation
of one or more popular pay-per-view events. If the cause of the cancellation is external and the
cable operator does not contribute to the decision,the Subcommittee believes that the adverse effect
on performance may be excusable. As always,before making a fmal determination about whether
data adjustment should be permitted,it is important to be aware of the causes of the cancellation and,
how far in advance of the date of the scheduled PPV event the operator knew of the cancellation.
LFAs should also consider the reasonableness of the steps the operator took to prevent or ameliorate
the adverse effect(s). It is important to distinguish a PPV event cancellation from other effects on
call volume that may result from the promotion of a PPV event or other sales promotion. Because
such promotional campaigns generally are within the control of the cable operator, related poor
performance will usually not be excusable and will generally not justify adjustment of call
answering performance data reported to the LFA.5
Justifications That Will Often Be Unacceptable
There was some disagreement among Subcommittee members on the merits of permitting data-
adjustment for(a)adverse effects of labor disturbances or strikes,and(b)power outages. However,
the members generally agreed that evaluating nonperformance attributed to such events would be
highly fact-specific.
5 This distinction is supported by the FCC's customer service regulations,which provide that"[t]hose
conditions which are ordinarily within the control of the cable operator include,but are not limited to,special
promotions,pay-per-view events,rate increases,regular peak or seasonal demand periods,and maintenance or
upgrade of the cable system." See 47 C.F.R.§76.309(c)(4)(ii).
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 7 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 8
Justifications That Will Usually Be Unacceptable
The Subcommittee believes that data adjustment generally should not be permitted for poor
performance attributable to: sun spots: (because they are highly predictable and staffing can be
increased accordingly); IVR handled calls; call center equipment malfunctions (because such
malfunctions are part of the normal business risk that for which operators should plan); inaction of
governmental agencies (with respect to permits, licenses, etc., except when such governmental
delays are unusually excessive and directly affect a cable operator's telephone response performance
which are,again,a part of doing business);traffic congestion and/or street closures;and call volume
related to cable modem/high speed data services.
However, as with any adjustment request, the LFA should consider the specific facts and
circumstances of every request to adjust data. The cable operator should always bear the burden of
proving that adjustment is appropriate.
3. Determine policies on "Normal Business Hours."
The Subcommittee believes that adjustment related to"normal business hours"should be allowed
provided these hours are defined in the ordinance. For example, many of the operators whose
reports have been reviewed by our Subcommittee,were found to have made adjustments for normal
operating hours, e.g. 8:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday-Saturday. Alternately, in cases where the
ordinance requires 24/7 data requirements, operators should be expected to submit 24/7 data
accordingly.
4. Develop policies for formatting telephone response reports(based on a review of the several
examples provided by MSO's).
As noted in the Introduction to the Handbook,federal statutory and regulatory promulgations grant
LFAs considerable authority to enact customer service standards that: (a)exceed those adopted by
the FCC;or(b)deal with areas not addressed by the FCC's standards. (See,e.g.,47 U.S.C. §552(d)
and 47 C.F.R. §76.309(b).) Such authority may be limited,however,by applicable state or local law
or by agreements with cable operators into which an LFA may have entered.
The FCC's pertinent telephone response standards are incorporated in 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(1)(i)-
(iv). Some LFAs have adopted regulations exceeding these federal standards or going into areas not
addressed by the FCC's standards. Yet,as described below,LFAs have repeatedly discovered that
applicable telephone response standards contain numerous ambiguities and fail to address important
aspects of cable operators' telephone answering practices. Thus,unless one or more of the above-
mentioned limitations are in effect, an LFA has considerable latitude in adopting more
comprehensive telephone standards than those currently in effect and addressing any current
ambiguities. More comprehensive enforcement could entail, for example, mandating the type of
information a cable operator must provide to the LFA and the frequency of the provision of
information to the LFA. In many cases,LFAs have the authority to create the telephone response
reports they expect cable operators to complete and submit to the LFA. In the event that an LFA
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 8 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 9
decides to create such a telephone response report, the LFA may want to consult the attached
redacted versions of reports received by LFAs (See Attachment 2a-2g).
Many LFAs either do not regularly receive telephone response reports from their cable operators or
receive reports with minimal amounts of pertinent information. The Subcommittee has compiled a
number of reports. The Subcommittee has also created a "sample" report that could be used in
seeking additional information and metrics from a cable operator. This would be helpful in
circumstances warranting greater depth of review, such as an enforcement proceeding following
failure to comply with standards as reported in less formal reports(see Excel File-Attachment 3).
Yet,as some of the attached redacted reports demonstrate,many cable operators have the ability to
generate telephone response reports that are much more comprehensive than those usually received
by most LFAs. Consistent with applicable authority, an LFA may require increased amounts of
detail provided in its operators' telephone response reports.
Some of the attached reports contain arcane terminology that may be unfamiliar to LFAs. In order to
assist LFAs in understanding cable operators' telephone response reports, the Subcommittee has
attached a glossary of common abbreviations and other terms contained in many telephone response
reports (Attachment 4). However, because the glossary does not contain all of the pertinent
abbreviations and other terms used in these reports,LFAs would be well-advised to direct to their
cable operators questions concerning reports received by the LFAs and the underlying telephone
response practices,to the extent necessary.
5. Provide recommendations for enforcement methodologies and actions.
The Subcommittee recommends that any NATOA member interested in enforcement first read the
Handbook, particularly the portions that outline important considerations for conducting
enforcement proceedings. LFAs should initiate enforcement activity immediately upon becoming
aware of any violations.
Subsection 2.2.2 of the Handbook devotes considerable attention to customer service enforcement
approaches LFAs may implement and the remedies that LFAs may want to incorporate in their
regulatory ordinances and/or franchise agreements. Subsection 2.2.2.6 of the Handbook notes that
the initiation of administrative hearings and other enforcement procedures by an LFA may lead to
effective corrective action being undertaken by a cable operator even when the enforcement action
does not proceed to a formal finding of breach or noncompliance and/or the imposition of penalties
against a cable operator or the collection of liquidated damages.
In late July-August 2004, the Subcommittee solicited input from NATOA members concerning
enforcement actions these members or other LFAs have undertaken due to alleged violations of
customer service telephone response standards by cable operators. Several members provided
details of enforcement proceedings resulting in the collection of monetary penalties or liquidated
damages from operators. The largest sums reported were $300,000 by the Mount Hood Cable
Regulatory Commission (representing Multnomah County and the cities of Fairview, Gresham,
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 9 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 10
Portland, Troutdale, and Wood Village in Oregon) and $281,000 by the Metropolitan Area
Communications Commission("MACC,"representing Washington County and 14 cities in Oregon).
The monies collected by these two consortia of LFAs corresponded to the late 1999-late 2001
period of time and franchisees affiliated with AT&T Broadband.
Of the responses received by the Subcommittee, that provided by the Vancouver Clark Cable
Television Commission(representing the City of Vancouver and Clark County in Washington)was
unique in that its enforcement action resulted in direct monetary reimbursement to customers($1 per
customer). The customers represented by this commission were being served by the same AT&T
Broadband call center responsible for taking the telephone calls of MACC and Mount Hood Cable
Regulatory Commission customers. That the three regulatory consortia arrived at different monetary
amounts reflects, to some extent, the different enforcement provisions in the pertinent cable
regulatory ordinances and/or franchise agreements
Several of the LFAs believed that undertaking the enforcement actions had led to better telephone
response performance by the affected operators. However,at least one LFA representative believed
that,although the enforcement activity with which he had been involved had resulted in the affected
operator attempting to improve its telephone call centers, their performance continued to be
unsatisfactory--due to the call centers being overwhelmed by the call volume generated by system
rebuilds and the launching of new services.
In light of the regionalization and consolidation of call centers implemented by much of the cable
industry over the past few years, one would expect that the cable operator telephone response
practices experienced by customers in clusters of neighboring cities and counties will often be very
similar. Consequently, many of the communities that are adjacent to those LFAs that reported
enforcement activity probably experienced or are experiencing similar poor cable operator telephone
response performance.
The following chart summarizes the responses provided to the Subcommittee. (See Attachment 5
for a Mount Hood Cable Regulatory Commission Order.)
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 10 OF 14
•
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 11
Responses Re: Monies Collected by LFAs for Deficient
Cable Operator Telephone Response Performance
(Revised 10/21/04)
LFA Operator Violation Period Monetary Amt.
Mount Hood Cable AT&T Broadband 1999-2001 $300,000
Regulatory
Commission(OR) (7 Quarters) (approx. 130,000 subs.)
Metropolitan Area AT&T Broadband 1999-2001 $281,000
Communications
Commission (9 Quarters) (approx. 120,000 subs.)
("MACC")(OR)
Northern DuPage Comcast 2003-2004 $115,500
County Area Cable
Television Agency (approx. 23,000 subs.)
(IL) (6 Quarters)
Redondo Beach,CA Adelphia 2000-2004 $106,000
(6 Quarters) (approx. 19,000 subs.)
Vancouver/Clark AT&T Broadband 2000-2001 Approx. $80,000
County Cable ($70,000 to customers)
Television (5 Quarters)
Commission (WA) (app. 75,000 subs.)
Cleveland Heights, Adelphia 2000-2001 $73,000
OH
(2 Quarters) (approx. 14,000 subs.)
St.Paul,MN Comcast 2003-2004 $43,397
(2 Quarters) (app. 50,000 subs.)
Fremont,CA Comcast 2002-2004 $36,000
(5 Quarters) (approx.43,000 subs.)
Seattle,WA AT&T Broadband 2000-2001 Approx. $9,000
(2 Quarters) (approx. 140,000 video
subs. and 35,000 cable
modem subs.—most of
whom also video subs.)
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 11 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 12
With all of this said,enforcing telephone standards,other customer service standards,or any other
franchise ordinance or regulatory ordinance provisions requires clear and reliable reporting
requirements,creating a record of noncompliance, and implementing franchise breach, liquidated
damages, and/or penalty provisions of franchise agreements and/or regulatory ordinances. These
issues were addressed at some length in the Handbook; though the topic certainly could always
benefit from a more comprehensive treatment, this Report may not be the best platform.
Furthermore,because the Subcommittee believes that enforcement is really the meat and potatoes of
LFAs' work,the Subcommittee also believes that recommendations reflecting additional study of
enforcement methodologies should be included in subsequent objectives of the Committee. We
recommend that the Committee revisit a document Rick Maultra has assembled containing
perceptive approaches regarding enforcement proceedings, specifically those involving telephone
performance. The Subcommittee also recommends that further attention be given to these materials
with the hope of creating a useful reference tool for members.
6. Provide a list of interview questions that members can use to obtain more information
from their cable companies regarding the manner in which the companies are measuring
their telephone response.
Attachment 6 is a list of questions an LFA may want to direct, in whole or in part, to its operator.
7. Provide tips on ensuring the accuracy of the information cable operators provide to LFAs.
The Subcommittee recommends that Franchise Agreements include at least four (4) elements to
ensure that data provided by the cable operator accurately reflects its performance.
A. Require reporting of all raw data (unscrubbed and unadjusted). The cable operator
should report all required data without any adjustments or removal of incorrect data
(unscrubbed data) in its quarterly reports. For example, data that shows poor
performance due to abnormal operating conditions, or force majeure events should
always be included in the quarterly report. Data that the cable operator would like the
LFA to consider for waiver or exception due to abnormal operating conditions or force
majeure events can be submitted with the quarterly report in a"Request for Waiver"
letter or form. It is important that the cable operator provide sufficient evidence(with
this request) to allow the LFA to effectively evaluate the request.
B. Impose penalties or assess liquidated damages for falsifying information. Inaccurate or
incomplete data reporting or falsifying records may be considered a material breach of
the Franchise Agreement.
C. Require certification of monthly, quarterly, or special reports. Data from the cable
operator should be certified by an officer or employee of the company, stating that the
information provided in such report is true and correct.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 12 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29,2004
Page 13
D. Perform audits. LFAs should have the right to inspect books and records and to perform
audits. In addition, an LFA should require that it be allowed to audit any activity
between a cable company and a service bureau, and allow relevant access to phone
company data (to track busy signals, for example). The LFA's right to audit phone
system programming should also be included in the Franchise Agreement.
E. Make periodic test calls to the Call Center. LFA's are also advised to log periodic calls
made to the call center to test the telephone answering performance for themselves and
to document performance accordingly. Two examples of logs are found in Attachments
7a and 7b.
For a comprehensive article regarding methods by which data can be manipulated by a call center,
please see Attachment 8,"Faux Compliance,"authored by Craig Case.
8. Provide recommendations for alternative scientific random performance sampling.
The Subcommittee reviewed a methodology commissioned by IL-NATOA(See Bruce Anderson's
PowerPoint—Attachment 9). We support its use as an alternate methodology. In considering this
example,LFA's should consider the various requirements regarding hours of operations contained in
their franchises or regulatory ordinances.
The final section addresses additional items the Subcommittee recommends for review and
additional study by the Committee.
• Submit this Report(including attachments)to the NATOA Board for acceptance,approval,
and dissemination to members;
• Study how and when the full Committee should addresses edits and modifications to the
Handbook and prepare a plan for making routine updates to future editions;
• Recommend further study of the regionalization of Call Centers and the effects on local
franchise-level reporting;
• Consider further study of enforcement methodologies for recommending sample approaches;
• Consider testing these"best practices"with interested industry partners;
• Explore whether NATOA's should use portions of the Handbook, along with deliverables
associated with the Committee,in promulgating a set of"customer service best practices"to
be presented,in some manner,to the FCC. Related to this,request Board approval to direct
NATOA's Executive Director to speak with the FCC regarding the matter of updating the
12-year old FCC Customer Service standards; and
• Recommend that the Subcommittee be terminated following the conference.
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 13 OF 14
Report Telephone Performance And Reporting Subcommittee
October 29, 2004
Page 14
DELIVERABLES/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 —Roster of Committee Members
Attachment 2—Redacted Telephone Reports from various cities
2a—Short Tel rpt.pdf
2b—Tel rpt cropped no 1.pdf
2c—Grp tel rpt.pdf
2d—Long Telephone Rpt. Revd.pdf
2e—Comcast telephone answering example.xls
2f—Example of weekly telephone answering report.xls
2g—Comcast Bay area example report.pdf Attachment 8
Attachment 3—Sample Report-Excel file
Attachment 4—Telephone Answering Subcommittee Glossary.doc
Attachment 5—Order regarding liquidated damages—Mount Hood Regulatory Commission
Attachment 6—Questions re telephone answering data collection-report-final.doc
Attachment 7—Telephone Logs
7a Metropolitan Area Communications Commission(MACC)
7b Fremont, CA
Attachment 8—Craig Case article—"Faux Compliance"
Attachment 9—Bruce Anderson Methodology for Checking up on operators
END OF REPORT
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT PAGE 14 OF 14
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 1
TELEPHONE PERFORMANCE AND REPORTING SUBCOMMITTEE
John Risk
Sub-committee Chair
Communications Support Group, Inc.
505 Scenic Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
Voice: 510-595-0405
Fax: 510-547-6206
mailto:jrisk@concentric.net
Bruce Anderson
Cable TV Coordinator
Village of Hoffman Estates
Hoffman Estates, IL 60195
Voice: 847-781-2607
mailto:bruce.andersonRhoffmanestates.orq
Rebecca Gibbons
MHCRC
Program Specialist
1120 SW Fifth Ave., Rm 1305
Portland, OR 97215
Voice: 503-823-5385
mailto:rgibbons@ci.portland.or.us
Victoria L. Greenfield
Deputy County Administrator
Charles County Government
P.O. Box 2150
La Plata, MD 20646
Voice: 301-638-0801, or ext. 2801
mailto:GreenfiV@govt.co.charles.md.us
Gregory Fuentes
Law Offices of Gregory Fuentes
11041 Santa Monica Blvd., No. 629
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Voice: 310-477-2998
Fax: 310-479-4130
mailto:gfuentes a(�mminternet.com
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 1
Sarah Hackett
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC)
Senior Communications Analyst
1815 NW 169th Place, Suite 620
Beaverton, OR 97006
Voice: 503-645-7365, ext. 206
Fax: 503-645-0999
mailto:shacketta,maccor.orq
William R. Hanna, Esq.
Walter& Haverfield LLP
The Tower at Erieview
1301 East Ninth Street, Suite 3500
Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1821
Voice: 216-928-2940
Fax: 216-916-2377
whanna@walterhay.com
Mitsi Herrera
317 Highview Ave
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Voice: 301-565-9733
Voice: 202-497-0096 day
mailto:mitsimitsiastarpower.net
Allan W. Hide
Department of Cable Communications and Consumer Protection
12000 Government Center Parkway, #433
Fairfax County, VA
Voice: 703-324-5902
Fax: 703-803-0489
mailto:Allan.Hidea.fairfaxcountv.gov
Mary Beth Henry
Deputy Director
Office of Cable Communications and Franchise Management
Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission
1120 SW 5th Avenue
Portland, OR 97204
Voice: 503-823-5414
Fax: 503-823-5370
mailto:mbhenrvaci.portland.or.us
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 1
David Mattison
Cable Telecommunications License Administrator
Miami-Dade County, Consumer Protection Division
140 West Flagler Street, Suite 902,
Miami, FL 33130
Voice: 305-375-3283
Fax: 305-375-4120
mailto:davemiamidade.gov
Rick Maultra Director
City of Indianapolis
Cable Communications Agency
200 E. Washington St. #g19
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Voice: 317-327-4594
cables inetdirect.net
Marjorie L. Williams
Montgomery County Office of Cable & Communication Services
Dept of Technology Services
100 Maryland Ave., #250
Rockville, MD. 20850
Voice: 240-777-3762
marjorie.williams(c�montgomerycountymd.gov
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 2a
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
2000 Phone Stats
Q1 02 Q3 Q4 Avg
All Trunks Busy 0.63% 0.44% 3.56% 4.00% 2.16%
%Abandoned 2.06% 1.37% 2.54% 5.09% 2.77%
TSF 92% 92% 86% 81% 88%
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 2b
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
•
I imam Ta4ptiotag$7ATISTOAL REPORT
Oa menthol October,20Q1
•
. .1
84fap0 %Cab
#Ws /Calls #Cage % Ass 1030 Ass W U Ave Watt Lewd Longa1 Ave Aid %Trunk Total #Cats
. Data Day Reed _ Ass , Ad ,Ainwol Su set ASA In See W 5As, 18*KA3d lisp , Busy , Coils _Hasd%d Penxntsgs
101112004 Moo 26895 18473 $422 88.89% 7615 4122%, 227 205 23.37% 34712 7817 22.5214
101212001 Tue 22768 17096 5872 75001 6300 17.38% 295 287 19.97% ,«, 6735 22.83%
10001101 1 ad 20628 14073 5855 71,89% 5733 38.28% 327 380 2097% 27222 6394 23,49%
10/412001 Thu 19727 15738 3980 79.78% 6918 _ 43.94% 100 354 0.00% 23175 3448 14.58%,
10f5r2001 Fd 19188^ 150M 4156 78.34% 8538 43.50% 216 313 1139% 21338 2150, 10.06%
10/812001 Set 15643 8350 7290 53.38% 2049 24,4614 594 536 24.40% 19287' 3644 18.80%
1 0 1 712 0 01 Son 0 0 0 0.00% 0 0.0)% 0
imam lion 21553 15806 5748 73.3314 5841, 35.88% 312 317 22.98% 24787` 3234 13.05%
1019120/1 .Tao 21495 18426 3685 .85.72% 5633 52.23% 109 282 0.08% 27153 5658 20.60
MC11102001 r Wed 21695 17314 4581 79.06% 636.5 30.99% '192 400 164814 23781 1885 7.9311
1071112001 Thu 21526t 17164 4462 79.37% 5775 33.84% 166 350 0.00% 26781 5165 19.2514
10/122001 Fd 20552 16125_ 4527 7896% 5215 32.34% 204, 300 0.23% 27812 7180 25.74%
1011312001 Sat_ 17279, 10159 7120, 58.7914% 2344 73.07% 480 ' 405 8.10% 19871 2592 1314%
100412001 Sun 0 0 0- 090% 0 0,00% 0
1011612001 Mon 22989 18015 4974 7636% 6022 33.43% 222 280 0e48% 23875 586 3.71%
1011618001 Tue 19727 18133 1594 91.92% 14457 781)7% 53 306 0.00% 24715 4988 20.10%
1/07/7691 Wed 17389 15743 1580 50.78% 12394 78,87% . . 55 407 000% 20785 3476 18.72%
1011/2005 Thu 16785 15381, 1414 51. % 13783 8948% 35 5644 0.00% 19643 2848 14.50%
1011912001 Fit 10754i 15119 1835 90.24% 10710 70.10% 82
292 0J0076 17811 1057 5.93'4try
101202001 Sat 13036 9316 3720 71.47%_ 4635 49.74%, 289 332 0.60% 19871_ . 6333 34.39%
107216101 Sao 0_ 0 0 0.03%,' 0 099%l 0
101292001 Mon 19592 17187 2385 87.77% 5643% 97 305_ 0.00%_ 23726 4144 17.47%
10/2312001 Tue 17985 16271 1714 00.47% 10909 67.05% 88A 243 09014 23229 5244 22.55%
1082412011 Wad , 18028 15688 2340 87,0214 9074\ 57.84% 112 353 263% 22348 4320 19.33%
10125111001 Thu 17748 15632 2118 68.08% 10497 67.15% 97 369 0.03% 22740 4996 21.97%
101202001,, fd 43856 14425, 1431 00.80% 10872 75.37% .63, 314 0.00% 23758 7900 33.25%
101x1120H IA 16077 7435 2642 73.7814; 2561 34.44% 284 322 0.0014 11851 1774 14.97%
1 112001 Soo 0 0 0 019% 0 0.00% 0
165412001 Roo 18252 18538 1713 9061% 11471, 89.38% 577 243 024% 23646 5593 2146%
1013012001 Tue ; 17054 18021 1053 93.94% 13007 81.19% 151 V I I fik 7m� , 279 0.00% 27075 10921 39.04%
01013182001t Wed 16213 15124 1009 93.28% 12748. 84.29% 45 my
353 0.10% 20575 4362 21.20%
di Oil r at 1d i033'13i
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 2c
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
Period Covered: Fri 06-02-00 00:02 Through Fri 06-02-00 21:05
ACD Incoming - 555 ACID Talk Time - 14:06 Avg. ACD Talk - 2:19
Answered - 363 Delay Time - 9:30 Avg. Delay - 1:19
Aban Bef Rcrd - 4 Abandnd Time - 2:02 Avg. AbanTime - 1:36
Aban Aft Rcrd - 72 Non ACD Time - 1:52 Avg. NACD Tlk - :47
Recordings - 1173 Wrap Time - :45 Avg. Wrp Time - :07
Delayed Calls - 433
Non ACD Calls - 141
Transfrd In - 557
Transfrd Out - 11
Overflow In - 2
Overflow Out - 108
Call wait time:
5 Sec 10 Sec 20 Sec 30 Sec 45 Sec 60 Sec 90 Sec Over
54 95 130 153 183 203 250 363
% 14.87 is 26.17 t 35.81 % 42.14 % 50.41 t 55.92 % 68.87 t 100.00
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
Daily Phone Stats
8A-6P ----- IVR «—
Total Abd Abd #Calls 30 Sec . ATT ASA Lg Wait tg Wait Trunks Total Calls N
Date CallsCalls Rate% 30 Sec % Answd Abandn Busy% Calls Handled Percent g
0- 14an 200 114 0 0.00% 114 100% 282 1 12 0 0% 114 32 28% c
0 2-Jan-200 173 0 0,00% 173 100% 304 1 12 0 0% 173 33 19% 0
id, 343000 789 7 0.89% 715 91% 304 12 118 24 0% 789 117 15%
443000 779 8 1.03% 786 98% 305 6 128 52 0% 779 123 16% °,
Stan-20Q 648 2 0.31% 637 98% 312 6 64 2 0% 648 100 15% a
6,1an200 594 5 0.84% 574 97% 340 6 98 32 0% 594 88 14% 5
a 7Jan 2 535 0 0.00% 512 98% 298 6 90 0 0% 535 78 15% °-
g 84an•200 339 3 0.88% 339 100% 308 4 , 28 14 0% 339 58 17% m
'0 9-Jan-200 200 1 0.50% 200 100% 305 3 12 4 0% 200 23 12% v
a• 104an200 933 7 0.75% 814 87% 249 12 100 44 0% 933 137 15% n
c 11-Jan200 759 2 0.26% 753 99% 316 4 42 8 0% 759 120 16% m
cr 1240200 615 4 0.65% 558 91% 333 10 102 12 0% 615 95 15% v
0 134an200 557 1 0.18% 538 97% 326 5 88 28 0% 557 85 15% —I
1440000 612 4 0.65% 581 95% 325 7 122 40 0% 612 91 15% m
15-Jan-200 423 3 0.71% 408 97% 340 7 144 4 0% 423 58 13% -o
16-Jan-200 172 0 0.00% 172 100% 288 1 10 0 0% 172 37 22% I
17Jan-2 609 4 0.66% 593 97% 342 5 76 66 0% 609 86 14% Z
184an- 656 4 0.61% 650 99% 341 4 26 268 0% 656 78 12% m
19Jan-2 626 12 1,92% 583 93% 321 10 160 30 0% 626 90 14% m
204an-209 607 3 0.49% 597 98% • 296 5 84 4 0% 607 93 15%
2141u12001 512 0 0.00% 512 100% 335 3 32 0 0% 512 66 13% M
224a000 332 0 0.00% 332 100% 344 3 12 0 0% 332 49 15%
23410 186 3 1.61% 162 87% 352 20 288 100 0% 186 24 13%
2443000 650 0 0.00% 650 100% 338 1 14 0 0% 650 87 13% y
254an200, 613 1 0,16% 613 100% 321 2 46 0 0% 613 85 14% y
ti 26Jan-200 518 0 0.00% 514 99% 330 2 54 0 0% 518 73 14%
P 27411n2001 584 1 0.17% 579 99% 344 2 48 2 0% 584 79 14%
284an-2001 556 0 0.00% 556 100% 336 2 16 0 0% 556 69 12% A
0 29Jan2t� 335 2 0.60% 332 99% 348 4 44 4 0% 335 50 15% Z
0.3
N 30Jan-2001 170 0 0.00% 170 100% 360 1 12 0 0% 170 20 12%
N
41, 31430001 670 0 0.00% 670 100% 328 1 12 0 0% 670 77 11% °'
Totals 15866 77 0.49% 15366 97% 321 5 288 268 0% 15866 2297 14%
2004 Summary of Findings
ATTACHMENT 2e
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
Quarterly Report for Telephone Answering
1st Quarter 2004
Calls Handled Abandons Qty Handled<30
"Spstt ,.oto Spanish -Span901 ' -
and '• 'and ; and
Roten.6on', Repair '• , Sales . • Billing'' • Total Roteotion ' Repair ' . Sales Billing Total Retention Repair „ Sales Billing Total
,
1/1/2004 .. 997' 5,418 2,245 5,615" 14,275 23 ' ' '-101, '" ' 71 . 114 309 249 . - 4,014 • .' 1,657 a , 4,641 10,4E
1/42004 , ' 776- - . 4,337 '' .2,584 --1 5,657 14,334 11 ..97 64 ' 18 190 ',645 4,107 2,136 ..• , 5,428 12,31
1/11/2004 - 2,643 ' 11,630" 8,140 . 20,369 42,712 ' • 23 '72 - 80 '149 324 - 2,113 10,651 7,600 18,222 38,4E
1/18/2004 2,168-. 9,801 ' 7,787 18,582 36,336 " 19 - - 77 36 114 246 ' 1,981 9,000 7,476 ' 15,534 33,97
1252004 . 2,490 ' ' 11,508 ' 8,265 ' 17,505 39,766 ' 30 . 53 37 80 200 '2,187 • . 10,744 8,079 17,072 38,0E
2/12004 2,292 : 10,183 :,. ',7,357 16,863, 36,695 5 191 . ' 17, •46 259 - 2,242 9,777 • 7,315 16,773 36,1E
2/82004 1,932 - ..`'10,449 - -6,788 15,214 34,383 52 377 ' 370 ,301 1,100 ' 1;861 ' .9,855 6,477 14,586 32,57
2/152004 • 2,109 _ '. 9,681 ' -_ 9,239 ;' •' 14,922 35,951 - 15 58 '90 •V136 299 - 1980 •
,. _9,248 _ 8,728 13,988 33,94
2222004 2,254 . 10;005 - 9,465 14,407 36,131 15 212 . ""92' '72 391 -2,067 , - '. 9,082 8,679 13,619 33,44
2/29/2004 "' 2,252 • 9,939 ` 8,657 ' - 15.576 36,424 • •..12 ,106 38 - 171 327 - 2,059 9,153 8,232 . 14,022 33,4E
3/7/2004 2,201 - . '10,486 .8,351 - '14,687 35,705 31 - . 250 114 ' 147 542 1,935 '' - .'8,897 7,528 , . 13,336 31,6E
3/14/2004 . 2,148 10,883- 12,426 14,860 40,315 34 • 176 • 244 105 559 , 1,941 . 9,360 10,812 • '13,981 36,0E
3/21/2004 '2,183 • 9,571. ' 8,101 13,717 33,572 . '24, 96 ' 118 57 295 -2,003 8,800 • 7,851 - .13,332 31,7E
3/28/2004 ,• 1,427 7,725 - 5,050 • -8,728 22,930 17 383 '- • 63 130 583 1,219 6,074 • 4,514 ' 7,877 19,6F
Totals ', '27,788 ' 132,644 104,415' 494,662 459,529 311: 2,249 '' 1,424. '4,640 5,624 _-n24,962 118,562 96,784 ' 181,811' 422,11
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee
September 30,2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 2f
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
EXAMPLE OF A WEEKLY
SUMMARY REPORT Calls Calls Calls Handled Service Abandoned
Offered Handled w/in 30 sec Level % Calls %Abandoned
Sunday Repair.,,; °.; 900 °894 758° 84.22% , B 0.67%
1/4/2004 Billing; - ,,':�4: '' 410' 405 ° 379 : 91:55%° ", - 4': ,, 0.96%
Sales(No,CSRs on
Sundayi°....n 4 ;
, Disconnection • ' 46 48 ` 48 100,00% , t"? 0 0.00%
Spanish ,'25"" " 25. . 18 •72:00°I°` , l Yr.0 "0°00'4P
• TOTAL 1,383r,:; 1,373 ` - 1,203 •-:' •86.36% 10 ;,` " . ""0.72%
Monday ;• Repair - 1;544 `,.,1,524 " 1,316 84,14% -,20` 1.30%
-'1/5/2004:Billing 3,346 , •3,293 - •2,510 : 73.85%- :, - 53-;: " •.1.58%
Sales 1,895 1,873 : :1',580 °82.42%.°` 22 -'- 1.16%
Disconnection , 389 383 ' 318 80.51% :_ ' „6 1.54%
Spanish • ..'162 '-154'. 99..., :. 58.24% ,' , , 8 4.94%
TOTAL' 7,336 • 7,227 5,823., ' 79.38% - . 109 ' • 1.51%
Tuesday Repair . _ 1,2 :1;11.1::. 90••°'` 25 . -1223 .55°l° ,2•.e,.• ,,-..< '0:16%
1/6/2004 Billing,.tt, 1-'.` ,•",,"`•2 532 '2,515 ° :2360 92:59°l0;.• k v.
, > . ,,Sales 1,470• ' . ;4,464'' A .:1,392 94.31%• ••- ;; :6 •0,41%
°° ,,',Disconnection, °;{. 308 90822 '294- 95.45% .0" ' o.O0%
Spanish '' , :149: >- " `149 134--.-• ., 8 :93% 0• ° 6.00%
;TOTAL'. .,.: <.x ;' :. •°M84", 5,659' 6,291;...: :92.68% '25 °` 0.44%
Wednesday Repair 1,273 1,251 1,060 81.85% 22 1.76%
1/7/2004 Billing 2,347 2,298 . 1,916 79.97% - 49 2.13%
Sales 2,209 • 2,112 1,622 70.34% . 97 4.59%
Disconnection 275 272 247 88.85% 3 " 1.10%
Spanish ° 137 134 111 79.29% 3 2.24%
TOTAL 6,241 • 6,067 4,956 79.41% 174 2.87%
Thursday Repair" 1,290 1,283 1,145- 88.28% 7 0.56%
1/8/2004 Billing 2,329 2,317 2,153 91.97% 12 0:52%
Sales 1,985 1,936 1,699 83,53% 49 2.53%
Disconnection 256, 254 240 . - 93.02% 2 0:79%
Spanish - • ,113 110 86 74.14% • " 3 2.73%
"TOTAL 5,973 5;900 5,323 89.12% 1 73 1.24%
Friday- Repair •. 1,573 • 1,562 '1,441 .90.97% ,, 11 : • 0.70%
1/9/2004 Billing 2,473 2,455 2,304 • 92.49% '18 : • '0.73%
Sales 1,750,• - 1;723••, - "-1,566 88.13% 27. '• 1,57%
Disconnection. 243 ,243 • 223 • 91.77% ' . 0 0.00%
Spanish 105 ' 103- 83 77.57% - 2 ' . • 1.94%
' TOTAL -. 6,144- , 6,086 5,617 .'-91.42%'.- . .'- . "58 • • 0.95%
Saturday Repair " ' •°21;289°,- •. 1;282- 1,226 94.60% • 7 - : 0.58%
1/10/2004 Billing " " -,; 936 "928 874 92.58%" - • 8d • 0.86%
, --,«-.. ...°Sales . '964. , 953 909 ,93.23%. '11 - 1:15%
.,- Disconnection' ' `,' -95; 95 , ° :91 95.79% - 0 0.00%
Spanish ° '.79 'gin°.77 , 63 77.78% " : 2 = 2:60%
, . , ` TOTAL • 3,363 3,335 " "3,163 94.05% - 28- 0.84%
Week total Repair 9,094 9,019 8,057 87.80% 477 0.81%
Billing 14,373 14,212 12,496 87.86% 69 1.07%
Sales 10,273 10,061 8,768 73.14% 212 1.63%
Disconnection 1,614 1,603 1,461 92.20% 226 0.49%
Spanish 770 752 594 75.56% 424 2.06%
TOTAL 36,124 35,647 31,376 87.49% 1,408 1.22%
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 2g
REDACTED TELEPHONE REPORTS
'; 2nd Quarter= NCTA Reporting /Bay Area (Video)
Apr'03 May`03 Jun '03 .2nd Quarter
Repair Offered: 269,124 277,946 285,704 832,774 .
Call Centers: Handled 255,535 260,107. . ' 257,810 773,452
Livermore Aband 8,544 11,822 20,267 40,6831
Concord Aband% 3.9a.% 5:3% 8.5% 6,0%
0/S Center Partners ASA l;\.i > r Avi1o,ti 54 36 72 54
Al-IT ` j .l rt 321 364 , 354 , 343
IVR Handled 36,967 35,235 31,642 103,844
ANl PPV 14,447 18.168 14,757 47,372
Service Level 83.4% 81.4° 77.5% 80.7%
,Billing Offered , 194,627 .176,557 187,010 558,194
Call Centers: Handled 189,983 169,818 184,766 544,567
Livermore Aband 4,644 6,739 , 2,654 13,437
Concord • Aband% 2.4% 3.8% ' 1.1% 2.45e
OiS Center Partners - ASA- 43 27 18 3P
AHT 287 330 294 303
Service Le4vei 84.9% 83.0% 9i.6% 86.9%
Sales Offered • .'115,228' 128,735 161,426 . ' 405,389
Gall Center. Handled • :114,626 . r 127,856 159,534 492,016_
APAC Aband 602 ' 879 1,892 3,373
• Aband% 0.5% 0.7%, 1.2% 0.8%
ASA 4 v ' 7 6
AHT 338 355 355 350,
Service Level 97,4% 97.0°ro 94,4% 96.1%.
Bay Area Offered 578,979 . 583,238 634,144 1,796,357
Aggregate Handled 560,144 557,781 602,110 1,729,035
Handled i'i'SL 486,110 478,111 519,732 1,483,961 .
Aband 13,790:. 19,440 24,213 57,443
*Abeni3 2.6 % 3.7% 4.1% 3.5% :. .
ASA • 39 24 35 33 .
AHT 312 . ' 348 . ' 335 331
iVR Handled 36,967 35,235. 31,642 103,844
ANt PPV 14,447 18,168. 14,757 47,372
Service Level. ' .. 86.8% ' 85.7% ; ' . 86.3% . 86,3%
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings SAMPLE TELEPHONE PERFORMANCE REPORT ATTACHMENT 3
1st Quarter-Reporting All data 24/7 unless specified otherwise specified
Jan'03 Feb'03 Mar'03 1st Quarter Description of Adjustments(If any)that are subject to waiver(or approval)by LFA
Main Phone No. Total Calls to IVR 973,298 690,986 803,579 2,467,863
800-800-8000 Total calls when Trunk line is busy 2,998 6,541 3,371 12,910 LECICLEC outage serving call center,8-11 a.m..2/23/03
%of calls 800 number is busy 0.31% 0.95% 0.42% 0.56%
Call Center No.1 Incoming Calls to IVR('offered'calls)(24/7) 585,123 385,789 423,456 1,394,368 , •'
Calls Offered From IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 am to 6:00 pm) 212,474 179,010 240,000 631,484
Calls Offered From IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 am to 6:00 pm and acts of god) 205,472 176,781 232,261 614,514 Commercial power outage,10.11 a.nr.,1/15iO3(decreased by xx calls)
IVR handled calls(no CSR requested) 33,202 28,184 27,211 88,597
Auto.Number Identifier PayPerView(ANI PPV) 13,085 12,968 16,643 42,696 This category means IVR handles pay per view oohs
Hybrid-All lines of Calls Handled within 30 secs(adjusted to 8 am-6 pm,handled by CSR-excludes-IVR
service calls) 166,187 137,858 196,146 500,191
Total calls'handled°by a CSSR(adjusted to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm) 194,827 167,791 208,674 571,292
Total calls'handled'in more than 30 secs(adjusted to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm) 28,640 29,933 12,529 71,102
Abandoned(adjusted to 8:00 am to 6:00 pm) 2,388 2,175 4,544 9,107
Percent of calls abandoned 1.4% 1.6% 2.3% 1.8%
Average Hold Time from queue selection to CSR 324 318 321 321 This will calculated from the time a selection is made to moon a CSR picks up.
#of calls reaching busy signal 599 118 933 1,650
Percent of calls reaching busy signal 0.36% 0.09% 0.48% 0.31%
FCC 30 second Service Level(IVR calls excluded) 85.3% 82.2% 94.0% 87.6%
Call Center No.2 Calls Offered From IVR(24/7) 144,444 124,444 184,444 453,332
Calls Offered From IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 93,990 107,785 137,605 339,380
Calls handled by CSRs(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 92,542 101,244 133,114 326,900 Wild fire destroyed plant
Service Calls Only-No PPV Handled within 30 secs(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 85,639 83,216 119,316 288,171
ordering FCC 30 second Service Level(IVR calls excluded) 92.6% 82.2% 89.6% 88.2%
Aband 1,448 6,541 3,371 11,360
Aband% 1.5% 6.1% 2.4% 3.3%
Average Hold Time 332 345 338 339
#of calls reaching busy signal 599 118 933 1,650
Percent of calls reaching busy signal 0.41% 0.09% 0.51% 0.34%
Calls Offered From IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 234,094 T 173,912 187,723 595,729
Call Center No.3 Calls handled by CSRs(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 223,505 170,993 183,602 578,100
Billing Calls Only-No PPV Handled within 30 secs(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 197,896 152,212 159,130 509,238
ordering FCC 30 second Service Level(IVR calls excluded) 87.8% 89.0% 86.7% 88.1%
Aband 3,285 2,919 3,608 9,812
Aband% 1.4% 1.7% 1.9% 1.6%
Average Hold Time from queue selection to CSR 282 268 277 276
#of calls reaching busy signal 599 118 933 1,650
Percent of calls reaching busy signal 0.26% 0.07% 0.50% 0.27%
Company Offered Form IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 540,558 460,707 565,328 1,566,593
Aggregate Calls Offered From IVR(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm and acts of god) 521,519 449,018 548,977 1,519,514
Calls Handled within 30 secs.when adjusted for period 8am-6 pm and handled by CSR
queue(with IVR handled calls excluded) 494,271 419,555 521,474 1,435,300
Calls Handled within 30 secs.when adjusted for period 8am-6 pm and handled by CSR
queue(with IVR handled calls excluded) 478,362 403,219 487,120 1,368,701
%of calls answered within 30 secs.(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) 91.7% 89.8% 88.7% 90.1%
Aband 7,121 11,635 11,523 30,279
Aband% 1.4% 2.8% 2.2% 2.1%
Average Hold Time from queue selection to CSR 306 304 307 306
IVR Handled 33,202 28,184 27,211 88,597
ANI PPV 13,085 12,968 16,643 42,696
No of calls reaching busy signal 1797 354 2799 4,950
Percentage Busy 1.03% 0.25% 1.48% 0.92%
Telephone Preformance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings SAMPLE TELEPHONE PERFORMANCE REPORT ATTACHMENT 3
1st Quarter•Reporting All data 24/7 unless specified otherwise specified
Jan'03 Feb'03 Mar'03 1st Quarter Description of Adjustments(if any)that are subject to waiver(or approval)by LFA
Total Calls offered by IVR 2417 963,661 684,145 795,623 2,467,863
Total Calls From IVR Tracked to LFA Agent 10•Anytown USA(If adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 pm) . •
,, 345 • 567 • 789 1,701
Total Calls Tracked to LFA Agent 10•Anytown USA answered with 30 secs,(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6:00 • ,
pm) 300 5r0 745 1555
°%of LFA ca8sTracked to answered within 30 secs.(if adjusted for period of 8:00 to 6i00 pm) , ' '"' 87% ' 90% . 94% • '90%,
billing and technical and .
Top two highest volume call categories tracked to LFA Agent 10-Anytown,USA sales and billing technical billing
Prefonnance and Reporting Subcommittee Septembi 44 •
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 4
Telephone Answering Subcommittee
Glossary
Abandoned calls (ABA) -- calls which select the option to speak with a CSR,
but are disconnected or hang up before a CSR answers.
After Call Time (ACT) or After Call Work (ACW) --average time CSRs are not
available to take another incoming call as they finish work on the previous call.
Call centers generally try to minimize ACT.
Automated Call Distribution (ACD) --
Auto Number Identifier (ANI) -- used by operator to identify the phone number
of an incoming call. (For example, operators often use this technology to
process requests for Pay-Per-View events.)
Average hold time -- average time from the point a customer selects the option
to speak with a CSR, calculated for all callers in a specific time period. Also
known as Average Delay Time.
Average Talk Time (ATT) -- average time (usually measured quarterly) that a
CSR spends talking to any particular customer.
Average Time to Answer(ATA), Average Speed of Answer(ASA), or
Average Hold Time (AHT) -- average time over a specific measurement period
for all calls from the time callers select the option of speaking with a CSR. The
start of these time periods is their definition of when the "clock starts."
Busy--when a caller reaches a "fast busy" signal when calling the company,
indicating that there are no incoming lines available. Typically reported as the
percent of callers receiving a busy signal for a measured time period.
Calls handled -- generally the term used by MSOs to describe all calls that come
into their call center and talk with a CSR, vs. those that use the IVR.
Calls offered --generally the term used by MSOs to describe all calls that come
into their call center.
Customer Service Representative (CSR) --the trained company representative
who is responsible for handling customer calls. (Also known as CAE — Customer
Account Executive.)
Data scrubbing -- also called data cleansing, is the process of amending or
removing data in a database that is incorrect, incomplete, improperly formatted,
or duplicated. An organization in a data-intensive field like banking, insurance,
retailing, telecommunications, or transportation might use a data scrubbing tool
to systematically examine data for flaws by using rules, algorithms, and look-up
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2
tables. Typically, a database scrubbing tool includes programs that are capable
of correcting a number of specific type of mistakes, such as adding missing zip
codes or finding duplicate records. Using a data scrubbing tool can save a
database administrator a significant amount of time and can be less costly than
fixing errors manually.
Handle time --average time for all caller transactions, from the time the IVR
answers the calls to the time a CSR answers such calls.
Integrated Voice Routing Unit (IVR) --the voice mail system that offers
numerous menus of options for callers. Also called an ARU —Automated
Response Unit, VRU -Automated Voice Response Unit or IRU — Interactive
Response Unit.
IVR handled calls --generally, callers that chose to use the recorded
information system to get the information they need about their account and/or
services. This would not include callers who opt out of the IVR, requesting to
speak with a CSR.
Multiple System Operator(MSO) --the large companies that own numerous
cable systems across the country.
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
Before the
Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission
1120 SW Fifth Ave.,#704
Portland,OR 97204
KBL Portland Cablesystems,Limited )
Partnership and TCI Cablevision of ) Order 2001-01
Oregon,Inc.,Providing Services as )
AT&T Broadband )
)
Franchise Violations ) Findings of Fact and
) Conclusions of Law
Customer Telephone Answering Standards ) Passed by the Commission:
) February 26, 2001
Section 1. Process.
1.1 The Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission("MHCRC"or"Commission")was
created by Intergovernmental Agreement(dated December 24, 1992) ("IGA") to
carry out cable regulation and administration on behalf of Multnomah County and
the cities of Fairview,Gresham, Portland,Troutdale, and Wood Village("the
Jurisdictions"). Among other things,the Commission oversees compliance with
the cable franchise agreements, subject to discretionary review by the
Jurisdictions. IGA, § 4.A.
1.2 As provided under§ 6.6 of the MHCRC's Rules of Procedure, the MHCRC sent
out notice of the intent to schedule a formal hearing. At the regularly scheduled
MHCRC meeting of December 18,2000,MHCRC staff asked the Commission to
schedule a Formal Hearing for January 22,2001 on potential AT&T franchise
violations of customer service standards. At the meeting,the MHCRC set a
Formal Hearing date for January 22,2001.
1.3 At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 22,2001, the MHCRC convened a
formal hearing,as provided under§ 6.8 of the MHCRC's Rules of Procedure, to
consider whether KBL Portland Cablesystems, Limited Partnership and TCI
Cablevision of Oregon,Inc.,providing services as AT&T Broadband(also known
as AT&T Broadband and Internet Services or AT&T Cable Services) ("AT&T")
had violated franchise requirements regarding Customer Telephone Answering
Standards.
1.4 At the January 22,2001 hearing,the MHCRC heard a presentation from MHCRC
staff. The MHCRC accepted documents submitted by staff into the record(the
"Record"). The MHCRC also heard a presentation by representatives from
AT&T.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
1.5 Having considered the record developed at the formal hearing,and the
presentations from MHCRC staff and AT&T's representatives,the MHCRC
adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, as provided under
§ 6.9 of the MHCRC's Rules of Procedure.
Section 2. Findings of Fact
2.1 In 1993 the Federal Communications Commission, (the"FCC") adopted customer
service standards for cable operators nationwide. These standards are codified at
47 C.F.R. §76.309. The FCC standards provided that local franchising authorities
may elect to enforce the standards.47 C.F.R. §76.309(a).
2.2 On October 18, 1993,the Consolidated Cable Communications Commission(the
"CCCC"),commonly referred to as the Mt. Hood Cable Regulatory Commission
(MHCRC),passed Resolution 93-15,authorizing the local authority to enforce the
cable customer service standards set forth in 47 C.F.R. §76.309. Record, Exhibit
1.The resolution also authorized staff to notify all current cable franchisees in
writing of the intent to locally enforce the FCC's customer service standards. Id..
2.3 On October 27 and 28, 1993,the CCCC sent written notice by certified mail,
addressed to the franchised cable operators advising them of the CCCC's intent to
locally enforce the FCC's customer service standards beginning February 1, 1994.
Record,Exhibits 2, 3 and 4.
2.4 AT&T is the successor in interest to the franchisees who received the written
notice from the CCCC.
2.5 Within Multnomah County,AT&T operates under five cable television
franchises, issued by Multnomah County and the Cities of Fairview, Gresham,
Portland, Troutdale and Wood Village. All five franchises require AT&T to
comply with the FCC customer service standards set forth in 47 C.F.R. §76.309.
The franchises incorporate these standards by reference. TCI-West Multnomah
County Franchise Sections 10 and 21.1; TCI-Portland Franchise Sections 11 and
22.1; TCI-Hayden Island Section 15.1 ("TCI," "TCI franchises," or"TCI
franchise areas"); and Paragon Portland and Multnomah County Franchises
Sections 13 and 24.1 ("Paragon," "Paragon franchises," or"Paragon franchise
areas"). The TCI franchises are sometimes referred to as the "West Portland" or
"west side" franchises. The Paragon franchises are sometimes referred to as the
"East Portland" or"east side" franchises.
2.6 Under 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(1)(i)(A), AT&T is required to have trained company
representatives available to respond to customer telephone inquiries during
normal business hours.Normal business hours are those hours during which most
similar businesses in the community are open to serve customers.In all cases,
normal business hours must include some evening hours at least one night per
week and/or some weekend hours. 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(4)(i).
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
2.7 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(1)(ii)requires that AT&T meet the following telephone
answering standards: Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time
by a customer representative, including wait time,must not exceed thirty(30)
seconds when the connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred,transfer
time must not exceed thirty(30) seconds. These standards must be met no less
than ninety(90)percent of the time under normal operating conditions,measured
on a quarterly basis.
2.8 The MHCRC Office telephone number is printed on subscriber bills to enable
subscribers to voice complaints. MHCRC staff tracks subscriber complaints on a
quarterly and annual basis. Total complaints specific to AT&T telephone
answering issues increased from 116 in the second quarter of 1999,to 130 in the
third quarter of 1999,to 179 in the fourth quarter of 1999, to 266 in the first
quarter of 2000. Record,Exhibits 5 and 6.
2.9 In the fourth quarter of 1999, the MHCRC Office began receiving an increasing
number of complaint calls from subscribers regarding difficulty reaching AT&T's
call centers. Complaints focused on long hold times,being cut off or disconnected
while on hold,being repeatedly transferred and being kept on hold for long
periods of time even after finally reaching a"live"customer service
representative. Record, MHCRC staff presentation,January 22, 2001.
2.10 On February 22, 2000,MHCRC staff requested information from AT&T on
telephone answering times by month and by the five franchise areas from October
1999 and on a continuing basis thereafter until further notice. Record, Exhibit 7.
2.11 Prior to March, 2000,AT&T's call centers in east Portland and Beaverton,
Oregon, served the Paragon and TCI franchise areas in Oregon. They did not
serve the Vancouver and Clark County,Washington franchise areas. In March
2000 the Vancouver/Clark County call center was closed and the calls were
routed to the Beaverton call center. Record,MHCRC staff presentation,January
22, 2001.
2.12 On April 10,2000,AT&T provided information on telephone answering times for
October 1999 through March 2000. Despite staffs request for the information by
franchise, AT&T aggregated the information for its Paragon and TCI franchise
areas. For the Paragon franchises the information showed that AT&T answered
the phones within 30 seconds less than 90%of the time for the first quarter of
2000. Record,Exhibit 8. For the TCI franchises the information showed that
AT&T answered the phones within,30 seconds less than 90% of the time for the
fourth quarter of 1999 and first quarter of 2000. Record, Exhibit 9.
2.13 On June 8, 2000, MHCRC staff issued a Notice of Alleged Franchise Violations
and Opportunity to Cure, (the"Notice"),to AT&T regarding compliance with
Customer Telephone Answering Standards. Record,Exhibit 10. The Notice was
received by AT&T on June 9,2000. Id..
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
2.14 On June 30,2000, AT&T provided information on telephone answering times for
April and May 2000. The information was again aggregated by the Paragon and
TCI franchise areas. On August 29,2000,AT&T provided information on
telephone answering times for April through July 2000, again aggregated by
Paragon and TCI franchise areas. For both the Paragon and TCI franchise areas
the information showed that AT&T answered the phones within 30 seconds less
than 90%of the time for the second quarter of 2000. Record,Exhibits 11, 15.
2.15 On July 7, 2000,AT&T provided its 1999 Annual Reports for the East
Portland/East Multnomah County(Paragon) and West Portland/West Multnomah
County(TCI) franchise areas to the MHCRC. The Reports contained telephone
answering statistics by month for 1999. The Paragon Report indicated AT&T
answered the phones within 30 seconds less than 90%of the time in the first and
fourth quarters of 1999. Record,Exhibit 13. The TCI Report indicated AT&T
answered the phones within 30 seconds less than 90%of the time in the third and
fourth quarters of 1999. Record,Exhibit 14.
2.16 The 1999 Annual Paragon Report indicates that annual customer service calls
totaled 583,770,with a high of 64,530 calls in March and a low of 38,144 calls in
December. The average monthly call volume was 48,686. Record, Exhibit 13.
The 1999 Annual TCI Report indicates that annual customer service calls totaled
571,958,with a high of 53,366 calls in June and a low of 40,647 calls in January.
The average monthly call volume was 47,663. Record, Exhibit 14.
2.17 On August 29, 2000, October 11,2000, and October 12,2000 AT&T provided
information on telephone answering times from July through September 2000.
Once more the information was aggregated by the Paragon and TCI franchise
areas. For the Paragon franchises the information showed that AT&T answered
the phones within 30 seconds more than 90%of the time for the third quarter of
2000. For the TCI franchises the information showed that AT&T answered the
phones within 30 seconds less than 90% of the time for the third quarter of 2000.
Record,Exhibits 15, 16 and 17.
2.18 On October 25,2000,AT&T sent a letter to MHCRC staff acknowledging that it
had violated the customer service standard pertaining to a 30 second customer
telephone answer time for its TCI franchises. AT&T's letter did not address past
performance in the Paragon franchises. AT&T only stated that it was then
currently in compliance in the Paragon franchise areas. Record, Exhibit 18.
2.19 In its October 25, 2000 letter,AT&T notified the MHCRC that it was unable to
cure the TCI violations within the thirty(30) day cure period under the franchises,
and as set forth in the Notice to Cure. AT&T's letter proposed a Curative Plan
including steps it intended to take to cure the violations. Id..
2.20 The Vancouver/Clark City-County Cable Television Commission("CCTV")is
the regulatory commission overseeing the franchises granted by the jurisdictions
within Clark County,Washington. On November 1,2000, the CCTV held a
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
hearing regarding AT&T violations of the FCC telephone answering standards.
At the hearing AT&T representatives stated that AT&T had violated telephone
answering standards in the Oregon franchises served by the its existing
Beaverton, Oregon,call center since the Fourth Quarter of 1999. Record,Exhibit
20. AT&T representatives also confirmed that there had been trouble with call
center performance in both Beaverton and throughout the area prior to acquisition
by AT&T. Id..
2.21 The Metropolitan Area Cable Commission("MACC") is the regulatory
commission overseeing the franchises granted by the jurisdictions within
Washington County and Tualatin Valley in Oregon. The TCI franchises within
the MHCRC are served by the same call center as the Washington County and
Tualatin Valley jurisdictions. MACC found AT&T in violation of comparable
customer telephone answering standards in those franchise areas. Record,
MHCRC staff presentation,January 22,2001. MACC fined AT&T in the amount
of$1,000 per week for each week it was out of compliance with the telephone
answering standards in the Washington County franchise. MACC separately fined
AT&T in the amount of$10,000 for the fourth quarter of 1999, $20,000 for the
first quarter of 2000 and$30,000 for the third quarter of 2000, for being out of
compliance with the telephone answering standards of the Tualatin Valley
franchise.
2.22 On December 6, 2000, in response to an MHCRC staff inquiry, an AT&T
representative confirmed that the Curative Plan dates and targets identified in the
October 25, 2000 letter were still considered valid and binding on the company.
Record,Exhibit 19.
2.23 AT&T made a business decision to convert to a regional call center system.
AT&T decided to consolidate call center functions for the entire region in the
Beaverton call center. AT&T began development of an enhanced regional call
system in a building on the former Tektronix campus in Beaverton, Oregon. The
building is known as"Tech 48." AT&T originally anticipated moving into the
Tech 48 call center on May 1, 2000,but encountered difficulties with
implementing the consolidation due to the discovery of hazardous materials
including asbestos,the lease, and remodeling difficulties. Record,MHCRC staff
presentation and presentation by AT&T representatives,January 22,2001.
2.24 AT&T closed its compliant call center serving the Vancouver/Clark County
franchise areas without having sufficient resources in place to maintain
compliance with the customer service standards and despite: (a)a recent history
of violations and penalty assessments under telephone answering standards in the
franchise areas served by the non-compliant Beaverton call center; and, (b) a
business plan that would generate greater call loads from customers. Record,
MHCRC staff presentation,January 22,2001.
2.25 During at least a portion of the time AT&T had problems complying with the
telephone answering standards,AT&T made and implemented ongoing business
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
decisions to: engage in roll out of new services; offer special promotions for its
services; increase rates; change channel line-ups; continue with a system upgrade
work within Multnomah County and the neighboring franchise areas; and merge
the Vancouver/Clark County call center into the Beaverton call center. Record,
MHCRC staff presentation and presentation by AT&T representatives,January
22,2001. Any of these factors alone may have contributed to increase customer
call loads.
2.26 MHCRC staff brought customer concerns about sub-standard telephone
answering to AT&T's attention as early as February,2000. Staff relied upon
statements from AT&T representatives that the company was working to correct
the problem.
2.27 Under the TCI and Paragon franchises the MHCRC may require AT&T to
prepare and furnish,at the times and in the form prescribed by the MHCRC,
reports with respect to its operations and affairs. The MHCRC, after consultation
with AT&T,may specify the form and details of all reports required under the
Franchises. TCI-Portland franchise Sections 18.3 and 18.4; TCI-West Multnomah
County franchise Sections 17.3 and 17.4; TCI-Hayden Island Section 14.2.E, 14.3
and 14.5; and Paragon franchises Sections 20.3 and 20.4.
Section 3. Conclusions of Law
3.1 AT&T is required,under its franchises with the MHCRC jurisdictions and by
FCC administrative rules, to comply with the customer service standards
contained in 47 C.F.R. §76.309.
3.2 AT&T violated and failed to comply with the telephone answering standards of
the TCI franchises and 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(1)(ii) from at least the third quarter
of 1999 through the third quarter of 2000. Record,Exhibits 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16,
17,21 (telephone statistics provided by AT&T to the MHCRC from January,
1999 through September, 2000).
3.3 AT&T violated and failed to comply with the telephone answering standards of
the Paragon franchises and 47 C.F.R. §76.309(c)(1)(ii) in the first quarter of 1999
and from at least the fourth quarter of 1999 through the second quarter of 2000.
Record, Exhibits 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17,21 (telephone statistics provided by
AT&T to the MHCRC from January, 1999 through September,2000.)
3.4 AT&T has a historical record of both telephone related complaints logged by the
MHCRC Office and failure to meet telephone answering response standards,
from at least the first quarter of 1999 through and including the third quarter of
2000. Record, Exhibits 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21.
3.5 At all times during which AT&T violated and failed to comply with the telephone
answering standards,AT&T operated under normal operating conditions.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
3.6 The MHCRC has the authority to order AT&T to correct or remedy the violation
within a reasonable timeframe, as the MHCRC may determine. The MHCRC
also has authority to review and determine the reasonableness of AT&T's
proposed curative plan and timeline.
3.7 AT&T's proposed Curative Plan for the TCI franchises, as set forth in AT&T's
letter dated October 25,2000, is reasonable in light of AT&T's commitment to
cure the violation no later than April 30, 2001.
3.8 For any franchise violation,the franchises authorize remedies including but not
limited to: (a)the imposition of penalties of up to one thousand dollars($1,000)
per day,incident or other measure of violation; (b)the reduction of the duration
of the term of the franchise for the affected jurisdictions on such basis as is
reasonable provided that in no event shall the amount of the term remaining after
the reduction be less than three(3)years; or(c)revocation of the franchise for the
affected Jurisdiction.TCI-West Multnomah County Franchise Section 20; TCI-
Portland Franchise Section 21; TCI-Hayden Island Section 8; and Paragon
Portland and Multnomah County Franchises Section 23.
3.9 In determining which remedy or remedies are appropriate for any franchise
violation, the MHCRC may consider, among other things, the nature and extent of
the violation,the persons burdened by the violation, the remedy required in order
to deter further violations, damage suffered by the public, and the cost of
remedying the violation. Id..
3.10 During these time periods,the franchise violations were substantial and
continuous in nature. For the TCI franchises,AT&T answered the telephone
within 30 seconds about 89 percent of the time in the third and fourth quarters of
1999, about 76 percent of the time in the first quarter of 2000, about 43 percent in
the second quarter of 2000,and then about 40 percent in the third quarter of 2000.
Record,Exhibits 14,21. For the Paragon franchises,AT&T answered the
telephone within 30 seconds about 86 percent of the time in the first quarter of
1999, about 89 percent of the time in the fourth quarter of 1999,about 86 percent
of the time in the first quarter of 2000, and about 83 percent in the second quarter
of 2000. Record, Exhibits 13, 21.
3.11 Based on average monthly call volumes of 48,000 in each call center(Record,
Exhibits 13, 14),when AT&T answered the phone within 30 seconds 89 percent
of the time about 5,000 subscriber calls were not answered within 30 seconds.
When AT&T answered the phone within 30 seconds 83 percent of the time about
8,000 subscriber calls were not answered within 30 seconds. When AT&T
answered the phone within 30 seconds 76 percent of the time about 11,000
subscriber calls were not answered within 30 seconds. When AT&T answered the
phone within 30 seconds 40 percent of the time about 29,000 subscriber calls
were not answered within 30 seconds.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
3.12 The substantial and continuous nature of the violations was also reflected in
complaints to the MHCRC Office. In the fourth quarter of 1999,the MHCRC
Office began receiving an increasing number of complaint calls from subscribers
regarding difficulty reaching AT&T's call centers. Complaints focused on long
hold times,being cut off or disconnected while on hold,being repeatedly
transferred and being kept on hold for long periods of time even after fmally
reaching a"live"customer service representative. Record,MHCRC staff
presentation,January 22,2001.
3.13 As a result of these franchise violations, the subscribers within these franchise
areas have suffered substantial harm in the aggregate due to their inability to
reach a company representative. Subscribers must contact company
representatives to respond to their individual needs and concerns including but
not limited to billing issues,repair needs,programming inquiries, service requests
and general inquiries within the average time frames required by federal
regulations and incorporated under the applicable local franchise agreements.
Section 4. Order
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth above,the
Commission now orders as follows:
4.1 AT&T shall implement and comply with the proposed actions outlined in its
Curative Plan set forth in Exhibit 2 to this Order, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference as if set forth in full. The cure shall be completed by April 30,2001.
AT&T shall provide monthly written reports to the Commission of its progress in
implementing the curative measures.
4.2 AT&T is fmed One Hundred Twenty Thousand dollars($120,000) for violations
of the telephone answering standards in the TCI franchise areas based on the
following calculations: $10,000 for the third quarter of 1999; $20,000 for the
fourth quarter of 1999; $30,000 for the first quarter of 2000; $30,000 for the
second quarter of 2000; and$30,000 for the third quarter of 2000.
4.3. AT&T is fmed Sixty Thousand dollars ($60,000) for violations of the telephone
answering standards in the Paragon franchise areas based on the following
calculations: $10,000 for the fourth quarter of 1999; $20,000 for the first quarter
of 2000 and$30,000 for the second quarter of 2000. No fine is assessed for
violations of the telephone answering standards for the first quarter of 1999.
4.4 If AT&T meets or exceeds all of the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit 1 to
this Order, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as if set forth in full,
then MHCRC staff shall prepare an Order to the effect that all fines contained in
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 shall be waived, and the MHCRC staff shall adopt such
Order at its next regularly scheduled hearing.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30, 2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 5
4.5. If AT&T fails,refuses or neglects to perform any or all of the conditions set forth
in Section 4.4 above,the entire amount of the fines stated in Sections 4.2 and 4.3
above, shall be immediately due and payable. AT&T shall tender complete and
total payment of the fines within thirty(30) days thereafter.
4.6 AT&T shall provide ongoing monthly and quarterly written reports of telephone
answering responsiveness to the MHCRC staff until further notice. The reports
shall be in a format acceptable to the Commission. Commission acceptance of the
form of the reports shall not be unreasonably withheld.
4.7 If AT&T fails,refuses or neglects to perform any or all of the conditions of this
Order,the Commission reserves any and all rights to impose further remedies.
4.8 The Commission reserves the right to make such further recommendations to the
franchising jurisdictions as it deems just and proper.
4.9 The Commission directs Commission staff to forward copies of this Order to the
various Affected Jurisdictions, as provided under§ 4.A. of the IGA.
PASSED BY THE COMMISSION on February 26,2001
Norman D. Thomas, Chair
Reviewed by:
Ben Walters, Legal Counsel
Attachments: Form of AT&T's Acceptance
Exhibit 1,Terms and Conditions
Exhibit 2, October 25,2000 letter from AT&T(the "Curative Plan")
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 6
Questions for Cable Operator Call Center
Regarding Telephone Data Collection and Reporting
Procedural
1) How are incoming calls counted and reported? By account number? Telephone
number?
2) At what point does the clock start for the FCC 30-second telephone answering
standard?
3) What qualifies as a"handled"call?
4) What queues (billing, sales, etc.) do you use for routing calls? Do you reroute
calls to other call queues if the queue selected by the caller is full?
5) Do you track the reasons subscribers contact the call center? (i.e. subcategories
of any particular queue—billing disputes vs. questions,to report an outage vs.
check on a technician appointment, etc.)
6) Under what circumstance would a caller receive a fast busy signal?Does the call
center ever"block calls,"giving them a busy signal?
7) Under what circumstances have you closed a queue? Are calls that reach a
closed queue(and only hear a recorded message) counted towards meeting the
90%calls answered standard?
8) How does a customer reach a CSR? (i.e., are they given instructions to press a
certain button or button combination? Is"0"for an operator/assistance an
option?) At what level in the menu tier is the option to reach a CSR first offered?
9) What is the average length of time callers spend getting information through the
IVR(i.e., from the time they enter the IVR to when they hang up or request a
CSR)?
10) Does your company's integrated voice response system(IVR) allow customers to
reach a trained Customer Service Representative(CSR)within 30-seconds of the
start of the IVR? What is the minimum time it would take a caller to get from
the start of the IVR to a CSR?What is the maximum time?
11) If a caller reaches a recorded message,for example detailing a power outage,are
they given other options to further navigate the IVR? For example, can a caller
in an outage area speak to a repair representative; can a caller in an outage area
reach a billing representative?
12) Does your IVR allow for special messages to be inserted locally? Do you use
such messages to route callers into specific queues? If so, what information
about the caller do you use to be able to direct them to such messages(e.g.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 6
account telephone number,zip code,etc.)? Do you use any special messages for
all callers?
13) How are calls that terminate in the IVR reported? Does your company want to
include IVR handled calls in the 30 seconds/90%of the time standard?
14) What is the maximum number of tiers("clouds")you currently use/would ever
use in your IVR? Do you have a limit on the(time) length of IVR messages?
15) Are CSRs cross-trained? (i.e., is a billing CSR qualified to competently handle a
repair question and vice versa?)
16) Do you offer customer assistance in languages other than English?If so,what
languages? How are these calls counted and/reported? Does the caller have to
leave a message on a recorder if no such CSRs are available or do they have the
option to continue in English?
17) Under what circumstances would you request an"adjustment"(exception)to
your telephone answering statistics? How would statistics be adjusted to reflect
an exception? What"force majeure"criteria do you use when making an
exception request? Will you request an exception at the time of the event or at
the end of a quarter?
18) Are requests for adjustments(exceptions) submitted to the LFA for approval? If
taken automatically, is the LFA informed about every instance where telephone
answering reports are adjusted?
19) (For a regional call center)How many franchise areas/what jurisdictions are
served? How many subscribers are served by this call center? What is the
subscriber-to-CSR ratio?
20) (For a regional call center) Does the center also handle calls for other products
such as high-speed data/cable modem, or digital telephone? Are these calls
included in the total calls reported for the center? Are they reported separately?
Technical
21) What brand of telephone switch(es)do you use? What are the ranges of
functions of the switches if more than one?
22) What is the center's trunk capacity(i.e.,#of trunks per CSR)?
23) What software do you use for reporting? Are the reporting functions fixed or are
you modifying the reporting criteria from what the software provider offer?
24) Is your IVR system programmed in-house or through a vendor? If so,how are
IVR functionalities and or menus modified? How often are modifications made
to the system?
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 6
Outsourcing
25) Do you currently outsource any calls?
26) If yes,what types of calls(e.g.billing, sales,repair, etc.) do you outsource?
What percentage of all calls do you outsource?
27) If yes,where(geographically)will these calls be taken?
28) If yes,how are outsourced calls counted?Are they counted in statistics reported
to the LFA? If so,how is that done?
29) If yes, do all CSRs from outsourced services qualify as"trained CSRs"?
30) If no,do you have any plans to outsource area calls in the future?
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings TELEPHONE LOGS ATTACHMENT 7a
Time of test Hold Time
Day Date call (seconds) Queue called Comments/Special circumstances
Monday 3/1/2004 9:23 AM 0.29 Repair
9:24 AM 0.09 Billing
9:25 AM 0.40 Sales Beginning of the month (moves/reconnections)
9:26 AM 0.13 Disconnection
9:27 AM 0,55 Spanish
Tuesday 3/2/2004 2:39 PM 0.32 Repair
2:40 PM 0.26 Billing
4:18 PM 0.14 Sales
4:19 PM 0.07 Disconnection
4:20 PM 0.06 Spanish
. __..__ ._.....�.�...�:.... ...... :. ..�-,......,._.�.�_�_. ___. ._... .... .. .. ..W...��.;-,--.,ear_
Wednesday 3/3/2004 10:23 AM 1.02: Repair Outage on main IVR-msg re.zip code 54321
10:24 AM 0.29 Billing
10:25 AM 0.17 Sales
10:26 AM 0.22 Disconnection
10:27 AM 0.32 Spanish
Thursday ._. — 3/4/20-04 3:39 PM 0.25m Repair
3:40 PM 0.12 Billing
4:00 PM 0.30 Sales
4:01 PM 0.10 Disconnection
4:02 PM 1.00 Spanish
Friday 3/5/2004 8:00 AM 0.27 Repair
8:01 AM 0.12 Billing
8:02 AM 1.12 Sales Promotional msg on IVR regarding digital tier sale
8:03 AM 0.15 Disconnection
8:04 AM 0.09 Spanish
NOTES:
Imported data from MSO reporting: / Making calls on every day of the week can help
Monthly average answering time 0.314. identifytrends and any"problem"_.._.. _ _..._..__.._.. days.
%Calls<30 seconds Repair 83.3% Hold time is measured from the time caller selects an
Billing 89.6% option to speak w/a CSR.
Sales 90.6% Can include notation of staff person making the call
Disconnect 89.8% ►Including telephone answering data from cable
operator allows LFA to monitor the aggregate
Quarterly%to date 89.7% performance for the current measurement period.
•
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings TELEPHONE LOGS ATTACHMENT 7b
SECONDS
FROM
CALLS TO COMCAST MONTH OF FEBRUARY 2004 SECONDS SECONDS SELECTION
1 800 945-2288 TO ANSWER IN QUE TO HUMAN
DATE,TIME,AND PERSON MAKING CALL
2/10/2004-9:30 am-John Risk 3 30 45
2/10/2004-11:15 am-John Risk and Glenn Farjardo 1 45 .29
2/11/2004-9:50 am-Melissa Wise 2 37 40
2/11/2004-1:50 am -Melissa Wise-Sales 1 35 15
2/12/2004-12:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 33 40
2/12/2004-3:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 35 38
2/13/2004-1:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 36 40
2/13/2004-3:00 pm -Melissa Wise-Sales 1 38 ; ; 18
2/16/2004-10:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 40 31
2/16/2004-1:00 pm -Melissa Wise 1 39 30
2/17/2004-10:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 36 32
2/17/2004-2:00 pm-Melissa Wise-Sales 1 37 16
2/18/2004- 11:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 39 36
2/18/2004-3:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 36 38
2/19/2004-3:00 pm -Melissa Wise 1 35' 33
2/19/2004-4:00 pm-Melissa Wise-Sales 1 37 18
2/20/2004-3:00 pm-Melissa Wise 2 38 30
2/20/2004-4:00 pm -Melissa Wise 1 36 29
2/23/2004-3:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 35 33
2/23/2004-4:00 pm-Melissa Wise-Sales 1 38 18
2/24/2004-3:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 33 35
2/24/2004-4:30 pm -Melissa Wise 2 39 31
2/25/2004-3:00 pm -Melissa Wise 1 28 ' .29
2/25/2004-4:00 pm-Melissa Wise-Sales 1 36 20
2/26/2004-3:00 pm -Melissa Wise 1 36 ": 29
2/26/2004-4:00 pm-Melissa Wise 1 35 32
Average 36.23 30.19
Calls<30 Sec 34.62%
Sales Calls<30 Sec 100.00%
2 x Daily-->Track Response Time
Column B= Dialing to greeting by voice response system
Opt#1 =Cable TV
Zip 94555
Opt#3=Tech problems
Opt#1 =no picture
Column C=Time in que
Column D=Time to operator
4th Call: Opt#4 for sales or new service.
Keep for 7-10 days and report back later in the month.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 8
"Faux Compliance"
As a government official charged with administering a cable franchise,you should know that
there are many ways a cable company can easily obfuscate or avoid full compliance with the
customer service standards set forth by the FCC and your individual franchise.
This may not be news,and it may not be the most pressing issue you face. However, because
the stakes are so high, customer service standards are routinely manipulated for the sake of
retaining a franchise. To wit:cable companies currently buy and sell systems at a price of$2500
to$4000 per subscriber. A modest system of 15,000 subscribers is worth$37M to$60M. That's
more than enough incentive to make sure that customer service metrics are within spec, no
matter the means.
And what means exist? There's honesty and true compliance, and then there's something less.
It is tempting to be trusting, and shocking to have your trust violated. However,the following list
of nonsense and baloney, of half-truths and lies is not uncommon. Please don't be alarmed, but
at the same time, let us not be blinded by naiveté, nor bamboozled easily...
1) Manipulate the number of calls received.
The number of calls received is the primary metric,serving as a variable in almost every other
important metric calculation. How does the company count its calls-by hand? By using a phone
system? By using call tracking software? By using a third party? By using more than one
method? There is tremendous motivation to report low call volume. The reliability of this number
is very important and you must know the method used and that it is accurate. Only then can you
begin to trust the rest of the numbers.
How is a call defined? Are calls to system employees counted? Calls from vendors? It seems
like the answer should be no, since customer service isn't the issue, but doesn't every call
require people or machinery to answer? Aren't they using system resources that would
otherwise be used for subscribers? Every call is a call, no exceptions.
2) Manipulate the average call length.
This is another primary metric. How is"average call length"defined exactly? How is it recorded
and reported? You must likewise be able to trust this number in order to calculate many other
metrics. When does the cable company start the clock on a call and when does it stop?
Why does this matter? If a cable company is in a position where they must hire people and buy
equipment in order to improve metrics,the financial motivation will compel them to report fewer
calls and shorter average call lengths. If the cable company is in a position where they are being
asked to comply with another, more expensive franchise requirement,the financial motivation will
compel them to temporarily report more calls and longer average call lengths. They can't afford
to do project X because there is a heavy call burden and they need to turn their money and
attention towards improving customer service.
3) Manipulate the reasons people call.
Does your cable company even track why people are calling? If you dig in,you'll find that sure
enough,the sales department is closely tracking why people call. Over in the billing and repair
departments, maybe they don't. If not, the company can report that most of the calls were for a
single outage or perhaps a pay-per-view fight... a snapshot that shouldn't be construed to be
normal operating conditions. They can lump calls together and reason away the high volume.
Your cable company should track why every caller called and what solution was rendered. You
should be presented with a report that delineates and reconciles these numbers. If they don't
have the capability, it's available inexpensively.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 8
4) Complicate the call routing.
What's the path a call takes through the cable company? Do they first enter an IVR system that
attempts to solve their problem without human intervention? Do they enter an ARU and press 1
for billing, 2 for repair, etc? They probably do one or the other,or both, but once they do, the
way phone systems are programmed makes it easy to obfuscate all important metrics.
For example, if you wanted to have a caller"press 1 for billing", you'd program the phone system
to create a queue(Q1). After the caller presses 1,they are moved into the queue and they wait
for an operator. Maybe they hear music while they wait. At the end of the month,the phone
system pumps out a report... X number of people went into Q1, and 99%waited less than 30
seconds before being handed off to an operator. WAIT! What about Q2? If you want the report
to indicate 99% of calls were answered within 30 seconds, you can simply create Q2. Calls wait
in Q1 for 29 seconds and then are silently and unknowingly transferred to Q2,where they wait
much longer before being handed off to a live person. You get the reports each month,fax the
city the Q1 report and discard the Q2 report. Now you're in compliance.
Or, one can simply program the phone system to allow a small number of callers into the system
at any one time. Perhaps their phone system cannot track"busies"(usually only the phone
company can). Now Q1 never gets more calls than can be serviced immediately. The stats look
golden, so the municipality discounts the complaints they get from subscribers who say they
can't get through.
That's the simple stuff. Competent programmers can devise far more complicated call-routing
schemes that would require an expert to read and decipher.
5) Use a service bureau and sign an NDA.
Your cable company says they can't afford an expensive phone system that will report all of the
stats you require. They will, however, hire a service bureau to handle call routing for a modest
per-call charge. The cable company orders up a call routing routine from the service bureau with
multiple queues, small queues or complicated, hard-to-research call routing. The service bureau
doesn't ask questions. They provision the service and design reports that are then delivered to
you. The stats look good,and the odds that you'll contact the service bureau and research the
call-routing routine are very low. If you actually take that step,you'll find in virtually every case
that a non-disclosure agreement has been signed between the cable company and the service
bureau. The service bureau cannot legally comply with your request.
I can't count the number of ways one could use a service bureau to hide the truth. Why not use
2 service bureaus? How about a phone system plus a service bureau? You can quickly see that
the possibilities to manipulate metrics are endless. It must be stipulated that you will be allowed
to audit any activity between a cable company and a service bureau.
6) Use more than one phone system.
I love this one. It happens all the time. The system buys a second phone system"to upgrade
the current phone system". Now the numbers can be truly scrambled. Calls can be handed back
and forth, queued and re-queued, etc. Metrics can easily be manipulated.
7) Misrepresent a report.
We had a client that later bragged he would stand tall before his city council and show them the
report we delivered. We made very attractive, bound reports. The metrics were great. The
volume was less than the national average hence the system appeared to be in good condition.
He would imply that the report represented 100% of call activity when in fact he had hired us to
answer calls only when they were closed. "The city was so thankful to finally have a cable
company that knew what it was doing"!
8) Re-type the phone system report.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
•
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 8
Simple! Almost anyone can use a PC to create a report that looks like it came from the phone
system,with the same fonts,same formatting and spacing,etc. Childish perhaps, but when the
stakes are high...
9) Use"boilerplate" language in the franchise that fails to properly define standards
and metrics.
A cable MSO wants every franchise to read the same,for operational reasons. You want the
document to spell out that you have the right to audit phone system programming, service
bureau involvement, etc.,without notice. Scrutiny is by far the most effective enforcement tool.
If you walk in once a month and take a look,the odds that you'll be lied to are significantly
diminished. If you hire a call center to call the cable company 100 times and then report the
resulting metrics back to the cable company,there won't be any monkey business for a very long
time, indeed.
10) Create a diversion.
If the metrics are out of spec, bigger problems exist. A talented negotiator turns the conversation
in another direction. If you say metrics,they say they need wiggle room in another area of the
franchise to free up resources in order to improve customer service. The cable industry is a
mature,well-managed, high-margin business. Even in small markets, the money is huge.
Everything is thought out. Every situation imaginable has been experienced many times over,
and the financial effect is well known. Before an important meeting with a franchise authority,a
rehearsal is conducted. Questions are anticipated and answers perfected. Your responses are
predicted and the conversation is mapped on a chalk board. Even the appropriate wardrobe is
addressed. No cable executive walks into a meeting"cold". V.P.'s, lawyers,accountants and
consultants often fly to the system to prepare and practice before sending in the G.M.to"win"the
meeting.
Is your cable system in full compliance or"faux"compliance? Have you got confidence that
you're getting accurate info and that your system is meeting its obligations? I suggest you use
that confidence as a warning device. Confidence begets dishonesty when so much money is
involved. Turn the situation around... If for$60M you had to report compliance in the area of
customer service, how could you do it and how far would you go?
BIO:
Craig Case, President of Alta Sierra Communications, LLC, is a 34-year veteran of radio,
broadcast TV and cable TV. From 1992 to 2003, Mr. Case operated a cable TV call center
outsource, handling millions of customer service calls from cable TV subscribers in 45 states and
Canada. Alta Sierra is now a consultancy for municipal telecom officials. Mr. Case can be
contacted at 209-536-0800, or ccase@altasierra.com.
Telephone Performance and Reporting Subcommittee September 30,2004
2004 Summary of Findings ATTACHMENT 9
Customer Service :
Do Your Numbers Add Up ?
Tr - hone Performance and Reporting Subc ittee September 30, A A
/ __ _
/
/0 ,,,,---'..-
n ri
m ..=.1 „/'9
csi) L
so_ c,)/
/./!..,
ak) (1)(/)/Imam
O
ct
;.- v, v;
C. 0/d) ;_l cA�
i-a
E ,i
. ,
ct
i o .
• .
i ......„ ,,, I.,
/ Go u
= �O E ., 1a.,...
• ,
. ct
(..) w . cr
M et h . p I 0 g y
N• Ideal- 300 calls pear
• Acceptable- 200 calls per
quarter
i
. SAEp OZ JAO kep Jod STTEO p l -
��. JTJ13nb
.zad sjjro oo - jqidooy •
sic:Bp\\O £ -nano pep iod SJO Oi -
.zapt•nb Jad STTt3 OOE -iBaPI •
A 6 I ept•neW
�, �uivana s 2s) . uiuzoui c .
. \ X"Cp .zad SITtEO 0 T 31EIN •
Ltiopgal sktp OE/0Z T0T0S .
A600 '. Qqo w
Methô . oIogy
• No more than 3 calls per hour
• At least 10 min . between aThs ,
• Spread calls over several hours \\
• Call during days and nights
1 . Date of call : 3 - 7 - 03
Survey
2 . Day of week :
Monday =
Tuesday = 2
Wednesday = 3
Thursday = 4
Friday = 5
Saturday = 6
Sunday = 7
S ivqy
3 . Morning / Afternoon
\
AM = 1
PM 2 � �'
Survey
4 . Time of day (24 hrick)
9 : 30 am = 0930 N
'
2 : 20 pm = 1420 �
1
Stürvey
5 . Call result : \
busy = 1
disconnect = 2 ,„„
ring no answer= 3
immediate answer = 4 �
transfer = 5 �
4
Problem
• Informal discussions
• Formal violation notice
Surey
6 . Length of time to person
(in seconds) .
20 seconds = 20
1 . 5 minutes = 90
10 min . 40 sec . = 640 ��,
• ' CITY OF RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Lawrence J.Warren
Jesse Tanner,Mayor
CITY OF RENTON
MEMORANDUM
APR 1 6 2003
RECEIVED
To: Gregg A. Zimmerman, PBPW Administrator CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Victoria Runkle, F&IS Administrator
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Neil Watts, Development Services Director
Jan Illian, Engineering Specialist
Jay Covington, CAO
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Date: April 15, 2003
Please find enclosed a copy of an article on Telecommunication and Cable Bankruptcy, A Primer
for Municipalities.
I am not sure that the article presents a lot of new concepts, but does underline some prudent steps
that the City could take. For example, even in bankruptcy, the city can move against third party
security devices such as bonds, letters of credit and security accounts, because these are normally
security provided to the city by third parties and not by the bankrupt.
The article does emphasize that the automatic stay in bankruptcy keeps the city from trying to
collect on past due franchise or license fees and prevents the city from revoking the franchise or
license. The question of whether or not the city can prevent the franchise from being sold in
bankruptcy is an open question, but not one that the cities frequently encounter, as the city would
usually prefer to have an operating entity owning the franchise than a bankrupt one.
Hopefully, the waive of bankruptcies and the telecom and cable industries has passed and this will
not be a huge issue in the future. However, the concepts in this article are important ones to
remember for future negotiations.
Lawrence J. rren
LJW:tmj
Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RENTON
�� AHEAD OF THE CURVE
_. This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
I ,
—by Kenneth A. Brunetti —
Telecom and
•
Cable
Bankruptcy
Primer for Municipalities
A
hen Adelphia and WorldCom filed bankruptcy's automatic stay have on local gov-
for bankruptcy last summer, they emments?Can a municipality declare a default
highlighted an increasingly alarm- under a franchise or license as a result of the
ing trend.The past two years have seen a del- bankruptcy?Can communities continue to ex-
uge of telecommunication company bank- ercise their police and regulatory powers over
ruptcies, a trend that seemed unfathomable these companies, or are these powers reduced
two years ago.Among the more notable bank- by the bankruptcy?What happens if these corn•
ruptcies are those of Northpoint, Covad, panies commit violations that affect the public
PSINet,WinStar,Metricom,e.Spire,360 Net- health and safety?Can a municipality revoke
works USA,Yipes,Williams Communications, franchise?Will Adelphia and WorldCom try tc
XO, Global Crossing, Cambrian Communica- sell their systems?If so,what role, if any,will
tions and Metromedia Fiber Networks.Rumors municipality have in reviewing and approving
continue to circulate about Qwest and Comcast. a franchise transfer in light of the bankruptcy?
The fact that these companies are occupying the Some of these questions can be answerec
public rights-of-way creates an added layer of now, and some will only be answered in time
concern for local governments,one not felt by The purpose of this article is to provide a brie
other creditors.There is an underlying fear that introduction to bankruptcy law and some of the
a telecommunication company ("telecom") or issues that may arise in connection with
telecom or cable company bankruptcy. 0
When Adelphia and WorldCom filed for bankruptcy course,how a particular municipality is affectec
by the Adelphia or WorldCom cases, or an'
last summer,they highlighted an increasingly 9 y other bankruptcy case,depends not only on wha
the debtor does, but also on the particulars o
alarming trend.The past two years have seen a a municipality's local laws and the terms o
deluge of telecommunication company bankruptcies, its contract with the debtor.
a trend that seemed unfathomable two years ago. The Basics of Bankruptcy
a cable company debtor may try to use bank- Chapter 11—Reorganization
ruptcy to curtail a municipality's control over v. Chapter 7—Liquidation
its rights-of-way or the legitimate exercise of its Adelphia and WorldCom,like most of the othe
police powers. The big question is, what hap- telecom companies filing bankruptcies in th
• pens now that these companies are in bank- past two years, filed under Chapter 11 of th
ruptcy?Other questions are:Will these compa- United States Bankruptcy Code, entitled"Re
• nies continue to operate or will they shut down? organization."'In Chapter 11, the debtor usu
In the case of Adelphia, what happens where ally continues to operate its business in bank
there is no other cable provider? Is it possible ruptcy, as is the case with Adelphia an
that subscribers will be left without cable ser- WorldCom.The usual goal in a Chapter 11 cas
vice? Will these companies continue to pay is to reorganize the company by reducing th
franchise or license fees?.What effect does company's debts, and to come up with a pal
6 Municipal Lawyer
•
ment plan for the remaining debt, known as a [H]ow a particular municipality is affected by the
"plan of reorganization."The reorganized debt-
or will typically emerge from bankruptcy in a Adelphia or WorldCom cases, or any other bankruptcy
much healthier financial condition.
case, depends not only on what the debtor does, but
One strategy, not uncommon in Chapter
11 situations, is to sell off certain assets. This also on the particulars of a municipality's local laws
occurred in most, if not all, of the bankrupt-
:„ cies listed above and will likely happen with and the terms of its contract with the debtor.
WorldCom and Adelphia. It is also not un-
common for a Chapter 11 debtor to sell off all lice and regulatory power,including the enforce-
of its assets and liquidate the business.This was ment of a judgment other than a money judg-
done by Metricom, e.Spire and Northpoint. ment, obtained in an action or proceeding by
It remains to be seen what Adelphia and the governmental unit to enforce such govern-
WorldCom will do in their cases and whether mental unit's or organization's police or regula-
they will emerge from bankruptcy. For the tory power."4 Under this Section, provided
time being, it can be expected that both corn- that the government is acting to enforce its po-
panies will continue to operate their busi- lice or regulatory power, it is exempt from the
nesses and maintain the status quo. automatic stay. As expressly stated in the stat-
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code is en- ute, however, a government entity is not per-
titled"Liquidation."'In Chapter 7, the debtor mitted to take any action to collect money or
turns over its business to an independent Chap- to enforce a monetary judgment against the
ter 7 trustee appointed by the bankruptcy court, debtor.Thus, for example, if Adelphia were to
who is responsible for selling off the debtor's as- commit a non-monetary default under a fran-
sets and liquidating the business. Any money chise(such as failing to properly restore a street
left over after the assets are sold and secured surface or failing to meet customer service stan-
creditors are paid is distributed to unsecured dards), a municipality would be permitted to
creditors on a pro rata basis.Typically,however, take steps to address these defaults, including
there will be no distribution to unsecured sending out a default notice, commencing an
creditors in a Chapter 7 case. administrative hearing, and even seeking an
injunction against the cable company. Local
Automatic Stay and Limited communities should consult with counsel before
Government Exemption taking any action against a debtor to ensure
One of the primary benefits of bankruptcy is the that their actions fall within this narrow police
protection granted to a debtor through the au- and regulatory exception,since the bankruptcy
tomatic stay.The automatic stay generally pro- court is empowered to issue sanctions against
hibits any entity from filing or continuing to any entity that violates the automatic stay.'
pursue a lawsuit, attempting to collect a debt,
enforcing a judgment,filing or enforcing a lien, Franchise or License Fees
or taking any other action to control property A frequently asked question is what municipali-
of the debtor's estate.'The purpose of the auto- ties can do if a telecom or cable company in
matic stay is to give the debtor (or trustee) a bankruptcy stops paying franchise or license fees.
"breathing spell"in which it can assess its assets In some cases, debtors stop paying fees before
and liabilities, and organize or liquidate its es- continued on page 8
tate in an orderly and efficient manner. The
automatic stay also prevents some creditors from
gaining an unfair advantage over other credi- Kenneth A. Brunetti is a senior associate at Miller &
tors simply because they are the first to try to Van Eaton, where he practices out of the firm's San
collect a debt or enforce a judgment. Francisco office. He specializes in complex litigation and
Generally, the automatic stay applies as bankruptcy related to cable television, telecommunica-
much to government entities as it does to any Lions,and rights-of-way management issues.Mr.Brunetti *114..
other creditor. However, a narrow exception has represented cities and counties in numerous
exists for government entities, but only to the proceedings in major bankruptcy cases involving
extent they are enforcing their police and regu- telecommunications providers over the past couple of d
latorypowers. Section 362 b 4) of the Bank-O( years.Prior to joining the firm in the fall of 2000,Mr.Brunetti
ruptcy Code provides that the automatic stay specialized in complex commercial litigation and bank-
does not apply to the"commencement or con- ruptcy law. He received his law degree magna cum laude from the University of
tinuation of an action or proceeding...to enforce California, Hastings College of the Law in 1991, and a Bachelor of Arts degree
such governmental unit's or organization's po- in Psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1986.
um
January/February 2003 Vol. 44,No. 1 7
TELECOM AND CABLE BANKRUPTCY distinction in mind when they are ne
gotiating new franchise agreements c
• continued from page 7 approving transfers.Letters of credit an
bonds generally provide a municipalit
• filing for bankruptcy. If this happens, debtor in bankruptcy,or if the munici- with far more security in the event of
there is little that a municipality can do pality in any way obtained or exercised bankruptcy.
other than wait. The municipality control over property of the debtor's es-
! would be in the same position as other tate.What happens,however, if a mu- Can a City Revoke
unsecured creditors,and can only hope nicipality attempts to collect on a bond, a Franchise or License?
for payment out of the bankruptcy if, letter of credit or security account if the One of the most common questior
and when,the company reorganizes and debtor fails to pay franchise or license raised in connection with the Adelphi
comes out of bankruptcy. One impor- fees or otherwise defaults under a fran- bankruptcy is whether or not a city ca
tant caveat:a municipality cannot ter- chise or license agreement? Does this revoke the franchise as a result of tl1
minate a franchise or license agreement violate the automatic stay?The simple bankruptcy.Typically,a franchise agree
simply because the debtor fails to pay answer is no, in the case of a bond or ment will contain a term that provid(
franchise fees.This is discussed in more letter of credit, and yes in the case of a that a bankruptcy filing or the appoin
detail below. security account or certificate of deposit ment of a receiver or trustee constitut,
A municipality is in a much stron- posted as security. The reason for this a material default under the franchi:
ger position when it comes to franchise distinction is that neither a bond nor a agreement,thereby subjecting the frat
or license fees due after the bankruptcy letter of credit constitutes property of chise to immediate revocation.Sectic
is filed. Post-petition franchise fees the estate.It is an obligation of a third 525 of the Bankruptcy Code provide
would likely be classified as an admin- party(the financial institution) to pay in part,that"a governmental unit m<
istrative claim,meaning they would be
!I One of the primary benefits of bankruptcy is the protection
entitled to priority over unsecured
claims.Administrative claims are"the granted to a debtor through the automatic stay.The automatic
actual,necessary costs and expenses of
preserving the estate."'In cases where stay generally prohibits any entity from filing or continuing
the debtor continues to operate its
telecom or cable system post-petition, to pursue a lawsuit, attempting to collect a debt, enforcing
the franchise fees would be deemed an a judgment,filing or enforcing a lien, or taking any other
• actual and necessary cost of preserving
the value of the debtor's estate. Thus, action to control property of the debtor's estate.
assuming that the debtor comes out of
bankruptcy,it is likely that post-petition the municipality upon the occurrence not deny, revoke,suspend, or refuse
franchise fees will ultimately be paid. of a triggering event (i.e., a default by renew a license, permit, charter, fra
Moreover, if the debtor continues to the debtor). Thus, for example, if a chise,or other similar grant"to a debt
operate under a franchise or license debtor has posted a construction bond "solely because"such a debtor is or h
agreement, it is obligated to perform but fails to complete construction, a been a debtor under Title 11,or has be(
under the agreement, which includes municipality could make demand on the insolvent before the commencement
paying any fees that are owed on an surety company to pay to complete the the case or during the case but befc
ongoing basis.A municipality could re- project without violating the automatic the debtor is granted or denied a d
quest a bankruptcy court to compel the stay.Demand on the bond does not con- charge, or has not paid a debt that
debtor to either pay fees as they become stitute an attempt to collect from the dischargeable in the case.to
due,or to terminate the contract.As a bankruptcy estate,and payment of the In simple language, Section 5
practical matter, payment of franchise bond does not affect the property of the preempts any term of a franchise
or license fees has not been a major is- estate.'The same holds true for a letter license agreement, or any provisi(
sue in most of the telecom bankruptcy of credit.'However, if a debtor has de- of a local ordinance,that allows a m
cases. The debtors have been paying posited cash into a security account nicipality to revoke a franchise
franchise and license fees on an ongo- or posted a certificate of deposit to guar- license simply because the debtor
ing basis,usually with bankruptcy court antee its obligations, this money re- in bankruptcy. This makes sense.
approval. For example, Adelphia has mains property of the estate even if the many bankruptcy cases,a debtor's rigl
been paying all franchise fees. municipality or a third party financial under a franchise or license agreemc
• institution holds it.As the money still will be among the most valuable ass,
Bonds, Letters of Credit, technically belongs to the debtor, a in the estate. Since one of the prim
and Security Accounts municipality will violate the automatic purposes of bankruptcy is to eitl.
As discussed above, a municipality stay if it takes money out of a security permit the debtor to reorganize, or
would violate the automatic stay if it deposit or certificate of deposit 9 Mu- distribute the assets to creditors it
attempted to collect money from a nicipalities should keep this important fair and orderly manner, it would
imi
8 Municipal Lawyer
I
y.
'• ,: Y,b"':'„'"•',�"r.'"�,St"•+?r" '. ''�;'_.rs.,- .•�w,.'v, za.em.,arstd��errM.:s..,rx�.,•..:y�,:..-_._.....s...�- ---_
yam ` :
,:
nonsensical to allow government agen- While there still remains a lot of uncertainty and confusion
cies to strip a debtor of its most valu-
: able assets simply because it failed to about the bankruptcy laws and process,telecom bankruptcies
i pay a debt or because it filed for bank- to date have not resulted in any significant negative impact
ruptcy. Nothing, however, prohibits a
municipality from otherwise exercis- for municipalities. In most cases,these companies have
4.
ing its police or regulatory power, pro-
kt
vided that its actions fall within the ex- continued to pay franchise or license fees at least until
4 emption provided in Section 362(b)(4).
y they decided to liquidate.
it For example, a municipality could
r-4 take steps to address a debtor's non-
i monetary defaults under a franchise, On the other hand, particularly Conclusion
kwhich may include commencing admin- in the case of a franchise, a munici- While there still remains a lot of uncer-
istrative proceedings against the debt- pality might be able to argue that the tainty and confusion about the bank-
V, or that result in termination of the rights involved are more than just ruptcy laws and process,telecom bank-
franchise. Provided that the munici- contractual rights-that the franchise ruptcies to date have not resulted in any
wpality does not terminate "solely be- is a unilateral grant of authority by significant negative impact for munici-
cause" the debtor is in bankruptcy, it the municipality that cannot be palities.In most cases,these companies
have continued to payfranchise or li-
r;� should not run afoul of Section 525. transferred to another entity. More-
Moreover,in the case of a cable opera- over, there is an exception to the cense fees at least until they decided to
, tor,nothing prohibits a franchising au- bankruptcy rule that.permits a debtor liquidate. For the most part, transfers
thority from fully exercising its rights to assign executory contracts where have not been confrontational because
k
f-c.` not to renew a franchise under the the identity of the parties is material municipalities have consented to av-
Cable Act," which may include an to the contract,or where other"appli- ing a franchise or license agreement
lye; transferred, often happily, on that the
,., evaluation of the debtor's financial cable law"excuses a party from having PP Y�
capability to operate a cable system. to accept performance by another theory that anyone new is better than
party.13 A municipality may be able the previous provider. This could all
i= Selling Franchises in Bankruptcy to argue that a franchise or license change with Adelphia and WorldCom.
isAnother common question that arises agreement cannot be assigned because These companies may take actions that
in telecom and cable company bank- "applicable law" excuses the munici- jeopardize municipalities' contractual
ruptcies is whether the debtor can sell pality from having to accept perfor- and regulatory rights and which pit the
• its rights under a franchise or license mance by another entity. bankruptcy laws against local regulatory
-Y` agreement over the objections of mu-
laws and even the federal cable laws.
w nicipalities.The answer is not entirely Can the Bankruptcy Court Only time will tell.
k::
clear.In the case of Adelphia,at least, Change the Terms of a Franchise
; it would seem that before any sale of or License Agreement? Notes
a franchise is approved, the transfer Another question that often arises is 1.The United States Bankruptcy Code, 11
fit- must first go through a municipality's whether a debtor can seek to change U.S.C. § 101 et seq. (1978).Chapter 11 be-
gins at 11 U.S.C.§ 1101 et seq.
transfer and approval process. This the terms of a franchise or license agree- 2.11 U.S.C.§701 et seq.
could be construed as an exercise of ment,regardless of whether the debtor 3.11 U.S.C.§362(a).
the municipality's police and regula- remains a party to the agreement or 4.11 U.S.C.§362(b)(4).•
tory powers, as permitted under both assigns the agreement to another 5.The United States Bankruptcy Code, 11
local laws and federal cable laws.How- entity.For example, can the bankrupt- U.S.C.§362(h)(1978).
pc
.1, ever, this may be an area where these cy court lower the amount of fran- 6.11 U.S.C.§503(b)(1).
laws collide with bankruptcy law. Un- chise fees, extend the term of the
7.O'Malley Lumber Company v.Lockard,88z
E2d 1171,1178(9th Cir.1989);In re Dunbar
der bankruptcy law, a debtor may agreement, or otherwise weaken a 235 B.R.465,475-76(9th Cir.BAP 1999).
assign an executory contract (where municipality's rights under the agree- 8.In re Long,74 B.R.939,943-44(Bankr.E.D
`r both parties have continuing obliga- ment? The answer is no. It is well Pa. 1987);In the Matter of Comprop Invest
tions) over the objection of the other established that an executory contract ment Properties, Ltd., 81 B.R. 101, 102.0:
party to the contract, even if the con- must be assumed or rejected in its (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987).
., tract provides that it cannot be assigned entirety. A debtor cannot assume 9.In re Sluggo's Chicago Style,Inc.,94 B.R
without the other party's approval.12 favorable portions of a contract while 625,628(9th Cir.BAP 1988).
rq 10.The United States Bankruptcy Code, 1
Thus, assuming the bankruptcy court rejecting less favorable terms. If a U.S.C.§525(1978).
finds that a franchise, license or right- franchise or license agreement is 11.47 U.S.C.§546.
of-way agreement qualifies as an execu- assigned to another company, the 12.11 U.S.C.§365(f).
tory contract, the court could approve new party to the agreement will be 13.11 U.S.C.§365(c).
1 a sale even over the objection of a bound by the exact same terms of 14.See,e.g.,StewartTitle Guaranty Compan
local government. the agreement. 83 E3d 735,741 (9th Cir.BAP 1996). IVL
■
%;
January/February 2003 Vol.44, No. 1 S
w
•
•
LOCAL
OFFICIALS
GUIDE
Telecommunications
aid
1
Ri ghts-of-WaY
. .. b
,---,,,,„
,ialim ..
.,.,
Y 1F
r t, a -
� , ,.i
..
• -� ---
4106
National League of Cities
ft
•''. :.
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way'
©Copyright 2002
National League of Cities and
National Association of Telecommunications Officers &Advisors
Washington, DC 20004
ISBN 1-886152-87-X
rD
'O
•
7''
Table of Contents
.113
aV1 ,
•
Preface
Acknowledgements iii
I. Introduction: Why Local Officials Care About Rights-of-Way Issues 1
A. Rights-of-Way News Events
B. Federal Law
C.The Rights-of-Way Investment
D. Issues
II. Rights-of-Way Management—The Management of the Public's Property 5
A. Introduction
B. Common Rights-of-Way Management Requirements
C. Protecting Your Community Through A Strong and
Uniform Public Rights-of-Way Ordinance
III. Rights-of-Way Compensation—Value Received for Value Given 9
A. Fair Rental Value
B. State Dictated Compensation
C. Costs
IV.The Players—Understanding Who Is Involved and Why 11
A. Local Law and Government Departments
B.The State Law
C. The FCC Review Process
D. The Federal Courts
V. Questions and Concerns for Local Officials 15
• How do I manage increased requests to use the rights-of-way?
• How do I protect against decisions that may not serve my community's needs?
• How long will it take?
• Having met with available internal resources,what are the next steps in this process?
• How have the courts dealt with local efforts to manage the public rights-of-way?
•
Telecommunications & Rights-of- ay)
VI. Conclusion 19
VII.Additional Resources 21
• The Local Government Principles Relating to Rights-of-Way Management
and Compensation &Ownership of Telecommunications Facilities 21
• Select Rulings 27
• Federal Communications Commission Actions 33
• Resources Available over the World Wide Web 35
fD
fD
0
9
z
n
r
00y
,^r
7
Preface
6
One of the primary responsibilities of local government is to build and maintain streets and sidewalks
(public rights-of-way) to safely and efficiently carry traffic in the community's commercial and residential
districts. Above the surface, vehicular and pedestrian traffic is transitory in nature. The direction, rout-
ing, and speed of such traffic can be easily altered according to the community's changing needs.
Below the surface, however, a variety of users place permanent facilities that cannot easily be
removed, repaired or relocated. Among the facilities permanently placed within the public rights-of-way
are water mains, natural gas pipes, sewage systems, power lines, high-pressure steam ducts, tele-
phone wires, and cable television system cables. Rights-of-way are limited public resource that must
accommodate every users' unique system design, specific space and depth requirements, and particu-
lar maintenance techniques and schedules. The result is a complex underground system crowded with
numerous users all providing essential services to the community.
Given the volatility of the gas, water, power, and steam facilities that coexist with the telecommunica-
tions facilities in the public rights-of-way, any user's facility placement, maintenance, and repair work
creates a potential public safety hazard. Public safety is also a concern when surface traffic is rerouted
or when the street or sidewalk is improperly repaired. In order to protect the public safety as well as
the existing facilities of other users, local governments must encourage safe and efficient rights-of-way
practices through effective management processes.
There are many factors that must be addressed during the ongoing management process, including:
obtaining proof of compliance with all elec-
trical, construction and engineering stan- ;.;
dards; coordinating road cuts, facility loca
tions, and map updates of multiple users;
assigning short-term road repair responsi-
bilities; and setting long-term road mainte-
nance goals. Local governments use these ---
procedures to protect the facilities of all
rights-of-way occupants and to develop
safe and efficient streets and sidewalks.
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Wayj
As more users seek to enter the rights-of-way, public safety concerns intensify and management costs
escalate. With each additional entrant into the rights-of-way, local governments face increased road
replacement costs. Local governments and citizens also face indirect costs such as increased travel
time, loss of access and trade to local businesses, and increased noise pollution and visual intrusion.
The rent occupants pay to local governments for the permanent use of the right-of-way helps to defray
only a portion of these costs. Without the ability to receive fair and reasonable compensation for the
use of the public rights-of-way from all private users, local governments will be forced to cover the
increased rights-of-way costs associated with telecommunications service.
This guidebook is not long, but in conjunction with the appendix, it is full of information. Please read or
even skim the report, which is only a few pages long, and retain the guidebook to use as a reference,
especially the information in the appendix. We hope that this guidebook will help prepare your locality
to deal more effectively with the complex issues involved in the management and control of the public
rights-of-way.
Donald J. Borut
Executive Director
National League of Cities
Elizabeth W. Beaty
Executive Director
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
Larry E. Naake
Executive Director
National Association of Counties
J. Thomas Cochran
Executive Director
United States Conference of Mayors
Henry W. Underhill, Jr.
General Counsel & Executive Director
International Municipal Lawyers Association
n
•
•ti:
ro �i
0 •
�. 3
Acknowledgements o •
•w,.
•
The preparation and production of this guidebook was coordinated by Juan Otero, NLC Principal
Legislative Counsel and Libby Beaty, NATOA Executive Director. Special thanks are due to the guide-
books' contributing authors: Robert Fogel, NACo Associate Legislative Director; Kevin McCarty, former
Associate Executive Director, USCM; Cathy Cunningham, Assistant City Attorney, Irving, TX; Otero and
Beaty.
Other individuals who contributed their time and expertise to this project include Cameron Whitman,
Center Director, Policy and Federal Relations; Xuan Bui, NLC Staff Assistant; Kenneth Fellman, Chair,
and Marilyn Praisner, Vice Chair, Local State Government Advisory Committee to the FCC;Tillman Lay,
Sr. Counsel, Miller, Canfield, Paddock&Stone;James Bailer, President, The Bailer Herbst Law Group;
John Pestle, Partner,Varner, Riddering, Schmidt&Howlett, LLP; Nicholas P. Miller, Partner, Miller&Van
Eaton, PLLC, Jeffrey Steinberg and Leon Jackler, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC; Denise
Brady, President, NATOA; Local Government Members of NATOA, Jane Lawton, Susan Littlefield, Pam
Robbins, Jane Gerdemann-Homsher, Susan Low, Chris Bacha, Tony Perez, Reg Dunlap, Doris Boris,
Rondella Pugh, Scott Lambert, Cathy Lisenbee, and Michael Bradley.
Photographs/graphics were provided courtesy of the following jurisdictions: Austin, Texas; Bloomington
and St. Louis Park, Minnesota; Charlotte-Mecklenburg County, North Carolina; Des Moines, Iowa; Irving,
Texas and Seattle, Washington and by the firm of Creighton, Bradley and Guzetta.
m
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way
+-1
A
0
5
5
C
CU
r
5
tri
T. Introduction —
4.01
Why Local Officials Care Abouttri
Rights-of-Way Issues
The local rights-of-way (ROW) allow people to get to work, home, stores and numerous other places
and provide space for many utilities that are an important part of their daily life. Clean water is brought
to us through water lines and used water is hygienically taken away through sewer lines. Electricity
and gas lines bring us the means to heat or cool our homes, keep the lights, stove, television and com-
puter on, as well as running numerous other appliances. But it is the advent of numerous new
telecommunications companies that have brought the most recent challenges to local governments in
the area of ROW management. This paper addresses the challenges faced by local governments due
to the build out of multiple telecommunications facilities in the public ROW.
With so many telecommunications providers asking to run cables and wires under city and county
streets in many areas, local governments everywhere are challenged with balancing the needs of the
private telecommunications companies for space for their wires and conduit and the needs of the public
for well maintained streets and safe and effective delivery of other services and utilities. With the
advent of increased competition, the management of the ROW and other public property is receiving
increased attention.
Rights-of-Way News Events
Dallas,Texas- Labor Day 2000. Contractors installing fiber-optic cable in
downtown Dallas struck a water main. As a result of the damage, water
gushed into the streets and poured into a parking garage below a luxury
building, practically destroying two full levels of cars, in addition to other
damage. By the time the flooding ended, the damage was well over$4.5
million. The same contractor struck a 48-inch water line in nearby Irving,
Texas, in July 1999.
St. Cloud, Minnesota. Mayor Larry Meyer can tell you how sad he was to
have to declare Saturday, December 11, 1999, a day of remembrance for
citizens of his community, killed when a natural gas pipeline was struck by
subcontractors digging to install cable lines. Four people were killed and
more than a dozen were injured in the explosion, with property damage in
excess of$1 million.
1
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
Atlanta, Georgia;Cincinnati, Ohio; and San Antonio,Texas, (Irv&9mcs
have all suffered water main breaks as a result of expanded useGas leak forces ' > <,
of the ROW. Richmond,Virginia, had to evacuate a court-
evacuaaCiotl ` c. `*
house. A telecommunications subcontractor struck a gas line in
east-cycle how "
Warrensburg, Missouri, near Kansas City, sending fumes into a A
nearby sewer line. The gas spread to several houses, and in one
of those houses a clothes dryer touched off an explosion, burn- ;atz�>"" 4(t
ing a man over 30% of his body. �^ �
4+11
While the foregoing evidences those communities who have -- 6��
sustained serious damage as a result of users within the ROW,
�"" �- - $ �.
the following examples provide insight into how local govern
ments across the United States are taking actions to protect , -:
against further disruption or harm. '"
Washington, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams can share with you riratt. ;
his experiences of facing a situation with a proliferation of M.": " �-- �-- -
telecommunications providers entering the ROW without a clear
plan or without sufficient controls. In Washington, D.C., gaining control of the ROW required a difficult
step- implementing a moratorium on street cuts until the city could regain control over the process.
Chicago, Illinois, is working with contractors on "joint builds," projects where up to six contractors
bury cable on a particular street at the same time. The City and County of San Francisco has adopted
an ordinance requiring companies to coordinate projects that require the streets to be dug up, to make
driving safer and easier for their motorists. Denver has instructed utility companies to use alleys or rail
ROW to avoid downtown streets. In Boston, site of the "Big Dig," one of the nation's largest public
works projects, workers are burying fiber-optic cable at the same time to avoid the need to go back and
cut streets.
The cost in terms of lives and property damage is real. Actions taken by local officials to manage and
control the use of the ROW in a community may reduce the likelihood and risk of catastrophic harm.
Federal Law
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 amended the federal communications laws. The law passed with
promises of consumer choice and new services. Six years later, such promises have yet to be fulfilled
for many consumers. While failing to deliver many of the new competitive options and services that
were promised for the average consumer, the Act has brought litigation, substantially increased costs,
and headaches to local governments managing public ROW.
One of the most important sections from the 1996 Act for local governments is 47 U.S.C. 253. This
section addresses the authority of state and local governments over public ROW. It states:
(a) IN GENERAL. - No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement,
may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or
intrastate telecommunications service.
2
Introduction
(b) STATE REGULATORY AUTHORITY. —Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to
impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254, requirements neces-
sary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure
the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.
(c) STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY. —Nothing in this section affects the authority
of a State or local government to manage the public rights of way or to require fair and reason-
able compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondis-
criminatory basis, for use of public rights of way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensa-
tion required is publicly disclosed by such government.
(d) PREEMPTION. — If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission deter-
mines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or
legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforce-
ment of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such
violation or inconsistency.
1(e) and (f) not included in quote.]
The appendix contains references to some of the cases that have arisen in the wake of this statute.
The Rights-of-Way Investment
Local governments are charged with maintaining and improving their substantial investment in trans-
portation and infrastructure. In 2000, state and local governments expended more than $100 billion to
maintain and expand our nation's highways and street networks. Transit agencies expended more than
$35 billion in taxpayer and user funds, delivering services on and
below our road and street networks. In 2000, total public and private t
expenditures for all transportation-related activities exceeded $1.3 tril-
lion, accounting for a substantial portion of all U.S. economic activity. j
And, there is more. Consider that cities and counties raised and 01 .t l_
expended more than $60 billion last year to operate water and sewers R_�
systems largely tied to these road and street networks. That same `"
year public and private expenditures for gas and electricity totaled i
nearly $200 billion. For water, sewer and transportation uses, as well .
as electric, gas and telecommunications, it is important that someone
be coordinating these important, but sometime competing uses of
the ROW.
As a result of their day-to-day responsibilities in managing these
assets, local officials recognize how much is at stake for telecommu-
nications companies. Modernizing existing systems and constructing
new networks is a massive project for any community. Such projects
place enormous demands on local decision-makers, who are answer- I
able to their constituents for the responsible use of the ROW.
3
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Wayj
In the debate on telecommunications, private companies are in business to advance their own agenda
and the profitability of their stockholders. In doing so, some may suggest that the needs of their busi-
ness are most immediate and paramount, minimizing the concerns of other parties, including the local
government. But consider the other uses that are made of the ROW—transportation, water, sewer,
electric, and gas. The degradation or disruption of transportation or other essential services can often
lessen the import of a service like high-speed data. These considerations help place the needs of
telecommunications providers in context, particularly from the vantage-point of local managers and
elected officials.
issues ���..,
What does it mean to manage the right-of-way? During the installation process, local
governments must be involved in planning where to locate facilities, ROW maintenance
and inspection, avoidance of damage to existing structures, preventing unnecessary dis-
ruptions of use of ROW and protecting against deterioration of public owned infrastruc-
ture. There must be coordination of current ROW projects and future projects and bal-
ance between speed of completing projects and safety. The considerations of safety, pro-
tection of public investment, community uses of ROW, future growth, economic develop-
ment of a community and all the other aspects of local government may simply outweigh
claims by individual private telecommunications providers for special considerations.
Such special considerations requested by telecommunications providers, be it expedited
rules, discounted occupancy costs, or waivers from normal ROW practices are often
attempted in circumstances where the pressing concerns of the citizens will not be heard,
and thus,will not be considered.
4
n
0
9
5
C
I
sic
H. Rights-of-Way Management —
urz
The Management of the Public's Property
c
1
introduction
Many local governments are familiar with the ability to franchise cable television and telecommunica-
tions systems within their community. The 1992 Cable Act and the 1996 Telecommunications Act have
affected the way these services are franchised, and the state law in many jurisdictions has been chang-
ing in ways that affect local governments' ability to manage these services.
Common Rights-of-Way Management Requirements
Section 253(c) of the Federal Telecommunications Act preserves the authority of a state or local govern-
ment to "manage the public rights-of-way." Although state law may further refine what is permissible
regulation, ROW management often includes the following requirements:
• Permits for doing ROW construction, with information about the owner of the facilities, the con-
tractor doing the work, emergency contacts, etc.;
• Proposed engineering plans and final plans of record.
• Coordination of construction schedules;
• Insurance;
• Establishment and enforcement of building codes;
• Indemnification;
• Monitoring the various systems and utilities in the ROW to prevent interference between them;
• Traffic control, including restrictions on time of ROW work;
• Restoration costs, that is, requiring a provider to pay fees to recover an appropriate share of
increased street repair and paving costs that result from repeated evacuations;
• Enforcement of zoning requirements;
• Type of excavation permitted;
• Warranty repair for ROW work;
• Underground requirements, where consistent with the requirements upon other ROW users.
5
•
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
Protecting Your Community Through a Strong and
Non-Discriminatory Public Rights-of-Way Ordinance
As the telecommunications infrastructure expands, so does the burden placed on local governments
and on local public ROW. The best way to meet the challenges posed by these evolving demands for
the use of public ROW is to enact an effective ROW ordinance.
With the benefit of an effective ROW ordinance, local governments can successfully meet the chal-
lenges posed by the telecommunications explosion. Simply by being prepared, local officials can
respond to telecommunications companies from a position of strength and can ensure that their locali-
ties are protected now and into the future.
For local governments with no permitting process in place, the ability of a local official to respond in a
timely and well-informed manner will be hindered. A ROW ordinance consistent with Section 253 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, enables a locality to respond effectively to requests by telecom-
munications companies, to manage its public ROW, and to obtain fair and reasonable compensation
from such companies.
Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act contains both a carrot and a stick for local governments.
First, it states that no state or local government, through statute or regulation, may "prohibit or have the
effect of prohibiting" any company from providing telecommunications services. For this reason, local
governments may not respond to a request by a telecommunications company to enter the public ROW
to install wires and other telecommunications equipment by simply disapproving or rejecting such a
request out of hand. Nor can a local government reject such an application because it believes there
already are "enough" different telecommunications providers in the community. If a governing body
attempted this, it would quickly find itself in federal court without a strong legal defense. On the other
hand, Section 253 does uphold a local government's legal right to place conditions on a telecommunica-
tions company's occupation of the ROW and to obtain compensation from the company for the use of
the ROW. Specifically, Section 253(c) states:
"Nothing in this section affects the authority of a state or local government to manage the public rights-
of-way and to require fair and reasonable compensation from
telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and
nondiscriminatory basis, for the use of public rights-of-way, if
the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such gov- , ,4
ernment."
Managing Rights-of-Way
Interpreting Section 253, courts have granted a great deal of
latitude to local governments in managing their ROW. As the
core of a strong ROW ordinance, the management function
should include, at the very least, the following important
requirements:
Permit process: Localities must have a means of responding
6
Management
quickly to telecommunications com-
panies that seek permission to
place wires and other equipment in
their ROW. The best way to accom-
plish this is through a permitting
process similar to that employed in
other contexts. A ROW ordinance
can require that all telecommunica- ( 4 .04A
tions providers obtain a ROW per-
mit before installing equipment in
any ROW in the jurisdiction.
Before granting a permit, the local
government should require the
company to provide essential infor-
mation, and the local government
should develop requirements aimed at protecting itself. These include:
• Description of the proposed nature and location of equipment to be installed
• Physical burden the equipment will place on the ROW
• Statement of any detrimental effect proposed equipment may have on public safety
• Bonding requirements
• Insurance
• Indemnification of local government
• Location of work
• Start date
• Duration of work
• Information on contractor if work is not being performed by telecommunications company
• Drawings/site plan
• Plan for traffic control in site area
• Process for informing adjoining property owners
• Process for informing utilities that share ROW
• Standards for restoring ROW and surface
• Schedule of inspections
The locality also should require the company to present proof that it has received authorizations from
appropriate federal and state agencies and, if applicable, that it has permission to attach its equipment to
utility poles. In considering a permit application, a city or county may use an outside expert, such as a
telecommunications engineer, as it deems necessary. Generally, a fee is charged for the permit, in part
to pay for the administrative costs absorbed by the local government in processing the permit and any
inspections involved. Finally, there should be a defined period of time for which the permit is valid.
7
( Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way`
Construction safety standards: Once a locality has issued a permit for a telecommunications company
to install its wires and other equipment in the public ROW, the company should be required to comply
with certain construction safety standards. These standards, which should be contained in the ROW
ordinance, may include requirements that the construction workers be trained in the safe use of all con-
struction equipment, and that the company must routinely inspect work-sites so that conditions that
could develop into safety hazards are corrected in a timely fashion.
Construction standards also may include specific requirements as to how wires and other equipment
are to be installed and separated from other wires and equipment, both for aerial and underground
work. Finally, certain requirements can be imposed stipulating that the company must notify nearby res-
idents before starting any construction activity.
Limitations on location: Although the local government must be careful not to prohibit generally the
placement of wires and other telecommunications equipment in the ROW, it can impose limits on
where that equipment may be located based on the physical space available for such equipment. If, for
example, there is insufficient space within certain utility conduits to accommodate reasonably all
requests by telecommunications companies, the local government may require a company to find alter-
native locations in the ROW for its wires and equipment. The local government, however, should be fair
and neutral in making such decisions. It should, for instance, accommodate all similarly situated ROW
access requests in a similar manner, and it must be guided by the physical conditions of the ROW.
Liability and indemnification: As evidenced by the problems described at the beginning of this docu-
ment relating to damages caused by ROW users, there are significant risks involved if facilities are not
well managed, are transferred without record, or do not have adequate insurance in the event of a cata-
strophic occurrence. An effective ROW ordinance must require the telecommunications company to
indemnify the locality, its officials and employees against claims for personal injury and property dam-
age arising out of the company's use of the ROW. The ordinance also should require the company to
obtain and maintain sufficient insurance coverage to address any injuries or damages. Further, the com-
pany should be required to post a construction bond to provide reasonable resources for restoration.
There should also be a provision allowing the local government to evict a user, or to stop the work in
progress if necessary to protect the public safety or property from harm. In addition the ordinance
should require the company to bear the costs of relocating its facilities to accommodate public projects
in the ROW and to bear all costs of repairing any and all damage to the ROW resulting from the compa-
ny's installation, removal, or maintenance of its facilities in the ROW.
Penalties for noncompliance: Once a local government has decided on its ROW management require-
ments, it is essential that it have the authority to enforce these requirements. If a telecommunications
company violates any provision of the ROW ordinance, it should be subject to penalties imposed by the
locality.
These penalties might include the following: (1) monetary fines imposed after the locality has provided
the company with notice and the opportunity to cure the violation; (2) suspension of the ROW permit
for certain violations, such as failing to pay the permit fee (as discussed in the next section of this arti-
cle) or damaging property; and (3) as permitted by law, termination of the permit for certain extreme
violations, such as the engaging in fraud or abandoning the telecommunications system.
8
RI
0
C
d
r
Q
z
I,
93
ITT. Rights-of-Way Compensation —
7
Value Received for Value Given
Local governments, subject to state law, may obtain compensation for use of ROW. Section 253(c) of
the Federal Telecommunications Act allows a local government "fair and reasonable" compensation for
use of the public ROW. There is significant disagreement about what "fair and reasonable" compensa-
tion means, with disagreement between local governments and the telecommunications industry and
disagreement from one court to the next.
A. Fair Rental Value
The fair rental value approach looks at the use of the ROW by the user as akin to the use of property by
a lessee. Typically, under such an arrangement the lessee pays based upon either a set amount (such
as a per foot fee), a percentage of gross receipts, or a fee based upon the number of lines in the ROW
(access line fee).
B. State-Dictated Compensation
Some states have passed laws that require compensation for local government ROW be in a certain
form. For instance, Texas allows cities to receive compensation for ROW use, but the compensation
from local exchange providers is to be in the form of access line fees. Oregon, on the other hand,
allows cities to recover a fee of up to 7% of a local telephone company's revenue for local telephone
service. Other states have passed laws that limit the amounts local governments may recover to only
costs. (See below.)
C. Costs
The cost approach is the one usually favored by
telecommunications companies, who seek to be
responsible for only the immediate administrative
costs of processing a permit and only the immediate
maintenance fees for a specific street cut. These
amounts are usually nowhere close to the actual costs incurred by a local government for ROW con-
struction. If a cost approach is required and where allowed by state law, local governments should try
to include all costs beyond just immediate, direct costs, such as societal costs, road repair congestion,
9
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Ways
disruption and damage to the facilitates of other service providers, costs for reduced life span of roads,
costs for lost time and economic activity in the area under construction, and risks to the populace. Two
such types of costs, degradation and increased construction costs, are briefly discussed below.
Degradation Costs:
A significant cost for local governments is the reduction in the useful life of roads and pavements
because of trench and borehole digging. If trenches are not restored properly, there is an immediate and
significant deterioration in the condition of the pavement. However, even with proper restoration proce-
dures, the cutting and patching process typically compromises the structural integrity of the pavement
and shortens the life of the pavement.
In addition, the use of low-grade material and faulty sealing can result in premature deterioration of roads.
Moreover, the extent of the area repaved typically needs to be more extensive to restore the original
structural integrity of the street. A study sponsored by the City of Cincinnati and the American Public
Works Association (Impact of Utility Cuts on Performance of Street Pavements) indicated that the typical
amount of damage is an average of 3 feet beyond the cut edge, but it could extend up to 6 feet. In order
to come close to pre-cut strength, the report indicated that the average thickness of a pavement should
be 1.75 inches beyond the original thickness. Note that guidelines developed by local governments for
restoration practices vary across regions. In some cases no guidelines are prescribed.
Numerous empirical studies have been performed to estimate the street degradation costs imposed on
local governments. Although there is a consensus that street cuts significantly reduce the useful life of a
street, many factors can cause differences in the rate of deterioration: the type of cut made in the pave-
ment, nature of excavation, quality of backfill material, climate, and restoration quality standards.
Consequently, it is not surprising that the measurement of the extent of degradation has varied. Studies
conducted by many different cities indicate that depending upon the control variables, the location, and
the time of the study, the extent of degradation in the useful life of a pavement, because of cuts on the
road, can vary considerably. However, these studies indicate that the street degradation costs are sub-
stantial. Landmark studies from San Francisco, Austin, Texas and Burlington, Vermont have estimated the
cost of street degradation from telecommunication provider construction in the rights of way.
Increased Construction Costs:
There are significant additional costs to local governments from delays in sewer, water, road, and, where
applicable, municipal gas and municipal electric construction projects due to the coordination necessary
with telecommunications providers. Briefly, significant work in the rights of way often requires that all
providers mark their lines, secure them and/or relocate them. This delays the project, which increases its
cost. For example, sometimes crews have to be demobilized and then reassembled or simply wait while
providers work on their lines. The costs go up for each additional provider involved. In addition, the cost
of the project increases for each additional provider with whom the construction project has to be coordi-
nated. These cost increases, especially the cost due to delays, are significant given the high cost of
sewer main projects, water main projects, street reconstruction and the like.
1 City of Austin Utility Cut Study,Final Report,prepared by Transtec Consultant,May 1995. Department of Public Works,City and County of
San Francisco(1998) The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets. Shahin,M.Y.and Crovetti,J.A.(1985),Street Excavation Impact
Assessment Study conducted for the City of Burlington,VT.
10
04
et
0
g
g
C
r
n
O
0
TV. The Players 2,3
—
Understanding Who Ts Involved and Why
0
A
Normally, only local governments and ROW users are involved in ROW management and compensation.
However, unhappy telecommunications companies may try to involve the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), the state government or the courts. Local officials need to be aware of this.
A. Local Law and Government Departments
Because some issues in this area of law may be interpreted by the federal government (through the
FCC) and by the federal and state courts, local governments are frequently found on the defensive, even
when they have clear statutory support for decisions they have made. For local governments entering
this relatively undefined federal and state regulatory quagmire, there is a need to focus on the straight-
forward task of protecting the community interests of health, safety and welfare while accommodating
telecommunications companies' use of the ROW in a uniform, fair manner. Local governments are chal-
lenged with the multi-pronged dilemma of accommodating multiple new ROW users while protecting
ROW from overuse.
It should be noted that of the 78 million miles of fiber laid in
`' the United States over the last twenty years, 50 million of
those miles have been installed since Congress passed the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In 2000 alone, 19 million
` • miles of fiber were installed. Since a single pipe generally car-
ries approximately 100 fibers that translates into 190,000
1 ' _ miles of digging in ROW in 2000.
:: In other words, it is highly likely that new telecommunica-
/
tions providers already involve your local government or com-
munity in the management of the ROW for the provision of
services. At a minimum, your legal, public works and permit-
ting departments should be involved. The questions are:
which department of your local government is responsible for
the oversight of the grant of permission to use the ROW,
which is responsible for the permitting or licensing, which is
11
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
responsible for the franchising and which is responsible for the physical construction of the facilities and
their later inspection? And, who in your office knows the answer to all of these questions?
As indicated earlier, it is important to identify which departments within your local government have a
role to play in managing the ROW in your community. Not only do you need to know all of the various
departments, but also they need to be aware of each other's roles and work closely with one another in
a coordinated effort to implement or manage your ROW plans. Consistency is very important when
addressing telecommunications providers' requests for access to local ROW.
B. The State Law
Local governments' authority over their ROW usually emanates from state constitutional or statutory
authority granted to cities or counties. In most states, the state itself initially has title and authority to
regulate the public streets and ROW. Many states delegate the authority to municipalities by statute,
but some states grant franchises to telecommunications providers directly. While many states do allow
local governments to be compensated by private commercial entities for their use of local public proper-
ty for private economic gain, others do not. The statutory law in each state, regarding the local govern-
ment's authority over ROW, should be reviewed by your legal department in detail as to the extent of
that authority and any limitation on it.
State and local law concerning local government's authority to franchise and regulate public ROW use
by telecommunications providers vary widely from state-to-state and, in some cases, from community-
to-community within a state. This variation stands in stark contrast to state and local law concerning
cable franchises: with very few exceptions, cable franchise law tends not to vary so much from state-
to-state. As a result, generalizations on local telecommunications public ROW issues have become
exceedingly hazardous.
Local elected officials are well advised to become familiar with state law, as well as local charter and
ordinance provisions. The increased importance of state and local law on telecommunications ROW
use also means that state legislation is likely to be a major forum for debate between industry and local
governments in the years ahead.
Many telecommunications service
Rtz providers have tried to lobby state
officials to enact regulations that
" " restrict local governments from
administering their authority to man-
,.. age and receive fair compensation for
4
•
private use of public ROW. Some
service providers will claim that the
local regulation is unnecessary dupli-
3cation of state public utility commis-
- f sion requirements. Be cautious of
this argument, as public utility corn-
'
missions do not usually address—and
have little expertise or staff experi-
enced in addressing —any aspect of
12
The Players
ROW management or control within their rules, and cer 4*44
tainly cannot be expected to address or even consider
issues that may be important to your community. The
industry is seeking restrictions upon local governments. ` " '
Local governments must be aware of these issues ands
prevent such restrictions from occurring.
There are many variations in state law that local officials
must understand for effective public ROW management
within their jurisdictions. Be sure to discuss these with
your local counsel.
C. The FCC Review Process
Section 253 of the Federal Telecommunications Act pro-
vides for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
oversight for issues arising under Section 253(a) and (b).
The process established by the FCC in response to a .
complaint by a telecommunications provider is to first
determine whether the local requirement is inconsistent r
with Section 253(a) and, if so, to determine whether the
violation is protected by Section 253(b) or (c). If the chal- '
lenged action is determined to be inconsistent with
Section 253(a) and does not meet the safe harbor provi-
sions of Section 253(b) or (c), the FCC will move to pre-
empt the local government action.
In a complaint based upon Section 253, the burden in the first instance is on the telecommunications
provider seeking to demonstrate to the FCC or the courts that the challenged ordinance or other
requirement prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a potential provider's ability to provide service.
The FCC has little or no jurisdiction over ROW management or compensation disputes under Section
253(c). Rather, Congress contemplated that Section 253(c) disputes would be resolved by the courts,
not the FCC. As a result, most disputes involving local governments and telecommunications providers
under Section 253 have been litigated in the courts rather than decided by the FCC.
D. The Federal Courts
When challenged by a telecommunications provider, federal courts may review local ordinances for con-
sistency with federal law and the Constitution. Federal courts routinely hear and decide cases brought
by the telecommunications companies or by state or local governments. Various federal rulings have
led to conflicts within the various federal district and appellate courts throughout the nation. The lines
between state and federal authority and their primacy are at times uncertain.
13
(Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way',
14
r4
n
0
G
r
n
0
z
V. Questions & Concerns
kin
for Local Officials
0
How Do I Manage Increased Requests to Use the Rights-of-Way?
Because the landscape is changing at the local level, many jurisdictions have re-examined their ROW
practices and policies. Most begin this process by reviewing their internal capabilities, findings ways to
tap all of the staff resources that can be brought to bear on managing the many challenges that the
telecommunications infrastructure build-out requires. There is substantial expertise that is most com-
monly found in legal, public works, licensing, inspections, and zoning and planning departments. Your
staff probably already has individuals who specialize in management of the ROW, or in licensing or per-
mitting ROW users, or in franchising of cable television systems. All of these people will be critical to
your success. Create a team framework where these people may communicate freely with one another.
Many communities have found it useful to bring in outside experts to jumpstart internal reviews and to
provide a broader context for taking on the many challenges in a more comprehensive manner. Staff
from all the departments mentioned above should work with these consultants in creating an ongoing
system. There are many reputable consultants to local government—engineers, planning specialists and
attorneys who can assist local professional staff to craft the plans and ordinances to protect local assets
and interests.
How Do I Protect Against Decisions That May Not Serve My Community's Needs?
One of the very obvious challenges for local elected officials is how to respond to private sector entrants
who seek to use local ROW and who have amassed a high degree of experience and resources in deal-
ing with local officials on these issues. It is not unfair to suggest that sometimes these private sector
advocates can obfuscate potentially important near term and longer term local considerations, and can
even distort what options exist in best serving local citizens. Never allow yourself to be lobbied by the
industry before your own staff has briefed you. Do not get caught without the facts. The very industry
player walking through the door tomorrow could be one who abandoned infrastructure two towns back
or they could be offering a deal that is only half as good as the one given to other communities.
Remember, It is always in industry's interest to minimize its own costs of ROW acquisition and manage-
ment as a means of advancing their own interests.
15
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
As addressed in the above question, many localities have marshaled a core in-house staff. That is the
best way to develop the capability to air issues and ideas impacting local communities. It may also be
useful to establish outreach to the public through formalized commissions or informal advisory boards.
How Long Will It Take?
It takes time and careful planning to develop good infrastructure, ROW policies and ordinances that ade-
quately protect local interests while accommodating the deployment of state-of-the-art technology and
services in communities. However, it is definitely a case of "an ounce of prevention being worth a
pound of cure." Developing such policies and practices before there is a problem is less costly and
time consuming than solving problems after they have reached a critical stage. It should also be noted
that careful planning in terms of both the process and the implementation can save time and money,
and can also provide additional benefits to the community for the long-term. For instance, a well-
planned deployment process could provide the community with services such as enhanced public safe-
ty, e-government applications or intelligent transportation opportunities.
Having Met with Available Internal Resources, What are the Next Steps in This Process?
There is no particular magic to the process that will be involved. What is important is for local officials
to recognize that the subject of telecommunications and the expansion of wired services using ROW
throughout the community are here to stay. Telecommunications is one of the fastest growing indus-
tries in our country and the growth will continue for many years. If in fact the preservation and protec-
tion of the ROW is important, this must be a subject that should have a high priority in the planning
process of any local government.
_ 7
Local elected officials must involve the communities
they serve to develop the best public ROW manage-
ment policy. That is, has the community established a
process and developed a record for support of its ordi- ; -
nance? What are the steps that are important and how
can a community best ensure that it will write its ordi-
nances and controls for the management and use of its
ROW in the most effective manner possible? ,41
The tasks are challenging, will take time, and can be fair- /.., 1".
ly large. In many instances, more than one community �
will come together to form a joint committee. No matter
what approach is followed, it must be recognized that
this is a subject that will not go away and must be ,,
addressed and soon. Getting started is the most import_ "
tant first step. If you have met with your staff, you're on
your way. That being said, here are some other specific , _ � *
steps you may wish to consider:
• The local government should announce the development of public ROW ordinances as high priori-
ties for development and enforcement.
16
Questions & Concerns
• A committee should be created composed of
dedicated persons who will undertake the chal-
lenges to learn about what is going on, what
the rights of the community are, what other
communities are doing, and evaluate the local
needs.
SF Ill
• Clearly define, through community input and the
use of professional consultants, exactly what w.
the community needs to adequately manage it
ROW and receive compensation for it, and how
best to achieve those goals. A firm process timeline and schedule of tasks should be outlined. Use
of outside consulting assistance may be beneficial to provide the committee with a head start.
Local elected officials can often help a community get started by having an educational conference
and organizational meeting that provides an opportunity for the participants to meet with one anoth-
er and discuss legal, technical, and other considerations. This is a good way to get the process
moving ahead.
• Evaluating the existing applicable state law and local ordinance or charter provisions will be impor-
tant. There may be limitations on the extent and scope of authority and this must be understood
before any framework can be devised for a particular community. Of course, this varies consider-
ably from one community to another. Additionally, the community may have in place ordinances or
requirements that should be evaluated. Often what is in place was developed a number of years
ago and may be outdated.
• It should be expected that a process of evaluating law, technology, services, and identifying com-
munity concerns and requirements will take approximately six months to one year. Don't be rushed
or pushed by the industry. During the interim, demands for use of ROW can be accommodated by
interim agreements or other arrangements that will satisfy the needs of the provider but at the
same time preserve the right of the community to complete its process and develop a more perma-
nent form of agreement with the provider.
• Develop an understanding of the latitude currently allowed local governments by the existing state
of the law to take fair and reasonable steps to promote the community interest. This is not an easy
task in a situation where the law cannot keep pace with advances in technologies and new busi-
ness combinations and where court and FCC decisions in this area are often not consistent with
one another. In addition, many state telecommunications laws have sunset provisions and are a
constant focus of rewrite efforts in the State Legislature.
• Create a risk/benefit analysis of how aggressive the community wishes to be in striking a deal
and/or enforcing rights with telecommunications providers. The community must be mindful that
some providers may have had a presence in the community for a significant period of time and that
future issues between the community and the provider of the service will doubtless arise. This real-
ity suggests striking a practical and realistic balance whenever possible.
• Consider crafting an ordinance which deals generally with the use of public ROW that addresses all
users—telecommunications, cable, gas, electric, etc
• Industry participation. At the stage where the committee has created a draft or model regulatory
ordinance or other related documents, including an application procedure or fee schedule, it should
17
(Telecommunications & Rights-of-Ways
consider inviting industry comments. It would be better to have input and comments early on from
industry representatives to the drafts that the committee is working on rather than wait until the
local governing body has passed it and then have it challenged.
• As part of the process, the local government will also need to determine what its approach to gov-
ernance will be. That is, who is going to oversee and manage the public ROW? Where do people
go to apply for licenses, permits, or franchises and what will be the procedures that are followed?
How are fees and charges regularly administered? Who will be responsible for keeping up-to-date
on changes in technology, services, or legal requirements that may affect the community's regula-
tory structure?
How have the courts dealt with local efforts to manage the public rights of way?
Tens of thousands of local governments manage their public rights of way and obtain reasonable com-
pensation from users. In most of these cases, the parties have negotiated results that benefit all con-
cerned. In a relatively small number of cases, however, disputes between local governments and users
have resulted in litigation. In these cases, the courts have split on whether the local actions at issue
violated federal or state laws. Several of these cases are summarized in the appendices to this guide.
In the cable area, local governments generally have broad authority to regulate cable operators, subject
to the requirements of federal cable laws. In the telecommunications area, by contrast, authority to reg-
ulate telecommunications providers is typically the responsibility of the federal government and the
states. Local governments usually retain authority to manage public rights of way, but they cannot do
so in a way that intrudes upon federal or state authority to regulate the affairs of telecommunications
providers.
Viewed from this perspective, the cases summarized in the appendices begin to fall into a pattern.
Where courts have found that local actions could reasonably be tied to ROW management, they have
upheld the actions. But where they have found that local actions crossed over the line they have ruled
the actions unlawful. For example, some courts have found that local governments exceed their ROW
management authority when they require: disclosure of information going to the technical, legal and
financial ability to provide service; submission to detailed city audits; notification of all communications
with federal regulatory authorities; or dedication of fiber optic strands and conduits for the local govern-
ment's free and exclusive use. Other courts have found that local governments cannot justifiably sub-
ject providers to catchall provisions giving the city unbridled discretion to deny access to rights of way;
threats of criminal sanctions and fines for the failure of a provider to obtain municipal consent; and fees
that bear no relationship to the locality's costs in managing the rights of way. Still other courts have
upheld one or more of these provisions.
In summary, a local government may maximize local benefits by acting aggressively to protect public
rights of way and to obtain fair compensation from users. Such actions may, however, subject them to
the time, effort and cost of protracted litigation. Localities that wish to avoid or minimize the risk of liti-
gation should study the relevant court and FCC decisions, particularly the decisions of the courts that
have jurisdiction over them and then refrain from acting in ways that the courts have found unlawful.
All of these issues are obviously affected by court cases and FCC decisions. Local governments should
be aware of state law and monitor and understand court and FCC decisions as they arise.
18
rD
0
9
G
z
a
O
z
fie
VT. Conclusion
a
Given the complexity of the issues, it is imperative that local governments have clear principles guiding
their local ROW authority. Local governments, as trustees of the public, must bear the responsibility of
overseeing commercial use of local public ROW. This includes making sure that public ROW are used
efficiently and that new, secondary ROW uses like telecommunications do not hinder the primary trans-
portation function of ROW and do not hurt economic development. With the expansion of technologies
comes the opportunity for competition. The management of ROW must adjust to the inevitable
changes that will accompany this competition. In order to accomplish this, local governments should
use their authority to place conditions on the use of government property.
Since the financial costs of commercial use of public ROW that are not paid for by the users will ulti-
mately be borne by the taxpayer, local governments must make sure that private users of the ROW
adequately compensate the local government and its taxpayers for that use. It is important that both
direct and indirect costs are considered. Uncompensated costs will eventually be passed on to the tax-
payer, regardless of whether, and how much, he or she uses the telecommunications provider's sys-
tem. This amounts to a general tax on non-users, and should be
avoided by local governments in order to ensure the costs of using
the ROW are passed on to users. The requirement that telecommu-
nications companies compensate local governments for the use of
�- public ROW is not unique. Public entities regularly compensate
• landowners for use of private property. Likewise, commercial enti-
ties have always used public facilities and have been required to pay
for that use. There are also instances where telecommunications
providers charge for government use of conduit. The idea that
someone should compensate for the use of property not owned by
them is common.
Local governments have the right to manage ROW and public land
and be fairly compensated for the use of these assets by telecom-
munications providers. The legislative body of the local government
can start by setting up a commission to see how the industry and its
proposed projects will affect residents. The commission must keep
19
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way;;
in mind that court decisions around the country have not had a coherent message for the industry or for
local governments. They also must be aware of local court decisions in order to enact an ordinance
that works for all involved parties.
Local governments need to examine what fee-structure is advantageous to themselves, to the public,
and to the telecommunications industry, but also one that fits within the parameters of state law and
binding court decisions. Local governments may consider fees based on administration and mainte-
nance costs, fees based on revenues, or fees based on other measures. Local governments also need
to have a firm and declared policy on how to calculate this fee once the structure is decided. It is in the
interest of the local governments to have a defined procedure in order to avoid problems.
Local governments have a legitimate
.
need to know the nature of the sere
ice"*.. , 4,6 at., ices being provided to the public
through the public's own ROWs.
They may also have the right to
know the financial gain for the
telecommunication providers if the
,.. compensation mechanism is based
,°• ��s � . on gross receipts. However, this
k does not mean that local govern
ments should overburden telecom-
7
munications providers with supplying
- ' '�. unneeded information or with a long
application process. If local govern-
x r. � ` ments impose unduly burdensome
" \ ` '/` ~ 1k ROW requirements that stifle com-
petition, their residents and busi-
nesses will be the victims. At the same time, local governments have an ongoing responsibility in
attracting businesses in this new economy and making sure the tax money from their citizens is not
wasted upon repairing roads that should have been the responsibility of the telecommunications
provider.
As matters currently stand, and with many questions about the meaning of Section 253 and the 1996
Act still far from being settled, most local governments should supplement existing ROW ordinances
with amendments to conform to evolving court and FCC interpretations of Section 253. These ordi-
nances would be best if kept simple, perhaps specifying the minimum financial and physical require-
ments necessary for a firm to use the streets. In this way, local governments might avoid snaring them-
selves in the section 253(a) or (b) traps.
20
n
0
C
t'h
Cu
r
O
z
tr
Ike
11��r
wl
VIT. Additional Resources
0
Several years ago, in an overall review of the issues facing local governments on ROW management, an
ad hoc committee of local officials put together a set of principles for addressing rights of way issues.
These principles are offered again below, to assist you in your consideration and review.
The Local Government Principles Relating to Rights-Of-Way Management
and Compensation & Ownership of Telecommunications Facilities 3
Introduction
Historically, local government has been recognized as the unit of government responsible to manage and
control local rights-of-way to ensure its safe and efficient use and to be compensated for the use of it by
others. Additionally, citizens look to local government to plan for community needs and to provide need-
ed public services.
With the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, this traditional role of local government is
maintained and, in fact, reinforced. Notwithstanding this, recently, commercial occupants of local streets
are seeking legislative changes at the state level that would severely cripple or alter the long-established
police and fiduciary powers of local units of government.
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) is an organization com-
prised of local government officials from throughout the country. Our members work and responsibilities
relate not only to the protection of community rights-of-way and oversight of cable and telecommunica-
tions providers, but also to the provision of services that meet local needs in this changing telecommuni-
cations age. NATOA and its members work closely with U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), National
League of Cities (NLC), National Association of Counties (NACO), and the International City/County
Management Association (ICMA) on telecommunications issues.
3 The Local Government Principles Relating to Rights-Of-Way Management and Compensation &Ownership of Telecommunications Facilities
was Prepared for the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors by the NATOA Ad Hoc Committee for Rights-of-Way
Policy,August 20,1998 NATOA President:Thomas J.Weisner; Ad Hoc Committee Chair:Adrian Herbst,Committee Members:Cathy
Cunningham,Jayne Gerdeman,Sara Hackett,Holly Hansen,Brian Moore,Maria Silveira,Dean Smits,Paul Smolen,and James Spinello
21
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
As such, NATOA and the cities and counties it represents are well-positioned to outline principles of
local government authority which must be maintained and not diminished through the state legislative
process. What follows are the principles which NATOA adopts, based on its research and understanding
of local government needs, services, and costs. We ask local and state governments throughout the
country to support and promote the following principles:
O Local governments have a duty and an obligation to bear the costs of acquiring and maintain-
ing public rights-of-way.
O Commercial use of public property for private profit requires equitable, fair, and reasonable
compensation for its use.
O Both public and private entities have a role to play in the delivery of advanced telecommuni-
cations services to all Americans.
O Federal, state, and local governments each have a role in ensuring the goals of the
Telecommunications Act are achieved and each must respect the authority of the others.
Further, NATOA encourages and asks local governments to acquaint state legislators with these princi-
ples and to request that they share them with fellow legislators.
Principle#1 - Rights-of-Way Management: Local governments have a duty and an obligation to
bear the costs of acquiring and maintaining public rights-of-way.
Nothing in the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 affects the authority of local government to
manage the public rights-of-way. ]47 U.S.C. §253]
A. Stewardship: Local governments have an obligation to manage the public rights-of-way as a
trustee for the public.
• The public rights-of-way are a valuable and scarce community resource that require local gov-
ernment management for the most efficient and best use.
• In order to protect the health and safety of the • - •
public, as well the existing facilities of local tr ,r''
government and other rights-of-way users, local .
governments must have the ability to ensure
the efficient use of the public rights-of-way 0 '
/
through the development and implementation " "
of effective policies and management practices. f„'
• The responsibility to manage public lands s t ,4<
requires the ability to place appropriate condi- tV.
tions on their use. i4.11
�
• Access to local government facilities is vital to
public safety and well-being. The fundamental ''�� � 41/4, •
purpose of government procurement of rights-
of-way is to ensure orderly development of #
business and residential areas, including traffic
management and conveyance of essential utili-
ties. ,
22
Resources
• We believe stewardship includes operating and maintaining
rights-of-way in the least intrusive manner.
B. Expanded Use: New technologies and competition foster
more intensive use of public rights-of-way by multiple users.
This, in turn, requires more intensive management of the
rights-of-way to ensure orderly use, maintenance of public
safety, reliable delivery of essential services and equitable •
f .,
treatment of all users. tos
• Availability of and demand for a variety of telecommunica-
tions services and delivery technologies has dramatically
increased the demand for use of the rights-of-way.
• The local government obligation to ensure the orderly and
efficient use of this limited resource among multiple users and to treat all users fairly while pre-
serving public safety, essential services and economical access to its own facilities, has added
greatly to the complexity of modern rights-of-way management by local government.
• Increasing demand for use of public rights-of-way is causing, and will continue to cause, local
governments to expand management services and responsibilities. This includes more frequent
inspections, repairs, and repaving, sophisticated mapping technologies and systems (GIS,
SCADA) and increased personnel.
C. Grant of Authority: A grant of authority from local government is the traditional and accepted
means for persons to obtain permission to construct, occupy and maintain facilities in the public
rights-of-way.
• Local government cannot continue to have responsibility to maintain and manage the public
rights-of-way without continued authority to do so effectively.
• Ordinances describing the terms for the use of the public rights-of-way benefit all users and
assure that appropriate ground rules for construction, occupancy and maintenance in the rights-
of-way are uniformly applied without discriminating against any user.
• It is critical for local government to have the flexibility to adapt its regulations to the local geo-
graphic conditions, type of services and the unique business plans of each class of user in the
rights-of-way.
• A grant of authority at the local level guarantees that local governments can coordinate activities
within the rights-of-way and ensure the integrity of services which often impact health, safety
and security of the local citizenry.
Principle#2 - Rights-of-Way Compensation: Commercial use of public property for private profit
requires EQUITABLE, fair,AND reasonable compensation FOR ITS USE.
Nothing in the Act affects the authority of a local government to require fair and reasonable compensa-
tion from telecommunications providers on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use
of public rights-of-way, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government. [47
U.S.C. §253]
A. Investment: Community investment in local rights-of-way is a significant expenditure of taxpayer
funds.
23
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way;
• Local government is entrusted with a duty to protect the investment and ensure that its use for
private purposes provides a fair return to the taxpayers who have invested in it.
• Local governments have a fiduciary responsibility and duty to establish a fee schedule that will
recover all immediate and long-term capital and operating costs and provide a reasonable return
on the public investment in the rights-of-way.
• Local government must be compensated not only for the costs of the management of the
rights-of-way, in part caused by the users, but also in consideration of the public investment and
ongoing operating costs.
• If fees from users do not recover all direct and indirect costs, then taxpayers ultimately subsi-
dize selected users of the rights-of-way, which is contrary to the local government duty, and can
result in inequitable treatment of users.
• Fees for rights-of-way use are typically 'passed through' to the consumers of a service in pro-
portion to the amount of service received. Thus, fees for the commercial use of the public
rights-of-way do not constitute a burdensome general tax, but instead are charges imposed on
the commercial user who may pass it on to those who purchase the service. The alternative to
this approach, as it relates to recovering the costs of private use of public rights-of-way, is to
charge a general tax which would then be a cost to users and non-users alike.
B. Local Government Duty: Local government has a duty under general legal principles governing
property rights not to give away public property for private use without just compensation.
Taxpayers expect their local government to abide by these principles.
• There are numerous examples of taxpayer insistence that local government not subsidize pri-
vate endeavors with taxpayer funds.
• Receiving a payment for use and occupancy of the public rights-of-way without consideration of
its value would result in giving away public land for private use and gain.
• Limiting compensation to the recovery of costs would also result in giving away public land for
private use and gain.
C. Compensation for Rights-of-Way Use is Not Unique: Private use of rights-of-way owned by local
government is comparable to private use of property owned by other governmental units, for which
compensation is expected and not questioned.
• In order for finite and scarce public resources to be used for commercial purposes, government
units, as a standard practice, require reasonable compensation from the commercial user of the
resource. For example:
The FCC, recognizing the limited availability of spectrum needed for personal com-
munications services, utilized an auction process requiring payments considerably in
excess of the FCC's cost for holding those auctions, but instead giving recognition
to the value of the property rights being auctioned.
State and federal governments have traditionally expected and received fair market value pay-
ment for the sale and/or lease of properties.
• Just as the telecommunications industry currently charges local governments fair market value,
not just direct cost recovery, for use of commercial services or facilities (like conduits), local
governments should receive compensation based on the value of the public land used.
D. Distinctions Among Users: The various users (gas, electric, cable TV, telecommunications, water,
sewer) of the public rights-of-way use the rights-of-way in dissimilar ways and pose different con-
cerns to local government management. Therefore, it is an oversimplification to suggest that all
rights-of-way use can be, or should be, treated in precisely the same way.
24
Resources
Principle#3 - Competition: Both public and private entities have a role to play in delivery of
advanced telecommunications services to all Americans.
No state legal requirement may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to pro-
vide or interstate or intrastate telecommunications service. [47 U.S.C. §253J
A. Local Ownership: Local governments play a unique role in community and economic development
which require their involvement in insuring the availability of essential universal services, such as
gas, electric, sewer, as well as telecommunications. As public agencies, local governments in part-
nerships with other public or private entities, or by themselves, should have the unfettered right to
construct telecommunications infrastructure and provide telecommunications services for their citi-
zens.
• There should be no distinction between telecommunications utilities and other types of utilities,
such as electric, where local governments build systems to serve under-served communities
(20% of electric utilities in the United States are government-owned and operated).
B. Community Needs: State legislation limiting local government ownership will frustrate federal ini-
tiatives to develop internet services and interconnectivity for such locally-implemented programs as
distance learning and telemedicine.
• The availability of affordable telecommunications services to all Americans is a goal of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, the accomplishment of which will encourage the broad dis-
semination of information and knowledge, spur economic development, create more equal
opportunity for all citizens and strengthen our democratic traditions.
• The uneven or inequitable provision of telecommunications, going forward, will increase dispari-
ty of growth and opportunity among our citizens and undermine the goals of the
Telecommunications Act as well as our democratic institutions.
C. Availability of Services: Competitive telecommunications providers, under the
Telecommunications Act, are not obliged to serve all communities or all portions of a single commu-
nity in which they wish to do business. Decisions by private sector companies for deployment of
telecommunications services are based on concerns about shareholders and profit potential, not
broad community development goals.
• Where private sector entities choose not to construct facilities or provide services, public enti-
ties must be empowered to fulfill basic needs.
• Where private telecommunications services do
exist, provision of similar services by public enti
ties can enhance competition, resulting in more ,, 4 rt
choice, better service and lower prices. ,. r
• Private entities should be encouraged, and local
governments should be allowed, to build
telecommunications networks, providing
advanced telecommunications services, where "
necessary such as to less dense or non-urban
areas and to offer these services at affordable
rates in order to meet the stated goals of theeff „IV -.
Telecommunications Act.
25
it Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way;
Principle#4 - Federal/State/Local Partnership: Federal, state, and local governments each have a
role in ENSURING the goals of the Telecommunications Act are attained and each must RESPECT
the authority of the others.
FCC Local and State Government Advisory Committee in its policy statements states:
The FCC and state and local governments should assume the mutual burden of educating the other par-
ties in their respective areas of expertise. Regulation, preemption, and formal legal action against anoth-
er level of government should be the last, not the first, recourse to resolve conflicting interest.
Cooperation: It should be the exception, not the rule, for one governmental unit to limit the tradi-
tional authority of another governmental unit.
• The greatest amount of benefit from the Telecommunications Act can be achieved only by joint
and cooperative effort among all units of government.
• Continued adherence to this long-established practice will facilitate, rather than obstruct, the
orderly deployment of competitive telecommunications services in our communities, and bring
the benefits of both new technologies and new competition to the greatest number of
Americans.
• Proposed regulatory approaches by one governmental unit which forces another into an adver-
sarial atmosphere with private industry is not conducive to rapid telecommunications deploy-
ment.
• Tinkering with delicately-balanced traditional local authority can have an effect that results in
unintended consequences.
Summary
The purpose of the foregoing document has been to clearly enunciate principles relating to local govern-
ment management of rights-of-way and ownership of telecommunications systems in the wake of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.
This document does not suggest newly-crafted principles, but simply restates, in the modern context,
long-standing principles with foundation in federal and state law, tradition and daily practice. These prin-
ciples are re-affirmed in the Telecommunications Act.
It is our hope that this document will bring greater understanding to the legitimate and important role of
local governments as it relates to rights-of-way management, specifically, and to the exciting future of
telecommunications, generally.
In this vein, we encourage local governments to
study these principles and reference them readily ` y *
with those responsible for policy and legislation in
your state. .; ?'
26
•
Resources
Select Rulings2
The Courts and Section 253:
• TCG New York,Inc. v. City of White Plains, 125 F. Supp. 2d 81 (S.D.N.Y. 2001). Court upheld
compensation requirements including 5% of gross revenues; a minimum annual fee; reimbursement for
costs; and an in-kind requirement for conduit constructed for the city by TCG. However, it also held that
burdensome application requirements plus a lengthy approval process could constitute a prohibition on
entry triggering Section 253(a). The case is currently on appeal before the US Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. City of Mobile, 2001 WL 394909 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 30,
2001); appeal dismissed, No. 01-13218-C (11th Cir. August 30, 2001). Court upheld the city telecommu-
nications permit ordinance which required only fees explicitly covering administrative costs. The regula-
tory provisions are confined to quintessential rights-of-way management issues including universal per-
mitting; bundled permitting; increased permit fees and restoration standards.
• City of Auburn v. Qwest Corporation, 247 F. 3d 966 (9th Cir. 2001),—cert. denied _U.S._
(Jan. 7, 2002). Washington cities sought a declaration from the lower court that US West must pay
relocation costs for the necessary relocation of its facilities along the public rights-of-way to facilitate
public improvement projects. Qwest counter claimed that federal and state law preempted the rights-
of-way/telecommunications ordinances of these cities. The Federal District Court ruled in favor of the
cities' relocation claim and decided not to rule on the counterclaim, finding that the challenge of the
ordinances was not "ripe" for court action. Qwest appealed that decision to the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the cities, upholding the lower court
decision regarding the relocation issue. However the court, believing the challenge of the ordinances
was ripe, and despite the fact that there was no fact-finding below, ruled in favor of Qwest regarding its
§253 counterclaim. The court stated that the cities' telecommunications rights-of-way ordinances were
preempted under Section 253 the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Washington State law
enacted Senate Bill 6676, effective June 2000. The court subsequently denied a petition for rehearing,
but made several amendments to the original opinion, including a finding that franchise requirements
are not per se preempted under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996.
• TGC Detroit v. City of Dearborn, 206 F.3d 618(6th Cir. 2000).Telecommunications provider
brought action against city alleging that city's requirement that provider pay city a franchise fee for privi-
lege of laying fiber optic cable within city limits violated the Federal Telecommunications Act, and alleg-
ing that city discriminated in favor of existing provider. The city then brought a third-party claim against
the incumbent provider after it refused to pay franchise fee demanded by city. The court of appeals held
that: (1) the Act implies a private right of action for alleged barrier-to-entry injury; (2) the franchise fee
(4% gross receipt and a $50,000 initial payment) assessed against proposed provider was fair and rea-
sonable and was nondiscriminatory; and (3) the original franchise obtained by incumbent provider's
predecessor precluded the city's assessment of franchise fee against that provider.
2 The reader is advised that these are only a select sample of cases decided at the time of the preparation of this guide.The reader should not
rely upon the information summarized herein,or rely upon the status of the cases being summarized.All due diligence should be used in ascer-
taining the individual legal status of any course of litigation being referred to herein.
27
(Telecommurncatlons Rights-of-Wa)j
• GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 950 F. Supp. 968 (D. Ariz. 1996). Section 253(c)
does not grant GST Tucson Lightwave, Inc. a private right of action against the City of Tucson.
• AT&T Communications of the Southwest. Inc. v. City of Austin,975 F. Supp.928 (W.D.Tex.
1997), vacated at moot, 235 F.3d 241, (5th Cir. 2000). District court held that 253 does not grant FCC
exclusive jurisdiction over AT&T's challenge to local ordinance which requires a telecommunications
operator to obtain consent from local government before offering telecommunications services. Court
rejects notion that a provider that does not install or own facilities in the city's rights-of-way is "using"
the rights-of-way. In a subsequent related proceeding, court issues permanent injunction against
enforcement of city's ordinance with respect to AT&T. The Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated this deci-
sion as moot.
• City of Chattanooga v. BellSouth Communications, 1 F. Supp.2d 809(E.D.Tenn. 1998). BellSouth
claimed that City's franchise fee was a tax and violated Section 253. Court determined that federal law
prevented it from considering state law tax claim. Court concluded that state court had jurisdiction over
the tax claim and concurrent jurisdiction over Section 253 claim. Court remanded matter to state court.
On remand, the state trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of BellSouth, and the
Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed on state law grounds. See City of Chattanooga v. BellSouth
Communications, No. El 999-01 573-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 122199 (Tenn. Ct.App. Jan. 26, 2000).The
court of appeals held that a franchise fee based upon a percentage of gross revenue or on a per foot
charge is not a tax impermissible under Tennessee law.
• AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 8 F. Supp. 2d 582 (N.D.Tex.
1998), vacated as moot, 243 F. 3d 928, on rehearing, 249 F. 3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001). U.S. District Court
upheld Dallas' requirement that AT&T obtain a franchise and pay a reasonable franchise fee based on
the use of the city rights-of-way for company's planned use of its existing fiber optic facilities to provide
a new service called "AT&T Digital Link." Court held Dallas does not have power under state and federal
law to require a comprehensive franchise application, to consider factors such as company's technical
and organizational qualifications, or to place conditions on the franchise unrelated to use of the city's
rights-of-way. Court noted that Section 253 does not require a city to impose same fee on all providers.
In a related case, court granted preliminary injunction against enforcement of city's ordinance with
respect to a telecommunications provider that does not install or own facilities in public rights-of-way.
AT&T Communications of the Southwest, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 52 F. Supp.2d 756 (N.D. Tex. 1998). The
Fifth Circuit subsequently vacated these decisions as moot.
• AT&T Communications of the Southwest. Inc. v. City of Dallas, 52 F. Supp.2d 763 (N.D.Tex.
1999). vacated as moot, 243 F. 3d 928, on rehearing, 249 F. 3d 336 (5th Cir. 2001). U.S. District Court
awarded AT&T and Teligent, a wireless providers, final declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, hold-
ing that Section 253 preempts the city's imposition of franchise requirements. The Fifth Circuit subse-
quently vacated as moot this decision, except as it applies to the wireless provider Teligent.
• BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach,and BellSouth
Telecommunications Inc., v. City of Coral Springs, affirmed in part, reversed in part,252 F. 3d 1169
(11th Cir. 2001). The decision affirms the District Court's judgment in part; reverses in part; and
remands to the district judge for further proceedings. The opinion analyzes key provisions of the two
rights-of-way ordinances on a section-by-section basis. The opinion finds certain portions of the Coral
Springs and Palm Beach ordinances pre-empted by Florida state law Section 337.401, as subsequently
enacted by the legislature, as to telecommunications companies only. The balance of the ordinances
28
Resources
seem to be upheld under state law. With respect to federal preemption, the court upholds the munici-
palities' contention that Section 253(c) is a safe harbor and does not create a duty or limitation on
municipal authority to regulate uses of municipal rights-of-way. Subsections (b) and (c) were added to
the statute to preserve, rather than to limit, state and local government authority. The opinion seems to
hold that Section 253(c) creates a private cause of action for preemption only as to management of pub-
lic rights-of-way; all other causes of action must be brought to the FCC. Accordingly, the court has
remanded the cases to the district court to determine, sequentially, whether the provisions of the ordi-
nances held valid under state law are pre-empted by Section 253(a) and, if so, whether they come with-
in Section 253(c). The appellate court has pointed to the validation of the right-of-way management pro-
visions in its state-law analysis. Rejecting BellSouth's contention, the 11th Circuit directs that district
court may not reach the subsection (c) safe harbor without at least a prima facie showing of violation of
subsection (a). The 11th Circuit goes on to direct the district court to reconsider the severability issue
in light of the appellate court's determination as to pre-emption under state and federal law. The coun-
terclaims by the Cities are remand-
ed for reconsideration in light of the
foregoing determinations. " ,
• Bell Atlantic-Maryland. Inc., v.
Prince George's County, 49 F. " :*-r �
Supp.2d 805 (D. Md. 1999), vacated
and remanded, 212 F. 3d 863 (4th
,40
Cir. 2000). District court held that
any process for entry that imposes e
burdensome requirements on
telecommunications companies and ` 'p � " ' 'I
vests significant discretion in local
governments to grant or deny per
mission to use rights-of-way may
have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of telecommunications
services in violation of Section 253.
Also, the court held that local governments may not set franchise fees above a level that is reasonably
calculated to compensate for the costs of administering franchise programs and of maintaining and
improving public rights-of-way. Finally, the court held that unless a telecommunications company doing
business in the county physically impacts the rights-of-way by installing, modifying or removing lines
and facilities, it is not "using" the rights-of-way within the meaning of Section 253(c).
• Bell Atlantic Maryland, Inc. v. Prince George's County, 212 F.3d 863 (4th Cir. 2000). The court of
appeals vacated a district court opinion that had ruled a county rights-of-way management ordinance
violated § 253 because the district court had, in violation of binding precedent, decided a federal consti-
tutional issue first without examining the validity of the ordinance under state law.
• Iowa Telephone Association v. City of Hawarden, 589 N.W.2d 245 (Iowa 1999). Supreme Court
of Iowa held that Section 253(a) does not preempt state law prohibiting political subdivisions in Iowa
from offering local telephone service. The Court followed the reasoning of a recent FCC decision, which
held that a municipality was not an "entity" within the meaning of Section 253(a). Id. at 252-53 (citing In
re Public Utility Commission of Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 3460 (1997), aff'd
sub nom. City of Abilene v. FCC 164 F.3d 49, 53 (D.C. Cir. 1999), discussed below). The Court, nonethe-
29
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way,
less, held that the state law was preempted by Section 541 (b)(3)(B), which precludes a franchising
authority from imposing requirements that have the effect of prohibiting the provision of telecommuni-
cations service by a cable operator, including a city utility that operates a cable system.
• Cablevision of Boston Inc. v. Public Improvement Commission of Boston, 184 F.3d 88 (1st Cir.
1999). Court affirmed district court's denial of Cablevision's motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin
the City of Boston from granting any additional or amended permits to use public rights-of-way.
Cablevision's motion sought to prevent telecommunications operators from, among other things, using
existing cable for new purposes. Court held 'competitively neutral" in Section 253(c) imposes, at most, a
negative restriction on local authorities' management of rights-of-way. Therefore, Section 253(c) does
not require local authorities to purposefully seek out opportunities to encourage competition.
• Omnipoint Communications. Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, No.99
Civ. 0060(BJS), 1999 WL 494120 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 1999). District court denied wireless communica-
tions services provider's motion for a preliminary injunction to mandate that the Port Authority allow
installation of antennae at JFK airport and the Lincoln and Holland tunnels. Omnipoint failed to show a
clear or substantial likelihood that it would succeed under Section 253 because negotiations regarding
the fee for rights-of-way use had not concluded. The court expressly disagreed with the Bell Atlantic
district court and held that "fair and reasonable compensation" under §253(c) is not restricted to cost
reimbursement. The court found that the proposed terms did not unreasonably discriminate against
Omnipoint. Finally, the court held that the Port Authority's objections to installing antennae in the tun-
nels were permitted management functions under Section 253(c).
• BellSouth Telecommunications. Inc. v. City of Orangeburg, 522 S.E.2d 804 (S.C. 1999), rehear-
ing denied. Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld Orangeburg's authority to charge a telecommunica-
tions franchise fee of 5% of BellSouth's gross revenue within the city and a one-time administrative fee
for BellSouth's use of the city's public rights-of-way. Court held that a franchise fee amounting to a per-
centage of the telecommunications company's revenue within the city is "not inherently unfair or unrea-
sonable," absent evidence to the contrary. Id. at 808.
• RT Communications. Inc. v. FCC, Nos. 98-9541, 98-9542, 201 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2000). Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an FCC order that preempted pursuant to Section 253 a Wyoming
statute granting competition protection to small incumbent providers.
See In re Silver Star Telephone Company. Inc., Petition for Preemption
and Declaratory Ruling, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd.
15639 (1997). Under the Wyoming statute, competing firms could
compete if the incumbent LEC: (1) consented; (2) was unwilling or
unable to provide adequate service; (3) failed to protest the concurrent
application; (4) had applied for or was providing concurrent service in
another exchange; or (5) was providing cable radio or video services.
See Wyo. Stat. Ann. a 37-15-201(c). Applying a deferential standard of '
review, court held that FCC's interpretation of "competitively neutral" `
was proper. Court also held that FCC's complete preemption was "nec-
essary" within the meaning of Section 253(d). _ ~ "'
t
• PECO Energy Co. v. Township of Haverford, No. 994766, 1999 r
WL 1240941 (E.D. Pa. Dec.20, 1999). District court held township's
ordinance requiring a franchise agreement for use of rights-of-way vio-
lated Sections 253 because the ordinance was not limited to regulation
30
Resources
of the public rights-of-way. The ordinance imposed (1) application and hearing fees; (2) annual fees for
all cable, "OVS," or telecommunications service providers occupying public rights-of-way; (3) annual per-
lineal-foot fees from communications service providers; and (4) franchise and license fees. Because the
fees were not specified and the Township Manager had complete discretion to grant or deny a fran-
chise, court found that ordinance did not fall within the "safe harbor" of Section 253(c) and violated
Section 253(a).
• City of Dallas v. Metropolitan Fiber Systems of Dallas, Inc. No. CIV.A398CV2128R, 2000 WL
198104 (N.D. Tex. Feb.17, 2000). City sued to collect money owed under a franchise agreement and
telecommunications providers counterclaimed that the franchise agreement was preempted under
Section 253. Court denied telecommunications providers' motion for summary judgment, holding that
Section 253 does not preempt franchise agree-
.....
ment. Court distinguished the case at bar from
= other Section 253 decisions issued by the
_,: Northern District of Texas in the three AT&T
Communications of the Southwest v. City of
, Dallas cases, which are discussed above. Unlike
the AT&T cases in which city attempted to force
new telecommunications providers to enter into
franchise agreements after the 1996 Act had
been passed, in the instant case, city was
attempting to enforce a franchise agreement
entered before passage of the 1996 Act. Because
providers had voluntarily agreed to the franchise
requirements they challenged, the court held that
franchise agreement could not have constituted a
barrier to entry under Section 253.
• City of Sunset Hills v. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, No. ED 75748, 1999 WL 1215880
(Mo. Ct. App. Dec.21, 1999). Court upheld city's ordinance that required communications companies to
obtain business license and pay annual business license fee per telecommunications antennae main-
tained in the city. SBMS alleged that the ordinance violated Sections 253 and 332. Court held that ordi-
nance did not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting telecommunications company from doing busi-
ness in the city.
• City of Gary v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., 732 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 2000). A city imposed a revenue-based
fee on all telecommunications city rights-of-way. The fee was to be calculated in one of three assess-
ments of the city's requirements; (2) a percentage of gross to exceed 15%; or (3) a growth factor calcu-
lated from provider's revenues multiplied by the previous year's fee. Ameritech sought a declaratory
judgment that the city ordinance be declared void as beyond the scope of the city's municipal powers.
Ameritech Indiana received summary judgment, and the city appealed. The Indiana Supreme Court held
city was entitled to reasonable, non-cost-based compensation until the effective date of a state statute
which prevented the city from collecting such a fee.
• AT& T of Portland, 216 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2000) Local government conditioned approval of cable
franchise transfer on an open access agreement. AT&T filed suit. The Ninth Circuit held that Internet
access over cable broadband is a telecommunications service under the Communication Act. Therefore,
the City of Portland was improperly regulating such service through its cable franchising authority.
31
ITelecomrnunications & Rights-of-Way;
• MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Public Service Com'n, 216 '"
F.3d 929 (10th Cir. 2000). The incumbent local exchange carrier
sought injunctive and relief against other communications compa-
nies, the Utah Public Service Commission, and its individual commis-
sioners, after the UPSC approved certain interconnection agree-
ments. The court determined that § 253 effectively struck down all
state-granted monopolies that had been given to local exchange
companies because § 253 prohibits all state statues and regulations
that impede "the ability of any entity to provide any interstate of
intrastate telecommunications service.`
• Gulf Power Co. v. FCC, 208 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir 2000) ("Gulf •
II"), reversed and remanded, U.S. (U.S. Jan. 16, 2002).
Power companies nationwide filed petitions challenging the FCC's
pole attachment rates, claiming the FCC had no authority to regulate
wireless carriers under the 1996 Act. The Eleventh Circuit held the
FCC does not have authority to regulate placement of wireless carri-
ers equipment under § 224 of the Pole Attachment Act. The Court
also held that the FCC had no authority to regulate pole attachments
for internet providers on the basis that internet services were distinct from cable and telecommunica-
tions services. Finally, the Court upheld the FCC's decision not to count dark fibers for purpose of
attachment charges as an additional attaching entity. The Supreme Court has reversed this decision.
• Gulf Power Co. v. United States, ., 187 F.3d 1324 (11 W Cir. 1999) ("Gulf I"). Several electric utility
companies sued the United States and the FCC in federal district court, alleging the pole attachment
provisions in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 violated the Fifth Amendment because they caused a
taking of the utility companies' property without ensuring just compensation. Affirming summary judg-
ment for the defendants, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that the Act did not deny the utilities an ade-
quate process, but instead provides a constitutionally adequate process for ensuring utility companies
receive just compensation.
• New Jersey Payphone Association, Inc. v. Town of West New York, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2478
(D.N.J., March 7, 2001). The court preempted ordinance of the Town of West New York, New Jersey
establishing an exclusive franchise for the placement of payphones in the public rights-of-way and
obtaining compensation as a percentage of the providers' gross revenues. The court found the exclu-
sive franchise was a "barrier to entry" in violation of Section 253(a), and rejected the claim that the
"compensation" method was reasonable. The court held that "fair and reasonable compensation" is
limited to "recoupment of costs directly incurred through the use of the public rights-of-way." In declin-
ing to follow White Plains, Omnipoint, and Dearborn, the court stated that "a fee that does more than
make a municipality whole is not compensatory in the literal sense, and risks becoming an economic
barrier to entry."
32
Resources
Federal Communications Commission Actionsi
• In re Classic Telephone Inc.:Petition for Preemption of Local Entry Barriers Pursuant to 47
U.S.C. ❑253(d), Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 13,082 (1996), appeal filed sub nom.
City of Boaue. Kansas v. FCC, No.96-1432, 1997 WL 68331 (D.C. Cir. Jan.14, 1997) (holding appeal in
abeyance pending Commission action). FCC clarified that to the extent authorized under state law, local
governments have authority to require franchises from telecommunications service providers and exer-
cise authority pursuant to Section 253(b); FCC concluded that manner in which certain franchise require-
ments were implemented by the cities in the Classic case was preempted by Section 253(a).
• In re California Payphone Association Petition, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd.
14,191 (1997). Commission dismissed Section 253 challenge to city ordinance which prohibited pay-
phones on private property in business district unless located completely within an enclosed leasable
building and more than ten feet from any pedestrian opening into a building.
• In re TCI Cablevision of Oakland County. Inc.:Petition for Declaratory Ruling. Preemption and
Other Relief, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd. 21,396 (1997), partial recons. denied,
Order of Reconsideration, 13 FCC Rcd. 16,400 (1998). FCC held that City of Troy, Michigan placed a
telecommunications condition on its grant of cable permits in violation of Title VI. FCC declined to pre-
empt local ordinance pursuant to Section 253.
• In re Public Utility Commission of Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 3460
(1997) review denied sub nom. City of Abilene v. FCC 164 F.3d 49(D.C. Cir. 1999). FCC did not preempt
enforcement of a state statutory prohibition on provision of telecommunications services by a munich
pality. FCC held that municipalities are not separate entities from a state for purposes of applying
Section 253(a).
• In re Chibardun Telephone Coop. Petition for Preemption Pursuant to Section 253 of the
Communications Act of 1934, Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 9504 (1998). FCC terminated - preemption pro-
ceeding after Chibardun submitted a withdrawal letter dated May 7, 1998. Chibardun had claimed that
City of Rice Lake, Wisconsin violated Section 253 by: (a) refusing to grant excavation permits for con-
struction of telecommunications facilities; and (b) imposing anti-competitive and discriminatory rights of
way requirements and fees on entities seeking to compete in local telecommunications market. City's
subsequent grant of permits rendered Chibardun's petition moot.
• In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association,
Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd. 11,795 (1997). Commission tentatively concluded that unlimited moratoria
on the siting of wireless telecommunications facilities may constitute an impermissible barrier into local
telecommunications market; Commission indicated that Section 253 does not preempt necessarily
moratoria of short and fixed terms. Subsequently, the Commission's Local and State Government
Advisory Committee and organizations representing the wireless telecommunications industry reached
an agreement which (1) establishes guidelines for facilities siting implementation; and (2) adopts an
informal dispute resolution process. As a result of this agreement, CTIA withdrew its petition.
Agreement of FCC Local and State Government Advisory Committee, the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association, the Personal Communications Industry Association and the American Mobile
Telecommunications Association, 1998 WL 442941 (Aug. 5, 1998).
33
Telecommunications & Rights-of-Way'
• Suggested Guidelines for Petitions for Ruling ,
Under Section 253 of the Communications Act,
Public Notice, 13 FCC Rcd. 22,970 (1998). The FCC
issued suggested guidelines to assist petitioners in
filing for Commission relief pursuant to Section 253. j
The Public Notice contains background on Section
253, suggested content of petitions and replies, ' F�
time frame for proceedings, and procedural filing ,
requirements.
• In re Petition of the State of Minnesota for MP
a
Declaratory Ruling Regarding the Effect of -
Section 253 on an Agreement to Install Fiber
Optic Wholesale Transport Capacity in State Freeway Rights-of-Way, CC Dkt No.981, 1999 WL
1244016 (Dec.23, 1999). Minnesota sought a declaratory ruling that its plan to grant a provider of
wholesale fiber optic transport capacity exclusive access to State freeway rights does not violate
Section 253 because proposal requires provider, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis,
to (1) install fiber capacity owned by third parties and (2) make capacity of its own system available
through purchase and/or lease to all interested telecommunications service providers. FCC declined to
endorse the agreement because the exclusive nature of the agreement may have the effect of prohibit-
ing the provision of a telecommunications service. FCC held that Section 253 applied to the agreement
but declined to preempt Minnesota's authority to grant the exclusive rights. Instead, FCC concluded
that the provider's implementation of the agreement might mitigate the FCC's anti-competitive con-
cerns. FCC thus warned that it would scrutinize the agreement's implementation in considering subse-
quent preemption petitions.
• In re Pittencrieff Communications, 13 FCC Rcd 1735 (1997),pet. for review denied sub nom.
CTIA v. FCC, 168 F. 3d 1332 (D.C. Cir. 1999). FCC ruled that gross-revenue based fee imposed on wire-
less carriers by State of Texas did not violate §253 because carriers made no showing that fee had the
effect of prohibiting their ability to provide service.
34
Resources
Resources Available over the World Wide Web
The Internet can provide an overwhelming amount of information for those looking for ideas over the
World Wide Web. The National associations, National League of Cities, National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, National Association of Counties and the United States
Conference of Mayors who created this Guide all have an on-line presence and all offer varying degrees
of assistance to their members and constituents on rights-of-way issues. In addition, there are other
associations and entities that provide information on this subject with specific emphasis on their own
interests. By listing the references below, the authors do not endorse or recommend one resource
over another. Rather, the below listings are provided for convenience and consideration as local govern-
ments develop and refine their rights-of-way management and policies.
National Associations
National League of Cities: www.nlc.org
National Association of Telecommunications Officers &Advisors: www.natoa.org
National Association of Counties: www.naco.org
United States Conference of Mayors: www.usmayors.org
International Municipal Lawyers Association: www.imla.org
American Public Works Association: www.apwa.org
American Public Power Association: www.appa.org
In addition to the above national associations, many also have regional or state chapters or organizations
that may be available to assist a local government within their region. Please visit the national associa-
tions Web pages to locate your state or regional group.
Municipal Codes,Ordinances and Models:
Municipal Code Locator: www.municode.com
PBC On-Line Ordinances: www.ordlink.com
American Legal Ordinances: http://www.amlegal.com/
Municipal Research &Services Center: http://www.mrsc.org/legal/telecomm/tcapage.htm
Greater Metro Telecommunications Consortium: www.gmtc.org/models.htm
Association of Bay Area Governments: www.abag.va.gov/bayarea/telco/samples.html
Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues: http://www.tccfui.org/
Illinois Municipal League: www.iml.org
Florida League of Cities Model Communications Franchise: www.fl-counties.com/pdf/ordinance.pdf
Utah League of Cities and Towns Model Telecom ROW Ordinance:
www.ulct.org/legislative/task_forces/telecommunications/orw.html
Municipal Association of South Carolina Model ROW Excavation Ordinance:
http://masc.state.sc.us/legislative/ROWexcavationordinance.htm
35
(Teiecommuncations &Rights-of-Way)
Lacey,WA Telecommunications ROW Ordinance: http://www.mrsc.org/ords/g-I/132o1114.htm
Eugene, OR—Telecommunications Plan and Ordinance:
http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/telecom/mainpg.htm
Orem, Utah —Telecommunications ROW Ordinance:
http://168.177.93.4/down load/pdf/citycode/C ha p_25.pdf
Baker City, OR—ROW Ordinance: http://www.bakercity.com/2001/ords/ORD_3112.pdf
Fairfax City,VA Telecom Licenses to use ROW:
http://www.ci.fairfax.va.us/Services/Publ icWorks/Franchises_and_Licenses.htm
Salem, OR Proposed Telecom and ROW Ordinance: http://www.open.org/—sfinance/telecom_ord-sr.htm
Southwest Region Planning Commission, Kenne, NH - Model Ordinance:
http://www.mgplanning.com/Telecommunications/southwest_rpc_ordinance.htm
Mobile,AL ROW Construction and Administration Ordinance:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/MobileROWOrdinance.pdf
League of Minnesota Cities:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/leagueofMN.pdf
Maine Chapter,American Public Works Association:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/maine.pdf
Austin,TX:Telecommunications Services Ordinance: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/telecom/stdord1.htm
Eugene, Oregon: http://www.ci.eugene.or.us/telecom/mainpg.htm
Sample Franchise Agreements
Daly City,CA: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/telco/rcn_cablesystem.pdf
San Mateo, CA: http://www.abag.ca.gov/bayarea/telco/rcn_agreement.pdf
Edgewood,WA: http://www.mrsc.org/ords/a-f/e29o00-0160.htm
Cincinnati, OH, Department of Transportation and Engineering:
http://www.rcc.org/transeng/franchiseutility.pdf
Information relating to Telecommunications Plans/Resolutions/Local Actions
City and County of San Francisco, CA Telecommunications Plan:
http://www.sfgov.org/telecommunications_commission/res01-025.htm;
see also http://www.sfgov.org/telecommunications_commission/plan.htm
Dayton, Ohio,Telecommunications Report and Plan:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/DaytonTelecomRptPln.pdf
Springsted Inc. Model Public ROW Cost Recovery Plan:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/MARCStudy.PD
Using Utility Fees as Cost Recovery and Revenue Opportunity for ROW Use
Lorne Ross Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in Ontario, Canada
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/cost.pdf ---
36
Resources
Federation of Canadian Municipalities-
Valuation Of Street ROW Used For Telecommunications Facilities:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/row-val.pdf
Suggested Improvements to Cincinnati's Permit Fee Structure for Street ROW
Rajagopai Arudi,The Cincinnati Infrastructure Institute, University of Cincinnati:
http://www.rcc.org/transeng/ucstudy.pdf
Financial Management Association -
Documenting and Calculating Municipal Costs Relating to ROW Management:
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/row-ou1.pdf
ROW Management: Regional Approach
Dean Katerndahl, Manager, Government Innovations Forum, Mid-America Regional Council:
http://munitelecom.org/v1i1/Katerndahl.html
Street Cut Manuals
San Antonio,Texas:
http://www.ci.sat.tx.us/pubwrks/stpermit.htm
Impact of Utility Trenching on Pavement Performance in Ottawa-Carleton
Lorne A. Ross, Manager Surface Projects Branch, Region of Ottawa-Carleton, Canada
http://www.apwa.net/documents/organization/Lee_Lauter2_Apr00.pdf
Telecommunications and ROW Information Sources
Overview of Municipal Telecommunications
Brian Moura,Assistant City Manager, City of San Carlos, California
Chairman,San Mateo County Telecommunications Authority(SAMCAT)
http://munitelecom.org/v1i1Moura.html
Franchising Articles:
Franchises: When are they Appropriate?
Nicholas Miller, Law Firm of Miller&Van Eaton (Washington DC)
http://www.millervaneaton.com/briefs_memos/macta_keynote.doc
Cable Franchise Renewal:How Cities Big and Small are Bargaining for More
International City/County Management Association
http://www.icma.org/documents/index.cfm?code=%26%2B%40%5C%23W%25XN%0A&hdr=1 QAb&F
ree=yes
Cable Franchise Renewal and Local ROW Management
James N. Horwood of the law firm of Spiegal &McDiarmid
http://www.spiegelmcd.com/halli.htm
Statement of Nicholas P. Miller on AB 1150, Regarding the Compensation and Use of Public
Rights-of-Way by Telecommunications Companies Before The Assembly Business and
Professions Committee,the State of California, September 28, 2001, Santa Ana, California.
http://www.millervaneaton.com/word_docs/NPM00642.DOC
37
(Telecommunications & Rights-of-Wa i
Other Written Resources/Sites
Local Government Principles Relating to Rights-of-Way
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/details.html?id=57
Telecommunications in Local Government Survey
International City/County Management Association
http://www.icma.org/go.cfm?cid=4&gid=20&sid=41&did=631
Policy Statement on State and Local ROW
FCC Local and State Government Advisory Committee
http://www.fcc.gov/statelocal/recommendationl.htnnl
Municipal Regulation of Cable Modem Service
Neil J. Lehto, O'Reilly, Rancilio, Nitz,Andrews&Turnbull,.P.C. (Sterling Heights, Michigan)
http://munitelecom.org/v1i1/Lehto.htmr
The Center for Municipal Telecommunication and Cable TV Solutions
http://www.telecomsol.com/
Competitive Telecommunications:How to Thrive Under the Telecommunications Act
Peter K. Heldman, et al; hardcover
After the Breakup: US Telecommunications: US Telecommunications in a More Competitive Era
Robert W. Crandall, Charles L. Schultz (Contributor); paperback
•
38
A Final Note...
A Tale of the Goose and the Gander...Spectrum and Rhodes '
s nce upon a time-in a city far,away across the Potomac lived a goose named'Spectrum' Spectrum was a very large goose which
'(being fed a regular diet of modem technology)kept getting bigger and bigger and bigger until she was a very large goose indeed.
After awhile,,she could"produce more geese with little effort*lots more little Spectrums to join her.flock. Her owners,the People of the,'.
Valley of the Potomac,mode a great deal of money Off Mother Spectrum by selling tier little Spectrums every now and then.;This wascon
sidered a good'andwise thing to do because Spectrum could always produce more. It was almost like cloning. Butthe best thing about:
• Spectrum was that she didn't cost very much in the way of care or maintenance to keep producing. Mostly,her owner had to keep the little
Spectrums from tripping overtone another,and feed Mother Spectrum some green stuff and technology to keep her growing and producing."
•
Outside the Valley of the Potomac,in many other places,,there were other kinds of Owners.-Rather than geese,they had . •
Ganders,all of which were of the type known es'Rhodes':As everyone knows,ganders are generally more difficult to manage than geese '
because they are kind of noisy,and need to run everywhere,and tend to have messes which require"lots of cleaning up and repair.
Eventually,a long time ago,the gander"Owners found that a few Non-Owners wanted to use their Rhodes.-This was kind of confusing at
first because the owners had always thought Ganders were good mostly for one thing. But since there were only a certain,number of the
Rhodes;and they were expensive to maintain,their Owners tried to be cooperative"and rent their Ganders whenever it could be worked
out. And the Non-Owners made some money after,they used the Rhodes. "
Then,,years later,.some Newcomers made a visit to the Valley of the Potomac to see the Goose they had heard so much about.
They talked to Spectrum's owner about many things And they began to wonder and to think and to explore all the different ways that one
could use geese and ganders*:separately and They had some very good ideas.
Spectrum's owner thought they were very good ideas,too::More folks might benefit,the Newcomers could try'some new
things,and the People of the Valley of the Potomac might be able to make even more money from,their little Spectrum goslings;these
would be very good things. So the People of the Valley of the Potomac agreed to help.theNewcomers. But the big problem with these
new ideas was that the Owners of the Rhodes,_which were rare and expensive,were worried that their ganders might be overused and
ruined. Then how would.they replace them?,
:There were many.discussions*between Spectrum's owner and the Rhodes Owners and the Newcomers. Some people might call
them fights, Some old Non-Owners who had paid for using the ganders before even got into the debate. They all certainly generated a lot
of papers and letter-writing,which seemed kind of silly,because it got to the point where nobody was listening to anybody.;.They just
called each other stupid and self-serving..They were all confused and angry.
But the Gander Owners were the most confused of all by the arguments. They said to the People of the Valley of the Potomac,
"we•do not understand why you are trying to tell us what we can;charge for.our Rhodes just because your friends want touse them more'
often. You sell all your little Spectrums as they crime along,You say it's good to make money from your property.Your Spectrums seem'
easy to reproduce compared`to our,Rhodes." "
• And the gander Owners explained about their male Rhodes: °Do you know what ganders cost???We have to buy each one of
them. They don't reproduce like geese: They are•as expensive as streets and we know a lot about streets because we take care of"those,
too. A street has to be bought,and surveyed and paved,and marked and curbed and traffic-lighted,and sewered,and repaired,and re-•_
paved and blocked and policed and inspected and sometimes even and snowplowed. Do you know how many people and how much ;,
equipment it takes to do ail those things? That's what having Rhodes is like.•Why,you don't have to do any of that to your Spectrums."
So the Rhodes Owners suggested the Newcomers might use ducks instead of ganders "We don't like ducks," they replied. ,
'Too many people own them...we can't make arrangements with that many different people because itwould,be too time-consuming and
expensive.* And•the Gander:Owners responded,that while they didn't mind sharing their.Rhodes,they shouldn't be used for free:The price
should be what the Rhodes were worth. And they didn't think Spectrum's owner should determine the right fees for when
Spectrum's owner was getting whatever people would pay for its new baby geese,which was sometimes quite a lot,;They asked simple
' questions'about marketplace prices and ownership rights.: • • "
But Spectrum's owner was not impressed. 'The People of the Valley of the Potomac are bigger and rnore"powerful than you.
We have the right to tell you how to`manage:your Rhodes. What we get paid for our Spectrum babies is not your,concem and not the: •_
same thing at all." .
And the owners of the Rhodes:who lived outside the Valley of the Potomac thought that maybe"they should ask an even more
simple question. ,"What about that old proverb...you know,.what's good for the goose is good for the gander? "
39
About The National League of Cities
The National League of Cities (NLC) is the oldest and largest national organization representing
municipal governments throughout the United States. NLC serves as a national resource and advo-
cate on behalf of over 1700 member cities and for 49 municipal leagues whose membership totals
more than 18,000 cities and towns across the country.
The mission of the National League of Cities is to strengthen and promote cities as centers of
opportunity, leadership, and governance.
/ \
About NATOA
The mission of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA) is
to support and serve the telecommunications interests and needs of local governments. We are a
professional association made up of individuals and organizations responsible for - or advising
those responsible for-telecommunications policies and services in local governments throughout
the country. NATOA's membership is predominately composed of local government agencies,
local government staff and public officials, as well as consultants, attorneys, and engineers who
consult local governments on their telecommunications needs. Our government members have
responsibilities that range from cable administration, telecommunications franchising, rights-of-
way management and governmental access programming to information technologies and INET
planning and management.We have members from not-for-profit organizations whose needs and
interests are complementary to those of NATOA's members and we have members who are ven-
dors to local governments, and telecommunications providers of all types of services to and for
local governments.
•
•••..• • .• •• • • ' . . „.4 4^%,,f; L• 4
• ".•
•
•
4 ,r4
*4.
National League of Cities
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW
Washington,DC 20004
www.n1c.org
Comcast® PRESS RELEASE
Media Contact:
Karen Dougherty Buchholz,Vice President, Corporate Communications 215-981-8520
Tim Fitzpatrick, Director of Corporate Communications 215-981-8515
Investor Contacts:
Marlene S. Dooner,Vice President, Investor Relations 215-981-7392
Kelley L. Claypool, Director, Investor Relations 215-981-7729
Daniel J. Goodwin, Director, Investor Relations 215-981-7518
COMCAST COMPLETES AT&T BROADBAND TRANSACTION
Company to Focus on Basic Video,
Deploying Broadband Cable and Internet, and Customer Service
Philadelphia— November 18, 2002 — Comcast Corporation (NASDAQ: CMCSA;
CMCSK) today announced that its transaction with AT&T Broadband is complete,
bringing together cable assets serving more than 21.4 million subscribers in 41
states.
The new Comcast Corporation, formerly named AT&T Comcast Corporation,
provides digital cable to 6.3 million customers, high-speed data to more than 3.3
million customers and cable phone service to more than 1.3 million customers.
Brian L. Roberts, Chief Executive Officer of Comcast, said, "This is an historic
moment for the entire Comcast family— including our employees, customers and
shareholders. This vibrant new company is a leader in serving consumers with
exciting new products and technologies, and is focused on providing the highest
standards in customer service.
"Comcast is a financially strong company uniquely positioned to generate
significant benefits for our customers and shareholders alike. Our focus now
turns to bringing all of our cable systems up to the Comcast standard, quickly
moving to deploy digital cable and data to meet the growing demand for these
products, and continuing to deliver consistently strong financial results. I'm
excited for the many opportunities that lie ahead of us," said Mr. Roberts.
C. Michael Armstrong, Chairman of Comcast, said, "Today marks the birth of a
leading national broadband communications media and entertainment company.
The people of Comcast and AT&T Broadband should be proud of what they have
created, and excited for the opportunities that the future is sure to bring. I'm
looking forward to working closely with Brian and the management team to help
realize the potential of this great new company."
Under the terms of the previously announced transaction, AT&T has spun off
AT&T Broadband and combined it with Comcast. As a result, AT&T
shareholders are entitled to receive 0.3235 shares of the new Comcast
Corporation Class A common stock in respect of each share of AT&T common
stock they owned at the close of business on Friday, November 15, 2002, the
record date for the spin-off, and will continue to hold their shares of AT&T
common stock. Comcast shareholders will receive for each share of old
Comcast common stock one share of the corresponding class of the new
Comcast common stock.
The new Comcast common stock will begin trading under the NASDAQ symbols
CMCSA and CMCSK on Tuesday, November 19th
The Comcast Board of Directors consists of 12 directors. The five directors
appointed by Comcast from its board are: Decker Anstrom, Sheldon M. Bonovitz,
Julian A. Brodsky, Brian L. Roberts and Ralph J. Roberts. The five directors
appointed by AT&T from its board are: C. Michael Armstrong, J. Michael Cook,
George M.C. Fisher, Louis A. Simpson and Michael I. Sovern. The jointly
appointed board members are: Kenneth J. Bacon and Dr. Judith Rodin.
About Comcast
Comcast Corporation (www.comcast.com), formerly known as AT&T Comcast
Corporation, is principally involved in the development, management and
operation of broadband cable networks, and in the provision of electronic
commerce and programming content. The company is the largest cable
company in the United States serving approximately 21.4 million cable
subscribers. The Company's commerce and content businesses include majority
ownership of QVC, Comcast Spectacor, Comcast SportsNet, E! Entertainment
Television, Style, The Golf Channel, Outdoor Life Network and G4. Comcast
Class A common stock and Class A Special common stock will be traded on The
NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbols CMCSA and CMCSK, respectively.
-30-
New Page 1 Page 1 of 1
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984§621(a)[541(a)]
Authority to award franchises;public rights-of-way and easements;equal access to service
(1)A franchising authority may award,in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction;
except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional
competitive franchise.Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising
authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of§635 for failure to comply with this subsection.
(2)Any franchise shall be construed to authorize the construction of a cable system over public rights-of-way,and through easements,
which is within the area to be served by the cable system and which have been dedicated for compatible uses,except that in using such
easements the cable operator shall ensure--
(A)that the safety,functioning,and appearance of the property and the convenience and safety of other persons not be adversely affected
by the installation or construction of facilities necessary for a cable system;
(B)that the cost of the installation,construction,operation,or removal of such facilities be borne by the cable operator or subscriber,or a
combination of both;and
(C)that the owner of the property be justly compensated by the cable operator for any damages caused by the installation,construction,
operation,or removal of such facilities by the cable operator.
(3)In awarding a franchise or franchises,a franchising authority shall assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in which such group resides.
(4)In awarding a franchise,the franchising authority--
(A)shall allow the applicant's cable system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in
the franchise area;
(B)may require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public,educational,and governmental access channel
capacity,facilities,or financial support;and
(C)may require adequate assurance that the cable operator has the financial,technical,or legal qualifications to provide cable service.
http://www.cablety.com/ptp/html/fccPOPrules.htm •
6/9/2005
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT OF 1984
as amended by the
CABLE TELEVISION CONSUMER PROTECTION
AND COMPETITION ACT OF 1992
Section 626(a) Commencement of Proceedings;
Public Notice and Participation
(1) A franchising authority may, on its own initiative during the 6-month period
which begins with the 36th month before the franchise expiration,
commence a proceeding which affords the public in the franchise area
appropriate notice and participation for the purpose of:
(A) identifying the future cable-related community needs and
interests, and
(B) reviewing the performance of the cable operator under the
franchise during the then current franchise term. If the cable
operator submits, during such 6-month period, a written
renewal notice requesting the commencement of such a
proceeding, the franchising authority shall commence such a
proceeding not later than 6 months after the date such notice
is submitted.
Prepared by: The Buske Group Page 1
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
• Performance Evaluation of Existing Cable Television Operations
— Level of compliance with current franchise and ordinance obligations
— System design and cable plant performance
* Picture and sound quality
* Capability(channel capacity, interactivity, etc.)
* Reliability(outage history)
— Customer service
* Telephone response
* Repair appointments
* Billing
— Financial analysis (including accuracy of franchise fee payments)
— PEG Access
* Condition of facilities and equipment
* Equipment usage levels, original programming amounts
* Evaluation of training program
* Number of people trained, certified users and program providers •
* Community outreach and promotional efforts
* Viewership studies
• Phone or Mail Survey of Cable Subscribers and Non-Subscribers
• Focus Group Workshops (include brainstorming & questionnaires)
— Government departments and agencies
— Educational institutions
— Current Access users
— Nonprofit organizations in areas such as community service, social
service, health care, youth, and senior citizen services
— Minority groups
— Local neighborhood associations and business organizations
— Arts, culture, and heritage groups and organizations
— Church groups and religious organizations
• Community Leader Round Table and/or Personal Interviews
(include brainstorming & questionnaires)
• Strategic Plans and Position Papers from Workshop and Round Table
Participants (analyze their info distribution and technology plans)
• Public Hearing(s)
• Consolidate All Information Gathered as Basis for Franchise Renewal Goals
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 2
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
1. Scope and General Methods.
A needs assessment must be conducted to identify future cable-related community needs,
interests and concerns relative to the franchise renewal process.
A valuable method used to identify community needs is a series of structured workshops
designed to reach primary cable user groups. Participants in the workshops are asked to
answer questions which would enable the City/County to identify future cable-related needs
and interests, as well as identify concerns regarding the operator's performance. Such
structured workshops are very successful in assuring that a user's expression of needs,
interests and concerns is well-informed. These workshops are also successful in developing
significant involvement in the franchising process by a wide variety of vitally interested
groups. The method is efficient, because it permits the City/County to obtain information
relevant to a number of critical franchising tasks through a series of simple and inexpensive
sessions. In short, the workshop method creates a sizable, informed, and involved
constituency, often useful in subsequent negotiations and in the political process.
Cities frequently find that they also need to have a mail or telephone subscriber survey
conducted. Either a mail or telephone survey can develop very useful information which can
prove to be extremely valuable during the negotiation process. A telephone or mail survey, in
combination with the community workshops discussed above, provides a strong foundation
from which a City/County can proceed with confidence during any negotiations.
The City/County should also hold a series of hearings to provide an opportunity for the
public to address issues being explored through the assessment process and review of past
performance. This would not only permit the City/County to comply with any formal Cable Act
renewal requirements, it would maximize public participation and support for the renewal
process.
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 3
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
The needs assessment would conclude with a compilation of the results of all needs
assessment activities, and the formulation of specific recommendations that would be the
basis of proposed franchise provisions. The reports prepared can be presented as part of
any renewal proceedings conducted by the City/County consistent with the Cable Act.
2. Ascertainment Workshops.
These workshops involve presentations that speak to the specific interests of critical cable
user groups in the City/County. Such workshops are often designed to target the following
groups:
• Government departments and agencies.
• Nonprofit organizations in areas such as community service, social service,
health care, youth, and senior citizen services.
• Arts, culture, and heritage groups and organizations.
• K-12 Educational institutions.
• Post secondary educational institutions.
• Interested public and citizens at large.
Each workshop would include an intensive introduction explaining the nature of modern
cable service in critical areas (e.g. , programming, consumer service, system design and
technology, PEG access, and non-entertainment uses of the system, including video, voice
and data services). Special emphasis would be placed on presenting the industry
developments most pertinent to each targeted workshop, and reviewing the experiences of
similar groups locally and other jurisdictions. Current and developing federal regulatory policy
would be summarized as needed. Ample opportunity for questions and clarifications would
be provided.
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 4
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
Following the introductory educational segment of the workshop, a group brainstorming
process would allow participants to clarify their thinking on what uses of cable service they
would most like to see maintained or made possible through the franchising process.
Each participant would complete the workshop by filling out a questionnaire designed to
clearly express user needs to be fulfilled in the renewal process. Workshop participants
would also be asked to identify existing problems with delivery of cable services.
The ascertainment of community needs and interests in the areas of public, educational
and government (PEG) access is also important. PEG access represents a rich opportunity
for community uses of the cable communications medium. The Cable Act and subsequent
federal legislation permits franchising authorities to require certain support for PEG access.
In addition, many cable companies have found it in their own larger interest to agree through
negotiation to provide a broad range of support for capital equipment and facilities, dedicated
access channels, organizational support, and other services.
Through the workshop process, the kind and degree of future community uses likely in the
City/County could be documented, taking into account experiences in comparable cities.
These workshops would complement information gathered specific to current access
channels, equipment, facilities and services.
3. Identify System Design Needs.
An effort to determine the kind of cable system required to meet future community needs
is another important element of this process. Part of this task would be accomplished
through the workshop process. Workshop participants would not be asked to become
technical experts. However, introductory presentations in these forums would include a
review of the current and developing "state-of-the-art" for new cable systems, as well as
those being rebuilt or upgraded today.
Prepared by: The Buske Group Page 5
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
In addition, a technical audit of the cable system conducted by qualified engineers can
provide valuable information regarding the condition of the existing system. By considering
the current system and its condition and capability in light of the identified community needs
and interests, necessary technical changes can be determined that must be made to the
existing cable system (i.e., upgrade or rebuild) in order to meet those community needs and
interests.
Finally, consider community demographics and new developments by the cable industry
in other locales. Based on this information, the City/County negotiating team can assess:
• Rebuild or Upgrade Channel Capacity Requirements.
An assessment would be made as to the degree of upgrade or rebuild that
would be necessary to provide services at a level indicated. by the needs
assessment results.
• Two-way Interactive Service Requirements: Voice, Video, Data.
Many modern urban cable systems today have the activated capacity to
provide two-way services such as data and voice transmission, and video
transmission from remote locations. Some requirements are related to
institutional uses. However, others are required for effective delivery of
services to individual subscribers. The needs assessment process would
include introductory information regarding two-way and advanced cable
service, and, through the workshop process, should result in the initial
identification of two-way and advanced video services that might be
significantly used on the cable system by ordinary subscribers.
• Requirements Which Ensure User-Friendliness.
Many cable systems are being designed to assure that subscribers would be
better able to choose the package of cable services desired, to ensure that
those services are delivered in a way which does not interfere with the use of
VCR's, home video game terminals and the like. For example, most new or
upgraded systems today include up-to-date technology for pay-per-view
programming. There are many ways of accomplishing pay-per-view. Some
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 6
IDENTIFYING FUTURE CABLE RELATED COMMUNITY NEEDS AND INTERESTS
• Requirements Which Ensure User-Friendliness. (continued)
cable systems utilize two-way addressable converter technology for instant,
push-button program choice. Others rely upon a subscriber calling the cable
company on the phone for an individual program. Still others offer a package of
programs over a period of time which are activated through a decoder mailed to
the subscriber by the company, or through switching equipment manipulated by
cable company personnel in a box outside the subscriber's home. It is
reasonable to request that appropriate technology be provided in a franchise
that would optimize the ability of subscribers to receive diverse information
through a choice of packages. Following the technical review of the system
and the results of the needs assessment, the City/County negotiating team
would formulate the substance of any proposed franchise provisions regarding
technology to maximize consumer choice.
• Technical Standards.
The Federal Communication Commission has provisions that control technical
standards for cable systems, but permit cities and cable companies to agree to
some technical standards appropriate to system design and community needs
and to place them, with provision for review and revision, in the cable franchise
agreement. Franchise provisions requiring periodic technical tests by the
companies and good reporting to the City/County are also advisable.
Appropriate technical standards and supporting franchise provisions should
therefore be developed as part of the renewal project.
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 7
COMMUNITY NEEDS ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDED ACTIVITIES
• Review Franchise Agreement and all actions of City/County Council
regarding cable during the term of the franchise.
• Review all files on cable including performance audits and reviews,
correspondence, etc.
• Analyze past performance and identify problems (if any).
• Create a special Committee or direct current Cable Advisory
Committee or Board to be a player in renewal process (especially
during the assessment of community needs and interests).
• Interested parties should discuss their concerns with Cable Advisory
Committee or Board, elected officials, and key City/County staff.
• Conduct a telephone or mail survey of cable subscribers and non-
subscribers to determine current attitudes of residents with respect
to cable TV matters.
• Educate community organizations and local leaders about franchise
renewal and cable-related issues. Focus group workshops and/or
round tables are very effective.
• Educate the local media -they can be of great assistance.
• Solicit input on future needs and interests through questionnaires,
letters of support, community group strategic plans, position papers,
etc.
• Encourage active community involvement in the public hearing
process.
• Develop a concise set of goals for franchise renewal negotiations.
Prepared by:The Buske Group Page 8
Steps to be Considered in an Informal Cable
Franchise Renewal
Cheryl L.Johnson,Senior Consultant,cljohnson@virchowkrause.com
• Determine who will participate in the process from the City and who will serve as the negotiation team.
• Determine expiration date and renewal window of current franchise.
• Determine if proper notice was received by current cable operator requesting renewal of franchise.
• Meeting between City and cable operator to discuss renewal process. Determine who will be authorized to
negotiate on behalf of the City and the cable operator.
• Review of current franchise and determine if compliance issues exist.
• Review of franchises with current cable operator that have recently been renewed.
• Identification of future cable-related community needs and interests.
• Technical review of current system.
• Financial review of current cable operator.
• Development of language for new franchise-City can propose language or cable operator may
propose language.
• Negotiations with cable operator-will likely involve cable operator's corporate office.
What is outlined above is representative of a general cable franchise renewal process and is not a complete list of
all possible scenarios or requisite procedures or steps.
Virchow Krause
&company
www.virchowkrause.com
©Virchow,Krause&Company,LLP
Rentonnet City Clerk Card File Page 1 of 1
s .. Att� '�� �✓ . ; + �y�. •• t z ' .i"'S { `+ilk ,
Full Screen Version
• a. � w r w .m �,,t2 a .. rr +�.3, -�"T v.
Newv Search 14 Flesi�Its List :Add Record ` E-ltt Record !Delete Rel~ord
yy,. . a...,.,.,..,..� 'rrb. #i?.,.va.a:,. .,...�sr.. ��.s , �,.u...�„4.,._.� m �twxa _.�. a,= ..a. i4t3�. ,... ... , ,. �•„.+
Record 1 of 1
Title: ORD 4412, TCI CABLEVISION FRANCHISE 93
Effective Date: Sep 15, 1993 Destroy Date: Sep 13, 2008
Date Entered: Aug 16, 1993 by User: CC4
Date Modified: Nov 15, 2002 by User: mneumann
Narrative: • ORDINANCE 4412 -Grant to TCI Cablevision of Washington a franchise to operate a
cable communication system within the city of Renton for 15 years. (9/13/93 -
9/13/2008)
• Adopted: 8/9/93
• 12/23/97 -Agreement with TCI for Extension of Franchise Provisions and also
Agreement with TCI for Equipment Installations &Additions (originals in Franchise
file in Vault)
• See Also: CAG 01-087 & CAG-01-088
Keywords: • CABLE TELEVISION 93
• FRANCHISE 93
• ORD 4412
• TCI CABLEVISION OF WA 93
• CABLE TV 93
• VIDEO EQUIPMENT 97
• AT&T CABLE SERVICES (FORMERLY TCI) 97
Location: VAULT
http://rentonnet.org/intranet/CityClerk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showdetail&REC=1&ID=49... 9/26/2005
•
RENEWAL UNDER THE CABLE ACT
The Cable Act establishes "an orderly process for franchise renewal"designed to protect operators from "unfair
denials of renewal" (Section 601(5); 47 U.S.C. §521 (5).)The Cable Act does not guarantee the operator
renewal. A city that follows Cable Act procedures and develops an appropriate record may deny renewal if the
operator's past performance has been unsatisfactory, or if the operator is unwilling (or unable)to promise to
provide the services, facilities and equipment necessary to meet the future cable-related "needs and interests"
of the community. (Section 626; 47 U.S.C. § 546.)
The Cable Act contains some very important provisions that allow local governments that pay attention to what
they are doing the right to say no to renewals, or to invite competition in the form of additional operators or a
replacement for the incumbent. The following is an outline of the steps that need to be taken to preserve that
option for the franchising authority, as well as the procedural and substantive requirements that the Cable Act
sets up for franchise renewals.
In the specific area of renewals, the Cable Act addresses two basic issues:
o Procedure—the time frames and procedures that franchising authorities must follow in deciding
whether or not to renew an existing franchise; and
o Substance—(1)the factors upon which a franchising authority may base a decision not to
renew and (2)the kinds of requirements and obligations a franchising authority may impose on
a renewal applicant and the requirements it may not impose.
The Cable Act sets forth two distinct renewal processes. The Cable Act provides for an elaborate formal renewal
process. (Section 626(a)-(g); 47 U.S.C. §546(a)-(g).) It also provides that the cable operator and franchising
authority can, in effect, ignore the elaborate formal process and opt for an informal negotiated renewal. (Section
626(h); 47 U.S.C. § 546 (h)). However, a municipality that may want to consider denial of renewal should be
prepared to initiate the formal process if the operator asks for it during the six-month window.
A. The informal process. The Cable Act (Section 626(h); 47 U.S.C. § 546(h)) states that
renewal can be requested by a cable operator at any time. The franchising authority may grant
or deny this renewal request for any legitimate reason (consistent with state and local law). The
only requirement under the Cable Act is that a City can only grant or deny the proposal "after
affording the public adequate notice and opportunity for comment."
The § 546(h) procedures were included in the Cable Act to make it clear that a cable operator
and a City could attempt to resolve renewal issues through informal negotiations.
B. The formal process. Section 626(a)-(9) (47 U.S.C. § 546 (a)-(g)) sets forth the"formal"
renewal provisions of the Cable Act. Either the City(on its own initiative) or the cable operator
(by submitting a request to the City)can activate the formal renewal process during the six-
month period which begins on the 36th month before franchise expiration and ends on the 30`h
month before franchise expiration. IF THE OPERATOR DOES NOT SUBMIT A REQUEST TO
THE CITY DURING THIS SIX-MONTH WINDOW, A MUNICIPALITY IS WELL ADVISED NOT
TO INITIATE THE FORMAL PROCESS ON ITS OWN BUT TO INSTEAD FOLLOW THE
INFORMAL PROCESS.
The "window"for the formal renewal process opens two and a half to three years before the expiration of a
franchise. Communities that have taken the time to think through what they want and need in advance of that
time period are in a better position to bring about a successful conclusion to the renewal process. In addition,
the current franchise requires on-going attention since the operator's past performance and franchise violations
that the community has ignored may not be adequate grounds for denying a renewal to an incumbent operator.
Thus, municipalities are well advised not to "franchise and forget."
The formal renewal process is complex and, at times, confusing, and even the informal process requires close
attention. However, there are essentially four basic steps in the renewal process:
1. Determine what the community will need in the future in the way of cable service.
2. Evaluate the past performance of the incumbent cable operator.
3. Evaluate the incumbent cable operator's proposal for a new franchise, and the operator's
financial, technical and legal qualifications to satisfy its proposal.
4. Decide whether or not to renew the existing cable company and, if so, on what terms and
conditions.
THE CABLE COMMUNICATIONS POLICY ACT OF 1984
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-549), 47 U.S.C. §§ 521-611, was passed in the last
days of the 98`h Congress. It was the result of several years of intensive efforts on the part of the cable television
industry, the local government community, and the Congress to establish a national policy for the regulation of
cable television. Like most major pieces of legislation involving controversial issues and competing ideologies
and approaches, the Cable Act is a compromise that attempts to strike a balance between the desires of the
cable industry and the right of local governments to regulate cable television operators who occupy public
property.
The basic compromise that the cities made in the Cable Act was giving up most rate regulation in return for the
grandfathering of existing franchises and the right to carry over most franchise provisions to new or renewal
franchising. The provision that cable operators fought for very strongly was a bias in favor of renewal of the
incumbent operator. The final version of the Act gives the incumbent cable operator the "first bite" at renewal,
but does not grant an expectancy of renewal.
One of the firm bases on which the Act stands is the right of a local government to"award...one or more
franchises within its jurisdiction." (Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Act, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 541 (b)(1).)
The Cable Act has six basic public policy purposes:
1. establish a national policy concerning cable communications;
2. establish franchise procedures and standards that encourage the growth and development of
cable systems and that assure that cable systems are responsive to the needs and interests of
the local community;
3. establish guidelines for the exercise of Federal, state and local authority with respect to the
regulation of cable systems;
4. assure that cable systems provide and are encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity
of information sources and services to the public;
5. establish an orderly process for franchise renewal that protects cable operators against unfair
denials of renewals where the operator's past performance and proposal for future performance
meet the standards established by the Act; and
6. promote competition in cable communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would
impose an undue economic burden on cable systems.
The last two purposes were added in the Senate after the House had reported the bill out of committee. They
are vivid illustrations of the difficult balancing act that the law attempts to perform.
INTERESTS AND OBLIATIONS OF LOCALITIES REGARDING CABLE TELEVISION
A fundamental aspect of the franchising and regulation of cable television is that they have always been
principally the responsibility of local governments. This is in contrast to the regulation of broadcast television,
which is nearly exclusively controlled by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").
The rationale for this approach stems from the technology and nature of cable television operation. Unlike any
other private business except perhaps public utilities, cable systems inevitably involve extensive construction in,
and permanent occupation of, public property: the local streets and rights-of-way. Moreover, most communities
are served by a single cable system. This means that most cable operators enjoy sole control over multiple
channels of communication by operating what is usually the only conduit for delivery of video programming to
the home in a particular community.
Management of the public streets and rights-of-way in the public interest is the responsibility of local
governments. As the representative of the public, local governments have a responsibility to their citizens to
protect public property and to assure that it is used in the public interest, rather than in the purely private
commercial interest of the cable operator.
Local governments also have long been recognized as the entities most knowledgeable about local community
needs and interests, and therefore most able to help cable reach its full potential by tailoring its service to a
particular locality. A stated purpose of the Cable Act is to"...assure that cable systems are responsive to the
needs and interest of the local community." (Section 601(2); 47 U.S.C. §521(2)).
Most communities are served by a single cable operator, meaning that citizens lack a competitive choice. In
these circumstances, local officials may be motivated to promote First Amendment values in the community by
assuring that citizens may receive information from a diversity of sources, rather than being restricted solely to
the gatekeeper control exercisable by the cable operator.
These policy concerns, balanced against the goal of minimizing regulation to the extent possible, underlie the
Cable Act. The Cable Act carries out his balance by restricting certain local regulatory powers and confirming
pre-existing local authority over cable in other areas. For example, the Act empowers local governments to
issue "one or more" cable franchises in their jurisdictions, and prohibits the operation of a cable system without
a local franchise in almost all cases. The Act also requires local authorities to follow specific procedures in
determining whether to renew franchises.
In a few states, including Vermont, Connecticut, Rhode island and New Jersey, the franchise is granted by a
state level utility commission. A few other states, such as New York and Massachusetts, set some standards
and procedures and assist local governments through a state cable commission. Even in these state schemes,
however, the advice and often the consent of local governments is a significant part of the franchise process.
Local governments, then, have fundamental interest regarding cable television, and those interest are reflected
in the Cable Act in the form of statutory empowerment and responsibilities. These fundamental interests may be
enumerated as:
o FAIR COMPENSATION FOR COMMERCIAL USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY
Public rights-of-way are created through the expenditure of public funds and are often obtained through
government exercise of the power of eminent domain. Like any property owner, the public is entitled to fair
compensation for the private use of its property for commercial gain. Franchise fees of up to 5% of an operator's
gross revenues are authorized by the Cable Act as fair rent for this use.
o PUBLIC SAFETY AND COORDINATED USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
Local governments must ensure that facilities constructed and maintained in the right-of-way do not endanger
the public, and that applicable safety codes are followed in cable system installation and operation. In addition,
since the rights-of-way and utility infrastructure used by cable systems are scarce and valuable public
resources, local governments have a responsibility to manage and allocate the use of these vital resources. This
means local governments must ensure that public rights-of-way and utility infrastructures are managed in a way
to conserve sufficient capacity for current and potential future uses, including cable television and utilities and
transportation services.
o NONDISCRIMINATORY ACCESS TO CABLE TELEVISION SERVICE
A primary goal of local officials is to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their income or location, have the
opportunity to subscribe to cable television service without discrimination. This is carried out in franchises and
confirmed in the Cable Act through prohibitions against"red-lining" and "cream skimming," universal service
requirements, outlawing discrimination in rates, and protection of tenants' rights to service. The policy rationale
is that democracy is diminished if there are "haves" and "have nots" in the "Information Age." In light of
skyrocketing cable rates, "lifeline service" is desired by many as an additional way to accomplish this goal.
"Lifeline service" is a limited tier of service usually composed of local off-air broadcast service and cable system
access channels.
o CONSUMER PROTECTION
Consumers look to the officials who granted the franchise for help with widespread complaints against cable
companies, and to ensure fair practices in regard to rates, repair service, telephone response time, adequate
picture quality, billing practices, and other consumer matters.
o ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Many communities are concerned about visual blight, preservation of historic districts, and other aesthetic
considerations that may affect the manner of installation and appearance of cable television wires, pedestals,
boxes, etc.
o LOCAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
INFRASTRUCTURE
A modern cable system is a unique and ubiquitous local communications network. As such, it can be an
important part of the telecommunications infrastructure in a community. The Cable Act allows local officials to
require upgrade of a system as a condition of renewal. Local economic development may also be fostered
through franchise provisions for local involvement in ownership, local hiring and training, equal opportunity
employment, and minority contracting and subcontracting provisions, and are sanctioned by the Cable Act and
many local laws.
o PROMOTING A DIVERSITY OF IDEAS AND PROGRAMS
Local officials may be concerned about the power that cable can wield as a monopoly"gatekeeper" over what
citizens can see and know. The Cable Act allows local governments to require a cable operator to set aside
access channels for public, educational and governmental use. The Cable Act also allows franchising authorities
to enforce requirements for"broad categories" of programming in franchises.
ALTERNATE RENEWAL PROCEDURE (Informal)
Timing —a cable operator may submit a renewal proposal at any time and the franchising authority may grant or
deny that proposal at any time.
Process—the public must be afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to comment. This process can
operate independently of or in parallel with the timetable and process described in sections 1 through 6 above.
(Section 626(h); 47 U.S.C. §546(h).)
Denial of renewal under the informal process does not affect renewal carried out as a formal procedure.
Relationship of formal and informal procedures. Informal and formal procedures can be followed simultaneously.
As a result, many operators are triggering formal procedures 30-36 months prior to the expiration of the
franchise, and are also asking municipalities to negotiate informally. If this is done, a municipality must be
careful to comply with the procedural requirements of the formal process, even if it appears that informal
negotiations are going well.
Relationship of Cable Act procedures to state and local laws. Federal law supersedes local and state law with
which it is in conflict, but in the absence of any conflict, a municipality must comply with both federal
requirements and any applicable state and local law requirements. For example, if a local ordinance requires a
city to establish franchise renewal procedures by ordinance, or establishes time limits in addition to those
established by federal law, the city may have to comply with those local or state requirements.
Relationship of renewal procedures to revocation proceedings. Federal law may not control revocation
proceedings. It may be possible for a city to avoid the renewal process entirely by revoking the franchise if there
is an adequate basis for doing so under the franchise.
SUBSTANTIVE RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS: SOME COMMONLY ASKED QUESTIONS
1. What can the franchising authority consider in determining whether or not to renew a franchise?
Past Performance—
a. Has the incumbent operator"substantially complied with the material terms of the existing
franchise and with applicable law"?
b. Has the quality of the cable operator's service, including signal quality, response to consumer
complaints and billing practices, been reasonable in light of community needs?
Future Performance—
a. Does the operator have the financial, legal and technical ability to provide the services, facilities,
and equipment it is proposing to provide?
b. Is the Operator's renewal proposal reasonable to meet the future cable-related needs of the
community, "taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests"?
c. Does the operator's proposal meet the requirements that the franchising authority has asked for
in its request for a renewal proposal?
(Section 626(c)(1)(A), (B), (C); 47 U.S.C. §546(c)(1)(A), (B), (C); Section 626(b)(2); 47 U.S.C. §546(b)(2)).
2.What cannot be considered in determiningg whether to renew a franchise?
Past performance—
a. The mix, quality or level of cable services or other service provided over the system if it is not
required in the current franchise.
b. Any failure to comply with the material terms of the franchise or inadequate quality of services,
including signal quality, consumer complaints, or billing practices if the franchising authority did
not notify the cable company of the problem and give it the opportunity to cure the problem, or if
the franchising authority waived its right to object to the problem, or"effectively acquiesced"to
the operator's performance. (Section 626(c)(1)(B);47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(B); Section 626(d); 47
U.S.C. § 546(d).)
3.What is the basis for a court overturning a franchising authority's decision not to renew?
a. The franchising authority did not follow the procedural requirements of the Cable Act.
b. The franchising authority's adverse findings against the cable company are not supported by"a
preponderance of the evidence" in the record of the administrative hearing. (Section 626(e)(2);
47 U.S.C. § 546(e)(2).)
4. What is required to be in a renewal franchise?
a. Access to the public rights-of-way and easements that have been dedicated for compatible
uses. (Section 621(a)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(2).)
b. Operator assurance of safety, functioning, appearance and convenience of use of rights-of-way.
(Section 621(a)(2)(A);47 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(2)(A).)
c. Operator and subscriber assumption of costs of use of rights-of-way. (Section 621(a)(2)(B),(C);
47 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(2)(B), (C).)
d. No denial of access to cable service"because of the income of the residents of the local
area,"i.e., no "red-lining"or"cream-skimming." (Section 621(a)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 541 (a)(3).)
e. Offer to subscribers of device to block out undesired channels. (Section 624(d)(2)(A); 47 U.S.C.
§ 544(a)(2)(A).)
f. Leased access channels for commercial use by persons unaffiliated with cable operator(10
percent of channels for systems with 36 to 54 channels; 15 percent of channels for systems with
55 or more channels). (Section 612; 47 U.S.C. § 532.)
5.What may a franchising authority require in a renewal?
a. A request for renewal issued by the franchising authority"shall contain such material as the
franchising authority may require (as long as it is a requirement permitted by the Cable Act),
including proposals for upgrading the system."
b. Channel capacity for public, educational or governmental ("PEG") use, rules and procedures for
the use of PEG channels, and channel capacity on an institutional network for educational and
government use. (Section 611(a)(b); 47 U.S.C. § 531 (a)(b).)
c. Facilities and equipment related to the establishment or operation of the cable system. (Section
624(b)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1).)
d. Non-discrimination in basic service rates. (Section 623 (f)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 543(f)(1).)
e. Franchise fees up to 5 percent of gross revenues. (Section 622; 47 U.S.C. § 542.)
f. In addition to the franchise fee taxes and fees generally applied to other utilities or businesses
(Section 622(h)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 542(h)(1)); the cost of bonds, security funds, letters of credit,
and any other costs incidental to the award or enforcement of the franchise. (Section
622(g)(2)(D); 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(D)); the capital cost of public, educational and government
access facilities. (Section 622(g)(2)(c); 47 U.S.C. § 542 (g)(2)(c).)
g. Regulation of the installation and rental of equipment for the hearing impaired. (Section
623(f)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 543(f)(1).)
h. Prohibition of showing obscene material. (Section 624(d)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 544(d)(1).)
i. Technical standards that are"not inconsistent with" standards the FCC may issue. (Section 624
(e); 47 U.S.C. § 544(e).)
6. What is a franchising authority prohibited from requiring in a renewed franchise?
a. Regulation of basic rates, unless the system is not subject to effective competition under FCC
rules. (Section 623; 47 U.S.C. § 543.)
b. Common carrier regulation of cable services. (Section 621(3)(c); 47 U.S.C. § 541(3)(c).)
c. More leased access capacity than required in the Cable Act (but additional capacity that is
offered in the cable operator's proposal may be incorporated in the franchise and enforced.)
(Section 612(b)(3); 47 U.S.C. § 532 (b)(3).)
d. Specific video programming or other information services (but"broad categories" of
programming that are offered in the operator's proposal may be incorporated in the franchise
and enforced). (Section 624(b)(1); 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1).)
e. Facilities and equipment not related to cable services (but any that are voluntarily offered in the
operator's proposal may be incorporated in the franchise and enforced). (Section 611(c); 47
U.S.C. § 543(c); Section 624(b)(2); 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(2).)
f. Services related to public, educational, and government channels (but any such services
offered by the cable operator may be incorporated in the franchise and enforced). (Section
611(c); 47 U.S.C. § 531(c).)
g. Ownership restrictions based on the operator's ownership of other media, such as cable,
television, or newspapers (these are pre-empted by ownership restrictions established in the
Act itself).
(Section 613(d); 47 U.S.C. §537(d).)
SUMMARY: THE FOUR BASIC STEPS IN THE CABLE TELEVISION RENEWAL PROCESS
c---
1. Determine what the community will need in the way of future cable0related services
2. Evaluate the past performance of the incumbent cable operator
3. Evaluate the incumbent operator's proposal for a new franchise and the operator's financial, technical
and legal qualifications to fulfill its proposal
4. Decide whether or not to refranchise the existing cable operator.
The Basic Timetable for the Cable Television Renewal Process
Getting ready for renewal goes on all the time—you can't "franchise and forget"
36 to 30 months before expiration, the cable operator or the government may initiate the renewal process
An informal process is usually preferable to a formal process, but a cable operator is likely to ask the franchising
authority to initiate the formal process in the 36 to 30 month window to preserve its options.
. oVI
Kreines&Kreines,Inc. client cities&counties charge up to$10,000 per application for a personal wireless service facility.
Vol. 10, No. 6 Plan Wireless October& November 2005
This is a Fight for Turf I U This is. a Fight For
The difference between landline Control, or More
communications and wireless is Correctly, to Escape
simple: Control
• Landline communications must be Personal wireless services are
extended over linear ground paths, clearly defined by the
i.e.,the public right-of-way. Telecommunications Act. The reason
• Wireless facilities can go anywhere. for creating this group of wireless
carriers was well thought out. The U.S.
"Landline" includes cable and fiber Congress plainly distinguished
optic facilities as well as traditional Section 253 applies to landline between"telecommunications
telephone and telegraph utilities. facilities services"in Section 253 of the
Landline has a common and well- Telecommunications Act and
regulated way of operating in the "personal wireless services" in Section
right-of-way via franchises or right-of- 332(c)(7)of the same Act.
way agreements. 11 In Section 253(a),the reader
Personal wireless services,because encounters the following:
they can go anywhere,are regulated by
the Telecommunications Act of 1996 by General.-No State or local statute or
"local zoning authority." A regulation, or other State or local
municipality's(or County's)franchise requirement, may prohibit or have the
authority is narrow(along the right-of- effect of prohibiting the ability of any
way)and applies to landline,not to entity to provide any interstate or
personal wireless service facilities. intrastate telecommunications service.
Rights-of-way Are Very Limited Section 332(c)(7) applies to In contrast,the same Act states in
Strips of Land, & Many Utilities Want personal wireless service Section 332(c)(7):
to be Franchised in Them facilities General Authority-Except as provided
Since franchises are limited to the in this paragraph,nothing in this Act
't- Antenna shall limit or affect the authority of a
narrow widths of rights-of-way, .-�• State or local government or
franchisers must allow all utilities an ■
instrumentality thereof over decisions
opportunity to locate there. State and
as well as court cases regarding the placement, construction,
federal regulation
and modification of personal wireless
tend to see rights-of-way as service facilities.
"bottlenecks,"where utilities can be
la
concentrated and competing for space. f The above means,if PlanWireless
Box
a
Consequently,franchises must be reads American English correctly,that
available to all types of landline Section 253 definitely controls local
carriers,frequently called governments when regulating
"telecommunications services." "telecommunications service,"but not
personal wireless service facilities,
Telecommunications services which are controlled by local zoning
carriers have maintained that a local A authority. (And,yes,Wi-Fi is a
government's authority over their III personal wireless service.)
Continued on page 2,column 2 Continued on next page
DAS is a hybrid system p g
Published by Kreines & Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415)435-1522 fax
e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com
f �
Can "Local Zoning Authority" be Pre-empted in the If your jurisdiction has any policy regarding
Regulation of Wireless? telecommunications,make sure that landline is regulated
separately from wireless. If your ordinance or code does
The FCC is reluctant to interfere with zoning,a
not spell out"personal wireless service facilities,"your
fundamental police power of local government.
However,in at least two cases,federal pre-emption is community has one strike against it already.. If your
allowed,once by statute,the other by administrative law: regulations are using the term"towers,"the wireless
industry will distinguish right-of-way deployment from
• Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)of the Telecommunications Act monopoles or lattice towers. They may claim that right-
states: of-way deployment is unregulated by zoning in your
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof community and that Section 253 applies.
may regulate the placement, construction,and Kreines&Kreines,Inc.has an approach that makes all
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the these distinctions clear. Our latest client city has adopted
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency a Wireless Master Plan that precludes all right-of-way
emission to the extent that such facilities comply with deployment of personal wireless service except for those
the Commission's(FCC's)regulations concerning such specifically permitted by ordinance. Kreines&Kreines,
emissions. Inc.then prepared a personal wireless services facility
This is,in effect,a pre-emption. ordinance that this city has adopted to carry out this
The FCC complied with Section 207 of the policy. In addition,Kreines&Kreines,Inc.prepared a
• Telecommunications Act by issuing the prohibition of Cost Recovery and Revenue Generation Manual for the
any regulation,"including zoning,"which impaired city to recover its expenditures on wireless and to start
the use of DBS(Direct Broadcast Satellite)and MDS making money from personal wireless service facilities.
(Multipoint Distribution Services)on antennas less Fight For Turf(continued from page 1,column 1)
than one meter or any TV antenna.?
deployment is limited to how,when and where,but not
Both of these pre-emptions are clearly stated in,or "if." Now,a growing number of personal wireless
enabled by,the Telecommunications Act. There is no service carriers are using the right-of-way to deploy,and
room for confusion. If the U.S.Congress believed that they are insisting that they are"telecommunications
Section 253 should pre-empt local zoning authority,they services." Personal wireless service carriers are trying to
would have so stated in the Telecommunications Act or claim the unfettered right to deploy in the right-of-way,
directed the FCC to promulgate such a rule. regardless of zoning. In other words,personal wireless
PlanWireless therefore asserts that local zoning service carriers see the right-of-way as a refuge from
authority rules personal wireless services over any other zoning regulations.
form of authority,including state legislation and local Zoning,however,is specified in the
franchising or right-of-way agreements. Telecommunications Act for the purpose of regulating
The Wireless Carriers Have a Plan; Each Local "personal wireless service facilities." In most
Government Needs One, Too municipalities,rights-of-way are zoned. The fight for
The carriers are taking aggressive attempts to ban turf begins when:
zoning of"telecommunications services" in the right-of- • Personal wireless service facility carriers attempt to
way by taking the issue to court. They want Section 253 deploy in the right-of-way.
to be misinterpreted by telecommunications attorneys as • These companies claim they are"telecommunications
binding on personal wireless service facilities,regardless „
of zoning. In California,they have won two trial - services.
(District)court findings and are appealing one they lost, • Telecommunications services,however,are landline
also in California. Since California federal courts have facilities that are deployed in the right-of-way with
very little experience with"tower" cases,they provide minimal regulation by local governments.
fertile ground for personal wireless service carriers to • Therefore,in an attempt to avoid zoning,a personal
bring this issue to the U.S.Supreme Court. wireless service facility company attaches antennas
and boxes to a pole in the right-of-way and tells the
1 FCC,Report and Order. Memorandum Opinion and Order,and local government"this is our turf and we have an
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,August 5,1996. unfettered right to be here."
Continued on next page
Published by Kreines &Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities& Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415)435-1522 fax
e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com
CO ,rin Do You Want to Continue Receiving P/anWireless? '0 e!)
Cities and counties that have not received a free subscription in the past can receive a free subscription to
PlanWireless. Cities and counties that have received free subscriptions in the past can subscribe for$30 for 6 issues.
Private companies&individuals can subscribe for$60 for 6 issues. If you would like to receive a subscription to
PlanWireless,please send the following information to Kreines&Kreines,Inc.by mail(58 Paseo Mirasol,Tiburon,CA
94920),phone(415-435-9214),fax(415-435-1522),or e-mail(mail@planwireless.com):
Name/Title:
Jurisdiction/Company: Staple Your
Mailing Address: Business Card Here
• City,State,Zip Code:
• Back Issues($10 each):Please let us know the back issues you wish to order(March 1996 to Aug./Sept..2005).
This newsletter is designed to provide information about planning for personal wireless service facilities. It is sold and
distributed free with the understanding that PlanWireless is not providing legal,planning or any other professional advice
or services with this newsletter. Please contact Kreines&Kreines,Inc.if you would like to obtain professional planning
i services. If legal or other expert assistance is required,the services of a competent professional should be obtained.
Why is the Right-of-Way Turf So Much Better for personal wireless services. Once such an instrument is
Personal Wireless Service Facilities Than Private executed,a deal has been cut and the police powers may
Property? end.
Personal wireless service carriers don't want to apply A personal wireless service carrier might gladly agree
to a franchise or a right-of-way agreement if required,but
for permits under most zoning regulations. Who can
blame the personal wireless service carriers for,going in once that happens,most control by the local government
the right-of-way if they cart make an argument that is lost.;A:good rule is not to call personal wireless
zoning doesn't apply in the right-of-way? services"telecommunications services." Nor should
local governments grant personal wireless service
More important,the primary market for personal carriers a franchise or right-of-way agreement.
wireless services(cellular,PCS and ESMR)is the
residential market. The only way for personal wireless DAS: A Possible Hybrid
services to enter the residential areas is via the right-of-
way. We at PlanWireless believe this must be done via PlanWireless is excited about Distributed Antenna
• zoning. Personal wireless service carriers are trying to Systems which use fiber optics(under or above ground)
pass themselves off as telecommunications services. to send a radio frequency signal by landline until it
reaches a utility pole. At that point,the signal is
It is also true that the height of personal wireless converted to its air interface and the antenna and box on
service facilities is slowly but surely decreasing from •
a ole are personal wireless service facilities.
"towers" to"masts." "Towers" don't fit in the right-of-
way p
too easily,but"masts" are the same height as utility Communities should use the same landline
poles,and that is where personal wireless service precautions when considering a DAS right-of-way
deployment must evolve to:utility poles in the right-of- agreement. Once executed,the DAS provider may or
way. may not try to work with the local government on
locating"nodes" and digging up streets to bury fiber
PlanWireless believes that the right-of-way turf is not optic cable..A right-of-way agreement may state that the
only beneficial to the personal wireless service carrier DAS provider is a telecommunications service and,
(and therefore worth going to court over)but the right- wherever that provider wants to go,it is not a matter of
of-way is imperative for the personal wireless service "if," but where,how and when.
carrier in order to penetrate residential areas.
Watch Out for Personal Wireless Service Carriers And remember,just as there are several personal
wireless service carriers,there are several DAS providers.
Masquerading as Landline Carriers Just because one DAS provider can accommodate all
A local government should not negotiate a franchise personal wireless service carriers,it will not be possible
or right-of-way agreement with any carrier offering to limit a community to one DAS provider. Once the first
Published by Kreines 8 Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities& Counties on Wireless Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)435-9214 phone and(415)435-1522 fax
e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com
s" _ ° - -
Kreines &Kreines,Inc.
Consultants to Cities&Counties s• r'r25 _
on Planning for Personal Wireless : ' ` -,ka _ .. -
Service Facilities 2�'
i
58 Paseo Mirasol � ' i��j _ - 1
Tiburon,CA 94920 co 15F-.-
7 w Zs _
Please,YO' P' j Pri �City AttorneySGra Lawrence Warren
, Ni,• 1055
P>� %ru Director
f
o dy Way
, , Renton,WA 98055
• Pubhc,Wark&0 rector• Iri forrnatIo-w ,,Technoloy DLrector . ,'C..:';':,
•
. � dam- 9
right-of-way agreement is signed with one DAS provider, appears that some adverse land use or regulatory
all the other DAS providers can demand the same right- decision by a local tribunal entitles a party to bring a '.
of-way agreement on different streets. cause of action pursuant to the Act. In the instant case,
because Plaintiffs did not apply for a tower permit under
Mail@PlanWireless.com the amended tower ordinance,no adverse action has
occurred. Therefore,Plaintiffs'claims are not yet ripe.
PlanWireless will be discontinuing use of its old e-mail
address wireless.update@att.net. In the future,please According to this decision,an aggrieved party would
send us e-mail at mail@planwireless.com. Thanks. need to wait to be rejected on a specific application before
challenging the validity of the ordinance.
What is a "Facials czar ®rdina&nce? reifies} 'Kleine°s;11.iric`idelpsi�lients1 11111 Develop
• Some readers of the August,/.,September 2005 issue of. Application'Fee.Schedules;-_Look What Carriers
PlanWireless remarked on the Sair'Diego case that a"facial Charge Their Customers
attack"on an ordinance that establishes a quasi-judicial
process is not permitted in federal Court. In Sprint v. San Kreines-&Kreines,Inc.shows its cities and county
Diego County,Judge Moskowitz threw out San Diego clients how to charge a personal wireless service carrier
County's entire wireless ordinance on the grounds that it several times more than what an applicant now pays for
violated Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act of fees. Local governments are often reluctant to charge an
1996. But the determination of an ordinance's invalidity applicant what it truly costs to process their application.
"on its face"has been held by another federal District Here's what one carrier recently informed its
court as impermissible. customers it would char beginning in October 2005:
`
In APT/PrimeCo v. Orange County, Florida,the Judge's Notice of Introduction of Administrative Charge
order stated:
This charge will help defray certain costs we incur,
However,for a claim to be ripe under the currently including:(i)fees and assessments ...(ii)
Telecommunications Act and thus entitled to expedited charges we,or our agents,pay local telephone companies
review, there must be final action or failure to act by a ..., and(iii)certain costs and charges associated with
State or local government. See 47 U.S.C. Section proceedings related to new cell site construction:.
332(c)(7)(B)(v). Even though there is no case law
directly addressing what constitutes final action, the This new charge is 40 cents per line per month. If
legislative history briefly describes the term as "final there are 150,000,000 lines in the U.S. (a low estimate)and
administrative action at the state or local government every carrier charged;the same fee,the yield would be
level so that a party can commence action under the $60 million dollars per month. That's$720 million
subparagraph rather than waiting for the exhaustion of dollars per year. J.
any independent State court remedy otherwise required. If your community now believes that$10,000 per
H.R.Rep.No. 458, 104th Congress,2nd Session (07-09) application may,in fact,be justified;now is a good time
(1996) (Conference Report). From this language, it to call Kreines&Kreines,Inc.
Published by Kreines &Kreines, Inc., Consultants to Cities & Counties on Wireless::Planning
58 Paseo Mirasol, Tiburon, CA 94920, (415)-435-9214 phone and(415)435-1522-fax
e-mail:mail@planwireless.com-web site:http://www.planwireless.com : -
U.S. Senate sets DTV transition date I InfoWorld I News 12005-11-04 I By Grant Gross, I... Page 1 of 1
U.S. Senate sets DTV transition date
Senate sets 2009 deadline for switch to digital broadcasts,freeing up spectrum for wireless broadband
By Grant Gross,IDG News Service
November 04,2005
The U.S.Senate on Thursday voted to set April 7,2009, as the deadline for U.S.television stations to switch to digital broadca:
analog radio spectrum for wireless broadband and public-safety uses.
The Senate approved the digital-television
SPONSOR (DTV)transition deadline as part of a large
budget package aimed at reducing the �1��(®�ltl
Save big$on federal deficit.Auctioning off part of the
communications NOW NY metro freed-up spectrum is expected to raise
area. $10 billion or more,with$5 billion going to
the U.S.treasury in the Senate legislation.
Sponsored by Optimum
Lightpath The Senate rejected an amendment by
Senator John McCain,an Arizona Access Deli
SPONSOR Republican,to move the transition
deadline up by a year. McCain argued that
emergency response agencies need Access to the requested URL has been
Gig-E Wireless Bridges. additional spectrum as quickly as
Online price estimates: possible. Emergency response agencies
www.lightpointe.com often cannot communicate with each other
because of congested spectrum, McCain
Sponsored by LightPointe said.
"Here we are[for]our first responders,the
brave men and women who put their lives on the line in defense of the lives
of their fellow citizens who have already given their lives,who have performed so magnificently,who want to be able to talk to E
who want the spectrum freed up,"McCain said on the Senate floor. "And what do we do here in Congress?We delay it as long
is disgraceful conduct on our part."
Supporters of the 2009 date argue that an earlier deadline would rush spectrum auctions, potentially leading to lower bids.With
the auctions wouldn't meet the budget deficit reduction targets set by Congress.
In October,a House of Representatives committee set Dec.31,2008, as the DTV transition deadline. Negotiators would have I
differences in the two bills before a DTV deadline becomes law.
A group of technology companies has been pressing for a firm deadline for the DTV transition,saying the new spectrum will be
deploying next-generation wireless services.
Supporters of a hard deadline say first responders such as police and firefighters need additional spectrum to improve interope
between the multiple emergency response agencies in metropolitan areas. Following the Sept. 11,2001,terrorists attacks on tt
national 9/11 Commission recommended that emergency responders should have additional radio spectrum. In many cases,th
emergency-response agencies responding to the Sept. 11 attacks couldn't communicate with each other because their radios c
different spectrum bands.
Under current law, broadcasters are required to give up their analog spectrum by the end of 2006, but only in television market:
percent of homes can receive digital signals.While cable-television service can convert digital signals for analog sets,some es.
there are tens of millions of analog TV sets that receive signals over the air.Those sets won't work after the DTV transition with
boxes.
In December 1997,the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)voted to reallocate some frequencies in the 700MHz
safety and new commercial uses, in exchange for the digital spectrum TV stations received. Most television markets would nev
percent digital threshold now in law without a hard DTV deadline,critics say.
Also on Thursday,the FCC moved up the deadline that all TVs sold in the U.S. must be capable of receiving digital signals.The
moved up the date by four months,with the new deadline now March 1,2007.The FCC has phased in deadlines for large TV s
digital ready; all TV sets with screens larger than 36 inches(91.4 centimeters)were required to be digital ready by July 1 of this
1 httn://www.infoworld.com/article/05/11/04/HNdtvdate 1.htm1?source=NLC-TB2005-11-04 11/7/2005
"ayso
-Itue 141-/4/ cek"
Cor\ad'
________---------- -.A/04, ,,/ 44,-,-,
1 .L,,./, .4 /, / al- „kaA-t-if
' ddiA-4(ed
ii - --adi itA,,, .
11 . d/p/n-An - _7- 0,7 ....._ 0_ ,.bii , ,
.-E i_Ald---i-A 4 /
111111Mr, / ' t-v74,-Pti
, ..._ M/1/1./
II
P/ A ! f' I/I
°--
• - ri `Itadi - : 41
.04. gata6 Wi
II - - i'%' / ' "' i ,', if2
II
,
ICI ,-1//ffa��
/ i.
--- i ldiMPrerFAV i a-e-e-/7....1,-
II / /
i ,
/ , ,_
_ , / _ ka, i ,, ., tr. ",
........ eteWitli91416/ /
I 1 1 / i /j � %/ h / l/ 11r
II 4/11/4.1- i / /II
/ . . . I /
i
/
--Aidul- law -ilfAw
I-Di-- Q 7 - d hal- /'/ / d
/ii s d /V#, V
&iid A •
.i1
•
. . .. . ir / ' . -,, /iteg, dam.
� ,� _ j
4,JE._,' . .ylf -...,5-4-,dil741,1 . . .
,y/a 44,14,4. 1542 . . .
. ' :,, . ..v.----- , ' yx,o. • - .
i, - . M. 01144 t 414'V 6- 211-04(-il /Pt. . • ..
•
! .
•
.
II
•
a4
'� 3-13. D6
, 'T 2.W-- ddeteed6 live-.0-/ ia/
I 1-0-- allie daA4/-41e
aN- ykrie,144,aiv- -frGe--A - _7:4/€7L
1 • 1.-xe.cid-ti •vfrt. ez.:4 d-ei/x.6,•( 60,7-€. -e-'-e--
mi- Ad j4 2146 -"- - //
gli ided Cyr 0� ���
�a .. ' -,/,/tyzer. gie,)te-ed-f-e-7,; _
fcrl���- -�sPay
PM- - 02 ,frpitht444& , i44,eszo- ----- dif,$ -,L. gp-c,trAe.---/
-gyp ca - , tio, feviAz - ,,1_6ya'
oad- .sue !I
i
W./ H
u,
. 14''SAW 77'117 7‘-rTAP —
rr aviir
41P917 Yrige7 A fv6? Kwhiv 1,___.
,772w)/
ci -h?iv - 27(rAm3/ ''
.' ...a.d.. 117.2/P7r 217.1197P i
, - ?-02/wwkr PK fakweik f
-m"------17-- '
irfrvr17(0/'-' li
7 n.- 7.727r/w-mv i I
_ i , • //
- 125d -I-
-1
,,, �'� , II
lit v / /
erm
fr r1ifr ,0 or 9F9 ,irm 111
1
VW 57i)
/ 77/7 -7 A hip/iirmr- -0-7'1 xi,
, � -, --r
- / W ,r!
„ orE n/1,77/144-9q
71 714 r dall
//
i
11
/ _,(7// I
vim ';j/ !2 ,� 3 , �.
d a
lox/
--T-44v
V
_ 99-2ky, ) W
3 2- ty 2 t/e cci -
zir
/ri-er , /:
4/ z.6
- )7`.°T)W1761 - [
if f
07-7
0 4/if pui‘fr — - *
/(7727UtaY tol
? r y.-_' 91_
-dtuPTK1 ,,J
- - 1
1
0 •10 _
,1 ,
iaxi „diedia; aitai&- a, 7.cr Acddekleead •
rt,V, ,
1.
-1,11,ae ‘,144,/peel T/,4(1-,
's
Z' f _
!I
f 11._hdoti iLtly70,4-41,1-Z/t4, Ibtat . —Ale& #1(41/1,
-fi // /7 ,tf,,t, ..
ii___.L ja"..
- 1 A • ' . Midi d11111/11A41/./
----..49,7471
_ - th4lifrier ' ,
I j
i di
Fr------
&Lll' kal fare ey y ri i-t 0 c i x
•
.__,___,_,
ii .
,___:,.____ ,,,,,,, ,, ificee."-
pg' (14441.0,. R . . yr ...e.
i611
Yu
il' , • , (' '
''i .
A /
t
hp
I;i
III'
N
ffiob
ati6e,,,,;„
,./Azax
L131- 4°444 ifera4aid � � /e,0
ViZeie/Wi? /L
,D 2 14f 77.
41Am - dZJd
e4 e 6� t/
• - - /
;& gad
Jimel bi"”.Ac6
Jai el,74 &za_ it)tht44
Dr-- 025-qv 6 Qr Ate ! .
Tn-r ailed -,• �'az //ga,liafrzooe,
/atejla4,
1 /g01- a.3o - gef /& t'a
rp
.-zok —
— i77)71. —,d crf " ; .
er x -)rividt -L-1 *
7,711_71f/ 71i( ne, ////1 S
P`
-72 �'7 7iop
6 -%'7 772, 1z2P3' lily V y 19. id tH
774
,' rz . .
-72-;#72-0
- - 2"1411-tri-074, -0 (1.6°0
vr--f tirr"7""r wwifif
91)for
i�
- lf,
cee ;9-,r ivri
-fie rimr -MY/ taltPA-
40)b).9
"PIO' "ri ,AtItv
?f ,9-7P/7'7W .71 rM/1444X- Qr/r 4
/97 - Q ► ►�
3/X- ifin,01`(17:12(nY 7rA .rerriwwh— I
/?thy-49 7747-700/4/. sgeos
ag • r
/9 2 3 rolva - iTi4727\---I
"7/40? fi77( votil
r)-p, 4,1P70'
_ .0704..AW-
1/19-aociy,--/x6~79v /66,44
rp) y-i4g7 7 / 9V9 ir~ Ory
np - -. vfl 00,
,
re2V yr1)71V 471
ram ' X/ ' , '9007 ,r7 'h 7u
(4putnn-psof - %0 0/
j27ad CIO f -mQu0
I'
1
1:
I
I
q'1777kPe ?{ JLL.. `
0A- ,q// mec—/-",- 191I419 f ‘c-" fr 1
i
- ,d i ./0IN
-- -,i-v-P-77- g7 .
�p>
pop. -A sw _I
,71, ,,vyw, .rozw 4.-0,2972 .rv)kof ./L- , , „ i
-,0 /r p-77Q- YJ p
r II
,'°„'� - Jd g-
- 7
.:•
!•
•,
•
.; •/
..1
i2
It •9'•
f . •
•
i I
7451006
33;04-0
/ 11,4
f,1
A qc1000
54e'
i!' 061 6°51
II!
q01,°/°A0 55'1 °
3./6.
6,,,
Political/Franchise Questions
1. Why are we considering the development of an I-Net now?
A. TCI's current franchise agreement--which allows Tel to provide service in the City
-- expires on October 30, 1999. In advance of that date, the City of Pittsburgh have
begun discussing the renewal of the agreement. As a part of the renewal agreement,
TCl will likely agree to substantially rebuild its cable system.
It makes economic sense to time the installation of an I-Net with the imminent re-
building of TCI's cable system. The separate strands of the I-Net can be installed at
the same time as TCI is opening the streets, climbing utility poles and pulling the cable
for its cable television system.
The City also has legal leverage at this point in time. To the extent that there is a
demonstrated need for the services of an I-Net and the cost is not unreasonable, the
City can require the construction of the I-Net as a condition of the franchise renewal.
•
2. How rare is this opportunity?
A. Fairly rare. Franchise agreements have historically had terms of 10 to 15 years.
Companies wanted an adequate number of years to be able to recoup their large
investments. More recently, franchise agreements have been negotiated for shorter
terms in the range of 5 years.
TCI's franchise agreement with the City of Pittsburgh had a 15-year term. It was
executed on October 31, 1984 and is set to expire on October 31, 1999.
3. How does the franchise renewal process work?
A. Franchise renewals can be formal (using specific steps prescribed by federal law)
or informal, where the city and the cable company negotiate a franchise under
procedures they agree to. Both processes, however, entail three major steps. The
city reviews the company's performance under the expiring agreement and identifies
the community's "future cable-related" needs and services. The company submits a
proposal which describes its plans for the upcoming franchise period. The parties
negotiate an agreement that ensures that the community's needs are satisfied —or the
city denies the renewal.
4. What process is the City undergoing?
1
A. The City and TCI are currently negotiating informally, although they appear to have
preserved their rights to conduct formal negotiations.
5. Who are the players in the renewal negotiations?
A. The City has developed a negotiating team, consisting of representatives of City
Council, the Department of General Services, the Department of Law, the Cable
Communications Advisory Committee. The City has also hired a technical consultant,
Columbia Telecommunications Corporation. The team will negotiate an agreement,
which will go to City Council for approval.
The City's negotiators, of course, will be negotiating with TCI representatives.
6. Does the public have the right to input in the renewal process?
A. It should. Under the formal renewal process, the public has the right to participate
in the "needs assessment"which identifies the community's "future cable-related"
needs and interests. The city might also allow members of the public to intervene in
any formal evidentiary hearings that are held to determine the adequacy of TCI's
franchise proposal.
Under the informal renewal process, the public has the right to comment on an
agreement negotiated between the City and TCI, before the agreement becomes
effective. It has other opportunities only as the City chooses to make them available.
However, it is usually in cities' interests to encourage public participation. Such
participation provides the means to document the community's needs. These
documented needs then provide the legal leverage for establishing requirements, such
as I-Nets, in franchise agreements. Cities that have been successful in obtaining
substantial franchise requirements usually spend a great deal of time and resources in
this effort. They conduct outreach and education and use public hearings, focus
groups and surveys.
7. Can a city deny a renewal?
A. Yes, but only for certain specific reasons. A city can deny a renewal on one or
more of the following grounds:
(1) substantial non-compliance with the existing franchise agreement and applicable
law;
(2) unsatisfactory service;
(3) lack of financial, legal and technical ability;
2
(4) the failure of the company's proposal to meet the community's future cable-related
needs and interests, taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
47 U.S.C. 546(d).
It is the last reason (4), which provides the leverage to require an I-Net.
8. Does the City have the power to require TCI to install an I-Net?
A. The City can require an I-Net if it can demonstrate the need for it and that the costs
of providing it are not unreasonable compared to its benefits. The demonstration of
need may also entail a demonstration that the needs cannot be reasonably satisfied by
other providers.
Federal law acknowledges that cities may require cable operators to install institutional
networks as a condition of the initial grant of a franchise, a franchise renewal or a
transfer of a franchise. 42 U.S.C. 531(b), 541(3)(D).
9. Can TCI recover the costs of an I-Net in its rates? c
A. The parties to the franchise agreement would determine who is responsible for the
costs of the I-Net. This should include capital costs and ongoing operation and
maintenance.
3
;" ii
� det � man � � �c
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of ,2005,by and between
the City of Renton,a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to
as"City"and Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC,hereinafter referred to as"Consultant"whose office --{Deleted:and
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul,MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas,the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services,and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation,one or more sets of reports,
surveys,and other writings("Services")as more fully described in Exhibit"A",`B","C",and
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant,including its employees and sub-
consultants,in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants,terms, conditions,and provisions of this
Contract,the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City,and will terminate on
December 31,2008,unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington,Inc.,or its successor in interest,in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance,the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits"A",`B"and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant,the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes &Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits"A",`B", "C",and"D".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services,either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant,as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered,subject to the approval of the Renton City Council,as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
9-15-05 1
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services,unless before the Consultant commences such performance,the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without
limitation,reports,surveys, and other documents,any and all errors,omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports,surveys,and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications,Status,and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual,including any
consultants,charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington,to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law,to perform the Services,and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc.,Thomas G.Robin .n Constance Book,Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting,Inc.,as more full,• i- the Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC
proposal dated April 14,2005,and Ex ibit"D"attached herewith,are approved sub-
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals,their business names,if
any,and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees,if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract,the City
hires Consultant to perform,and the Consultant shall p- ,or cause to be
performed,the Services in accordance with the provis . . this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the J roject director and will pave supervisory responsibility for _-_---(Deleted:assign Tracy J.Schaefer as the)
the performance,progress,and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a •Deleted:to J
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator .-_----{Deleted:her J
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason,the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
I subject to the prior written approval of the project manager(as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees,and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington,and local laws,ordinances,regulations,orders,and decrees which
9-15-05 2
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with,and cause its employees and
consultants,if any,who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with,the laws ordinances,regulations,orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager,in writing,any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws,ordinances,regulations,orders,and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports,surveys,and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey,and other document given to,or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants,if any,without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4)copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports,surveys,and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys,and other documents,the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and
subcontractors deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services.
All employees and subcontractors of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or subcontractor of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent,the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing,and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided,however,all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services,the Consultant and its subcontractors,if any,will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1,the Consultant mayperform at its {Deleted:T
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and "'-1 Deleted:will
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management,as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding,or proceeding of a court of record;
9-15-05 3
3.1 . c n t avel n s ist a ex es f ie Co taut and ' f
b on rho orm a on or r nab uire un the Se ' es;
3.11.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract;and 9 7
3.11.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
PP.,.
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to I'
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Cler e
Manager,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Serv' Administrator,
will review and approve,as necessary,in a timely manner reports,surveys,and 1n, r,
other documents and each phase of work perform the Consultant I ;; .
4.3 Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer, �►'
Roilsa�.—T.`:., nro n.i T.,F 1�.7 ic+ �t , •-aaRn ie On,city
L lark�('a le*r ` ��_- „P I' will represent the City for all
purposes under this co°'ltract,ra-aaesignated,r tta ac tl rje
�b moo,auu—
1/
13 rhP('hief Adlz+sue^fir.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the ��I,� e r/,
Consultant in a timely manner. 1/� " 0(I�"
Section 5. Compensation (N" (//''
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work: / 40 O 1
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in con ction with ti‘ill
cable franchise management services,as indicated in Exhib' `A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars( ,000.00)per mont
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Servic in connection •
cable franchise renewal,as indicated in Exhibit"13" the City • pay the -- Deleted:on an informal or formal basis
Consultant a fee not to exceed,One Hundred Fifty ( ' • ' consistent with the applicable federal
cable act laws including any authorized
The amount of compensation reimbursable direct expenses
will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in
Exhibit"D",on a timepasis,up to the maximum amount set forth in this -- D +r:
contract. T== it-------.__`r___ ht*_-oe e p _nt ef-sus f •-th_
Co:ti---- pant do s not obtain-suet. 1.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be�dt follows: G U
Payment the Services will be actual
services rendered, •
• s $r within thirty(30)
days o suhtssinu,i • , •
The City will make final payment after the Consulta t has submitted all
9-15-05 4
.1 i 0 ild , QWN
,1 ►, 1
11 ll
1 , r.
reports,surveys,and other documents,including,without limitation,reports which
have been approved by the project manager. • e d n ' - allr,
Section 6. Accounting,Audits,Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared, maintained,and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles,and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3)years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports,surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City,irrespective of whether the Services are completed,upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify,defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members,officers,employees and agents,from any and all demands,claims,or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss,caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's,its officers',agents', consultants'or employees'
negligent acts,errors,or omissions,or willful misconduct,or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term,condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,term,condition,provision,ordinance,or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term,condition provision,ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term,condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment,acceptance,or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant,at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain,in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
9-15-05 5
1
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work,including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage(provide the number);
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance(ACORD form)shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured,the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached,and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof,the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder,
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which dmitted t l
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any an all cons is of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contrac obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the forms provided by the City,will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five(45)days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration,and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage,injury,or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract,including
such damage,injury,or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract,certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code,and certifies that it will comply with such provisions,as applicable,
before commencing the p r an of the Services.
/ oi'
Section 1-1. Termina( te "(Sus ension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part,or terminate this
contract,with or without cause, by giving inety,(90)days' prior written notice `a eted: .
thereof to the Consultant,or immediately fter submission to the City by the 'tM ed:3 _ i
9-15-05 6
V(1.---° .
1
consultant of any completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice,the
consultant will immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30)days'prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City,the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment,together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary,approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant,the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.3.1 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the t Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
Services by the City where the Consultant is not in default,the Consultant will
be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed upon by the City. , -- Deleted:receive compensation as
follows:¶
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination,the Consultant will deliver to the City <#>For approved items of se,ices,the
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports,surveys, and other consultant will be coopers:ed for each
item of service fully pelf. ed in the
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its sub- amounts authorized um r this contract",
consultants,or given to the Consultant or its consultants,in connection with this For approved items service on which.,
notice to proceed i slued by the City,
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City. but which are no, lly performed,the -
Consultant wi .e compensated for each
item of servi in an amount which bears
Section 12. Assignment the same r>io to the total fee otherwise
payable P.r the performance of the
servic•• the quantum of service actually
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant,therefore the Consultant will not reni ed bears to the services necessary
fo, a full performance of that item of
assign,transfer,convey,or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right,title or interest in or
service.
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one =---
Deleted:<#>The total compensation
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any payable under the
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and,at the option of the Chief will not exceed the '
payment spe died under Seciton 5 for the
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract respective rvices and optional Services
will not be assignable by operation of law. ! to be •hed by the Consultant"
For ed:Bullets and Numbering
Section 13. Notices Q,
All notices hereunder will be given,in writing,and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton,City Clerk/Cable Manager 4).)0
City of Renton
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516-fax
9-15-05
7
,
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
I To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley, Deleted:Tracy J.Schaefer,Project
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Director/Coordinator
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St.Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
bradley@bradleypuzzetta.com ---- Deleted:Schaefer
www.bradl eyguzzetta.corn
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract,the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest,direct or indirect,financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that,in the performance of this contract,it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City;this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race,color,national origin,ancestry,religion,disability,sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington,relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons,and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington,excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought,the parties agree that trial of such action will be Deleted:<y>The prevailing party in
any action brought to enforce the terms of
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States " this contract or arising out of this contract
District Court for the Western District of Washington. may recover its reasonable costs and
attorneys'fees expended in connection
16.4 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and with that action.¶
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations,and contracts,either written or oral. Formatted:Bullets and Numbering
9-15-05 8
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
116.5 The covenants,terms,conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to,and will
bind,the heirs,successors,executors,administrators,assignees,and consultants,as the
case may be,of the parties.
I 16.6 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
I 16.7 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda,appendices,attachments,and
schedules which,from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
116.8 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts,each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
I 16.9 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws,and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees,as practicable.
116.10 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a)at the end of any fiscal year in the t.-
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,or(b)at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a . on o t =
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This .-c ion 16.13 will •
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,t= ,condition,or
provision of this contract;provided however that the City provide.Note
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY &GUZZETTA,LLC
I Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Michael Bradley,Owner ---{Deleted:President
A I l'EST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I.Walton,City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
9-15-05 9
Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of ,2005,before me,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owne> of Bradley& -{I Deleted:President I)
Guzzetta,LLC,a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
9-15-05 10
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection& Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible;and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Com pliance—Periodic(or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public,Educational and Government
(PEG)access and implementation of Institutional Networks(I-Nets);and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges,channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints,as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements;and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures;and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-15-05 1 1
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur,to include,but not be limited to,such items as changes in
federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable operations,financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation,service delivery
and system administration.
9-15-05 12
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise,and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law,and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction,line extension density,system
leakage,channel capacity,local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and,if appropriate,GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations,advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates,or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue,advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications;and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen,educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided;and
• Assess the availability of such channels,time allocations provided for such
use,and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-15-05 13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits,if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary,in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1—3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1-3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results,identify needs and interests,and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks,for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1—3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1—3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input,including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1-2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information,and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation,and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-15-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1-2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey,input and analyze results, and
provide a written report,in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-15-05 15
1 ;
Exhibit"C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month,exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis&Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q-2006
Work Plan $1,560- B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q-2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
Public Hearings $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q-2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q-4Q-2007
Implementation $2,500- B&G
$8,000 4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360-
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
*Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-15-05 16
Exhibit"D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G.Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr.Constance L.Book,Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R.Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J.Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R.Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing,Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7),Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex,Travel,and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-15-05 17
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A", `B", "C", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A", `B", "C", and"D".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
9-15-05 1
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services, unless before the Consultant commences such performance, the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D and Front Range Consulting, Inc.,
as more fully descripted in the Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC proposal dated April 14,
2005, and Exhibit"D" attached herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be
employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The
Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in connection with the
performance of services under this contract only after obtaining the prior written
approval of the City of named individuals, their business names, if any, and their rates
and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
9-15-05 2
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and
subcontractors deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services.
All employees and subcontractors of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or subcontractor of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its subcontractors, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
9-15-05 3
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.11.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.11.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to Consultant's
requirements under this Contract.
4.2 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses,the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 155,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City reserves the right to refuse payment
of such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments based on actual
services rendered, or in accordance with any other schedule of payment mutually
9-15-05 4
agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits"C" and"D", or within thirty(30)
days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of payment is not
specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all
reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation, reports which
have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared,maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three (3) years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed,upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
9-15-05 5
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work, including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number);
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance (ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
9-15-05
contract, with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents,whether or not completed, prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants, or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
9-15-05 7
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 -fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer,Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any fmancial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color,national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
9-15-05 8
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.6 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9-15-05 9
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
&Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
9-15-05 10
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-15-05 11
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-15-05 12
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-15-05 13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input, including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations— 12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-15-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-15-05 15
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G &
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q - 2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q -2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q -4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q - 4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-15-05 16
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-15-05 17
- t
frilem
s - wa-it/ -4- zate-
"7/� 3
5"1-7,x°
pe-P4--/ary,*
- ter ,
jl
r
it
III
kt,,,, iei-pf- Ay-- aljkA-14 .Zzi,„,,,/,:,
.g&i au gyi ,,,,,,a---rkte_ xi.e.,4,-.0(
___2-7 �oo - aoo 8
I ' -
zi2 d'uLt
„ — km. . azei- 47' it)/ de , deeitt,z, 4etate.e.6.004-
iI .....--
.
OW l' W.'
I & ,<- - �-- 44 4&
`1 /
I , °
1
1 . io % '
L ' ilk ke # t CAVVU
N `u \w
AMINIM '
4\t\tr.L4.,
4iGeelei
ilia) alai& igailicvizof
, AA. ifraicej -
i - t .. 9% /,/flit
Y z tztrer,ort c? _
- do a
I .
-r gla mit,& c 711-�
il
i.
)7w.„ /.2..:;_b ,..4:;),....„,,,r_
eitikif
---owi, (tee
-r--___
--
doe Votai Jiaq.1�
's'o-- -.-- J • -1/q/
._ , ,,t, - ,,, .,-
„ , s----
, u,,,./:
197
7' o
. 4,::7 enk .3 -77
I' 44) etiAli i4c;g Ael
ii
4�a_go? / GB__ -
li1/2-0 ' ,. it-
't • i P,-=:.ALA, 6.1.iv/
§g y,bt ivi . .
d
tick
Pul 11:: ' , frir V v; • ,c,f-§:11
1 .' i 9 D9 ?Atli
gg
i k/D' fir''
di' 4 I
' c- iv' ,,-11 ' ell ‘44"ed'
00
1 P 1 /Ai vfil";;1-"tr-'
/ . I j / /
V r jp) ' ..• -
/ 4 5' A1-13:7,0 13-1-_:.;:q„,. ill e _
\ i , 1 lia)1 #; -if--7' 6'4ArAefriPA
,7/t);/):2_
- 'Vt ' r ' .,40A? ' -- - ai
S ''.))' 11' Ou'r'( JA/Lf "-°4'%-.- -j/ , , - -r--'
7 ii.1 0),-
i 1',,!II' ( - _,4,05 ii,koii._
if- - -7- 05- .3 -- 1512-
Vrj
: ,. iti.d)
. ,
upl-. 011 ° V\7' i°of)
I
e�
___ 73/1,3 I 421_977 di
/ ." V 1 •G� N 9V
- ,i/&__ I
-7-/-- /-7-)y- .7z7/1/-2-- - -77/2,7kff -?--,rilire
- yam
i_z;)„,.-i_2_7.fr7y, ,70, "-pp _ - e I
_ 2,..z.„-v ___. iff71 ag I
_______,_ ,
I
. , , - "&11' --imi . ' it
1, ,
. - ,
„,7-7 /(71 c)---/-d7' - wry ,
/7„,,,,,---, 04, - L
, t
11,7;,vy2� — �� i ;.
.2friegi/ p7 - 1
. ,ce? /www e A/t/mtp-r/p7 - • V r - e 'f
IrT-, , 7 /r- dig
i
�zY o ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 22, 2005
TO: Mayor Kathy Keolker-Wheeler
Council President Terri Briere, and
Members, Renton City Council
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: Comcast Cable Communications Rates - 2005-2006
The City's cable consultant, Lynne Hurd, of 3H Cable Communications, Inc, has reviewed the
annual basic cable rate adjustment proposed for the City of Renton by Comcast
Communications, Inc., for the period of July 1, 2005, through June 30, 2006. Review of the FCC
forms prepared by Comcast indicate compliance with the federal formulas designed by the
Federal Communications Commission(FCC) to ensure that cable customers are charged fair
rates in the absence of competition.
For Renton subscribers, the Maximum Permitted Rate(MPR) for basic cable has been calculated
at$14.56 per month,which is 3.4%higher than the 7/1/2004 MPR of$14.08. If the new MPR of
$14.56 were imposed, the increase would be 16.7%over the current monthly rate of$12.48. At
this time, Comcast is not imposing a rate increase, so the July 1, 2005,rate for basic cable will
remain at$12.48 base,plus fees and taxes. Should Comcast decide to impose a rate adjustment
within the next 12 months, they would need to provide at least a 30-day notice to the City and to
Renton customers, and the rate for basic (limited) cable could not exceed the MPR of$14.56.
Expanded basic and premium channels are not within the City's scope of review; however, for
your information, expanded basic service will remain at the current rate of$42.99. (The rate for
expanded basic service increased from$39.99 to $42.99 per month in January 2005.)
Our office published a notice in the South County Journal and placed a message on Renton
Channel 21 reporting the proposed rate adjustments and inviting written comments. No
comments were received.
If I can provide additional information regarding this matter,please feel free to contact me.
cc: Jay Covington
Utility Tax/Cable TV and Franchise Fees Collections
Revenue Source 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Budget 2006 Projected
Utility Tax/Cable TV 374,273.83 487,114.37 464,018.57 595,988.74 626,564.59 591,000.00 664,997.00
Franchise 390,899.77 484,903.93 492,479.37 509,786.46 619,926.31 510,000.00 515,100.00
Hi Linda,
To answer your question whether we can move the money to Fund 127,
I think they are considered as General Governmental Fund Revenues.
It is the City's decision whether we should allocation the appropriation to Fund 127.
For your information, the Fund 127 has a fund balance of$205,438 at the beginning of 2005.
Bang
From: Bang Parkinson
To: Herzog, Linda
Date: 9/26/2005 1:51:15 PM
Subject: Re: Franchise & Cable TV Revenues
Hi Linda & Bonnie,
1. The 2006 Projected column is from the 5 years forecast I did back to Mr. Wilson's time. It is not the
2005 projection.
2. We don't know if the Franchise fee collection is going down this year. The 2005 budget column is just
the budget projection for 2005. We may or may not have the same number at the end of 2005 actual.
Hope this help!
Bang
>>> Linda Herzog 09/26/05 1:25 PM >>>
Bang -Thank you so much for the quick response! Thanks also for the Fund 127 balance figure. I have
two questions on the revenue trend spreadsheet:
1 -The final column on your spreadsheet is labeled "2006 projected"- Do you mean "2005 projected"
instead?
2 -Why is the franchise revenue going down this year(for the first time in 5 years)? It looks like we were
expecting this to happen. We budgeted for a $120,000 drop in this revenue, so we must have anticipated
this decline. But I don't know what were the factors that caused this decline.
As you can see, I added Bonnie Walton to this e-mail. Please send your response to "reply all"so she
gets the answers also.
Thanks again!
Linda
>>> Bang Parkinson 09/26/05 1:16 PM >>>
Hi Linda,
Attached is the spreadsheet shown 5 year revenues from Franchise & Cable TV. Please let me know if it
is not what you want. thanks!
Bang
CC: Walton, Bonnie
What have we had up until now?
How about the current consultant- service diminishment
CABLE MANAGEMENT/ADMINISTRATION ASSISTANCE
Why do we need a contract at all?
What if we do not do a contract?
What has been done in the pat?
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
Why do we need a contract at all?
What if we do not do a contract?
What has been done in the pat?
Describe each piece of the scope
Negotiation process?
How bad is Comcast?
Bonding, Maintenance of I-Net,
Do we have to renew with them?
B&G
Capabilities
References
Range of Fees between proposals
Direct Costs
Range of Costs
Sharing Costs with Kent
AGENDA: March 23,2004 4.3
CATEGORY: Consent
DEPT.: City Manager
TITLE: Cable Television Franchise Renewal
Process
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt A RESOLUTION COMMENCING A REVIEW OF CABLE OPERATOR PAST
PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CABLE-RELATED NEEDS AND
INTERESTS;PROVIDING FOR SATISFACTION OF CABLE ACT REQUIREMENTS TO THE
EXTENT APPLICABLE;AND PROVIDING FOR ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO CABLE
FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS, to be read in title only,further reading waived.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact directly associated with the approval of the above-listed
recommendation.
Staff will seek reimbursement of expenses related to the renewal of the City's cable television
franchise as part of the City's approval of a new cable franchise. Staff has obtained similar
reimbursements in the past from the cable operator for expenses incurred by the City for its
review and consent to changes of control of the City's cable franchise. Although the City's
franchise holder has agreed to reimbursements in the past,reimbursements for this renewal
process are not guaranteed.
A request for a $40,000 appropriation has been included in the proposed FY 2004-05 budget
to provide initial funding for legal and other specialized consultant services that may be
required during the franchise renewal process until a reimbursement agreement can be
reached.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Cable television operators are required by Federal,State and local law to obtain franchises
from the local governments they operate in for the operator's use of the public rights-of-way
in the provision of cable television services. As far as the City is aware, UACC-Midwest,Inc.
currently holds the cable television franchise for the City of Mountain View. This franchise is
scheduled to expire in 2006.
AGENDA: March 23,2004
PAGE: 2
On December 22, 2003,the City of Mountain View received a letter from Comcast
Communications, Inc. (Comcast) requesting the City commence a formal renewal proceeding
of the City's cable television franchise pursuant to Section 626 of the Federal Cable Act
(Attachment 1).
Under Federal law, the renewal of the cable television franchise can be conducted through
either a formal or informal process. The formal and informal processes can be and usually
are conducted simultaneously. The formal process can be terminated at any time if the
parties reach agreement informally through negotiations. In its letter,Comcast indicated its
preference to reach a renewal agreement through informal negotiations.
As required by the Federal Cable Act,47 USC§546(a), the City must commence formal
renewal proceedings within six months of receiving proper written notice from"the cable
operator" requesting a commencement of the renewal process. However, a substantial issue
currently exists as to whether Comcast's December letter provided the City with adequate
notice to commence the formal renewal process since it is not clear whether Comcast is "the
cable operator" within the meaning of the Cable Act's renewal provisions. The City has not
approved a transfer from UACC-Midwest, Inc. to Comcast.
The City could also activate the formal process itself,without a request from the cable
operator. Because the formal renewal process can be very complex, time-consuming and
expensive,it is not in the City's interest to proactively activate the process.
Under the formal process, the City would begin by examining the cable operator's past •
performance and identifying future cable-related needs and interests of the community.
Conducting these activities will benefit the City even if the renewal process is ultimately
completed through informal negotiation.
The attached resolution(Attachment 2) is crafted to allow the City Manager to commence
activities typically associated with a formal renewal process such as examining past perform-
ance by the franchise holder and identifying the future cable-related needs of the community.
The resolution also allows the City Manager to negotiate renewal issues informally.
Importantly, the resolution preserves the yet-to-be resolved notice issues and makes it clear
that the City is not commencing the formal franchise renewal process of its own accord. The
resolution provides that if proper notice is,or has been received, then the formal process will
be deemed to have been commenced so that the City can comply with Federal law to conduct
and complete a formal renewal process.
Staff will return to the City Council at a later date to provide an overview of the process it
intends to follow during franchise renewal,including the steps it will undertake to assess the
AGENDA: March 23,2004
PAGE: 3
franchisee's past performance, identify the future cable-related needs and interests of the
community and determine if the cable franchise should be renewed.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The City could take no action. However, if Comcast's letter is deemed to have been
adequate to commence a formal renewal process, the City could find itself in violation
of Federal law.
2. The City could commence the formal process unilaterally,removing any question
regarding the adequacy of the notice received from Comcast. This option is not in the
City's interest at this time because of the unresolved issue regarding the adequacy of the
notice and the expense that could be incurred by the City in the formal renewal process.
PUBLIC NOTICING
In addition to distributing copies of this report in accordance with the City's standard agenda
posting requirements, copies of the report were sent to the Comcast official responsible for
the City of Mountain View cable television franchise and the City's outside legal counsel for
telecommunications issues.
Prepared by: Approved by:
Linda Forsberg Nadine P. Levin
Deputy City Manager Assistant City Manager
Kevin C. Duggan
City Manager
LF/9/CAM
601-03-23-04M-1
Attachments: 1. Comcast Letter
2. Resolution
CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.
SERIES 2004
A RESOLUTION COMMENCING A REVIEW OF CABLE OPERATOR PAST
PERFORMANCE AND ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE CABLE-RELATED NEEDS AND
INTERESTS; PROVIDING FOR SATISFACTION OF CABLE ACT REQUIREMENTS TO
THE EXTENT APPLICABLE;AND PROVIDING FOR ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL NEGOTIATIONS
WHEREAS, on December 22,2003,the City of Mountain View received a letter on
Comcast Communications, Inc. letterhead requesting the City to commence the formal
cable franchise renewal procedures required by the Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984,47 USC§546 (the Cable Act); and
WHEREAS, Comcast Communications, Inc. also asked the City to engage in
informal cable franchise renewal negotiations; and
WHEREAS, the provision of Federal law cited above requires the City of
Mountain View to commence a formal renewal proceeding no later than six months
after a proper written notice is received from "the cable operator," but Federal law does
not require the City to commence such a proceeding if the notice is not properly
submitted; and
WHEREAS, there is some question as to whether the notice received was sufficient
as it came from Comcast Communications,Inc. and not from the City's current cable
franchisee; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mountain View nonetheless finds that it would be in its
interest to conduct a review of the cable franchise holder's past performance,identify
future cable-related needs and interests of the community and determine if any
franchise issues can be resolved through negotiation; and
WHEREAS,the City of Mountain View further finds that the review should be
structured so that it satisfies the requirements of the Cable Act's renewal requirements
if those have been properly activated by "the cable operator" as that term is used in the
Cable Act's renewal provisions;
,
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mountain View that:
1. The City Manager is authorized to begin examining past performance by the
cable franchise holder and identifying the cable-related needs and interests of the
community. The City Manager is directed to provide the public with notice and an
opportunity to participate in this process.
2. If 47 USC§546(a) is or has been properly and timely activated by the cable
operator, Section 1 commences the proceeding required by the Cable Act. Otherwise,
the process is not activated by Section 1.
3. The City Manager is authorized to take appropriate steps to determine
whether franchise agreement issues can be resolved through negotiation and to take
steps to negotiate as directed by the City Council of the City of Mountain View.
LF/9/RESO
601-03-23-04R-1
August 22, 2005
To: Linda Herzog
From: Bonnie Walton
Re: Cable Consultant Agreement& Scope of Services
In response to your memo of 8/9/05, regarding the Cable Consultant Scope of Services,I
provide the following response and information:
Franchise Management Services:
1. You asked whether moving of five items (regarding Performance Analysis,Upgrade
Evaluation, Compliance with the Cable Consumer Protect Act,Access Utilization and
Collection of Franchise Fees) from the Franchise Management category to the Franchise
Renewal category meets with my expectations of those items.
I discussed these items on the phone with Tracy Schaefer of B&G. She indicated that our
current services for these five items will continue as normal and that any reports we are
currently receiving from service on these items will be provided as "Other Reports"in
Ci1/4—"r the B&G Franchise Management scope. The reason why they are now listed in the
Renewal Process category is because each of the five will be reviewed "in depth"as part
of the renewal process. Therefore there is no loss of service or doubling up of costs due
to movement of these five items from one category to the other.
(a �yD`T You had agreed with me that a preliminary timeline for the Franchise Renewal process is ►,,•;
..
Ai.
t� wn needed. That has been provided and is sho an Exhibit C".
3. You had questioned whether the"out-of-pocket costs"include charges for the production �,�
1 of reports. Section 3.6 of the contract drafted 8-22-05 indicates that the Consultant will t"'d'
f�' provide four copies of any reports B&G produces. My in intent here is that there would
�. be no extra copy charge for the four sets to be provided. Let me know if you think that
language does not satisfy. — pv. AM Q.6149 )i i)-(,a t_
4. You asked if the $2,000 per month plus but-of-pocket costs meets my expectation of the
level and quantity of work involved in the day-today management responsibility. (Your
rough calculation indicated the $2000 per month figure equates to about two days a week
of an employee salaried at about$24 per hour or$4000 per month.)
Exhibit "C", Cost Detail, indicates that for Cable management/administration services, -
there will be a flat fee of$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs. So, I believe there should
be no out-of-pocket expenses on to off t_he$2.000 per month, except possibly for
extraordinary travel expenses should we have an unusual technical problem. The flat.
fee, in my opiniondy,, shou),,ld cover the cost of reports and phon:caller under the (f
I management category. Regarding t e level and quanti o` �v involv :i--tha ns hard to
ii,
),,):-i - 1
judge. Some months I doubt the consultant will devote 64 hours exclusively to the work I ,
of Renton in the management category. Doing the annual rate review analysis each e.� p
spring is technical and time-intensive, however. Also, the Consultant attends regional
and national meetings and keeps up on telecommunication law on an ongoing basis, 1
which is to our benefit. So in general, I think it is worth the$24,000 a year for the high
intellect and caliber of services we get. I view part of the$2000 as "real cost"and part
as insurance or preventative maintenance, so to speak
Franchise Renewal Process:
5. You inquired about the cost of Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation work,how
much of the work is on-site, and if the City is comfortable paying up to $20,000 over the
cost of franchise management for this work
This work is to be performed by Tom Robinson of CBG, and most all of it, if not all, will
be performed in Renton and at the head-end we utilize. This is work that is specific to the '�,
Franchise Renewal process. As far as I know, this type of work would not occur under ,�011
the normal management duties, unless Comcast was in the middle of an upgrade, like • 1
they did a few years ago, or there was a problem, new equipment installed or some
unusual technical matter to address.
6. You asked for clarification of the work to be performed under"Compliance with
Consumer Protection Laws."
This is my understanding: The regular annual rate increase review would occur under
the cable management category and would be for the purpose of examining potential and
forthcoming rate increases. The work to be performed under Cable Renewal would be a /
one-time in depth review of past rate increases,justifications and approvals by the City.
Negative findings would provide leverage during negotiations, or, if substantial enough,
could open the door for the City to lawfully seek proposals from other cable firms, rather
than having to deal only with Comcast. (Feel free to confirm this with Tracy Schaefer 0°.#',
and/or makEcommendations to the language in the Scop]regarding this.)
7. You asked if the Access Utilization and Collection of Fees work is a duplication and J, 1 4
added cost of what formerly was included under cable management. . 0 --
Since the contract with Puget Sound Access went in place several years ago, there has
been little real work done on the issue of Access Utilization. What is proposed now is an ,1) .
in-depth review of the current PEG channel obligations and performance as part of the A.x
renewal process, and an analysis of future needs. Since the school district is now more
receptive to tapping into an educational channel, this is something I feel is worth
reviewing. Also, it will be good to have better clarification of how the UW channel fits in
the picture as far as current franchise obligations, since there does not seem to be
anything in writing about it. Lastly the Mayor's wish that the Renton channel be shown
in Renton's Potential Annex area of unincorporated King Co. could rightfully be
2
addressed in this task (I did some work on this last issue last year and hit a stone wall.
It is not easy to resolve, so I'd be glad to have B&G pursue it.)
Regarding Collection of Fees, it is true that the quarterly reports will be reviewed under
the Cable management category of the consultant contract. However, what is proposed
here, under Cable Renewal, is a mini-audit of the Franchise Fee calculations and payments. This is the work that will be performed by Front Range Consulting. It is my m(41/4.9'''understanding that a good auditor like we are hiring is very apt to find franchise fee
miscalculations, which is a violation that apparently makes Comcast sit up and listen
when discussed at the negotiation table.
8. You asked whether consultant services would be needed for the"Special Presentation"to
Council and that we should ask Jay. You also asked if the contractor would need to
facilitate the public hearings. n n
I personally think it would be best if B&G or CBG did present to Council on any V"
Franchise Renewal matters, as the consultant would be the most knowledgeable to
explain and answer questions,particularly on technical matters that could be hard for 70.6).`
any of the rest of us to explain. Of course, if Council asks no questions, we will wonder
why we paid the Consultant for these presentations, but having the Consultant available pl,)
would be good insurance, I think.
9. You comments regarding the method of doing a survey, mail vs. phone, are appreciated.
I, too,feel a phone survey would prove to be more accurate and meaningful. When I
OP*"
called for references on B&G, a couple of their customers could not say enough good
things about the great survey work done by Dr. Booker, and how helpful the survey was 46k
to them.
10. You commented about the Comparative Study that was moved from Cable Management ,1\,>
to Cable Renewal scope.
While the cable management side will continue to look at what is happening locally with ��1�
cable franchises, the renewal process, as Tracy Schaefer explained, will include more �j,�`
regional and national comparisons. Apparently at negotiation time, B&G feels they will
be concentrating on the specific needs of and important issues for Renton and working
toward that end, rather than working toward something less important to Renton just ,
because the neighboring cities received it. The Comparative Study is not priced
separately, but is part of the negotiations, I believe. No formal comparative study report D
is called for as a deliverable at this point.
11. You asked about wording under Financial Implications indicating"the remaining years of
cable TV effort".
3
This task occurs right before negotiations. I believe the wording means B&G will ���/ '
prepare a projected budget for the years into the next franchise and they will use this /��,�;f,
projected budget information during negotiations. fo► 41 .'
Regarding your notes and our conversation of 8/18/05:
1. You suggeste use the City's boilerplate for the contract itself, rather than B&G's draft,
which they wer: luct provide anyway knowing we would probably want to use
our;i,L c. i t t, 1 ge.
1 4\1 ` :-'.use, o r1�. able consultant contract covered only cable management services, and
is .+,'i e �blzl services, I ended up using a combination of sources, including ours, to
Y. ) '., 'j the n i w contract. I did not use B&G s contract, but I did use the scope B&G
. ' "(s. ovided making just minor changes to indicate we want certain items "in writing. ".
�`% 1
2. You suggested that the contract stick to using two Scopes, one for Cable Management g, ►
and one for Cable Renewal. That has been done. ,
3. You suggested that the Cable Renewal scope be set up in two or more phases, so that the
City is not locked into all of the work in the event national legislation takes away our
rights and options regarding cable franchises.
making , A
the phasingseparation and the wordingwork, so as an alternative I ,
I had trouble p
have attempted to include language in the contract that would allow the City to opt out of ' 4'4$)
the contract at any time for any reason. Let me know if this wording has not adequately A
addressed your suggestion.
4. You asked what would be done during the 18 months between the end of B&G's scope
and time frame to the actual end of the current franchise agreement.
According to Tracy Schaefer there is nothing to prevent Comcast from negotiating early
and it could be in our best interests to do so. Should we be lucky enough to complete
negotiations 18 mo. ahead of the end of the current franchise, then we would be back to
just Cable Management work with B&G through the end of 2008.
5. You pointed out that it is not necessary to detail in the Renewal scope how B&G should
achieve the results we want, only what we want.
I agree and have scrapped the detailed scope I had drafted and went back to using the (e--
scope provided by B&G, which does include deliverables.
This concludes my responses. Please let me know if I missed anything or I can provide
additional information. Also, feel free to contact Tracy Schaefer directly if you would like
further clarification or confirmation on any matter.
4
RECEIVED
,��Y o ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND AUG 2 2 2005
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
�' Office of the City Clerk MAYORS OFFICE
-NTo� MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 2005
TO: 'Linda Herzog, Interim Assistant to the CAO
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: Cable Consultant Contract
Attached for your review is my response to questions and suggestions you have previously made
regarding the scope of services for the proposed cable consultant contract.
Also attached is draft of a proposed Consultant Agreement with Exhibits. I compiled this
contract form using a combination of City and outside sources plus some of my own language. I
did not use the form sent by Bradley and Guzzetta,which in my opinion did not cover as well.
See what you think.
To stay on pace, I would like to send a copy of the draft agreement over to the City Attorney
today if possible for his preliminary approval. Once I get critique and preliminary approval from
you, Jay and Larry, I will send a draft to B&G for their review. I would like to get the draft
contract in B&G's hands yet this week if possible. My intent is to place this matter on the
Council Agenda of 9/12 to refer to Committee of the Whole. I am working on the issue paper
now.
Thank you for your assistance with this. I appreciate all comments and suggestions.
bw
attachments
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
DRAFT 8/22/2005
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005, by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley arid Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and`B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the ervices, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee s ay warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the($ ,',' ity Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further ill be entitled to an extension
,daAkok0$
of the time schedule Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
to
•
1 \\ I 1 �'/1 ,1 � 1 1
5):JS!) ,
1rVAr'1J' w
,
' 4 • 1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services,unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without.
, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documentwill be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City, provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is ‘
required by law, to perform the ices, and that the Services will be executed by
0.5
9,them or under their supervision CBG Co ,, un'cat;ons, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D
0' andTront Range Cbnsu mg, Inc., as _ ` ` "`--: -=- in Exhibit"D" attached ,,p�
/y' herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the J�', �,
Consultant in the performance of this Agreem nt. The Consultant mayo fter
i)))).P.A11 1
obtaining the prior written approval of the Cit , use or emp oy a i iona sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract
3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City ,; v
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be �� '
lv
performed, the Services in accordance with,the-previsiola o 'this Contract and itc
axhibita LEsdtitut 46 pir
3.1- The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the projec irector to have • 0)1tfy) Olt
supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or ��
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.6 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will: 0
3. :1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully,informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the )„,). 6
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services; 6l ii
3.63 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.64 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6? Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Atto - ` .• %-ts
3. The Consultant will provide the City with f•i copies .j f any and all writings, • .
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, . : : i ocuments upon their t
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for 01
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.f If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.q The Consul nt will be r;:.o sible or ;in loyi� .1-engaging all pe s necessary to
perfori �t 'ices. % '41_'tZ !.`. •fie suit. . will b9 emed to be directly
controlled and supervise. •y e ,: u to w 'c �• ensible for their
performance. If any employe: o - _e - tant :ils or refuses to carry ,A�
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, t''e affected employee W
Y 6w6
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further perfo ance under this
g contract on demand of the project manager. U"
it
3.tO In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and it, sub-consulta , 'f any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3. ,P G The Consultant will perform o obtain or cause to b• performed or obtained any d
' .1. all of the following optional Se ces, as may be required by the City: V
3.10.1 Providing services to the Cit Clerk/Ca e Manager, the Chief Administra ive 11 l
Officer, the City Attorney an. the Fin.i ce and Information Services
Administrator in connection wi, any public or non-public hearing or me ing,
arbitration proceeding, or procee,,in: of a court of record; ,`�
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence e enses for the Consultant and its staff 3(�"
beyond those normally authorize. • reasonably required under the Servi es;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional S. i -s that may be agreed upon by the p rties
subsequent to the execution of is co ract; and 7
3.10.4 Other optional Services now o hereafte, described in Exhibit"B". • `1
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible 'or employing . 1 sub-consultants deemed
\ reasonably necessary to assist the Consul :nt in the perform: ce of the Services. The
pP' appointment of the sub-consultants must •e approved in adva .ce by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City duri g the term of this contract, provided, however, all
) • k' sub-consultants identified in the Cons: tant's proposal and accep d by the City upon
�• jp execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
V"
. '\e), DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be shed , p��
`mod"� ud e,,.-�. information requirements Wul.� `
as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, su eys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The C. '
iiii
estimated time of review and a val will be fern' o the Consult the time A
of submission of each e of work, as n . The Consult c owledges and ..94W-
understands that interrelated e nge of informa ' among the City's various
departure akes it ex y difficult for rty to firmly establish the time of
eac iew and oval task. The ' s failure to review and approve within the
timated ti schedule w' constitute a default under this contract"
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike vW 1
.
, � Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City ��
Oy Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors, will represent the City for all
60V purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
\O\
os)..t*
h designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal,
the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum A•,4/j):,ffik
amount set •
forth in this contract. fps of the cub ,.
.
,w_,,,,
. he City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, i ___e—)
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval. y--- de
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
e
4
DRAFT 8/22/200,5"",�
4-11.04- fit 0.6(44 4 4 46°
Payment oft e Services will be made in monthly_progress payments
, or in accordance wit any o er schedule of
ayment mu ally a reed upon by t e partisjs set forth in Exhibits "C" and"D. e .
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
' payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
se:0? ubmitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
*Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct tr=canc:17mpoasgs-affil expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services ad-10 -Y*i^"al Se £ces-1 ted in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principle d will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indem1iity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
1 \1161"--.,LI,,O\100 . .,v, ill' :1),Ipti /200t
.G
Section 9. Insurance V"" \t \ 1(�y9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,ey. ,•
w obtain and maintain, in full force and '
effect during the term of this contract, comme cial liability insurance in the amount of �0
i, $1,000,000, insuring the Consultant andtsultants.�A certificate of insurance Q ".
• i shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The V' p
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured. �j1
All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with0°
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
1 insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the Pr
'onsuItant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
\61.. 47 . in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 ertificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
V
et filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
' ° endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
�,\%}.P' altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
b,b
��� prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
(}/" with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
•° 9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation ,�siy4�atu
jti
The consultant, by executing th. ontract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the '
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
iability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consu t' :,k,, npensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the :- City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, sugsyk.and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or itultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
1.6 The fai ure o e ity to agree wit t e onsultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, o the
O.) 4) basis of differences in matters of judgment,will not be construed as a failure on t e
OF
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
V� Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, thereforeethe Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
7
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer,Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@a,bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any'interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions PiP
?
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the equirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington,relling to access to publi '1,
\o,t31} •
IV
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract,whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley,,President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
•
Lawrence J. Warren,,City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley; proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inqu'-* Off?
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquirie of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever o s e; an - � d--Wyt p totil
.o ' be,p formed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and imple '_e; :tion of Institutional eXworks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare :-- - - uc perio is r ortr from the operator att may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
2
Documents—Daily (or as needed) • , ,
• Assume responsibility or t development and m ' ten ce o curre �..� strew
showingthe status •.---==Y '= •-• -.•: location of cffort�and other ro ect
•- � Ap � n� ��
aintain records o subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations,,if necy, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
' 11
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and rce �,yv�o
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to those. any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
•
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3 —6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
010
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programminglporting'n writing any deficiencies discovered' ediate yte-the.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in a
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove whole or in part a and eit hex,,, n
order.a refund or prescribe reasonable rates® . emu"' ��'C' �`�y - 11-�0 WV'
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriag ,positioning and V' yV9�"""
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and d✓"
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in th ) i W""t,
event of non-compliance.
0'?Access Utilization—3—4 months* ► ` i
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and '4 1
• onitoOhe availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
, ,,314111:Ac • "1, Pr/°/,7-
(5\;ill:
� ? , ' i
�'teye 14 . '
L ,per\, � 13
()))— , w 9$ , \ ` W"
L
a•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation— 1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (ALL aix d9.t 4- � /� �
AU1� 7
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months* J
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months* COO*
• Facilitate public hearings and 'nput, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
�-r
A Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently,. Total tame fort\these items }4i044-1016141# 21166 nine
months
1 p�• 7 • ` • I ad
tt
p 14
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page3of3 -
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 - 2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Sera
Detail
Administrative Sera Ices 41GSCr/be4 m 04171'h/A /9 :
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
enewa f{ l Sun/ices described iK LrIM) 'B
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G&
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q - 2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q -2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 , 2Q - 4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q - 4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
•
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
' Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and�due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: lerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :49 All FAX NO r, Ut
inn.�.�ra' City of Palo Alto
¢��� I'A1,UY:
f��/ y�� Purchasing & Contract Administration
C.i �O
` , •k
*\� 250 FH,omilton Avenue Tel: (650)329-2271
'Jt;,(rZr 1;lotL r.tV Palo Alto, CA 94301 Fax: (650)329-2468
FAX TRANSMISSION
• Date: (,)9 I ef
-- ___ -----!o. ,P�ahn _WcL/ f on ------ — --
Company/Agency:
-........ -----.._ Fax: a qa d - 6,3-7 6__. V
-- ._ — —........._._.. I—torn: -/}'1 i° l.:ss . ��v u,//J- —___�..w_...---
Numherofpages,
including this cover: 3 3
Comments/Message: '
/ ♦ ^ //, e J d<_..,, J/ ))
AIOV., _,&-,-). 6-4.-t.., a-r--/-nad-y7,74" , . .
If you lmvo any trouble receiving any portion of this transmission, please call our office at
(6 50) 329-2272.
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :49 AM FAX NO F. 02
•
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
DATE: JUNE 14, 1999 CMR:270:99
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A CONSULTANT CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$102,250 WITH THE BUSKE GROUP FOR CONSULTING SERVICES
FOR CABLE REFRANCHISING RENEWAL PROCEEDINGS AND
FOR THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE CABLE
FRANCHISE AND APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT
ORDINANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,475 FOR THE CONTRACT
AND FOR ADDITIONAL CONTRACT LEGAL SERVICES IN THE
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
•i\MIRA:
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council:
1• Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the attached contract with The Buske
Group in the amount of$102,250 for consulting services related to the cable franchise
renewal process and the transfer of ownership of the cable franchise.
2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more
change orders to the contract with The Buskc Group for related, additional but
unlorseen work which may develop during the cable franchise processes, the total
value of which shall not exceed $10,225 or 10 percent ofthe contract.
3. Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of$32,475. Of this, $12,475
is for the contract with The Buske Group and the remaining $20,000 is for legal
consulting services for the City Attorney's Office related to the cable franchise
renewal process and the transfer of ownership of the cable franchise.
4. Approve an exemption from City Policy and Procedure 1-10 which provides for
Council Standing Committee participation in the review of the draft scope of services
for consultant agreements over$25,000.
CMR:270:99 Page 1 of 5
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :49 AM FAX NO, P. 03
+ ., BACKGROUND
The franchise agreement between the City, representing the Joint Powers Agency (JPA), and
Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto, inc. (Cable Co-op) expires on March 24,
2001. During the period which begins thirty-six months before the expiration of the
franchise (March 24, 1998), Cable Co-op may request the City to commence proceedings to
determine whether or not to renew the franchise. On July 20, 1998, Cable Co-op requested
the City to commence renewal proceedings.
Alter the City received the request to begin renewal proceedings, Cable Co-op announced
its proposed sale to AT&T Broadband and Internet Services, which purchased the cable
company TCI several months ago. The City's existing franchise agreement with Cable Co-op
and Federal law permit the City to approve any transfer of ownership that may occur. Once
the City receives official notice (a completed transfer application on FCC Form 394)
regarding the transfer of ownership, the City has 120 days in which to approve the transfer.
Both parties may agree to extend the 120 day deadline. If the City does not act within 120
days, the request will be considered approved.
DISCUSSION
Consultant Services Description
The franchise renewal proceedings are governed by Federal law and the current franchise
agreement between the City and Cable Co-op. The proceedings involve a number of
procedural steps, including; conducting a technical inspection and assessment of the current
cable system infrastructure; identifying future cable-related needs and interests of the
community; evaluating the past performance of the cable provider for compliance with the
existing franchise; reviewing the level of customer satisfaction with the operator, and a
complete analysis of public, educational, and government (PEG) access; a needs assessment
of users and other interested parties, through surveys, focus groups, and public hearings; and
developing a formal request for renewal proposal, should that become necessary. To
successfully complete the renewal process and negotiate a new franchise agreement requires
expertise in areas as diverse as cable programming, PEG access programming, cable
regulation and law, public opinion polling and market research, rate setting, the electrical
engineering field, and telecommunications systems. The transfer of a franchise agreement
requires a similar degree of analysis and examination. Due to the depth of the scope of
services required, staff sought the services of a consultant.
Selection Process
On December 18, 1998, letters were mailed to fifteen firms asking their interest in providing
consultant services for the City's cable refranchising renewal proceedings. Four companies
responded to the request(The Buske Group, Cathey Hutton &Associates, ATV Broadcast
& Consulting, and Miller&Van Eaton). A request for proposals was sent to the four firms
on March 2, 1999. Two firms submitted proposals (The Buske Group and Cathey, Hutton
CMR:270.99 Page 2 of 5
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :50 All t'AX NU. r. u4
,N.,. & Associates), •
On April 16, 1999, a selection advisory committee consisting of members of. the JPA, the
City Attorney's Office,the City Clerk's Office, and the Administrative Services Department
interviewed the two firms, The Buske Group was selected by the interview panel due to its
vast cable communications experience. Specifically, the firm has extensive knowledge of
and experience in the cable television refranchising process. It has provided services to
communities throughout the United States, including 30 cable franchising authorities located
in California. This firm has dealt with all aspects of the cable rcfranchising process,
including informal proceedings, formal proceedings, and cable transfer of ownership. Staff
has checked references on The Ruske Group with the City of Santa Rosa, the City of Gilroy,
and the City of Monterey. All of the cities had positive relationships with The Buske Group.
The initial proposal from The Buske Group was for$95,850. After Cable Co-op announced
its proposed sale to AT&T, The Buske Group submitted a proposal to provide consultant
support in connection with the transfer of the franchise agreement in the amount of$6,400,
bringing the total contract amount to $102,250. In addition, staff is requesting a contract
contingency of 10 percent, or $10,225.
Due to time constraints involved in the refranchising process and given that the transfer of'
the franchise is imminent, staff is recommending an exemption from City Policy and
Procedure 1-10, which provides for Council Standing Committee participation in the review
of the draft scope of services for consultant agreements over$25,000,
The 1998-99 Adopted Budget included funding of $100,000 in the City Manager's
contingency account to be used for the cable refranchising project. Staff is seeking Council
approval of another$12,475 for a total contract amount of$1 1 2,475, In addition, due to the
need for specialized legal assistance, staff is seeking approval of an additional $20,000 for
contract legal assistance.
In Iate May 1999, the City entered into a time and materials contract in the amount of$2,500
with The Buske Group for consulting services related to the proposed transfer of ownership
of the cable system from the Cable Co-op to AT&T. Staff wanted to take advantage of the
consultant's expertise as soon as possible, given the tight deadlines involved in the transfer
of ownership.
RESOURCE IMPACT
'Me 1998-99 Adopted Budget included funding of$100,000 in the City Manager's contingent
account to be used for the cable rcfranchising project. The remainder of the contract,
$12,475, is requested to be funded out of the Budget Stabilization Reserve, Further, an
additional $20,000 is needed for consulting legal services in the City Attorney's Office,
which is also requested to be funded out of the Budget Stabilization Reserve. The total
CMR:270:99 Page 3 of 5
. JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :50 All FAX NO. t', Ub
amount of money needed from the Budget Stabilization Reserve is $32,475.
Staff anticipates successfully negotiating a new franchise agreement without conducting a
formal request for renewal proposal process. However, should the City decide that a formal
proposal process is necessary, staff would return to the Council to request an additional
$15,300 for consultant services in support of the formal process.
Substantial policy, legal, administrative and financial issues are involved in the franchise
renewal process. In order to effectively support the process, a working group comprised of
staff from the City Clerk's Office, City Attorney's Office, and the City Manager's Office,
including the Director of Administrative Services and the Director of Utilities, has been
established. Significant staff support will be provided by both the Administrative Services
Department and the City Attorney's Office throughout the transfer of ownership and cable
refranchising processes. In order to support the staffing requirements, Administrative
Services plans to overfill a Senior Financial Analyst position from a 0.50 FTE to a 0.75 FTR,
The position overfill will be funded out of salary savings in the Department. It is anticipated
that staff will request funding in the future to backfill for the Senior Financial Analyst and
for a Senior Assistant City Attorney since these individuals will be dedicating a significant
portion of their time to the refranchising process. At this time it is difficult to predict what
additional City resources may be necessary, so staff would return with the Midyear Financial
^ *` Report if additional resources arc needed.
The total costs for the franchise renewal proceedings will be shared among the meinbers of
the Joint Powers Authority on a pro-rata basis according to the percentage that they receive
from franchise fees.
TIMELINE
Stall'intends to return this summer with The Buske Group to brief the Council on the transfer
of ownership process. At a later date, staff intends to return with The Buske Group to brief
the Council on the franchise renewal process.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
These services do not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CFQA).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Consulting Contract
Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinance •
Attachment C: Budget Amendment Ordinances Impacting the General Fund Reserves
Approved to Date in 1998-99
iw`HM
CMR:270:99 Page 4 of 5
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :51 All FAX NO r, ub
PREPARED BY: Melissa Cavallo, Assistant Director, Administrative Services
Shannon Gaffney, Senior Financial Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Chant Kolling, Senior Assistant City Attorney
DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL:
CARL YEATS,
Director, Administrative Services
Cll'Y MANAGER APPROVAL:
JUNE FLEMING
City Manager
CMR:270:99 Page 5 of S
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :51 AM FAX Na t'. U(
C // ),?-1 (
CONTRACT NO.
BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BUSKE GROUP
FOR CABLE FRANCHISE CONSULTING SERVICES
Z"(127.0 9-7
This Contract No. is entered into ,
by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city and a
municipal corporation of the State of California ( "CITY") , and THE
T3USKE GROUP, a California general partnership, located at 3001 J
Street, Suite 201, Sacramento, CA 95816 ("CONSULTANT") .
ucITALS :
WHEREAS, CITY desires certain cable franchise consulting
services in connection with the renewal of the cable franchise
agreement, and a transfer thereof, and the preparation and delivery
of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports, surveys, and
other writings ( "Services" ) , as more fully described in Exhibit
"A" ; and
WHEREAS, CITY desires to engage CONSULTANT, including its
employees and subconsultants, if any, in providing the Services by
reason of its qualifications and experience in performing the
Services, and CONSULTANT has offered to complete the Project on the
terms and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants, terms,
conditions, and provisions of this Contract, the parties agree:
aTCTION 1 . TERM
1 . 1 This Contract will commence on the date of its
execution by CITY, and will terminate upon the completion of the
Services, unless this Contract is earlier terminated by CITY. The
parties contemplate that the Services may be required to be
rendered up to and including the date of expiration of the cable
franchise with the Cable Communications Cooperative of Palo Alto,
Inc . or its successor in interest in mid-March 2001 . Upon the
receipt of CITY' s direction or notice to commence performance,
CONSULTANT will commence the performance of Services in accordance
with the time schedule set forth in Exhibit "A" . Time is of the
essence of this Contract , In the event that the Services are not
completed within the time required through any fault of CONSULTANT,
CITY' s City Manager and City Attorney will have the option of
extending the time schedule for any period of time , This provision
• will not preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by
CONSULTANT.,
•
L)9O403 syn 0071643
• JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :52 AM FAX Na P. 08
SECTION 2 , SCOPE OF SERVICES ; CHANGES & CORRUTIME
2 , 1 The Services will be performed in accordance with
the Scope of Work set forth in Exhibit "A" ,
2 . 2 CITY may order changes in the scope orrcharacter of
the Services, either decreasing or increasing the amount of work
required of CONSULTANT, as the negotiations with the cable
franchisee may warrant . In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of CITY' s City Council, as may be
required, CONSULTANT will be entitled to full compensation for all
work performed prior to CONSULTANT' S receipt of the notice of
change and further will be entitled to an extension of the time
schedule . Any increase in compensation for substantial changes
will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
Contract . CITY will not be liable for the cost or payment of any
change in the Scope of Services, unless the amount of additional
compensation attributable to the change is agreed to, in writing,
by CITY before CONSULTANT commences such performance.
2 .3 Where the Services entail the preparation or
drafting and submission of, without limitation, reports, surveys,
and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or ambiguities -'
° ,.. in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by
CONSULTANT at no cost to CITY, provided CITY gives notice to
CONSULTANT.
SECTION 3 . OUALILLUIONS , STATUS , AND DUTIES OF
CONSULTANT
3 . 1 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has the
expertise and professional qualifications to furnish or cause to be
furnished the Services . CONSULTANT further represents and warrants
that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly
licensed or certified by the State of California, to the extent
such licensing or certification is required by law to perform the
Services, and that the Services will be executed by them or under
their supervision. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY for approval,
prior to execution of this Contract, a list of all individuals and
the names of their employers or principals to be employed as
consultants .
3 . 2 In reliance on the representations and warranties
set forth in this Contract, CITY hires CONSULTANT to perform, and
• CONSULTANT shall perform, or cause to be performed, the Services in
accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its exhibits .
3 . 3 CONSULTANT will assign SUE MILLER DUSKE as the
project director to have supervisory responsibility for the
performance, progress, and execution of the Services . SUE MILLER
EUSKE or her designated representative will be assigned as the
• project coordinator who will represent CONSULTANT during the day-
to-day performance of the Services . If circumstances or conditions
2
ceog 3 svu D071643
• JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :52 AM FAX NO, P. U9
•
subsequent to the execution of this Contract cause the substitution
of the project director or project coordinator for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project
coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3 .4 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it will :
3 .4 . 1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all
charges and fees, and give all notices which may be necessary and
incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the Services;
3 .4 . 2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and
future Federal, State of California, and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, orders, and decrees which may affect those engaged or
employed under this Contract and any reports, surveys and other
documents to be prepared by or at the direction of CONSULTANT or in
furtherance of CONSULTANT' S performance of the Services;
3 . 4 . 3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause
its employees and consultants, if any, who are assigned to the
performance of this Contract to observe and comply with, the laws,
ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees mentioned above; and
3 .4 . 4 Will report immediately to the project manager,
in writing, any discrepancy or inconsistency it discovers in the
laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees mentioned above
in relation to the reports, surveys, and other documents.
3 . 5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or
prepared or assembled by, CONSULTANT or its subconsultants, if any,
under this Contract will become the property of CITY and will not
be made available to any individual or organization by CONSULTANT
or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written
approval of the City Manager and the City Attorney,
3 . 6 CONSULTANT will provide CITY with eight (8) copies
of any and all writings which are made a part of the reports,
surveys , and other documents upon their completion and acceptance
by CITY.
3 .7 If CITY requests additional copies of any writings
which are a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents,
CONSULTANT will provide such additional copies and CITY will
compensate CONSULTANT for its reasonable duplicating costs .
3 . 8 CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to perform the Services. Al].
consultants of CONSULTANT will be deemed to be directly controlled
and supervised by CONSULTANT, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of CONSULTANT fails or
refuses to carry out the provisions of this Contract or appears to
be incompetent, the affected employee or consultant will be
3
00603 syn UM 6i13
- JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :53 AM FAX Na P. 10
discharged immediately from further performance under this Contract
on demand of the project manager.
3 . 9 In the execution of the Services, CONSULTANT and its
subconsultants, if any, will at all times be considered independent
contractors and not agents or employees of CITY.
3 . 10 CONSULTANT will perform or obtain or cause to be
performed or obtained any and all of the following optional
Services , as may be required by CITY:
3 , 10 . 1 Providing services to the City Clerk, the City
Manager, the City Attorney and the Director of Administrative
Services in connection with any public or non-public hearing or
meeting, arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record
furnished as part of the optional Services;
3 . 10 .2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for
CONSULTANT and its staff beyond those normally authorized or
reasonably required under the Services;
3 , 10 .3 Performing any other optional Services that may
be agreed upon by the parties subsequent to the execution of this
�M.. Contract ; and
3 . 10 , 4 Other. optional Services now or hereafter
described in Exhibit "A" and/or Exhibit "B" ,
3 . 11 CONSULTANT will be responsible for employing
all subconsultants deemed reasonably necessary to assist CONSULTANT
in the performance of the Services . The appointment of
subconsultants must be approved, in advance, by CITY, in writing,
and must remain acceptable to CITY during the term of this
Contract, provided, however, all subconsultants identified in
CONSULTANT' S proposal and accepted by CITY upon execution of this
Contract are not subject to this provision.
,SECTION 4 . DUTIES OF CITY
4 . 1 CITY will furnish or cause to be furnished the
services, if any, listed in Exhibit "A" and such information
regarding its requirements applicable to the Services, as may be
reasonably requested by CONSULTANT .
4 , 2 CITY, represented by the project manager, the City
Clerk, the City Manager and/or the City Attorney, will review and
approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by CONSULTANT.
CITY' s estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to
CONSULTANT at the time of submission of each phase of work, as
needed. ' CONSULTANT acknowledges and understands that the
interrelated exchange of information among CITY' s various
departments makes it extremely difficult for CITY to firmly
establish the time of each review and approval task. CITY' s
4 •
990603 syn 0071&13
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :53 AN ['WSW. r, ii
•
failure to review and approve within the estimated time schedule
will not constitute a default under this Contract .
4 . 3 CARL YEATS, the Director of the Administrative
Services Department, on behalf of the City Manager, and GRANT
KOLLING, Senior Assistant City Attorney, on behalf of the City
Attorney, will represent CITY for all purposes under this Contract,
and they are designated, collectively, as the project manager. The
project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by Melissa Cavallo,
Assistant Director of Administrative Services, and Shannon Gaffney,
Senior. Financial Analyst, and such other individuals as may be
designated by the City Manager.
4 , 4 If CITY observes or otherwise becomes aware of any
default in the performance of CONSULTANT, CITY will use reasonable
efforts to give written notice thereof to CONSULTANT in a timely
manner.
SECTION 5 . COMPEN$ATIOt
5 . 1 CITY will compensate CONSULTANT for the following
services and work:
5 . 1 , 1 In consideration of the full performance of the
Services in connection with negotiations conducted with the cable
franchisee on an informal basis consistent with the applicable 1984
and 1992 federal cable act laws, including any authorized
reimbursable expenses, CITY will pay CONSULTANT a fee not to exceed
One Hundred Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($102 , 250 . 00) .
The amount of compensation will be calculated in accordance with
the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit "B" , on a time and
materials basis, up to the maximum amount set forth in this
Contract . The fees of the subconsultants, who have direct
contractual relationships with CONSULTANT, . will be approved, in
advance, by CITY . CITY reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if such prior approval is .not obtained by CONSULTANT ,
5 . 1 . 2 In consideration of the full performance of
optional Services in connection with negotiations with the cable
franchisee conducted on a formal basis consistent with the
applicable 1984 and 1992 federal cable act laws , the amount of
compensation set forth in Exhibit "B" will not exceed Fifteen
Thousand Three Hundred Dollars ($15, 300 . 00) . The rate schedules
may be updated by CONSULTANT only once each calendar year, and the
rate schedules will not become effective for purposes of this
Contract, unless and until CONSULTANT gives CITY thirty (30) days'
prior written notice of the effective date of any revised rate
,schedule .
5 . 2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows :
5 . 2 . 1 Payment of the Services will be made in monthly
progress payments in proportion to the quantum of services
5
)'10603,yn 0(1)(613
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :54 AM FAX Na P. 12
performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of payment
mutually agreed upon by the parties; as set forth in Exhibit "B" ,
or within thirty (30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such
requests if a schedule of 'payment is not specified. Final payment
will be made by CITY after CONSULTANT has submitted all reports,
surveys , and other documents , including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager,
5 .2 .2 Payment of the Optional Services will be made
in monthly progress payments for services rendered, within thirty
(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests .
SF;CC5ION 6 AC..CQTTNTINC, AUDITS , OWNERUIP Q ',_ Emana
6 , 1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and
expenses incurred in connection with the performance of Services
and the optional Services listed in Exhibit "B" will be prepared,
maintained, and retained by CONSULTANT in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to CITY
for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during the term
of this Contract and for three (3) years following the expiration
or earlier termination of this Contract .
6 .2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other
documents prepared by or under the direction of CONSULTANT in the
performance of this Contract will become the property of CITY,
irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon CITY' s
payment of the amounts required to be paid to CONSULTANT. These
originals will be delivered to CITY without additional
compensation,
SECTION_7,, INDEMNITY
7 . 1 CONSULTANT agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and
hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and
agents , from any and all demands, claims, or liability of any
nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or
any other loss, caused by or arising out of CONSULTANT' S, its
officers ' , agents ' , consultants ' or employees ' negligent acts,
errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which
applicable law may impose strict liability on CONSULTANT in the
performance of or failure to perform its obligations under this
Contract .
SECTION 8 . WAIVERS
8 , 1 The waiver by either party of any breach or
violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this
Contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,
provision, ordinance, or law or of any subsequent breach or
violation of the same or of any other covenant, term, condition,
provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money which may become due hereunder. will
6
99cwe sy a 0071613
. JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :54 AM FAX Na P. 13
not be deemed td be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation
by the other party of any covenant, term, condition or provision of
this Contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
B .2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial
acceptance by CITY will operate as a waiver on the part of CITY of
any of its rights under this Contract .
SFCTION._.9 , INSU$ L�'E
9 .1 CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, will
obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of
this Contract, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "C" ,
insuring CONSULTANT and its consultants, if any, and, with the
exception of workers ' compensation, employer' s liability and
professional liability insurance, naming CITY as an additional
insured concerning CONSULTANT' s performance under this Contract .
9 . 2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be
provided through carriers with pest' s Keyaring Guide ratings of
A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact insurance business
in the State of California. Any and al]. consultants of CONSULTANT
retained to perform Services under this Contract will obtain and
maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this
Contract, identical insurance coverage, naming CITY as an
additional insured under such policies as required above.
9 . 3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the
forms provided by CITY, will be filed with CITY concurrently with
the execution of this Contract . The certificates will be subject
to the approval of CITY' s risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will
not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with
the CITY' s city clerk thirty (30) days ' prior written notice of
such cancellation or alteration, and that the City of Palo Alto is
named as an additional insured except in policies of workers '
compensation, employer' s liability, and professional liability
insurance . Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on
file at all times during the term of this Contract with the city
clerk .
9 .4 The procuring of such required policy or policies
of insurance will not be construed to limit CONSULTANT' S liability
hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this
Contract . Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,
CONSULTANT will be obligated for the full and total amount of any
damage, injury, or loss caused by or directly arising as a result
of the Services performed under this Contract, including such
damage, injury, or loss arising after the Contract is terminated or
the term has expired.
7
990603 syn 0071643
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :55 AM FAX Na N. 14
SECTION L O . WORKER !_ COMPENSATIQN
10 . 1 CONSULTANT, by executing this Contract, certifies
that it is aware of the provisions of the Labor Code of the State
of California which require every employer to be insured against
liability for workers ' compensation or to undertake self-insurance
in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and certifies that
it: will comply with such provisions, as applicable, before
commencing the performance of the Services .
,S,FCTTON 11 L _T.ERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CQNTR,,,.QI OR
.2ryiCes
11 . 1 The City Manager and the City Attorney, on behalf of
the City, may suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or
in part , or terminate this Contract, with or without cause, by
giving thirty (30) days' prior written notice thereof to
CONSULTANT, or immediately after submission to CITY by CONSULTANT
of any completed item of Services . Upon receipt of such notice,
CONSULTANT will immediately discontinue its performance under this
Contract .
11 . 2 CONSULTANT may terminate this Contract or suspend
its execution of the Services by giving thirty (30) days' prior
written notice thereof to CITY, but only in the event of a
substantial failure of performance by CITY or in the event CITY
indefinitely withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation
or the continuation of Services .
11 . 3 Upon such suspension or termination by CITY,
CONSULTANT will be compensated for the Services and the optional
Services performed and approved prior to receipt of written notice
from CITY of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due . If the
Services are resumed after they have been suspended for more than
180 days, any change in CONSULTANT' S compensation will be subject
to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval of CITY' s City
Council . If this Contract is suspended or terminated on account of
a default by CONSULTANT, CITY will be obligated to compensate
CONSULTANT only for that portion of CONSULTANT' S services which are
of direct and immediate benefit to CITY, as such determination may
be made by the city manager, in the reasonable exercise of her.
discretion .
11 . 4 In the event of termination of this Contract or
suspension of work on the Services by CITY where CONSULTANT is not
in default, CONSULTANT will receive compensation as follows :
11 . 4 . 1 For approved items of services, CONSULTANT will
be compensated for each item of service fully performed in the
amounts authorized under this Contract .
11 . 4 .2 For approved items of services on which a
notice to proceed is issued by CITY, but which are not fully
8
99060)syn(X)7l(13
I A
• JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :55 AM FAX Na Pr 15
performed, CONSULTANT will be compensated for each item of service
in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee otherwise
payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of
service actually rendered' bears to the services necessary for the
full performance of that item of service .
11 .4 , 3 The total compensation payable under the
preceding paragraphs of this Section will not exceed the payment
• specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by CONSULTANT.
11 . 5 Upon such suspension or termination, CONSULTANT
will deliver to the city manager immediately any and all copies of
the reports, surveys, and other documents, whether or not
completed, prepared by CONSULTANT or its consultants, if any, or
given to CONSULTANT or its consultants , if any, in connection with
this Contract . Such materials will become the property of CITY.
11 . 6 The failure of CITY to agree with CONSULTANT ' S
independent findings , conclusions, or recommendations, if the same
are called for under this Contract, on the basis of differences in
matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the part
of CONSULTANT to fulfill its obligations under this Contract .
mWW
SECTIO_,l._7. , ASSIGNMENT
12 . 1 This Contract is for the personal services of
CONSULTANT, therefore, CONSULTANT will not assign, transfer,
convey, or otherwise dispose of this Contract or any right, title
or interest in or to the same or any part thereof without the prior
written consent of CITY. A consent to one assignment will not be
deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of CITY will be void and, at
the option of the City Manager and City Attorney, this Contract may
he terminated. This Contract will not be assignable by operation
of law.
aCJ ION 13 . NQTICES
13 . 1 All notices hereunder will be given, in writing,
and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail, addressed as
follows
To CITY: Office of the City Clerk
City of Palo Alto
Post Office Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director
at the address of CONSULTANT recited above
•
•
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :56 AM FAX NO, P, 16
a CTION 14 . _C;QNFLICT OF'..,.T,.NNIZREST
14 , 1 In accepting this Contract, CONSULTANT covenants
that it presently has no interest, and will not acquire any
interest , direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would
conflict in any manner• or degree with the performance of the
Services .
14 .2 CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the
performance of this Contract , it will not employ consultants or
other persons having such an interest mentioned above. CONSULTANT
certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest
under this Contract is an officer or employee of CITY; this
provision will be interpreted in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code
of the State of California.
SECTION_.1,5 . NONDISCRIMINATION
15 . 1 As set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code, no
discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this
Contract because of the age, race, color, national origin,
ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of such
Few person. If the value of this Contract is, or may be, five thousand
dollars ($5 , 000) or more, CONSULTANT agrees to meet all
requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code pertaining to
nondiscrimination in employment, including completing the requisite
form furnished by CITY as set forth in Exhibit "D" .
15 ,2 CONSULTANT agrees that each contract for services
from independent providers will contain a provision substantially
as follows :
" [Name of Provider] will, provide CONSULTANT
with a certificate stating that [Name of
Provider) is currently in compliance with all
Federal and State of California laws covering
nondiscrimination in employment; and that
[Name of Provider) will not discriminate in
the employment of any person under this
contract because of the age, race, color,
national origin, ancestry, religion,
disability, sexual preference or gender of
such person. "
15 . 3 If CONSULTANT is found in violation of the
nondiscrimination provisions of the State of California Fair
Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal, law or
executive order in the performance of this Contract, it will be in
default of this Contract . Thereupon, CITY will have the power to
cancel or suspend this Contract , in whole or in part, or to deduct
the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each person for each
calendar day during which such person was subjected to
discrimination, as damages for breach of contract, or. both. Only
10
•
99O&)J,yit 007l6t
• JUN-09-2005 THU 11 ;56 AM FAX Na F. 1 (
a finding of the State of California Fair Employment Practices
Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will
constitute evidence of a breach of this Contract.
15 .4 If CONSULTANT is found in default of the
nondiscrimination provisions of this Contract , CONSULTANT will be
found in material breach of this Contract . Thereupon, CITY will
have the power to cancel or suspend this Contract, in whole or in
part, or to deduct from the amount payable to CONSULTANT the sum of
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each calendar day during which
CONSULTANT is not in compliance with this provision as damages for
breach of contract, or both.
NSF;CT7(1 1.6 . NiIS„CELLANEOUS PROVI$LONS
16 . 1 CONSULTANT represents and warrants that it has
knowledge of the requirements of the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 , and the Government Code and the Health
and Safety Code of the State of California, relating to access to
public buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and
relating to facilities for disabled persons . CONSULTANT will
comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such
provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this Contract.
16 . 2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any
controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this Contract
may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with the
Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon
the award rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court
having jurisdiction thereof .
16 . 3 This Contract will be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding its
conflicts of law.
16 . 4 In the event that an action is brought , the parties
agree that trial of such action will be vested exclusively in the
state courts of California or in the United States District Court
for. the Northern District of California in the County of Santa
Clara, State of California.
16 . 5 The prevailing party in any action brought to
enforce the terms of this Contract or arising out of this Contract
may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in
connection with that action.
16 . 6 This document represents the entire and integrated
Contract between the parties and supersedes all prior negotiations,
representations , and contracts, either written or oral . This
document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is
signed by the parties .
16 . 7 All provisions of this Contract, whether covenants
or conditions, will be deemed to be both covenants and conditions .
11
990603 syn OW 16.
. JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :57 AM FAX Na P, 18
•
16 . 8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of
this Contract will apply to, and will bind, the heirs, successors,
executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the case
may be, of the parties. '
16 . 9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules
that any provision of this Contract or any amendment thereto is
void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Contract
and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect .
16 . 10 All exhibits referred to in this Contract and any
addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules which, from time
to time, may be referred to in any duly executed amendment hereto
are by such reference incorporated in this Contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this Contract .
16 . 11 This Contract may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which
together will constitute one and the same instrument .
16 . 12 All communications between the parties shall be
conducted in a manner that protects and is intended to protect the
confidential nature of such communications . CONSULTANT acknowledges
and agrees that the CITY seeks to protect any and all
communications with CONSULTANT •under applicable laws, and
CONSULTANT agrees to maintain the confidentiality of any and all
communications with CITY, its Council members and its employees, as
practicable.
16 . 13 This Contract is subject to the fiscal provisions
of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal
Code , This Contract will terminate without any penalty (a) at the
end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated
for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal
year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of
the fiscal year and funds for this Contract arc no longer
available. This Section 16 . 12 will take precedence in the event of
a conflict with any other covenant , term, condition, or provision
of this Contract .
/
/
12
9)90601 syn 0071613
. JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :51 AM FAX NU P. 19
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly
authorized representatives executed this Contract in Palo Alto,
County of Santa Clara, California on the date first above written.
CITY OF PALO ALTO THE BUSKE GROUP, a California
General P nership 7)
AA City-ie---,-M Hager BY-7. -- ', • A ./
/ Lt Name: Sue Mill r Buske
✓>i Title: Partner
City Attorney w^
CT:210 ---'
Director of -dminis ative
Sery e s
Taxpayer Identification No.
\ � __ 6B-0265020
insurance Revi
(Compliance with Corp. Code § 313 is
required if the entity on whose behalf
Mw this contract is signed is a corporation.
In the alternative, a certified corporate
resolution attesting to the signatory
authority of the individuals signing in
their respective capacities is acceptable)
Attachments :
EXHIBIT "A" : SCOPE OF SERVICES & TIME SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT "B" ; RATE SCHEDULE
EXHIBIT "C" : INSURANCE
EXHIBIT "D" ; NONDISCRIMINATION COMPLIANCE FORM
._...
13
99i1603 svn 00716,13
- JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :58 AM FAX NO r. 'u
CERTIFICATE OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT
(Civil Code § 1189)
FOSTATE OF `.UN 1 Cki\-- )
—Pr—f/yAM-b
) ss .
COUNTY OFi\�V40Il�l , _— )
On/(M (L 1 _, 1999, before me, the undersigned, a
Notary Public i nd r said County and State, personally appeared
4A L hlerliti r..,e,� , personally known to
me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
persons) whose name) &are subs ribed to the within instrument
and knowledged to me that he/s /they executed the� ame in
his ieX/their authorized capacity( s) , and that by hie he /their
signature ) on the instrum nt the person ) , or the entity upon
behalf of 'doh the person •) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal .
--6,-,„„A____,
'M„,, /
OLGA L.PETERSEN ,1 "/
?,y, Commlzion411w Signs - e of Notary Public
-ccrc memo County
n My Corral.Expiroa Mor 17,2001
•
•
14
990603 syn 0071643
JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :58 All FAX NO. P. 22
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant shall perform the following services in connection with the renewal
of the CATV franchise and any'transfer of the CATV franchise that may arise In
connection with the renewal.
A. Develop a Franchise Renewal Work Plan and Negotiation • .
Strategies for the Implementation of that Plan.
a) Conduct a detailed review and written evaluation of the City's
existing franchise with Cable Communications Cooperative of
Palo Alto, Inc. (Cable Co-op) and any other documents that
affect Cable Co-op's franchise obligations and or the
franchising process and work with City staff to;
•
a. Devise a timeline with adequate time for negotiation and
execution of reasonable cost-effective renewal procedures
consistent with federal, state, and local laws; and
b. Work with the City Attorney to Identify areas 'in existing and
proposed governing documents that can be improved and
advise how those areas can be enhanced, consistent with
the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts and enab►e the franchise
process to move forward smoothly.
c. Prepare a written report of the review and provide feedback
to City staff
B, Provide a written report alter conducting a Technical Inspection
and Assessment of the Cable System
1 , Phase I - Physical Plant Assessment
a. Perform an on-site field investigation of the existing
cable system for conformity with required•codes and
standards, determine consistency of their documentation
with the existing plant, and maintain a log documenting
the results, citing any code violation or abnormal .
construction practices. The inspection will include but
not be limited to the following:
- the cable plant;
trunk and feeder system Including wires, etc.;
•
- subscriber installations; and
- the headend and central control equipment.
b. Provide a comprehensive written report of the results of
the assessment.
Page 1
F• P NO 117e75 ._ -
s /clklcablc/ccope doe I. JK 001141.01
- JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :58 AM FAX NO. r. zsJ
•
EXtIli3IT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
2. Phase II - Electrical Plant Assessment
a, Inspect all key electronic facilities of the cable system,
•
including the headend and hub sites and determine the
types, quantities, and general operational status of the
electronic equipment associated with the headend and
distribution network,
- Review Cable Co-op's FCC proof of performance
data for the last two testing periods and ensure
historical testing practices are consistent with FCC
rules and accepted procedures.
b. Determine if the system is consistent with the
documentation and requirements of the franchise
agreement. '
c. At a minimum of five sites, work with Cable Co-op and
City staff to oversee and monitor tests of the system's
performance. Verify conformance with City test
standards and those of the FCC Tests will include the
measurement of carrier-to•noise, carrier-to-composite
distortion, signal levels, subjective viewing quality, and
other key parameters as may be required. (In thy event
there Is any question regarding testing methodology, an
understanding between all parties Involved in the testing
would be reached prior to test performance).
3. Provide a comprehensive written report of the results of the
assessment.
C. Evaluate the Past Performance of the Cable Co-op •
1 . Work with City staff to develop a review of Cable Co-op's
compliance with existing franchise and provide assurance that
members of the public have received all benefits of the
existing franchise.
2. Conduct a financial analysis of the existing system that
includes:
• review of financial history and financial qualifications
• review of financial projections: and
• Franchise fee payment review.
Page 2
f:FP NO. 113875 -
s'lclk/cablelseopc.doc 3JK 001141.01
- JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :59 AM FAX NO. F. 24
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
3. Review the financial history and financial qualifications of
Cable Co-op. Calculate financial statistics, compare with
industry norms, and provide a summary to the City early on In
the process of the franchise renewal.
4. Prepare and request financial projections from Cable Co-op
Establish a computerized model, generate an analysis of the
information, and provide the City with various "what-if"
scenarios that may arise during the renewal negotiations,
5. Review the franchise fees and Identify discrepancies in past
payments, if any, and assist the City by enhancing Its ability to
plan for adjustments in requirements and reporting procedures.
These discrepancies will be over and above any discrepancies
Identified by the audit conducted by the City Auditor or outside
auditors. In order to do, the vendor will:
• Review the franchise agreement and pertinent
ordinances, particularly the sections related to payment
of franchise fees;
• Obtain and analyze any revenue reports submitted by
• the Cable Co-op to the City and reconcile these to
franchise fee payments received by the City from Cable
Co-op;
• Perform certain reasonableness tests on the reported
data;
• Obtain information from Cable Co-op and its
independent auditor (the operator's compliance with the
request will allow for performance of the 'following
steps);
• Meet with appropriate Cable Co-op representatives and
review appropriate documents to:
- Clarify any issues arising from the review of filings
submitted to the City;
- Understand the subscriber billing and collection
system; •
- Understand accounting procedures applied for non-
subscriber revenues;
- Understand accounting policies for bad debts;
•
Page 3
RFP NO, 113375 ..
/elk/chide/scope ooc eJK 001141.01
• JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :59 AM FAX N0, P. 25
•
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
- Understand procedures for allocating revenues to
particular members of the Joint Powers Authority
(JPA);
•
- Identify any revenue items that were excluded from
the reported revenues, based on Cable Co-op's
• understanding of what is to be Included in "gross
revenues"; and
- Reconcile the revenues ,reported to the City to those
shown In Cable Co-op's general ledger for the
system;
• If necessary, meet with representatives of Cable Co-op
independent auditor to understand procedures
performed to audit gross revenues at the level of the
•
local system;
• Preparation and delivery of a draft letter to the City that:
- Documents any discrepancies Identified in the
• , previous steps that indicate underpayments or
overpayments of franchise fees under the existing
franchise requirements;
•
- Specifies ordinance and/or franchise agreement
changes that could remove reporting problems In the
future; and
•
- Recommends revisions in reporting procedures, if
appropriate;
- Review the draft letter with appropriate City staff and
Cable Co-op representatives; and
- Submit the finalized letter report to the City.
3. Determine level of customer satisfaction and review consumer
complaints by performing the following tasks:
• examine all available complaint files held by the City and,
to the extent possible from the Cable Co-op;
• review any customer service standards in effect and
compare them to standards used In other California cities;
• solicit and review information from Cable Coop specific to
standards of operations such as procedures for handling
customer complaints and service, and "tracking" of •
customer complaints;
Page 4
RFP NO, 113B75 ,_
s'/clkfcabla/scope.doc OJK 001141.01
. JUN-09-2005 THU 11 :59 AM FAX NO. P. 26
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
• prepare a questionnaire and conduct a customer
satisfaction telephone survey to assess attitudes about
current levels of service; and
•
• provide an oral report and memo documenting the outcome
of the review of complaint files, customer service standards•
and level of customer satisfaction.
4, Review of current public, education, and government(PEG)
access channels, equipment, facilities, and service
• prepare and distribute questionnaires to be completed by
staff of PEG access operations;
• prepare and distribute questionnaires to be completed by
community producers; - -
• interview staff persons responsible for the operation of
PEG access channels;
• collect and analyze all data from questionnaire responses
and interviews Including feedback from the Mid-Peninsula
Access Corporation's(MPAC) board of directors;
• determine the level of compliance of the commitments of
Cable Co-op that relate to PEG access;
• evaluate the reported activity levels and original
programming figures for PEG access; and
• prepare and submit a report including a section regarding
the evaluation of PEG access facilities, equipment and
operations.
D. Identify Future Community Cable Related Needs and Interests.
1. Telephone survey of cable subscribers and non-subscribers.
2. Conduct a series of eight (8) structured workshops at various
locations throughout the City.
3. Collect and analyze strategic and long-range plans prepared
by San Francisco Bay Arca government agencies, educational
institutions, and organizations.
4. Conduct special meetings and personal interviews of groups
who were not able to participate in the workshops,
5. Attend public hearings to address cable operators past
performance and the community's future cable-related needs.
Page 5
11FP NO. 113875
viclk!cabletscaDc (lac OJK 00t 141.01
JUN-09-2005 THU 12:00 PM FAX NO. t', '2(
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
6, Prepare written reports reflecting the telephone survey, focus
group meetings, input from Interviews, strategic and long
range plans and public hearing testimony.
•
E. Identify Franchise Renewal Goals, Develop Proposed Franchise
Provisions, and Draft Mode! Franchise and Ordinance.
1. Assist the City in developing the substance of proposed
franchise provisions it will seek through negotiations. This
document may include: ..
• system upgrade, rebuild and extension;
• construction and design;
• technical standards;• programming;
• management and staffing;
• customer service;
• PEG access support; and
•
• other services.
2. Develop franchise monitoring and enforcement procedures.
3. Recommend franchise provisions that ensure that the system
will be upgraded in the future.
4. Develop a draft model franchise and ordinance with outside
counsel.
F. Facilitate negotiation of franchise renewal.
1. Assist development of negotiation strategy and conduct of
negotiations:
• form a negotiating team of City staff, JPA, and consultant; '
• have preparatory meetings with Cable Co-op;
• request written proposals from Cable Co-op on various
elements of the services, equipment and facilities which It
proposes to provide during the term of the new franchise
agreement;
Page 6
r2FP NO. 113875
Iclklcaole/acopv dac BJ1'1 001141.01
- JUN-09-2005 THU 12:00 PM FAX NO. P. 28
•
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
• hold meetings to reach agreement on any necessary
modifications to the City's proposed franchise elements;
•
use the forum of negotiating meetings to request review.,
evaluate, discuss, and approve Information from the cable
operator regarding its technical, legal, and financial
qualifications; and
• hold a public hearing to afford the public the opportunity to
comment on the agreement and drafted documents.
2. Provide advice to the City during negotiation process.
3. Prepare a request for renewal proposal document (optional).
• 4, Analyze and evaluate all a. pects of the renewal.proposal
•
(optional).
G. Franchise Transfer
1 . Review FCC Form 394 filed by prospective new owners, T.C.I.
,,..�. and A.T.&T.;
2. Review other associated documents, such as the transfer of
assets agreements and associated financial documents;
3. Communicate with designated staff to identify franchise
compliance issues, if any;
4. Communicate with designated City staff regarding other
ancillary issues (for example rate Issues), If any, that staff has
identified;
5. Prepare a written report outlining findings;
6. Outside counsel will be responsible for drafting a transfer of
ownership agreement (if necessary) and a transfer of
ownership resolution for adoption by City Council;
•
7. Provide other assistance as needed related to the transfer of
ownership as requested by City staff.
Page 7
RFP NO. 113875
I kik/cable/scope doc E1JK 001141.01
D)
EXHIBIT "A"
Propl,sed Time Schedule
.
•
T.\SK •2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. allt Qtr. 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. -1Ih Qtr. lit Qtr. InJ Qlr,
1979 1799 1999 2000 i .000 2000 2000 2001 , 2001
A_ Develup a Fr.:n[1am Renewal Work
1'hn and Neznlijrnn Sir-Jer_le)for the
Inndenten(Jtinn of Ihal Plan. - !
D. Cnndncl:Technical fntpcetiun of[he
C.dile System.
Cfs
C. Evilualr r i Perfnrmunce of C■hle
(_iHfI1. I
X '
L. Review she Operators Compliance
with the Existing Fnnchis&
2. Cond!:cl a Financial rinalytis of the
E xs s nng System.
• s I
3. Dctcrrtunc Level of Custosncr
Sausfactsun and Review Complaints.
1 Review Current PEG Access
Channels,Equipment.F acuities and
Services
D. hlentifr Future Necilt and intermit.
L. Telephone Survey,
1 1 !
2. Car.Jnu Focus Group 1'latlslwps.
3. Collect and Analyze Strategic ar.6 •
Lung[Lange Phns.
Sp csaat Mccttngs and Pcrlun.t( ! ( d
Intcrvncws.
s
N S. Public IkCariny(s)- ; !
'V
G. rllelt Repor.t ' I
F--
U)
N
t77 Page 8 •
c
a
i . . EXHIBIT "A" -
Pr! posed Time Schedule
TASK 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 41:f Qtr, I 1st Qtr_ 2nd Qtr. Jrd Qtr. 4111 Qtr. Is Qtr. :nd Qtr.
1999 1999 1999 1000 1000 2000 2010 200: 2001
E identify I cncw7l Coal.Dcvctog
1'ropnied Froncrif.Pofitinni:nd
Drlfl Mn,Irl Frmnchilc mml •
Ordinance.
F. FscitMt:tc N nlistiont.
fOptiaro()flInfurnal Negotiations Fn+l:
,. 1'itparc Hrlff'
c
i
2. Evaluate Proposal. .
f !
G. Franchise Transfer To be determined after a tlorough review of the cable
Erancl isc ag ,eement: and d:scussi n with all JPn rembe - citie ;.
1
I
. !
I 1
1 I
•
I 1
1
I I &
1 I;..I I I I '
;
.
. Page 9
t
OD
o .
I
1
. JUN-09-2005 THU 12:01 PM FAX NO. P. 32
EXHIBIT .:B"
Rate Schedule
' Prof.
Task Consultant(1) Hours Fees Costs Total
•
A. Develop Franchise Renewal Buske 32 $3,200 S300(2) S3,500
Work Plan and Negotiation
Strategies to Implement Plan .
•
B. Technical Inspection Buske 4 $400 10.400
Engineer 80 $10,000 incl,
$10,400
•
C, Evaluate Past Performance
1. Franchise Compliance Buske 20 52,000 5200(2) 52,200
2. Financial Analysis
*• a. Review Financial Cannady, 12 S1,800 S100(3) • 1,900
•
History/Qualifications
b. Review Financial Connady 20 $3,000 3,000
Projections
c, Franchise Fee Review Cannady 40 $6,000 S1,600(2) 7,600
3, Determine Level of Buske 16 • $1,600 S200(2) 1,800
Customer Satisfaction, VanDalsen 32 52,400 2,400 .
Review Complaints Wilson (survey; see below)
4. PEG Access Review Buske 8 S800 5200(2) 1,000
VanDalsen 12 5900 5200(2) 1.100
521,000
•
D. Identify Future Needs
and Interests .
1. Telephone Survey Wilson 400 telephone interviews 58,600
(includes long distance charges)
VanDalsen 16 S1,200 1,200
2, Conduct Workshops Buske 52 S5,200 $500(2) .5,700
Johnson 40 53,000 51,000(2) 4,000
(data input) 40 S1,200 1,200
3. Analyze Plans VanDalsen 10 S750 750
4. Mectinjs/interviews Buske 16 51,600 5200(2) 1,800
5. Public Bearing Buske 8 S800 S200(2) 1,000
24 52,400 2,400
Buske
G. Write Reports -'
VanDalsen 40 S3,000 3,000
529,650
P
Inge 1
JUN-09-2005 THU 12:01 PM FAX NO P. 33
4 s
EXHIBIT "B'
••Rat& •Schedule
Prof.
Task Consultant(1) Hours Fees Costs Total
E, Identify Franchise Renewal Buske 70 S7,000 S300(3) S7,300
Goals, Develop Positions,
Draft Franchise & Ordinance
•
F. Facilitate Negotiation of Buske 220(4) S22,000 52,000(2) $24,000
Franchise Renewal
(OPTIONAL) If Informal Negotiations Fail;
Prepare RFRP Buske 50 55,000 S300(2) 35,300
Evaluate Proposal Buske 40 $4,000 S4,000
Cannady 20 33,000 3,000
Engineer 30 S3,000 3,000 -
G. Franchise Transfer — $ 6,400.00*•
•
FOOTNOTES TO PROPOSED PROJECT BUDGET: •
1. Fees are estimated on an hourly basis as follows: Buske @ S100/hour:
Cannady @ 5150/hour; Van Dalscn @ 575/hour; Johnson © S75/hour; Engineer @ S100/hour,
Data Input @ 530/hour.
2. Includes travel, lodging, meals, and associated costs such as clerical, telephone, and postage.
3. Clerical, telephone, printing, postage, etc.
it. Assumes that Buske will participate in 10 two-day on-site negotiation sessions with the Cable
Co-op (160 hours), preceded by four hours of preparation for each two-day session (40 hours total),'•
and followed by two and one-half days of post-negotiation work (20 hours total).
* 5. Buske Group to work with Attorney Tim Lay to coordinate the transfer and
renewal processes . Hr. Lay's fees are not included in this schedule of
proposed costs.
Page 2
o-
CITY OF RENTON COUNCIL AGENDA BILL
AI#:
Submitting Data: For Agenda of:
Dept/Div/Board.. AJLS/City Clerk September 19, 2005
Staff Contact Bonnie Walton Agenda Status
City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502 Consent X
Subject: Public Hearing.. ,.•
Consultant Agreement with Bradley and Guzetta for Correspondence.. 14'�
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Ordinance `25
Services Resolution p,,
Old Business
Exhibits: New Business
Issue Paper Study Sessions "5 aC
t
Proposed Consultant Agreement . Information
'> n0
Recommended Action: Approvals:
Legal Dept oe-1
Refer to Finance Committee Finance Dept a
Other 1 (p
Fiscal Impact: k &000 ab )
P oo
Expenditure Required... up to $. 1 '_I I 006 l`Transfer/Amendment
$5 rff J6l sea
(2007-2008) ,t. .OoO (ac -$
Amount Budgeted.idle,SW - Zy , (proposed for • Revenue Generated %,gb
a
2006 7a,�S_aoa 8"
Total Project Budget $150,000 over 3'yl . City Share Total Project..
SUMMARY OF ACTION: �l�n-�►►lL1 - 1qg
The City needs professional consulting servicetaist with ongoing cable television franchise/ D
administration and for the upcoming franchise renewal process. For many years the City
contracted with 3H Cable Comm,''p}�``nications for cable televi io consulting services. After 3H
President, Lon Hurd, died in Jag 2004, his sister, Lynne,
-ts , took over the company. In May 2005, the City solicited Requests for Proposals for
consulting services for cable television management assistance and for upcoming cable
franchise renewal process. 3H Cable chose not to submit a proposal. Of the seven proposals
received, four were selected for interview, and from that, Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc. (B&G)
was selected as the company best meeting the City's overall needs. FU/ '? -Pov -Mg,
I�JDu� C�c e ► D° DO$ ,
L�pntrac� +e. ,Crorn ` � 0� b bIa a6(1 a r4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: igii ki3� -�a��,abl@��j ire"
Approve the consultant agreement with Bradley and Guzzetta in the�amount of$xxxx and Otd{/11 s ice
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement. Q
2 -P01#1
Rd uP i° .13.jj*Iir0
4
Rentonnet/agnbill/ bh
Ca�� -�e���e�cess
119-0-
-96 r0o9( / -°oo'l
IQ vc79`1:9
Cm
b�l �s, , Offon n
J'
- ;ie 95r1949
goo �igig sol-- 7 U''�''pi
org ogoio
,ii
l ���� ,SOQr
C.)ti`SY O ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
+ 4=0 , LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• NrcO� MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
STAFF CONTACT: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement for Cable Television Franchise
Issue:
A contract for professional consulting services is presented relating to cable television
franchise administration and management, and cable television franchise renewal. AA-Xi rQ AI)"
o
Recommendation: j�
Staff recommends approval of the contract with Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc.1for
ao0b-d03 professional consulting services related to ongoing cable television franchise
administration, as well as for the upcoming franchise renewal process.
Background:
The City's long-time cable television consultant, Lon Hurd, of 3H Cabletu 0 -t4
icati• l s, died in July 2004. Mr. Hurd assisted in negotiation etrr current cable
r franchise in •'•, and also assisted with ongoing cable franchise administration services.
\\ Lynne Hurd, sister of Lon, t ok �e,,,,r taahs�� npo n'�and has attempted to carry on his
work. On March 14, 2005,E .eque'stror groposal for Cable Television Franchise
Management and Renewal Consulting Service, . Seven responses were
received by the closing date of April 14, 2005. 3H Cable opted not to submit a proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director, the Information Services
Director and the City Clerk/Cable M. . Aose evaluations, four •ro•osals . - e
selected as candidates for interview Interviews were conducte, on Ma 2005
Interview panel members included: Jay Covington, CAO, Ben Wolters, Economic
Development Director, George McBride, Information Services Director,Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager and Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Engineering
Supervisor. The Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc. team (B&G)was selected as the most
qualified to accomplish the objectives of the proposal. B&G has dealt with all aspects of
the cable refranchising processing, including informal proceedings and formal
i:\cable franchise\9-19-05 issue paper.doc
Members,City Council
Page 2 of 3
9/14/2005
proceedings. Staff has checked references and all cities contacted reported positive
relationships with the B&G team.
6051-
;
10 The cost proposal from B&G for ongoin cable franchise administration and
management assistance ' a flat ee of er month. Th c rr nt bud e for this service
is $ per mont T `g ` • ould r4`1ir'
The
current cable consultant budget will cover the cost in 2005. � G d,
The cost proposal from B&G for franchise renewal services is for a range from $xxxxx to
$xxxxx,based on an hourly rate in several service categories. The actual total cost will
be dependent op the individual services necessary, the time and depth of review needed,
and the optioervices necessary to best carry out the franchise renewal process. Staff
has estimated a total budget of$�1,5,5� 0 over the period o 066-2 08d- ith $102,500 of
fef
that estimated for 2006 nd$5 for 2007' t that franchise
renewal negotiationOrcompleted in 2007, though that could go into 20081dcpcnding-n
a+is reauested that the contract be funded out of the Cable Account(xxx).
tail -.-,
Substantial policy, legal, administrative and financial issues are involved in the franchise
renewal process. In order to effectively support the process, a working group comprised
of staff from the City Clerk's Office, City Attorney's Office, Finance and Information
Services Department and the Mayor's Office has been established. Significant staff
support will be provided by the City Clerk Office throughout the cable refranchising
processes. While support for additional staffing requirements are not requested at this
time, it is difficult to predict what additional resources may be necessary throughout the
franchise renewal process, so staff would return with if additional resources are needed.
0 d im
CThe franchise agreement between the City and Comcast Cable expiry eptember 16,
2008. During the period, which begins thirty-six months befo- grA4 ion of the
franchise (September 16, 2005), Comcast may request the proceedings
to determine whether or not to renew the franchise. The fran' a al proceedings
are governed by Federal law and the current franchise agreeme .etvaThe proceedings involve a number of procedural steps;:iiic1. r g::'conducting
a technical inspection and assessment of the current cable system iti `ra'rtt .e;::
dentifying future cable-related needs and interests of the community;,e.' yi. rlhe past
performance of the cable provider for compliance with the existing fxa c;Iii Ni.. ;i'e ?iewing
the level of customer satisfaction with the operator, and a complete anily'§is of public,
educational, and government(PEG) access; a needs assessment of users and other
interested parties, through surveys, focus groups, and public hearings; and development a
formal request for renewal proposal, should that become necessary. To successfully
complete the renewal process and negotiate a new franchise agreement requires expertise
in areas as diverse as cable programming,PEG access programming, cable regulation and
law,public opinion polling and market research, rate setting, the electrical engineering
is\cable franchise\9-19-05 issue paper.doc
Members,City Council
Page 3 of 3
9/14/2005
field, and telecommunications systems. Due to the dept of the scope of services required,
including specialized legal services, staff sought the service of a consultant.
If the proposed contract is approved, staff intends to return with the B&G team to brief
the Council on the franchise renewal process within the next few months.
i:\cable franchise\9-19-05 issue paper.doc
• SCity Reps - Page 1 of 5
The following are key points from Friday's city-county reps telecommunications rewrite briefing.
BITS II
• Reports are circulating that a new draft,BITS III, will be released shortly.
• Further, reports are that the House Energy & Commerce minority staff continue to work with
majority on BITS III.
• We understand that Energy & Commerce Chairman Joe Barton(TX) is determined to have a
BITS bill marked up in full committee, skipping the subcommittee, by the end of February and on
the House floor by Spring recess. Of concern is that by skipping the subcommittee, this very
technical issue is on the fast track to the House floor where it will be more difficult to amend the
bill.
• National Associations staff(USCM,NLC,NACo, and NATOA) is scheduled to meet with
committee staff tomorrow (Wednesday) and will have additional information on the BITS agenda
after that meeting.
In the meantime, if you have not done so,have your mayor call their member(s)both on and off the
committee and express strong opposition to legislative efforts, including the Internet Broadband measure
(BITS II) that would:
• Preempt local government's franchise authority of traditional telephone providers entering the
local video market by having the FCC, not cities, grant franchises to phone companies to provide
cable like service;
• Preempt local government's longstanding authority to collect rent for use of public rights-of-way
by significantly decreasing cable franchise fees by excluding advertising and other non-subscriber
revenues from franchise fees;
• Not provide recovery over the 5% franchise fee for public access channels or institutional
networks;
• Not require buildout of video/cable services to all citizens, regardless of race, age, income or
location within a reasonable timeframe; and
• Prohibit all regulation (federal, state and local) of Internet-based phone companies that are not
expressly allowed by the bill.
While expressing opposition to the issues listed, it is important that your elected officials express that:
• They stand ready to welcome video competition in their cities from traditional telephone providers
as fast and as much as the market will sustain; and
• Local government associations, including The U.S. Conference of Mayors, stand ready to
continue to negotiate on appropriate Broadband legislation.
Senate Hearing Schedule
The local government coalition is urging the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee to
include a local government witnessed on the following key hearings:
• 01/31/05 Video Franchising Full Committee Hearing
• 02/14/05 State and Local Issues and Municipal Networks Full Committee Hearing
Please contact your member on the Senate Commerce Committee and urge them as well to include local
representation.
http://www.watoa.org/City_Reps.htm 1/11/2006
City Reps - Page 2 of 5
Schedule of Upcoming Senate Commerce Committee Hearings -Mark Your Calendars!
• Full Committee Hearing Thursday, January 19 10:00 AM
Decency
http //commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.efm?id=1698
LIVE WEBCAST: http://con mercc.senate..gpv/live.ram.
• Full Committee Hearing Thursday, January 19 2:30 PM
Internet Pornography
http://commerce.senate.gov/liearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1699
LIVE WEBCAST: ht p;//commerce senate gov/liveiam.
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday,January 24 10:00 AM
Broadcast and Audio Flag
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfreid=1704
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/.live.ram.
• Full Committee Hearing Thursday,January 26 10:00 AM
Competition and Convergence
http.;//commerce.senatetgpv/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1703
LIVE WEBCAST: http //commerce senate gov/live.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, January 31 10:00 AM
Video Franchising
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1700
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, January 31 2:30 PM
Video Content
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm?id=1701
LIVE WEBCAST: http //ccmmerce.senate..gov/live.rain
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday,February 7 10:00 AM
Net Neutrality
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1705
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, February 14 10:00 AM
State and Local Issues and Municipal Networks
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1706
LIVE WEBCAST: http.;//commerce.senate..,gov/live.ram
http://www.watoa.org/City_Reps.htm 1/11/2006
.City Reps - Page 3 of 5
• Full Committee Hearing Wednesday, February 15 10:00 AM
FCC Activities and Policy
http•//commerce senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfm`?id=1717
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/livexam
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, February 28 10:00 AM
USF Contributions
http://commerce.senate..gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1707
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, February 28 2:30 PM
USF Distributions
http://commerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1 708
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Thursday, March 2 10:00 AM
Wireless Issues/Spectrum Reform
http://commerce.senate_gov/hearings/witncsslist.cfnl?id_1709
LIVE WEBCAST: http;//commerce.senate.gov/live.ram
.v_e.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, March 7 10:00 AM
Rural Telecommunications
http //colnnlerce.senate.gov/hearings/witnesslist_cfm?id=1.710
LIVE WEBCAST: http://commerce.senate.gov/1ive.ram
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday,March 14 10:00 AM
Voice-over Internet Protocol(VoIP)
http://commerce senate.gov_/hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1711
LIVE WEBCAST: htip.;//commerce.senate.gov/livexam
• Full Committee Hearing Tuesday, March 14 2:30 PM
Wall Street's Perspective on Telecommunications
http://commerce.senate,goy_../hearings/witnesslist.cfin?id=1712
LIVE WEBCAST: http //Colrimer,ce.senate..gov/live.ram:
Congressional 2005 Wrap of Key Bills
Broadband Internet Transmission Services (BITS)
While not formally introduced, Representatives Barton (TX) and Upton (MI) have circulated two drafts
of the BITS bill. BITS I showed some promise towards the goal of keeping local governments whole
and protecting the consumers. BITS II,however, did away with that effort. The House Committee on
http://www.watoa.org/City_Reps.htm 1/11/2006
City Reps - Page 4 of 5
Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet has twice held hearings
to discuss the staff draft and a mark up is expected early in 2006.
Digital Age Communications Act of 2005
Introduced on December 15, 2005 by Senator Jim DeMint(SC). Its stated purpose is "No promote the
widespread availability of communications services and the integrity of communications facilities, and
to encourage investment in communication networks." Since it was introduced, the bill has not yet
gained momentum,but there is still some cause for concern regarding a number of provisions in the bill.
Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act
Introduced in July, 2005 by Senator John Ensign (NV), this bill will serve to pre-empt most state and
local governments and take away their power to regulate broadband voice services. It states that no
video service provider shall be required to obtain a state or local franchise agreement, nor be required to
build out. Current local cable franchising authority is eliminated and all existing cable franchises are
terminated as of the date of enactment. Though PEG is not eliminated, capacity is limited to no more
than 4 channels.
Video Choice Act of 2005
Senator Gordon Smith(OR)with Senator Rockefeller(WV) introduced a Senate version of the bill in
late June 2005. Rep. Wynn(MD) and Rep. Blackburn(TN) introduced a House bill the same day. The
Senate bill states that no competitive video services provider may be required to obtain a franchise in
order to "provide any video programming, interactive on-demand services" in any area that the provider
already has "any right, permission, or authority to access public rights-of-way independent of any cable
franchise[.]" Additionally, all existing franchise agreements entered into before the enactment of the
Act would be exempt from the provisions and would stay in place. Both bills eliminate local
government's right to collect fees, require PEG channels and manage their ROW. Additionally,both
bills remove local enforcement because all local franchising authority is prohibited and full authority is
vested to the FCC. Both bills preempt local government's right to require build out -which is currently
granted under the Cable Act.
The Blackburn/Wynn bill continues to gain supporters and could be a real problem for local
governments, in particular on the franchise issue. Reports are that if a comprehensive telecom reform
effort fails in the House, the Blackburn/Wynn measure could be the vehicle to nationalize franchising
this year. For a comparison of the House and Senate Video bills, go to our Washington Update
Transportation and Communications Policy/Advocacy page on our website,www.usmayors.org
http://www.usmayors.org<http//www..usmayors org.
FCC NPRM on Franchising
The FCC NPRM is loaded on the Conference's Washington Update Transportation and Communications
Policy/Advocacy page of our website, www.usmayors.org http://www.usma ors.or
<http://www.usmayors.org/, for those who want to review it. The Conference urges all cities to file
comments in the FCC proceeding. USCM,NLC, and NATOA have chosen the firm of Spiegel and
McDiarmid to prepare comments in response to the policy and legal issues raised.
eGrassroots Advocacy
Representing League of California Cities, Eve O'Toole and Dustin McDonald summarized their
http://www.watoa.org/City_Reps.htm 1/11/2006
• • City Reps - Page 5 of 5
grassroots lobbying effort to protect local telecom authority. We urge you to organize similar state and
local level efforts. With the Bells lobbying at the state level for state-wide franchising and also at the
national level for a national franchise platform, grassroots lobbying is critical to protecting local
authority.
The League of California Cities grassroots advocacy campaign includes:
• Talking points to use with internal and external stakeholders;
• Internal advocacy efforts will focus on local government officials (mayors, city council members,
city managers, budget/finance officials, fire/police/emergency responders and public works
officials);
• External advocacy w/constituency groups will focus on education groups, chambers of commerce,
minority and consumer protection groups;
• External advocacy w/political interests will focus on the Governor's office, CA State Assoc of
Counties, etc.; and
• A CA Congressional delegation target list has been developed to focus efforts.
For additional information on the League of California Cities grassroots lobbying effort, call Eve or
Dustin at 202-833-0007.
Call or email with questions.
Ron Thaniel
Assistant Executive Director
The United States Conference of Mayors
Telephone (202) 861-6711
Fax (202) 293-2352
EMAIL: rthaniet@tismayors.org
Website: http://www.usmayors.org
http://www.watoa.org/City_Reps.htm 1/11/2006
Print View Page 1 of 2
From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
To: lbeaty@natoa.org
Date: Tuesday -December 13, 2005
Subject: Programming survey-Recovery Channel&EENet Programming
NATOA and FEMA are working together to bring programs and services to
NATOA members. In addition to offering all local governments the
opportunity to air EENet programming on PEG channels,FEMA has also
recently made all programming on the RECOVERY channel available for use
by local governments. While the Recovery Channel has been created to
meet the needs resulting from hurricane relief efforts,there are
additional future opportunities to use this format for additional
programming availability. To that end,it is important that we assist
FEMA in measuring the success of the Recovery Channel and EENet
programming, and share ways we might enhance these services to our
mutual benefit. Please take a moment to respond to the questions in the
survey in the following link.
( iD:// natoa.orwindex.iitmi?uri=/forms/foihni' ici=79
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
703-519-8035
703-519-8036
lbeaty@natoa.org<mailto:lbeaty@natoa.org>
www.natoa.org<http://www.natoa.org/>
Mark Your Calendars Now!
NATOA's 26th Annual Conference
August 22-26, 2006
Buena Vista Palace -Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista,Florida
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbgqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
SUMMARY-CUSTOMER COMPLAINTS
Please enter your jurisdiction's
information in the blue fields
below
Jurisdiction: Anywhere City, USA
Complaint Category Number of Number of
complaints in 2004 complaints in
2005
Billing 0 0
Construction (e.g., right of way, 0 0
unburied cable, property
damage)
Customer Service/Relations 0 0
(e.g., missed/late
appointments, company
response to issue, attitude)
Installation (e.g., property 0 0
damage)
Programming Options 0 0
Rates 0 0
Technical Service (e.g., 0 0
outage, reception, equipment
faulty/lack of features)
Service Requests (e.g., 0 0
residential/commercial)
Telephone Customer Service 0 0
(e.g., hold, busy, no one
available)
Miscellaneous 0 0
Total Cable Service 0 0
Complaints
Digital Voice/Telephone 0 0
Cable Modem/Internet Issues 0 0
Combined Total of All 0 0
Processed Complaints
(includes Digital
Voice/Telephone and
Cable Modem/Internet)
Approx number of subs on 0 0
average for the year
From: "Lackey Sound and Light, Inc." <lackeysound@aol.com>
To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Tue, May 30, 2006 10:37 AM
Subject: We Are Your New Neighbors
Lackey Sound and Light, Inc.
Dear Neighbor:
We have moved to Tukwila. After 27 years in North
Seattle we are now here to provide you
with excellent rental services. Our new address is
9120 East Marginal Way South,just one block north
of the Museum of Flight.
Do you need audio services for your stockholders
meetings, open houses, outdoor events? How about
speciality lighting to bring attention? Large screen
projection to really bring home your message? We
will deliver and set up our equipment or save money
and pick up the equipment at our offices.
Are you looking for an income stream? We provide
you with a 20% discount off equipment.
Rent it to
your customers at full price and see the profits.
From a simple LCD projector and screen to a full
concert sound and lighting set up, put your faith in
our years of experience, the nicest staff you will ever
work with and our expert advice.
As active members of many
'organizations, we hope to meet you soon at a local
association meeting. Please email me and let us
know
which associations you are members of and why.
Conventions, Weddings, Concerts, Grand Openings ...
We are here to provide you the following RENTAL
equipment:
* LCD Projectors
*Screens
* PA Systems
*Wireless Microphones
*Wedding Vow/Reception Systems
*Specialty Lighting
* Corporate Event Equipment
* Concert Production
*Sets and Decor Design
* Large Sports and Outdoor Events
Learn More-
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=xhii9vbab.0.zg5z5nbab.gv5iulbab.7250&p=http%3A%2F%2Flackeysound.com
Sincerely,
Bonnie Lackey
Lackey Sound and Light, Inc.
Email: lackeysound@aol.com
Telephone Number: (206) 632-7773 or 1 (888)4-Lackey
Website: http://lackeysound.com
*********************************************
Save 20% Off Rental Equipment
Save 20% off all rental equipment-this includes
sound, lighting, audio visual, disco lighting, stages,
podiums, outdoor battery PA systems, etc. Discount
does not apply to delivery and pick up charges, labor,
retail sales of equipment or concert production.
Mention this offer when placing your order to receive
the discount.
Check it out now... -
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=xhii9vbab.0.zg5z5nbab.gv5iulbab.7250&p=http%3A%2F%2Flackeysound.com
Offer Expires: December 31, 2006
*********************************************
Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&a=1101317
546231
This email was sent to council@ci.renton.wa.us,
•
' r ,
by lackeysound@aol.com
Update Profile/Email Address
http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=7250&t
=1101317546231&lang=en&reason=F
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=7250&t
=1101317546231&lang=en&reason=F
Privacy Policy:
http://aolss.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp
Powered by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com
Lackey Sound and Light, Inc. 19120 East Marginal Way South I Seattle I WA 198108
From: "Laura Adams" <laura@laconrik.com>
To: <naraelle@hotmail.com>, "Kiya Bodding" <kabg@earthlink.net>, <rita@tasveer.org>,
<emaginative@comcast.net>
Date: 6/29/2006 5:06:31 PM
Subject: Hi all, Payments should be out by mid July
Hi Nara, Kiya, Rita and Flora,
I will be sending the payment for your work on the June 2006 City View in
the next 2 to 3 weeks as soon as I receive payment from the City of Renton.
We don't know why there is such a long delay this time. I will also include
a copy of the show with your payment. Thanks for your work on the June 2006
City View for the City of Renton. Rita, please send me your invoice for the
2 hour shoot to cover the fire training segment and the 2 hour shoot to
cover the museum art segment as soon as you get a chance. Thank you, again.
Laura Adams
Laura Cosacchi Adams
LaConrik Communications. LLC
425 747-3938
laura@laconrik.com
CC: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: George McBride
To: Bonnie Walton; Marty Wine
Date: 7/12/2006 8:04:30 AM
Subject: Cable Franchise Consultant
fyi
CC: Michael Bailey
From: "Lorrie Rempher" <Irempher@auburnwa.gov>
To: "Drake, Dea" <DDrake@ci.kent.wa.us>
Date: 7/12/2006 7:41:44 AM
Subject: RE: Cable Franchise Consultant
Dea,
I had asked Mike Carrington some time ago about the same thing. I am
currently trying to negotiate a contract for franchise consultants. I
would really like to see the PSA group go together and get a single
consultant so that we have the power of numbers to support not only our
own communities but our regional public access. Renton was also in
favor of a regional approach and at the time I talked to Frank from
Tukwila and he, too, was interested in regards to franchise
renegotiations.
Currently, I am working with Bradley& Guzzette. They are the firm that
is handling Renton's franchise. Auburn doesn't have a contract yet but
we are working through the details.
Lorrie Rempher
Information Services Director
2 First Street SE
Auburn, WA 98002
www.auburnwa.gov
Phone: 253-288-3160
Fax: 253-876-1920
From: Drake, Dea [mailto:DDrake@ci.kent.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 4:36 PM
To: Judy; Bart Preecs; Bernadette Castner; Bill Oltman; Bonnie Walton;
Brenda Tate; Brian Pearson; Bruce Crest; Bruce Roberts; Calvin Schimpf;
Candess Andrews; Carol Mathewson; Cecelia Duncan; Chas Hilton; Chris
Bacha; Chris Givens; Chris Jaramillo; Chris Latham; Churck Lare; Cindi
Cruz; Corbitt Loch; Craig Fischer; Craig Ward; Dainel Dootson; Dave
Spencer; David Jones; David Kerr; Drake, Dea; Diane Lachel; Don Kelly;
Donn Hedden; Donna Mason; Doug Everhart; Duane Bowman; Engel Lee; Eric
Trimble; Gene Powers; George Geyer; George McBride; James Southworth;
Jan Roegner; Janet Jensen; JD Fouts; Jeff Johnson; Jill Novik; Jim
Demmon; John S. Tennis; Jon Funfar; Joseph Meneghini; Joyce Goedeke;
Kate Reardon; Kent Lundgren; Keri Stokstad; Kim Van Ekstrom; Laura
Blechen; Linda Carl; Lorrie Rempher; Lynne Hurd; Lynne Masters; Marc
Pease; Mosley, Marie; Marie Stake; Mark Somers; Marlene Feist; Marty
Mulholland; Mauri Moore; Mehdi Sadri; Mike Charboneau; Mike Roberge;
Mitch Wasserman; Nancy Abell; Nancy Johnson; Pam Kolacy; Pam Somers;
Patrick Hirsch; Dunn, Paul; Beaumier Jr. Robert; Rona Zevin; Ronald
Hansen; Russell Kasselman; Sam Belcher; Sarah Hackett; Shannon Murphy;
Shawn Ward; SorToya Lowry; Stephen Clifton; Teresa Slosar; Clark, Tim;
Timothy Smith; Tony Perez; Victoria Lincoln; Walt Yeager; Wayne Collop;
William Murphy
Subject: Cable Franchise Consultant
Looking for names of possible cable franchise consultants, preferably in
the Northwest Region. Any ideas? Also looking to see if anyone who
does not have one is interested in any partnerships.
•
Dea A. Drake
Multimedia Manager
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
253-856-4646
ddrake@ci.kent.wa.us
CC: "George McBride" <Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us>
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Dea Drake
Date: 7/12/2006 8:22:46 AM
Subject: Re: Cable Franchise Consultant
Hi Dea,
We are using the same consultant for both franchise renewal and administration assistance at this point.
Would you be interested in partnering with Renton on cable consultant and franchise renewal matters?
We had once talked about that. We'd be glad to meet and share info regarding our consultant and
renewal process if you would like. We might be able to collaborate and do some renewal steps jointly to
save money. It might be worth discussing.
How is your franchise renewal process going? Are you using a separate consultant for that?
Let me know. Hope all is going great there.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Drake, Dea" <DDrake@ci.kent.wa.us> 7/11/2006 4:36:21 PM >>>
Looking for names of possible cable franchise consultants, preferably in
the Northwest Region. Any ideas? Also looking to see if anyone who
does not have one is interested in any partnerships.
Dea A. Drake
Multimedia Manager
City of Kent
220 4th Avenue South
Kent, WA 98032-5895
253-856-4646
ddrakeci.kent.wa.us
I II t
I '
- ! i
n A ram,, yyl {
, '
1-3 A
i I J
� �� t " ' 1 a
5zyvtLe
- a CUlfitlt<E 6 (5D-
0
� I
�SC t rvri: D
11,
4 �
From: George McBride
To: Bill Walker
Date: 12/7/2005 11:07:50 AM
Subject: CATV to the PBPW Shops
bill,we are approaching the 1 year mark, between yourself and your predecessor, in our attempt to service
this location. i understand that you have been working through the permitting process with king county,
but at some point we need to bring this project to a conclusion. thanks, gm.
CC: Ann Svensson; Bonnie Walton; David Tibbot; Michael Stenhouse; Richard Schwarz;
Ronald Hansen
_ _
.,,
l ' Yl.a7.5"5"/7
- ,
-5-fit ,e-S-- -t"A'''- 4('-7'4 t/frku-A1 ,,d-ezde--AZ-a-/-/
-- /y fr t-e-i/4-e fri-eflaide'ze./,D.Jei aeAde-,/
.;,
rytia .a-i d-,i ,Oztk le-t ,(-41t-e-, -a/-41,a-, ,,,..6, -,6- itz
'!. tici-et-e GI ,1/1-afo6 4 / (r-e- V2
.,(-ae
: - - -
•
-
.
,,
,
"19
„„
",a, 6?/
1,
‘ia-- 9.a. -- /7
. .
/ ea.,11. ,e. La--aez- -02
:1
: !
i 1
I I
i .
illi ,
d ,
d 0,-
d -
•
il . - •
ii
. w
. , •
i .
i .
H . - •
1
Hi
•,I
:!1
HI
N i•
•
•
• ..
;!t
i I
HI
il •
Hi
. CI
. ;II
:II
1,
lil
Il
1;11
. HI
!!I
!!I
ill
II.
11!
Hi
1;1
iii
i I
• hi
III
I:I
I1I.
II!
v ,,I
. I 1
!if
1.
177i4727 !II
ii
I.
7107/t/f4/1 --' • III
ill
. II:
,1I
II!
°41(47
- C717.1'149? 4
. 7177,Ce/
V 7/,,17/47
r7Pir 6'114 W
.1;
ip}difirgriCh7 fftini/ -
__..-- Ari/Z0V____: gSd
1'1
h A 4 rovv-•v eirii7..wiftwi i i 1-m y • vwcri_ 11' •
::. _
, mr, t . . . -.-.';'
------,-Y' . 7. , .9 4
---497714 Vl7Prigr?fa'1°94°712/17 I 1 .
fill •Al.:1// - 4 . 47/1/1 ". '
I I;
-
oa;z--or f ,y p 0 77 p h ; 1
11!
i, ..ttpx
Pr'z
sfif
...., col
S f v Or
, ,
I ;
PA4-61- to /Ado>
;
fAOgli
fi/le* •
chi
fd
1
J1
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer"<schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/21/2005 11:34:01 AM
Subject: Scope of Service
Bonnie,
Here is the B&G scope of services. Please review and let me know if you
need any additional information. With regard to the franchise
documents, I will review the code PDF file that you sent me and let you
know if I need additional electronic documents.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:05 PM
To:Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Re: Franchise Documents
Attached are three chapters from our City Code regarding cable utility
tax, cable systems &telecommunications regulations that you may want.
Other than the franchise agreement itself,which you have, I don't think
I currently have the other documents that I sent you in electronic form.
I could scan some if that would help. Which documents would you like?
Bonnie
>>>"Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com> 7/21/2005
8:35:13 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Thank you for the franchise documents. I was also wondering if you had
those documents electronically? With electronic searches, it saves a
lot of time, so we can get faster responses back to the City.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government (PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed) •
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
1
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur,to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system,new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
• delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
2
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings— 1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
3
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
4
•
Cost Proposal
Administrative •
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000'per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below: �,
Renewal /10°
Cost Consultant fic ‘(S.,. elf j�l,�0�n
$17 000- U
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $20,400 CBG ��I�
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200-
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 B&G&CBG cvt� 4
Access Utilization $13 600 B&G&CBG �l DaQ to 4u/
i
1 B
$4,500- Front Range �u
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting, eve �tQp
0 /712 4_0
_ Inc. Pk
Training and Evaluation $$5 1850 B&G&CBG / �� 0°/ 1
/ Po zn / e )%
Work Plan $ - B&G&CBG � /`=P 0 0�j ' .;
$2,340 V
$1,560- /A .�( /f
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G \J / 0
kfb
Survey Mai'1 t Survey-City pays mailing $8 000- ,^. ,�°`��' ''fir
c ts) Z/' l/
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G 7 ��"
$2560- �✓ '��
Financial Implications 110 / 4' $7,680 B&G �
n I
`\ 1 ) $6,270-
Negotiations (.. j \ Cy - $63,270 B&G f,. �°
poi $2,500- q // \O
Implementation( / `� $8,000 B&G 1 / W '/ �l /
S to b'W.� 1st,(��' �� 9�1
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360- CBG
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000- /-
community survey) $23,200 NI CBG /n1 �1° Na
1 "I
�3_q9D�— +83'qo� ��c Ake
7c
/ 4� 6_0 has
� ` /,,F 5
,, V i ,
,,r
, / \
— 4
•
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable •
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
•
From: "Kerr, David" <DKerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us>
To: <watoa @ list.ci.seattle.wa.us>
Date: 8/12/03 8:05AM
Subject: Definition of"Aerial Supporting Structures"
I am having a "discussion"with Qwest over the definition of the term
"aerial supporting structures"as used with respect to the requirement
for the undergrounding of Qwest's telco facilities as part of a City
road improvement project.There are hundreds of thousands of dollars of
relocation/conversion expenses that hang on this definition.
In particular, RCW 35.99.060 provides that(in pertinent part) a service
provider(Qwest) may not seek reimbursement for their
relocation/conversion expenses from a city or town except where aerial
to underground relocation the facilities is required by the city or town
for a service provider(Qwest)with an ownership share of the aerial
supporting structures, and then only the additional incremental cost of
underground compared to aerial relocation will be paid by the city or
town requiring relocation.
We are pretty confident that the electrical utility(PSE) owns 100%of
all but one of the poles, and that the one shared ownership pole is
owned 50%-50%with Qwest. Qwest argues that the term "aerial
supporting structures" also includes strand, down guys, anchors, etc. as
well as poles. Qwest further argues that while they may not own the
poles, per se,they do own the strand and some or all of the down guys
and anchors, etc. and that this gives them an ownership share of the
aerial supporting structures that are included in the project.
Qwest seems to hold the position that its expanded definition of an
ownership share of the aerial supporting structures is understood and
generally used in the industry. I've found the term aerial supporting
structures used in a number of instances, but I've not found it defined
any place nor any explanation of what may constitute an ownership share
of the aerial supporting structures. So, I rely on the combined and
shared experience of NATOA.
Are you familiar with the term aerial supporting structures, what makes
up or is included in the term and how one might define and an ownership
share of the aerial supporting structures?
Thanks in advance,
David P. Kerr
Franchise Legal Advisor
Transportation Department
City of Bellevue
(425) 452-6139 v
(425) 452-2817 f
dkerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us
«««««««««<City of Seattle»»»»»»»»»»»
City Hall without the traffic jams.
www.cityofseattle.net
your 24 hour city hall on the Internet.
CC: <watoa@list.ci.seattle.wa.us>
Bonnie Walton - FW: Annexation Information Page 1m
From: ZZBonnie Walton
To: Bonnie Walton,
Date: 11/8/99 10:07AM
Subject: FW:Annexation Information
From: Marilyn J. Petersen
To: Bonnie Walton; Michele Neumann; Owen Dennison; Jan A. Conklin Subject:Annexation Information
Date: Wednesday,April 21, 1999 3:49PM
The current address for TCI Cablevision has changed. Any ordinances, address lists, notifications, etc.
regarding annexations (or any other matters)currently being sent to TCI should to to David J. Krook,
General Manager, TCI Cablevision of Washington, Inc., 4020 Auburn Way North,Auburn, WA 98002.
Please check your mailing lists and update the address. Thank you.
Bonnie Walton - FW: AT&T Cable Services Contact Phone Nu W~ _ Page 1
From: ZZBonnie Walton
To: Bonnie Walton,
Date: 11/8/99 8:45AM
Subject: FW:AT&T Cable Services Contact Phone Nu
From:Zangrillo, Rick M
To: Bonnie Walton
Subject:AT&T Cable Services Contact Phone Numbers
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 3:32PM
Priority: High
Phil Babieri Office number is 253-288-7620
Cell number is 206-793-6367
Rick Zangrillo Office number is 253-288-7488
Cell number is 206-793-6371
Steve Hiatt Office number is 253-288-7471
Cell number is 206-396-3672
Thanks RickZ
iI
II
li
li
II
ii
I'I
li
i
it
it
1
ii
1•
III
II
III
II
/07-7P-27
0 b -\/(07L-li y
- �:i:"•�,..7_ - :v.�tz+�"anti 5: .1.
taloti
_00,00'°°°°7-,"
FACT SHEET COMCAST WASHINGTON MARKET
OVERVIEW Comcast is the largest provider of cable, entertainment and communications products
and services in Washington. Comcast acquired AT&T Broadband's cable properties in
Washington in November 2002.
Comcast maintains 187 franchises, serving 140 communities in Washington. Among
them are: Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Bremerton, Everett, Bellingham, Olympia,
Spokane and Aberdeen. In addition, Comcast's Portland market serves southern
Washington, including Vancouver.
PRODUCTS Cable television and digital cable—more than 250 channels available in most areas.
High-speed Internet service—available throughout Washington.
Digital Phone—available in selected areas of Western Washington.
Video ON DEMAND—available since Feb. 2004 in Western Washington; available
2005 in Spokane.
Digital Video Recorders—Available November 2004.
Comcast Digital Voice using Internet Protocol technology—Available Spring, 2005.
CUSTOMERS 1.1 million cable customers
More than 400,000 high-speed Internet customers
EMPLOYEES 3,100, including 1,250 local customer service representatives based in Fife and Everett,
Washington and Beaverton, Oregon.
COMMUNITY $60 million in fees and taxes paid to state and local governments in Washington.
More than $3 million in cash and in-kind contributions to local charitable organizations.
Free high-speed Internet and cable television connections offered to schools and
libraries.
More than half of all Comcast Washington employees participate each October in
Comcast Cares Day, completing dozens of local volunteer projects.
WEB SITE WwW.comcast.com
•
pi:
r A
cA
-P'
f- Y
L.
aKy
sr i
C01 s.�
N
r
Mw
^yam' -
FACT SHEET COMCAST WASHINGTON CUSTOMER SERVICE
OVERVIEW Comcast strives to provide the very best customer service by regularly monitoring
phone calls to ensure service quality.The company also employs an independent
auditor who surveys customers on their service experience and provides detailed
monthly reports highlighting areas in need of improvement.
Since acquiring AT&T Broadband's Washington systems in late 2002, Comcast moved
nearly all customer service functions in house, hired more than 200 additional Customer
Account Executives, re-opened local cable stores to give customers the option of
meeting with a company representative face to face and implemented evening and
weekend appointment windows.
LOCAL CENTERS Three state of the art call centers in Fife and Everett, Washington and Beaverton,
Oregon handle virtually all calls made by Washington customers.The Everett and Fife
centers operate as one virtual call center, and customer calls can be seamlessly routed
between all 3 centers in the event of an emergency.
The Everett call center handles all technical support for Comcast's cable television and
high-speed Internet services.
The Fife call center handles all billing, collection, sales and retention calls.
The Beaverton call center handles calls from our Vancouver/Clark County area
customers.
EMPLOYEES 1,250 Customer Account Executives located in three call centers, with another 50
Customer Account Executives located in the company's cable stores.
STANDARDS Comcast consistently meets all National Cable and Telecommunications Association
and FCC customer service standards, including arriving to service appointments on time
and answering calls within 30 seconds 90% of the time on a quarterly basis. In addition,
the company consistently meets customer service standards set by local cities.
WEB SITE www.comcast.com
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Jay Covington; Linda Herzog
Date: 9/15/2005 11:27:05 AM
Subject: Cable Consultant& Dea Drake of City of Kent
FYI:
I contacted Dea Drake with the City of Kent this morning about the Cable Consultant and our cities
working together on the franchise renewal process. She is very receptive to doing this, however, she will
be gone to the NATOA conference in Washington, DC, so we can't get together to discuss it further until
Oct. 3rd or after.
Tracy Schaefer of B&G had asked if I was going to this conference as well,which I am not. Think I'll
suggest that Tracy and Dea try to connect at the conference to help move this collaboration along! I'll
keep you informed as this moves along.
Bonnie, x6502
• fo60-6LE -4V
Pir7.
e /
I/17/7 //11/r
01- 11-
714 ? 1(
114;4376"
7'fr
. 77 417?"7(V
Pfi"'WliV
/0'05 ._. -- aog, c,x.a.,efe )
#64Z.. 31d Z
tb A , \\ 4' i
guD - 1,0/1 4
sil
.204-
kna4{ AA/;- -'44-% 02ez-c° `z -` ' N )) di
q 3/I /sa _.1... cV y ‘ ,
, Iv\
tt, ,.... , 4.,
�
v
0 ,11 , t*
�F-xi/ , PL0
4
*0 Sa CI6C:('T , , z) (4 \
JO'/(1 OW) MI6) 12-aill 1U(U1i!d2 (I 01 \ . 't
v/Ibrite? V )
JI I ‘7. affil ------- 09--
114,
Ile,ao HI
H: .%' ;',-(•,-./61 ,/ .
1H;;
kli ,d, All •,2d-d ..
• /.2
tf))-4•16. cce-Zeii -, 3 .62-K-/' f-jr
rp
/,i_a-eds_ e,,a • c,
!li!
° y 7 a V
no
1,.1 041.t4 -- ,11141 de-/.
1 11 •
l'ill -
! 111
IN 1 da ..idZfrt-d' / 574 )472
q 1
. 11.
1111'1
,11111,
ri
,11
It,:r; -fiattlrive, .....izaite,py
pi: • -
r:1 61 it ,A. ce-et 6.676tia.e-t)-- e/ 0-(x-
1!.1
4.1
51',
. . i.i.! •
liri' -i)IcK Meisori)Pe leclt, audit
!H t evtsirteers Pr /01 P44411 6qil 4#Lfrj/I'
!ill I
- 11!1 i
!I 11 )2,141. 6111)1
l' ; ,-.0Aailli
il!!•1 UV i 4t , 161Mai. ...1ACUAPIA -" 1 or A_hat i , i .'l
0, withili„ iy-
1, 1 ,
ik!
Page 1 of 3
Julia Medzegian - RE: Comcast query
CITY OF RENTO
From: Terri Briere
To: Walter Neary APR 1:. 0 MI6
Date: 3/20/2006 3:54 PM RECEIVED
Subject: RE: Comcast query
®IN CLERK'S OFFICE
Walter,
It was great meeting with you. Here are some ideas for programs that are needed at Renton High School that
deal with diversity issues at the school for students and parents. It also directly relates to school district and
community needs that can also be addressed.
New student orientation information in different languages.
The language problem: Parents or students that wish to enroll may have to wait for an hour or more for the
office staff to find someone that speaks their language, with only a few staff that have language skills (only five
languages spoken by staff), they typically end up trying to find a senior student if available to help translate.
Recently, a new Chinese student had no lunch for two days because no one spoke his language and no one told
him that the cafeteria was in a different building. Finally a student noticed his dilemma.
A solution: Put together a Welcome Packet to include registration forms, brochures and a DVD/video of the
school showing the school campus and activities available in numerous languages to help the register, and
inform the students and parents.
Engaging foreign language speaking parents:
Newsletters and parent information is currently only in English. We could provide translated materials to parents
on a regular basis especially during registration and the beginning of the school year. Include community
resources, opportunities for students and families, and college and trade school information. This could work as
a great partnership with Renton Technical College who offers ESL and vocational classes for parents and
students.
Develop skills and programs for foreign language speaking parents:
Offer opportunities for classes and materials for things like CPR, engage in discussion about gang and drug
awareness and other issues that affect families in each language. Currently, the high school has noticed
increasingly that the Hispanic population has gang want-a-bee--so an awareness program in Spanish could be
put together using Hispanic community leaders, parents and police. The same could be done in other languages
and on other issues.
Renton High School Excellence in Education would establish a committee with the school staff and the
community to identify which materials need to be translated. Funding would be used for translators, speakers,
DVD video production, printed materials and public relations. The parent involvement component could easily
expand outside of the school to the community. The City of Renton has a new Diversity Commission starting up
that we could work with, along with some local cultural/social,organizations. I really saw a lot of excitement with
this discussion--it is a multi year project but we could really see a lot accomplished in the first year.
Let me know if these ideas sound like something Comcast would be interested in funding. We are excited to get
going.
Terri Briere
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/24/2006
Page 2 of 3
425-228-7170
>>> "Neary, Walter" <Walter_Neary@cable.comcast.com> 2/24/06 2:41:11 PM >>>
Hi Terri -Wow, talk about a small world. Yep,Tacoma and Lakewood are
always something to talk about.
There's about a 5 percent chance I will be in Spokane Friday, but that's
small enough to suggest we should try for a meeting. Coffee at 11 or
lunch or early afternoon would work for me. Pick a time and place. I'll
look forward to the conversation.
W
Walter Neary
Public Relations Manager
Comcast
253.864.4660
http://www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-overview
Original Message
From: Terri Briere [mailto:tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Neary, Walter
Subject: Re: Comcast query
Mr. Neary,
Thank you for your interest in our Renton High School Excellence in
Education Foundation. I would love to meet with you and find out more
about your organization.
Next week, I am available Monday morning, Tuesday afternoon,Thursday
Morning and all day Friday is open.
I also would love to hear how Lakewood is doing. I worked in Tacoma in
the 80's for Lakewood resident Glen Graves at his advertising agency. He
was very active in the community in those days.
Let me know if any of those times work for you.
Terri Briere
425-228-7170
>>> "Neary, Walter" <Walter_Neary@cable.comcast.com> 02/22/06 5:44 PM
>>>
Hello Councilmember Briere,
I got your name from Terry Davis here at Comcast. I work in regional
public relations for the company, and was telling Terry that I am
looking for places in south King County for which we might apply on
behalf of our Comcast Foundation. As he may have mentioned to you, the
foundation's greatest interests are in literacy and diversity. Given
what's going on in Washington and in Renton, the diversity subject might
be a good one to consider for RHS or perhaps another institution in the
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/24/2006
Page 3 of 3
t
community. So I'm wondering if you might be able to spare some time to
brainstorm; I'd be glad to treat for coffee.
Worse comes to worse - if we run out of things to talk about, I serve on
the Lakewood City Council, so we can always talk about the high pay and
prestige that comes with service in local government :-)And, of course,
the real rewards.
If you can spare some time to talk about our Foundation, why don't you
let me know what days and times of days are best for you to meet and
maybe we can figure something out?
Thanks,
Walter
Walter Neary
Public Relations Manager
Comcast
253.864.4660
http://www.comcast.com/
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/24/2006
Page l of 3
Terri Briere-RE: Comcast query
r . - . .- M _ �.
CITY OF RENTC;.
From: "Neary, Walter" <Walter_Neary@cable.comcast.com>
APR 1 0
To: "Terri Briere" <Tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us> `°9 6
Date: 3/21/2006 8:46 AM RECEIVED
Subject: RE: Comcast query
TCXE'RK'307FICE
Hi Terri—there are a lot of good ideas here. Thank you for giving this so much thought. What I'd like to do is
discuss them with my VP. However, he is in charge of a special event this Thursday in which 2,000 employees
are gathering from around the state to see our CEO and some celebrities. So you can understand why I want to
wait until Friday or Monday to chat with him! But I will be in touch soon ...
W
Walter Neary
Public Relations Manager
Comcast
253.864.4660
http://www.comcast.com
From: Terri Briere [mailto:Tbriere@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 3:54 PM
To: Neary, Walter
Subject: RE: Comcast query
Walter,
It was great meeting with you. Here are some ideas for programs that are needed at Renton High School that
deal with diversity issues at the school for students and parents. It also directly relates to school district and
community needs that can also be addressed.
New student orientation information in different languages.
The language problem: Parents or students that wish to enroll may have to wait for an hour or more for the
office staff to find someone that speaks their language, with only a few staff that have language skills (only five
languages spoken by staff), they typically end up trying to find a senior student if available to help translate.
Recently, a new Chinese student had no lunch for two days because no one spoke his language and no one told
him that the cafeteria was in a different building. Finally a student noticed his dilemma.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/22/2006
•
Page 2 of 3
A solution: Put together a Welcome Packet to include registration forms, brochures and a DVD/video of the
school showing the school campus and activities available in numerous languages to help the register, and
inform the students and parents.
Engaging foreign language speaking parents:
Newsletters and parent information is currently only in English. We could provide translated materials to parents
on a regular basis especially during registration and the beginning of the school year. Include community
resources, opportunities for students and families, and college and trade school information. This could work as
a great partnership with Renton Technical College who offers ESL and vocational classes for parents and
students.
Develop skills and programs for foreign language speaking parents:
Offer opportunities for classes and materials for things like CPR, engage in discussion about gang and drug
awareness and other issues that affect families in each language. Currently, the high school has noticed
increasingly that the Hispanic population has gang want-a-bee—so an awareness program in Spanish could be
put together using Hispanic community leaders, parents and police.The same could be done in other languages
and on other issues.
Renton High School Excellence in Education would establish a committee with the school staff and the
community to identify which materials need to be translated. Funding would be used for translators, speakers,
DVD video production, printed materials and public relations. The parent involvement component could easily
expand outside of the school to the community. The City of Renton has a new Diversity Commission starting up
that we could work with, along with some local cultural/social organizations. I really saw a lot of excitement with
this discussion—it is a multi year project but we could really see a lot accomplished in the first year.
Let me know if these ideas sound like something Comcast would be interested in funding. We are excited to get
going.
Terri Briere
425-228-7170
>>> "Neary, Walter" <Walter_Neary@cable.comcast.com> 2/24/06 2:41:11 PM >>>
Hi Terri -Wow, talk about a small world. Yep, Tacoma and Lakewood are
always something to talk about.
There's about a 5 percent chance I will be in Spokane Friday, but that's
small enough to suggest we should try for a meeting. Coffee at 11 or
lunch or early afternoon would work for me. Pick a time and place. I'll
look forward to the conversation.
W
Walter Neary
Public Relations Manager
Comcast
253.864.4660
http_J/www.cmcsk.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=147565&p=irol-overview
Original Message
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/22/2006
Page 3 of 3
From: Terri Briere [mailto:tbriere@ci.renton.wa.usi
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 10:25 AM
To: Neary, Walter
Subject: Re: Comcast query
Mr. Neary,
Thank you for your interest in our Renton High School Excellence in
Education Foundation. I would love to meet with you and find out more
about your organization.
Next week, I am available Monday morning,Tuesday afternoon,Thursday
Morning and all day Friday is open.
I also would love to hear how Lakewood is doing. I worked in Tacoma in
the 80's for Lakewood resident Glen Graves at his advertising agency. He
was very active in the community in those days.
Let me know if any of those times work for you.
Terri Briere
425-228-7170
>>> "Neary, Walter" <Walter_Neary@cable.comcast.com> 02/22/06 5:44 PM
>>>
Hello Councilmember Briere,
I got your name from Terry Davis here at Comcast. I work in regional
public relations for the company, and was telling Terry that I am
looking for places in south King County for which we might apply on
behalf of our Comcast Foundation. As he may have mentioned to you, the
foundation's greatest interests are in literacy and diversity. Given
what's going on in Washington and in Renton, the diversity subject might
be a good one to consider for RHS or perhaps another institution in the
community. So I'm wondering if you might be able to spare some time to
brainstorm; I'd be glad to treat for coffee.
Worse comes to worse - if we run out of things to talk about, I serve on
the Lakewood City Council, so we can always talk about the high pay and
prestige that comes with service in local government :-)And, of course,
the real rewards.
If you can spare some time to talk about our Foundation, why don't you
let me know what days and times of days are best for you to meet and
maybe we can figure something out?
Thanks,
Walter
Walter Neary
Public Relations Manager
Comcast
253.864.4660
http://www.comcast.com/
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jmedzegian\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00001.HTM 3/22/2006
Nimui
Damages
• How do you. compute Them
-Number of complaints ? ` .
-Percentage of noncompliance? \' \ �
Service Sit . ndards
'N\NN
• Check Chicago/Seattlb\
• Check others in your area\ ,
• Enforce yours !
•
From: George McBride
To: Svensson, Ann
Date: 9/29/2005 8:32:26 AM
Subject: RE: City of Renton -CATV Feed to Public WorksMaintenanceShopsCampus
ann, this is ridiculous. we have been working on this for since February! what specifically is the problem
and how do we move this forward. thank you. gm
>>> "Svensson, Ann" <Ann_Svensson@cable.comcast.com> 7/26/2005 11:36:56 AM >>>
George, I apologize for the length of time it is taking to get the cable service to the Public Works/Maint
Bldg. I have spoken with Bill Walker and he is still waiting to hear back from the King County Real Estate
Services Department. I will pass along up dates as I receive them.
Thanks,
Ann
Original Message
From: George McBride [mailto:Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:04 AM
To: Svensson, Ann
Subject: RE: City of Renton - CATV Feed to Public WorksMaintenanceShopsCampus
thanks, gm.
>>> "Svensson, Ann" <Ann_Svensson@cable.comcast.com> 7/25/2005 4:53:07 PM >>>
George, We are waiting for the the County's permission to occupy/bore into their vault before we can
proceed. I have put in a call to the person responsible for making this happen, and I am awaiting their call
back. I will get back with you no later than tomorrow morning. Thanks, Ann
Original Message
From: George McBride [mailto:Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:33 PM
To: Svensson, Ann
Cc: Walker, Bill W; Nies, Jim; Davis, Terry J
Subject: RE: City of Renton - CATV Feed to Public WorksMaintenanceShops Campus
ann, i really need some help here. we have been trying to move this project off dead-center literally for
months. who is a decision maker that i can speak with to get this resolved. thanks, gm.
>>>"Svensson, Ann" <Ann_Svensson@cable.comcast.com>6/15/2005 11:07:36 AM >>>
George:
I'm checking with engineering/construction. I'll let you know.
Ann
Original Message
From: George McBride [mailto:Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 1:44 PM
To: Svensson, Ann
Subject: Fwd: City of Renton - CATV Feed to Public Works MaintenanceShops Campus
4
ann-whom may i speak with to get this moving. more than enough time has elapsed for this to have been
fully provisioned and installed. thanks, gm.
CC: Bonnie Walton; David Tibbot; Davis, Terry J; Michael Stenhouse; Richard Schwarz
!Cbevl e'^O 1oo COW
4raalr
Icy /0607),)
7
2 _/i57
\\c§,k) Id /rae
1 1 , .
1 V),Q1a/lie de' ,6 V- ,e, •
. \
„ .
,
d.,2 ._ IT- __.
!! r
,„0 67
,
( , / rIf _ _.
,I -
1 ,..d.,,,,,. -6-:
, . ,/tri,,,, _ ,d_ �� . „ _
%h! l__& `/f�
�.d2%
1 --'- 6e), -)/Li_
_ . _ . .. . . . _ ._. . _ , _ _
1 .. ..._ , . .
,z)...,eia, dzi,e4,e:r 9(..(../ee.'11
. . _ .
1
L ._ _. _ .
,. _. ._. ._ _ _
- ' 101/1� ��-� - .
,,:
. . _ _
, 1 _ a /c 2 4 1 4-y/4iY'
..44.4,7,1__.._hri .
i am :" ,...„4„.)14,1i zzixil L.45,01„6„,,,,,ze
I
A
faxpt...,
iI;
`I;
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 2/18/2006 7:46:26 AM
Subject: Re: Franchise Renewal records
Okay. Does that mean I am responsible for keeping the records? If so, I should probably include a copy
of the letters that went to Burns/Inouye and each of our congresspersons. Can you provide those?
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Linda Herzog 02/17/06 7:13 PM >>>
No, I've got my own file & I pretty much keep track of what's going on &who's doing what. But I'm not
documenting meetings and capturing records in any formal way.
>>> Bonnie Walton 02/17/06 6:13 PM >>>
Just to confirm: You are maintaining the"master" file documenting our cable group meetings and
capturing the records of any work the individual group members are doing. Correct?
Bonnie, x6502
0 4 I (yrkftyyd _ t)
- • PnW-(11(Tr_ , ,
e4 to% 1 ser. ,tA
li - lik
2e-vpef-(,9 2yi-i-p-pv --9-0-)077v77
7 -2-0 ''r'74 .
/")-/ eim 4 (/h/-, ;?-rig_ 6)€
-N 6, .f2a7 f?071 1
i C1216/irrVil _ 'I
I
, WZVI ' /"/ ' 1174Yrir. - .
i I
I
- N,3 '211 47.t7/1 . 7
7 PV . V
x1,1 /x7Ad in " r1/7'
C 1
/72
77
f, _
722193/
Y77 a72
PA71 11 1
--"7.."77177( , P10/
112ff . I
f- .
I
f
'7' .17/P3-79'2:2 ..,-22 y.,(7/2
‘C'it "71417 WYCI7 77?7 ZL7
. ql
/
rp-iviiii _ , . _ __ • !- -
I. ,4",7 ;7/'
9
Yf'tlI - ,
---,/ 7-ifig fir", 24221141-7:, -ILI
77/--2 -)1) 2'
rvz -
7<171--",v .fion - -Q-Dpeal/w - il
-"Tiff iftizon/X 47
, %/4 _F',771g 11
?Yr*/ day
477"7/R7r1,4 li-
WA /
i ,• . _.
I!j
• ,
•
I 1
1 I
!I
•
I
. . I
!!
I
I i
11'1
I 1
I
•
• 1
r?27- r /frri
vly y
fr/- prwl/
--1.99-71/e98,
/ °()2 rrilt• 120 °II< re*
I „
rVitil %el
1,
1,1)77,/e -214/1,0
77-2?"7-r C1217 -712(17 V7i01
_ 11
,
07-Or crfr rerM I
pinfrvnio Privi/e_ -
From: "Lackey Sound and Light, Inc." <lackeysound@aol.com>
To: <council@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, Jun 12, 2006 5:10 PM
Subject: Proper Use of Microphones
•
Lackey Sound and Light, Inc. Newsletter
How to Use Microphones
June, 2006
in this issue
*You as the Presenter ...
* Handheld Microphones
*A Place to Practice
* Plasma in Your Future?
*Touring, Touring, Touring
You as the Presenter ...
You have written your presentation, learned how to
picture the audience in their underwear and now you
are facing something they didn't teach you, the
dreaded microphone.
Let us teach you to become one with the
microphone. Even better let us teach you to forget
there is a microphone.
Microphones come in different flavors. For the sake
of this discussion we will break them down into four
groups—the handheld microphone (this can have a
wire or be wireless), the lavaliere microphone (again,
wired or wireless), the headworn microphone (ala
Brittany Spears, usually wireless) and fixed
microphone (either attached on a podium or on a
desk stand in front of you while you sit at a table).
We will start with general tips for all the different
flavors of microphones
*Always speak loudly enough to carry the front
row of the audience even if you are talking to a
person next to you on stage. It is common for a
presenter's volume to go way down when a second
person gets on stage with them.
* Hearing yourself from the speakers can be very
disconcerting. It is like talking over the top of
yourself. Talk as though you are trying to convince
your dog to sit.
Microphones are for speaking, not tapping or
worse blowing.
* Your first words into the microphone should
be "Good morning (afternoon or evening) I am
". By then the audio engineer will have a
good level on the microphone. Inappropriate opening
remarks are"can you hear me?", "is this on?", etc.
You and the microphone are going to become one.
Many microphones have on/off switches. No
matter how nervous you become the switches aren't
something to doodle with, muse to yourself about the
outfit someone decided to wear(what were they
thinking?)
*Your voice comes from you mouth. Holding a
microphone anywhere else will not produce the audio
quality you deserve.
* It is very helpful if you provide the audio engineer
with at least an outline of your presentation.
Hey, you musical acts, are you reading this?This
goes for patter in between songs, too. All too often
singers drop down to a barely audible mumble when
they're talking. The lead singer will turn their head
and say something, pointing in the direction of one of
the player and then turn their head in another
direction and point to another musician and we can
only guess they are introducing the band members.
Handheld Microphones
Handheld microphones have the best pick up and
respond the best to a"newbie" because the
diaphragm is so large. A handheld microphone is your
friend. Talk to it not instead it. Hold it like you are
eating an ice cream cone. To get the ultimate sound
from the diaphragm inside the microphone it should be
no more than 6
This article now continues on our web page.
Read on... -
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=lklgewbab.0.n5x8fwbab.gv5iulbab.7250&p=http%3A%2F%2Flackeysound.com%2F
MicrophoneTech.htm
A Place to Practice
1
How do you have a successful talk? Practice,
practice,
practice. Call us for an appointment to rehearse in
our meeting room with many different type of
microphones.We will arrange your room with your
equipment and then leave you
alone. We can even set up stage lighting to simulate
your actual event situation.
Plasma in Your Future?
We are very excited about our new product lines.
Sony- audio, video,
cameras even consumer products are now
available through Lackey Sound and Light, Inc. Want
a new plasma TV, video camera, etc.? Call us.
Other product lines include Road Ready Road
Cases
(you will soon see all our touring and rental
equipment in them), Da-lite (screens and
audio visual
accessories), Proxima LCD projectors,
Innovative
Systems (pipe and drape), TCS (high
end audio),
Shure (microphones and accessories),
Genie (high lift
products), Elation (specialty lights),
Renkus Heinz(audio), Conquest
(cables), American DJ (lights),
Global Truss, Omnisistem, JW
Davis, TOA, etc.
Call for pricing and availability.
Touring, Touring, Touring
Our rental department is having an amazing spring
and summer looks busy as ever. Our corporate events
have been very brisk, including conventions with
break out rooms and a week long video recording
event over Memorial Day weekend for the Federal
Government.
Our live music touring department is feeling left out.
With a large festival losing their concert site and a
second yearly event without funding, touring is
looking to fill gaps this summer with one offs, week
long festivals and/or fairs, tours, etc.
We will be happy to take just a piece of the pie--
providing only lighting, or just audio, or just video, or
just staging, or just backline or any combination of
the above. We leave on tour on September 13th with
the Bellamy Brothers.
Call Bill Lackey to book your dates.
email: lackeysound@aol.com
web: http://lackeysound.com
Forward email
http://ui.constantcontact.com/sa/fwtf.jsp?m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&a=1101327
969611
This email was sent to council@ci.renton.wa.us,
by lackeysound@aol.com
Update Profile/Email Address
http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=oo&m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=7250&t
=1101327969611&lang=en&reason=F
Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe(TM)
http://ui.constantcontact.com/d.jsp?p=un&m=1100975733414&ea=council%40ci.renton.wa.us&se=7250&t
=1101327969611&lang=en&reason=F
Privacy Policy:
http://aolss.constantcontact.com/roving/CCPrivacyPolicy.jsp
Powered by
Constant Contact(R)
www.constantcontact.com
Lackey Sound and Light, Inc. 13425 Stone Way North I Seattle I WA 198103-8921
4-i- i-e77/k49 4frvgl
t 1/1191/17- 7T / #
4ne?__. 7111."(,
-29( iWil/ rre , • •
7411rf W?P-P-194 r'W / V--iV •
( .2Afd97i2IX 176' l ,1"14
fin-lri
(xWil44"___ i
- •
--..--- ------imiii.--- 0"111w- _...iii_111W lego.dpill
n ,6,iyvvf/j ••\
:WI II
hp tt-4 gb ilvrfin/ J-wvir ,
‘ 4,e-,r_42. 7-7-f--77- , -77?- 2 Iv 01v -iclrof (7-2d
H u/tY /
0-,_...
49X--
,. .
1
•
•
•
;- of
saluit r ......ezelits - eiced.....d4v2. )4a.eitaiee..9
® p'
-ti-
•/ �/F / • •
.r."...7': 3 a,d,"2--(-d. i , /i____ad._____a19-7,004' - zti$4---..
•
z
• I..1
.
.
.
• Application Received:
{tS St® Franchise Requirement:
Reference Number-
Application for Cable Connection
This form must be completed by authorized personnel or department head on behalf of the facility. Complimentary service can be provided.
only to facilities within Comcast service areas and is not provided for public viewing.
Please fax this application to 425-398-6238 attn:Ann Svensson and mail signed original form to:P.O.Box C8004,Bothell,WA 98082
Questions can be directed to Ann Svensson,Contracts Administrator at 425-398-6051. -
Please pe or print clears :
n
ame of Facility: C a - — �V 1416 If //01-005 /6Ef$OrZt#b72 CalurEk
•ddress: _3000 NE *Elf
ity: Renton Zip Code: 805-5" ,Fire Station #of Beds:
ount Kin• Is buildin• within Cit limits?Yes
.+S":�. . .. ..:€-..: _, .., a.s.... :.r.;:.�..>�.. �.._r t-•..,.:�:,.: ,-...mN..r � ".f __�=wr'.C.:: ., ,. � ss.y�'"�'"_�,�
Contact Contact for Installation
ame: Sefariye, leXc jkrf ame: Richard Schwarz
itle: ! S t b `OE -u.r itle: Network System Specialist
+'hone: 425.430.'681S 6 hone: 425.430.6889
-ax: 425.430.681.3 ax:425.430.6893
-Mail: Gnttbciato'ci.renton.wa.us -Mail: rschwarz • i.renton.wa.us
•lease detail your reguest for service
0 Regular Cable Installation
(Please select the criteria that best describes the facility)
❑ New Construction
❑ Facility Rebuild/Remodel
X This is an existing facility that currently does not have cable service
❑ Other(please detail)
additional Information:
-A'��'�``-�-�'X„s��.:�,-,��.,.a`:_,—_._a`:�fs�r�s� ,'-.,�;�":3;......y.�s.•�4,Yk',�.i�,5^•'�.''��- FiaW.,i i• " .��� EsaPc�, k r,Ti7-.�" � 1 >. � +.esr�'r V��4:.. ..�.
-,K_-..s:.,its .. �......Y..,u,.y-v.�:;3..... �''.�:i:> �:a-v: ,u�.,..�i.:a=3����x•.,��= w..e:.:;o- +.�...:$.-�...;,r-�;'?.:�^�r.,... .._.�_.se_uR
uthorization
understand that once certain requirements are met,Comcast will provide this facility complimentary service that includes a single cable installation,one
outlet and monthly video service'''. I can verify that the facility resides within Comcast's service area. I realize that I will be informed about construction
end installation costs that will be incurred by the municipality if the installation is outside the designated parameters of 125-200*feet from existing
omcast cable lines.('Local Franchise agreement determines distance)('•Video service level determined by franchise agreement)
•uthorized Signature: ` k I Date: 0
I o, /o.616
From: Gregory Stroh
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 3/17/03 3:20PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Questions on the Council Chambers construction
Hi Bonnie,
I have made some headway, here is what we have to date, there are resources for some answers
attached from Dave Clark. I have also requested input from SPL they have done most of the recent audio
upgrades to the Council Chambers. Once I have receive all of the answers I will compile them for you.
Regards,
Greg
>>> "David A. Clark <dclark@clarkarchitects.com>03/17/03 03:04PM >>>
Greg,
Great to hear from you, and hey I'd be happy to answer what I can. I have
learned a ton about sound in council chambers lately. I just finished the
sound system at the new SeaTac City Hall council Chambers and one Church in
Kent. If Bonnie wants to discuss it, please have her give me a call.
1. Dave Clark Project Manager @ CJA (Bellevue), now with Clark
Architects (Kent) 253 813-8877, dclark@clarkarchitects.com . George McBride
had design input as well.
2. Michael Nolan has the original plans on the CH project, the sound
layout and spec is in those files.
3. Millwork Contractor was Peak Manufacturing, Les Asplund, 360-
331-1911, PO 371 Freeland, WA 98249, les@peakmfq.com
Thanks,
Dave
Original Message
From: Gregory Stroh [mailto:Gstroh@ci.renton.wa.usj.
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 2:43 PM
To: dclark@clarkarchitects.com
Subject: Questions on the Council Chambers construction
Hi Dave,
It's been awhile, I hope you and your family are fine. I thought this
may interest you. Our City clerk, Bonnie Walton has recently been asked
From: "Jane Cantu" <jcantu@ci.tukwila.wa.us>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/10/03 4:00PM
Subject: Re: Council Chambers Design
Many thanks, Bonnie. I appreciate your taking the time to get back to me.
>>> "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>03/10/03 03:25PM >>>
Jane,
I haven't forgotten your request. Our facilities division was largely
in charge of the sound system for our Chambers, so I'm getting
information from them which I hope to relay to you soon. As for our
recording equipment, we are still using the old Lanier 4-track audio
cassette recorder like we did at the old City Hall building. We haven't
switched to digital yet. We videotape our meetings also.
I'll get back to you later on the sound equipment.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Jane Cantu" <jcantu@ci.tukwila.wa.us>03/04/03 11:58AM >>>
Hi ladies,
We are on the verge of redesigning our council chambers which will
include revamping the entire sound system and recording equipment.
Since you all have new, newer, and newest city hall's, I'm hoping
you'll be able to provide some information to me.
1) Name of your architect/designer.
2) Are the plans available to review;
3) Name of contractor who did your millwork;
4) What type of sound system did you have installed;
5) Were you pleased with the results and the workmanship of the
project;
6)What would you do differently;
7) Any suggestions to make this project run smoothly.
Many thanks for taking the time to share this information with me. We
are all excited to "finally" get started on this project. If there is
something in the email you don't understand, please let me know.
Thanks again,
Jane Cantu
From: <Lahurd3hmc@aol.com>
To: <bwalton @ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/4/03 2:01PM
Subject: Cable Map
Bonnie,
I went to look at the Bellevue Web site but I am having trouble receiving any
PDF files so I can't get there. MY IT expert will be in on Monday to trouble
shoot our system. It now appears as it will be next week before I can get to
work on your request. I will let you know as soon as I get the information
you requested.
Lon
From: George McBride ��PUcic°, ���
To: Bonnie Walton .i47 0.'
Date: 1/27/03 11:45AM
Subject: http://www. '. /departments/Transportation/pdf/NodeMap.pdf
very cool, should we be doing something like this for our community?
... ))*A0;111' 1 i
f
From: George McBride
To: Bonnie Walton
Date: 1/27/03 11:46AM
Subject: http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/pacte.asp?view=8452
another..
CITY OF RENTON
MAY 0 6 2002
RECEIVED ® AT&T
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
AT&T Broadband
2316 South State Street
Tacoma,WA 98405
May 3, 2002
Ms. Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager, Renton
1055 S Grady
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Monthly Service Rate Increase on AT&T Broadband Internet Service
Dear Ms. Walton:
I am writing to inform you that on or shortly after June 6, 2002, AT&T
Broadband will effect a change in the monthly service rate for some AT&T Broadband
Internet Service ("ATTBI") customers. A copy of the notice to customers detailing the
changes is attached for your reference.
As you may know, on March 15, 2002, the Federal Communication Commission
decided that cable modem service is an interstate information service,not a cable
television service. Therefore,the 30-day prior notification to local franchising authorities
is no longer required. However, as a-courtesy, AT&T Broadband is providing this notice
to the City of Renton.
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue further,please feel
free to give me a call.
Sincerely,
//2-" '
Hans Hechtman
Government Affairs Manager
HH
Cc: Janet Turpen, Director of Franchising
Anne McMullen, Area Director
)% L4 2/C)
ewe (r)
err
O 9 Recycled Paper aAj Y
NOTICE OF JUNE 5,2002 PRICE CHANGE FOR
AT&T BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE FOR
CUSTOMERS IN SNOHOMISH AND KING COUNTIES
Mt.Lake Terrace WA-0255,Brier,WA-0325,Shoreline WA-0572,Lake
Forest Park WA-0545,WA-0160,Bothell WA-0149,Edmonds,Woodway,
Shoreline,Snohomish Co.WA-0099,WA-0550,WA-0107,WA-0100
Seattle,Mercer Island WA-0069,WA-0112
Woodinville WA-0549,IGng County-Vista,City of Sammamish WA-0150,
WA-0118,King County WA-0083,WA 0401,Kenmore WA-0598,WA-0595,
Newcastle WA-0559,Bellevue and Medina WA-0076,WA-0148,WA-0398,
WA-0399,WA-0081,Redmond WA-0151,Kirkland WA-0310,Bellevue,
Hunts/Yarrow Point,Beaux Arts WA-0443,WA-0330,WA-0384,Issaquah
WA-0122,Carnation,Fall City,Snoqualmie,North Bend and East IGng
County WA-0334,WA-0259,WA-0197,WA-0051,WA-0253,WA-0570
Burien,South King County,Covington,Maple Valley,Black Diamond,
Algona,Pacific,Normandy Park,Enumclaw,Seatac,Federal Way
WA-0539,WA-0083,WA-0082,WA-0582,WA-0170,WA-0055,WA-0054,
WA-0061,WA-0057,WA-0401,WA-0541,WA-0544,WA-0554,WA-0597,
King County(Lee Hills)WA-0181,Kent and Auburn WA-0065,WA-0096,
Tukwila WA-0205,Renton WA-0068,Des Moines WA-0121
Current New
Service Price Price
Leased-modem customers,living outside the City of Seattle,City
of Issaquah,or Unincorporated King County,with additional AT&T
Broadband services (AT&T Broadband Cable Service and/or
AT&T Broadband Home Phone Service)will NOT receive a price
increase to their High-Speed Internet Service.
High-Speed Internet Service
(w/leased modem and
multiple-product discount*) $45.95 $45.95
High-Speed Internet Service
(w/leased modem) $45.95 $49.95
High-Speed Internet Service
(w/leased modem)
(City of Seattle,City of Issaquah and
Unincorporated King Co.only) $39.95 $45.95
High-Speed Internet Service
(w/own modem) $35.95 $42.95
'Multiple-product discount furnished to qualified AT&T Broadband customers based upon the sub-
scription to AT&T Broadband Internet Service as well as one or more additional AT&T Broadband
products(AT&T Broadband Cable Service and/or AT&T Broadband Home Phone Service).
Currently and to the extent required by law,after notice to you of a retiering of our services or rate
Increase,you may change your level of service at no additional charge for a period of 30 days.
Otherwise,changes in the services you receive,which are requested or caused by you,may be sub-
ject to upgrade or downgrade charges.
Prices are exclusive of any taxes and other related fees.Pricing,equipment,programming and padc-
aging is subject to change.Service not available In all areas.Installation,equipment,additional data
outlet,change of service,and other charges may apply.For questions about minimum computer
requirements and complete details about the service and prices call 1-877-824-2288.
Questions? Please contact:
AT&T Broadband
P.O.BOX 8004,Bothell,WA 98082
www.attbroadband.com/support/
AT&T Broadband
ATT HSD Price Adj.Legal
Monday,May 6,2002
Seattle Times
3 col.(3-3/4)x 9"
Eastside Journal .
ROP
3 col.(3 3/4")x 9"
AT&T Broadband
Washington Market 22025 30th Drive Southeast
Bothell,WA 98021-4444
January 24,2003 425 398-6000
By U.S.Mail or(OF Re10
Bonnie Walton • �4Q3
City Clerk/Cable Manager a AN t
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way gE.GEK$pFOCe
Renton,WA 98055 Gtt,4 Gt-ER
Re: Revised Method for Recovery of Franchise Fees on Non-Subscriber Revenue
Dear Ms.Walton:
In our correspondence dated December 16, 2002 we reminded you of a 2001 order issued
by the Federal Communications Commission clarifying that cable operators may pass through the
collection of franchise fees on non-subscriber revenues that includes revenues from advertising
and home shopping, and that following that decision,AT&T Broadband implemented an increase
in its pass-through enabling.recovery of franchise fee payments made on non-subscriber revenues
for the period July 2000 through June 2001. The method used to calculate the amount of fees to
be recovered was based on'national f gates and resulted in an additional .23% franchise fee
recovered on non- subscriber revenues. AT&T Broadband also indicated that it would "refresh"
this number on an annual basis; and revisit whether to continue use of a national average or
calculate the recovery of those fees on a market-by-market basis.
On a going forward basis AT&T Broadband has decided to recover franchise fees paid on
non-subscriber revenue on a community-by-community basis to better reflect actual non-
subscriber revenue collected in the local franchise area. Therefore, effective March 1, 2003, the
franchisee fee percentage to be collected from customers each month, including non-subscriber
revenues, will be 6.03%. AT&T Broadband will revisit this calculation frequently on an ongoing
basis,to ensure that it accurately recovers franchise fees paid to local franchising authorities.
Our customers have been notified of this change in writing by way of the following bill
message: "The calculation for franchise fees on•your next bill will increase to
recover franchise fee costs related to a 2001 FCC Order." If you have any questions
about this matter,please call me at(253)503-8016.
Sint.rely,
Wederitev..,
Hans Hechtman .
Area Manager,AT&T Broadband : . . .
cc: Janet L:Turpen, AT&T Broadband ,e C ':
Ann
ne McMullen, AT&T Broadband /, ,
Lon Hurd-3H Cable Communications Consultants p ) ,(-1
agiLIZ-1
�Recycled Paper
CITY OF RENTON
JAN 0 3 2003
40'
CITY OF RENTON RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 03 January 2003
TO: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
FROM:, Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
CC: Derek Todd, Assistant CAO
SUBJECT: AT&T Broadband Recent Rate Increase for Internet Service
Bonnie, I read with interest the December 20, 2002 letter from Hans Hechtman, Area
Franchise Manager for AT&T Broadband. In his letter to you,he indicates AT&T will
raise rates for Internet only users by roughly 15-20 percent, if I remember the current rate
correctly(he did not list the current rate in his letter).
In November you sent me a letter from Mr Hechtman indicating AT&T's further
restriction of services to basic cable customers (see attached). I know we cannot stop
AT&T from these service changes or rate increases,but I'd like for us to have them come
and explain them before the Council. Is there a provision in our franchise agreement that
compels AT&T to come before us? If not, I'd still like to ask them to come and make an
official presentation to the council explaining their justification for these high rate
increases.
Attachments
AT&T Broadband
Washington Market 22025 30th Drive SE
Bothell,WA 98021-4444
December 20, 2002 CITY OF RENTON
Sent Via US Mail DEC 2 3 2002
Bonnie Walton RECEIVEDCITY CL RK'VED OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton LI E C 2 2002
1055 S Grady Way MAYORS Q FACE
Renton, WA 98055
RE: High Speed Internet Rate Change Notification
Dear Ms. Walton:
In our continuing efforts to provide the City of Renton with important and timely
information, AT&T Broadband would like to advise you of upcoming price changes.
Effective January 14, 2003 all new high-speed internet only customers who subscribe to
AT&T Broadband's High Speed Internet Service and who own their modem will be
charged $52.95 per month. Customers who lease their modem will be charged $55.95
per month for the internet service and modem lease.
This price adjustment will not affect existing high-speed internet customers or those
customers that have additional AT&T Broadband services. If you have any questions
regarding this rate adjustment, please contact me at (253) 503-8016.
Sincerely,
Hans Hechtman
Area Franchise Manager, AT&T Broadband
HH/as
CC: Janet L. Turpen, Regional Director of Franchising and Government Relations,
AT&T Broadband
Anne McMullen, Area Director, AT&T Broadband
Lon Hurd - 3H Cable Communications Consultants
4Recycled Paper
RECEIVED
Nov 200 --2.3 AT&T Broadband
MAYORS DEED
Washington Market 22025 30th Drive SE
Bothell,WA 98021-4444 CITY OF REN
oN
November 15, 2002 NOV 1 8 zeal
Bonnie Walton CITY CLERK',&QFF E
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Channel Migration Update
Dear Ms. Walton:
In our continuing efforts to keep you informed, AT&T Broadband would like to advise
you of an upcoming change to our channel lineup that will occur on or shortly after
December 17, 2002. This change will affect the way the Encore premium channel is
packaged and delivered to our customers. The analog premium channel, Encore,will
only be available with the use of a digital set top receiver, and customers will have a
choice as to how this change will affect them.
We will be notifying customers via letter,postcard and Outbound Telemarketing. Legal
notice (copy enclosed)will also be place in the local newspaper on November 16, 2002.
To ensure the delivery of Encore, we are asking customer's who currently have analog
addressable boxes to exchange them for a new digital set-top receiver. An AT&T
Broadband customer service representative will be in contact with our customer's to
explain these upcoming changes to their service.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at(253) 503-8016. If you
receive calls from our customers about this channel change, please direct them to our
Customer Service Center at 1-866-436-4596..
Cordially, L(Y.-)
Hans Hechtman 4 11 - 1 0111
Area Manager, AT&T Broadband �G � I),5 a.
HH/as / �� ��b4 �(' .
Encl. lj 61 0)
Cc: Janet L. Turpen, Regional Director of Franchising and Government Relation ,
AT&T Broadband (�)
Anne McMullen, Area Director, AT&T Broadband fie:.
Lon Hurd - 3H Cable Communications Consultants Mar
1-444412A-2/----
RDA
Recycled Paper /
IMPORTANT NOTICE
TO AT&T"BROADBAND'
CUSTOMERS
- AT&T Broadband will make the following change
to its channel line-up in the following listed areas
effective on,or shortly after December 17,2002.
For a complete listing of the channel change,
please see the charts below.
,S;eattte=8e Sout#Ti King;Cout ty{.;t;Y N:
The Encore channel will be moved on the
following AT&T Digital Cable Line-ups:
CLS 1751,2081 &4863
Channel Channel# New Channel#
Encore 71/518 518
This change will be made automatically and
requires no action on your part.If you have
questions,please feel free to call us at
1-877-824-2288.
Questions? Please contact:
ATILT Broadband
22025 30th Dr.SE
Bothell,WA 98021-4444
ATT ENCORE Channel Changes
Legal Ads
December 17, 2002
The Seattle Times
2 col (2 8/16") x 4 1/2"
c%
CITY OF RENTON
CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 13, 2003
TO: Mayor Jesse Tanner
Members,Renton City Council
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: AT&T Broadband Cable Rate Decrease
Under Renton's franchise with AT&T Broadband, the City has authority over increases in
basic cable rates, and each June, our cable consultant performs an evaluation of the
annual rate increase utilizing standard FCC calculation guidelines. At that time,
comments from City subscribers are invited through notifications in the local newspaper,
Channel 21 and the website, and, depending upon public response, a public hearing by the
City Council is held. As you may recall,basic cable rates, over which the City does have
authority,increased from$13.10 to$13.50 per month effective July 1, 2002.
Recently AT&T has notified the City that effective with the January 2003 customer
billing statements,rates on basic cable services for Renton will decrease from$13.50 to
$13.25 per month. Also, for your information,rates on expanded basic cable service
(also known as standard cable service) over which the City does not have authority, will
increase from$33.75 to $36.99 per month. The attached notice from AT&T Broadband
regarding the rate adjustments is attached for your information.
The area franchise manager for AT&T Broadband has been invited to speak to Council
regarding rates and service at a future Council meeting. The date for that presentation has
not yet been confirmed.
If you have questions regarding this matter,please feel free to contact me at x6502 or by
e-mail.
Attachments (2)
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
i
AT&T Broadband
Washington Market 22025 30th Drive SE CITY OF R ^�t
Bothell,WA 98021-4444 ON
November 25, 2002 DEC 0 2 2002
CITY RECEIVEDLK' OFFICE
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RE: Notice of Upcoming Price Adjustments
•
Dear Ms. Walton: •
Effective with the January 2003 customer billing statements,we will be making some price
adjustments to the cable products and services offered in your community, as detailed on the
attached sample legal notice. Please note that price adjustments in this community typically have
been announced at this time each year, and are not related to the Comcast-AT&T Broadband
merger. .• •
-
In addition to a customer notification letter and'customer bill-message, customers,are.being....•
provided advance notice of these price changes via legal notice in the Seattle Times that will run
on December 2, 2002. The customer bill message will read as follows:
• AT&T Broadband is committed to keeping you informed about upcoming changes to your cable
• price. Beginning with you next billing statement, new prices will be in effect. Your next
statement will include a full up-to-date channel line-up and service rate card.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call me at(253) 503-8016.
Sincerely, • •
•
•
Hans Hechtman •
Area Franchise Manager,AT&T Broadband
HH/as
Encl. • •
'CC: ' Janet L. Turpen,Regional Director of Franchising and Government Relations,AT&T.Broadband
Anne McMullen,Area Director,AT&T Broadband
Lon Hurd-3H Cable Communications Consultants
•
•
W Recycled Paper
l
NOTICE OF PRICE CHANGE FOR AT&T BROADBAND
CUSTOMERS RECEIVING SERVICE INTHE SEATTLE AREA
�•' Effective with January 2003 bills,AT&T Broadband w8 make be bflowing
pica changesThese servce price aclustrrrents reflect updated innation,app$-
cab'e franchise related casts and programming fees,among other factors,
Current New
Service Price Price
Seattle WA-0069,WA-0112
Standard Cable Service $33.75 $38.99
Mercer Island WA-0110
Standard Cable Service $33.75 $35.50
• Edmonds,Woodwey,Shoreline,Snohomish Co. '
' WA-0099,WA-0550,WA-0107,WA-0100
Standard Cable Service $38.75 $38.99
Brier,WA-0325,
Basic Cable Service $11.65 $11.55 - .
Standard Cable Service $34.75 $37.99
Shoreline WA-0572,Lake Forest Park WA-0545,
• WA-0160,Bothell WA-0149
Standard Cable Service $34.75 $37.99
Bothell WA-0149,Woodinville WA-0549,King County-Vista,City of
• Sammamish WA-0150,WA-0118,Kenmore WA-0598,WA-00595,
Newcastle WA-0559
Basic Cable Service $12.70 $12.30
Standard Cable Service $34.75 $37.99 •
Burien,South King County,Covington,Maple Valley,Black Diamond,
Algona,Pacific,Normandy Park and Enumclaw,Seetac,Federal Way
WA-0539,WA-0083,WA-0082,WA-0582,WA-0170,WA-0055,
WA-0054,WA-0061,WA-0057,WA-0401,WA-0.541,WA-0544,
WA-0554,WA-0597
Basic Cable Service $14.39 $14.30 -
Standard Cable Service $34.75 $37.99
Kent and Auburn WA-0065,WA-0098,WA=0829,'Tukwila WA-0205
Basic Cable Service $14.39 $14.30 •
Standard Cable Service $33.75 $38.99 _
Renton WA-0068
Basic Cable Service $13.50 $13.25
Standard Cable Service $33.75 $38.99
Des Moines WA-0121 '
Basic Cable Service $13.55 $13.40
Standard Cable Service $33.75 $38.99
King County(Lee Hills)WA-0181
Standard Cable Service $34.75 $37.99
King County(Vashon Island)WA-0413
Standard Cable Service $31.75 $33.50
The following price changes apply to all above listed communities
Current New
' Service Price Price
Encore $2.70 $3.20
Slerzt $11.10 $12.99
HBO $14.99 $15.99
Cinemax $13.25 $13.99
The Movie Channel $13.25 $13.99
• Digital Cable Service(a la carte) $12.50 $12.99
Digital Starter $42.99 $46.02
Digital Bronze $45.99 $50.02
Digital Standard $49.99 $54.02
Digital Sliver $59.99 $63.99
Digital Gold $69.99 $74.99
Digital Platinum $81.99 • $87.99
DVP1 $58.99 $61.99
DVP2 $66.99 $71.99
DVP3 $74.99 $79.99
DVP4 $79.99 $85.99
• Total TV $72.99 $77.99
Digital Standard TV $42.99-45.99 $49.49
Digital Bronze 2000 $45.99-48.99 $49.49
• Digital Silver 2000 $59.99 $63.49
Digital Gold 2000 - $84.99-67.99 $69.99
Digital Platinum 2000 $79.99 $85.99
Can AT&T Broadband for compete details about services and prices.Certain serv-
Ices are available separately or as part of other levels of service,and not all serv-
ices are available b all areas-You must subscribe to Basic SeMce to receive other .
video services or levels of video service.Standard Cable Service Is comprised of
both Bask and Frpanded Cable SeMceslbu must purchase a rend a converter
and remote control for a separate charge to receive certain services Installation,
equipment.additional outlet,flange at service,programing access and other
charges may apply Franchise fees,tares and other fees tray apply,vAlh the actu-
al amount depending on location and services ordered Pricing,programing,
darnel location and packaging may craps Access to a phone line may be
required to receive Digital Cable.
For customers receiving service through commercial accounts,bulk rate arrange-
ments with multiple dwelling mxters,a similar arrangements,some of the prod-
act,pricing and other inbrmatkn contained heath may not apply-Please refer to
the terms and cendtbns dominants reflecting such separate arrangements
Where such are Inconsistent with the inbmaom in era pricing stnzture.the
terms and condtkns of such separate arrangements will apply.
Currently and to the eatea required by law,otter notice to you of a ratlering d our
services or rate baease,you may charge year level of service at no addtknal
charge lore period of 30 days.Otherwise,flanges in the services you twelve
which are requested or caused by you win be subject to the upgrade and down-
grade charges listed above.
,Questions? Please contact
• • _AT TBroadband
22025 30th Dr.SE,Bothell,WA 98021-4444
•
ATT Price Changes January'03
Seattle limes
3 col(3 12/16'")x 14"
I;,
i 1 I
1 I;
1;1
I I:
, 1
1:1 P/up-eed, .
4.97 g )
11;
__..
...
-/Csb
•
. ,
„,.
„..,
i .,
,.,J,:
. I I
1 :
' I'
':. .
- .
H I
I'1
..I
.:!
I 1 1 Ail-Or a 6..e.a&Lei:,
MAW Atf/114' t`f 411}6 ,
;1;
I!
!!!!!
!,!
„.
! I
2,J
!,;
Budget Ordinance,Nov. 24, 2003, Section 2 Page 1 of 2
Budget Ordinance adopted Monday, Nov. 24, 2003
Introduced by Councilmember Larry Phillips
SECTION 2. The 2004 Annual Budget is hereby adopted and, subject to the
provisions hereinafter set forth and the several amounts hereinafter specified or
so much thereof as shall be sufficient to accomplish the purposes designated,
appropriations are hereby authorized to be distributed for salaries, wages and
other expenses of the various agencies and departments of King County, for
capital improvements and for other specified purposes for the fiscal year
beginning January 1, 2004, and ending December 31, 2004, out of the several
funds of the county hereinafter named and set forth in the following sections.
SECTION 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 2 of this ordinance,
sections 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 of this ordinance shall become effective
ten days after the executive's approval of this ordinance as provided in the King
County Charter.
SECTION 4. COUNTY COUNCIL - From the current expense fund there is
hereby appropriated to:
County Council $5,679,506
The maximum number of FTEs for county council shall be: 64.00
SECTION 5. COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION - From the current expense
fund there is hereby appropriated to:
Council Administration $6,893,209
The maximum number of FTEs for council administration shall be: 57.00
ER1 EXPENDITURE RESTRICTION:
Of this appropriation, $50,000 shall be expended to contract with a
consultant to assist the North Highline Unincorporated Area Council in its review
of governance options.
SECTION 6. HEARING EXAMINER - From the current expense fund there
is hereby appropriated to:
Hearing Examiner $575,496
The maximum number of FTEs for hearing examiner shall be: 5.00
SECTION 7. COUNCIL AUDITOR - From the current expense fund there is
hereby appropriated to:
Council Auditor $1,195,234
The maximum number of FTEs for council auditor shall be: 11.00
http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/budget/budget2.htm 9/29/2004
Budget Ordinance,Nov. 24, 2003, Section 2 Page 2 of 2
ER1 EXPENDITURE RESTRICTION:
Of this appropriation, $75,000 shall be expended solely for independent
analysis for the regional policy committee's work program.
ER2 EXPENDITURE RESTRICTION:
Of this appropriation, $50,000 shall be expended solely to assist the cities
of Auburn and Enumclaw by providing additional resources for public outreach
and analysis of the executive's annexation strategy.
SECTION 8. OMBUDSMAN/TAX ADVISOR - From the current expense
fund there is hereby appropriated to:
Ombudsman/Tax Advisor $793,391
The maximum number of FTEs for ombudsman/tax advisor shall be: 9.00
SECTION 9. KING COUNTY CIVIC TELEVISION - From the current
expense fund there is hereby appropriated to:
King County Civic Television $581,527
The maximum number of FTEs for King County civic television shall be: 7.00
SECTION 10. BOARD OF APPEALS - From the current expense fund there
is hereby appropriated to:
Board of Appeals $533,019
The maximum number of FTEs for board of appeals shall be: 4.00
http://www.metrokc.gov/mkcc/budget/budget2.htm 9/29/2004
General Government
Program Area
1
• •opt ° * • , •0Rtes , Ls-� " „ o04 „oposa• •�E - : „ , " e •r04 - -1A '. .. x•enditures . ; TEs .'EX•endtures•� .PTEs Ex enditurs ,. TEs
County Council Agencies
COUNTY COUNCIL 5,467,401 64.00 5,461,293 64.00 5,679,506 64.00
COUNCIL ADMINISTRATION 7,214,700 62.00 6,457,622 57.00 6,393,209 57.00
HEARING EXAMINER 595,592 5.00 536,552 5.00 556,759 5.00
COUNCIL AUDITOR 1,326,173 11.00 1,046,174 11.00 1,040,234 11.00
OMBUDSMAN/TAX ADVISOR 769,865 9.00 714,332 9.00 793,391 9.00
KC CIVIC TELEVISION 542,436 7.00 562,899 7.00 581,527 • 7.00
BOARD OF APPEALS 522,363 4.00 511,417 4.00 559,584 4.00
16,438,530 162.00 15,290,289 157.00 15,604,210 157.00
County Executive Agencies
COUNTY EXECUTIVE 258,135 2.00 263,660 2.00 277,993 2.00
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE 2,579,217 24.00 2,732,717 25.00 3,084,904 24.00
OFFICE OF MGMT&BUDGET 3,363,066 36.00 4,205,629 41.00 4,353,057 41.00
OFFICE OF MGMT&BUDGET/CJ 379,994 3.00 362,723 2.00 747,027 0
BUSINESS REL&ECON DEV 6,661,055 33.00 2,330,333 15.50 2,262,440 16.50
13,241,467 98.00 9,895,062 85.50 10,725,421 83.50
Executive Services
FINANCE-CX 2,484,908 0 2,287,083 0 2,471,442 0
LICENSING/REGULATORY SVCS 6,032,102 75.85 0 0 0 0
EXECUTIVE SVCS-ADMIN 1,625,251 16.00 1,670,130 16.00 1,832,830 17.00
HUMAN RESOURCES MGMT 5,977,231 57.00 5,970,080 59.50 6,805,531 63.50
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS 173,208 2.00 192,531 2.00 236,905 2.00
PROPERTY SERVICES 2,523,021 30.00 2,475,198 30.00 2,435,264 28.00
RECORDS&ELECTIONS 11,363,267 75.38 18,493,965 151.23 21,082,257 151.38
RECORDER'S 0&M FUND 1,218,585 4.50 1,307,661 5.50 1,169,780 6.50
INET OPERATIONS 744,750 7.00 931,958 7.00 1,720,680 7.00
SAFETY&WORKERS'COMP 20,073,595 27.00 21,800,137 27.00 25,081,714 27.00
FINANCE-INTERNAL SVC FUND 24,041,157 189.50 24,937,375 203.50 27,562,563 209.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS PROGRAM 120,050,248 21.00 124,562,626 9.00 157,203,579 11.00
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SUB 33,243,551 289.75 33,463,198 279.75 34,331,738 281.25
INSURANCE 21,873,366 14.00 24,122,779 20.50 26,042,896 20.50
DATA PROCESSING SERVICES 22,614,780 135.50 22,874,838 138.00 23,651,628 135.50
TELECOM SERVICES 2,666,562 8.00 1,986,447 8.00 1,952,491 8.00
PRINTING/GRAPHIC ARTS SRV 3,161,933 18.50 3,602,262 18.00 3,684,423 18.00
279,867,515 970.98 290,678,268 974.98 337,265,721 985.63
County Assessor
COUNTY ASSESSOR 16,251,428 242.70 16,089,781 229.00 16,898,902 229.00
16,251,428 242.70 16,089,781 229.00 16,898,902 229.00
Other Agencies
CULTURAL RESOURCES 1,286,987 7.00 0 0 0 0
INFORMATION RESOURCE MGMT 1,196,722 6.00 3,725,777 8.50 1,377,579 6.00
STATE AUDITOR 562,912 0 563,659 0 622,512 0
BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD 242.158 2.00 250.077 2.00 232.106 2.00
CountyCouncil Prosecuting District Court
CountyAssessor County Executive Dorn — Superior Court — Sheriff
13 Members Attorney (51 Judges) ctertmrn<cmmn (26 Judges)
(Partisan) (Partisan) (Partisan) (partisan) `°°°`ti°"a
i
tafm.bn Asram y Con cl o mbod�.✓r.s Office of the I F 3'%won --.---.1_ Percy o:<a:Oa
Savirc.Division Adniii<eafw AdvisorCh f
Executive Deputy Chid
Admiwwr e.< Administrative
• Officer Officer adnorl tie
< hohation Di.iwart9i
_ Crier+rl
CarmreroaU Rahatial Ham Office of Ci.d Meier Cremoul Division am�6i1rO1r
Ruiner Appraisal Aubror Examiner Information Mc Office�and
Resource &ttget
King Court'Civic kltimBond of Appals Doilies.Relation. A6a'menrtenroo Fraud Division y I F Omen.
Tdnvim — !Economic
Development le.aile Co. Co.Operations Social price Soml Semim
Service. Corer
J J J
Department es. Department of Department of
Department of Deparloent of pepartnment eI Department of Department of Development and Adak 4 Juvenile Ju6cinl
e Community 4 Natral Resources Transportation Emmtrormental +-
BOpf/`//W/'_, Hums Sen.ices 64„
CAOAdministration CaSrwoimmi y Adosaiam.s.v< Nrs.al Rri.er.mmiam — DOT Director's
Off Director'.erl Olfr
Adeie
— Service. CoinServices
Lm(erro.tia! Mental Heath, I Finns!
Cr,,,.
r� F.crlir:u Cheroiol AbortPrcverstia Tramt Adrd.i<tatimeSoule Divr:an 1.(omriow
`�a`�� V �](Jf T.f.mmmraicai.o Slid Wr1e — Service 5ervi«a -------- P.faq.'is
�.`hVGr/� � ilf-.., ,Y/ j M'e.gaeer Service. Dependency
�s. s�rtkapnes
(s.0.\f'Gl(/5,Lr i 1' Rauh,Ostioe< FnvirassoentJW.wc..ra — RgiaW JwtisitttdV\l(_/f !1O ��J� Huron Rssrm t limrY IkvdapxnW Tm�nRod Smice Brrdde�Savim Kat Divwar C}V(Dr/ SerriseMantle, . Hd45aricu
1 OOKs of Ci.i OK of Rid Wmv sad Lnd —�Fka Adniriwrwn lend Ur Servics. Ir"`�cDnerm:on Ga.dlor!Urn�� ?..D1\ Right Mwagnow Pulnic Defense Caomm y Heal! Rs.mm — Di.i.«m Adminiaaaaion
caa� `,a �
Jr �h At Camwniry
i Art
Office N King CommI. Parks ads. Cmrtatimu hrwl<
Emcra<r7 Frmerammy Medical Reaction Division
Management
2004 Adopted
• Gover meat Orgaltization
King County,Washingtco
6..bl otr.r.na..m.sdu
C«rmiad Heath G+ooBaPitie
slid R<haMlBaron Information Sywcnu
•
N.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
County Council Prosecuting
County Assessor County Executive — Superior Court — District Court
13 Members Attorney corn Sheriff
(Partisan) (P ) (Partisan) (Partisan) Comimaw (51Judges) �addieCom (26 Judges)
artisan —
Inrmnei A¢oming Council °nM"dOOOR¢ Once of the F�FSuppn
Servt¢.niviv¢� Administration Adana Policy°Maim
Executive Inpulychid akf ChiefAdmirvnmdv. Administrative
ORm ODitn' n lion an. rtotmdm DnirimgS)
dmVinge
c®ad.V Rod nrin Hewing
Duman Anal Aetna amnionOA¢N OdDa of rive DivisionCriminal Divcim ., - Criminal
a Nanr.mav m lavuaeinn
aemn¢ .ocher
Atnaga¢a - l .
Kin
Comn.
TtleveimdCin'c 1 Board of Appeals Dmmaa Anti.. Administration
Fraud Dianna I <Manion.
Field
— APcunric
DewlopemSerice ' Corm Operarna "iCmia a Social Smarm
—Timid Onion
Department of
Department of Department of Department or D artment or
Dera
ilment of Cammuoi & Department or ' Natural Rarwrcec Department or Dcvdopment and P
Executive Services Human Services and
Heald. Transportation Parks
Transportation EnvironmentalAdull Q Jwml< ]udddd
Smicea Detention Administration —Special Opaaum
i d CAO Cemo®uy Adnidmuve Natural Rumor DOT Dimoi. — Dneeu.01R¢ — Admmiaafiu — Conn Swim Baairce Opinions A...Mmtia — Senvn — Smva AAnmimem — Officc Salim
•
lv!umn HmnlH n. _ FimvaR
Ata^a8� Ida —aOe d Alma A Prtvcrain.—epadericy Snakes
W.. — Try — Ad edve — Sen.Dianna — Wmnrin
seradon Sim
Smarm
&wild;Mai.= Emiraszornal _
Hunan Rmnm ctimena — Dar'lalad'd�al — Hann Smry — Tmaaa — Rod Service —. Mang Service — RauDivision Rryoallo.5¢
Swim fen a
OR¢ofCivil Office orRik —C®gy — Wu4land —per... —IaM Us Saeisn ]uvmie IMenim 4Wov@Deco
— P.
WPM. M. PublicDan m �mm _ �, -
Division A'
Odin of Community
— Barra,
ICiag Cm., — Park.oW _ Ahpon — (:amuudiw — 'uvulaeManage..en —F gexyl.4dird Rcaeunn Dino ion
21104 Adopted
Government Organization
King County,Washington
Mslo ma ogars:nemme u..:s Cmaaiuul Hen '-'tINo�sttpmai-adpamd_ I
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Margaret Pullar
Date: 9/7/2004 3:50:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Renton's Channel 21
The Mayor had questioned some wording in a previous e-mail and attached is the response/explanation I
have received.
(I believe Lynne Hurd is saying that our viewership statistics would not include anyone outside of the City
limits, even if we could actually air to those areas, such as to the school district areas or potential
annexation areas.)
Bonnie
CC: Jay Covington
..Drafter
Clerk 12/04/2003
..Title
AN ORDINANCE establishing the CTV citizens advisory committee and the CTV working
group; prescribing procedures for the appointment of the station manager of CTV; clarifying
CTV policies; making technical corrections; and amending Ordinance 12022, Section 3, and
K.C.C. 2.59.100, Ordinance 12022, Section 4, and K.C.C. 2.59.110 and Ordinance 12543,
Section 1, and K.C.C. 2.59.120, adding a new section to K.C.C. chapter 2.59 and repealing
Ordinance 12543, Section 2, and K.C.C.2.59.130.
..Body
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF KING COUNTY:
SECTION 1. Ordinance 12022, Section 3, and K.C.C. 2.59.100 are each hereby amended to read
as follows:
King County Civic Television (CTV) - government access channel -- established--mission --
principles.
A. A government access channel is hereby established and ((will)) shall be operated by the
((M))metropolitan King County ((C))council with assistance from the ((Government Access
Channel Oversight Committee)) CTV citizens advisory committee and the CTV working group.
B. The council establishes the following mission statement and policy principles by which the
channel ((will)) shall be operated:
(("))The King County government access cable television system belongs to the citizens of King
County and exists to serve citizens directly. In its development and operation, the government
access cable system((will)) shall be guided by the following principles:
((A.)) 1. The system shall be used to increase citizen dialogue about the development of county
policies;
((B.)) 2. The system shall be used to make government decision making more accessible to
citizens;
((C.)) 3. The system shall be used to provide information of direct value to citizens;
((D.))4. The system shall be used to foster debate of ideas and diversity of viewpoints((.));
((E.)) 5. The system shall make use of creative solutions and a multiplicity of current and
emerging technologies to comply with these principles((.));
((F.)) 6. The system shall be as independent as possible in its operation and funding to insulate it
from influences ((which may)) that might stifle the public information goals reflected in this
mission statement; and
7. The system's goal shall be to serve all branches of county government, all county departments
and the people of King County.
C. Consistent with Motion 8972, programming on the government access channel shall also
inform the public about the deliberations of the ((M))metropolitan King County ((C))council and
the ((R))regional ((Policy)) committees that advise the council as well as programming that
highlights important county services including,but not limited to((:)), public transit, vanpool and
rideshare services, commuter trip reduction services, water quality,jury duty, court and legal
services, public safety, public health, property taxes and tax assessments, voter registration,
disability services, licensing, permits, citizen complaints, senior citizen programs, family
programs, animal control, drug and alcohol treatment, mental health services((,)) and adult and
youth detention. Programming relevant to county policies and issues produced by entities outside
county government may also be aired.
D. In the exercise of his or her duties regarding how CTV can best serve the citizens of the
county, the chair of the council shall work cooperatively with and give due consideration to the
views of the executive.
SECTION 2. Ordinance 12022, Section 4, and K.C.C. 2.59.110 are each hereby amended to read
as follows:
King County Civic Television (CTV) - ((government access channel oversight committee. There
is hereby created the government access channel oversight committee to assist in operation of the
King County government access channel. The government access channel oversight committee
shall consist of the following members:
A. Two councilmembers, one from each party,
B. The county executive or designee,
C. The director of information and administrative services,
D. Three citizens with experience in the management and operation of government access
channels for cable television. They shall be appointed by the executive and confirmed by the
council for terms not to exceed four years. The three citizen members of the oversight committee
shall be compensated at$50 per diem when attending to oversight committee business. The
government access channel oversight committee shall develop and propose policies and
procedures to be adopted by the council by ordinance to govern the operation of the government
access channel. The committee may recommend to the council whether to contract with an entity
outside county government to operate the government access channel. The government access
channel shall carry at least four hours of programming from TVW, the private non-profit
provider of public policy programming in Washington state, until such time as another channel is
available)) CTV citizens advisory committee- CTV working group.
A.1. There is hereby created the CTV citizens advisory committee. The CTV citizens advisory
committee shall advise the council and the executive regarding overall programming strategy and
content and how CTV can best serve the community. The CTV citizens advisory committee shall
consist of the following members:
a. a representative from a local television station or local network affiliate, or a person with
significant experience in or knowledge of the broadcast media;
b. a representative from a local public relations firm or a professional working in the public
relations field for a local corporation;
c. a representative:
(1)from a company that publishes a significant amount of news or other content via the Internet;
(2) with significant experience in dissemination of information via the Internet; or
(3) with expertise in delivering information via streaming video or other emerging technologies;
and
d. a representative from a local newspaper source or a person with significant experience in or
knowledge of newspapers.
2. Members of the CTV citizens advisory committee shall be appointed by the executive and
confirmed by the council, for terms not to exceed four years. Members shall be compensated at
fifty dollars per day for days on which advisory committee meetings are held.
B. There is hereby created the CTV working group. The CTV working group shall advise CTV
management and the council regarding CTV programming and operations and how CTV can
best serve King County, including all branches of government and all county departments. The
CTV working group shall consist of seven members, as follows: the council's director of
communications, or equivalent position; two other staff members from CTV staff or from
council staff, designated by the chair of the council; the executive's director of communications,
or equivalent position; two other executive branch employees to be designated by the executive;
and one representative from the judicial or law enforcement entities, including the superior and
district courts, the prosecuting attorney's office and the department of public safety, to be
designated by the executive. The CTV working group should consult regularly with CTV
management and representatives of county agencies and departments to help ensure that CTV is
effectively serving the county government and the county's citizens.
C. Final authority over all CTV policy and operational matters, including hiring and other
personnel matters, shall be governed by the council in accordance with section 4 of this
ordinance.
D. On or before July 1, 2005, and annually thereafter, the CTV citizens advisory committee shall
report to the council on the effectiveness of the CTV governance structure set forth in this
section and section 4 of this ordinance. The committee's report may include recommended
changes to the governance structure, which shall be given due consideration by the council.
SECTION 3. Ordinance 12543, Section 1, and K.C.C. 2.59.120 are each hereby amended to read
as follows:
King County Civic Television (CTV) - government access channel - operating policies. The
((operational framework, approved by the government access channel oversight committee, and
dated October 7, 1996, and attached as Attachment 1 to Ordinance 12543,)) following is hereby
adopted as the operating policies of the government access channel.
A. The name of the King County government access television station is "King County Civic
Television" or "CTV."
B. Programming on CTV shall be fair, accurate, balanced and without regard to partisanship or
ideology.
C. CTV's primary purpose is to provide information about King County government, services,
policies and programs that enhances public understanding and encourages citizen involvement in
regional government and local issues.
D. CTV shall be operated in a manner to comply with all applicable federal, state and local
regulations.
E. Citizen involvement is important to the success of CTV. Therefore, under the direction of the
CTV citizens advisory committee and the CTV working group, CTV management and staff shall
conduct surveys and ascertainment studies for use in planning programming and services that
accurately reflect the changing needs of the community. When possible, the surveys and
ascertainment studies should be done in cooperation with the cable franchisee to reduce costs.
Results of all surveys and ascertainment studies shall be transmitted to the executive, the chair of
the council, the presiding judges of the superior and district courts and the prosecuting attorney
and shall also be available for the public.
F.1. CTV shall cablecast programming provided by government agencies and other production
entities, as well as programming produced internally by CTV staff. Only programming that is
consistent with overall CTV policy shall be cablecast or produced in cooperation with CTV. The
station manager of CTV is responsible for the scheduling of programs consistent with adopted
policies. Programming decisions shall be made in a manner that reflects the importance of all
aspects of King County government, including the executive, the council, the courts and the
separately elected county officials.
2. CTV programming shall be scheduled according to the following priorities:
a. announcements or programs concerning emergencies and other timely issues that affect the
public safety and health of the community;
b. public proceedings and meetings involving King County elected officials;
c. programs and meetings that help explain county policies and programs;
d. programs that educate and inform the public or assist in improving the quality of life for King
County citizens;
e. public meetings or programs of other governments including federal, state,regional and local
governments, that affect residents of King County;
f. programs and informational series or one-time special or nonregular informational programs;
g. programs that highlight the cultural and historic resources of King County;
h. public service announcements; and
i. programs produced by other agencies or citizens about public policy issues that have an effect
on the citizens of King County.
3. The following program restrictions apply to CTV:
a. Programs containing obscene or defamatory material shall not be cablecast on CTV. CTV
management and the CTV citizens advisory committee shall recognize that programs with
artistic or social merit may contain content or language considered objectionable to some
viewers. Community standards of good taste shall be adhered to at all times;
b. Programs containing copyrighted materials shall not be cablecast on CTV without proper
copyright authorization. Producers of programs other than King County that are cablecast on
CTV shall obtain all necessary copyright clearance and shall hold King County and CTV
harmless in any case of copyright infringement;
c. Programs that have as their primary purpose to promote commercial or profit-making services,
products, trade or business shall not be cablecast; and
d. Video and audio quality of all programs must meet acceptable cablecast standards. The station
manager shall determine which programs meet acceptable standards.
G.1. Meetings of government boards and events including government officials shall be
cablecast on CTV in their entirety and unedited whenever possible. Because of time constraints,
it may be appropriate to recablecast portions of meetings dealing with particular subjects of
public policy importance. When that type of recablecast is done, the entire portion of a meeting
dealing with a particular subject shall be shown without editing. While the content of the meeting
and any presentation given at the meeting should be the primary focus of the cablecast, standard
production values such as wide shots, cutaways and displays of data may be used by the
producer to help provide context for the viewer. Use of such production values shall not distract
from the content of the meeting and shall not lead to a distorted view of what occurred at the
meeting.
2. All programs produced by the CTV staff, contracted by King County agencies for playback on
the channel or submitted by an outside agency or person for playback, shall explain issues and
policies in a fair and balanced manner and meet the following criteria:
a. The programs shall be consistent with CTV programming policies and procedures;
b. The programs shall contain factual and explanatory content that reflects a balanced
presentation of points of view;
c. Professional production values and techniques may be used to aid in the explanation and
understanding of complex issues,policies and programs but shall not distract from the factual
message;
d. The programs shall contain useful,relevant information for the citizens of King County;
e. Programming submitted to CTV may be modified or edited as appropriate by CTV staff to
�r ,
designated by the CTV citizens advisory committee. The decision of the subcommittee shall be
decided by a simple majority and is the final appeal. The subcommittee shall attempt to resolve
the written appeal based on the appeal itself and any interviews the subcommittee deems
necessary. The subcommittee should rule on the appeal within thirty days of the appeal.
O. The CTV citizens advisory committee shall, at least every two years, review the policies in
this section and shall recommend any changes the CTV citizens advisory committee feels are
warranted to the council and executive.
NEW SECTION. SECTION 4. There is hereby added to K.C.C. chapter 2.59 a new section to
read as follows:
Station manager of CTV.
A. The position of station manager of CTV is hereby created. The station manager shall be
appointed by the council. A recommendation committee consisting of at least two members of
the CTV citizens advisory committee and two members of the CTV working group shall review
and interview applicants for the position and recommend finalists to the council. The CTV
citizens advisory committee and the CTV working group shall each appoint its two members to
the recommendation committee. The recommendation committee shall also,consult with and
obtain recommendations from the executive. The council shall select the manager from the
finalists recommended by the recommendation committee or request that additional candidates
be submitted by the committee.
B. The station manager may be removed at any time, with or without cause,by the council. The
council may appoint an interim manager, for a period not to exceed one year, pending the
appointment of a new station manager whenever the position is vacant. The council's
employment committee may take disciplinary action regarding the station manager, consistent
with council employment practices and policies.The chair of the council shall provide
reasonable notification to CTV citizens advisory committee of any such a disciplinary action.
The station manager shall be appointed solely with regard to his or her qualifications and
experience to manage a government access television channel. The station manager shall hold no
other appointive or elective public office or position during the term of employment as station
manager.
SECTION 5. Ordinance 12543, Section 2, and K.C.C. 2.59.130 are each hereby repealed.
From: Margaret Pullar
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 8/19/2004 2:02:11 PM
Subject: Channel 21
The Mayor asked whether or not Channel 21 could be broadcast in areas served by the Renton School
District and in Renton's PAA's.
CC: Covington, Jay; Todd, Derek
r=20
6
;n , ,tip d4ir g
'-'';,?--'141fil 4'44117 .Ij.i
i.707-10 A47 w Wihp•
— 9 +g
071 4-4 072‘1 II
,04p91111AJ it
s JIIP Pr)-7, ... ,/ "-- 1
--0,01 4,7-1/dfiriWi'il 2-777/0 /PM I
> r---iit,-7V--2- 71417____ffil/ 11
. 49 / 1 II,
i n r ilfill I/ rir d WP
I
0,
0
.sass V �f1I �J
5
u
1,J
„,
-i-,y, .7-nwyvp4 ,
, ,
_ LI
Ow Vr l/
� ,i/ ; k
( ‘41R/Y) .2770 fir7 - „
iF
PI -727ild - !, '
oi-Plis 4 l'_i__
ii.,
Alrarm .iiird -wzias -ion t
I�
i
cfirwx ,.;
,„ ,
d
I _
" y- 930, 1� , �; ,,,,✓.
,- -_ - dl im:44:4 )9
6r
iTi • .1f o'rP44&,A4\6, %4("' ‘ gril 9•V L L
--7 -?r,--. 14-1-cif- - rl %5 i'l Y/34^014 12-M 9-1&119-PV • r0 -
- of
1 C
ty./pier. - :WV - ' .1
. - 4
-rim - il
:i-i-P .1 %_ - L 4 -.# pair - !;
. .
. --7opilv;42°Yi,, P 176/ rg1/4 ON —'"" rircrl\( ;i
I.r,
ripLAA(ti 1
li
. - /`,, ,,,J1'K
. Y it •
?A' priii/ _ ,
Ij{
.t>ll' ,.-
11
I;
is
I
I
,II
I'
I
II
li
II
1
-i-if_i'vm;122/7"01 'arc ii
4W---- , III
1
- - --
11
/) 7(i7 172 ( - oPr p?
ub # 11
1.
,t , 7217w 70g-14771g ,1
y�� 17727y / II 17
kils-t-'9c,0;00r0 VW 01 Vi/10( - 7/1"1/k-
. r1/46_____
I
/9A °W7 a/747-71r 0416 717T11-7- - l
11
,,'WI; All
/?7'1'71-70-7/r-a4 /2^O'PP-e7 �: II
I
4
1
?1
9 '
L
t
i
1'1
�I
R,
1i
{,
i .
I
i
i.
__It
viA 4 _on
i ,
-k1-7-Yrit4r mei/ — _ i__ ,
' 4 / ---74', ,,,
•,--/ -dri :
,--P-P7T71.(ffY) 4f( ,
?-rilyri94 19-- /" - _�
I.
.6 _ p/(----- -- d
1 ,19;71 ota poop vi A - p6) pi-ol
ILA I.
. i
_ 1
r/117610
7* .
lot,
,
-� .rvilciffiq ''
,
O
COMCAST
Digital Voice
2111.111111111.111
-140.44
Comcast Digital Voice.
Comcast Digital Voice:
Unlimiu ., rrriiy Ccomcast The new choice in
Enhanced 911
12 Great Feature - home phone service.
Talk about possibilities.
,
ir
Comcast Digital Voice is available to residential customers located in Comcast serviceable areas that
select Comcast for all their home calling needs.Unlimited Package applies to direct-dialed domestic
CO M CAST calls from home.Prices do not include federal,state or local taxes and fees;or other applicable
charges(e.g.,per-call charges or intemational calling).Pricingshown does not include our Regulatory
�9 orgr 9 ry
Digital Voice RecoveryFee,which is not a tax or government required fee.Comcast Digital Voice service(including
911/emergency services)may not function during an extended power outage.*Only outlets located
on the modem will be made available in multiple dwelling units.Wireless phone based units(not
t provided)may be used to provide phone service in different locations within the multiple dwelling
• unit.Equipment charges may apply.Services are subject to terms and conditions.Restrictions apply. Ccomcast
Call Comcast for complete details at 1-888-COMCAST.©2005 Comcast.All rights reserved.
Ili,st\IiS
•
COMCAST DIGITAL VOICE GIVES YOU ALL POPULAR CALLING FEATURES
THE FEATURES YOU EXPECT FROM HOME Enjoy all these features at no additional charge:
PHONE SERVICE AND MORE.
Call Forwarding
Forward all your calls or create a list of people you do not
want to miss.
VP` • UNLIMITED LOCAL AND LONG—DISTANCE
o Call Waiting
Call anyone, anytime, anywhere in the United States— Take a second call without disconnecting the first.
all for one low monthly rate. Including Puerto Rico,
Caller ID
Guam, Marina Islands and US Virgin Islands! Know who's calling before you answer the phone.
i
Caller ID with Call Waiting
• WEB ACCESS TO VOICE MAIL Get Caller information when you're already on the phone.
Comcast Digital Voice enables you to receive and Call Return
111 check your home voice mail from any computer Missed a call,you can automatically call the party back.
with Web access. 3-Way Calling
Create your own 3-Party Conference calls.
` • KEEP YOUR CURRENT PHONE NUMBER Repeat Dialing
:' Never waste time redialing a busy number again.
• "1 Speed Dial 8
• WORKS WITH YOUR EXISTING PHONES* The convenience of speed dialing for up to 8 frequently
A ,
You won't need new handsets or phone jacks. Our called parties.
service works with all your current phone equipment. Anonymous Call Rejection
Select this feature to reject blocked numbers from calling you.
• ENHANCED 911 SERVICE Call Screening
Enhanced 911 automatically provides emergency services Decline calls from selected parties.
with your telephone number and location when you dial Call Trace
from your home phone. Protection against disrepectful phone calls.
.'` Caller ID Blocking
• INTERNATIONAL CALLING PLANS AVAILABLE PreventCallerID.your name and number from being displayed on
• ONE BILL FOR ALL YOUR COMCAST SERVICES SAVINGS FOR COMCAST CUSTOMERS
IT'S COMCAST CALLING . . . • PROFESSIONAL INSTALLATION IF YOUHAv `Abo�
Leave the work to us. We come in and do the whole
ComcastComcast Cable Video AND
installation foryou. $39.95/month
High-Speed Internet
You know Comcast as a cable and high-speed Internet Comcast Cable Video OR $44.95/month
Comcast High-Speed Internet
company. What you may not know is that we also know
phones. After providing reliable, high-quality phone SATISFACTION GUARANTEE Comcast Digital Voice Only $54.95/month
We guarantee you will be satisfied with
service to over 1.2 million phone customers for years, Comcast Digital Voice. If not, we'll refund
we're putting that experience to work with our new your money for the first 30 days of service.
home phone service called Comcast Digital Voice. --_
Comcast,
)q„
' r
°*-i'-' ''' ./ hAdi ea i f
— kale C01
mz 3.oo `
— °P1141f A41f L �l�
���� 1/l
/ izavr, ,
ill-
P/'/e7-1' ; i i
' co.' ri If:.
.-PZ,ZV ' Q�
� � I
' i
,00‘1'174 17/1 7 6% l'e tt .
_ a FF_ 7V%
0 g aillYett, ,,,likail 140
lirrzi' ii.iKie ola
6600 e yr,1)41.):41,1, 1 ,te,
' C3J1 ?% - lid 'IP i tile,,,a;,,,7?.
t-d. 9Aolib/- Lrbi":: -"-f 1'-
di fokii :,>,,-/
/--ifivrfi-
1170,fr
_.7 .,,,,ir JAI/ _.
'"fi-Fr •
\ pfra'
5d
Comcast—Washington Market
@O m
ca st. South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn,WA 98002
STATE OF COMCAST CABLE
CITY OF RENTON
DATE: DECEMBER 2,2005
ACCOMPLISHMENTS:
• Deploy 111,000 strand miles of fiber across our footprint which is .
connected to a national fiber backbone
• Added more than 200 customer service representatives.in Washington
State to handle all sales, billing, repair, and HSI calls locally within the
Market Budgeted to add an additional 150:customer service
representatives in 2006.
• Launched local and national high-definition channels
• Continuously enhance residential and commercial high-speed Internet products-
6Mbps and 8Mbps service
• Completed new cable guide with Microsoft
•. Launched Comcast Video On-Demand
• Launched Digital.Video Recorders within the Market
• Completed new provisioning system (Static IP)
• Launched Comcast Digital Voice product
MORE TO COME:
• Sprint/Nextel Service Additions
• Additional national high-definition channels
• Additional Video-on-Demand features
• Further enhancements to residential and commercial high-speed Internet
products --We will continue roll out increased speeds based on consumer
interest
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters,
Ben
Date: 12/30/2005 6:54:50 PM
Subject: summary of our cable franchise protection strategy—this morning's meeting
see attached. Feel free to add, correct, other . . .
CC: Covington, Jay
Summary of agreements made by
Walton, Bailey, Wolters & Herzog at 12/30/05 meeting
Protection of City's Cable Franchise Authority
In-house workgroup: 1(ON
Bonnie Walton Ben Wolters Mike Bailey
George McBride Larry Warren Linda Herzog
Purpose / responsibility: continuously monitor Congressional & FCC actions,
stay knowledgeable about potential effects on Renton, advise CAO, Mayor&
Council, develop strategy and assure its implementation
Leadership: Ben agreed to serve as "focal point" and convenor. All will
continuously share info and ideas with the entire group via e-mail.
Renton's Interests / Position (numbering does not necessarily indicate priority):
1) Protect rights of way and the city's ability to manage this public asset
2) Protect wireless network that enables emergency communication and public
agency operations
3) Maintain PEG access capability and channels
4) Represent the interests of, and advocate for, Renton citizens to assure
universal access and high quality service
5) Preserve revenue and in-kind resource associated with franchise
Institutional Partners:
NATOA (National Assn of Telecommunications Officers &Advisors)
NLC (National League of Cities)
USCM (U.S. Conference of Mayors)
GFOA (Government Finance Officers Assn)
NACO (National Assn. of Counties)
What these partners mean to Renton:
• Help us to stay informed of federal activity
• Alert us to opportunities to comment, influence, lobby
• We will respond to their calls-to-action, but will endeavor to "personalize" our
communications and make comments Renton-specific
General Strategy:
Begin with basic statement of Renton's interests and position on the major
issues. Cooperate and collaborate with institutional partners. Determine how
Bradley & Guzzetta can help (and at what cost) in general lobbying effort.
Develop statement of concerns / interests unique to Renton (i.e. I-Net); engage
VanNess/Feldman in lobbying Renton Congressional delegation on this specific
issue.
Specific actions:
Lead
Task / Action Person Timing Notes
Response to FCC: Prepare comments on FCC Ben & Send by NATOA template sections are
NPRM, using NATOA template as a guide, but Linda will mid- "assigned"to workgroup
modifying to focus on Renton's highest-priority issues: Collaborate January members. See below, page
ROW control and I-Net capacity. These issues should 3
be stated at least 3 times for emphasis and clarity of on initial
Renton's position—at opening of comment document, draft
expanded upon in body, and again stated in
conclusion. Use this FCC comment document as
basis for future communications; add, expand and
modify to fit specific circumstances &audiences.
Find other municipalities whose I-Net interests & George Right George will prepare Renton's
infrastructure/capability are similar to Renton's. away initial statement regarding I-Net
Collaborate with them on developing strong arguments protection, to include in FCC
supporting local franchise authority. comments. This will be basis
for future work with
VanNess/Feldman & local
Congressional delegation.
Draft paragraph describing Renton's successful Ben To use in
streamlining of regulatory processes & public FCC
recognition for this comment
document
Draft paragraph on conduit already installed in Renton George to Troublesome issue. Use this
and how it can/should be used to foster competition & opportunity to establish Renton
prepare
multiple-provider environment initial draft position and see if/how conduit
ownership/control issue can be
resolved.
Find out whether WA State has any state-wide Linda will
franchise authority or regulations. research
Use meeting and pre-meeting notes to express All will
Renton's principles, interests &special concerns in contribute
FCC comment document
Explore B&G services: Examine B&G's offer to help Bonnie, Come to
with lobbying. Summarize Renton's strategy and with agree-
action plan and discuss with Mike Bradley. Find out assistance ment w/
precisely what they are offering. Determine whether B&G by
we want to pay"extra"for the services they describe, from Jay & Wed.,
and/or if we consider their help to be part&parcel of Linda Jan. 11
the contract to help Renton with franchise renewal.
(No franchise, no contract!)
Contact institutional partners, let them know of our Linda By mid-
interest in participating &share with them our FCC January
comments, and other documents as they are
prepared.
Request that Council adopt resolution supporting ?? when Senate hearing is scheduled for
retention of local franchise authority; time carefully for Sen. hrgs 2/14 on State & local issues,
greatest effect focus on and municipal I-nets
our
issues
Prepare letters for Mayor to send to Renton ?? As
delegation, Senate & House Cmte members Congres-
sional
debate
dictates
Engage Ben Macken (sp???)of VanNess/Feldman in George &
effort to inform Renton's Congressional delegation of Ben
importance of maintaining city-wide I-net capability and
opportunity to expand network.
For each of these sections of the NATOA template, the named staffer will take
the lead in preparing a statement for inclusion in Renton's comments to the FCC:
Bonnie year of first franchise agreement, inclusive dates of current cable franchise,
franchise fee rate (percentage of Comcast gross revenues),#of PEG channels
of different types, support from Comcast(under franchise agreement)for PEG
facilities.
George Franchise requirements for I-Net support& uses of our I-Net
Bonnie Emergency alert requirements under franchise
Bonnie Customer service provisions of franchise
Bonnie Phased-in build-out. (Anything about annexations???)
Bonnie Re-build and upgrade requirements. Note that our franchise is silent on cable
modem service.
Bonnie Level-playing-field provisions in ordinance or franchise agreement—franchise
does not address, but we will craft a Renton "position"on this topic
Bonnie Insurance &bonding requirements
Kayren Kittrick regulations/permit requirements/fees, etc.for use of ROWs
Bonnie&
Larry W. enforcement mechanisms (see page 4 of template)
Bonnie provision within current franchise agreement for law changes
Larry W How Renton assures due process rights for franchisee, and what obligations the
City has
Bonnie &
Larry W Renton's experience with competitive providers (see p. 5 of template)
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 12/28/2005 6:48:15 PM
Subject: Re: Cable meeting THURSDAY- Note correction !
Ooops—My notes (or our AJLS meeting) must be in error. I thought you were gone just one of the days
this week (today), and back Thurs & Friday.
I really want you to participate in this discussion, Bonnie. But I also would very much prefer NOT to let this
go until next week.
My notes show all of us on the"to"line in the office on Friday—true, everyone?
If so, can we re-set this meeting for Friday at 10:30?
Mike, George, Ben—pis reply asap.
Thanks,
Linda
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/28/05 6:36 PM >>>
I just checked my email from home and wondered:
Since I am still off work on approved vacation through Thurs.the 29th, is there any chance this meeting
could instead occur on Fri. the 30th,when I'm back in the office, or on Jan 3rd or after? If not, I ask that
someone please take notes for me. As the NATOA member and the cable franchise manager, I would
like to remain a part of the discussions and planning if possible.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
>>> Linda Herzog 12/28/05 11:12 AM >>>
You got me, George. My intention was to call this meeting for TOMORROW, Thursday at 1:30—not
today. Thanks for catching this goof. See you all tomorrow.
>>>George McBride 12/28/05 9:49 AM >>>
in charge, huh? hummmm...well, is this on Thursday which would be the 29th or today,the 28th? don't
want to miss it! gm
>>> Linda Herzog 12/23/2005 5:48 PM >>>
Far as I can tell, all of the people except Greg Zimmerman and Larry Warren will be available to meet on
this topic on Thursday the 28th. I'm going to suggest we go for 1:30 here in the Mayor's Office. Please be
sure to read the NPRM and work thru the NATOA template before we meet.
See you Thursday, and if you're still here- Happy Holiday Weekend!
Linda
>>>George McBride 12/23/05 10:59 AM >>>
linda, i will be available wed-fri, gm.
>>> Linda Herzog 12/22/05 5:14 PM >>>
Yes, certainly Ben, we need to"get right on this". (I know what you're thinking . . .WE'RE ALREADY right
on this. If only Herzog would get her xxx in gear.)
The NATOA template covers substantial ground. I'd be surprised if any one of us, or even any group of us,
could provide all the info called for in this template without a LOT of work. But I also think all of this is
important for us to know, since it is all important to our arguments to retain city franchise authority.
I wd like to propose that each of you on the"to"line download both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the template provided by NATOA and identify the elements on which you are the"authority" in regard
to the current cable franchise. If there are others who shd be included in this annointed group (of
authoritative people), please let me know-either right now or as you are reviewing the template.Timing?
Soon as possible.
Then very soon we should start pulling together the info we will need to establish Renton's standing, and
prepare/send our comments on the proposed FCC rules.
In addition, we need to figure out who will carry our water in DC, and how much we're willing to pay extra,
if that is necessary. B&G suggests they will add us to their list of cities when they send their comments,
and they will limit their fee to $2500 per jurisdiction. I can't make a judgment about the value of this
"service"without knowing more. Bonnie, have you talked with Bradley? Or with other cities (e.g.
vancouver)who have used B&G's lobbying assistance in the past?
At this point, I'm inclined to think that some of what we will need (for instance assessment of the service
we're receiving now and our franchisee's performance under the current contract) is already included in
the scope of our new contract with B&G.We may, however, need to re-think the scheduling of some of the
work.
I understand that both Bonnie and Ben will be here over the holidays, but I don't know about the rest of
you. If we can, perhaps we shd meet next week?Will YOU be available??
I'd love to hear from each of you. "Reply all"so we can get moving on (a)scheduling a meeting and (b)
completion of the template and .
Linda
P.S. in case some of you don't have the link to the NATOA notice, I'll fwd the e-mail to you, next up.
>>> Ben Wolters 12/21/05 2:28 PM >>>
This seems like an appropriate place for Renton to comment in support of our franchise agreements and
process and the importance of maintaining local control of ROW. Our response can serve as a basis for
communicating on the legislative side. On this issue, I think its best we team up with existing organizations
and when the time is right carry our own story to our congressional delegation.
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/21/05 1:52 PM >>>
FYI...
Bonnie
CC: Covington, Jay; ljwarren@seanet.com; Zimmerman, Gregg
From: Ben Wolters
To: Bailey, Michael; Herzog, Linda; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 12/30/2005 1:19:24 PM
Subject: Re: outline for this morning's meeting
Below from National League of Cities is a very good summary of where federal telecom legislation and
rulemaking stands. Short version is House legislation was successfully stalled, but both House and
Senate are poised to take the legislation up quickly when they return in the new year.
Telecommunications Debate Moves Ahead
by Cheryl A. Leanza
Behind the scenes work has been moving ahead on possible significant changes to the Communications
Act during the closing months of 2005,focusing on reforming the local cable and video franchising
process. While a crisis was averted on Capitol Hill when markup on a potentially bad piece of legislation
was delayed in December, danger continues in 2006.
In addition, the Senate has scheduled an intense series of hearings for next year. On a second front, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) launched a proceeding to determine whether local franchise
agreements are a barrier to competition.
The process of developing legislation in the House took several different approaches during the fall. In
response to an outcry by cities and others in November, the majority and minority in the House Energy
and Commerce Committee agreed to resume bipartisan discussions about draft legislation.
Commerce Chair Joe Barton (R-Texas), however, continues to press for action as quickly as possible.
This pressure to move ahead quickly is problematic for cities because it is likely that speed will drive out
efforts toward reasonable compromise and attention to detail.
Thus far, many of the draft bills released by committee staff have contained problematic provisions for
cities, even as legislators commit to city priorities in concept.
Five local government organizations joined together to stress cities'willingness to negotiate but their
insistence on appropriate attention to detail.
In a letter sent on November 30, the executive directors of National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of
Mayors, National Association of Counties, National Association of Telecommunications Officers and
Advisors (NATOA) and the Government Finance Officers Association stated, "There appears to be no
conceptual disagreement: the difficulties have arisen in the details of the legislative language. ...
Accordingly, we are hopeful that we will have the opportunity to iron out these details with the committee
prior to markup."
The letter outlined four top priorities for local government: (1) managing local rights-of-way; (2) preserving
local tax and fee revenue; (3) public safety and communications benefits such as cable access channels
and institutional networks currently obtained through franchise agreements; and (4)tools for cities to
enforce communications companies'obligations, such as auditing authority and recourse to litigation.
When it appeared that a draft would be marked up in subcommittee without local government input, NLC
issued an action alert for its members to ask Congress to delay action until municipal leaders could be
heard.
Through work by cities and others,the markup has been delayed until the House reconvenes at the end of
January. NLC and state municipal league staff are continuing to press ahead with Congressional staff to
protect cities' interests.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) has scheduled 16 hearings by mid-March on
the telecommunications issue.
Most important for local government is a hearing scheduled for January 24 on video franchising and a
hearing on February 14 on state and local issues and municipal networks.
Not to be left out of the debate, the FCC recently announced a proceeding that would consider whether
the local government franchising process is a barrier to video competition.
Any report or order issued by the FCC could clearly influence the legislative debate and could also
predetermine issues in the cable industry or the telephone industry's favor.
The national local government organizations are planning to file comments at the FCC, but all cities
across the country are also encouraged to file directly. Individual statements from cities will be critical to
cities'success.
In order to facilitate individual city comments, NATOA is developing a template for cities to use. The NLC
telecommunications page, http://www.nlc.orq/Issues/Telecommunications Technology/index.cfm, and
NATOA website, http://www.natoa.orq/,will have further information about the template.
Comments for this proceeding are due on or before February 13, 2006; reply comments are due on or
before March 14, 2006.
>>> Linda Herzog 12/30/05 10:19 AM >>>
sorry I didn't send this off earlier. Got busy, forgot. Attribute this to old age!
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters,
Ben; Zimmerman, Gregg
Date: 12/23/2005 5:48:47 PM
Subject: FCC (Cable) Franchise Proceeding
Far as I can tell, all of the people except Greg Zimmerman and Larry Warren will be available to meet on
this topic on Thursday the 28th. I'm going to suggest we go for 1:30 here in the Mayor's Office. Please be
sure to read the NPRM and work thru the NATOA template before we meet.
See you Thursday, and if you're still here—Happy Holiday Weekend!
Linda
>>> George McBride 12/23/05 10:59 AM >>>
linda, i will be available wed-fri, gm.
>>> Linda Herzog 12/22/05 5:14 PM >>>
Yes, certainly Ben, we need to"get right on this". (I know what you're thinking . . . WE'RE ALREADY right
on this. If only Herzog would get her xxx in gear.)
The NATOA template covers substantial ground. I'd be surprised if any one of us, or even any group of
us, could provide all the info called for in this template without a LOT of work. But I also think all of this is
important for us to know, since it is all important to our arguments to retain city franchise authority.
I wd like to propose that each of you on the"to"line download both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the template provided by NATOA and identify the elements on which you are the"authority" in regard
to the current cable franchise. If there are others who shd be included in this annointed group (of
authoritative people), please let me know—either right now or as you are reviewing the template.
Timing? Soon as possible.
Then very soon we should start pulling together the info we will need to establish Renton's standing, and
prepare/send our comments on the proposed FCC rules.
In addition, we need to figure out who will carry our water in DC, and how much we're willing to pay extra,
if that is necessary. B&G suggests they will add us to their list of cities when they send their comments,
and they will limit their fee to $2500 per jurisdiction. I can't make a judgment about the value of this
"service"without knowing more. Bonnie, have you talked with Bradley? Or with other cities (e.g.
vancouver)who have used B&G's lobbying assistance in the past?
At this point, I'm inclined to think that some of what we will need (for instance assessment of the service
we're receiving now and our franchisee's performance under the current contract) is already included in
the scope of our new contract with B&G. We may, however, need to re-think the scheduling of some of
the work.
I understand that both Bonnie and Ben will be here over the holidays, but I don't know about the rest of
you. If we can, perhaps we shd meet next week? Will YOU be available??
I'd love to hear from each of you. "Reply all"so we can get moving on (a)scheduling a meeting and (b)
completion of the template and .
Linda
P.S. in case some of you don't have the link to the NATOA notice, I'll fwd the e-mail to you, next up.
>>> Ben Wolters 12/21/05 2:28 PM >>>
This seems like an appropriate place for Renton to comment in support of our franchise agreements and
process and the importance of maintaining local control of ROW. Our response can serve as a basis for
communicating on the legislative side. On this issue, I think its best we team up with existing
organizations and when the time is right carry our own story to our congressional delegation.
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/21/05 1:52 PM >>>
FYI...
Bonnie
CC: Covington, Jay
DECEMBER 19,2005
NATION'S CITIES WEEKLY 3
Teiecommunicatjon.s
Debate Moves
Ahead
' by Cheryl A:Leanza
• minority in the .House Energy National Association of mittee without local government is a barrier to video competition.
and Commerce Committee Telecommunications Officers input,NLC issued an action alert Any report or order issued by
Behind the scenes,work has 'agreed to resume bipartisan dis- and Advisors (NATOA) and the for its members to ask Congress -the FCC could clearly influence
-been moving ahead on possible cus'sions about draft legislation. Government Finance Officers to delay action until municipal the legislative debate and could
significant changes 'to the. , Commerce Chair Joe Barton Association stated, "There leaders could be heard. also predetermine issues in the
Communications Act during the (R-Texas),however,continues to appears to be no conceptual dis- Through work-by cities and cable industry or the telephone
closing months of 2005,focusing •press for action as quickly as pos- ' agreement: the difficulties have others, the markup has been industry's favor. P
' on reformingthe local cable and� '
sable. This pressure to move- arisen in the details of the leg- delayed until the House recon- The national local' govern-
video franchising process. ahead quickly is problematic for-' islative language....Accordingly,I While .a crisis was averted on. cities because it is likely that we are hopeful that we will have NLC sand•and-state mums pal 1 ague to file at.the end of January. ment ocomments at the FCC,rganizations are
Capitol Hill when markup on a. speed will drive out efforts the opportunity to iron out these staff are continuing' to
potentially bad piece of legisla- P � . press all cities across the country are
g toward reasonable compromise details with the committee prior ahead with Congressional staff also encouraged to file directly.
Lion-was.delayed n December, and attention to detail. to markup." '
danger delayed
edn 2006.; to'protect cities'interests Individual statements from cities
Thus far, many of the draft ; The letter outlined four top Meanwhile, in the Senate, will be critical to cities'success.
In addition, the Senate.has 'bills released,by committee staff priorities for local government: Chairman Ted Stevens (R- In order to facilitate individ-
scheduled an intense series of have contained problematicshearings cheduledornext . a seo pro- (1)managing local rights-of-way; Alaska) has scheduled 16 hear- ual city comments, NATOA is
visions for cities,even as legisla- (2) preserving local tax and fee ings by mid-March on the developing a template for cities
and front, the Federal tors commit to city'priorities in revenue;- (3) public.safety and telecommunications issue. • to use. The NLC telecommuni--
(FCC)Communications Commission concept. - communications benefits such as Most important for local gov- cations page, http://www.n1c.org/
launched,a proceeding to Five local government organ . 'cable access channels and institu- ernment is a hearing scheduled Issues/Teleco P org/
determine whether local fran- zations joined together to stress tional networks currently for January 24 on video franchis- hnolo mmunicd NATOA'
chise agreements are a barrier to cities' willingness to negotiate obtained through franchise ing and a hearing on February 14 websitte/ htt x//w'and NATOA'
-competition. but their insistence on appropri- agreements; and (4) tools for _ on state and local issues and will have further information
The process of developing ate attention to detail. cities to enforce communications municipal networks. about the template.
legislation in the House took In a-letter sent on November companies' obligations, such as Not to be left out of the Comments for this proceed-
several different approaches 30, the executive directors of auditing authority and recourse debate, the FCC recently 'ing are due on or before
. during the fall. In response to an National League of Cities, U.S. to litigation.
outcry by cities and others'in announced a proceeding that February 13, 2006; reply com-
Conference-of Mayors,National When it appeared that a draft would consider whether the local ments are due on or before
November, the majority and Association of Counties, would be marked up in subcom- government franchising process March 14,2006.
VOLUME 28,NUMBER 50 1 DECEMBER 19,2005
Panel Discusses EmergencyPreparedness at All Levels
by Cyndy Liedtke Hogan I * / " °«�+�� ---1� said. "This country has gone
and Cherie Duvall
criI r N,s } .0 through enough natural disas-
$,.; x s 6r ters we should be able to figure it
The mayors of New Orleans * �^ i ,- Wy out."
and Charleston, S.C., called for IF Riley, who led Charleston
an increase in help from the fed- It IN
after massive devastation from
eral government during a disas- le
*it ; is Hurricane Hugo in 1989, said
ter,particularly one of the mag- ' that in times of disaster, local
nitude of Hurricane Katrina, Og 40 4' *". III officials should see it as an
during a general session at the t, opportunity to offer the best
Congress of Cities in Charlotte, �. pp y11
N.C. itleN
service they can to their constituents. But, during times of
Mayors C.Ray Nagin of New , emergency,there needs to be an
Orleans and Joseph Riley of a ,,�,—)4 .1% , r4 immediate response from the
Charleston offered a local er-
p .�,. i -�f. federal government.
IA-
spective during the session, "As local elected officials,we
which focused on disaster understand our responsibilities
re and
response aredess.
p p p ir p itil � -_.1 4. SIL ,�,. and they are profound.We have
,
Bryan E.Beatty,secretary,Northto be ready for hurricanes, we
Carolina Department of Crime WY It • A c AM...M —,,..,... have to be ready for earth-
Control and Public Safety, and Left to right:Bryan E.Beatty,secretary, North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety; quakes,we have to be ready for
Michael Lowder, deputy direc- New Orleans Mayor C.Ray Nagin; moderator Judy Wodruff;Charleston,S.C., Mayor Joseph Riley and floods ... and so much more.We
tor of response, Federal Michael Lowder,deputy director of response, Federal Emergency Management Agency,discuss emer accept all of that responsibility
Emergency Management gency response and preparedness at the Congress of Cities in Charlotte, N.C./Photo by Steve Schneider and that first response is our
Agency (FEMA), offered the duty," Riley said. "It's just that
state and federal perspectives, "When people are at risk and are stuck on roofs trying to sur- should step up and do what it with these huge, horrific events
respectively. people are dying, when people vive, the federal government takes to get the job done,"Nagin see page 12,column 1
PanelIn regard to FEMA,Nagin said its reg-
from page 1 ulations are outdated and the agency is
"overwhelmed and undermanned."
... there is a facet of opportunity for serv- Lowder agreed that some procedures
ice and responsibility that our national need to be revised.
government has that isn't being success- 4; .", "Some of the regulations need to be
fully addressed yet. looked at.Regulations are currently being -
"We're going to have more category 4 reviewed so we're able to bring resources
and 5 hurricanes, we're going to have �, quicker,"he said.
more people living on the coast," Riley „~"*+.. 4111, He added that "preparedness begins
continued."We should make sure we have Ar
with the individual."Part of the message
the resources to get things up and running, '
0 from all levels of government is that indi-
and that should be the role of the mili- A. viduals also need to be prepared for disas-
t ,,, 4.
ters.
Riley said the military needs to be Nagin called for better planning
given more responsibility and authority 4 throughout the country, saying "this
for disaster response, because it has the 4 nation does not have a procedure to pre-
manpower, training and equipment to pare for a natural disaster."
handle large-scale emergencies. He also sought help from fellow local
While Nagin and Riley said the military New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin discusses emergency response during a general officials to get Congress focused on disas-
and federal government need to be session at the Congress of Cities in Charlotte, N.C./Photo by Steve Schneider ter preparedness
involved, they also stressed that local "Everyone knows that there's a certain
authorities should be in charge and that all levels of government are on the same at,"he explained."First is communication amount of constipation in Washington.We
any authority given to the military or fed- playing field,Lowder stated. and interoperability.All of us have a role need to be the Ex-Lax that busts through
eral government should have a limited "We should be working a lot more with to play.Second,we need to look at mitiga- that,"Nagin said.
time frame. cities and states to help identify what tion, preventing damage and controlling Riley took the opportunity to call on
Lowder said there needs to be an should you be prepared for and then help development." the federal government to help rebuild
alliance with local,state and federal offi- fund that to help you meet that standard," Beatty said his state is working on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.
cials so they can work together. he said. ensuring that emergency communication "Our nation must insist that our
"It has to be a true partnership,a team. Beatty said the first response in any dis- systems can connect with each other,but resources are directed to make sure the
All disasters are local.But it takes the full aster is a local response,and state author- the federal government needs to support great national resource of New Orleans is
resources of the country,"he said. ities are there to support that response. that process through funding and making restored,"he said to much applause from
The country needs to set standards so "There are two things we need to look radio space available for public safety use. the local officials in the audience.
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Wolflvr66@aol.com
Date: 4/27/2005 12:39:15 PM
Subject: Re: Renton-Senior Discounts
I'm glad that you are verifying. Many folks do not know understand, and think just because they have
Renton as a city address that they are part of the city, which is not necessarily the case. An easy way to
check is by the number of digits in the address, as previously stated, as our City has its own numbering
system.
Thank you.
Bonnie
>>> <Wolflvr66@aol.com>4/27/2005 12:33:03 PM >>>
Yes, we always have verified if they live in the City limits or not. most
of them seem to know, if they don't, then we check in Thomas guide or thru King
County. Thanks for letting me know anyways.
Tammy
From: Bonnie Walton
To: LYnnehurd3hc@aol.com; Wolflvr66@aol.com
Date: 4/27/2005 12:22:48 PM
Subject: Renton-Senior Discounts
Lynne and Tammy:
I just want to give you a reminder when you are processing and tallying senior/disabled discounts for
Renton, that you know that not every household having a Renton postal address is necessarily a City of
Renton household. Citizens who live within the Renton city limits will have house numbers that do not
exceed four digits, and street numbers that do not exceed 99th.
If an address number has five digits (for example 12345 SE Petrovitsky)or the street name has 3 digits
(ie; 116th Ave. SE), then the property is located outside of the Renton City limits and Renton regulations
and discounts do not apply. Those citizens would need to call King County, as they are part of
unincorporated King County.
Hopefully this is something you have been verifying when you get calls.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
•
•
From: "Thomas G. Robinson" <robinson@cbecommunications.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 10/10/2005 8:02:53 AM
Subject: Articles/Info. Legislation
Bonnie:
It was a pleasure seeing and talking with you on Friday. Per our
discussion, below and attached is some information related to the
current draft National Franchise Legislation. After you have a chance
to review, call me if you have any questions.
Concerning our wireless discussion, I'll follow-up with George later
today or tomorrow related to some of the information that we discussed.
Talk to you soon,
Tom
> National Journal
>The Clash Of The High-Tech Titans
> By Bara Vaida
> (Wednesday, September 28)This spring, Dia Black's roommate walked
into the living room of their Washington, D.C., apartment to find Black
talking to her laptop. "It looked really weird," acknowledged Black, a
30-year-old trade association manager. "My roommate said, 'Who are you
talking to?' "
> Black was having a three-way conversation with her brother, who works
for a company in Shanghai, and her sister, who lives in Boston. They
were talking through a piece of software called Skype, which delivers
clear conversations and is easy to use. "We can all talk at once," Black
says. "It's just like being together."
> Skype Technologies, a Luxembourg-based company that is being acquired
by eBay, developed the software of the same name using a geeky-sounding
technology called Voice-over-Internet Protocol, or VOIP. At least 54
million people worldwide-- including an estimated 10 million in the
United States -- have downloaded the Skype program over the Internet,
and are using it to make unlimited phone calls at no charge. It is free
-- but computers using Skype must be connected to a high-speed data > ->
or so-called broadband > -> line.
> To get her broadband hookup, Black had two choices. She could sign up
with Comcast, the local cable provider in her Northwest Washington, D.C.
neighborhood, and get a package that includes both TV programming and a
high-speed line. Or, she could sign up with Verizon Communications, her
phone company, which offers telephone service, as well as broadband
through digital subscriber line service, or DSL.
> Black chose Comcast, and now uses Verizon only for local phone calls.
She uses her cell phone for long-distance calls in the United States.
"My land line is for the doorbell," Black says.
> Comcast, which began life in the early 1960s as a tiny cable TV
operator but is now emerging as a leading communications company, will
begin offering telephone services in D.C. next year.When that happens,
Black says, she might drop Verizon altogether.
> The Dia Blacks of the world are causing Verizon a lot of heartburn.
Although the behemoth telecom company is still raking in money from its
local phone market and is about to complete a nearly$7 billion merger
with long-distance firm MCI Communications, Verizon has staked its
future on being a dominant player in the high-speed data services
market, as well as in cable video. These are ambitious changes for a
company that originally provided only land-line local telephone service.
> But for now, traditional cable companies like Comcast have a head
start. According to the FCC, more Americans subscribe to cable broadband
service than to the DSL services offered by regional phone companies
such as Verizon. And cable firms are trying to leverage this subscriber
advantage to enter the telephone market.
> Meanwhile, Verizon and its sister regional phone companies, SBC
Communications, BellSouth, and Qwest Communications --unofficially
known as "the Bells"--continue to lose traditional wire-line
customers.
> Since the end of 2000, the number of wire-line services paid for by
consumers has dropped by about 15 million, to 178 million, according to
the FCC. In the second quarter of 2005 alone, Verizon lost 500,000
residential line accounts. While most of those consumers have switched
to ceephone services owned by Verizon Wireless or by the wireless
affiliates of the other Bells, many other people are moving to cable
telecom or to other kinds of telecom providers such as Skype or Vonage,
a U.S.-based VOIP company.>
>Wall Street has taken notice of the shift. In the year ending Sept.
21, according to Bloomberg.com, Verizon's stock price had dropped 17.8
percent, while SBC's has slid 4.6 percent and BellSouth's has dropped
3.2 percent. By contrast, cable company stock prices have all risen over
the past year, with Comcast up 4.3 percent, Time Warner up 9.4 percent,
and Cablevision up an eye-popping 51.6 percent.
> **Bells Vs. Cable
>The fast pace of the transformation and the billions of dollars on the
line have drawn Congress into the telecom-versus-cable battle. Nine
years after passing what many saw as the mother of all telecom laws --
the 1996 Telecommunications Act--federal lawmakers, regulators, and
administration officials are facing the prospect of yet another huge
legislative fight.
>Verizon, SBC, and the trade group to which they belong --the United
States Telecom Association -- have been the main drivers of the policy
debate. The heavily regulated Bells are looking to Congress and the FCC,
as well as to state leaders, for regulatory relief in their effort to
gain a competitive edge. In January 2004, the Bells, through the
USTelecom, began a reported $30-million-to-$40-million multiyear
lobbying and media campaign. The simple but consistent message to the
535 lawmakers in Congress and the five FCC commissioners has been:
"Deregulate."
> "What the Bells are doing is a political strategy,"said Blair Levin,
a former top FCC official who is now managing director of investment
firm Legg Mason Wood Walker. "They are creating a political environment
favoring a big bang of deregulation."
> In the past year and a half, Washington has been blanketed with images
reminding people that, 10 years ago, hardly anyone imagined the
technological changes to come. For example, one USTelecom ad picturing a
snuggling couple notes that when the Telecom Act was adopted in 1996,
"PDA" meant"public display of affection,"rather than "personal digital
assistant,"as it does today. The point: The 1996 Telecom Act is
outdated.
> "We have moved, as a country, beyond voice to a variety of other forms
of communications, including a combination of voice, data, and video,"
said Tom Tauke, a Republican House member from Iowa who is now Verizon's
executive vice president for public affairs, policy, and communications.
The assumptions written into the 1996 act have been "decimated" by
technology, Tauke said, adding, "Cable companies are now in the voice
business, and voice companies will soon be in the video business, and
technology has produced a much different world."
>The Bells' deregulation mantra succeeded in spurring Republican
leaders on the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Commerce
committees to begin work last year on an update of the 1996 law. But
business factors are driving most of the Hill activity this year--a
combination of the Bell companies'desire to enter the video market and
the cable industry's growing presence in the voice market.
> One of the Bells'targets is "franchising." Most cities and counties
require a cable company to sign a franchise agreement before it can use
public streets, alleys, and other rights of way to lay its network of
cables into homes and businesses. In exchange for the right to lay its
network, the cable carrier pays a franchise fee and agrees to provide
public access TV channels, as well as to connect schools and libraries
to its network and to help with other community projects.
> Cable companies now have approximately 12,000 such franchise pacts,
which earn municipalities a total of about$3 billion a year. "Cities
need the franchise agreements to maintain safety and upkeep of streets,"
said Cheryl Leanza, principal legislative counsel for the National
League of Cities.
> But the Bell companies, with phone service competition biting at their
heels, see the franchise process as an impediment to their speedy entry
into the video market. The Bells have argued that because municipalities
across the country have different rules and f> ees for acquiring
franchises, telecom companies might have to spend decades to work out
agreements.
> Hence, the Bell companies have stepped up their lobbying efforts,
hoping to persuade lawmakers that they are essentially"new entrants"
into a market controlled by cable company monopolists and should
therefore be exempted from the piecemeal franchising process.
>"We think the entry process for[the Bells to get into] video is
difficult and a barrier to competition,"Tauke said. "If we are able to
remove that barrier, we think that consumers will have choice more
quickly, and there will be competition in the video market more
quickly."
> Unsurprisingly, the Bells' effort to evade franchising has the cable
industry up in arms; cable has been through this competitive scenario
before. The 1996 law benefited the cable industry by relieving it of
price caps and other rules -- but it also gave cable a new challenger,
by clearing the way for satellite video services, such as DirecTV. The
satellite industry now boasts about 27 million subscribers, and cable
companies, in response to this competition, have invested about$100
billion, upgrading their systems and improving service.
> In this round of legislation, cable executives have to contend with a
new wave of competition --the Bells' push into cable services. The
cable sector wants Congress to subject the Bells to the same local level
regulatory process --franchising --that the cable companies have had
to go through.
> "Why would Congress pass rules that give special favors and subsidies
to [the telephone industry, which] has five times the market
capitalization of the cable companies and just practically squashed all
its competition?"asked Kyle McSlarrow, president of the National Cable
and Telecommunications Association --referring to the pending mergers
of Verizon with MCI, and SBC with AT&T. McSlarrow has been telling
Congress that if the Bells get an exemption from franchise agreements,
so should the cable companies.
> "It doesn't bother us if the Bells want to enter our market,"said
Kerry Knott, Comcast's vice president of federal government affairs and
a onetime chief of staff to then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey,
R-Texas. "Where it does bother us is if they get to play in our market
with a different set of rules."
> Further, the Bells'argument that obtaining franchises is an onerous,
time-consuming process rings hollow to Richard Ramlall, senior vice
president of strategic and external affairs at RCN, a small Herndon,
Va.-based firm that provides cable, Internet, and telecom services.
> RCN --formerly known as Starpower and, before that, Erols --obtained
130 franchises, in Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and other
places, within two years without serious difficulty, Ramlall said. "We
are a tiny company with little money," he says. "We had to go through
the whole franchise process, so why should the Bells,who have deep
pockets, get a free pass?"
>**New Entrants?
>With the well-heeled telecom and cable industries clashing over
federal policy, the rhetoric from their lobbying shops has become
heated.
> For example, cable has seized on an incident that occurred at a fall
2004 investor conference. According to news reports, and to analysts who
attended, SBC presented a slide show outlining its
$4-billion-to-$6-billion "Project Lightspeed,"a multiyear expansion of
its fiber-optic networks. One slide highlighted the company's plan to
focus most of its initial investment on affluent neighborhoods, where
households would be willing to pay from $110 to $200 a month for a
package of video, telecom, and data services.
> Word of the SBC plan spread rapidly to consumer groups, which called
the business plan an example of illegal "redlining"of low-income
communities. Cable companies'franchise agreements require them to build
their networks to all neighborhoods, regardless of income. The cable
industry seized on the SBC plan to demand that the Bells be subject to
franchising, with all of its rules.>
>"What that tells me is that [the Bells] business model doesn't work
very well unless they get those rules changed," McSlarrow said. "The
cable industry spent$100 billion upgrading their lines, and that isn't
something that [the Bells] business plan can support."
> Legg Mason's Levin said the SBC slide has been politically damaging to
the Bells and helpful to the cable industry's arguments on Capitol Hill.
"It was a gaffe," Levin said. "But many say that in Washington, a
'gaffe' is when someone speaks the truth."
> SBC and Verizon vigorously deny that they plan to redline poorer
neighborhoods. Tim McKone, SBC's senior vice president for federal
relations, said that all of the company's customers who have access to
high-speed data services will also have access to video service.
According to McKone, SBC's service area in Chicago's low-income South
Side is"92 percent DSL-capable," meaning that 92 percent of customers
live in areas where the streets are wired for high-speed access. "Is
South Side Chicago an example of redlining?We think 92 percent is
pretty good,"he says.
> Cable firms note the irony of the Bells'arguing they should be exempt
from current rules because they are"new entrants" in a monopoly market.
The Bells have used the opposite end of the argument over the past
decade in fighting to keep long-distance competitors from getting into
their markets. "The problem is that the Bells have been arguing for
parity for years," said Legg Mason's Levin, "and now the sector is
arguing there shouldn't be parity."
> Bell companies, however, argue they are"new entrants" into the video
market because they invested heavily to build their own high-speed
networks into consumers' homes. In 2004, for instance, Verizon spent at
least$1 billion on broadband fiber-optic lines. By the end of 2005,
Verizon plans to have fiber services available to 3 million homes. Just
last week, Verizon launched its new video service in Keller, Texas,
•
where the company first started laying its fiber network a year ago.
> The two industries are spending a lot of lobbying money as this
tit-for-tat escalates. "There is the danger of a holy war breaking out
over these franchise issues,"said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the
Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Washington-based free-market-oriented
think tank.
> NCTA's McSlarrow agrees that a huge battle is in the offing. "I've
been watching the Bell companies for years,"he said. "I know how they
pursue their agenda. They are at a time and place where they feel that
for their own survival, they need to train their guns on the cable
industry."
> Up to now, the Bells have outgunned cable in terms of spending. The
four Bell operating companies-- plus USTelecom, their trade association
-- spent$40.5 million to lobby Congress in 2004, while the National
Cable and Telecommunications Association, along with Comcast, Time
Warner, and four other prominent cable companies, spent$16.94 million
on lobbying, according to PoliticalMoneyLine's analysis of federal
lobbying disclosures.
>At least publicly, representatives from both sectors have tried to
downplay the fight. "I'm not convinced that, at the end of the day,
there necessarily will be huge conflict,"Tauke said. Comcast's Knott
agreed. "We don't think there has to be"a big lobbying clash, he said.
> Still, one senior cable-industry executive argues that most cable
companies are expecting "to go to war"with the telecom companies, given
the aggressive, no-holds-barred lobbying style that the Bells have used
in the past.
> So far, the Bells'legislative and lobbying strategy appears to be
paying off. On Sept. 7, Texas Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed a bill
allowing each Bell company to apply for a single statewide franchise
rather than having to negotiate individual franchises in different
municipalities.>
> SBC, which is based in San Antonio, hired 123 lobbyists and spent as
much as $6.8 million lobbying the Texas Legislature to support the
measure, according to the group Texans for Public Justice. Verizon hired
38 lobbyists and poured in about another$1.8 million, the group said.
On the other side, the Texas Cable and Telecommunications Association
and Time Warner Cable hired a combined 25 lobbyists and spent$1.2
million opposing the Bells' efforts. The Texas cable industry has filed
suit to block Perry's decision.
> Nevertheless, the emboldened Bell companies are pushing for a
statewide franchise in New Jersey, and they may seek statewide
franchises in California and Virginia. They are also seizing the moment
to argue their position in Washington. Their success in Texas "shows
that the Bells have a politically potent argument" in Washington, said
Peter Davidson, senior vice president of federal government relations
for Verizon.
> **Demolished Dividing Lines
>The architects of the 1996 Telecom Act never envisioned scenes like
the three-way long-distance conversation in Dia Black's living room.
Just ask former House Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley, R-Va., who was one
of the key players a decade ago.
> Bliley, now a partner at the law and lobbying firm Collier Shannon
Scott in Washington, recalls spending years on getting the language
right in the 1996 act. The key purpose back then was to allow the long
distance firms and the local service Baby Bells to enter one another's
voice markets.
>The act also lifted the prohibition against the Bells'entering the
video market. This competition from the Bells was a legal possibility
nine years ago-- but has only recently become a practical reality.
>The language of the act underscored the fact that telecom and cable
were two distinctly different communications networks, each regulated
under its own set of rules -- in industry terms, "silos."The phrase >
">telecom"meant hand devices held to the ear; "cable" meant television
sets for the eyes.
> In the 128 pages of the legislation passed in 1996, the word
"Internet"occurs a mere 11 times. Dozens of references to "interactive
computer services" and "advanced telecommunications services"suggest
that lawmakers knew that the technology was changing -- but were not "
certain how. Congress intended the act to give the FCC sufficient
flexibility to adapt federal telecom regulations to evolving technology.
> Less than a decade later, however, technology has demolished the
dividing lines between phone and cable. Wireless phone service and
Internet software like Skype have ended the concept of a long distance
phone market"silo,"and the price of stand-alone voice services has
plummeted. K Street lobbyists say that many on Capitol Hill and at the
FCC agree that these unforeseen changes are cause enough to reform that
"mother of all telecom policies."
> "A lot of what we did then doesn't make sense now,"said Larry Irving,
who headed the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration at the time of the 1996 act. Bliley agreed:
"We never even thought about voice over the Internet.... I do think the
act needs revisiting." Bliley's firm represents MCI.
> But it is not quite that simple. The 1996 law covered many other
industries beyond telecom and cable, including television and radio
broadcasters, newspaper publishers, interactive computer services,
satellite companies, and wireless firms. Revisiting the law gives all of
those sectors an opportunity to lobby Congress for particular provisions
that might help them competitively.
> Rewriting the legislation could thus prove to be a slow process,
opening a can of worms.
> "The telecom bill was one of the most complex pieces of legislation to
pass Congress, and everyone complains about it. It was a thankless job,"
said former Senate Commerce Chairman Larry Pressler, R-S.D., another
architect of the Telecom Act. "So I welcome all the critics that want a
new one.">
> Internet-based companies have expressed a strong interest in looking
at how a reform effort might help them. Paul Misener, vice president of
global public policy for Amazon.com, is "delighted"about the prospect
of telecom reform because he sees it as an opportunity for his sector to
push for provisions to prohibit companies that deliver services over the
Internet from using technology to control users'access to content.
> However, the technology companies have not launched a
multimillion-dollar campaign similar to the Bells' effort. "The Bells
are the only ones who want something passionately,"said Legg Mason's
Levin, who has questioned whether Congress will in fact pass a major
overhaul.
> Levin, who was a chief of staff to former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt
during the Clinton administration, also said, "There is a cost in
writing a bill, in that you now have uncertainty on Wall Street"--
because the rules governing the communications sector could change yet
again.
> Soon after the 1996 act passed, the Bell companies filed a series of
lawsuits challenging the FCC's implementation of the law. At the time,
the seven Bell companies had a monopoly over the markets for local phone
calls.
>To spur competition in those markets, lawmakers wrote a"checklist"of
rules that the Bells had to meet before they could enter the long
distance market.Among other regulations, the FCC required that the Bell
companies lease their lines and networks at a discount to competitors.
That rule spawned competition in the local phone markets, with AT&T and
MCI as the largest competitors.
> Lawmakers had envisioned the checklist as just one mechanism to
encourage competition. They thought that the act would also spur the
Bells to enter each other's markets.
> But it did not turn out that way. Instead, the Bells began to merge
with one another, even as they were filing numerous lawsuits to overturn
the FCC rules. After an appeals court battle, the Bells finally
prevailed in June 2004 to end the requirement that forced them to lease
their lines to competitors at a discount.
> "Now, 10 years later, we are just getting to where we have settled
precedent on key provisions related to the act--so now we are going
change that?"wondered James Bradford Ramsey, general counsel of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. "We could end
up re-litigating it all again."
> **Barton Sets The Stage
> Despite the resistance, the Bells are pushing their pro-reform
campaign forward, saying they are optimistic about getting legislation
in this Congress.
>As of Sept. 21, lawmakers had introduced about a dozen bills that
would make major changes to the Telecom Act. The most significant is the
proposal by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, and
ranking member John Dingell, D-Mich., which is expected to shape the
telecom debate in the House.
> Barton's chief telecom aide, Howard Waltzman, and aides to several key
Energy and Commerce Committee members > -> including Reps. Fred Upton,
R-Mich., Chip Pickering, R-Miss., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., as well as
Dingell --had been meeting since the spring to hammer out a proposal.
"The [Barton] bill sets the stage for where the negotiating and
horse-trading will begin,"said Jessica Zufolo, an analyst with Medley
Global Advisors.
> To address the issues raised by the Bell companies and the cable
sector, as well as to account for changes in technology, the proposed
legislation would replace a section of existing law with specific rules
for services provided over the Internet, including telecommunications.
The language defines broadband as an "interstate service"and creates a
single set of federal rules for Internet Protocol-based networks and
services. The rules are blind to the technology used to deliver those
services -- meaning that cable, wireless, telecom, and satellite
companies would all follow the same rules.>
>The bill also would require the companies that own the existing
broadband infrastructure to make their networks available for
interconnection by competitors --the "network neutrality"sought by
Amazon.com and other Internet-based companies.
>To address video franchising questions, the draft establishes federal
jurisdiction over video services delivered through a broadband
connection, freeing companies from having to go through the local
franchise process.
> However, the proposal also would require companies to pay a franchise
fee to local communities, and it gives communities control over how and
where the networks are built.
>"No one could have foreseen the magnitude of the challenges and
opportunities that the Internet age has presented," Barton said in a
statement when he introduced the proposed bill. "New services shouldn't
be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."
> Barton's staff had hoped to finish committee work on the bill in
September, but Hurricane Katrina has pushed back the timetable by at
least a month. "Our plan hasn't changed"to pass a telecom update in
2005, said committee spokesman Terry Lane. He declined to provide
further details.
> While Barton's committee wrestles with a possible Telecom Act rewrite,
it has also been struggling this year to reach agreement on setting the
deadline for broadcasters to transfer all of their broadcasts to the
digital spectrum. The 1996 act required television broadcasters to move
their broadcasts to digital, and to return a portion of the airwaves to
the public for auction.
> Many wireless companies are hoping to buy up the airwaves on the
analog spectrum when they finally come up for sale. Barton's draft
legislation requires the broadcasters to return spectrum to the FCC by
Dec. 31, 2008. That bill,which has been tied to the budget process, is
slated to pass by the end of the year.
> **Stevens Moves Slowly
>The Senate has moved more slowly on telecom reform, in part because
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska,just took over the Commerce Committee in
January. Stevens eliminated the panel's communications subcommittee
because he wanted to take charge of telecommunications issues himself.
> Early in the year, he said he was "in no hurry"to revamp the Telecom
Act. In the months before the August recess, Stevens and ranking member
Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, conducted 14 closed-door meetings on telecom
issues with consumer groups and with technology, telecom, and cable
executives.
> Stevens and his staff are still mulling their approach. Several
committee aides told National Journal that they do not expect Stevens to
introduce a bill until at least spring 2006.
> Stevens has stated only that he wants to reform the Universal Service
Fund, before steep price hikes can occur. All telephone companies that
provide interstate services -- including local, long distance,wireless,
pay phone, and paging --must pay a portion of their interstate revenues
into the fund, which keeps basic phone services affordable for
low-income and rural regions of the country.
>As prices for voice services have dropped, so has the flow of money
into of the fund. Stevens, who represents a rural state, wants to
restore the pot of federal money to support rural phone services. The
FCC has begun a process to determine how it can boost and maintain the
fund, but many analysts say the FCC does not have the authority to fix
the USF funding problem.
>A related issue involves a regulatory structure called "inter-carrier
compensation,"which is the rate that phone companies pay each other to
complete calls over their networks. Communications over the Internet are
exempt from the inter-carrier rules, and the Bells have been agitating
for a change in the way companies pay into the system.
> So Stevens' committee has reason to look at changes to the 1996 act.
Many lobbyists have been frustrated, however, because the chairman has
not indicated whether he wants to simply address the Universal Service
Fund and make other narrow fixes, or to consider a broad rewrite of the
law.>
> "We don't know yet whether we want to handle this with a single-fire
approach on each item, or whether we want to wrap them all together,"
says one Senate committee aide.
>With Stevens playing it close to the vest, senators on the committee
have begun to introduce their own bills to signal where they stand. In
July, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., chairman of the Senate Commerce
Technology Subcommittee, introduced a sweeping reform bill that has
garnered support from the Bells. And the cable industry's McSlarrow said
that while his association has some questions about Ensign's bill, it is
pleased that the legislation "treats like services alike."
> The proposal would allow Bell companies and others to immediately
enter the market for video services,without obtaining local or state
franchises. New entrants would have to pay up to a 5 percent franchise
fee to municipalities, as do current pay television providers --but
would not have to follow the current lengthy franchising process.
> Ensign said that his bill would provide cities with "even more"
revenue than they get now, because both the cable companies and the
Bells would be paying franchise fees. Said SBC> '> s McKone, >"> If
Congress is looking for a legislative vehicle that doesn't create a
clash of the titans, then the Ensign bill does that.> ">
> It is no slam dunk, however. The bill has sparked opposition from
cities, consumer groups, and so-called competitive exchange carriers,
which are competitors to the Bells.
> Leanza said the bill would effectively take regulation of sidewalks
"away from localities, putting it into the hands of Washington, D.C."
She also worries that Ensign's bill would give municipalities the right
to build their own broadband networks, but only with numerous
restrictions.
>The Bells have been fighting cities that have been investing in their
own broadband networks, arguing that government should not compete with
the private sector. But"many small businesses can't get affordable
broadband," Leanza said. "That is why cities are stepping in."The
National League of Cities, which represents 18,000 municipalities, is
mobilizing its grassroots to fight Ensign's legislation.
>Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, said
legislation like Ensign's is encouraging monopolization of the
communications sector, "where two industries will dominate" in
broadband, eventually leading to higher prices for consumers. Earl
Comstock, president of CompTel/ALTS --the association that represents
small local competitive exchange carriers in the long distance phone
market--argues that Ensign's proposal does not require the cable and
Bell companies to let a competitor buy access to their broadband
networks.
> "Nascent technologies, such as VOIP," Comstock said, "would be killed
in the cradle under this regime, because entrepreneurs would be denied
the nondiscriminatory access to infrastructure they need to deliver
their cutting-edge products and services."
> Chances are slim that Ensign's bill could pass the committee as
written. Lisa Sutherland, the Senate Commerce Committee's staff
director, said that Stevens will draw upon the efforts of committee
members in writing his own bill. "We are going to do a side-by-side
comparison of all the bills introduced and look at where there are
things in common and where there are conflicts we'll have to work out,"
she said.
> Senate hearings have been postponed, however. Stevens has said that
for the immediate future, Katrina relief will take precedence over all
issues, including telecom.
>As telecom lobbyists cool their heels, committee members say they are
still optimistic that a bill will pass this Congress, although not this
year. "I think we can get something passed,"said Sen. John Sununu,
R-N.H., who may introduce a bill aimed at spurring VOIP development.>
> Meanwhile, on the regulatory front, the FCC has been moving ahead with
changes to telecom regulations.Zufolo of Medley Global Advisors said
that the agency, under newly appointed Chairman Kevin Martin, has been
"active in making far-reaching"rulings aimed at speeding up competition
in the telecom markets, thus "giving lawmakers ideas"on what direction
their policies should take.
> In August, the FCC voted to put broadband services offered by cable
and by Bell companies under the same regulatory framework, and that
decision has influenced how legislation is developing on Capitol Hill.
>Some have questioned why Congress continues to move ahead with
legislation,when the FCC is adapting its rules to technology changes.
In response,Verizon's Tauke said that as the FCC proceeds with rule
changes, questions remain about whether the agency"is attempting to
force-fit some kind of policy into a statute that didn't really
envision"today's world --where there is no difference between
telephone service offered by a Bell company and that from a cable
company.
> Scott Cleland, founder of the investment research firm Precursor,
noted that the FCC's chairman "can only interpret the law. He can't make
new law."
>Yet whatever happens, Sununu admitted: "There is no guarantee that
technology won't change. No piece of legislation is immune from
obsolescence."
•
•
OVERVIEW
FEDERAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION*
Prepared for City of Vancouver/Clark County •
Telecommunications Commission •
August 3,2005
(*Note: This overviews just that...a preliminary outline of the legislation that'has
been introduced rn 2005. It is not intended to be an in-depth analysis or position
paper)"
Primary Telecommunications Legislation as of Summer 2005 •
A. Telecommunications Act Rewrite—S.1504 (Sen. Ensign (R N );Sen.
. McCain(R-AZ) at request of Sen. Stevens (R AK)
• "Broadband Investment and Consumer Choke Act of 2005"
B. National Franchising Legislation—Video Choice Act of 2005
1: S. 1349_(Sen. Smith (R-Or); Sen. Rockefeller(D-WV)
2. H.R.,3146 (Rep. BIackburn (R-TN) &Wynn(D-MD)
Municipal Broadband
1. • S. 1294 (Sen.McCain;Sen. Lautenberg)—Community
Broadband Act of 2005 (Legislation its Support of Municipal
Broadband) '
2. HR 2726•=(Rep. Sessions) _Preserving Innovation in Telcom
• • ' Act of 2005 (Prohibits Municipal.Broadband •
II. Major Provisions of S. 1504
A. All current cable television franchises with provisions that are.
"inconsistent"with the provisions of S. 1504 are "preempted and
superseded"upon adoption of the Act.
B. All current local cable franchising authority is eliminated
C. Eliminates 5% cable franchise fee and replaces it with a fee that'imust
be"reasonable" and limited to rights-of-way management costs and
also not exceed 5%and then allows provider to petition the FCC to
reduce the fee still further.
D. Substantially reduces the revenues that would/could be included in
the definition of"Gross Revenues" upon which franchise fees are
based.
E. Restricts PEG channels to a maximum of 4.
F. Eliminates all PEG support—capital and Operating grants.
G. Transfers all customers service issues to the FCC, to be enforced only
by the State PUC
•
•
• H. Eliminates any"build-out"requirements,thus allowing"cherry
picking" by video providers
I. Preempts any state or local law this is not generally applicable to all
businesses (net effect threatens electric code and other safety
obligations)
J. Prohibits the imposition of any fee for issuance of rights-of-way •
construction permits
K. Prohibits municipal provision of communications (i.e.broadband)
services without giving a right of first refusal to private industry and
gives industry unrestricted access to all municipal facilities and
financing in the event private industry chooses to provide.services.,
L. Eliminates local government's ability to require institutional networks
M. Because local franchising requirements restricted,limits or eliminates
ability to require EAS messages and warnings
N. In essence...a national franchising bill
III. Major Provisions of S.1349 and HR 2726
A. Current franchise agreements,under the Senate Bill; are exempt from
the provisions of the Act
B.; Focus of bill is to "eliminate redundant and unnecessary
• regulation"...i.e. national franchising of video service providers
• C..Franchising fee mechanism allowed;but unclear on how enforce or
collect;unclear how fee is imposed and on what terms it is paid
D: Requires."Video Service Providers" to carry same PEG channels as .
incumbent operation,but without a local franchise requirement,how
is this enforced and who enforces?
E.. No requirement/allowance for PEG capital grants
F. Preempts local franchising authority to require system build outs
•
dmm/08-03-05
•
•
•
•
Federal Telecommunications Legislation Overview
August 3, 2005
Page 2
•
natoae ti Newsletter July 2005
✓` � Volume 4, Issue 7
hg5,- ,C✓a.. NATCM0 NEWS
g
The Official Newsletter of the National Association of Telecommunications Officers Ft Advisors®
703-519-8035
Contents:
• President's Message
• Committee Reports:
• Communications
Conference 25 Years of Communications Leadership
• Government Programming Awards Early Bird Registration is OPEN!
• NATOAns 25th Anniversary and
• Customer Service 25th Annual Conference
• Membership September 22-25, 2005
• Multimedia Et Programming Hyatt Regency Washington on Capitol Hill
• Policy Et Legal
• State Chapters
• Technology
• Membership Notices
MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT ; g" 5� i�
n ° ;v; ,
By Cor Wilson '4' M"
Dear NATOAns,
We now have telecom reform legislation introduced in Congress. Right now, the bill to watch is S.
1504, the so-called Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act, sponsored by Sen. John Ensign
(R-Nev). Apparently, what's good for Verizon and SBC is good for the country.
I know I'm dating myself, but I grew up in a time when "What's good for GM is good for the
country" was a popular catch-phrase. And, in those days, what was good for GM was building big,
heavy, gas-guzzling cars and trucks. Then came the 1970's and the first of several crises in the
gasoline supply, and a little company called Honda emerged. At first, few people took it seriously.
Honda, after all, was a Japanese company that made motorcycles and, in those days "Made in
Japan" signified cheap and poorly constructed.
But gasoline prices continued to rise, and Honda, and then Toyota, continued to build better
and less expensive fuel-efficient cars. Today, GM is on the ropes and Toyota has the top-selling
cars in the country.
The reason I bring this up is because "What's good for GM is good for the country" was used
to convince the federal government to leave the company -"indeed the entire American automobile
industry - largely unregulated. Fuel efficiency standards? Too expensive. Not good for business.
Safety standards? Too expensive. Not good for business. It took a couple of Japanese companies,
Honda and Toyota, to prove that it could be done, that it wasn't too expensive and that Americans
would pay for it.
Fast forward to 2005 when Verizon and SBC are running around the country telling state and
federal legislators that what is good for the telcos is good for the country. Clearly the United
States is falling behind in broadband use, so just let us build our networks without any regulations
and that will fix the problem. Of course, they have no intentions of building out their networks
where they are most needed, in rural and low-income communities. SBC has told its investors the
company is going after the "high value" customers. So, someone please explain to me how this
leads to more competition, lower prices and better service?
Unfortunately, while the U.S. had a relatively open automobile market that allowed for
competitors to offer lower priced, better built alternatives, most of the legislation being
considered by state legislatures and so far introduced in Congress would actually make it more
difficult for competition to develop.
It's time for local government and our allies to tell the truth about telecommunications and
competition and what's good for consumers and the country. If you haven't already, make an
appointment with your Senators and Representatives. Write letters. Send resolutions adopted by
your cities.
Let them know:
1. that franchising has not hindered the cable industry from flourishing and offering an
amazing array of advanced video and broadband services;
2. that local franchising provides consumers with an advocate when they experience problems
with their service;
3. that social obligations like public, educational and government programming are part of the
fabric of our communities and are critical components to the information infrastructure that
supports democracy in this country.
Just do it. And do it now.
MESSAGE FROM THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Local government members were sent alerts and additional information from NATOA Headquarters,
encouraging that you make contact with your congressional leaders. Please note that this
information has also been loaded to the NATOA website. I encourage you to send copies of the
letters to NATOA Headquarters for our records. In the event your community develops additional
information, or form letters or resolutions, please share those electronically so that we may share
them broadly with your peers. This coming legislative session is going to be full of challenge, and
we all need to stick together and support each other to the best of our abilities.
DATA COLLECTION - NATOA SURVEY HAS BEEN LAUNCHED - WE NEED YOUR PARTICIPATION
We would like each of you to participate in NATOA's membership study.
The study was crafted to learn more about your local cable and telcom regulatory environment,
how the profession of cable/telecom advisor has changed and how NATOA can better serve you
moving forward. Many of you may remember a similar survey we conducted ten years ago. That
information helped many of our members and assisted our organization during a critical regulatory
time. At the end of the survey you are also going to be asked to provide electronic or mail copies
of your cable franchises and telecom ordinances. PLEASE take time to attach or mail these. With
these documents NATOA will begin to collect a national database by cable operator of current
agreements and gather a national understanding of telecom oversight. These documents will be
shared with the membership as they are developed.
The following link will take you to our survey. We need a strong response rate to be successful.
http://www.survevmonkey.com/s.asp?u=83254967030
Government Programming Awards Subcommittee
By Jerry Musial, Chair
This year's Finalists were notified in early July and the Washington DC Office of Cable Television
and Telecommunications is producing the Awards Tape, which is shown at the Banquet. The
Judges' scores and comments have been provided for all entrants via the online site. The
Committee wants to pass on a sincere thank you to all the Moderators and Judges who participated
in this year's awards competition. As always your involvement is crucial to the success of the
Government Programming Awards.
New trophies for the First Place recipients will be presented at this year's Awards Banquet. The
second and third place award plaques are also being revised and will reflect the theme of each
year's annual conference and award's competition. We'll see you all in Washington DC.
Policy Et Legal Committee Report
By Mary Beth Henry
The PEtL Committee met on July 21, 2005. C. Wilson reported that the NATOA Board approved a
request to disseminate the RBOC FTTP White Paper to non members. She also reported that
members would be asked to complete a NATOA member's survey online and that the National
Governor's Association tax survey has been sent out to cities across the country. NATOA members
are encouraged to return the survey promptly as the information will be used for the current
Congressional debate on the Communications Act re-write.
Subcommittee Reports
Adelphia/Time Warner/Comcast (D. Boris) - NATOA will conduct another conference call to inform
and educate members on this process. There are multiple issues including customer service issues
involved in this transfer affecting hundreds of cities throughout the country.
State Legislation Statewide franchising will be considered during another special session in Texas.
Local government advisors said they thought it was a matter of "when" not "if" statewide
franchising would pass the Texas legislature. Due to differences among some Texas cities the
Texas Municipal League took a neutral position on the statewide franchising legislation. There are 3
bills in the California legislature that would require statewide franchising.
Senate - Senator John Ensign plans to introduce a comprehensive deregulatory telecom reform
bill on July 27. The measure would limit regulation of new technologies like VOIP and provide
nationwide franchises in lieu of securing local franchise agreements. Senators Smith and
Rockefeller (S 1349) introduced the "Video Choice Act of 2005" which establishes national
franchising. Senators McCain and Lautenberg introduced a bill that pro-actively allows local
governments to provide cable and telecommunications services.
House - Representatives Blackburn and Wynn (HR3146) introduced the "Video Choice Act of
2005" companion legislation in the House.
Members were encouraged to set up briefings for their Congressional delegations when they are
home for the August recess and in Washington, D.C. during the NATOA National Conference.
NATOA will prepare materials to assist members with the lobbying effort. Members discussed the
importance of capacity not channels and PEG operational support in the IP-world. The dollars need
to be fungible at the local level. The importance of I-Net's for public safety and education was
also mentioned.
FCC
NATOA will coordinate with the Media Access Project in the Cable Ownership NPRM and will
consider participating in the Regulatory Review proceeding.
Legal
T. Lay presented an analysis of the Supreme Court Brand X decision.
The Next Meeting is August 18, 2005
Customer Service Committee
By Jerry Musial
The next meeting of the Customer Service Committee will be Thursday, August 18th at 3:00pm
(EST).
Multi-Media a Programming Committee
The MMEtP committee held a meeting on Monday, July 18. Those present: Jennifer McKinney
(chairman), Sheri Chadwick, Brad Clark, Micahel Gillette, Donna Keating, Jerry Musial, Marc Pease
and Keith Reeves.
Sub-committee reports:
• Policy - The Policy sub-corn discussed the pros and cons of a "Best Practices" manual vs a
robust web page using a matrix system w/all the policies loaded to the web site. The MMEtP
committee agreed that a robust web site would work better for programmers than a "Best
Practices" manual. The sub-corn will come up with an easy to read matrix, dividing communities
by budget size and linked to the policies received. A FAQ page will be developed to highlight
unusual policies and/or policies that are requested most often. The FAQ should be ready next
month.
• Continuing Ed -Everything is on schedule for the conference. Keith Reeves will work w/Donna
on "Reel Tips" for the Fall Journal.
• Info Sharing -No report.
• Program Acquisition- We continued our discussion about the need for a strategy to take to the
BOD regarding the future of PEG programming, including funding and distribution. Keith
Reeves updated us on the passage of Texas legislation...the first state franchise agreement. We
discussed "state" franchises and the possibility of a "national" franchise, and what it might
mean for programmers. Although neither the BOD nor the MMEtP committee supports the
national franchise idea ...we decided it was prudent to discuss. We put together a list of talking
points to discuss with our regulators, staffs, and state chapters as we try to be more proactive:
Specific detail within the following major points were discussed by the committee. Those
interested in the detail may obtain the outline from the Chair.
1) Establishment of a fair and equitable channel formula
2) Establishment of PEG/I-Net support $$
3) Impact of VOIP
4) Achieving Interconnectivity
It was suggested that we add a "special" meeting at the conference for a round table discussion on
these issues. Jennifer will take to the committee'chairs. There will be more discussion next
month. Please join us with your ideas.
• Misc. - The criteria for the "Brian Wilson Memorial Award for Programming Excellence" was
approved by the BOD at it's July meeting. The award is presented annually for displaying the
leadership and values that Brian practiced during his years of dedicated service. The MMEtP
committee will make the selection and present it to the board for final approval.
Reminder: We're always looking for ideas for "Reel Tips: Fresh Ideas for Programmers". Everyone
is welcome to submit "Reel Tips" to Donna Keating at donna.keating®montgomervcountvmd.gov.
Thanks everyone for your hard work! Our next meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 15 at 3
p.m. EST.
Conference Committee Report
By Lori Panzino and Skip Munster, Co-chairs
We are incredibly excited! The conference is just a few short weeks away. If you haven't made
your reservations and registered for the conference, don't delay! The hotel has sold out on certain
of our dates, but we are working on alternative arrangements. Headquarters will send out
additional information as it becomes available. We are very excited by the sessions planned and
have some exciting news regarding speakers to announce in the coming weeks. In addition, we
want to make sure that you use this opportunity to meet with your congressional representatives,
and so are working on a session to help you gear up for a meeting on the Bill. Be sure to visit the
Conference/Events page on the website for on-line registration and additional information as it
becomes available.
Membership Committee
By Sean McLaughlin
Twenty-Five years and going strong! Please support NATOA membership efforts by going online and
participating in our 2005 membership survey we need your help now.
The information gathered will update a 1994 survey and help to design future efforts of NATOA to
build our organization. NATOA's outreach, marketing and member services efforts will be guided
by the results of the 2005 survey, so please participate and share your information and views!
Special thanks to Professor Connie Ledoux Book of Eton University for her efforts in designing and
revising the survey - and also to Susan Littlefield who provided context and perspective over time.
State Chapter News
Florida - FLATOA
July was an active month for the chapter. FLATOA hosted a subject matter conference call for
members that have received FCC 394 Forms for the upcoming Adelphia, Time Warner transfers with
Comcast. Representatives from the cable industry were invited to join the call to discuss the
transfer process and answer questions from local governments. Prior to the call, Comcast officials
prepared a presentation that was e-mailed to FLATOA members and was referenced by the
speakers during the call.
A call for nominations to serve on the FLAOTA Board of Directors was sent to the membership.
Nominations are due on Friday, August 19th. The election ballots will be e-mailed to voting
members on or about September 1st, with the election results announced prior to FLATOA's annual
meeting at the NATOA National Conference on September 23, 2005.
The FLATOA Board has approved the formation of a Legislative Committee to provide oversight and
inform members of state legislation and activities ongoing in Tallahassee. At least three members
have volunteered their time and services to be on the Committee, which includes Board Member
Gary Resnick, Sharon Fox an Auditor with the City of Tampa and Assistant City Manager David
Rivera with Coconut Creek.
The Florida Department of Revenue will hold a notice of Proposed Rulemaking on August 15th in
Tallahassee. The purpose of the meeting is to amend DOR rules to incorporate, by reference,
forms used by the Department, local taxing jurisdictions, and providers for purposes of the
Communications Services Tax (CST) Address/Jurisdiction Database. In the State of Florida, the CST
has replaced franchise fees to local governments. FLATOA member Sharon Fox will attend the
meeting and will report to the members about any substantive discussions.
Submitted by Leslie Stout, FLATOA President
www.flatoa.org
Missouri NATOA
STATE LAW ON WIRELESS TAXES
In May, as previously reported, Missouri Legislature adopted highly controversial HB 209, which
reduces the amount of telephone taxes paid by landline providers to a maximum 5% by 2008 (a
drop 50% in some communities) and requires cell phone providers to pay the tax on a going-forward
basis, while forgiving an non-payment of back taxes and ordering dismissal of all municipal lawsuits
filed to collect those unpaid taxes starting in 1999. Governor recently signed the bill, so the
effective date is August 28, 2005.
but on the bright side
CITIES WIN SUIT ON TELECOM TAXES *
On June 9, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, in City of Jefferson and City
of Springfield v. Cingular Wireless, held that city gross receipts tax ordinances are enforceable and
apply to mobile telephone services just as they apply to land line telephone services. The decision
is a complete victory for municipalities and bodes well for the other pending lawsuits against
wireless companies for back taxes. H.B. 209 purports to nullify all these lawsuits and forgive all
delinquent taxes; we expect H.B. 209 to be challenged on numerous constitutional grounds.
CHARTER FILES EFFECTIVE COMPETITION PETITIONS FOR MISSOURI A number of St. Louis Metro Area
municipalities - including NATOA /MO-NATOA members St. Louis, St. Charles, St. Charles County,
St. Peters - were served with Effective Comp petitions in late July and early August. Decisions
about how the communities respond will be reported next month.
Submitted by Susan Littlefield, MO-NATOA President
SCAN-NATOA Update
SCAN NATOA held our first board meeting on August 4, 2005 with the 2005/2006 board to schedule
activities for the year. We have scheduled four regulatory events, five programming events, our
chapter meeting in Washington D.0 and our annual conference for the 2005/2006 year. Topics
include a Verizon/SBC update, A Programming Swap, Government Access Listings on Digital Cable,
Programming Boot Camp, Regulators' Boot Camp, Election Programming, Video Archiving, Time
Warner Operations, and an NPPA/NAB round up. We are still firming up locations and dates, but
will share those with you as they become available.
We held a meeting on the Adelphia transfer in Arcadia on July 20, 2005 and had sixty attendees
with five speakers including Jonathan Kramer of Kramer.Firm, Bill Marticorena of Rutan EtTucker,
Bill Rude ll of Richards, Watson Et Gershon, Fern Taylor of the County of Los Angeles and Michael
Friedman from Telecommunications Management. More than 200 Forms 394 have been distributed
in Southern California. If all anticipated transfers are completed, Time Warner will be expanding
from approximately 350,000 subscribers to 1,900,000 in this market.
Submitted by Deborah Steller, SCAN President
www.scannatoa.org
South East - SEATOA
SEATOA has begun planning for its 2006 Annual Business Meeting Et Conference. We are also
formally inviting NATOA Annual Conference attendees - particularly those from GEORGIA - NORTH
CAROLINA - SOUTH CAROLINA and TENNESSEE - to attend our SEATOA @ NATOA networking
reception and chapter meeting on Friday afternoon. SEATOA's Executive Team is seeking member-
volunteers to work on a subcommittee to revise SEATOA's By-Laws to reflect the expanding
technology roles of our diverse membership. SEATOA members interested in assisting with any of
these issues can e-mail SEATOA at seatoa@ci.charlotte.nc.us Also please check SEATOA's website -
www.seatoa.org - for Membership and Conference information.
Submitted by Bech Martin, SEATOA Secretary
www.seatoa.org
Communications Committee Report
By Doris Boris
Committee membership includes: Libby Beaty, Randall D. Fisher, Jennifer Harman, Rondella
Hawkins, Cheryl Johnson, Rick Maultra, Jennifer McKinney, Jerry Musial, and Peter Thurston. The
Committee meets the 1st Tuesday of each month - 1:00 - 2:00 PM - Eastern Time. Additional
NATOA members are invited to join this Committee - just contact Doris Boris at
dboris@ci.charlotte.nc.us
The Communications Committee met via conference call on July 5th and discussed the following:
1. NATOA Logo Redesign -
• NATOA has contracted with LOGOZINE to provide new logo design samples. The company
provided several preliminary designs and these were reviewed and revisions suggested.
2. NATOA Journals -
• Summer Journal Issue was mailed.
• Fall Journal Issue - article deadline was July 5, 2005
• Winter Journal Issue article deadline is September 26, 2005 and the subject is "The
Communications Act - A New Look and Feel?" Abstract descriptions for these articles
include: Where have we been, where are we going? Actions and proposals of Congress to
modify the Act. Who are the stakeholders and what are their various positions relating to
revision of the Act?
• To volunteer to write or suggest authors for articles - please contact Rick Maultra at
cable@inetdirect.net
3. NATOA Website Potential Redesign -
• The Committee reviewed the few responses received to RFQ for website redesign and
discussed ancillary issues relating to future company we contract with to perform this
service - in particular the issue of proprietary products.
• We invite and encourage NATOA members with expertise in this area to participate in this
project. Please contact Jennifer McKinney at imckinnl @ci.tucson.az.us
4. NATOA Web Conferencing Service Delivery -
o The Committee is working with the Multimedia Committee to investigate new methods of
delivering these services.
NATOA Journal of Municipal Telecommunications Policy
2005 Publication Schedule
Fall Issue: Fiber Deployment and Triple Play
Article Submissions Deadline has passed
Abstract: Fiber Deployment and the Status of the Triple Play - How far has fiber been deployed
and what's being provided over the fiber? Converging technologies and the impact on consumers,
local governments and franchising authorities. Reports on the status of the BOC's like Verizon and
SBC's fiber roll-outs and provisioning of video services - how many franchises granted, how many
sought? Wireless technology and its latest offerings - what local governments are doing with and
about new wireless technologies - hotspots, WiFi, WiMax, etc. We are ready to send this on to the
printers. You should be getting your summer edition of the Journal in the mail the last week of
July.
Winter Issue: The Communications Act -A New Look and Feel?
Article Submissions Due: September 26, 2005
Abstract: The Communications Act - A New Look and Feel? Where have we been, where are we
going? Actions and proposals of Congress to modify the act. Who are the stakeholders and what
are their various positions relating to revision of the Act? We are in need of articles for this edition
NOW so please contact Rick Maultra at cable®inetdirect.net if you want to participate.
Journal Guidelines:
The NATOA Journal of Municipal Telecommunications Policy is a quarterly publication of the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. Each publication addresses a
specific or general topic of interest, including perspectives of individual local governments,
advisors to local governments, the industry and other knowledgeable and interested entities.
Submissions are welcomed and encouraged. All submissions become the property of NATOA and
may not be individually reproduced or distributed without prior written consent. Any interested
individual may submit an article for consideration. Contributing authors are requested to submit
articles that provide insight into any aspect of the subject matter including legislative information,
legal analysis, economic impact, technical considerations and issues affecting local governments
generally.
All submissions should be in either Word or WordPerfect, approximately 1,500 words, spell and
grammar checked, accompanied by a one-paragraph biography of the author, with appropriate
contact information (including mailing address, phone, fax and e-mail address. Please inform Rick
Maultra, Publications Committee Chair, at 317-327-4594 if you plan on making a submission or
would like to discuss future issues of the Journal. Submissions should be e-mailed to Rick Maultra
at cable@inetdirect.net with copies to lbeaty@natoa.org and iharman@natoa.org. Only electronic
submissions will be considered.
Membership Notices
Annual Business Meeting
Official notice of the Annual Business Meeting will be sent out the week of August 15. Please mark
your calendar, and reserve the time during the conference, for our meeting to be held on Friday,
September 23, 2005 in Washington, DC. The minutes of the meeting are available on the web site
for those who would like to review them now.
2005 Board of Directors Elections
The ballots are being tallied and the results will be announced in the near future. Our thanks to all
who participated in the election process.
2004-2005 Board of Directors Listing
President: Coralie Wilson, wilson@natoa.org
President-elect: Lori Panzino, panzino@natoa.org
Secretary/Treas. Doris Boris, boris@natoa.org
Past President: Denise Brady, brady@natoa.org
Director: Ken Fellman, fellman@natoa.org
Director: Mary Beth Henry, henry@natoa.org
Director: Jennifer McKinney, mckinney@natoa.org
Director: Sean McLaughlin, mcLaughlin@natoa.org
Director: Skip Munster, Munster@natoa.org
Director: Jerry Musial, musial@natoa.org
STAFF:
Executive Director: Elizabeth (Libby) Beaty, lbeaty@natoa.org
Operations Manager: Jennifer Harman, iharman@natoa.org
Administrative Assistant: Melissa Robinson, mrobinson@natoa.org
NATOA, the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and its logo are
registered trademarks and may not be used or reproduced without permission. ©Copyright 2005
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors. All Rights Reserved.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS
OFFICERS AND ADVISORS NATOA®
1800 Diagonal Road
Suite 495 Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: (703) 519-8035
Fax: (703) 519-8036
E-Mail: Info@natoa.org
Web Address: www.natoa.org
natoa®
0
„, 00 The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors®
,ctl'
♦,fit
TELEPHONE COMPANY CABLE FRANCHISES—AN ANALYSIS
Introduction
The long-awaited entry of the traditional telephone company into the video
marketplace finally appears to be occurring, albeit almost ten years after Congress
passed landmark legislation to ease their competitive entry. Today, a number of
incumbent local exchange telephone companies are upgrading their existing plant
and are building fiber optic networks into residential and business areas currently
served by the company. This upgraded facility will allow these providers the ability
to offer a bundle of services including phone, video and high speed Internet access at
levels not previously available through the traditional copper network. Some of these
telephone companies now offer, or will soon offer, video services.
Some phone companies have directly approached local government for the
requisite authorization to provide video services within that community. At the same
time, these and other 'phone companies are seeking other forms of regulatory relief
at the local, state, or federal level, or all three. Some companies are seeking specific
relief action by the Federal Communications Commission while others seek federal
legislation exempting them from state and local regulation. Meanwhile, telephone
companies are negotiating special agreements with local governments that give them
advantages over other carriers and grant them money-saving exemptions. Telephone
companies claim that the use of Internet Protocol (a series of instructions that allow
the transmission of data between two computers linked by the internet) somehow
provides a basis upon which to grant special exceptions. Other telephone companies
rely on prior Commission determinations pertaining to "information service" to claim
that such terms should be applied to their product or service and result in preemption
of state, local and federal rules.
A significant degree of uncertainty remains with respect to how these services
or systems may eventually be regulated. Until such time as local, state and federal
laws change, providers of video services within most states or communities will
require some form of authorization to have services in a community- most frequently
referred to as a "franchise agreement." In those cases where a phone provider has
presented what it deems to be its preferred franchise agreement, local government
has had a glimpse into the nature of those proposals. What follows is general
information to be considered when assessing the proposal to serve from a phone
company, as well as an analysis from a municipal perspective on the general form of
franchise that has been proposed by some companies.
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 1 of 6
General Background Information
Telephone vs. Cable Franchise - What's the Difference?
Most cable operators have built their cable plant infrastructure within the
community pursuant to the terms of a specific cable franchise agreement. This cable
plant may be coaxial cable, fiber optic or a hybrid of the two systems. The cable
operator was likely required by local, state and federal law to obtain the franchise
(contract) with the local government prior to any construction taking place. At all
times the operator must comply with local rules pertaining to any additional
construction.
With the incumbent phone company's competitive entry into the market
against cable, it may have been noted that the phone company already constructed a
fiber optic system under the auspices of their existing phone company authorization
to use public rights-of-way. Generally speaking, the phone company was permitted
by the state to install fiber optic network capacity either on top of or in place of its
older plant, without notifying or otherwise obtaining permission from the local
government. However, prior to offering video service, federal law, as well as most
local and state laws require the phone company to obtain the necessary permission
from the state or local government in the form of a cable franchise.
What Rules Govern?
Local governments should look to their own ordinances relating to existing
cable franchise agreements; to state law pertaining to the grant of franchises; and to
federal law in the form of Title VI of the Communications Act (also referred to as the
Federal Cable Act). Local governments should be familiar with "level playing field"
requirements under local or state law, as well as "most favored nations" clauses
within existing contracts. In other words, where there are one or more current
providers of video services within a community, the authorizing documents - whether
in the form of a franchise, ordinance or rule should be carefully reviewed prior to the
grant of any additional or competing contract.
Analysis
Requirement to Serve:
Phone: Seek agreements which authorize, but do not require, the company to
provide cable service by a certain date. Some agreements are weak or are unclear in
the requirement to continuously provide cable service thereafter.
Cable: Cable franchises typically require the provision of service by a certain date
and then continuously throughout the franchise term.
Who Will Be Served:
Phone: Some agreements require the company to provide cable service (without any
line extension charge) where there are thirty homes or more per mile, which is too
high a density requirement. The agreements often lack provisions requiring service to
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 2 of 6
business, commercial or mixed business/commercial areas even though the company's
facilities are or will be installed in those areas.
Cable: While each community may vary, generally speaking the cable franchise will
require the cable operator to provide service without any line extension charge where
there are twenty or more homes per mile. With respect to business or commercial
areas, the cable agreements usually require service throughout the "franchise area"
regardless of such zoning considerations.
Use of Streets:
Phone companies ask municipalities in some franchises to agree that their facilities in
the streets are part of a telephone system and that these "tangible facilities" are not
part of a cable system, employing a definition of cable system differing from that in
the Federal Cable Act. In other franchise agreements, phone companies have agreed
to the Cable Act definition. Deviating from the Federal Cable Act definition may set
the municipality up for legal challenges, such as whether the Federal Cable Act
applies. under the Federal Cable Act, a cable system includes a system that uses
public rights-of-way without regard to who owns or leases the facilities, or whether
they are also telephone facilities.
Franchise Before Construction: Many state laws and local ordinances require
that a cable franchise be obtained before the cable company constructs a cable
system. This is done in order to prevent redlining; to provide that an INET for
municipal telecommunications facilities use is built; to ensure that points for
receiving the signals for public, education and government channels are at
appropriate locations; and to ensure that schools, public buildings and other facilities
that need to receive these channels will be served. Franchises also ensure that
construction is done on a timely basis. Some companies construct a cable system and
only then seek a franchise. This should not relieve them from the necessity of
complying with local requirements, even though construction after the fact would add
additional cost.
Costs Reimbursed: Cable operators routinely reimburse municipalities for their
costs associated with the initial grant of a franchise (and transfers, see below). Such
reimbursements are allowed by Federal law and help assure that a municipality has
adequate resources to negotiate and obtain a franchise meeting community needs and
protecting its residents when negotiating against large companies. The phone
company franchises often contain no reimbursement provision.
Franchise Fees: The phone company franchise's definition of gross revenues, on
which franchise fees are computed, often does not expressly include the definition
approved by the Federal courts increasing such revenues by 5%. They also have
exclusions for affiliate revenues, some programming launch fees and combined
services such as telephone and cable, which are inappropriate. The use of generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP) is problematic. There is often no provision for
interest or penalties for underpayments or paying municipalities' audit costs if an
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 3 of 6
audit reveals an underpayment. Often the franchises do not require sufficient detail
to accompany each franchise fee payment, and the audit period is too short.
PEG Channels: The phone companies may tailor franchise sections dealing with
public, education and government channels for individual communities to mirror the
obligations of the existing operator. The definitions of these channels in the
franchises issued to date are often too restrictive in terms of who may use the
channels, and do not provide adequate funding for their facilities or operation. The
provisions to obtain such channels by interconnection with the existing cable company
are often weak. It would be preferable to have the phone companies obtain the
signals directly from the source rather than through interconnection.
Public Service Outlets: The provisions requiring certain cable channels to be
provided to municipal buildings and schools without charge do not provide a sufficient
number of outlets per building and should provide more channels without charge.
Customer Service: Many telephone company cable franchises set forth
customer service requirements that, in several respects, are weaker than existing
Federal and/or state customer service standards. However, customer service
requirements less than the Federal customer service standard minimums may only be
implemented with prior FCC approval. The franchises often purport to prevent a
municipality from altering customer service standards except with the phone
company's consent. State and Federal law expressly allow a municipality to
unilaterally change or strengthen customer service requirements, such as by
ordinance.
Emergency Alert System: Many of the franchises contain no provision for
locally triggered emergency alerts by a local municipality or county. Such local alert
systems, which exist independently of the Federal Emergency Alert system, are
commonly required in cable franchises and have been expressly approved by the FCC.
Transfer: To protect the municipality and its residents, cable franchise
agreements typically require municipal approval for either a sale of the franchise or a
change in control of a cable company, with all the municipality's costs to be borne by
the cable company. Federal law allows a broad scope of review for such approvals.
The franchises often limit such approval and do not require cost reimbursement,
which is commonly required.
Early Franchise Termination: Some franchises allow the company to
unilaterally terminate service after several years, if they do not believe they have
achieved a commercially reasonable number of subscribers. Such provisions are
objectionable for many reasons. First, if a municipality grants a franchise, then
service should be provided for the full term, especially if the franchise has
concessions not in the incumbents franchise. Second, the Cable Act already provides
protection for unforeseen events, and the largest cost of building the cable system
would have been incurred years ago, and thus should not be counted against current
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 4 of 6
r �
revenues. Vague wording in such provisions may allow the operator to attempt to use
them improperly to escape franchise obligations.
Most Favored Nations: There often is a "most favored nations" clause regarding
other cable franchises issued by the municipality that may improperly restrict a
municipality's ability to issue other franchises, and this is objectionable.
Waiver of Rights: The franchises often require municipalities to waive in
advance any legal objections they may have to state or Federal preemption of the
terms of the franchise. Such provisions are present because the phone companies are
hopeful of Federal preemption as previously discussed. There are specific standards
that federal courts use to determine whether Congress intended a particular statute
or regulation to preempt state and local restrictions. Municipalities should not agree
to waive in advance valid legal objections to unknown future Congressional or FCC
actions that may benefit them.
Enforcement: Meaningful enforcement provisions, such as liquidated damages
or civil infraction provisions, often are not included in franchise agreements.
Enforcement provisions are necessary to provide municipalities with a meaningful
enforcement tool for violations. Enforcement provisions should allow a municipality
to correct a minor situation without revoking the franchise, or to revoke one if
needed. For example - where the phone company violates customer service
provisions, electric, or safety codes.
Police Powers: Some of the franchises improperly attempt to restrict a
municipality's police powers by requiring modifications to the franchise if an exercise
of the police power creates any material alteration in the terms and conditions of the
franchise. The Supreme Court has ruled that police powers cannot be so constrained.
For example--rate regulation affects a cable company but a municipality is not
required to reimburse all monies the company loses due to a reduction in rates. This
provision also violates Federal cable law, where municipalities have broad powers to
act on customer service matters, whether the cable company agrees or not. In some
agreements the company wants to terminate the franchise if a municipality is
unreasonable in exercising its police powers, but this is also unwarranted according to
the Supreme Court and can be used arbitrarily against the municipality.
State Law Changes: Franchise provisions, which state that if a change in state
law materially affects the franchise the agreement shall be modified in a manner
agreeable to the cable company or telephone company or they can terminate the
franchise, are objectionable to local municipalities.
Records: Franchise provisions preventing the phone or cable company from
turning over documents it claims to be proprietary or confidential are inappropriate,
as are provisions restricting municipal access to noncable-related business records.
Noncable-related business records access may sometimes be necessary to make sure
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 5 of 6
.
there has been a proper allocation between cable and noncable services, such as
franchise fees.
Security Funds: Adequate financial security, insurance and indemnity
provisions are necessary to protect a municipality and its residents. Often there are
no security fund provisions, such as performance bonds, letters of credit or similar
financial insturments to provide funds for the municipality should the phone company
fail to pay monies that are due from liquidated damages or monetary penalties.
Security funds are also needed if the municipality has to incur expenses due to
defaults by a phone or cable company. Such provisions should be present because
competition involves entities entering a market, leaving it, or filing for bankruptcy,
such as MCI and Adelphia.
Insurance: The types of insurance coverage necessary to protect a community
and its residents from the hazards associated with operating a cable company often
are not present, the amounts are often too low, and there often is no provision for
revisions in coverage during the franchise term. The municipality needs to be an
additional named insured, and provisions regarding this often need to be
strengthened.
Indemnity: Indemnification provisions need to be reviewed by each
municipality's attorney but often are too narrow and contain inappropriate procedural
restrictions.
I:\Advocacy\RBOC Video\Phone Company Cable Franchise Analysis - LB3405.Doc
NATOA 2005 FTTH Subcommittee—Telephone Company Cable Franchise Analysis Page 6 of 6
August 15, 2005
The Honorable Kevin Martin, Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Room TW B204
Washington, DC 20554
Re: Revisions to Cable Television Rate Regulations, MB Docket No. 02-144;
Implementation of Sections of the Cable Television Consumer Protection
And Competition Act of 1992, Rate Regulation, MM Docket No. 92-266, MM
Docket No. 93-215...,FCC 02-177, released June 19, 2002 (17 FCCR 11550).
Dear Chairman Martin:
Section R addresses Effective Competition Showings and in paragraph 52, the
Commission notes that rate regulation ends when effective competition is present and in
the absence of a demonstration to the contrary, cable systems are presumed not to be
subject to effective competition. The Commission further notes that cable operators bear
the burden of rebutting the presumption with evidence sufficient to demonstrate effective
competition in the franchise area.
In paragraph 53, the Commission notes that its Eighth Competition Report states that
DBS penetration now exceeds 20% of television households in 30 states and 30% in five
states. The Commission states that the "growth and development in DBS services has
suggested to some that the effective competition determination process should be
expedited, for example, by altering the burden of proof in areas of high DBS penetration
so that community-by-community decisions might not always be needed." The
Commission sought comment on techniques consistent with the Communications Act to
improve and expedite effective competition showings and review as competition becomes
more prevalent.
The IAC has received significant input on the Commission's current procedures
regarding effective competition showings and the status of DBS competition to cable.
We have also met several times with staff members from the Media Bureau to discuss
these issues.
1
Based on our study of this issue and the comments and input we have received from FCC
staff and others,we offer the following comments.
1. The Commission's present procedures do not afford Local Franchise Authorities
and other interested parties (state consumer advocates, etc.) sufficient opportunity
to review such petitions in a meaningful way. Local Franchise Authorities, the
Media Bureau, and other parties do not have ready access to DBS subscriber
numbers or any way to check the accuracy of data submitted by cable operators.
Also, the Commission's time frame (20 days after public notice) to respond to
such petitions does not allow an adequate opportunity for review and response.
2. Cable operators are well aware of the inability of the Media Bureau and Local
Franchise Authorities to review effectively their claims of effective competition
and are therefore filing such petitions frequently and aggressively even if actual
data would not support the finding of effective competition.
3. While the Bureau provides in its Orders that the presumption is in favor of no
effective competition and the burden remains on the cable operator, the Bureau's
actions have de facto shifted the burden to Local Franchise Authorities. If a Local
Franchise Authority does not oppose a petition, the Bureau automatically grants
it, deregulating hundreds of areas without questioning the data in the petition.
This has occurred even though data presented on the face of the petition could not
be accurate — for example, more total subscribers than households in a
community. Even if a Local Franchise Authority manages to file a response
questioning the facts submitted by the cable operator, the Bureau has not delved
into the facts but has accepted without further evidence, the data submitted by the
cable operator. For example, many Local Franchise Authorities have opposed
cable operators' data as to the number of occupied households and DBS
subscribers attributed to jurisdictions based on zip codes that do not match
jurisdictional boundaries,but the Bureau has merely accepted the cable operators'
data.
4. As a result, hundreds of communities around the country have been deregulated,
not only resulting in higher cable rates for basic service and equipment and more
frequent rate increases, but also eliminating uniform rate and anti-buy through
safeguards. Such deregulated cable operators are also free to manipulate
packages to force consumers to pay for services that they may not want.
5. FCC and GAO reports have recognized that although DBS is a fast growing
service, it has not created price competition with cable. Cable rates continue to
climb faster than inflation. In addition, there are many factors weighing on DBS'
ability to compete effectively, such as access to programming and access to
subscribers in MDU (multidwelling unit) environments, which the Commission
has not addressed to foster competition.
2
F
6. The Communications Act provides that effective competition should be
determined on a "franchise area" basis, and, as previously interpreted by the
Commission, does not allow for such determinations statewide or regional basis
on general DBS penetrations.
7. Prior to adopting the present procedures for determining effective competition by
petitioning the FCC, we understand that cable operators made such showings to
Local Franchise Authorities. This ensured that Local Franchise Authorities had
an ability to review relevant data in an appropriate time period
In summary,the IAC:
• Does not favor shifting the burden to Local Franchise Authorities to challenge a
cable operators' effective competition. Local Franchise Authorities would not
have access to data to make such a showing and most Local Franchise Authorities
do not have the resources to address these issues.
• Supports giving Local Franchise Authorities and other interested parties full
access to data to determine DBS penetration and realistic time frames to review
claims of effective competition.
• Supports changing the procedures to require that cable operators present data in
the first instance to Local Franchise Authorities and allow Local Franchise
Authorities a reasonable time period to review such data and take action. If a
Local Franchise Authority does not act within such reasonable timeframe, the
cable operator should be deregulated. If the LFA denies the cable operator's
petition, then the cable operator may appeal to the FCC.
• Supports procedures that provide for imposing a penalty or sanction for the filing
of frivolous petitions for effective competition or for ordering reimbursement of
an opposing party's costs if the cable operator withdraws a petition after an
opposition is filed.
• Believes this would support the intent of the Communications Act to ensure that
cable rates either are truly checked by effective competition or remain regulated
to protect consumers.
We appreciate your time to read our recommendations. If you have any questions,please
contact Gary Resnick(954-763-4242) at your convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
Jim Dailey
Chair, FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee
3
Compatibflityof Cable TV and Digital TV
Receivers — "Plug-and-Play"
•
,. (1) . New Rules Make DTV Transition Easier
"r The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules that will help
smooth the transition to digital television (DTV) for millions of Americans. The FCC's
:„. to)
new"plug-and-play" rules will ensure that most cable systems are compatible with DTV
receivers and related consumer electronics equipment. This is crucial toward building
...(113products and developing services to help spur the digital transition.
Background
Congress has determined that current broadcast television service must eventually
Lconvert completely to digital operation. Cable television and other video media are also
• transitioning to digital operation. Because DTV is delivered digitally, it allows for the
delivery of a signal virtually free of interference. DTV broadcasters will be able to offer
'r` television with movie-quality pictures and Dolby digital surround sound, along with a
• variety of other enhancements. DTV technology is more efficient than analog
technology and will allow the same number of stations to broadcast using less spectrum.
. E
The FCC's plug-and-play rules are important to the digital transition because they will
facilitate the direct connection of digital navigation devices or customer premises
equipment, such as television receivers, set-top boxes, and digital recorders that are
' (1111) purchased from retail outlets to cable television systems.
Plug-and-Play Digital Television
A"plug-and-play" digital television is a television that you can plug directly into your cable
O system and receive analog and most digital cable services without the need for a set-top
box. More and more cable services are being provided in digital format, and broadcast
stations are in the midst of the transition from analog to an all-digital service. Currently,
plug-and-play is available for most analog services over cable, but not for digital.
. (..)
Benefits of Plug-and-Play
3 `
0
• Many consumers like the convenience (and cost savings) of receiving cable
0 programming without the need of a set-top box. If nothing else, it's one less remote
control to keep track of!
• You will be able to take your plug-and-play set virtually anywhere in the country and
`. know it will work on cable systems offering digital services.
FdpC Federal Communications Commission . Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau • 445 12th St.,SW • Washington,DC 20554
CO'C ,7)D 1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) • TTY:1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) • Fax:1-866-418-0232 • www.fcc.gov/cgb
-2-
y3
4 Plug-and-play will allow you to fully utilize the features and functions provided by
• • the television set that often are disabled when connected to a cable set-top box.
Will Digital Plug-and-PrayA Work.Like Analog?
(0 • Digital plug-and-play will not work quite like analog. For digital plug-and-play, you'll
probably need to get a security card (also known as a "CableCARDTM'")from your local
cable operator. The security card will permit you to watch scrambled programming and
premium services, to which you're subscribed.
. (g)
, (113
Will I Need A Set-Top Box If I Haveta Plug-and-Play Set?.
Um The first generation of plug-and-play sets will be able to receive one-way programming only,
• including analog basic, digital basic, and digital premium cable programming. If you want to
receive certain advanced digital cable services like video-on-demand, the cable operator-
lam enhanced program guide, or interactive data-enhanced television service, using a first
.0 generation set, you will need to use a set-top box. You may also need a set-top box to
T receive other cable operator-provided services, such as a personal video recorder.
. Negotiations are underway between the cable and consumer electronics industries to establish
.. E
standards that would permit plug-and-play sets to provide advanced two-way services as well.
•Availability of Plug-and-Play Sets
Plug-and-play sets built pursuant to the new standards may be available as early as
i (0)
the second half of 2004. To know if you are buying a plug-and-play set, ask your
retailer if the set is "digital cable ready." Manufacturers that use that label must meet
certain technical standards and complete a testing and verification process.
3. C ,
Watching High-Definition Programining'On a Plug-and-Play Set
, Li) Plug-and-play will permit you to watch digital programming, but not all sets will display
full high-definition quality. To be sure, check with your retailer on whether the set
displays full high-definition quality or a lower resolution. You can also ask your local
cable provider if they offer HDTV programming.
(0) 11:1Att
For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format(electronic ASCII text, Braille,large print, or
audio)please write or call us at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mail to FCC504(d fcc.aov.
(s)
To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through the Commission's electronic
subscriber service, click on www.fcc.gov/cgb/emailservice.html.
: LL This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to affect any proceeding or cases
involving this subject matter or related issues.
030910
a o
At
. �F�'C Federal Communications Commission • Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau • 445 12th St.,SW • Washington,DC 20554
�';D 1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) • TN:1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) • Fax:1-866-418-0232 . www.fcc.gov/cgb
COI'Y1CgSt® CITY OF E� NTorstatement of Service
*0001966 Page 1 of 2
900 132ND ST SW EVERETT WA 98204-0000 S EP 2 2 200pilling Date: September 13,2005
8498 3400 JX RP 13 09142005 NNYNNN Account Number: 8498 34 005 0023946
#BWNJJQR RECEIVED How to reach us...
#1501659949976059# ;`. CITY CLERK'S OFFIGIDR CUSTOMER SERVICE
CITY OF RENTON CALL'1 877-824-2288
CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR TTY 1-888-824-8535
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY '
RENTON WA 98055-3232 For Service At...
RENTON WA 98055-2175
Summary of Charges Billed from 09/25/05-10/24/05
Previous Balance $0.00
Please see following pages for account details Payment Received 0.00
Zero Balance $0.00
News from Comcast --- ..__
To better serve you,the customer service number for Business accounts is 1-888-824-8520.
Comcast's 24-Hour Business Repair number is 1-888-824-8533.
We are making it easier and more convenient to do business with us. Watch your mail next
month for our redesigned monthly statement-we've made it easier to find key information,
easier to read and easier to understand. Thank you for choosing Comcast.
I Uri Comcast Workplace-Business Class. New speeds up to 7.0 Mbps,Static IP. Call
1-888-824-8520 today to order for your business or home office. (not available in all areas)
Pay Your Bill Online via credit card or bank account;view&print statements; update account
information;set up recurring automatic payment of future bills. Fast, Easy, FREE and
Secure! Sign up for Online Bill Pay at www.comcast.com/payonline.
Visit us on the web at www.comcast.com
Payment Coupon Billing Date: September 13,2005
Please detach and enclose this portion with your Account Number: 8498 34 005 0023946
payment. Please do not send cash. Make Name: CITY OF RENTON
checks payable to COMCAST. CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY
RENTON WA 98055-3232
Zero Balance $0.00
Amount Enclosed $
COMCAST
PO BOX 34696
SEATTLE WA 98124-1696
849834005002394600000000
comcast®
Page 2 of 2
Service Charges Detail
Important Account Information
ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$3.00 ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE.
Your Franchise Authority's Name and Address Is:City of Renton,200 Mill Ave S,Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0066. Please Do Not
Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority.
Hearing / Speech Impaired
Call 711 for Customer Service
MOVING? Call 1-888-COMCAST
Sc040036
Page 1 of 1
Debbie Evans - Fwd: Ordinance 4412 - Comcast Franchise
From: Debbie Evans
To: bduggan@campbellbohn.com
Date: 10/7/2005 11:28 AM
Subject: Fwd: Ordinance 4412 - Comcast Franchise
Bridget,
I received your check today for the copy and postage to send Ordinance 4412 to your Denver office. This will go
out via Priority Mail this evening. Thank you.
Debbie Evans
City Clerk Division
425-430-6513
>>> Debbie Evans 10/05/05 10:29 AM >>>
Bridget,
The charge for sending Ordinance 4412 to you will depend on the type of mail service that you desire, as listed
below. You can identify your preference when you send your check to us for payment of the copies and the
mailing. The check needs to be payable to the CITY OF RENTON. Thank you.
Copy Charge: $3.15 (21 pages x .15)
US Mail Options:
Express Mail $13.65
Priority Mail $3.85
First-Class Mail $0.83
Our mailing address is:
City of Renton
City Clerk's Office
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Debbie Evans
City Clerk Division
425-430-6513
file://C:\Documents and Settings\devans\Local Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 10/7/2005
rim I c S v v c`vrc CALL 1-800-222-1811 FOR PICKUP OF ALL YOUR PACKAGES
®®Tire Tfranj° aa,tf 2LB.POSTAGE RATE REGARDLESS OF WEIGHT Para recoleccion o localizacion,Flame al 1-800-222-1811
DOMESTIC USE ONLY
\, SOBRE DE TARIFA UNICA
\ TARIFA DE FRANQUEO DE 2 LIBRAS SIN CONSIDERAR PESO
\ USO NACIONAL UNICAMENTE
v ,
44 :PRIORITY
e _
N ; , a 2►a PRIORITY MAIL POSTAGER
'O _ _ ° DOMESTIC USE ONLY
• MAIL., • - - _.. _
3
• IiEQUIERE FRANOUEO PARR CO
t _ :UNITED STLITESPOSTA- LSERVICE®_ - = - - www,usps corn `PRIORtTYMAIL"DE2LIBRAS
-. _ ..- _ - •- _ --- t. -- USO NACIONAL UNICAMENTE
z
co
to
HOW TES USE:
- COMO USAR: _ _ = .
1.COMPLETE ADDRESS LABEL AREA •
Type or print required return address and PRIORITY -
.
� . MAIL- ,- , _` � addressee information.
UNITEDSTAT.ESPQST, LSERVICE WWW.USpS..CAIII
ESCRIBALADIRECCIONENEL ==_ _- --__---- -•_ _- " 'Y •.
AREA INDICADA
Escriba en tetras de Imprenta la direccian From: City of Renton
delremitenteyladeldestinatario. City Clerk's Office
1055 S Grady Way
2.PAYMENT METHOD Renton WA 98055
Affix postage,meter strip or PC postage
label to area indicated in upper
Iright hand comer.
TO: Campbell Bohn Killin Brittan & Ray, LLC
FORMADEPAGO Attn: Bridget Duggan
En el area superior del lado derecho, 270 St. Paul Street
coloque sello postal,franja de maquina Suite 200
franqueadora o etiqueta de franqueo Denver, CO 80206
impreso por computadora.
O
3.ATTACH LABEL(If provided) L ,August2000
C Remove label backing and adhere 1
to
where indicated. L
co ani ADHIERA ETIQUETA(Si leJie fue provista) The efficient FLAT RATE ENVELOPE. You don't have to weigh the envelope...just pack all your correspondence
Remueva la pane posterior y adhfera and documents inside and pay only the 2 lb.Priority Mail postage rate. We Deliver.
sobre la zone de direccion indicada.
El eficiente SOBRE DE TARIFA UNICA. No tiene que pesar este sobre...simplemente coloque toda su correspondence
documentos adentro y pague solo la tarifa de fraqueo nor correo Priority Mail de 2 fibres_Le ServimnR_
CAMPBELL BOHN KILLIN
BRITTAN&RAY, LLC
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DENVER TECH CENTER
270 ST.PAUL STREET
Direct Line(303)394-7212 SUITE 200 4725 S.MONACO STREET
bduggan@campbellbohn.com DENVER,COLORADO 80206 SUITE 210
DENVER,COLORADO 80237
(303)322-3400
FAX(303)322-5800 FAX(303)770-4838
CITY OF RENTON
October 5, 2005 OCT 0 7 2005
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
, City of Renton
City Clerk's Office
Attn: Debbie Evans
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Re: Document Request
Dear Ms. Evans:
I would like to request a copy of Ordinance 4412 by mail. I understand the
charge for obtaining the franchise agreement will be $3.15 for the copy and $3.85 for
priority mailing. I am enclosing a check in the amount of$7.00.
If you need any additional information, my direct line is (303) 394-7212. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Bridg Duggan
Paralegal
/bkd
Enclosure
( orncast. Comcast Cable Communications,Inc.
4020 Auburn Way N
Auburn,WA 98002
Tel:253.288.7450
October 14, 2005 Fax:253.288.7500
CITY OF RENTON
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7 AA.)
OCT 1,4' 2005
Bonnie Walton CITY CLERKS OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
Subject: FRANCHISE RENEWAL
Dear Ms. Walton:
We at Comcast appreciate the opportunity to serve the citizens of Renton. It is our credo that
we will be the company to look to first for the communications products and services that
connect people to what's important in their lives. In living our credo, we look forward to
providing broadband services to our customers in Renton for many years to come. Therefore,
we are taking this step to ensure the renewal of our franchise with you.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("the 1984 Cable Act")encourages franchisors
and cable operators to reach renewal agreements at any time through an informal process of
discussion. However, Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act also provides for commencement of a
formal renewal procedure. To preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure, this letter
is our official notice to you invoking that provision.
This letter is not intended to introduce a new formality into our discussions, nor is that the
intention of the 1984 Cable Act. In fact, we prefer to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement
through informal negotiations, thus making many of the 1984 Cable Act's formal procedures
unnecessary.
I will be happy to discuss this matter with you, or provide any additional information that you
may require. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future and to continuing a
relationship that, we believe, benefits both the community and the residents of Renton.
Sincerely,
f
Terry Davis
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
cc: , Brad Dusto, Mountain Division President
Deborah Luppold,Mountain Division Vice President of Government Affairs
Sheila Willard, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
om ca st® Comcast Cable Communications,Inc.
"`/// 4020 Auburn Way N
• Auburn,WA 98002
Tel:253.288.7450
October 14, 2005 Fax:253.288.7500
CITY OF RENTON
CERTIFIED MAIL—RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 7 i V
OCT 1,4' 2005
Bonnie Walton CEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Subject: FRANCHISE RENEWAL
Dear Ms. Walton:
We at Comcast appreciate the opportunity to serve the citizens.of Renton. It is our credo that
we will be the company to look to first for the communications products and services that
connect people to what's important in their lives. In living our credo, we look forward to
providing broadband services to our customers in Renton for many years to come. Therefore,
we are taking this step to ensure the renewal of our franchise with you.
The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ("the 1984 Cable Act") encourages franchisors
and cable operators to reach renewal agreements at any time through an informal process of
discussion. However, Section 626 of the 1984 Cable Act also provides for commencement of a
formal renewal procedure. To preserve our statutory rights to this formal procedure,this letter
is our official notice to you invoking that provision.
This letter is not intended to introduce a new formality into our discussions, nor is that the
intention of the 1984 Cable Act. In fact, we prefer to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement
through informal negotiations, thus making many of the 1984 Cable Act's formal procedures
unnecessary.
I will be happy to discuss this matter with you, or provide any additional information that you
may require. I look forward to meeting with you in the near future and to continuing a
relationship that, we believe, benefits both the community and the residents of Renton.
Sincerely,
7-
Terry Davis
Director, Franchising and Government Affairs
cc: Brad Dusto, Mountain Division President
Deborah Luppold, Mountain Division Vice President of Government Affairs
Sheila Willard, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs
( omcast
® October 13,2005 .41
Statement of Service
00021703 Account no. �--- sVindicates
rvices youthe
bscribe to
900 132ND ST SW EVERETT WA 98204-0000 8498 34 005 0023946
8498 3400 JW RP 13 10142005 YNNYNN
#BWNJJQR City of Renton
#1501659949976059#
CITY OF RENTON Ccintact us
CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR online at www.comcast.com/support
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY CITY OF RENTON
RENTON WA 98055-3232 FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE
lllnlnlllnnllullnrllu�lllnllu�l�lrl�lnl�lu�llrl CALL 1-877-824-2288 OCT a 2005
TTY 1-888-824-8535
For service at RECEIVED
Demand more at Comcast 200 Mill Ave S CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Renton WA 98055-2175
To better serve you, the customer service number for
Business accounts is 1-888-824-8520. Comcast's 24-Hour Summary See the back for details
Business Repair number is 1-888-824-8533.
Previous balance $0.00
,■ It Comcast Workplace - Business Class. New speeds up to 7.0 Payments received 0.00
Mbps, Static IP. Call 1-888-824-8520 today to order for
your business or home office. (not available in all areas)
No payment due $0.00
RECEIVED
OCT 19 2005
City of Renton
Accounts Payable
October 13,2005 Acct no.8498 34 005 0023946
Payment options
CITY OF RENTON
PayDlrectI'" Visit www.comcast.com/payonline or call CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR
1-800-COMCAST any time to set up payments 1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY
directly from your bank account or credit card. RENTON WA 98055-3232
Check Detach this coupon and send it together with your
check made payable to Comcast in the enclosed No payment due $0.00
envelope.Write your account number on your check.
Amount you are enclosing: $
Comcast. P.O.COMCAST
BOX 34744
SEATTLE WA 98124-1744
IIituIuluullulilllullnlllnlllluIiInliInIiInInI.II
849834005002394600000000
October 13,2005 page 2 of 2
CITY OF RENTON
Account no. 8498 34 005 0023946
Charge details
Previous balance $0.00
No payment due $0.00
Important Account Information
ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$3.00
ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE.
Your Franchise Authority's Name and Address Is: City of Renton,200 Mill Ave S, Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0068. Please
Do Not Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority.
Hearing / Speech Impaired
Call 711 for Customer Service
MOVING? Call 1-888-COMCAST
scB50001
omcast. Statement of Service
Page 1 of 2
900132ND ST SW EVERETT WA Billing Date: September 13,2004
98204 84983400JX7 13 0001348 Account Number:8498 34 005 0023946
#BWNJJQR How to reach us ....
#1501659949976059# FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE
CITY OF RENTON CALL 1-877-824-2288
CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR TTY 1-888-824-8535
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY
RENTON WA 98055-3232 For Service At....
200 MILL AVE S
RENTON WA 98055-2175
Account Summary Previous Balance $0.00
Payment(s) .00
Monthly Charge(s) .00
Please see reverse side for account details. Zero Balance $0.00
For Your Information -
Comcast announces Workplace High-Speed Internet for Business! Make your business
more productive with download speeds up to 5.0 mbps!Call 1-888-824-8520 and sign up
today.Not available in all areas.
To better serve you,the customer service number for Business accounts is 1-888-824-8520.
Comcast's 24-Hour Business Repair number is 1-888-824-8533.
Pay Your Bill Online via credit card or bank account;view&print statements;update account
information;set up recurring automatic payment of future bills. Fast, Easy, FREE and
Secure!Sign up for Online Bill Pay at www.comcast.com/payonline. _
Visit us on the web at www.comcast.com
Billing Date: September 13,2004
Payment Coupon
Account Number: 8498 34 005 0023946
Please detach and enclose this portion with your
payment. Please do not send cash. Make Name: CITY OF RENTON
checks payable to COMCAST. CITY CLERK DIV.7TH FLOOR
1055 SOUTH GRADY WAY
RENTON WA 98055-3232
Check here if new billing address.
Note changes on reverse side. Balance Due $0.00
Amount Enclosed $
•
COMCAST
PO BOX 173885
DENVER CO 80217-3885
IIu.Iullunnlulu,ulllunlnlliluulilnluilililnlnlulululul
849834005002394600000000
@omcast.
Page 2 of 2
Important Account Information
ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$3.00 ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE.
Your Franchise Authority's Name And Address Is:City Of Renton,200 Mill Ave S,Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0068.Please Do
Not Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority.
MOVING?
NEW BILLING ADDRESS Please print only new billing information below and check the line
on the reverse side. Thank you.
New Address •
City— State Zip
Work Phone ( ) Home Phone ( )
scb20002
i i^t'` }w
"TcY,';`cc;.�t :#,•Zt:i�':�S•�#:"�sitirkft�':'z:;c,.=%o�'t'Ly"Tti;"'°v.�?X,> y` xr�,F_�.c:�t�k;ay�,;,�
',p " ,.,t r:: 4 ; .'; ,.;:.,< , November 4,2005
ui-17 '
"Y'-'_:,.L- .:`. i 'i t � , sty}` }"' a �', z, b':'7'n:.i f{;,
_< -,,,.�'>.� r,; . E :.;-,-` ,� 4.a. '_,. 1:1,43•Nii; .,.Inks t teraaent of Service Pi„...-:;:,z4'?";i::=Gr. .�-'.*:'�_r�;y ��: �.,•s"ri+E�,.`�- ,-vv:aii>::-ar.. rt; "`xz,•'.- ":�Zc'ii;.ip-':rs:^a::i::� ._.�..£=.t"?;rt,- � \.�
',.,,. a;:e "-.w:;. „e.-» v., ; q;c :::• _>r.--".y..yg:. ..rZ3Y4a '';r::.c"<,',.t"E,;'.:_ .>n.�_ 'ram':_..,,,•.,3i:r3;rtW5^,.,,... L! ❑ ❑
8- s r--.>..,.< .::trt..r - 1"•r r 'r"=.r '.'y,.,-,,.='e ?5:;r '•'r`.u:��. - .�sr4't b .. z_ �<r ,;rVindicates
rff�;=rY.�7,;,:, ;.��>.�.-� ,.=z.�: - thr.Camcast
d._ , ., Y°�.w,.ts.T�s�, --q,`:•:n,: ,t`.�� -.ci,.((,,r*S'; -'�r r-s_ "ft:t�",:: f,,...,sc:. ,}<^'3,:ta�3•s'4:.'�:
sti��, l,�s,. �� �, i't£r.":Y`:-r C.�`i 'M.i�':7:."t.. ��1;` �-: _ �S'N' .:�,•�
;LeM.° ::s} an;:z3:o4,:y"". ,.-z, 7z.4 " .4...A 'a. :-siA''s C ',1 n s=s. °,".e services ousubscrlheto
�..z;., .u .� r,....�..-}.. 'rvrn 3€,..- �.: �'�s.14.CQW�'tltnp.�..
;ti'i -3;"• '- 1 fir.-=a:stf, t-:j�'•
"•,f4.. �,:4%F :S ,a•> yw s-Ur';1}c_ 'Y:?'xi�L':. .,t",a .>�:..sd. "`'a:.. ;.y '4,.�,.<':ir7i;. Y
9b ,732ND;' �[�S$it- E.E'Gti�IVA': 82C4�Ob0 ram-^-:- •.y�. -ss�'+_�:%..>�,�°� ;2�_•.
'`��Fs..).. ..'1Y'..: ,2„;tsiix« =,t.-�.v. t,�7' �'4.e v.�['�i'{.n..:d:.:-y.,,;.;4_,ag4<i'rt u-';,��-c�,b �q.^-a.
�"<`e:;. .'lam' �1:1n..�4 51!13r1j1htYr;.>,; ry';e=�F < - _�".a; "-u r
.<}� _ .J.s Sr; `"�%.t<> -- ..:.r.=;z3,.w.:x .�'v�;. ;;zc, S;A,?c.>-;,-_. ,..'}' H 4x .r�t'r`'•}�=.i=�"'itn
.{i'•e t:i �s' ti. °Yevs, `� ¢-.{ 'v';' .,$.;° :v r - ..;4i; ...7r.,: :,.,
.i'1: lr£r.`�.•y}S`�F!%eS�%. .e1. .4:.`?�`� :t.' :Y:::� `%x: �'?.F� .:f`_'c&tom<:3 jr1'a:.Cf"'aµ�+.,s. - g
t. ,c32s ili - •,42. ;Y, t. . �3a- - _ - - w,-. .ram,.-
ik=: c�;.s. y :t3;;;.�,.. .''.'�.,. -z,. ::?- - ,:t'c, +,.r-'^c. '' e'a;. '.iy-;.`'.r �.v -�.,�..n,:�. ^a`t�-' tr.>.Y.� ..3._ -..•rr...s'�' �-��x,S �:P.,r,.c ,5;{:_ .7. :.z.F' .:r � ''^��'"' .F`�:�.�aar'i:z'r as
s::ti:r`,',":' a° . ::': °"111-. :c",:,:,.. .• a;..t-.. 9,.�54., 1:0 -''T"a
'4-Y- ,s .s7::�.IS=^'.,- - :,,YY;S - _ 7.M:.cy4;. `N}. 1}}.-, '3.::c..
'S.• .�<, .:�, `' .:i`�^ .,�'_. e°"r, .._. -.�-�<;v�z'-'tS; -:?t,?fi. :.•Sv�;e,n �:�,•-,rt,>.,,.. .+a;..
p- . _ , .4.: �';� `< •° .�. :,r« _..R <,y,., :r f,,,- - :v:r�;,.r.,,.',t;.ttt._. 'S41':�a-"''ttt?'.1.:,✓:4 ":..
a:Er - n. :%::SZ?::-$:;;, -e'."';'t'' <^:Sr: - - .:F, }„• -1,''i^ .us ,,-s_x.,..- tza
^.s,':r' - _ �6. <R rzet '-;;i'�t Win.. [
r€x Yac' y x- - ,C:O t`ACtEt,;' '1.e..,-„, ,t ,„- ,: ,.
fir, �, ^ tr
r
••.Su i.SS:?, i!-=i.:- ;7' .lv� .vT'»Y.3...i` L '.M1'=�i`i.-.� '.T., _ ,'+n - ra3i..ny:�r'�', :J":J �.:. -}�,.`.+'>:vR.-s.=. .�?«.i«, °rt:':,-}%:S r.Y:v %,.Z7 •�2. ^^'F• - ';'t`: ,".�•.i,...a _ x�.:>xR`:'J�.1*..:.- .f,,,.
«::g��_= 'i. �com a t:c8"..1-su o �x.<. ,.,
- a vtr_ c .� m.. r w. :,
>;r: '�7 rr:. - - � -�S;x,av':"s.'>'�};:-.,_.t•.' - 'r';�..yr-:i:- .., ;4i::a.,_.: .e '.l'-. _.,3�.,,t..a, Y7ry ,-•a�:.�s��-"trsii
,r,. ;t`, ik;;'.;:•:f'A .;sr�.J -r ..,-�>': N�'" n. ..,Y:q'r'''cam,,,.sn'. A
$, .�'3 �7'r. :c}. +.. .+�r' `1'� •.i'% ::'4..;::, ;'a;N'w'�' s a:> t,.;., �r;V
�'�. may.. ...>,<�, -.d�' " 'T
' v
,
'F
s,.'w ,ram:i�... ._,
.._..,•:..a:+ ,....? �.-.a.T a,>:".+er. ^.:f'.fii^'E.'!-,fir -'tA .Fir ..,:.�r },...r:in,:: '.a.....s:.t. ;�.s.:f,,_f3.,,..:?,,.bs .....,•. z. ,,.'��., -',ter'- F.-'-:X:M1y c'�.'s.. `S^�.P,. ..i'r:P:r.3 = .,,_... .�-�-.._F;<'..:...,..-x.^.-. .,.....vt-,..,•. . ...r;x`..rr':Caxr - i>
9`R `TOM�-1��5.��V10E�.'�.. 'tip:.. -w..
�.:.,..,. ..x:,.k:..F.;.W:„ .?a .. ;,c! ..:.:..:..:....�'' .,..�: ,i „r�' 21'13:"7�z'�`�'z, s 3,,.-.Y'SrT'r.- w:X` "!t r„„n»fit:,..'.:f;�:�_-
Y
- 't.[�°q�:
A'Z,
99 xT'
Y-'fn 3..
i,,F,,,Sg
r
�1r. �1{`11����� I'�1
f-.t.. ,r��r
ICI =���='; , .' ., ,.EA' ��:,•
:4:i .� .1,., r.,w;<, raj.�';:::�`'E.�.�Fqy-a
.x:
_ mil^ ,:��;:
r
km�=.<- - - '-i."'' ,:.t`.� _ z ra'=r::,.,._ s=,t<<;C?,,.,, v^.rr.,- r:._.,'':".. a. ..�:-.,.-;;..x,.a. .r..,.,x,'�r..e�.{. -:'fls� �`z S''s". i::v"" - ,'tom';',a:,.;�,,,:� N..» ?ic'.:r' _�:.
� ado
rx, v ar r�- ,.:�.` 3: ;5 c. ::i.:.:c` w7��;.Stx:..s...s.:`;�:i"i:.?r'.�':a=°r:rk--;-�
'e r„
.. a". _;its....-_:_ ,-r''�
Fes-{> , .w..!; .. .... i.s_. �,:.. .... :° .....^...... .... .nt-�.�.1.... - fi^�:5=� :%i.. - —
.�� TrYt=i3aa=s :g5 5.
z4 s
.. - r .,,..r: . .- ,...yt ,...: .. .. ,... =.;-:'�':..:,-...v :.. ., `>::{ '_t ';:>�. :;y;r`:. .>.-a,-� .��:ivr.r�i•'4•"r - :ice
.max... `s: .s...> -,"�-
.e 4. .s ai"i i-
- �
e;te; ,k;�
HY:yr ° .,t..,
het
Sj+' - .�'f''N
-
4`-9-i 'ii .,:. - - Jam-:
c<t,''r
:v`r
arid., a n>i*east=; ,, t �'
n r d_"
"A-.T O T $NTI 1�':=0 'LIN �.-ilIl;N `PAY .S'�'I2S` le note q'` '`; >-
� t' eV `i :o�add-ess`o
Yk•'
m a z�•'a�#s: i s `c"k a li'i"�i'r cn a d`F='
- t>a
y _
s: -
tiftl]at'-' S"e:t -
U e h'•='ba" �o�.a1e{a"Is-'`
' � rf�r1,..: is. -•..." ,_�.. .'..� _
-.<Xou_-tYta- need to.u date our,online•bill. a;er•.;itifiiriiifiti�nl-:,' ::.i'"'�':;"'-'
Y, P Y p Y
. Thank..you::.:• .- ;Pr'evious:balance.. $48 75..,'.
'' Payments.received: 48.75
r• •Comcast Workplace - Business Class: New speeds' up' to 7 0'_ ' Cable Video:'. • 42i9
9
�' Mbps, Static IP: Call 1-8.88-824-8520 today to order.for'
_. . _ - ... ..._.w- . ..._ .,__.-.....-- Taxes,-surcharges,and lees: . _ 5.76
your business or home office. (not available in all areas)
Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
v
•
•
•
November 4,2005 Acct no.
Payment options
PayDlrectT" Visit www.conmeast.com/payonline or call
1-800-COMCAS"T any time to set up payments
directly from your bank account or credit card.
Check Detach this coupon and send it together with your
check made payable to Cocast'ett the enclosed Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
m
• envelope.Write your account number on your check. Amount you are enclosing: $
co m cast COM CAST
P.O.BOX 34744
SEATTLE WA 98124-1744
Ii.Iniuinniinitlliiiilniilluiiini,iniiini,I.iI,iIiII
849834005075464900048751
November 4,.2005 page 2 of 2
Account
Charge details
Previous balance $48.75
10/19 Payment-Thank You -48.75
v Cable Video $42.99
11/13 - 12/12 Basic Cable Includes 42.99 E
(Limited Cable$12.48 and Expanded / > Te O" re u(res 1t
Cable$30.51)
Cable Video monthly charges $42.99 aided , _so
Taxes,surcharges and fees $5.76
Cable Video
Franchise Fees 2.59
Local Taxes 3.11
FCC Regulatory Fee 0.06
Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
Important Account Information
ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$3.00
ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE.
Your Franchise Authority's Name and Address Is:City of Renton,200 Mill Ave S,Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0068. Please
Do Not Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority.
Hearin Y o`Y ,'.$ Impaired
410&Call 711 for Customer Service
MOVING? Call 1-888-COMCAST
sc85000,
o e be 2005- Nv m r4
- Pe \1
kY r.
-y
: : `cast®:. _
�c m
.
-"=��'.`u: �-47�`Statement of Service
Er El 0
_ ,t.0000721 �• ,-i'�`'• - Vindicates theCnmcast
CCO
services you subscribe to
>:;900:132ND ST sW 0E00?WAC^n'9204-0000;'"<
11D 0 '.-'VN y-"` -=
t :.
H _
,. am..:. " ., _. .,..," .' .w
l s...
-Co "t "C n a t.us
i- - t.:inr o I n e` tivw o'rri"- t ;�" :rt,
:`': n c cas com sti 'o
E ".O WA-•98055>362 ..-
a
Pp..
R N 7 ,.
.C"
1{
`F,. CUS, OMER'SE C R T RVI E.
'=.Ii.I�uIiiIilliiii iInIiIiuIIuiIIi,nlulluiIII,nunlliluII :.:CALL 1-877-824-2288,: .'`,:- .",__,: I ,, r:, ......:: —
TTY.1-888-824-8535. —
"Demand more at Comcast:; ., -,.
ATTENTION. ON'LINE'•"BILL"PAYER USERS!• Please note ,.,; ' •
-
" ' that the remit-to addresson your statements has changed.. Summary See the backfordetails '
-You may"need to update your. online bill-payer information!
Thank you. Previous balance $48.75 "
Payments received ' -48.75
Ir •
• Comcast"Workplace - Business Class. New speeds up to 7.0 Cable Video . 42.99
Mbps Static IP. Call 1-888-824-8520 today to order for
�� — your business or home office. (not available in all areas)
- Taxes;surcharges,and fees _ . . 5.76
-W 7 ,
Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
(,-)/(4A--
_
November 4,2005 Acct no.1111111111411......1
Payment options
PayDlrect"" Visit www.comcast.com/payonline or call
1-800-COMCAST any time to set up payments
directly from your bank account or credit card.
Check Detach this coupon and send it together with your
check made payable to Conrcastrin the enclosed Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
envelope.Write your account number on your check.
Amount you are enclosing: $
@Omcast. COM CAST
P.O.BOX 34744
SEATTLE WA 98124-1744
i1rinini.nriinlriri,,iariiinririairinirinirininirii
•
849834005075464900048751
November 4,2005 page 2 of 2
Account n
Charge detailsm5 ,
Previous balance $48.75
10/19 Payment-Thank You -48.75Ig
Cable Video $42.99
11/13 - 12/12 Basic Cable Includes 42.99 �,
(Limited Cable$12.48 and Expanded �/. � �� � P,4� �
Cable$30.51)
Cable Video monthly charges $42.99 elac r r
Taxes,surcharges and fees $5.76
Cable Video
Franchise Fees 2.59
Local Taxes 3.11
FCC Regulatory Fee 0.06
Total due by 12/1/05 $48.75
Important Account Information
ALL DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS ARE SUBJECT TO A$3.00
ADMINISTRATIVE LATE FEE.
Your Franchise Authority's Name and Address Is:City of Renton,200 Mill Ave S,Renton,WA 98055. Your FCC Community Unity Is: WA0068. Please
Do Not Mail Payments To Your Franchise Authority.
,f
Hearink o - °° $ F Impaired
Call 711 for Customer Service
MOVING? Call 1-888-COMCAST
sc8S0001
* P1 ewal
13
•
From: "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 9/15/2005 1:08:16 PM
Subject: FW: Contract
Hi Bonnie,
Thanks for forwarding the contract to us. We are looking forward to
getting started. Here are our initial comments on the latest draft.
Please call or e-mail me with any questions.
Mike
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:19 PM
To: Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Contract
Tracy:
Upper City management is still reviewing the contract as attached, but I
wanted to get a copy to you finally so you can start your review as
well. Renton City Council has not yet reviewed or approved it either.
Sorry it has taken this long to get the draft to you. Let me know as
soon as you have completed your review, and/or if you have any
questions.
Bonnie Walton
. City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as"City" and Bradley&and Guzzetta, LLC,hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A", `B", "C", and
«D„
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B"and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits"A", `B", "C", and"D".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
9-15-05 1
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services, unless before the Consultant commences such performance, the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc., Thomas G. Robi so , Constance Book, Ph.D and Front I
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully qn the Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC '�
proposal dated April 14, 2005, and Exhibit"D"attached herewith, are approved sub-
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals, their business names, if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provisionSof this Contract and its
0exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director and will to
have supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a her designated representative of Consultant will be I
assigned as the project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-
to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager(as defined below). I
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
9-15-05 2
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will notl!b?i�made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its ` isultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and
subcontractors deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services.
All employees and subcontractors of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or subcontractor of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract, provided, however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its subcontractors, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1,Tthe Consultant maywill perform at
its hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any
and all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as
may be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
9-15-O5 3
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
a y aut onzed or reasonably require •
3.11.$ Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
3 subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performt e CQnsultant
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, T ° �
on, ity
wil represent the City for all
purposes under this contract.
' e ss, ad
e ,
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit
al t'a the Consultant a fee
not to exceed One Hundred Fift , .
The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordan e witl1 the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit"D",
on a time • , up to the maximum amount set forth in this
contract. The •
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
9-15-05 4
A6Ayb156401 1�O1�S
Payment-ef the Services will be ' " ts-baseAl,aa actual �,ti�
services rendered, y it''" '
, wi.thi thirty( ?" �"
days of submission, o such requests i a sc u e en is of
D�
specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all 0
reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation, reports which
have been approved by the project manager. se ou o' by4 ,V1
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared, maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3) years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9-15-05 5
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work, including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number);
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance (ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact b-c
in ce business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the Su
Consultant r tained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in-full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination'Suspension of Contract or Services
9-15-05 6
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whgle or in • . or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving'' • 5 All (.'4 days' prior written
notice thereof to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the
consultant of any completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the
consultant will immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. cM
-1-141In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by the
City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will be paid for all services Dr
rendered and previously agreed upon by the City.ieeeive-sempensatien-as-fellewsi
�-�
a ��
11.4.211.3.1 0
1s r
11.511.4 Upon such suspension or termination, the onsultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed, prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants, or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
9-15-05 7
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley Tracy J. Schaefer, Project
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
bradleysc raefer( bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color,national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
9-15-05 8
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States l�
District Court for the Western District of Washington. \ 1Jt
C
eennee
tie wits, that action
16.516.4 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties
and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or
oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed
by the parties.
4-6,616.5 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to,
and will bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and
consultants, as the case may be, of the parties.
16.716.6 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this
contract or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions
of this contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.816.7 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices,
attachments, and schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly
executed amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and
will be deemed to be a part of this contract.
4-6,91.6.8 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which
will be an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same
instrument.
016.9 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that
protects and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications.
The Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.1116.10 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget.
This contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for ion e�
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. Thi ection 16.13 ill
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term, con ition, or
9-15-05 9
provision of this contract; provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, OwnerPresident
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Ownerlaresident of
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
9-15-05 10
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
9-15-05 11
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• - Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-15-05 12
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-15-05 13
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programming, reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-15-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3 —6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings— 1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input, including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-15-05 15
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-15-05 16
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G&
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q - 2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q - 4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q - 4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-15-05 17
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-15-05 18
From: "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 11/1/2005 1 1:54:38 AM
Subject: RE: Franchise Administration
Thanks Bonnie. We'll start today!
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 12:52 PM
To: Michael R. Bradley
Subject: RE: Franchise Administration
Yes, I have checked with our Mayor's office as well, and can confirm
that it is okay to proceed and start our contract effective Nov. 1,
2005.
Thank you for proceeding with this work.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>> "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 11/01/05 7:42 AM
>>> >>>
Hi Bonnie-sorry for the unexpected delay in wrapping up our insurance
information. Hopefully we'll have everything to you by the end of the
week. I'd like to go ahead and start our work today. I just want to
make sure that it is OK with you that our contract starts on November 1,
2005, so we don't have any billing issues down the line. If you could
confirm that today, I will ask Tracy to start working later this
afternoon.
Mike Bradley
651-379-0900 ext 2
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 3:42 PM
To: Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Franchise Administration
Tracy,
Attached is the Senior Discount application form used by the City's
former cable consultant, as well as a list of contact persons with
Comcast.
I have recently received calls from several Renton citizens who want to
apply for cable discounts. Can you start to handle those now, even
though we are still awaiting final contract signatures because of the
insurance holdup?
I would really appreciate if you could start to handle these. Persons
who need to be contacted about cable discount applications are:
Harold Carlson -425-255-6400
Mr. Taylor-425-228-3764 (he may have been contacted, but not sure)
Glen Bors -425-793-4410 Sally Porter-425-235-7011 (206-498-2443
(cell) Marguerite Gibson -425-687-6596 Please note: Renton citizens
will always have a three or four digit house number. If you get a
request from a person who has a Renton address but they have a
five-digit house number, you know they are not within the Renton city
limits. They are within unincorporated King Co., so the citizen should
be referred to the County. This is important to know when handling
calls from citizens, as some folks think they live in Renton city limits
because they have a Renton postal address. The house number is the key
to tell the difference--four or less digits is true Renton,five digits
is unincorporated King Co.
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. I appreciate your
assistance.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CITY OF RENTON
. .v City Clerk
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
November 18,2005
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza.
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Re: Consultant Contract
Dear Mr. Bradley: .
Enclosed is a fully executed original of the Franchise Management&Renewal
Consulting Services Agreement between your company and the City of Renton. As
agreed,the contract is effective November 1, 2005. The City has also retained one
original contract.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
&itivu e G
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington,:CAO
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-651.0/.FAX(425)430-6516 RENTON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
:."- his paper contains50%recycledmateria1,30%post consumer
CAG-05-183
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Ist November
This agreement is entered into the., day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to
as"City" and Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC,hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose office
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza,444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul,MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas,the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services")as more fully described in Exhibit"A", `B", "C", and
«D„
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant,including its employees and sub-
consultants,in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants,terms,conditions, and provisions of this
Contract,the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance,the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits"A", `B"and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant,the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes &Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits"A", `B", "C", and"D".
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise Renewal
Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006),the City will give advance approval to
initiate each task before billable work on that task begins. Approval may be given by
the City Clerk/Cable Manager or by the Chief Administrative Officer(CAO)or his
designee,in writing by letter or e-mail,or orally. If approval is oral,both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to proceed.
9-29-05
1
2.3 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services,either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
Consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services,unless before the Consultant commences such performance,the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.4 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation,reports, surveys,and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications,Status,and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual,including any
sub-consultants,charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law,to perform the Services,and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc.,Thomas G. Robinson, Constance Book,Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully described in the Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC
proposal dated April 14, 2005, and Exhibit"D"attached herewith, are approved sub-
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals,their business names, if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform,,or cause to be
performed,the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the project director and will have supervisory responsibility for
the performance,progress, and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
subject to the prior written approval of the project manager(as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
9-29-05 2
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees,and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal,State of
Washington, and local laws,ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and sub-
consultants,if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances,regulations,orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager,in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey,and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants,if any, without the prior express written approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4)copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents,the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and sub-
consultants deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services. All
employees and sub-consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or sub-consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent,the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided,however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants,if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1, the Consultant may perform at its
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
9-29-05 3
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding,or proceeding of a court of record;
3.11.2 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.3 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit`B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,or his designee, and Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager,will represent the City for all purposes under this contract.
4.3 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, will review and approve, as necessary and in a timely manner the reports,
survey instruments and methods, and other documents, and each phase of work
performed by the Consultant.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit`B,"the City will pay the
Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($ 157,500.00). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit"D"
and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit, up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment for the Services will be based on quarterly invoices for actual services
rendered and will be paid by the City with thirty(30)days of receipt of the invoice.
The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports,
surveys, and other documents,including, without limitation,reports which have been
approved by the City.
9-29-05 4
Section 6. Accounting,Audits,Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared, maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3)years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City,irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect,indemnify,defend and hold harmless the City,its Council
members, officers,employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature,including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss,caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's,its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts,errors,or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term,condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term,condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work,including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage(provide the number);
9-29-05
5
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance(ACORD form)shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof,the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left"
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all sub-consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract,identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five(45)days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage,injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract,including
such damage,injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination or Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services,in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving sixty(60)days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant,or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice,the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30)days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
9-29-05
6
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City,the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment,together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and,if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant,the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. In the event of termination of this
contract or suspension of work on the Services by the City where the Consultant is not
in default,the Consultant will be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed
upon by the City. The total compensation payable under this contract will not exceed
the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination,the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants,or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore the Consultant will not
assign,transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given,in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516-fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
9-29-05
7
To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St.Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract,the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that,in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City;this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color,national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington,relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington,excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts,either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
9-29-05
8
16.6 The covenants, terms,conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to,and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a•manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect;any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City,its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a)at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.11 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term, condition, or
provision of this contract;provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC
iZter461 k02-ee.‘a
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, Owner
ATTEST:
`0 w GZi 4 1 Taxpayer ID NO: All- /q/ 6 2
Bonnie I.Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
ti,,,,....*.,.,,,„
A OF.:RC :
: :SEAS ..
9-29-05
App ed as to Form:
,
61.4.4"-^e.A.A...,,e7111.
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
' Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of Minnesota )
) ss.
County of Asnibsy )
On this 3 day of Oc4013Er ,2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owner of Bradley&
Guzzetta,LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
F4`{°r ' THOMAS C.PLUNKETT
~'..,, No Public-MMinnesota
,, __, _ �Y ignature of Notary Public
My Commirsien Expires Jan 31,2010
who resides in Minn eso 3/4:1/4
My Commission Expires: ?au Si o1O1 U
•
9-29-05
10
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management &Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection& Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled.Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic(or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public,Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks(I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements;and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-29-05
11
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-29-05
12
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and,if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates,or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen,educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use,and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-29-05
13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits,if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary,in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1—3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process,including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1—3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process,development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community,input and analyze results,identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1—3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1—3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input,including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1—2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations,including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-29-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-29-05 15
Exhibit"C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis&Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q-2006
Work Plan $1,560- B&G&
$2,340. CBG 1Q -2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G 1Q
-2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q- 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q-4Q-2007
Implementation $2,500- B&G
$8,000 4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360-
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q- 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-29-05 16
Exhibit"D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L.Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley &Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R.Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel,and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-29-05
17
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Tracy Schaefer
Date: 12/21/2005 8:22:07 AM
Subject: Fwd: Vendor Set Up Form
Tracy:
Did the attached get completed and submitted? If not, please do so asap. We need it filed in order to
complete payment of your company's billing.
Thank you.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Bonnie Walton 11/18/05 4:02 PM >>>
Tracy,
Please complete, print and mail or fax the attached vendor form so we get your company in our accounts
payable system.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CC: Michael Bradley
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Bonnie Walton"' <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 12/2/2005 2:25:53 PM
Subject: Contact Information
Bonnie,
Just to make sure that I get your emails, for the next 2 weeks could you
also please CC my personal email account:
tracycoenen@yahoo.com
Have a nice weekend,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
From: "Davis, Terry J" <Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com>
To: "Burch, Janice" <Janice_Burch@cable.comcast.com>, "Moseng, Trudy L"
<Trudy_Moseng@cable.comcast.com>, "Svensson, Ann" <Ann_Svensson@cable.comcast.com>
Date: 11/28/2005 12:39:56 PM
Subject: RE: Notice of New City Consultant/Representative
FYI concerning City's consultant change. Can you please update the any appropriate correspondence
lists with the new information? Thanks.
Terry Davis
Director Government Affairs/Franchising
Comcast--South East Puget Sound Area
4020 Auburn Way North
Auburn, WA 98002
Cell#253/261-1586
Desk#253/288-7496
Fax#253/288-7500
E-mail Address:Terry_Davis@cable.comcast.com
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 10:48 AM
To: Davis, Terry J
Subject: Notice of New City Consultant/Representative
Dear Mr. Davis:
For your records and for you to pass on to all other appropriate Comcast persons and departments,
provide the following information:
The City of Renton no longer contracts with Lynne Hurd of 3H Cable Communications Consultants,
therefore she should no longer be"cc'd" on any written communications from Comcast to the City of
Renton.
Instead, please immediately begin cc'ing the City of Renton's new contract cable television consultant as
follows with copy of all letters, reports, etc.:
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
c/o Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
Please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
CC: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
CITY OF RENTON
Date: 8/9/05 AUG 1
7005
To: Bonnie Walton RECEIVED
G Y CLERK'S OFFICE
From: Linda Herzog
Re: Contract for Cable Management / Franchise Renewal Assistance
k
Here are my comments on B&G's scope proposal:
:: 11
Franchise Management Work —
The B&G proposal tracks pretty well with your RFP, except that they have taken #'
your items A, B, F, H and I out of the daily administration section, and put them in
the "franchise renewal" section.
Of course, we invited them to sort the tasks as they thought most appropriate,
but I want to be sure it meets with your expectations that those five items -- the
"Performance Analysis", the "Upgrade Evaluation", the "Compliance with the
Cable TV Consumer Protection (etc.) Act", the assessment of"Access Utilization" `'
and the determination about "Collection of Franchise Fees" -,will all be done only '`
once, and not continuously throughout the final three years of the current
franchise agreement. Further, when these five items moved over to the other
half of the contract, they were prices individually. This has the effect of doubling
or tripling the price of "franchise management" as the City initially envisioned that
work. (See additional comments on this below.)
In regard to those five tasks that have moved into the Franchise Renewal part of
the contract, each of them is projected to take 3-6 months (or 3-4 months for
Access Utilization) but it's not clear which of the 3-6 months during the 3-year run
of this contract. This is the point you were making yesterday — for the Franchise
Renewal Work, we will need at least a preliminary timeline, to be sure the
products and deliverables (e.g. reports) get to you in a time frame that allows you voted,
to responsibly oversee the current Comcast franchise.
B&G's charge for the ongoing management work is proposed at $2,000 per
month plus their out-of-pocket costs. (I presume the latter means phone calls, ,�
travel expenses, etc. But maybe it also means charges for the production of 1
reports. Do you know this detail?) By my rough calculation, the $2,000 per
month figure equates to about two days a week of an employee salaried at about
$24 per hour or $4,000 a month. Does this fit with your general expectation of
the level and the quantity of work involved in this day-to-day management
responsibility?
Franchise Renewal Process —
The Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation work is priced at $17-20,000.
If this work is thoroughly and carefully done, this seems like a reasonable price.
But I wonder how much "out-of-pocket cost" will be separately charged to the
city. The work described under Upgrade Evaluation seems quite extensive to
me. Do we know what they intend to do, how much of it is on-site inspection,
etc.? The other question, raised above, is whether the City is comfortable paying
$17-20,000 more, over the cost of the franchise management work as that was
originally estimated.
I'm not clear about the work described under "Compliance with the Consumer
Protection" laws. (My questions here stem from B&G's proposal to include this
task in the franchise renewal section of the contract, rather than the franchise
management section, as you had proposed in the RFP.) Both in the RFP and
here in the proposal, this task specifically deals with rates and charges to
customers. Does the rate analysis (and advice to the City) occur only if and
when Comcast requests a rate increase, or is this a review of past rate
applications, justifications and approvals by the City? If the latter, what are the
consequences of negative findings by the consultant? Does this just prepare
Renton to do a better job in the future, when rate increases are once again
proposed, or when the franchise renewal negotiations commence? Or will the
contractor recommend sanctions if"mis-behavior" is detected? Can sanctions be
applied for past actions, or is there a "statute of limitation" issue?
Since the Access Utilization and the Collection of Fees work is now in the
Franchise Renewal section, this work adds another$17-20,000 to the price you
were prepared to pay for franchise management. Does this make sense to you?
The Training and Evaluation work and all the remaining tasks are indisputably
"franchise renewal" related. The only one that I would question is the "Special
Presentation" to the Council. Off the top of my head, I would delete this item.
However, we should talk with Jay about this.
The two methods proposed for the citizen survey need discussion. Again, off the
top of my head, I would say that a mail survey will result in a higher ratio of
complaints to total respondents, than will a telephone survey. We need to talk
through the purpose of the survey, and the likelihood of bias in the results due to
methodology. The cost difference is substantial as well. According to B&G's
estimates, the phone survey would double or even triple the cost of this item.
(Note also that the city would need to pay for the costs of mailed-out survey
forms if we choose a mail survey with "voluntary" response.
The Comparative Studies item is not priced by the proposer. Is this because
their knowledge and understanding of the field is a factor in their hourly rate? Or
do they intend to charge separately for this comparison?
:2
Do we need the contractor to facilitate the public hearings? That is a roughly
$2,000 item.
As we briefly discussed, I don't understand the Financial Implications item
(bottom of page 3). What is the definition of"the remaining years of cable TV
effort"?
Of course, the Negotiations item is virtually impossible to price. We just need to
be prepared to pay the hourly rates of these experts, and trust that their expertise
will justify the cost of their help with franchise negotiations.
Optional Renewal Items —
Whether we choose to include the field training for city staff will depend on the
City's future plans for cable franchise management. We'll need to discuss this
with Jay.
See above for my comments on the survey methodology.
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton"<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/21/2005 11:34:01 AM
Subject: Scope of Service
Bonnie,
Here is the B&G scope of services. Please review and let me know if you
— need any additional information. With regard to the franchise
documents, I will review the code PDF file that you sent me and let you
know if I need additional electronic documents.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent:Thursday,July 21, 2005 1:05 PM
To:Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Re: Franchise Documents
Attached are three chapters from our City Code regarding cable utility
tax, cable systems &telecommunications regulations that you may want.
Other than the franchise agreement itself,which you have, I don't think
I currently have the other documents that I sent you in electronic form.
I could scan some if that would help. Which documents would you like?
Bonnie
>>>"Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>7/21/2005
8:35:13 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Thank you for the franchise documents. I was also wondering if you had
those documents electronically? With electronic searches, it saves a
lot of time, so we can get faster responses back to the City.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government (PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
1
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
2
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
3
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
4
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant
$17,000-
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $20,400 CBG
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200-
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 B&G&CBG
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc.
,120
Training and Evaluation $ ,850-
$585 B&G&CBG
560
Work Plan $ ,340-
$2 2,34 B&G&CBG
$1,560-
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays mailing $8,000-
costs) $11,200 CBG
$1,560-
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
$2,560-
Financial Implications $7,680 B&G
$6,270-
Negotiations $63,270 B&G
$2,500-
Implementation $8,000 B&G
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360-
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG
5
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
6
1,i-yv-7,29271k
474.70,-v-y-p -4-6„2.0w
A07, 7"
-=r1'1'706)
)(rey
7-kis
/ 216'
'�'s�ol1a� S
-
August 22, 2005
To: Linda Herzog
From: Bonnie Walton
Re: Cable Consultant Agreement& Scope of Services
In response to your memo of 8/9/05,regarding the Cable Consultant Scope of Services,I
provide the following response and information:
Franchise Management Services:
1. You asked whether moving of five items(regarding Performance Analysis,Upgrade
Evaluation, Compliance with the Cable Consumer Protect Act,Access Utilization and
Collection of Franchise Fees)from the Franchise Management category to the Franchise
Renewal category meets with my expectations of those items.
I discussed these items on the phone with Tracy Schaefer of B&G. She indicated that our
current services for these five items will continue as normal and that any reports we are
currently receiving from service on these items will be provided as "Other Reports"in
the B&G Franchise Management scope. The reason why they are now listed in the
Renewal Process category is because each of the five will be reviewed "in depth"as part
of the renewal process. Therefore there is no loss of service or doubling up of costs due
to movement of these five items from one category to the other.
2. You had agreed with me that a preliminary timeline for the Franchise Renewal process is
needed. That has been provided and is shown in Exhibit C".
3. You had questioned whether the"out-of-pocket costs" clude charges for the production
of reports. Section 3.6 of the contracture drafted indicates that the Consultant will
provide four copies of any reports B&G produces. MyOn intent here is that there would
be no extra copy charge for the four s provided Let me know if you think
that language..win s.da ,yvg),, sc
4. You asked if the$2,000 per month plus out-of-pocket costs meets my expectation of the
level and quantity of work involved in the day-today management responsibility. (Your
rough calculation indicated the$2000 per month figure equates to about two days a week
of an employee salaried at about$24 per hour or$4000 per month.)
Exhibit "C", Cost Detail, indicates that for Cable management/administration services,
there will be a flat fee of$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs. So, I believe there should
be no out-of-pocket expenses on top of the$2,000 per month, except possibly for
extraordinary travel expenses should we have an unusual techni lLrroblem. The flat
fee, in my opinion, should cover the cost of reports and phone under the
managementfe category. Regarding the level and quantity of work involved--that is
1
hard to judge. S me months I doubt the consultant will devote 64 hours exclusively to the
work of Rento Doing the annual rate review analysis each spring is pretty technical
and time-intense' owever. Also, the Consultant attends regional and national meetings
and keeps up on telecommunication law on an ongoing basis, which is to our benefit. So
in general, I think it is worth the$24,000 a year for the high intellect and caliber of
services we get. I view part of the$2000 as "real cost"and part asslinsurance,so to
speak or
IA OW"
Franchise Renewal Process: liffitoyu
5. You inquired about the cost of Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation work,how
much of the work is on-site,and if the City is comfortable paying up to $20,000 over the
cost of franchise management for this work
This work is to be performed by Tom Robinson of CBG, and most all of it, if not all, will
be performed in Renton and at the head-end we utilize. This is work that is specific to the
Franchise Renewal process. As far as I know, this type of work would not occur under
the normal management duties, unless Comcast was in the middle of nupgrade, like
they did a few years ago, or there was a problem, new equipmentltr some unusual
technical matter to address.
6. You asked for clarification of the work to be performed under"Compliance with
Consumer Protection Laws."
This is my understanding: The regular annual rate increase review would occur under
the cable management category and would be for the purpose of examining potential and
forthcoming rate increases. The work to be performed under Cable Renewal would be a
one-time review of past rate increases,justifications and approvals by the City. Negative
findings would provide leverage during negotiations, or, if substantial enough, could
open the door for the City to lawfully seek proposals from other cable firms, rather than
having to deal only with Comcast.
7. You asked if the Access Utilization and Collection of Fees work is a duplication and
added cost of what formerly was included under cable management.
Since the contract with Puget Sound Access went in place several years ago, there has
beenl real work done on the issue of Access Utilization. What is proposed now is an
in-depth review of the current PEG channel obligations and performance as part of the
renewal process, and, nalysis of future needs. Since the school district is now more
receptive to tapping into an educational channel, this is something I feel is worth
reviewing. Also, it will be good to have better clarification of how the UW channel fits in
the picture as far as current franchise obligations, since there does not seem to be
anything in writing about it. Lastly the Mayor's wish that the Renton channel be shown
in Renton's Potential Annex area of unincorporated King Co. could rightfully be
addressed in this task (z did so'Jte Wok an /074 15Wa he Ref Y '
execcses, so lievar 961 A54,44Nin age uia,or A-444420 �'d .k haul
6 4pow. tic%•)
2
Regarding Collection of Fees, it is true that the quarterly reports will be reviewed under
the Cable management category of the consultant contract. However, what is proposed
here, under Cable Renewal, is a mini-audit of the Franchise Fee calculations and
payments. This is the work that will be performed by Front Range Consulting. It is my
understanding that a good auditor like we are Og is very apt to find franchise fee
miscalculations, which1makes Comcast sit up and listen when discussed at the
negotiation table. !s 4 yur,149,1
8. You asked whether consultant services would be needed for the"Special Presentation"to
Council and that we should ask Jay. You also asked if the contractor would need to
facilitate the public hearings.
I personally think it would be best if B&G or CBG did present to Council4latticullitt4y on
&rut the Franchise Renewal matters, as the consultant would be t ost knowledgeable to
explain and answer quesons,particularly on technical s that could be hard for
any of the rest of usr( c "urse, i s ncil asks no questions, we will wonder why we
c
paid the Consultant forlliesel. .ut having the Consultant available is good
insurance, I think.
9. You comments regarding the method of doing a survey,mail vs.phone,are appreciated.
I, too,feel a phone survey would prove to be more accurate and meaningful. When I
called for references on B&G, a couple of their customers could not say enough good
things about the great survey work done by Dr. Booker, and how helpful the survey was
to them.
10. You commented about the Comparative Study that was moved from Cable Management
to Cable Renewal scope.
While the cable management side will continue to look at what is happening locally with
cable franchises, the renewal process, as Tracy Schaefer explained, will include more
regional and national comparisons. Apparently at negotiation time, B&G feels they will
be concentrating on the specific needs of and important issues for Renton and working
toward that end, rather than working tower something less important to Renton just
because the neighboring cities received s� i'Aethirrg. The Comparative Study is not priced
separately, but is part of the negotiations, I believe.
no youotc( aft j 4 pew' Gd ''Gam' r°Br'"'A
11. You asked about wording under Financial Implications indicating"the remaining years of
cable TV effort".
This task occurs right be ore negotiations. I believe it means B&G will prepare a
projected budget for th ears into the nextfranchise/or use during negotiations.
Regarding your notes and our conversation of 8/18/05:
3
a
1. You suggested I use the City's boilerplate for.the contract itself,rather than B&G's draft,
which they were reluctant to provide anyway knowing we would probably want to use
our own contract language.
Because our past cable consultant contract covered only cable management services, and l7
not cable renewal services, I ended up using a combination of sources, ' =-.
to draft the new contract. I did not use B&G's contract, but I did use
d.p.G 5 the scopeathey-pr ere'
2. You suggested that the contract stick to using two Scopes,one for Cable Management
and one for Cable Renewal. That has been done.
3. You suggested that the Cable Renewal scope be set up in two or more phases, so that the
City is not locked into all of the work in the event national legislation takes away our
rights and options regarding cable franchises.
I had trouble making the phasing separation and ro ding world so as an alternative I
have attempted to use language in the contract that would allow the City to opt out of the
contract at any time for any reason. Let me know if this wording has adequately
addressed your suggestion.
4. You asked what would be done during the 18 months between the end of B&G's scope
and time frame to the actual end of the current franchise agreement.
According to Tracy Schaefer there is nothing to prevent Comcast from negotiating early
and it could be in our best interests to do so. Should we be lucky enough to complete
negotiations 18 mo. ahead of the end of the current franchise, then we would be back to
just Cable Management work with B&G through the end of 2008.
5. You pointed out that it is not necessary to detail in the Renewal scope how B&G should
achieve the results we want,only what we want.
I agree and have scrapped the detailed scope I had drafted and went back to using the
scope provided by B&G, which does include\deliverables.
This concludes my responses. Please let me know if I missed anything or I can provide
additional information. ,4i dale* 4
A-6-ind (L / , 0
,, )t-i-, ,
0°(-)46j?frjf IAA'if Exhibit"A" [O,
42D D /, /A i , I
OPE OF SERVICES
-rda /R- 7;71itad DCV.1‘1/11;. /
\ si
Administration ,-
V '1�,
, Yk,..
• sultan s - •erform the following services in connection with Cable Television s 1(0 ? V
Franchise Management: ‘,14 1( 1s 1‘
g (\
A. Performance Analysis. The Consultant shall inspect and analyze the technical and r�', . 1,'
operational effectiveness of the City's present cable television franchise, and provide a \ ►report of such findings to the City upon determination by the consultant that non- , ' � �
compliance with the City Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist. VlV 1 n-�l"
(`5\ B. Upgrade Evaluation. The Consultant shall inspect and verify that all features proposed by v
ll�
6t-\v the cable operator and duly adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a
workmanlike manner on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type r ,A0\
.,„, ,,,
and quality of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
rogramming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the City. Pi Vlj
C. Consumer Protection and Complaints. The Consultant shall assume responsibility for
reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries regarding cable television .1,0 e)
services,making every effort to bring such inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory
/\ conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator whenever possible. On-site inspection I
of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for reconciliation between the citizen
and the cable operator.
D. Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts. The Consultant shall certify to the cable
operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person discounts meet age and -. , ,
income limitations incorporated in Washington state guidelines.
E. Ordinance Compliance. The Consultant shall monitor time or other triggering criteria t • ‘;
when appropriate to permit the City to request additional non-entertainment features such
as Public, Educational and Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional ,A4
Networks (I-Nets). Additionally analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports
from the operator that may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
. Compliance With the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of F, , "\AIY-4,- 43-,
1992. The Consultant shall analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions p�n,��ti
and justifications for determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable nc�\ c1'
services, FCC benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, .W
generally accepted accountingprinciples,justifications of cost of services, external pass- ' ,\,� tiv
- g Y pp P � kYz 1�
throughs and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations. Based upon these assessments and \," • k N"
consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton to either approve submitted rates, or ,.1,�Q
disapprove in whole or in part and either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. J/1
This function shall also include verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as V
carriage,positioning and must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums
and mandated technical specifications. Consultant will also recommend fines or monetary
forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event of non-compliance. IN "
G. Documents. The Consultant shall assume responsibility for the development and
maintenance of current system maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of
12
such efforts and other projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel
allocations,performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
H. Access Utilization. The Consultant shall review the status of citizen, educational and
governmental use of the access channels provided, including the monitoring of the
Nf availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such use, and equitable sharing
arrangements made by the franchisee.
�- I. Collection of Franchise Fees. The Consultant shall determine through comparative
analyses and audits, if required,that the franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated
by ordinance, and follow up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure
prompt and complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
J. Bond and Insurance. The Consultant shall maintain a complete record of all bonds and
insurance required by the franchise ordinances, immediately advise the City of any default
of any such requirements, and monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if
necessary, to the City of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-
performance.
K. FCC Regulations. The Consultant shall maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as
they pertain to municipal franchise procedures and advise the City as to any significant
change or modifications to these or any other Federal or State legislation applicable
L. Annual Reports. The Consultant shall furnish a report to the City not less than once in a
12-month period, reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
M. Other Reports. The Consultant shall prepare reports on other matters of importance to
cable television franchise administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to,
such items as changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming and
similar developments.
N. Technical Assistance. The Consultant shall assist in technical matters related to cable TV
franchise evaluation, service delivery and system administration.
Cable Franchise Renewal
The Consultant shall perform the following services in connection with the Cable Television
Franchise Renewal Process: ���1.
tot : Af4 ;V:
A. Develop a Franchise Renewal Work Plan and Negotiation Strategies for the
Implementation of the Plan 0 q,,(A
1. Conduct a detailed review and written evaluation of the City's existing Vim' 'C•°
7 franchise with Comcast Cable e a Comcast's W
franchise oblations ations and or the fr c 'sing renewal pros ss anTlEvork with PP
City staff to: Acuu.
a. Dose a timeline with adequate time for ne otia io and exe ution of , C •
� • q g
reasonable cost effective renewal procedures consistent with federal,
` •
sate, and local laws, and •
$. Work with the City Attorney to identify areas in existing and proposed
governing documents that can be improved and advise how those areas
can be enhanced, consistent with the 1984 and 1992 Cable Acts and
enable the franchise process to move forward smoothly.
c. Prepare a,written report of th view and provide feedback.
, � x'r
�w • , 13
B. Provide a written report after conducting a Technical Inspection and Assessme t of
the Cable System.
1. Phase I-Physical Plant Assessment
a. Perform an on-site field investigation of the existing cable system for
1-, conformity with required codes and standards, determine consistency of
their documentation with the existing plant, and maintain a log
Viik i documenting the results, citing any code violation or abnormal constructio
v ,
U practices. The inspection will include but not be limited to the following:
(Vp ) 1 • the cable plant; , p�
t ', • trunk and feeder system including wires, etc.; (�'
. r t
• subscriber installations, and r, jib
• the headend and central control e ui ment.
/\,t)
� q p
b. Provide a comprehensive written report of the results of the assess ent.
' f}Vi 2. Phase II-Electrical Plant Assessment Aidpi'
a. Inspect all key electronic facilities of the cable system, includin: ej, pA
headend and hub sites and determine the types, quantities, and :eneral ip ii/it. �<
operational status of the electronic equipment associated with 1 e
headend and distribution network.
Review Comcast Cable's FCC proof of performance data fort e last ,
two testing periods and ensure historical testing practices are co, sistent
with FCC rules and accepted procedures.
b. Determine if the system is consistent with the documentation and
requirements of the franchise agreement.
c. At a minimum of five sites, work with Comcast Cable and City st.u f to
oversee and monitor tests of the system's performance. Verify
conformance with City test standards and those of the FCC. Test will
include the measurement of carrier-to-noise, carrier-to-composite
distortion, signal levels, subjective viewing quality, and other -y
parameters as may be required. (In the event there is any qstion
regarding testing methodology, an understanding between all parties
involved in the testing would be reached prior to test performance.) CG1 dz, v
3. Provide'a comprehensive written re:ort of the result of the ss nt a- e -f
C. Evaluate the Past Perfo ce of Comcast Cable. -i-6 ( �.e-; ' '
',p 1. DITork with City staff to dev Comcast Cable's compliance with
LA\ op existing franchise and ' have
')l received all benefits o t e existing franchisee ` ,,,/�GVli
\))1/,1,0_, 2. Conduct a financial analysis of the existing system that includes
C�' � „ � • review of financial histor . 1: financial quahfi•aA/" ,�
• • review of financial p• •'ectio•-, and � /�� /
• Franchise fee payment revi- / 'nf«' e `��' " - `�
,
3. Review the inanciaYlristor�an: , • : • i ications of Comcast Cable.
Calculate financial statistics, coma are with industry norms, and provide a ,--
summary to the City early on in t process of the franchise renewal.
4. Prepare and request financia projection from Comcast Cable. Establish a
computerized model, generate an analysis of the information, and provide the
14
City with various "what-if' scenarios that may arise during the renewal;ii 4./0'4
fi`negotiations.
5. Review the franchise fees and identify discrepancies in past pa nts, if any,
and assist the City by enhancing its ability to plan for adjustments in
requirements and reporting procedures. These discrepancies will be over and
above any discrepancies identified by City or outside auditors. In order to do,
the vendor will:
• Review the franchise agreement and pertinent ordinances,particularly the
sections related to payment of franchise fees;
• Obtain and analyze any revenue reports submitted by Comcast to the City
and reconcile these to franchise fee payments received by the City from
Comcast;
• Perform certain reasonableness tests on the reported data;
! ,,,,,
• Obtain information from Comcast and its independent auditor(the
operator's compliance with the request will allow for performance of the
,5 A following steps);
I • Meet with appropriate Comcast representatives and review appropriate
r' - .3( documents to:
n o / ❑ Clarify any issues arising from the review of filings submitted to
AO �" the City;
\` IL
�� ❑ Understand the subscriber billing and collection system;
❑ Understand accounting procedures applied for non-subscriber
�13 � revenues;
N\V\)\ii-./ ❑ Understand accounting policies for bad debts;
/ ❑ Understand procedures for allocating revenues;
p, ❑ Identify any revenue items that were excluded from the reported
revenues,based on Comcast's understanding of what is to be
included in"gross revenues"; and❑ Reconcile the revenues reported to the City to those shown in
Comcast's general ledger for the system;
• If necessary,meet with representatives of Comcast Cable's independent
auditor to understand procedures performed to audit gross revenues at the
level of the local system;
• Pr, are and deliver a draft letter to the City that:
_ Documents any discrepancies identified in the previous steps that
indicate underpayments or overpayments of franchise fees under
the existing franchise requirements;
o Specifies ordinance and/or franchise agreement changes that could
remove reporting problems in the future; and
o Recommends revisions in reporting procedures, if appropriate;
o Review the draft letter with appropriate City staff and Comcast
representatives; and
o Submit the finalized letter report to the City.
6. Determine the level of customer satisfaction and review consumer complaints
0 (1 by performing the following tasks:
15
• examine all available complaint files held by the City and,to the extent
possible from Comcast Cable;
• review any customer service standards in effect and compare them to
standards used in other Washington cities;
• solicit and review information from Comcast Cable specific to standards of
operations such as procedures for handling customer complaints and
service, and"tracking" of customer complaints;
,,,,,,,AA
• prepare a questionnaire and conduct a customer satisfaction telephone_
shy to assess attitudes about current lev lse of service; and
• provide an oral report and memo documenting the outcome of the review
of complaint files, customer service standards and level of customer
satisfaction.
7. Review of current public, education, and government (PEG) access channels,
equipment, facilities, and service:
• prepare and distribute questionnaires to be completed by staff of PEG
access operations;
• prepare and distribute questionnaires to be completed by community
producers;
• Interview staff persons responsible for the operation of PEG access
channels;
• collect and analyze all data from questionnaire responses and interviews
including feedback from the PEG access channels' board of directors;
• determine the level of compliance of the commitments of Comcast Cable
that relate to PEG access;
• evaluate the reported activity levels and original programming figures for
• li�i PEG access; and
o)shrf,Al • prepare and submit a report including a section regarding the evaluation of
PEG access facilities, equipment and operations.
D. IdentifY ��Fut Community Cable Related Needs and Interest • G� .
1. e ephone survey off crib - scribers.
2. Conduct a series four(4) structured w optvarious locations
throughout the City.
3. Collect and analyze strategic and long-range plans prepared by agencies, -
educational institutions and organizations of the greater Renton communit .
4. Conduct special meetings and personal interviews of groups who were not able
0 to participate in the workshops. (,(I'OZv-
5. Attend public hearings to address cable operator's past performance and the
�� / community's future cable related needs.
Q Q 6. Prepare written reports reflecting the telephone survey, focus group meetings,
input from interviews, strategic and long range plans and public hearing
V testimony.
E. Identify Franchise Renewal Goals, Develop Proposed Franchise Provisions, and Draft
Model Franchise and Ordinance.
16
1. Assist the City in developing the substance of proposed franchise rovisions it '7
will seek through negotiations.. This document may include:
• system upgrade,rebuild and extension; e, v p�J(
• construction and design; V
• technical standards; v ,,,
• programming; v eso, ' _
\e'
• management and staffing;
• customer service;
• PEG access support; and
• other services.
2. Develop franchise monitoring and enforcement procedures.
3. Recommend franchise provisions that ensure that the system will be upgraded
in the future.
4. Develop a draft model franchise and je:014
F. Facilitate negotiation of franchise renewal. "
1. ssist development of negotiation strategjand conduct of negotiations;
form a negotiating team of City staff and consultant;
• have preparatory meetings with Comcast;
• request written proposals from Comcast Cable on various elements of the
services, equipment and facilities,which it proposes to provide during the
0 term of the new franchise agreement;
V • hold meetings to reach agreement on any necessary modifications to the
6 City's proposed franchise elements;
n • use the forum of negotiating meetings to request review, evaluate, discuss,
N and approve information from the cable operator regarding its technical,
legal, and financial qualifications; and
• hold a public hearing to afford the public the opportunity to comment on
the agreement and drafted documents.
2. Provide advice to the City, u ing the negotiation process.
3. Prepare a request for renewal roposal document, if necessary.
4. Analyze an evaluate all aspects of the renewal proposal
G. ranchise Transfer (if necessary)
1. Review associated Franchise Transfer documents;
2. Communicate with designated staff to identify franchise compliance issues, if
`.9 ( any;
7), \,,_, y 3. Communicate with designated staff to identify franchise ancillary issues, such
p- � as rate issues, if any;
`It 4. Prepare a written report outlining findings;
5. Draft transfer documents for approval and adoption by City Council;
L _Provide assistance as needed related to the transfer of ownership as requested
' ,� by City staff.
l\P
�,� �'�(Next: Attach Proposed Time Schedule)
V`,' Exhibit"B"=Rate Schedule
,
C 17
o��Y o� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 2005
TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney
FROM: b0 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: Cable Consultant Agreement
Attached for your review is a proposed Cable Consultant Agreement with Exhibits. I seek approval as
to form. I would also appreciate any feedback you may have regarding the content of the agreement,
the responsibilities of the consultant, and the renewal process, which is usually a 3-year process. As
you will see, the proposed contract names you as one of the City's project management team members.
Background:
The City currently contracts with 3H Cable (Lynne Hurd) on a month-to-month basis for cable
consultant management and administration services. On March 14, 2005, a Request for Proposal for
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services was advertised. (Our cable
franchise expires in Sept. 2008.) Seven responses were received by the closing date of April 14, 2005.
3H Cable did not submit a proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by four individuals: the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director, the Information Services Director and the
City Clerk/Cable Manager. From those evaluations, four proposals were selected as candidates for
interview. Interviews were conducted on June 10 and 13, 2005. Interview panel members included:
Jay Covington, CAO, Ben Wolters, Economic Development Director, George McBride, Information
Services Director, Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager and Kayren Kittrick,Development
Engineering Supervisor. The Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc. team was selected as the most qualified to
accomplish the objectives of the proposal.
For your information, I attach copy of the RFP that was issued for this contract, as well as copy of
Bradley and Guzzetta's proposals and their draft contract. I did not use B&G's draft contract, which
they were reluctant to provide anyway knowing we would likely want our own form,but I did use the
Scope of work they provided, with just minor changes.
Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
Attachments
• Consultant Agreement-Draft 8-22-05
• Request for Proposal(3-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta Services Proposal(4-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta Price Proposal(4-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta E-mail and Sample Contract(8-9-05)
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
DRAFT 8/22/2005 —
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and `B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance,the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit"D" attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any,without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City -
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A" and"B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation -
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the -
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses,the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants, who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits "C" and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including,without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
•
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract,with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment,will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant,therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
7
I•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer,Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington, relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract, whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or,as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels,time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings— 1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications— 1 —2 months
•• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3 —6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G &
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q -4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 - CBG
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
•
Y
ti O
♦ sf. ecz
se�'NT��
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
Due Date: April 14, 2005
No later than 2:30 p.m.
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall,Rm. 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RFP SUBMITTED BY:
COMPANY
CONTACT PERSON
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
E-MAIL ADDRESS
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service, as
more fully described in the Proposal document.
The current cable TV franchise agreement between the City and Comcast is set to expire in
accordance with Ordinance No. 4412 on September 13, 2008.
Interested parties should contact the Office of the City Clerk at 425 430-6510 to receive the
complete Request for Proposal document.
Proposals must be received no later than April 14, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the City Clerk's office,
7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055,to be eligible for
consideration. Each proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope that is clearly marked,
"RFP for Cable TV Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services"
The City of Renton reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or any part thereof,to waive
any formality, informality or information in the proposal, and to accept the proposal considered
to be in the best interest of the City.
&,tivtda Oca
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Daily Journal of Commerce
March 14 &28, 2005
2
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service. See
www.ci.renton.wa.us for full proposal notice(click on Site Index, Call for Bids), or call 425-430-
6510 for more information or to receive the proposal document.
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Puget Sound Business Journal
March 18, 2005
3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 5
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES 5
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS 7
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD 9
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton, Washington, is seeking proposals from an experienced and qualified
telecommunications consulting service with excellent technical, legal, administrative and
financial consultant resources to assist with cable franchise management and with the upcoming
cable franchise renewal process.
This RFP requests that vendors describe in detail how the consulting company would provide the
services indicated herein, what services would be provided,projected time lines, costs, and
availability of the company to provide the service.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Renton, population 55,360,has a cable television franchise agreement with Comcast,
which will expire in September of 2008. Franchise fee receipts for 2004 totaled approximately
$543,000. The current budget for the work of the consultant identified under this request is
$22,500 annually.
A copy of the City's current cable franchise, Ordinance No. 4412, is available upon request to
the City Clerk office, 425-430-6502.
A copy of the City's regulatory code is available on-line on the City website at
www.ci.renton.wa.us. Click on Site Index, then City Code (Renton Municipal Code)to review
Chapters 17 and 19 of Title V,Finance and Business Regulations.
At a minimum, the consultant must have 5 to 7 years' experience in cable franchise work. The
consultant must also, at the time of contract execution,be licensed to do business in the City of
Renton and State of Washington, and must furnish insurance certificates to the City as deemed
acceptable by the City's risk management officer.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Cable consultant will ideally provide overall guidance, leadership and support for both day-
to-day cable television franchise management, and for the upcoming franchise renewal process.
The responsibilities of the contractor would include,but not be limited to:
CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE:
A. Performance Analysis. Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of
the City's present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
B. Upgrade Evaluation. Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator
and duly adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike
5
manner on a timely basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the City.
C. Consumer Protection and Complaints. Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly
responding to all public inquiries regarding cable television services, making every effort
to bring such inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the
cable operator whenever possible. On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed
when necessary for reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
D. Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts. Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants
for senior citizen/disabled person discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated
in Washington state guidelines.
E. Ordinance Compliance. Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to
permit the City to request additional non-entertainment features such as Public,
Educational and Government (PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks
(I-Nets). Additionally analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the
operator that may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
F. Compliance With the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992. Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC benchmark
tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally accepted
accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-throughs and,if
appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations. Based upon these assessments and consistent with
FCC regulations, advise Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole
or in part and either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. This function shall also
include verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated technical
specifications. Consultant will also recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable
or appropriate in the event of non-compliance.
G. Documents. Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current
system maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance
tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
H. Access Utilization. Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided, including the monitoring of the availability of such channels,
time allocations provided for such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the
franchisee.
I. Collection of Franchise Fees. Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if
required, that the franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and
follow up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
J. Bond and Insurance. Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by
the franchise ordinances, immediately advise the City of any default of any such
requirements, and monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to
the City of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
6
K. FCC Regulations. Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to
municipal franchise procedures and advise the City as to any significant change or
modifications to these or any other Federal or State legislation applicable
L. Annual Reports. Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,
reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
M. Other Reports. Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television
franchise administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations,
financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
N. Technical Assistance. Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise
evaluation, service delivery and system administration.
FRANCHISE RENEWAL SPECIFIC:
O. Training and Evaluation. Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the
franchise renewal process, including routine preparation, conducting site visits and
evaluation of cable provider
P. Work Plan. Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the planning
process, development of charts and phasing;
Q. Special Presentation. Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council
R. Survey. Survey community input and analyze results
S. Comparative Studies. Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions
T. Public Hearings. Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional
•
communications,public relations and web-based communications;
U. Financial Implications. Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis
for a total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years of
cable TV effort;
V. Solicit Providers. Develop RFP to solicit competitive providers, including preliminary
visits, follow-up visits, and presentation and proposal response evaluation;
W. Negotiations. Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers
X. Implementation. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract
compliance and acceptance
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
In order to facilitate evaluation of the proposals,the proposer is instructed to follow the outline
below in responding. Proposals shall be submitted using eight and one-half by eleven(8 Y2 x 11)
inch paper. One original and two copies of each proposal must be submitted. Proposals should
cover both cable television franchise management and cable franchise renewal services as
indicated in this document. If necessary,however, cable franchise renewal services can be
proposed separately,but must be identified as "Proposal for Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Services Only." All proposals must include the following:
7
A. Letter of Submittal
Along with introductory remarks, the Letter of Submittal is to include the following information
about the Consultant and any proposed subcontractors:
Understanding of the Request: Provide a statement of the proposer's understanding of the City's
request for services
Personnel: Identify key personnel who will provide the required services directly to the City
under this request, including their qualifications, education, and relevant recent experience.
References: Provide a list of three (3)previous and current references,which are considered
identical or similar to the scope of services discussed herein, to include: a) contract duration,
including dates,b) services performed, and c) name, address and telephone number of
contracting agency which may be contacted for verification of all data submitted.
Statement of Qualifications, experience and resources of the firm, including the ownership and
financial wherewithal to assume the work identified herein.
Sample of Work, including two recent samples of work(reports and RFPs that the proposer feels
most closely parallels the work required under this request and that will reflect the experience
and qualifications desired, including the project manager name and team identification.
Proposed Overall Work Plan-Recommend and detail the steps and methodology necessary to
complete the scope of work. Include hours, dates, deliverables and persons responsible for
phases.
Signature: The proposal shall be signed by an official authorized to bind the proposer and shall
contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a forty-five (45) day period.
The proposal shall also provide the following information: Name, title, address, telephone
number, e-mail address and fax number of the individual(s)with authority to contractually bind
the company, and also of those who may be contacted during the period of proposal evaluation
for the purpose of clarifying submitted information.
B) Cost Proposal
The evaluation process is designed to award this procurement not necessarily to the Consultant
of least cost,but rather to the Consultant,whose proposal best meets the requirements of this
RFP.
Pricing is to be submitted with the proposal document with a cover sheet marked"Price Proposal
- Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services." (If Cable TV
Franchise Renewal Process Services Only is proposed, then the pricing cover sheet is to be
marked"Price Proposal- Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services Only
Pricing should identify all costs, including expenses to be charged for performing the services
necessary to accomplish the objectives of the contract. Consultants are required to collect and
pay Washington state sales tax, if applicable. Costs for subcontractors are to broken out
separately. Consultant is encouraged to break out costs for various services listed in the RFP.
8
•
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
A two-step evaluation process is envisioned. First, a cut will be made to the top few proposals
from written submissions. The top proposals will then be interviewed. The City may award a
contract based on offers received, without additional submissions from the proposer.
Accordingly, each offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and
technical standpoint. However, the City reserves the right to request additional data, or oral
discussions, or presentation in support of written proposals. In addition, the City reserves the
right to negotiate all offers received.
Proposals will be evaluated in the following areas:
• Technical
• Management/Legal/Fiscal
• Cost
• Communication Skills
• Local Availability
• Knowledge of Washington state law and municipal requirements
This Request for Proposal does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a response to this request, or to procure or contract for services or
supplies. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result
of this request, or to cancel in part or in its entirety this Request for Proposal, if in the best
interest of the City to do so.
The contract may be awarded as soon as practical after the proposal opening unless otherwise
stated,but generally not before ten(10)working days or after sixty(60) days from the proposal
opening.
9
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 8/9/2005 1:59:20 PM
Subject: Contract& New Timeframe
Bonnie,
Attached is copy of a sample contract. Exhibit A has the new timeframe
with the information you requested. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need any adjustments made. I will be in the office all day
tomorrow. Good luck with your meeting.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON AND
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT is entered into this
day of August, 2005, by and between the law firm of Bradley & Guzzetta LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, and the City of Renton, Washington a municipal
corporation,whereby the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Basic Services.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", shall, as
specified in Exhibit A, attached herto and incorporated herewith, perform services to
assist the City of Renton, Washington (hereinafter the "City") with the cable television
franchise renewal process.
Section 2. Expenditure Limitation.
Contractor fully understands that total expenditures for the professional services
related to cable franchise renewal specified in Section 1-herein for the period from the
effective date of this agreement to June 30, 2006 shall be $ , which
expenditures shall include the employment of sub-consultants, Contractor's travel
expenses, cash disbursements, including long distance telephone calls, copy charges,
postage and delivery charges, and photocopier charges, etc. It is the Contractor's sole
responsibility to notify the City in writing marked to the attention of the City Attorney if
it appears that such expenditures will exceed the level of$ . Contractor
fully understands and agrees that the City will not be responsible for any expenditures for
professional services and cost in excess of a total of $ unless prior
written approval has been received by the Contractor from the City. The City
understands that the Contractor shall not be required to provide or complete any services
or products for which funds are not available.
For the Administrative services listed in Section 1, the City agrees to pay
Contractor a flat fee of$2,000.00 per month.
Section 3. Terms of Payment.
Contractor shall submit to the City of Renton, City Attorney's Office, an itemized
billing on a monthly basis covering all professional services and expenses provided
hereunder. Such billing shall be itemized showing the date and services performed, time
expended, and hourly rate for services, and total amount due. Within thirty (30) working
days after receipt of such a billing, the City shall make full payment to the Contractor,
except for any amount that may be properly disputed by the City in writing. Notice of
any disputed time or expense shall be provided to the Contractor within thirty (30) days
of the applicable invoice date, or within such time as is provided by state or local law,
whichever is shorter. Invoices for work will be submitted to the City monthly and are
due and payable 30 days after submission.
Section 4. Idemnification.
The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor and its owners,
officers, and employees from and against any and all loss, injury, damage, claim or
liability (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) by any third party to
the extent arising out of the City's negligent acts, errors or omission, including claims
made by the employees of City.
2
Section 5. Subconsultants.
CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D and Front Range Consulting,
Inc. are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the Contractor in
the performance of this Agreement.
The Contractor may, after obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or
employ additional sub-consultants in connection with the performance of services under
this Agreement.
Section 6. Provision of Information.
The City shall use its best efforts to provide or arrange for the provision of
information requested by the Contractor that is needed to perform the services hereunder.
The Contractor shall not be responsible for any or all errors or omissions in such
information, nor for any damages attributable to defects in information provided or
prepared by others, unless the Contractor knew of the defects and expressly advised the
City to rely on the defective information in performing services hereunder. The •
Contractor shall not incur any liability as a result of requested information that is not
timely provided.
Section 7. Relationship Between Parties.
In the performance of the services hereunder, the Contractor is an independent
contractor and shall not be considered an employee, agent or representative of the City
for any purpose. Likewise, no employee, official, agent or elected official of the City
shall be considered an employee or agent of the Contractor. Unless specifically identified
otherwise in this Agreement, the services performed by Consultant under this Agreement
are solely for the benefit of the City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create
any duties on the part of the Contractor toward any person not a party to this Agreement.
3
Section 8. Term of Agreement.
Both parties fully understand and agree that this Agreement automatically
terminates on any of the following conditions:
1. The expenditure of the total amount set forth in Section 2.
2. The conclusion to the satisfaction of the City of the professional
services identified in Section 1. of this Agreement; or
3. The submission by either party of thirty (30) days written notice to
the other party, in accordance with the notice provisions of this Agreement. In the event
of termination, the City shall pay the Contractor for all professional services rendered to
the date of termination,plus reasonable expenses for winding down the services.
Section 9. Conflict of Interest.
The City understands that because Contractor represents a large number of clients
in a wide variety of matters around the country, it is possible that, while the City is a
client, Contractor will be asked to represent a client whose interests are actually or
potentially adverse to the City's interests. Contractor agrees that it shall not undertake
any such adverse representation unless, among other things; the City waives any conflict
of interest in writing.
Section 10. Performance Requirements.
The services provided under this Agreement shall be performed as soon as good
practice and due diligence will permit. Contractor agrees that it shall consult with
designated representative(s) of the City before undertaking any actions on the City's
behalf or engaging in any negotiations or making any commitments on behalf of the City.
4
Section 11. Waiver Modification.
Both parties understand that any waiver or amendment to any of the terms of this
Agreement is not valid unless said amendment or waiver is in writing and executed by
both parties to this Agreement.
Section 12. Anti Discrimination.
Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against an employee or an applicant
for employment with regard to age, tenure, terms, conditions, or provisions of
employment based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight,
marital status or because of a handicap that is unrelated to the individual's ability to
perform the duties of a particular job or position.
Section 13. Notices.
Any notices required or permitted hereunder shall be sufficient if personally
delivered or sent by overnight delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed as follows:
if to the Contractor: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
if to the City: Insert City Contact
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices sent by overnight
mail shall be effective upon receipt. Notices sent by regular mail shall be effective five
business days after mailing.
5
Section 14. Entire Agreement.
With respect to the subject matter,hereof, this Agreement supercedes all previous
understandings and agreements, either written or oral, between the parties hereto or their
representatives and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
Section 15. Miscellaneous.
(a) If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and
provision declared invalid or unenforceable shall continue as to other
circumstances.
(b) This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with,
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(c) The failure of either party to exercise any of its rights under this
Agreement shall not be a waiver of those rights. A party waives only
those rights it specifies in writing.
(d) Paragraph headings have been inserted for convenience only and in no
way limit or define the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement
Section 10. Effective Date of Agreement
This Agreement shall be effective beginning on date of execution.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first above written.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC City of Renton, Washington
By: By:
Michael R. Bradley Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
Its: Owner
By:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Approved as to form only:
City Attorney
7
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary,to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
8
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur,to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
9
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3 —4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3 —6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
10
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations— 12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3 —6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
11
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $217 0, 0-
$ 400 CBG
1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200-
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 B&G&CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG
1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
$3,120-
Training and Evaluation $5,850 B&G&CBG 1Q-2006
$1,560-
Work Plan $2,340 B&G&CBG
1Q-2006
$1,560-
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays mailing $8,000-
costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
$1,560-
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
1Q-2006
$2,560-
Financial Implications $7,680 B&G
2Q-4Q-2007
$6,270-
Negotiations $63,270 B&G
1Q-4Q-2007
$2,500-
Implementation $8,000 B&G 4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360- CBG
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
*Q=Quarter. The times listed are estimates
and subject to change.
12
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
13
o��Y 0 ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
'� Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 2005
TO: Linda Herzog, Interim Assistant to the CAO
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: Cable Consultant Contract
Attached for your review is my response to questions and suggestions you have previously made
regarding the scope of services for the proposed cable consultant contract.
Also attached is draft of a proposed Consultant Agreement with Exhibits. I compiled this
contract form using a combination of City and outside sources plus some of my own language. I
did not use the form sent by Bradley and Guzzetta,which in my opinion did not cover as well.
See what you think.
To stay on pace, I would like to send a copy of the draft agreement over to the City Attorney
today if possible for his preliminary approval. Once I get critique and preliminary approval from
you, Jay and Larry, I will send a draft to B&G for their review. I would like to get the draft
contract in B&G's hands yet this week if possible. My intent is to place this matter on the
Council Agenda of 9/12 to refer to Committee of the Whole. I am working on the issue paper
now.
Thank you for your assistance with this. I appreciate all comments and suggestions.
bw
attachments
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
, .
August 22, 2005
To: Linda Herzog
From: Bonnie Walton
Re: Cable Consultant Agreement & Scope of Services
In response to your memo of 8/9/05,.regarding the Cable Consultant Scope of Services,I
provide the following response and information:
Franchise Management Services:
1. You asked whether moving of five items (regarding Performance Analysis, Upgrade
Evaluation, Compliance with the Cable Consumer Protect Act,Access Utilization and
Collection of Franchise Fees) from the Franchise Management category to the Franchise
Renewal category meets with my expectations of those items.
I discussed these items on the phone with Tracy Schaefer of B&G. She indicated that our
current services for these five items will continue as normal and that any reports we are
currently receiving from service on these items will be provided as'"Other Reports"in
the B&G Franchise Management scope. The reason why they are now listed in the
Renewal Process category is because each of the five will be reviewed "in depth"as part
of the renewal process. Therefore there is no loss of service or doubling up of costs due
to movement of these five items from one category to the other.
2. You had agreed with me that a preliminary timeline for the Franchise Renewal process is
needed. That has been provided and is shown in Exhibit C".
3. You had questioned whether the"out-of-pocket costs"include charges for the production
of reports. Section 3.6 of the contract drafted 8-22-05 indicates that the Consultant will
provide four copies of any reports B&G produces. My in intent here is that there would
be no extra copy charge for the four sets to be provided. Let me know if you think that
language does not satisfy.
4. You asked if the $2,000 per month plus out-of-pocket costs meets my expectation of the
level and quantity of work involved in the day-today management responsibility. (Your
rough calculation indicated the $2000 per month figure equates to about two days a week
of an employee salaried at about $24 per hour or$4000 per month.)
Exhibit "C", Cost Detail, indicates that for Cable management/administration services,
there will be a flat fee of$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs. So, I believe there should
be no out-of-pocket expenses on top of the$2,000 per month, except possibly for
extraordinary travel expenses should we have an unusual technical problem. The flat
fee, in my opinion, should cover the cost of reports and phone calls, etc. under the
management category. Regarding the level and quantity of work involved--that is hard to
1
judge. Some months I doubt the consultant will devote 64 hours exclusively to the work
of Renton in the management category. Doing the annual rate review analysis each
spring iS technical and time-intensive, however. Also, the Consultant attends regional
and national meetings and keeps up on telecommunication law on an ongoing basis,
which is to our benefit. So in general, I think it is worth the $24,000 a year for the high
intellect and caliber of services we get. I view part of the $2000 as "real cost"and part
as insurance or preventative maintenance, so to speak.
Franchise Renewal Process:
5. You inquired about the cost of Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation work,how
much of the work is on-site, and if the City is comfortable paying up to $20,000 over the
cost of franchise management for this work
This work is to be performed by Tom Robinson of CBG, and most all of it, if not all, will
be performed in Renton and at the head-end we utilize. This is work that is specific to the
Franchise Renewal process. As far as I know, this type of work would not occur under
the normal management duties, unless Comcast was in the middle of an upgrade, like
they did a few years ago, or there was a problem, new equipment installed or some
unusual technical matter to address.
6. You asked for clarification of the work to be performed under"Compliance with
Consumer Protection Laws."
This is my understanding: The regular annual rate increase review would occur under
the cable management category and would be for the purpose of examining potential and
forthcoming rate increases. The work to be performed under Cable Renewal would be a
one-time in depth review of past rate increases,justifications and approvals by the City.
Negative findings would provide leverage during negotiations, or, if substantial enough,
could open the door for the City to lawfully seek proposals from other cable firms, rather
than having to deal only with Comcast. (Feel free to confirm this with Tracy Schaefer
and/or make recommendations to the language in the Scope regarding this.)
7. You asked if the Access Utilization and Collection of Fees work is a duplication and
added cost of what formerly was included under cable management.
Since the contract with Puget Sound Access went in place several years ago, there has
been little real work done on the issue of Access Utilization. What is proposed now is an
in-depth review of the current PEG channel obligations and performance as part of the
renewal process, and an analysis of future needs. Since the school district is now more
receptive to tapping into an educational channel, this is something I feel is worth
reviewing. Also, it will be good to have better clarification of how the UW channel fits in
the picture as far as current franchise obligations, since there does not seem to be
anything in writing about it. Lastly the Mayor's wish that the Renton channel be shown
in Renton's Potential Annex area of unincorporated King Co. could rightfully be
2
addressed in this task. (I did some work on this last issue last year and hit a stone wall.
It is not easy to resolve, so I'd be glad to have B&G pursue it.)
Regarding Collection of Fees, it is true that the quarterly reports will be reviewed under
the Cable management category of the consultant contract. However, what is proposed
here, under Cable Renewal, is a mini-audit of the Franchise Fee calculations and
payments. This is the work that will be performed by Front Range Consulting. It is my
understanding that a good auditor like we are hiring is very apt to find franchise fee
miscalculations, which is a violation that apparently makes Comcast sit up and listen
when discussed at the negotiation table.
8. You asked whether consultant services would be needed for the"Special Presentation"to
Council and that we should ask Jay. You also asked if the contractor would need to
facilitate the public hearings.
I personally think it would be best if B&G or CBG did present to Council on any
Franchise Renewal matters, as the consultant would be the most knowledgeable to
explain and answer questions,particularly on technical matters that could be hard for
any of the rest of us to explain. Of course, if Council asks no questions, we will wonder
why we paid the Consultant for these presentations, but having the Consultant available
would be good insurance, I think.
9. You comments regarding the method of doing a survey, mail vs. phone, are appreciated.
I, too,feel a phone survey would prove to be more accurate and meaningful. When I
called for references on B&G, a couple of their customers could not say enough good
things about the great survey work done by Dr. Booker, and how helpful the survey was
to them.
10. You commented about the Comparative Study that was moved from Cable Management
to Cable Renewal scope.
While the cable management side will continue to look at what is happening locally with
cable franchises, the renewal process, as Tracy Schaefer explained, will include more
regional and national comparisons. Apparently at negotiation time, B&G feels they will
be concentrating on the specific needs of and important issues for Renton and working
toward that end, rather than working toward something less important to Renton just
because the neighboring cities received it. The Comparative Study is not priced
separately, but is part of the negotiations, I believe. No formal comparative study report
is called for as a deliverable at this point.
11. You asked about wording under Financial Implications indicating"the remaining years of
cable TV effort".
3
This task occurs right before negotiations. I believe the wording means B&G will
prepare a projected budget for the years into the next franchise and they will use this
projected budget information during negotiations.
•
Regarding your notes and our conversation of 8/18/05:
1. You suggested I use the City's boilerplate for the contract itself, rather than B&G's draft,
which they were reluctant to provide anyway knowing we would probably want to use
our own contract language.
Because our past cable consultant contract covered only cable management services, and
not cable renewal services, I ended up using a combination of sources, including ours, to
draft the new contract. I did not use B&G's contract, but I did use the scope B&G
provided making just minor changes to indicate we want certain items "in writing.".
2. You suggested that the contract stick to using two Scopes, one for Cable Management
and one for Cable Renewal. That has been done.
3. You suggested that the Cable Renewal scope be set up in two or more phases, so that the
City is not locked into all of the work in the event national legislation takes away our
rights and options regarding cable franchises.
I had trouble making the phasing separation and the wording work, so as an alternative I
have attempted to include language in the contract that would allow the City to opt out of
the contract at any time for any reason. Let me know if this wording has not adequately
addressed your suggestion.
4. You asked what would be done during the 18 months between the end of B&G's scope
and time frame to the actual end of the current franchise agreement.
According to Tracy Schaefer there is nothing to prevent Comcast from negotiating early
and it could be in our best interests to do so. Should we be lucky enough to complete
negotiations 18 mo. ahead of the end of the current franchise, then we would be back to
just Cable Management work with B&G through the end of 2008.
5. You pointed out that it is not necessary to detail in the Renewal scope how B&G should
achieve the results we want, only what we want.
I agree and have scrapped the detailed scope I had drafted and went back to using the
scope provided by B&G, which does include deliverables.
This concludes my responses. Please let me know if I missed anything or I sari provide
additional information. Also, feel free to contact Tracy Schaefer directly if you would like
further clarification or confirmation on any matter.
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of - , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and`B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit"D" attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City-
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
,performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other •
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any,without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the.City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A" and "B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses, the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants, who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly_progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits "C" and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
'11.4.1 For approved items of services,the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
7
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 -fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer, Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire ariy interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington, relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract, whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren,.City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley; proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports-from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed) •
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992-2-4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications— 1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
.1
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3 -
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation— 1 - 2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G &
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
'Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q -4 Q -2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q -2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
* Q= Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
••'
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
C<0( O ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
;• C. + LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
• , NryO� MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
,� Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: f Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
STAFF CONTACT: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement for Cable Television Franchise
Issue:
A contract for professional consulting services for a term through 2008 is presented
relating to cable television franchise administration and management, and cable
television franchise renewal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the contract with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC. in the total
amount of$233,000 for professional consulting services related to ongoing cable
television franchise administration, as well as for the upcoming franchise renewal
process.
Background:
The City's long-time cable television consultant, Lon Hurd, of 3H Cable
Communications, died in July 2004. Mr. Hurd assisted in negotiating the City's current
cable franchise in 1993, and also assisted with ongoing cable franchise administration
services. Lynne Hurd, sister of Lon, took over the company and has attempted to carry
on his work. On March 14, 2005, the City solicited Requests for Proposal for Cable
Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services. Seven responses
were received by the closing date of April 14, 2005. 3H Cable opted not to submit a
proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director,the Information Services
Director and the City Clerk/Cable Manager. From those evaluations, four proposals were
selected as candidates for interview. Interviews were conducted on June 10 and 13,
2005. Interview panel members included: Jay Covington, CAO, Ben Wolters, Economic
Development Director, George McBride, Information Services Director, Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager and Kayren Kittrick, Development Services Engineering
Supervisor. The Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc. team (B&G) was selected as the most
c:\docume-1\10522\locals-1\temp\9-19-05 issue paper.doc
Members,City Council
Page 2 of 3
9/14/2005
qualified to accomplish the objectives of the proposal. B&G has dealt with all aspects of
the cable refranchising processing, including informal proceedings and formal
proceedings. Staff has checked references and all cities contacted reported positive
relationships with the B&G team.
Cable Franchise Administration and Management Assistance:
The consultant provides ongoing assistance by assisting the City Clerk/Cable Manager as
needed,performing the annual rate increase and franchise fee payment analysis,
addressing citizen complaints, interacting with Comcast on City issues,processing senior
and disabled discount applications, keeping the City informed of local, regional and
national issues, providing reports as required and assisting in other franchise compliance
matters.
Cable Franchise Renewal:
The franchise agreement between the City and Comcast Cable expires on September 13,
2008. During the period, which begins thirty-six months before the expiration of the
franchise, Comcast may request the City to commence proceedings to determine whether
or not to renew the franchise. Federal law and the current franchise agreement between
the City and Comcast govern the franchise renewal proceedings. The proceedings
involve a number of procedural steps, including: conducting a technical inspection and
assessment of the current cable system infrastructure; identifying future cable-related
needs and interests of the community, evaluating the past performance of the cable
provider for compliance with the existing franchise; reviewing the level of customer
satisfaction with the operator, and a complete analysis of public, educational, and
government(PEG) access; a needs assessment of users and other interested parties,
through surveys, focus groups, and public hearings; and development a formal request for
renewal proposal, should that become necessary. To successfully complete the renewal
process and negotiate a new franchise agreement requires expertise in areas as diverse as
cable programming, PEG access programming, cable regulation and law,public opinion
polling and market research, rate setting,the electrical engineering field, and
telecommunications systems. Due to the dept of the scope of services required, including
specialized legal services, staff sought the service of a consultant.
If the proposed contract is approved, staff intends to return with the B&G team to brief
the Council on the franchise renewal process within the next few months.
Cost:
The cost proposal from B&G for ongoing cable franchise administration an
management assistance is a flat fee of$2,000 per month. The current budgkfor this
service is $1,875 per month. No budget increase is requested for 2005.
The cost proposal from B&G for franchise renewal services is for a range from$72,630
to $156,620, excluding options, based on an hourly rate. The actual total cost will be
dependent on the individual services necessary, the time and depth of review needed, and
the optional services necessary to best carry out the franchise renewal process. Staff has
estimated a total budget of$155,000 over the period of 2006-2008. It is anticipated that
c:\docume-1\10522\locals-1\temp\9-19-05 issue paper.doc 2
' P
Members,City Council
Page 3 of 3
9/14/2005
franchise renewal negotiations be completed in 2007,though that could extend into 2008.
It is requested that the contract be funded out of Fund 127, Cable Communications
Development Fund.
Substantial policy, legal, administrative and financial issues are involved in the franchise
renewal process. In order to effectively support the process, a working group comprised
of staff from the City Clerk's Office, City Attorney's Office, Finance and Information
Services Department and the Mayor's Office has been established. Significant staff
support will be provided by the City Clerk Office throughout the cable refranchising
processes. While support for additional staffing requirements are not requested at this
time, it is difficult to predict what additional resources may be necessary throughout the
franchise renewal process, so staff would return if additional resources are needed.
Cost Recap:
2005. 2006 2007-2008' 'Total;...
Ongoing $6,000 $24,000 $24,000/year $78,000
Administration
&Management
Assistance
Cable Franchise -0- Up to $100,000 Up to $50,000 Up to $150,000
Negotiations
Process
Reimbursable -0- Est. $2,500 Est. $2,500 Est. $5,000
Direct Costs
TOTAL $6,000 $126,500 $100,500 $233,000
c:\docume--4\10522\locals-1\temp\9-19-05 issue paper.doc 3
4. ,
(SY o ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
° _ LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August.31, 2005
TO: Michael Webby, HRRM Administrator
FROM: b) Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: Insurance Review - Cable Consultant Contract
The City Attorney has completed a preliminary review of the draft Cable Consultant Contract as
attached. He has indicated that, in Section 9.1, that errors and omissions insurance or legal
malpractice insurance might be more beneficial to the City than commercial liability insurance,
and that I check with you on this issue.
Please review Section 9.1 and provide any rewording that you feel should be made to this
document.
Thank you.
bw
attachment _
DRAFT 8/22/2005
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC,hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and"B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", "B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and"B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents,will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book,Ph.D
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit"D"attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City,use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason,the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances,regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any,without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent,the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any,will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit`B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided,however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A" and"B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses, the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants,who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits"C" and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting, Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
- prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will,
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract,with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services,the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore,the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder'will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516- fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer, Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@,bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington, relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract,whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY &GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley,President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to.be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
&Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary,to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992-2-4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels,time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
•
15
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G&
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q -2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q -4 Q -2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q - 4Q -2007
Implementation $2;500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change. _
16
+ DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
CABLE TV FRANCHISE MGT& RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE
On page 1
Add section 2.2 and re-number sections 2.2 and 2.3 —
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise
Renewal Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006), the City will give
advance approval to initiate each task before billable work on that task
begins. Approval may be given by the Cable Manager or by the CAO or his
designee, in writing by letter or e-mail, or orally. If approval is oral, both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to
proceed.
On page 4
Re-number sections 4.2 and 4.3 so that City representatives are named in 4.2,
and timely review and approval of products is described in section 4.3.
Revise (new) section 4.3 to read: "The City, represented by the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Clerk/Cable Manager, will review and approve
as necessary and in a timely manner the reports, survey instruments and
methods, and other documents, and each phase of work performed by the
Consultant."
Revise section 5.1.2 to remove the extra comma on the second line.
Modify the final sentence of section 5.1.2 to read: "The amount of compensation
will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit
"D" and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit, up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract."
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 9/26/2005 12:29:53 PM
Subject: Cable Consultant-Direct Costs
I just heard back from Mike Bradley of B&G. Here is what he said:
"After conferring with our colleagues at CBG Communications, Inc., our
estimate of costs for all of the consultants is $7,500 -$10,000.00.
Our biggest cost will be travel costs (plane, lodging, meals, etc). We
will work on limiting these costs by splitting the costs with other
clients when possible and carefully planning trips to enable us to work
on multiple tasks for the City."
bw
CABLE TV FRANCHISE MGT & RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
PROPOSED ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE
On page 1
Add section 2.2 and re-number sections 2.2 and 2.3 —
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise
Renewal Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006), the City will give
advance approval to initiate each task before billable work on that task
begins. Approval may be given by the Cable Manager or by the CAO or his
designee, in writing by letter or e-mail, or orally. If approval is oral, both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to
proceed.
On page 4
Re-number sections 4.2 and 4.3 so that City representatives are named in 4.2,
and timely review and approval of products is described in section 4.3.
Revise (new) section 4.3 to read: "The City, represented by the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Clerk/Cable Manager, will review and approve
as necessary and in a timely manner the reports, survey instruments and
methods, and other documents, and each phase of work performed by the
Consultant."
Revise section 5.1.2 to remove the extra comma on the second line.
Modify the final sentence of section 5.1.2 to read: "The amount of compensation
will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit
"D" and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit, up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract."
From: Linda Herzog
To: Covington, Jay; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 7/15/2005 3:53:39 PM ,
Subject: ideas for"dual"cable contracts
I've jotted down some ideas (see attached) about the content of two separate contracts we might hold with
the B&G group—or perhaps these could be two separate work scopes within the same contract. I have
also indicated how I think the two contracts would inter-relate, thereby keeping B&G committed to the city
for the daily management tasks if they want to do the renegotiation work. The"inter-relating" parts of the
two contracts are highlighted in yellow.
Please give me comments on this. I'll need your help and your concurrence on this "dual contract" idea so
I can get aback to Mike Bradley on Monday.
Thanks, and have a good weekend!
Linda
m
Concurrent contractual agreements
for
cable franchise management and franchise renewal
Agreement A: Retainer- cable services oversight, monitoring, quality control
and customer service
• List activities and services — include items A thru N, or subset of these
items
• For each, describe whether the activity is continuous, on-demand, or
periodic. For periodic activities, describe frequency.
• Name individual (or firm) who will do each task, or set of tasks
• Describe how citizens, city staff (or others?) will access the service or
information
• Describe how compliance issues uncovered here will be identified and
resolved (a) to improve performance under current contract, and (b) to
help city strengthen its negotiating position in franchise renewal process;
Describe how performance issues uncovered through Agreement B
activities will be used to..improve performance under current,contract
Agreement B: Technical assistance and consultation to city in renewing /
renegotiating its cable franchise agreement
• Prepare phased"work program" -- include items 0 through X listed in the
RFP Scope of Services
• Prepare timetable showing duration and completion of each phase
• Name deliverables for each phase
• Identify firm / individual(s) responsible for each activity (or each phase, as
appropriate)
• Describe how workshops, focus groups, surveys, etc. will yield "leverage"
opportunities for renegotiation
• Describe how info collected from retainer contract (Agreement:A;'above)
will be collected, tabulated, analyzed and used in franchise renegotiation
rocess
Concurrent contractual agreements
for
cable franchise management and franchise renewal
Agreement A: Retainer - cable services oversight, monitoring, quality control
and customer service
• List activities and services — include items A thru N, or subset of these
items
• For each, describe whether the activity is continuous, on-demand, or
periodic. For periodic activities, describe frequency.
• Name individual (or firm) who will do each task, or set of tasks
• Describe how citizens, city staff (or others?) will access the service or
information
• Describe how compliance issues uncovered here will be identified and
resolved (a) to improve performance under current contract, and '(b) to
help city strengthen its negotiating::position in franchise;renewal'process?
• Describe:how performance issues uncovered through Agreement 8
activities will be used to irnprove performance under current contract
Agreement B: Technical assistance and consultation to city in renewing /
renegotiating its cable franchise agreement
• Prepare phased"work program" -- include items 0 through X listed in the
RFP Scope of Services
• Prepare timetable showing duration and completion of each phase
• Name deliverables for each phase
• Identify firm / individual(s) responsible for each activity (or each phase, as
appropriate)
• Describe how workshops, focus groups, surveys, etc. will yield "leverage"
opportunities for renegotiation
• : Describe how info;,collected from:retainer contract (Agreement A,-above)
Will be collected, tabulated,,analyzed and used in'franchise'renegotiatiod
process
From: Linda Herzog
To: Covington, Jay; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 7/15/2005 3:53:39 PM
Subject: ideas for"dual"cable contracts
I've jotted down some ideas (see attached) about the content of two separate contracts we might hold with
the B&G group—or perhaps these could be two separate work scopes within the same contract. I have
also indicated how I think the two contracts would inter-relate, thereby keeping B&G committed to the city
for the daily management tasks if they want to do the renegotiation work. The "inter-relating" parts of the
two contracts are highlighted in yellow.
Please give me comments on this. I'll need your help and your concurrence on this "dual contract" idea so
I can get aback to Mike Bradley on Monday.
Thanks, and have a good weekend!
Linda
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 7/18/2005 4:26:09 PM
Subject: Re: ideas for"dual"cable contracts
Linda,
I reviewed our RFP again and feel that all of the items A-X are important to the consultant agreement,
plus we may want to be even more detailed for the franchise renewal aspects.
Tracy Schaefer indicated to me previously that as part of drafting the consultant contract, that we discuss
whether each item listed in the cost proposal is"right"for Renton--that they do not like to just do a contract
that indicates they will do"everything", because each City's budget, needs and priorities are a little
different. So, I was surprised at our conference call that we were not asked questions to arrive at these
priorities. Maybe that's because Tracy was not present, or Mike thought it was up to us to make those
determinations.
As far as doing two contracts or two scopes, I will defer to the majority team decision. Many of the items
listed under the administrative duties also apply to and are used in the franchise renewal process, so I
think it would be easier and more all-encompassing to have one contract, but that is just my opinion. I
know it can be done either way, so I'll be happy to work with it as the majority determines.
What would be really nice is if B&G gave us a chart of A thru X and described each activity, lead person,
estimated duration,frequency&timing, methods and cost, item by item,which is pretty much what your
attachment indicates. If they could send us a draft consultant agreement to include that(via email), then
we could review and re-work it as we determine, and we'd be on our way.
Hope this has some value for you. Let me know if I can provide anything else.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Linda Herzog 7/15/2005 3:53:23 PM >>>
I've jotted down some ideas (see attached)about the content of two separate contracts we might hold with
the B&G group-or perhaps these could be two separate work scopes within the same contract. I have
also indicated how I think the two contracts would inter-relate, thereby keeping B&G committed to the city
for the daily management tasks if they want to do the renegotiation work. The"inter-relating"parts of the
two contracts are highlighted in yellow.
Please give me comments on this. I'll need your help and your concurrence on this "dual contract" idea so
I can get aback to Mike Bradley on Monday.
Thanks, and have a good weekend!
Linda
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/21/2005 11:34:01 AM
Subject: Scope of Service
Bonnie,
Here is the B&G scope of services. Please review and let me know if you
need any additional information. With regard to the franchise
documents, I will review the code PDF file that you sent me and let you
know if I need additional electronic documents.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:05 PM
To:Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Re: Franchise Documents
Attached are three chapters from our City Code regarding cable utility
tax, cable systems &telecommunications regulations that you may want.
Other than the franchise agreement itself,which you have, I don't think
I currently have the other documents that I sent you in electronic form.
I could scan some if that would help. Which documents would you like?
Bonnie
>>> "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>7/21/2005
8:35:13AM >>>
Bonnie,
Thank you for the franchise documents. I was also wondering if you had
those documents electronically? With electronic searches, it saves a
lot of time, so we can get faster responses back to the City.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
1
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3-6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming,reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
2
•
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1=3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
•
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
4
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $ , 0- CBG
y ptn $20400
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&CBG
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc.
$3,120-
Training and Evaluation $5,850 B&G&CBG
$1,560-
Work Plan $2,340 B&G&CBG
$1,560-
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays mailing $8,000- CBG
costs) $11,200
$1,560-
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
$2,560
Financial Implications $7,680 B&G
$6,270-
Negotiations $63,270 B&G
$2,500-
Implementation $8,000 B&G
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360- CBG
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000- CBG
community survey) $23,200
n
( ,J
5
� w
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
6
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton"<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 7/21/2005 11:34:01 AM
Subject: Scope of Service
Bonnie,
Here is the B&G scope of services. Please review and let me know if you
need any additional information. With regard to the franchise
documents, I will review the code PDF file that you sent me and let you
know if I need additional electronic documents.
Thank you,
•
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent:Thursday, July 21, 2005 1:05 PM
To:Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Re: Franchise Documents
Attached are three chapters from our City Code regarding cable utility
tax, cable systems &telecommunications regulations that you may want.
Other than the franchise agreement itself,which you have, I don't think
I currently have the other documents that I sent you in electronic form.
I could scan some if that would help. Which documents would you like?
Bonnie
>>>"Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>7/21/2005
8:35:13 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Thank you for the franchise documents. I was also wondering if you had
those documents electronically? With electronic searches, it saves a
lot of time, so we can get faster responses back to the City.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Scope-of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic(or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government (PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement. "
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
1
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system,new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
•
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment, public connections,
rates and programming,reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
2
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation— 1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort. •
3
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
•
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant
Performance Analysis&Upgrade $ 217 0,40 00 0-
y Evaluation $ CBG
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&CBG
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG
•
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc.
$3,120-
Training and Evaluation $5,850 B&G&CBG
$1,560-
Work Plan $2,340 B&G&CBG
$1,560-
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays mailing $8,000- CBG
costs) $11,200
$1,560-
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
$2,560-
Financial Implications $7,680 B&G
$6,270-.
Negotiations $63,270 B&G
$2,500-
Implementation $8,000 B&G
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360- CBG
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000- CBG
community survey) $23,200
5
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
6
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING SERVICES
This contract agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and
between the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington ("City"), and
Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101 ("Consultant").
RECITALS:
Whereas,'the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibit"B". Time is of the essence of this contract. In the
event that the services are not completed within the time required through any fault of the
Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have the option of
extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not preclude the
recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes &Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibit"A".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
1
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the'change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
• qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
licensed or certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or
certification is required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be
executed by them or under their supervision. The Consultant will furnish to the City
for approval, prior to execution of this contract, a list of all individuals and the names
of their employers or principals to be employed as consultants.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
2
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any,without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"A" and/or
Exhibit"B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
executionjof this contract are not subject to this provision.
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibit"A"
and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the Services, as may be
reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager and/or the City Attorney and Finance and Information Services
3
Administrator, will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports,
surveys, and other documents and,each phase of work performed by the Consultant.
The City's estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant
atIthe time of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant
acknowledges and understands that the interrelated exchange of information among
the City's various departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly
establish the time of each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and
approve within the estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this
contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer,Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager,will represent the City for all purposes under this contract, and
they are designated, collectively, as the project manager. The project manager will
supervise the performance,progress, and execution of the Services, and will be
assisted by such other individuals as may be designated by the Chief Administrative
Officer.
4.4 If jthe City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5 Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideeration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services,the City will pay the Consultant a flat
fee of$2,000 per month, including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws, including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses,the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars.($125,000.00). The amount of compensation
will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in
Exhibit`B", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum amount set
forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-consultants,
who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in advance. The
City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the Consultant does
not obtain such prior approval.
5.1.3 In consideration of the full performance of optional Services in connection
with negotiations with the cable franchisee consistent with the applicable
federal cable act laws,the amount of compensation set forth in Exhibit`B"
will not exceed Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). The rate
schedules may be updated by the Consultant only once mid-way during the
term of this contract, and the rate schedules will not become effective for
purposes of this contract, unless and until the consultant gives the City thirty
(30) days' prior written notice of the effective date of any revised rate
schedule.
4
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
5.2.1 Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in
proportion to the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any
other schedule of payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in
Exhibit`B", or within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such
requests if a schedule of payment is not specified. The City will make final
payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports, surveys, and other
documents, including,without limitation, reports which have been approved by
the project manager.
5.2.2 Payment of the Optional Services will be made in monthly progress payments
of services rendered,within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of
such requests.
Section 6. Accounting, Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit`B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members,officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8.1 Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision,ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
5
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract,the insurance coverage described in Exhibit
"C", insuring the Consultant it its consultants, and,with the exception of workers'
compensation, employer's liability and professional liability insurance,naming the
City as an additional insured concerning the Consultant's performance under this
contract.
9.2 Alll insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk thirty(30) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional.insured except in policies of workers' compensation, employer's
liability, and professional liability insurance. Current certificates of such insurance
will be kept on file at all times during the term of this contract with the city clerk.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consrltant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
6
contract,with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to ihe Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
foir the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services,the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section.
will not'exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment,will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
7
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
To Consultant: Attention of the project director at the address of the Consultant
recited above.
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 Tlie Consultant further covenants that,in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
15.1 As set forth in the Renton City Code, no discrimination will be made in the
employment of persons under this contract because of the age,race, color, national
origin, ancestry,religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of such person.
15.2 The Consultant agrees that each contract for services from independent providers will
contain a provision substantially as follows:
"(Name of Provider)will provide the Consultant with a certificate stating that
(Name of Provider) is currently in compliance with all Federal and State of
Washington laws covering nondiscrimination in employment; and that the
employment of any person under this contract because of the age,race, color,
national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender of
such person."
15.3 If the consultant is found in violation of the nondiscrimination provisions of the State
of Washington Fair Employment Practices Act or similar provisions of Federal law or
executive order in the performance of this contract, it will be in default of this
contract. Thereupon, the City will have the power to cancel or suspend this contract,
8
in whole or in part, or to deduct the sum of twenty-five dollars ($25) for each person
foi1 each calendar day during which such person was subjected to discrimination, as
damages for breach of contract, or both. Only a finding of the Washington State
Human Rights Commission or the equivalent federal agency or officer will constitute '
evidence of a breach of this contract.
15.4 If the Consultant is found in default of the nondiscrimination provisions of this
contract, the Consultant will be found in material breach of this contract. Thereupon,
the City will have the power to cancel or suspend this contact, in whole or in part, or
r
to deduct from the amount payable to the Consultant the sum of two hundred fifty
dollars ($250) for each calendar day during which the Consultant is not in compliance
with this provision as damages for breach of contract, or both.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington,relating to access to public
bufildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended.in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract,whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case maybe, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
9
16.11 This contract maybe executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Renton Municipal Code. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 15.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY& GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST: Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services&Time Schedule
Exhibit"B": Rate Schedule
Exhibit"C": Insurance
Exhibit"C": Nondiscrimination Compliance Form
10
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of , )
) ss.
County o )
On this 1 day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
11 ,
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
Vtl:
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and`B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1! Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A"and`B"`��Time is of the essence of this contract.
In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any fault of
the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have the option
of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not preclude the
recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2J Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 Tlie Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be req_ ired t e 0 fL
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed '': e
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
1
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents,will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3! Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is M1)
required by law,to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book .
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit" attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances,regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
2
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the Cit t Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide he I. yJwi four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. 1I to she&/le O'//Q eoY40444:egruffwelvds
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or;consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record; 1
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit` "-aneli-ep
FLit�=S"'
3.1,1 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided,however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
Section 4: Duties of the City
3
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibit"A" 4-Ile
and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the Services, as may be
reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
r Cable Manager, will represent the City for all purposes under this contract, and
trii V they are designated, collectively, as the project manager. The project manager will
supervise the performance,progress, and execution of the Services, and will be
assisted by such other individuals as may be designated by the Chief Administrative
Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance ofthe Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses, the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed Ninety Thousand
�p� oll , x y ,
( i The amount of compensation will b calculated in accordance with
d.0 G. the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit` 'pon a time and materials basis,
up to the maximum amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve
/fr , the fees of the sub-consultants,who have direct contractual relationships with
the Consultant, in advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
5.2.1 Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in
proportion to the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any
other schedule of payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in
4
Exhibit'1 ", or within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such
requests if a schedule of payment is not specified. The City will make final
payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports, surveys, and other
documents, including,without limitation, reports which have been approved by
the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions,-or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition, provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
5
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an"additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
6
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
7
•
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer,Project DirectoyfeZardMaki
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
15.1 No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract
because of the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry,religion, disability, sexual
preference or gender of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions.
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington,relating to access to public
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
8
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract,whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
9
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST: Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments I11111M""
Exhibit"A": Franchise Management cope of Services
Exhibit"B": Franchise Renewal Scope of Services•Se Pime ehedttie p�,W
Exhibit"C": `COS
•
z4 -D t 464A-L\ Stai-J.61Y0
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
)_ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management Assi']vije,
Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts— �l� (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
11
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
t
+ 1
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Services
Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and ope tional effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a eport of such findings to the City upon
determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state law,
and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting iany deficiencies discovered immediately to the City.
Vr 11
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992-2-4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations; �0A
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton, o
covii,
either approve submitted rates, or drove in whole or impart and either order a
refun or prescn e reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
1 wl�tnh
• Recommend^Iners or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event of
non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3 —4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months,-,*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the planning
process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.4-eivertJab 4 With'Al
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months* L,
• Compile and compareical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based co�mpmunnications.
Financial Implications— —2 months I
• Prepare udget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total cost
of operations, including budget development for the remaining years of cable
TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
14
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 m d• mod-' T°r,
• Conduct o unit wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in lieu
Y P Y� P Y
of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
a-vv‘ .
Cost s 1Neadow4
Administrative
All Administrative work will be complete by Bradley& uzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G&
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
Access Utilization $12,800 - B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3 Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q - 2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q - 2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q - 4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q - 4Q - 2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
-Stk. ',w►4,o/v)
- Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
roi 1- 0pa-1
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
fi
�Uw4 110;-04\
)454t
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
tri•
NCI
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 8/9/2005 1:59:20 PM
Subject: Contract& New Timeframe
Bonnie,
Attached is copy of a sample contract. Exhibit A has the new timeframe
with the information you requested. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need any adjustments made. I will be in the office all day
tomorrow. Good luck with your meeting.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
PROFEESIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON AND
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT is entered into this
day of August, 2005, by and between the law firm of Bradley & Guzzetta LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, and the City of Renton, Washington a municipal
corporation, whereby the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Basic Services.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", shall, as
specified in Exhibit A, attached herto and incorporated herewith, perform services to
assist the City of Renton, Washington (hereinafter the "City") with the cable television
franchise renewal process.
Section 2. Expenditure Limitation.
Contractor fully understands that total expenditures for the professional services
related to cable franchise renewal specified in Section 1 herein for the period from the
effective date of this agreement to June 30, 2006 shall be $ _ , which
expenditures shall include the employment of sub-consultants, Contractor's travel
expenses, cash disbursements, including long distance telephone calls, copy charges,
postage and delivery charges, and photocopier charges, etc. It is the Contractor's sole
responsibility to notify the City in writing marked to the attention of the City Attorney if
it appears that such expenditures will exceed the level of$ . Contractor
fully understands and agrees that the City will not be responsible for any expenditures for
professional services and cost in excess of a total of $ unless prior
written approval has been received by the Contractor from the City. The City
understands that the Contractor shall not be required to provide or complete any services
or products for which funds are not available.
For the Administrative services listed in Section 1, the City agrees to pay
Contractor a flat fee of$2,000.00 per month.
Section 3. Terms of Payment.
Contractor shall submit to the City of Renton, City Attorney's Office, an itemized
billing on a monthly basis covering all professional services and expenses provided
hereunder. Such billing shall be itemized showing the date and services performed, time
expended, and hourly rate for services, and total amount due. Within thirty (30) working
days after receipt of such a billing, the City shall make full payment to the Contractor,
except for any amount that may be properly disputed by the City in writing. Notice of
any disputed time or expense shall be provided to the Contractor within thirty (30) days
of the applicable invoice date, or within such time as is provided by state or local law,
whichever is shorter. Invoices for work will be submitted to the City monthly and are
due and payable 30 days after submission.
Section 4. Idemnification.
The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor and its owners,
officers, and employees from and against any and all loss, injury, damage, claim or
liability (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) by any third party to
the extent arising out of the City's negligent acts, errors or omission, including claims
made by the employees of City.
2
Section 5. Subconsultants.
CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D and Front Range Consulting,
Inc. are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the Contractor in
the performance of this Agreement.
The Contractor may, after obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or
employ additional sub-consultants in connection with the performance of services under
this Agreement.
Section 6. Provision of Information.
The City shall use its best efforts to provide or arrange for the provision of
information requested by the Contractor that is needed to perform the services hereunder.
The Contractor shall not be responsible for any or all errors or omissions in such
information, nor for any damages attributable to defects in information provided or
prepared by others, unless the Contractor knew of the defects and expressly advised the
City to rely on the defective information in performing services hereunder. The
Contractor shall not incur any liability as a result of requested information that is not
timely provided.
Section 7. Relationship Between Parties.
In the performance of the services hereunder, the Contractor is an independent
contractor and shall not be considered an employee, agent or representative of the City
for any purpose. Likewise, no employee, official, agent or elected official of the City
shall be considered an employee or agent of the Contractor. Unless specifically identified
otherwise in this Agreement, the services performed,by Consultant under this Agreement
are solely for the benefit of the City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create
any duties on the part of the Contractor toward any person not a party to,this Agreement.
3
Section 8. Term of Agreement.
Both parties fully understand and agree that this Agreement automatically
terminates on any of the following conditions:
1. The expenditure of the total amount set forth in Section 2.
2. The conclusion to the satisfaction of the City of the professional
services identified in Section 1. of this Agreement; or
3. The submission by either party of thirty(30) days written notice to
the other party, in accordance with the notice provisions of this Agreement. In the event
of termination, the City shall pay the Contractor for all professional services rendered to
the date of termination,plus reasonable expenses for winding down the services.
Section 9. Conflict of Interest.
The City understands that because Contractor represents a large number of clients
in a wide variety of matters around the country, it is possible that, while the City is a
client, Contractor will be asked to represent a client whose interests are actually or
potentially adverse to the City's interests. Contractor agrees that it shall not undertake
any such adverse representation unless, among other things, the City waives any conflict
of interest in writing.
Section 10. Performance Requirements.
The services provided under this Agreement shall be performed as soon as good
practice and due diligence will permit. Contractor agrees that it shall consult with
designated representative(s) of the City before undertaking any actions on the City's
behalf or engaging in any negotiations or making any commitments on behalf of the City.
4
Section 11. Waiver Modification.
Both parties understand that any waiver or amendment to any of the terms of this
Agreement is not valid unless said amendment or waiver is in writing and executed by
both parties to this Agreement.
Section 12. Anti Discrimination.
Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against an employee or an applicant
for employment with regard to age, tenure, terms, conditions, or provisions of
employment based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight,
marital status or because of a handicap that is unrelated to the individual's ability to
perform the duties of a particular job or position.
Section 13. Notices.
Any notices required or permitted hereunder shall be sufficient if personally
delivered or sent by overnight delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed as follows:
if to the Contractor: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
- 444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
if to the City: Insert City Contact
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices sent by overnight
mail shall be effective upon receipt. Notices sent by regular mail shall be effective five
business days after mailing.
5
Section 14. Entire Agreement.
With respect to the subject matter hereof, this Agreement supercedes all previous
understandings and agreements, either written or oral, between the parties hereto or their
representatives and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
Section 15. Miscellaneous.
(a) If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and
provision declared invalid or unenforceable shall continue as to other
circumstances.
(b) This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with,
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(c) The failure of either party to exercise any of its rights under this
Agreement shall not be a waiver of those rights. A party waives only
those rights it specifies in writing.
(d) Paragraph headings have been inserted for convenience only and in no
way limit or define the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement
Section 10. Effective Date of Agreement.
This Agreement shall be effective beginning on date of execution.
6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first above written.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC City of Renton, Washington
By: By:
Michael R. Bradley Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor
Its: Owner
By:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Approved as to form only:
City Attorney
7
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance) •
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
8
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
c analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system, new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration.
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming, reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
9
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and ,
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization-3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels,time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3 —6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months* .
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
10
,
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
11
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
$17,000-
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $20,400 CBG
1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200-
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 B&G&CBG
p 1Q-2Q-2006
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting, 7-
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006 /
Training,and Evaluation $5 850 B&G&CBG \
N\\\
1Q-2006 1�
Work Plan $2,340 B&G&CBG
1Q-2006 1,
Special Presentation $2,340 - B&G 1Q-2006 V�
1, Survey(Mail Out Survey-Ci3'payslmailing $8 000- _
cos�ts)J �/ \- $11�,200/���,CBG - 2Q Q~=2606\-? �i
$1,560- r
J Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
J 1 Q-2006
;�e _ i�
I Financial Implications •t t �)J 0 $�680 B&G ,/
p 1 a� 2Q-4Q-2007 /`
Negotiations '1 ' 1 $63,2770 B&G
1Q-4Q-2007)(
$2,500- i
Implementation $8,000 B&G
4Q-2007 /
\ `/
Optional
Renewal ;'
Costs Consultant Timeframe /
-
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360 /
CBG v
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
*Q=Quarter. The times listed are estimates
and subject to change.
12
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost. •
13
r
From: Linda Herzog
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 9/16/2005 1:36:37 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Contract
Bonnie— I have a few problems with the changes B&G proposes, but Jay will have to make the call.
Perhaps you can check with Larry Warren or Mike Webby on these"boilerplate" items:
I continue to be very concerned about the"direct cost" part of this contract. I know you have estimated an
additional $2500 per year to cover the out of pocket costs B&G listed in their proposal. I assume you got
that figure ($2500 per year)from someone on the B&G team. But since clerical and word processing
costs are one of the listed items, I have a hard time imaginging that direct costs will come in at$2500 or
less per year. Now there is in this B&G suggested contract modification, another reference to separating
out the direct cost charges—and here B&G indicates that the$155k contract does NOT include direct
costs. In your agenda bill, the $155k DOES include direct costs. (Note also that I changed your$155,000
to $157,500 because there are THREE years involved, @ $2500 per year.)
Our std form contract evidently calls for contract termination with 30 days notice. B&G wants to change to
90 days. Is this okay w/Renton?
Just preceding article 11.4, B&G proposes to remove our wording about payment for partial completion of
tasks, and—more importantly—has removed the words limiting the total contract amount. Altho we will
be paying them by the hour(and therefore"partial completion"doesn't really mean anything), we may
want to retain our original wording that limits total spending under the contract.
B&G removed Article 16.4 which speaks to court costs and atty fees being recoverable by the prevailing
party in a lawsuit. My guess is that we always have that in our contracts. Does everyone think this is okay
to remove???
In just a few minutes I will be sending you my own suggested revisions of:
the contract
the agenda bill
the issue paper
I understand you will be discussing these with Jay at 3:00. I am also sending him a copy of those three
documents as edited by me. I will not be here at 3:00, so you and Jay can put the finishing touches on the
agenda item.
Good luck!
Linda
>>> "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 09/15/05 1:12 PM >>>
Hi Bonnie,
Thanks for forwarding the contract to us. We are looking forward to
getting started. Here are our initial comments on the latest draft.
Please call or e-mail me with any questions.
Mike
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton Jmailto:Bwalton(a�ci.renton.wa.usl
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 1:19 PM
To: Tracy J. Schaefer
Subject: Contract
`T
Tracy:
Upper City management is still reviewing the contract as attached, but I
wanted to get a copy to you finally so you can start your review as
well. Renton City Council has not yet reviewed or approved it either.
Sorry it has taken this long to get the draft to you. Let me know as
soon as you have completed your review, and/or if you have any
questions.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CC: Covington, Jay
Price Proposal —
Cable Television.
Franchise Management and.
Renewal Consulting Services
For the City of
Renton, Washington
Submitted to:
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City.Hall, Room 728
1055 S. Grady.Way
Renton, WA 98055
Respectfully Submitted by:
er-
kr
_Lr & g
Bradleyd�
Guzzetta,..1LC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza. . . .
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101. . .
P/651=3.79-0900
F/651-37.9-0999.
April14, 2005
A. COST PROPOSAL CONSULTANT DETAILS
The B&G Team will work with the City to establish a scope of work that will not exceed
the City's desired budget Although we have submitted a total project estimate, these
figures can vary, depending on the level of detail and number of studies the City chooses
to complete. With that in mind, B&G would be happy to discuss with City officials 'a
specific budget for :management :and renewal : services to meet your needs: We
understand that the City has an annual budget of $22,500 for management renewal
services, so the.B&G Team would work with the City to identify and phase cable
management. services to meet Renton's budget.before the.franchise .term expires in
September,2008.
Fees and Hourly Billing Rates:'
CBG Communications,Inc:.
ThomasG. Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video.Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $.195.00
Stephen J.:Gnz7etta,Attorney $195.00_
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior:Project Manager $150.00..Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc..
Richard R. Treich.. $150.00
Invoices for work would be e.submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission:
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing,:Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex,Travel,and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
B&G.TEAM.
b PRICE PROPOSAL=CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
1
Page :
•
B. COST PROPOSAL & PROJECT HOURS***
City of Renton,Washington-Cost Proposal&Hours*
Cost Hours
rA Perform Performance Analysis/Upgrade . $17,000- 100- 120
Evaluation(Includes technical review of $20,400 '
��V system,safety,continuity of service and
new.technologies/growth)
$12,800- 80- 100
Access Utilization(PEG) $13,600
$11,200- 70-85
Access Utilization(I-Net)Optional $13,600
Consumer Protection,Senior Discounts, $1 3 0- 70= 100
$13,6600
FCC Compliance,Documents,Bond and
Insurance,FCC Regulation,Annual
Reports,Other Reports and Technical
Assistance .
Collection of Franchise Fees(Financial '. $4,500- 30-40
Audit) $6,000
Training&Evaluation,Work Plan, $8,000- 50- 100
Comparative Studies,Public Hearings, $13,600
Financial Implications
$8,000- 50-70 .
Subscriber/Non-Subscriber Survey $11,200**
$6,270- 33 -333
Negotiations . $63,270
$2,500- 16-50
Implementation $8,000.
**tithe County and municipalities wish to have us perform a mail-out survey, the County and
.�,e1 ,4 unici alities would need to be responsible for all printin and mailing costs(send and receive). I
04,06
i r( " telephone survey is c osen, a , to t e above figures for the subcontractor services of a telephone
sury
�� ***The costs for the professional services have been calculated using a blended hourly rate of$160/hour.
B&G would be reimbursed for such expenses as fax,photocopies,postage, long distance
phone calls, copy and reproduction, contract clerical,FedEx or courier,travel and other
similar expenses. The B&G Team always works with the city to minimize all expenses.
Reimbursable costs would be billed to the City on an actual cost basis.
:;' B>EAM
iD'"; ,c, lil
PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
"` MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 2
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April 14,2005
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC.
Michael R: Bradley, Owner.
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Owner
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza . . . . -
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999=:fax
www.bradleyguz7etta.coln:
B&G TEAM
PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE.'
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 3
From: Marty Wine
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 8/8/2006 7:14:05 AM
Subject: Fwd: Rate Review Memo
Hi, here is a memo from Mike Bradley about the rate review process.As you may have seen, Jay has a
conflict this morning and won't be able to join us till Thursday at 10:30, or after our team meeting. So if it
would work for you, Mike, you and I will go over the rate review process and also tour the studio and other
facilities this morning.
Thanks -
Marty
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Marty Wine" <MWine@ci.renton,wa.us>
Date: 8/8/2006 6:48:09 AM
Subject: Rate Review Memo
Marty- I've attached a fairly technial memo on the rate review process.
I'll be going over the process in a today in a plain english sort of
way, but this memo lays out the technical detail of a rate review of the
FCC Forms 1240 and 1205.
Mike
MEMORANDUM
0:1 To: . Ms. Marty Wine and Ms. Bonnie Walton
1.1 _-.; From: Michael R. Bradley
==� Re: Rate Filings
Date: August 8, 2006
Bradley.%
Guzzetta, [lc INTRODUCTION
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza The City of Renton (the "City) annually receives rate filings from Comcast.
444 Cedar Street The FCC Form 1205 is the rate form that sets Comcast's equipment rates and
Saint Paul,MN 55101 the FCC Form 1240 is the rate form that sets Comcast's programming rates.
P/(651)379-0900
F/(651)379-0999 This memorandum will address the following general rate regulation issues:
Attorneys at Law 1. What cable service rates can be regulated;
Michael R.Bradley; 2. What are the components of a regulated rate and can those component
Stephen J.Guzzetta* increases be passed through to subscribers;
Senior Project Manager 3. What is the procedure to challenge regulated rates; and
Tracy J. Schaefer
WHICH CABLE SERVICE TIERS CAN BE REGULATED?
Legal Assistants
Emily Faye Jewett Cable rate regulation is governed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and
Elise R.Kahl the underlying rules from the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").
Of Counsel Under the act, a local franchising authority ("LFA") is only authorized to
Thomas C.Plunkett regulate basic service and rates for equipment associated with the delivery of
basic service. For regulatory purposes, basic tier service includes broadcast
signals, local public, educational, and government access channels and other
services the system operator chooses to include in the same package with these
channels. Basic tier service ("BST") is typically the lowest price tier of service
that all subscribers receive. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 contains a
sunset provision for regulating the cable programming service tier ("CPST").
According to the Act, the FCC was authorized to regulate rates for CPST
service up until March 31, 1999, after which this service was no longer be
subject to regulation. The CPST tier, includes all video programming
distributed over a system that is not on the basic service tier.
Only a cable system that is not subject to competition may be regulated. 47
C.F.R. § 76.905. Cable systems are presumed not to be subject to competition.
47 C.F.R. § 76.906. A franchising authority however, must be certified by the
FCC in order to regulate the basic service tier and associated equipment of a
cable system within its jurisdiction. 47 C.F.R. § 76.910. Therefore, assuming
that the City is certified by the FCC to regulate the BST and that Comcast is not
subject to competition, the City may regulate BST rates and related equipment
rates. Neither the City nor the FCC may regulate the CPST rates because this
tier was de-regulated as of March 31, 1999.
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
bradleyguzzctta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
°Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
HOW ARE ANNUAL BST RATES DETERMINED AND CAN THE COMPONENT
INCREASES BE PASSED THROUGH TO SUBSCRIBERS?
In general, operators that elect the annual rate adjustment method may not adjust their rates more
than annually to reflect inflation, changes in external costs, changes in the number of regulated
channels, and changes in equipment costs. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(1). Operators that make rate
adjustments using this method must file a Form 1240 for the purpose of making rate adjustments
to reflect inflation, changes in external costs and changes in the number of regulated channels
and a Form 1205 for the purpose of adjusting rates for regulated equipment and installation. Id.
Operators may choose the annual filing date, but they must notify the franchising authority of
their proposed filing date prior to their filing. Id. Franchising authorities or their designees may
reject the annual filing date chosen by the operator for good cause. Id. If the franchising
authority finds good cause to reject the proposed filing date, the franchising authority and the
operator should work together in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable date. Id. If no
agreement can be reached, the franchising authority may set the filing date up to 60 days later
than the date chosen by the operator. Id. An operator may change its filing date from year-to-
year, but generally, at least twelve months must pass before the operator can implement its next
annual adjustment. Id.
An operator that elects the annual rate adjustment method may adjust its rates to reflect the
following:
1. Inflation;
2. Changes in external costs; and
3. Changes in the number of regulated channels.
47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(2).
1. Inflation Adjustments.
The annual inflation adjustment must be based on inflation that occurred in the most recently
completed July 1 to June 30 period. 47 C.F.R.§ 76.922(e)(2)(i). Adjustments must be based on
changes in the Gross National Product Price Index as published by the Bureau of Economic
Analysis of the United States Department of Commerce. Id.
2. External costs.
Permitted charges for a tier may be adjusted annually to reflect changes in external costs
experienced but not yet accounted for by the cable system, as well as for projections in these
external costs for the 12-month period on which the filing is based. 47 C.F.R. §
76.922(e)(2)(ii)(A). In order that rates be adjusted for projections in external costs, the operator
must demonstrate that such projections are reasonably certain and reasonably quantifiable. Id.
Projections involving copyright fees, retransmission consent fees, other programming costs,
Commission regulatory fees, and cable specific taxes are presumed to be reasonably certain and
Rate Review
• Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
2
reasonably quantifiable. Id. Operators may project for increases in franchise related costs to the
extent that they are reasonably certain and reasonably quantifiable, but such changes are not
presumed reasonably certain and reasonably quantifiable. Operators may pass through increases
in franchise fees pursuant to Section 76.933(g). Id. In all events, a system must adjust its rates
every twelve months to reflect any net decreases in external costs that have not previously been
accounted for in the system's rates. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(2)(ii)(B). Any rate increase made to
reflect increases or projected increases in external costs must also fully account for all other
changes and projected changes in external costs, inflation and the number of channels on
regulated tiers that occurred or will occur during the same period. 47 C.F.R. §
76.922(e)(2)(iii)(C). Rate adjustments made to reflect changes in external costs shall be based
on any changes, plus projections, in those external costs that occurred or will occur in the
relevant time periods since the periods used in the operator's most recent previous FCC Form
1240. Id.
3. Channel adjustments.
Permitted charges for a tier may be adjusted annually to reflect changes not yet accounted for in
the number of regulated channels provided by the cable system, as well as for projected changes
in the number of regulated channels for the 12-month period on which the filing is based. 47
C.F.R. § 922(e)(2)(iii)(A). In order that rates be adjusted for projected changes to the number of
regulated channels, the operator must demonstrate that such projections are reasonably certain
and reasonably quantifiable. Id.
An operator may make rate adjustments for the addition of required channels to the basic service
tier that are required under federal or local law at any time such additions occur, subject to the
filing requirements of Section 76.933(g)(2), regardless of whether such additions occur outside
of the annual filing cycle. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(2)(iii)(B). Required channels may include
must-carry, local origination, public, educational and governmental access and leased access
channels. Id. Should the operator elect not to pass through the costs immediately, it may accrue
the costs of the additional channels plus interest, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
Id.
An operator may make one additional rate adjustment during the year to reflect channel additions
to the cable programming services tiers or, where the operator offers only one regulated tier, the
basic service tier. 47 C.F.R. § 922(e)(2)(iii)(C). Operators may make this additional rate
adjustment at any time during the year, subject to the filing requirements of Section
76.933(g)(2), regardless of whether the channel addition occurs outside of the annual filing
cycle. Id. Should the operator elect not to pass through the costs immediately, it may accrue the
costs of the additional channels plus interest, as described in paragraph (e)(3) of this section. Id.
16, Rate Review
• Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
3
4. True-up and accrual of charges not projected.
As part of the annual rate adjustment, an operator must "true up" its previously projected
inflation, changes in external costs and changes in the number of regulated channels and adjust
its rates for these actual cost changes. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(3). The operator must decrease its
rates for overestimation of its projected cost changes, and may increase its rates to adjust for
underestimation of its projected cost changes. Id. Where an operator has underestimated costs,
future rates may be increased to permit recovery of the accrued costs plus 11.25% interest
between the date the costs are incurred and the date the operator is entitled to make its rate
adjustment. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(3)(i). If an operator has underestimated its cost changes and
elects not to recover these accrued costs with interest on the date the operator is entitled to make
its annual rate adjustment, the interest will cease to accrue as of the date the operator is entitled
to make the annual rate adjustment, but the operator will not lose its ability to recover such costs
and interest. 47 C.F.R. § 76.922(e)(3)(iii). An operator may recover accrued costs between the
date such costs are incurred and the date the operator actually implements its rate adjustment. Id.
HOW ARE RATES ADJUSTED FOR EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION?
An operator must file FCC Form 1205 in order to establish its maximum permitted rates for
equipment and installation on the same date it files its FCC Form 1240, for an operator that
adjusts its BST rates under the annual rate adjustment system. If an operator elects not to file an
FCC Form 1240 for a particular year, the operator must file a Form 1205 on the anniversary date
of its last Form 1205 filing. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(n)(3). A cable operator may charge for all
equipment in a subscriber's home, provided and maintained by the operator, that is used to
receive the basic service tier, regardless of whether such equipment is additionally used to
receive other tiers of regulated programming service and/or unregulated service. Such equipment
shall include, but is not limited to: (i) Converter boxes; (ii) Remote control units; and (iii) Inside
wiring. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(a)(1). Subscriber charges for such equipment shall not exceed
charges based on actual costs. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(a)(2).
A cable operator is required to establish charges for equipment and installation using the Hourly
Service Charge (HSC) methodology. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(d). The HSC shall equal the operator's
annual Equipment Basket costs, including all costs associated with providing customer
equipment and installation, but excluding the purchase cost of customer equipment, divided by
the total person hours involved in installing, repairing, and servicing customer equipment during
the same period. The HSC is calculated according to the following formula:
HSC = EB - CE/H.
Where, EB=annual Equipment Basket Cost; CE=annual purchase cost of all customer
equipment; and H=person hours involved in installing and repairing equipment per year. Id.
The purchase cost of customer equipment shall include the cable operator's invoice price plus all
:.,•
' Rate Review
E • Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
4
other costs incurred with respect to the equipment until the time it is provided to the customer.
Id.
A cable operator is also required to establish rates for remote control units, converter boxes,
other customer equipment, installation, and additional connections separate from rates for basic
tier service. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(b). In addition, the rates for such equipment and installations
shall be unbundled one from the other. Id. Monthly charges for rental of a remote control unit
shall consist of the average annual unit purchase cost of remotes leased, including acquisition
price and incidental costs such as sales tax, financing and storage up to the time it is provided to
the customer, added to the product of the HSC times the average number of hours annually
repairing or servicing a remote, divided by 12 to determine the monthly lease rate for a remote
according to the following formula:
Monthly Charge=UCE+ (HSC * HR)/ 12
Where, HR=average hours repair per year; and UCE=average annual unit cost of remote. 47
C.F.R § 76.923(f). The monthly charge for rental of converter boxes and other customer
equipment shall be calculated in the same manner as for remote control units. Separate charges
may be established for each category of other customer equipment. 47 C.F.R. § 76.923(g).
Equipment charges may include a properly allocated portion of franchise fees. 47 C.F.R. §
76.923(k).
WHAT IS THE PROCESS TO CHALLENGE BST RATES AND EQUIPMENT COSTS?
A cable operator, using the annual filing system, must submit for review its proposed change in
its existing rates for the basic service tier and associated equipment costs no later than 90 days
from the effective date of the proposed rates. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g). The franchising authority
will have 90 days from the date of the filing to review it. Id. However, if the franchising
authority concludes that the operator has submitted a facially incomplete filing, the franchising
authority's deadline for issuing a decision, the date on which rates may go into effect if no
decision is issued, and the period for which refunds are payable will be tolled while the
franchising authority is waiting for this information. Id. Provided that, in order to toll these
effective dates, the franchising authority or its designee must notify the operator of the
incomplete filing within 45 days of the date the filing is made. Id.
If there is a material change in an operator's circumstances during the 90-day review period and
the change affects the operator's rate change filing, the operator may file an amendment to its
Form 1240 prior to the end of the 90-day review period. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(1). If the
operator files such an amendment, the franchising authority will have at least 30 days to review
the filing. Therefore, if the amendment is filed more than 60 days after the operator made its
initial filing, the operator's proposed rate change may not go into effect any earlier than 30 days
after the filing of its amendment. Id. However, if the operator files its amended application on
or prior to the sixtieth day of the 90-day review period, the operator may implement its proposed
rate adjustment, as modified by the amendment, 90 days after its initial filing. Id.
l:. Rate Review
1,21
'` • Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
5
If a franchising authority has taken no action within the 90-day review period, then the proposed
rates may go into effect at the end of the review period, subject to a prospective rate reduction
and refund if the franchising authority subsequently issues a written decision disapproving any
portion of such rates. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(2). Provided, however, that in order to order a
prospective rate reduction and refund, if an operator inquires as to whether the franchising
authority intends to issue a rate order after the initial review period, the franchising authority or
its designee must notify the operator of its intent in this regard within 15 days of the operator's
inquiry. Id.
If a proposed rate goes into effect before the franchising authority issues its rate order, the
franchising authority will have 12 months from the date the operator filed for the rate adjustment
to issue its rate order. Id. In the event that the franchising authority does not act within this 12-
month period, it may not at a later date order a refund or a prospective rate reduction with respect
to the rate filing. Id.
At the time an operator files its rates with the franchising authority, the operator may give
customers notice of the proposed rate changes. 47 C.F.R. § 76.933(g)(3). Such notice should
state that the proposed rate change is subject to approval by the franchising authority. Id. If the
operator is only permitted a smaller increase than was provided for in the notice, the operator
must provide an explanation to subscribers on the bill in which the rate adjustment is
implemented. Id. If the operator is not permitted to implement any,of the rate increase that was
provided for in the notice, the operator must provide an explanation to subscribers within 60 days
of the date of the franchising authority's decision. Id. Additional advance notice is only required
in the unlikely event that the rate exceeds the previously noticed rate. Id.
If the cable operator has a legal basis, it may appeal an adverse rate order to the FCC for
administrative review.
CONCLUSION
As you can probably gather from this memorandum, a detailed rate review can be very tedious
and time consuming. Usually the best way to proceed is to join with other franchising authorities
to conduct such a review. Many of our clients were recently part of a large consortium of cities
in reviewing Comcast's FCC Form 1205. We were successful in negotiating a significant refund
to cable subscribers and lowered the rates that Comcast charges for equipment, such as the
digital boxes and remote controls on a going-forward basis.
Rate Review
• Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
6
City of Renton
Cable Franchise Renewal
ioNt
• By
Michael R.Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
Bradley& Phone: (425)430-1364
Guzzetta,LLC March 13,2005
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
• Boutique Law Firm
• Represent only Cities in Cable and
Telecommunications Matters
• Representative Clients Include
- Minneapolis, MN
- Oklahoma City, OK
- Nashville, TN
Hal
Franchise Renewal Slide#2
July 8,2005
1
Why Renewal is Important
• Cable Operator
- Must Have a Franchise to Provide
Service
— The Right to Occupy the Public Rights
of Way is very valuable
• National Average $9 per foot
p Franchise Renewal July 8,2005
Why Renewal is Important
• Opportunity to Reflect on Past
Performance
— All past performance issues must be resolved
prior to entering into new franchise
• Opportunity to Assess the Community's
Cable Related Needs and Interests
• Long-Term Business Deal
— Franchise is typically 10-15 years
Franchise Renewal Slide#4
July 8,2005
2
•
Common Issues
• PROW-Mgt
• PROW-Fees
• Rate Regulation
— Effective Competition
— Congress has severely limited LFA authority
— Expensive Proposition with large Industry oponent
• Virtual guarantee of FCC litigation
• Cable Programming
— Congress has nearly eliminated any LFA authority
— Exception—Broad Category of Programming
• Construction
— Most LFA areas are built out
— Some minor repair and replacement Issues
• Institutional Networks
• Service Territories
— In place for cable
— In play for Telephone
• PEG—capital and operational support
• Customer Service
ra( Fhise Renewal Slide#5
i, N ranc July 8,2005
•
Work Plan
• Current Cable Franchise Compliance
Review
— Review Franchise Commitments
— Franchise Fee Review
— System Technical Review
• Notice Non-Compliance (if any)
• Conduct Needs Assessment
— Citizen input
— Surveys (mail or telephone)
iL70]
Franchise Renewal Slide#6
July 8,2005
3
Overall Goals of the Needs
Ascertainment Process
• Identify and Articulate the Community's
Future Cable-Related Needs and
Interests
• Develop Recommendations As to How
the Community's Needs and Interests
Can Be Satisfied by company
• Maximize the City's Negotiating
Leverage with cable company
Franchise Renewal July ea2005
3 R
Description of Needs
Ascertainment Process
• Survey various City government and
educational institutions
• Hold Focus Group meetings with interested
agency officials and staff
• Pose questions concerning the cable
system's capabilities to cable company
Franchise Renewal July ea2005
4
Description of Needs
Ascertainment Process (Cont'd)
• Analyze responses from City agencies,
educational institutions, public and cable
company
• Prepare Findings and Recommendations in
a needs assessment report
Franchise Renewal Slide#5
. F hi
July 8,2005
Work Plan
• Draft Needs Assessment Report
— Based upon Surveys, Public Input, Interviews,
etc.
• Draft Cable Franchise Agreement and
Ordinance
• Draft Staff Report and RFRP
• City Council Review of Staff Report and
RFRP
— Ultimately to Accept and Direct Staff to issue
RFRP
t •
Franchise Renewal July Slide 005
5
Work Plan
• Staff Issues RFRP
• Receive Formal Renewal Proposals
• Entertain Informal Renewal
Proposals/Negotiations
• Prepare Report on Formal Renewal
Proposal
• Act on Formal Renewal Proposal
Sl11
Franchise Renewal July 8,2 05
Keys to Success
• Treat Renewal as a Business Negotiation
— Comcast Will
• Negotiate from a Position of Strength
• Communication by City with Comcast
• Make the Operator Justify Position
• The More you Prepare — The More
Successful you will be
Slide#12
g Franchise Renewal July 8,2005
6
,, ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
��NT°� MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 22, 2005
TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney
FROM: b0 Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: Cable Consultant Agreement
Attached for your review is a proposed Cable Consultant Agreement with Exhibits. I seek approval as
to form. I would also appreciate any feedback you may have regarding the content of the agreement,
the responsibilities of the consultant, and the renewal process, which is usually a 3-year process. As
you will see, the proposed contract names you as one of the City's project management team members.
Background:
The City currently contracts with 3H Cable(Lynne Hurd) on a month-to-month basis for cable
consultant management and administration services. On March 14, 2005, a Request for Proposal for
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services was advertised. (Our cable
franchise expires in Sept. 2008.) Seven responses were received by the closing date of April 14, 2005.
3H Cable did not submit a proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by four individuals: the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director, the Information Services Director and the
City Clerk/Cable Manager. From those evaluations, four proposals were selected as candidates for
interview. Interviews were conducted on June 10 and 13, 2005. Interview panel members included:
Jay Covington, CAO,Ben Wolters, Economic Development Director, George McBride, Information
Services Director, Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager and Kayren Kittrick, Development
Engineering Supervisor. The Bradley and Guzzetta, Inc. team was selected as the most qualified to
accomplish the objectives of the proposal.
For your information, I attach copy of the RFP that was issued for this contract, as well as copy of
Bradley and Guzzetta's proposals and their draft contract. I did not use B&G's draft contract, which
they were reluctant to provide anyway knowing we would likely want our own form,but I did use the
Scope of work they provided, with just minor changes.
Thank you for your assistance in this important matter.
Attachments
• Consultant Agreement-Draft 8-22-05
• Request for Proposal(3-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta Services Proposal(4-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta Price Proposal(4-14-05)
• Bradley&Guzzetta E-mail and Sample Contract(8-9-05)
cc: Jay Covington, CAO
DRAFT 8/22/2005 —
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and`B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008,unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance,the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and "C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of anychange in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of -
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book,Ph.D
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit"D" attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason,the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents,the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
' out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal,and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City -
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A" and "B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the.
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney,Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In,consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses,the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants, who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits "C" and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission,in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,term, condition, provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause, by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension-or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination,the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment, will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract. •
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed, postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 -fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer, Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com_
www.bradleyguzzetta.com ,
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color,national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington, relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract, whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its •
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Michael Bradley,President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of_ )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations, performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the a access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
•
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3 —6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation— 1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation— 1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies— 1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 - 2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
,
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G &
Protection &Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q -2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560- B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q - 2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q - 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q -2007
Implementation $2,500- B&G
$8,000 4Q -2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360- CBG
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
> .
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
..
TY
Ufa. ®��
+ +
�'�NrsO)
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
Due Date: April 14,2005
No later than 2:30 p.m.
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall,Rm. 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055 •
RFP SUBMITTED BY:
COMPANY
CONTACT PERSON
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
E-MAIL ADDRESS
4
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service, as
more fully described in the Proposal document.
The current cable TV franchise agreement between the City and Comcast is set to expire in
accordance with Ordinance No. 4412 on September 13, 2008.
Interested parties should contact the Office of the City Clerk at 425 430-6510 to receive the
complete Request for Proposal document.
Proposals must be received no later than April 14, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the City Clerk's office,
7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton,WA 98055, to be eligible for
consideration. Each proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope that is clearly marked,
"RFP for Cable TV Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services"
The City of Renton reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or any part thereof,to waive
any formality, informality or information in the proposal, and to accept the proposal considered
to be in the best interest of the City.
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Daily Journal of Commerce
March 14 &28, 2005
2
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service. See
www.ci.renton.wa.us for full proposal notice(click on Site Index, Call for Bids), or call 425-430-
6510 for more information or to receive the proposal document.
&14_4A22.j &a aria
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Puget Sound Business Journal
March 18, 2005
3
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 5
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES 5
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS 7
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD 9
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton, Washington, is seeking proposals from an experienced and qualified
telecommunications consulting service with excellent technical, legal, administrative and
financial consultant resources to assist with cable franchise management and with the upcoming
cable franchise renewal process.
This RFP requests that vendors describe in detail how the consulting company would provide the
services indicated herein, what services would be provided, projected time lines, costs, and
availability of the company to provide the service.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Renton,population 55,360, has a cable television franchise agreement with Comcast,
which will expire in September of 2008. Franchise fee receipts for 2004 totaled approximately'
$543,000. The current budget for the work of the consultant identified under this request is
$22,500 annually.
A copy of the City's current cable franchise, Ordinance No. 4412, is available upon request to
the City Clerk office, 425-430-6502.
A copy of the City's regulatory code is available on-line on the City website at
www.ci.renton.wa.us. Click on Site Index, then City Code(Renton Municipal Code)to review
Chapters 17 and 19 of Title V, Finance and Business Regulations.
At a minimum, the consultant must have 5 to 7 years' experience in cable franchise work. The
consultant must also, at the time of contract execution,be licensed to do-business in the City of
Renton and State of Washington, and must furnish insurance certificates to the City as deemed
acceptable by the City's risk management officer.
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Cable consultant will ideally provide overall guidance, leadership and support for both day-
to-day cable television franchise management, and for the upcoming franchise renewal process.
The responsibilities of the contractor would include,but not be limited to:
CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE:
A. Performance Analysis. Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of
the City's present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
B. Upgrade Evaluation. Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator
and duly adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike
5
manner on a timely basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the City.
C. Consumer Protection and Complaints. Assume responsibility for reviewing and'promptly
responding to all public inquiries regarding cable television services, making every effort
to bring such inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the
cable operator whenever possible. On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed
when necessary for reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
D. Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts. Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants
for senior citizen/disabled person discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated
in Washington state guidelines.
E. Ordinance Compliance. Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to
permit the City to request additional non-entertainment features such as Public,
Educational and Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks
(I-Nets). Additionally analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the
operator that may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
F. Compliance With the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992. Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC benchmark
tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally accepted
accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-throughs and, if
appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations. Based upon these assessments and consistent with
FCC regulations, advise Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole
or in part and either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. This function shall also
include verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated technical
specifications. Consultant will also recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable
or appropriate in the event of non-compliance.
G. Documents. Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current
system maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance
tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
H. Access Utilization. Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided, including the monitoring of the availability of such channels,
time allocations provided for such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the
franchisee.
I. Collection of Franchise Fees. Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if
required, that the franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and
follow up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
J. Bond and Insurance. Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by
the franchise ordinances, immediately advise the City of any default of any such
requirements, and monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to
the City of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
6
K. FCC Regulations. Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to
municipal franchise procedures and advise the City as to any significant change or
modifications to these or any other Federal or State legislation applicable
L. Annual Reports. Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,
reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
M. Other Reports. Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television
franchise administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations,
financial information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
N. Technical Assistance. Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise
evaluation, service delivery and system administration.
FRANCHISE RENEWAL SPECIFIC:
O. Training and Evaluation. Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the
franchise renewal process, including routine preparation, conducting site visits and
evaluation of cable provider
P. Work Plan. Develop a franchise renewallsolicitation strategy and review of the planning
process, development of charts and phasing;
Q. Special Presentation. Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council
R. Survey. Survey community input and analyze results
S. Comparative Studies. Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions
T. Public Hearings. Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional
•
communications,public relations and web-based communications;
U. Financial Implications. Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis
for a total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years of
cable TV effort;
V. Solicit Providers. Develop RFP to solicit competitive providers, including preliminary
visits, follow-up visits, and presentation and proposal response evaluation;
W. Negotiations. Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers
X. Implementation. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract
compliance and acceptance
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
In order to facilitate evaluation of the proposals,the proposer is instructed to follow the outline
below in responding. Proposals shall be submitted using eight and one-half by eleven(8 %x 11)
inch paper. One original and two copies of each proposal must be submitted. Proposals should
cover both cable television franchise management and cable franchise renewal services as
indicated in this document. If necessary,however, cable franchise renewal services can be
proposed separately,but must be identified as "Proposal for Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Services Only." All proposals must include the following:
7
A. Letter of Submittal
Along with introductory remarks, the Letter of Submittal is to include the following information
about the Consultant and any proposed subcontractors:
Understanding of the Request: Provide a statement of the proposer's understanding of the City's
request for services
Personnel: Identify key personnel why will provide the required services directly to the City
under this request, including their qualifications, education, and relevant recent experience.
References: Provide a list of three (3)previous and current references, which are considered
identical or similar to the scope of services discussed herein, to include: a) contract duration,
including dates,b) services performed, and c)name, address and telephone number of
contracting agency which may be contacted for verification of all data submitted.
Statement of Qualifications, experience and resources of the firm, including the ownership and
financial wherewithal to assume the work identified herein.
Sample of Work, including two recent samples of work(reports and RFPs that the proposer feels
most closely parallels the work required under this request and that will reflect the experience
and qualifications desired, including the project manager name and team identification.
Proposed Overall Work Plan-Recommend and detail the steps and methodology necessary to
complete the scope of work. Include hours, dates, deliverables and persons responsible for
phases.
Signature: The proposal shall be signed by an official authorized to bind the proposer and shall
contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a forty-five(45)day period.
The proposal shall also provide the following information: Name, title, address, telephone
number, e-mail address and fax number of the individual(s)with authority to contractually bind
the company, and also of those who may be contacted during the period of proposal evaluation
for the purpose of clarifying submitted information.
B) Cost Proposal
The evaluation process is designed to award this procurement not necessarily to the Consultant
of least cost,but rather to the Consultant,whose proposal best meets the requirements of this
RFP.
Pricing is to be submitted with the proposal document with a cover sheet marked"Price Proposal
- Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services." (If Cable TV
Franchise Renewal Process Services Only is proposed,then the pricing cover sheet is to be
marked"Price Proposal- Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services Only
Pricing should identify all costs, including expenses to be charged for performing the services
necessary to accomplish the objectives of the contract. Consultants are required to collect and
pay Washington state sales tax, if applicable. Costs for subcontractors are to broken out
separately. Consultant is encouraged to break out costs for various services listed in the RFP.
8
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
A two-step evaluation process is envisioned. First, a cut will be made to the top few proposals
from written submissions. The top proposals will then be interviewed. The City may award a
contract based on offers received, without additional submissions from the proposer.
Accordingly, each offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and
technical standpoint. However,the City reserves the right to request additional data, or oral
discussions, or presentation in support of written proposals. In addition, the City reserves the
right to negotiate all offers received.
Proposals will be evaluated in the following areas:
• Technical
• Management/Legal/Fiscal
• Cost
• Communication Skills
• Local Availability
• Knowledge of Washington state law and municipal requirements
This Request for Proposal does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a response to this request, or to procure or contract for services or
supplies. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result
of this request, or to cancel in part or in its entirety this Request for Proposal, if in the best
interest of the City to do so.
The contract may be awarded as soon as practical after the proposal opening unless otherwise
stated,but generally not before ten(10)working days or after sixty(60) days from the proposal
opening.
9
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposals
Cable Television Franchise Management
and
Renewal Consulting Services
For the City of
Renton, Washington
Submitted to:
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall, Room 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Respectfully Submitted by:
Nt-
•
•
S '
& g
, £
IIP
Bradley er
Guzzetta, LLC
The B&G Team
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC CBG Communications,Inc. Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Michael R.Bradley,Esq. Thomas Robinson,Executive VP Richard D.Treich,CEO
Stephen J.Guzzetta,Esq. 73 Chestnut Road,Suite 301 4152 Bell Mountain Drive
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Paoli,PA 19301 Castle Rock,CO 80104
444 Cedar Street 610-889-7470
St.Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900
April 14,2005
SECTION I: UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUEST
Thank you for your Request for Proposals for Cable Television Franchise Management
and Renewal Consulting Services. In response, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC hereafter
known as the "Firm" has put together a nationally recognized team of consultants that
exclusively represents municipalities in cable franchise renewal matters, consisting of
the Firm, CBG Communications, Inc. and Front Range Consulting (collectively the
"B&G Team"). The Firm has significant experience managing renewal projects and off
sight administrative services assisting cities with telecommunications administrative
issues.
When a cable franchise is up for renewal, as in Renton's case on September 13, 2008, a
city has the rare opportunity to review the performance of its cable operator, Comcast,
and to ensure that Comcast will meet the future cable related needs and interests of the
community. This opportunity is rare because franchises are typically issued for periods
of years. In addition, Renton wants to make certain that the cable system will be reliable,
and that Comcast will be in a position to bring benefits of advances in cable technology
into the area's homes, businesses and schools. At the time of renewal, Renton can
establish requirements for system improvements to provide it with adequate
infrastructure.
Our Firm represents local governments of all sizes and works with each one to tailor a
work plan that best meets the jurisdiction's needs given its resources. We believe that the
B&G Team has experience and talents like no other team in the country. Including the
cities as an important part of our team will offset many risks for project performance, cost
and schedule: We are certain that the municipalities have many talented employees in a
variety of areas germane to the franchise renewal process, such as video production
specialists, attorneys, finance and IT professionals. These people may just lack
familiarity with the cable franchise renewal process. Using the talents and institutional
knowledge of municipal employees can result in significant cost savings. Coupled with
the extensive experience of the B&G Team, we feel confident that we will produce a
successful cable franchise renewal process for City of Renton with minimal risk.
Our team has recognized that to keep the process moving forward and to produce a
successful cable franchise renewal, it takes a team approach. We have recognized that
we need attorneys for legal work, researchers for needs assessment work, engineers for
technical work and financial advisors for auditing work. Unlike our competitors, we
have recognized that we also need personnel trained in municipal project management to
keep the processing moving and have a thorough understanding of municipal and
administrative needs.
Although the B&G Team is not located in Renton, Washington, we currently provide a
wide range of telecommunications services to communities in the Vancouver/Clark
County and Seattle, Washington areas,providing us with local knowledge and
.61 B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 1
& S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
understanding of the issues and players in the cable industry in the Pacific Northwest.
We are confident that our team approach method and experience will result in a
successful cable franchise renewal process for the City of Renton. In addition to
negotiating cable franchises and conducting technical, financial and needs assessments
across the country, we also assist cities with cable franchise administration throughout
the Minneapolis metropolitan area. We have found that the majority of work and issues
can be worked through using email and the phone,thus minimizing travel costs to the
City.
It is our hope that after reviewing our credentials, you will find that the B&G Team is the
best qualified to assist the City with its franchise management and renewal projects. The
B&G Team believes that by submitting a comprehensive proposal for all categories we,
as team, will be able to provide a team approach, experience, and value for the City of
Renton.
SECTION H—PERSONNEL
A. B&G TEAM OVERVIEW
Michael Bradley, Partner, and Steve Guzzetta, Partner, will be the specific attorneys
assigned to perform legal work on the Comcast cable renewal cable franchise
management assistance including but not limited to: ordinance compliance, compliance
with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, FCC
Regulations. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Guzzetta will also be the specific attorneys assigned to
perform the legal work for the franchise renewal specific areas including but not limited
to: training and evaluation,work plan, special presentation,public hearings, comparative
studies,negotiations and implementation. Tracy Schaefer, Senior Project Manager,will
be assigned to various areas of the cable franchise management assistance including but
not limited to: consumer protection and complaints, senior citizen/disabled person
discounts, documents, access utilization,bond and insurance, annual reports, other
reports and technical assistance. She will also be assigned to perform the following work
for the franchise renewal specific areas: training and evaluation,work plan, comparative
studies, financial implications, solicit providers and implementation. The skills and
qualifications of Mr. Bradley,Mr. Guzzetta, and Ms. Schaefer are set forth below.
Michael R.Bradley
Michael R. Bradley is a partner of Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC. Mr. Bradley has been
practicing for eleven years and was named a "Rising Star" Attorney by Minnesota Law
and Politics in 2001, 2003 and 2004. Mr. Bradley represents governmental entities
across the country on communications issues, particularly cable franchise renewals,
master telecommunications ordinance drafting, rights-of-way management planning,
competitive cable franchising, open video system franchising, cable franchise transfers of
ownership, competitive access to multiple dwelling units and tower siting. He has
B&G TEAM,
Request for Proposals Page 2
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
experience practicing before Federal and State Courts, the Federal Communications
Commission, State Public Utilities Commissions and State Legislatures.
Mr. Bradley has extensive government affairs experience on telecommunications issues.
He has represented franchising authorities before the Minnesota State Legislature,
working to develop statewide policy on telecommunications issues. He has also worked
on legislation aimed at promoting competition in multiple dwelling units. During the
1998 legislative session, Mr. Bradley represented the City of Saint Paul in its successful
request for $65,000,000.00 in State assistance to build a new arena for the Minnesota
Wild,the new National Hockey League team.
Mr. Bradley was recently appointed to a statewide Telecommunications Task Force led
by Minnesota Technology, Inc., which was formed to bring together the stakeholders in
Greater Minnesota to sustain and foster future economic growth in Greater Minnesota.
Mr. Bradley is a member of the American Bar Association where he serves on the section
of Public Utility, Communications and Transportation, and the Communications Law
Forum.
Mr. Bradley is also a leader in the Minnesota State Bar Association("MSBA"),where he
is the founder and Co-Chair of the Military Affairs Committee,past Chair of the
Insurance for Members Committee, and a member of the MSBA Communications
Committee. Mr. Bradley served honorably as a Judge Advocate with the Minnesota
Army National Guard for seven years,where he attained the rank of Major and the
position of the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. He is also a member of the Minnesota
Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators ("MACTA"), where he
serves on the Legislative Committee and the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA"),where he serves on the legal
and public policy committees. Mr. Bradley is a graduate of the University of Minnesota
(Hull Scholarship) and earned his law degree from Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul,Minnesota.
Mr. Stephen J. Guzzetta,Esq.
Stephen J. Guzzetta is currently licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Mr. Guzzetta graduated
from Boston College in 1990, magna cum laude, with a Bachelor of Arts in political
science. He received his law degree from American University's Washington College of
• Law in 1993. Mr. Guzzetta's practice areas primarily include cable television franchising
and renewal,. cable television rate regulation, cable system transfers, tower siting,
municipal right-of-way management, telecommunications system franchising and
administrative law.
Mr. Guzzetta began his legal career as a regulatory attorney with the Office of Cable
Television for the District of Columbia where his responsibilities included franchise
*Ph- B&G TEAM
b & Request for Proposals Page 3
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
enforcement, rate regulation and constituent communications. Mr. Guzzetta also
represented the District of Columbia government before the Public Service Commission
on a number of telecommunications policy issues. In addition, Mr. Guzzetta updated the
District's cable ordinance, developed a telecommunications policy task force, and
authored a city report on right-of-way management issues.
After working for the District government for several years, Mr. Guzzetta moved to the
private sector joining Miller & Van Eaton, P.L.L.C., a Washington, D.C.-based
telecommunications law firm representing municipalities throughout the country. Mr.
Guzzetta assisted numerous municipalities with cable television franchise renewals and
transfers, right-of-way management and compensation, and rate regulation issues. Mr.
Guzzetta also drafted franchise agreements for cities which authorized competitive cable
television systems.
Mr. Guzzetta has substantial experience practicing before the Federal Communications
Commission. In particular, Mr. Gnz7etta has participated in several rate proceedings, the
Troy, Michigan preemption proceeding, the Chibardun/Rice Lake preemption
proceeding, the Baltimore/United Artists franchise fee proceeding, the right-of-way
management notice of inquiry, and the FCC's emergency alert proceeding. Mr. Guzzetta
has also counseled municipalities on a variety of telecommunications issues, including
telecommunications providers' use of municipal utility easements and various issues
relating to public, educational and governmental access programming.
With regard to renewal, Mr. Guzzetta has performed extensive legal research on the
requirements of Section 626 of the Cable Act, and on case law interpreting state renewal
procedures. Mr. Guzzetta has also drafted numerous franchise ordinances and
agreements as part of the franchise renewal process, and has managed and participated in
the negotiation of many renewal franchises around the country. Mr. Guzzetta has
particular expertise in overseeing and performing the many tasks that must be undertaken
when the formal renewal track is being followed. For instance, Mr. Guzzetta has
conducted compliance audits and drafted several Requests for Renewal Proposals. In
addition, Mr. Guzzetta has managed the performance of many formal and informal needs
assessments for both large and small municipalities. He has also drafted a needs
ascertainment report on behalf of a client in Tennessee.
Mr. Guzzetta is a member of NATOA, where he serves on the Policy Committee, and a
member of MACTA, where he serves on the Legislative Committee. Mr. Guzzetta is a
frequent speaker at NATOA and MACTA conferences.
Ms. Tracy J. Schaefer
Tracy J. Schaefer is the Senior Project Manager for Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC. Ms.
Schaefer assists public entities with telecommunications planning, contracting, fiscal
administration and organizational development.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 4
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Ms. Schaefer has a wealth of experience in municipal telecommunications planning. Her
experiences include the design, development and implementation of institutional
networks (I-Nets), VoIP and WiFi systems, new and upgraded municipal building multi-
media systems and cable franchising. Ms. Schaefer recently developed and coordinated a
nationally recognized fiber I-Net using VoIP technology that is owned and used by the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Scott County, and the local school district. The I-Net is
projected to create a significant savings to the public, while providing state-of-the-art
technologies to all of the public entities. Ms. Schaefer's fiber I-Net and VoIP system was
featured in the NATOA Journal of Municipal Telecommunications Policy due to the I-
Net's innovative nature and successful completion.-
Ms. Schaefer has significant experience in Public Administration. She has worked
closely with cities on determining the viability of projects, performing cost-benefit
analyses and cable needs assessments, and making successful recommendations before
decision-making bodies. Working with decision-making bodies and staff, she has
developed joint powers agreements, RFPs, capital improvement plans (CIPs), short-term
and long-term budgets, refuse/recycling contracts, police service contracts, labor union
contracts, building project management, municipal service contracts and purchasing
agreements. Ms. Schaefer's cutting-edge;refuse and recycling contract has been featured
in a number of professional refuse and recycling journals as a model document for the
country.
Ms. Schaefer is also a leader in civic and professional associations. She serves in
leadership roles with the International City Manager's Association (ICMA) and
Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA). She also served as an
officer with the Association of Public Management Professionals (APMP) and was
named Assistant of the Year twice by APMP. She is President of the Winona State
University Alumni Board of Directors where she is currently serving on the Presidential
Replacement Search Committee and is also a member of NATOA and MACTA.
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Schaefer was the Assistant City Administrator for the City
of Shakopee, MN (Twin Cities). Ms. Schaefer has also held positions with the cities of
Winona, MN, Sugar Grove, IL (Chicago suburb) and Ottawa, IL, and she worked on the
Minnesota tobacco litigation under then Attorney General Hubert "Skip" Humphrey III.
Ms. Schaefer graduated with honors from Northern Illinois University (Urban
Management Scholarship) with a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) degree in
urban management with a strong focus on fiscal administration. She graduated magna
cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics and Public Administration
from Winona State University(Presidential Scholarship).
B. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
As part of the RFP,the City of Renton requested several PEG,needs ascertainment and
technical services, which would be provided by CBG Communications, Inc. Thomas
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 5
& S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005 •
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Robinson, Executive Vice President is located in Philadelphia and Dick Nielsen, Senior
Engineer, is located in St. Paul, MN. Mr. Robinson will be the primary research
consultant for the PEG and needs ascertainment work and in conjunction with Mr.
Nielsen will conduct the performance analysis and upgrade evaluation and provide the
technical assistance for the cable franchise management assistance. In conducting the
system technical review, an analysis of upgrade scenarios and plans, and a review of
system technological components, such as cable modems, digital video services,hybrid
coax(HFC) architectures, and fiber(INET), among other things could be completed.
In addition, Mr: Robinson would work collaboratively with Ms. Schaefer on the access
utilization,needs ascertainment, annual report, other reports for the cable franchise
management assistance area and assist the Firm in developing the work plan, comparative
studies,financial implications and implementation of the franchise renewal specific areas.
CBG Communications, Inc. ("CBG")provides consulting expertise to local governments
in numerous areas of telecommunications and cable television. Collectively, CBG's
principals have decades of telecommunications and cable experience,which provides
them with a knowledgeable, seasoned, and expert background.
_ CBG has worked on behalf of local governments and other public sector organizations all
across the country, with extensive experience in the Washington area. Successful results
have been achieved in numerous settings from large metropolitan areas to small towns.
Its representatives have had their work published, and they have spoken at local and
national conferences and received recognition in national publications.
In addition to the other needs assessment services, community subscriber satisfaction
surveys can also play an important role to help decision makers determine priorities and
to outline the needs and demands of their cable company. If after completing the cable
franchise management assistance areas,the City of Renton deemed it necessary to
conduct a community-wide statistically valid customer satisfaction survey, Dr. Constance
Book, Communications Professor at Elon University, could assist the B&G Team in
drafting and conducting such a survey. She could survey both the subscribers and non-
subscribers.
Further, if additional video engineering expertise is needed, Mr. Carson Hamlin, video
engineer and operations manager for government access television in Fort Collins and
Latimer County, Colorado, could be engaged by CBG to provide such necessary task
assistance. Mr. Hamlin has worked on a number of projects with CBG, and his hands-on
access television experience has proven invaluable.
The skills and qualifications of Mr. Robinson, Mr.Nielsen, Dr. Book and Mr. Hamlin are
set forth below.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 6
® Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005 •
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Mr. Thomas G. Robinson
Tom Robinson is Executive Vice President of CBG Communications, Inc. and is based in
the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania office. Mr. Robinson has worked with local governments
all across the country on a variety of cable and telecommunications projects, including:
institutional networks; infrastructure issues; needs assessments; telecommunications
planning and policy development; Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) access
issues; technical reviews; wireless networking; competitive communications system
reviews; cable television franchise renewals; ROW management, regulatory agreements
and other matters. He is a frequent speaker at telecommunications, local government and
technical conferences. Mr. .Robinson is published bimonthly in Communications
Engineering&Design (CED) magazine.
Prior to joining CBG, Mr. Robinson was, for seven years, Director of Technology
Development for River Oaks Communications Corporation, where he worked with
numerous local government clients on telecommunications and cable television projects.
Mr. Robinson also served for 10 years as Chief of the Cable Regulatory Division of the
Department of Consumer Affairs for Fairfax County, Virginia. While there, he was
involved in a host of activities related to oversight of one of the nation's largest cable
systems. Prior to his work in Fairfax, Mr. Robinson was with Magnavox CATV
Systems, Inc. (now part of C-COR), where he worked first as a system designer and then
in product management. While at Magnavox, he helped develop and market new
amplification systems and products that paved the way toward today's high capacity cable
systems.
Mr. Robinson began his career as an announcer, program director and operations
engineer in radio and television at several radio stations in the Baltimore/Washington
area and at the public broadcasting television and radio stations (WCNY-TV/FM) in
Syracuse,New York.
He holds an M.S. in Telecommunications/Film from Syracuse University's S.I.
Newhouse School of Public Communications and a B.A. in Mass Communications from
Towson University where he graduated Summa Cum Laude.
Mr. Richard D. Nielsen
Dick Nielsen is CBG Communications, Inc's Senior Engineer and is based out of the
Saint Paul, Minnesota office. Mr. Nielsen works as lead technical staff for the firm. His
work includes underground and aerial construction planning review and analysis, cable
television system performance audits, institutional network design, application
development and performance review, telecommunications system design application
development and review, data communication system and equipment planning as well as
review and analysis of other technical issues.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 7
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Prior to Mr. Nielsen joining CBG Communications, he spent 19 years with AT&T
Broadband and its predecessor companies. The last four were spent as the Institutional
Network Manager. While managing he was involved in a wide range of activities,
including maintenance of institutional networks ("I-Net") representing over 20 franchise
areas and over 1000 miles of coaxial, HFC and fiber optic plant, designing new and
upgrading existing I-Nets, budgeting for new and updated I-Nets, supervision of
construction activities, and activation of fiber optic nodes, power supplies, amplifiers,
pilot generators and status monitoring systems. Mr.Nielsen regularly represented AT&T
Broadband at various meetings relating to I-Net issues. He also worked closely with
consultants in evaluating and designing upgrades to existing I-Nets.
For the 8 years prior to being I-Net Manager, Mr. Nielsen was the Technical Supervisor.
He supervised 35 Maintenance Technicians and Service Technicians, implemented a plan
to bring service levels up to NCTA and FCC standards, and was in charge of reporting all
engineering and technical data for national reporting FCC testing and reporting and
public files for CLI and Proof of Performance. Additionally Mr. Nielsen spent 4 years as
a Headend Technician and was involved in designing, wiring and maintaining headends,
hubs and antennas. He was on call 24 hours a day for problems related to headends. Mr.
Nielsen's first 3 years were spent as a Maintenance Technician. He was responsible for
maintaining HSN and I-Net plants, field testing of FCC CLI and Proof of Performance
requirements as well as working on call (24/7) for outages and problems.
Mr. Nielsen began his career as a technician and installer for Best Vision SMATV and
Muller Prybell. Formal education was received at Dakota County Vocational Technical
School in its Cable Television Degree Program.
Dr. Constance L. Book,Ph.D.
Dr. Constance L. Book is a professor and researcher in the field of telecommunications.
She has explored the pivotal role television plays in American society and public policy.
She is the author of the recently released DTV and Consumers, the first book dedicated to
understanding how our nation's transition to digital television impacts the general
consumer. Dr. Book's research has received five, first place awards in the past six years
from the National Association of Broadcasters educational group. Her work included the
first national assessment of municipal officials' attitudes toward cable television
oversight and the subsequent national assessment of municipal cable administrators'
attitudes toward cable television oversight. She has conducted quantitative and
qualitative assessments of cable television service in large, medium and small markets
across the United States.
Dr. Book's research has been recognized in several nationwide competitive settings,
including the National Cable Television Association, the National Association of
Broadcasters, the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors, the
B&G TEAM
b & Request for Proposals Page 8
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Broadcast Education Association and the Association for Educators in Journalism and
Mass Communication. Her work has also been published in legal and academic journals.
Dr. Book was recently awarded a fourth competitive grant from the National Association
of Broadcasters to conduct research studies related to the impact of satellite radio on local
broadcasting. As a professor, she has been awarded several research grants for
assessments related to cable television service, has been recognized on several occasions
for outstanding teaching and her students have won awards in national competitions
sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Advertising
Federation.
Dr. Book has appeared on panels at the Federal Communications Commission, the
National Cable Television Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and regional cable
television associations. She is often invited to lecture and moderate discussions on
telecommunications issues.
As a working broadcaster for several years, Dr. Book's work received honors from the
Associated Press and the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters.
Dr. Book is originally from Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She graduated with degrees in
Mass Communication from Louisiana State University, Northwestern State University
and the University of Georgia. Her doctoral studies focused on cable television
oversight. She currently is Professor of Communications at Elon University in North
Carolina.
Mr. Carson Hamlin
Carson Hamlin, received a B.A. degree in Technical Communications from Colorado State
University. Mr. Hamlin worked for the Hewlett Packard Company for 12 years, eventually
leaving HP's Interactive Television Network in Cupertino, California to return to Colorado.
He is now the Media Integration Specialist for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado where he
oversees all the technical aspects of analog/digital video communications for the City of
Fort Collins and Larimer County, Colorado.
Mr. Hamlin has worked extensively as a Technical Director, both linear and non-linear
editor, audio engineer and design engineer. His qualifications include video facility and
system design, including the evaluation and purchasing of equipment used in cablecast and
broadcast facilities, integration of equipment, and troubleshooting. He has consulted with
many communities regarding the technical aspects of their PEG systems and equipment
including such jurisdictions as the City of Seattle, Washington, St. Paul, Minnesota, and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. His experience will contribute greatly to the PEG facility technical
review tasks.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page
15 61 MI
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
C. FRONT RANGE CONSULTING,INC.
Mr. Treich will be responsible for reviewing the collection of franchise fees through
comparative analyses and audit as well as assisting the City through attorneys Mr.
Bradley and Mr. Guzzetta with any following up delinquent payments.
Mr. Richard R. Treich
Richard R. Treich is the CEO and Founder of Front Range Consulting, Inc. (FRC). The
company is dedicated to assisting and consulting with the local government
telecommunications sector, primarily focused on franchising and regulatory activities of
franchised telecommunications companies like cable television organizations.
Mr. Treich has been actively engaged in providing regulatory assistance to numerous
local governmental clients on a wide range of issues. He has reviewed FCC Forms 1240
and 1205 and provided findings that have lead to the issuance of rate orders by the local
governments, which resulted in refunds to the community's subscribers. In addition, his
reviews have lead to significantly reduced amounts of add-on rates. Mr. Treich has also
provided assistance to cities on how the pass-through of the franchise fees of
nonsubscriber revenues should be accomplished. He continues to be a member of the
NATOA's Policy committee and actively participates in the committee as well as
providing consulting assistance to the Executive Director of NATOA on national
regulatory policy issues. He has spoken before several NATOA meetings and roundtables
on a wide range of current issues facing the local governments with regards to cable
television. Prior to founding Front Range Consulting, Mr. Treich was Senior Vice
President, Rates & Regulatory Matters, for AT&T Broadband (AT&T). In that capacity,
he was responsible for all of AT&T's (and its predecessor TCI Communications) rate
regulatory filings and analyses. His duties during his tenure with AT&T also included
responsibility for the franchising activities of the company. This regulatory task involved
supervision of several thousand annual rate filings. Mr. Treich's responsibilities included
contacts with, and appearances before, all of AT&T's regulatory bodies, including the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state public utility commissions, and local
franchising authorities. Mr. Treich met frequently with FCC staff regarding AT&T and
cable industry regulatory issues over the years. He was a leading participant in the
"Accountants Group"of the National Cable Television Association.
Mr. Treich's duties for AT&T included responsibility for coordinating the regulatory due
diligence reviews of cable operations and coordinating with AT&T's internal accounting
and outside auditors regarding the financial reporting of regulatory matters.
Before joining AT&T, Mr. Treich was a Principal and Partner-in-Charge of KPMG Peat
Marwick's National Cable Television Consulting Practice,. Principal and Partner-in-
Charge of KPMG Peat Marwick's National Utility Consulting Practice, the Director,
Utility Regulatory Advisory Services Group, of Coopers and Lybrand, and Manager,
Client Services, of Ebasco Business Consulting Company. At KPMG Peat Marwick
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 10
l �
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
LLP, Mr. Treich consulted with cable television, telecommunications, electric, gas, water
and wastewater organizations on engagements related to strategic and competitive
regulatory analyses. These engagements included competitive assessments; regulatory
studies, like cost-of-service, rate design, revenue requirements, and working capital;
marketing strategies related to incentive rates; operations management; merger and
acquisition investigations; financial analyses, like sale/leaseback transactions; utility
bankruptcy proceedings; and cogeneration analyses. Many of these engagements included
the presentation of direct and rebuttal testimony before numerous federal, state and
local regulatory authorities.
Developed cost-of-service methodologies for cable operators to determine the
advisability of selecting between the FCC's benchmark approach or cost-of service
approach. Assisted the National Cable Television Association in assessing the impact of
cost-of-service regulations on its members. Developed and testified to a regulatory plan
for the acquisition of a utility by another utility. Such engagements included assessments
of the proper regulatory basis on which the utility could share the benefits of the merger
between ratepayers and shareholders. Directed and testified to a complete cost allocation
and rate design study for several gas utilities. Analyses included determination of
individual rate tariffs and development of a computerized cost allocation model.
Mr. Treich graduated from Susquehanna University with a B.S. in Finance and
Management Science and he was a member of the Member, Kappa Mu Epsilon Honorary
Mathematics Fraternity.
SECTION HI—REFERENCES
A. BRADLEY& GUZZETTA REFERENCES
The Firm has worked on a multitude of cable franchise renewal and negotiation projects,
with communities ranging in size from hundreds or thousands to a half million people. In
addition,we have significant experience in off-site telecommunications/cable
administration for cities and telecommunications consortiums. The following list is an
attempt to provide a representative sample of previous experience on renewals,
telecommunications and cable management assistance and general cable related issues:
City of Minneapolis,Minnesota: The Firm provides ongoing representation to the City
on cable television and telecommunications matters. By way of example,the Firm is
currently assisting the City with the development of a right-of-way management plan and
ordinance, and with the renewal of the cable television franchise currently held by Time
Warner Cable.
B&G has had an on-going relationship with the City of Minneapolis for over seven years,
the current contract for cable franchise renewal services is from 2004- 2006.
Gail Plewacki
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 11
' ? & • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Communications Director
City of Minneapolis
300M City Hall
350 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415
Phone: 612- 673-2911
Shakopee,Minnesota: In June, 2004, B&G staff successfully negotiated a 15-year
franchise agreement with Time Warner, including dark fiber strands to selected city
buildings, cable hook-up and free cable service to new community buildings and critical
language outlining the parameters of the franchise fees in relation to TW bundling
services and franchise fee payments under GAAP.
In October 2004,the City of Shakopee hired B&G Team to handle all legal,
administrative and technical telecommunications needs and issues for the City and its
City Council and Telecommunications Commission. B&G staff has perform annual
cable franchise compliance reviews, assembles monthly Telecommunications packets for
Commission and Council,prepares the annual telecommunications budget and goals and
objectives for the City,handles all residential cable complaints and serves as a liaison
between the City and Time Warner Cable.
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street
Shakopee, MN 55379
Phone: 952-233-3800
Lansing,Michigan:In March, 2005,the B&G Team was awarded the cable franchise
renewal services agreement to conduct a needs assessment, city-wide survey,technical
review, negotiate the cable franchise and handle all legal aspects of the City's cable
franchise renewal process with Comcast.
Margo Vroman
Assistant City Attorney
City of Lansing
124 W. Michigan
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: 517-483-7638
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 12
• g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Murfreesburo, Tennessee: B&G successfully negotiated a franchise renewal for the City
of Murfreesburo. B&G worked amicably with Comcast to negotiate a franchise that
benefited both the City and its residents.
Alan Bozeman
Cable TV Coordinator, City Cable TV Department
111 West Vine St.
PO Box 1139
Mufreesboro, TN 37133
Phone: 615-848-3245
North Metro Telecommunications Commission, Twin Cities, Minnesota: B&G is
general telecommunications and cable television counsel to the North Metro
Telecommunications Commission. The Firm's attorneys have helped the Commission
with almost every conceivable cable-related issue over the last twenty years. Recently,
B&G finished negotiating a renewal franchise agreement with AT&T Broadband (now
Comcast) on behalf of the Commission and its member cities. Although the firm
managed the drafting of detailed and comprehensive needs assessment documents as.part
of the formal renewal process, B&G was able to reach an agreement with AT&T
Broadband, pursuant to the informal renewal process, based on a proposal provided by
the company.
Ms. Heidi Arnson
Executive Director
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
1630 10 l st Ave.NE
Blaine,Minnesota 55449-4419
Phone: 763-780-8241 ext.24
Northfield, Minnesota: B&G successfully negotiated a franchise renewal for the City of
Northfield. B&G worked amicably with Charter Communications to negotiate a
franchise that benefited both the City and its residents.
Scott Neal, City Administrator
801 Washington Street
Northfield,MN 55057
Phone: 507-645-8832
South Washington Cable Communications Commission, Twin Cities, Minnesota (a
cable regulatory commission made up of five Minnesota cities): B&G successfully
negotiated a franchise renewal for the Commission. B&G worked amicably with the
incumbent cable operator to negotiate a franchise that benefited both the City and its
residents.
Is B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 13
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Fran Hemmesch, Assistant Administrator
7584 70th Street South
Cottage Grove, MN 55016
Phone: 651-458-9241
Urbandale,Iowa: B&G served as a general telecommunications and cable advisor for the
City of Urbandale, which included providing advice on virtually every cable related
issue. B&G also completed FCC regulatory projects on behalf of the City. In addition,
B&G engaged in cable rate work with the local cable provider.
City of Urbandale
Suzanna Profit •
P.O. Box 3540
Urbandale, Iowa 50322
Phone: 515-278-3900
B. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC.REFERENCES
CBG Communications has extensive experience in performing a variety of cable television,
technology, and telecommunications review, assessment, analysis, survey and other project
tasks,negotiating with industry providers,meeting and working with local elected and
appointed officials and staff personnel,facilitating the activities of advisory committees that
include public and private sector representatives and also making presentations to City
Councils,Commissions and Boards.
CBG has successfully been and continues to be involved with numerous cable television and
telecommunications projects that have been very beneficial for public sector clients. CBG
knows and has a thorough understanding of the cable environment in the Pacific Northwest,
since CBG has worked with numerous communities in the Vancover/Clark County and
Seattle,Washington areas. We continue to work successfully with these communities on
various telecommunications projects,so CBG is not only familiar with the
telecommunications issues in the Pacific Northwest,but also the main players at Comcast as
well. Examples of CBG projects include:
City of Vancouver& Clark County,Washington : CBG most recently has been
assisting the City and County with several telecommunications activities, including a
review of a potential local government-sponsored wireless system and use of radio for
emergency information/communication systems. Prior to this, CBG assisted in cable
franchise renewal activities including needs assessment studies,PEG, I-Net review, and a
comprehensive technical audit. Additionally, CBG worked with the City to develop I-
Net and PEG channel operations. CBG Communications has been serving the City and
County on an on-going basis since 1996 with various cable and telecommunications
projects.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 14
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Ms. Donna Mason
Director, Dept. of Media Services
City of Vancouver
PO Box 1995
202 E. Mill Plain Blvd.
Vancouver, WA 98668
Phone: 360-696-8016
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission (MACC), Portland, Oregon
Metroplitan Area Communities: Ongoing work involving Public Communications
Network(PCN)technical audit and certification, oversight and network application
development. Prior to this, completed work on residential cable system upgrade
certification, I-Net franchise provisions and assistance in negotiations. Also performed
technical review and needs assessment work related to franchise renewal with
AT&T/TCI(now Comcast), including subscriber and Institutional Network performance,
architecture, services, applications and upgrade review. CBG Communications has been
serving MACC on an on-going basis since 1996 with various telecommunications
projects.
Bruce Crest
Administrator
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission
1815 NW 169th Place
Suite 6020
Beaverton, OR 97006
Phone: 503-645-7365 x200
Marin Telecommunications Agency (County of Marin and Ten Municipalities):
Completed work on PEG Access, Institutional Network, and general Residential
Community Needs Assessment,Technical Audit and Review, and Past Performance
Review related to the cable franchise renewal process. Time Warner is the cable
operator. Work included a telephone-based Residential Community Survey, a number of
PEG organizational surveys and focused discussions, on-site evaluation of existing and
planned facilities and equipment,review of Governmental and Educational Institutional
Networking requirements, and a review of Time Warner's current and past performance
under the existing Franchise Agreement.
Martin Nichols
Executive Director
Marin Telecommunications Agency
27 Commercial Blvd., Suite C
Novato,'CA 94949
Telephone Number: (415) 883-9100
E-mail: mnichols@marin.org
B>EAM
{ „ie Request for Proposals Page 15
, & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
City of Dubuque,Iowa: Currently CBG is providing ongoing assistance related to the
final stages of franchise renewal and cable ordinance negotiations between the City and
Mediacom. CBG Communications has completed a comprehensive technical review for
the City. A thorough needs assessment has already been completed including review of
existing PEG facilities,review of the existing I-Net, determination of a network
architecture required to meet future needs; comprehensive survey and statistical analysis
of the Dubuque residential subscriber/non-subscriber population, and business
community needs assessment. After completing the needs assessment, CBG outlined for
Dubuque its future cable needs.
CBG Communications is also engaged in ongoing work involving assistance to the City
on PEG, I-Net, customer service,programming services and other issues in the City's
franchise renewal negotiations with Mediacom. As part of this, CBG Communications
has been involved in discussions with City staff, elected officials and senior Mediacom
management, legal and engineering staff.
Mr. Merrill E. Crawford
Cable Franchise Administrator
City of Dubuque
City Hall Annex
1300 Main St:
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Phone: 563-589-4181
Charles County,Maryland: CBG Communications most recently provided assistance
with franchise implementation tasks. Comcast is the cable operator. Prior to this, CBG
completed a technical review and an I-Net and PEG Access needs assessment study,
including extensive organizational surveys of K-12,higher education, governmental,non=
profit and business entities, PEG Access and I-Net architectural and equipment review
and workshops. CBG contract period was from 2000—2004.
Ms. Victoria Greenfield
Deputy County Administrator
Charles County Government Center
PO Box 2150
LaPlata,Maryland 20646
Phone: 301-645-0691
Charlottesville, Virginia: Completed work concerning a technical audit and PEG facility
and equipment analysis as part of franchise renewal proceedings with Adelphia. Work
included an audit of FCC Proof-of-Performance testing at various system locations
throughout the City,on-site review of public,educational and government access facilities
B&G TEAM
.r
Request for Proposals Page 16
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
and equipment, analysis of a number of technical performance documents,maps and system
design information,headend analysis,etc.
Renee Knake,Assistant Attorney
Office of the City Attorney
City Hall
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-970-3131
Auburn,New York: Ongoing work related to a Technical Audit, as well as a PEG and I-
Net Needs Assessment. Specific tasks included both a paper and on-site technical review
and audit,as well as focused discussions,on-site facilities and equipment analysis and
development of detailed equipment replacement and upgrade schedule projections related to •
the PEG Needs Assessment.
John Salamone
City Manager
Memorial City Hall
24 South Street
Auburn,NY 13021
Phone: 315-255-4146
Dayton, Ohio: 'Currently,assisting with various franchise renewal tasks. Completed
ongoing work involving Technical,PEG,and I-Net Review and Needs Ascertainment
related to the franchise renewal process with Time Warner. Activities have included a
residential telephone-based survey,paper and on-site technical review and audit,focused
discussions and workshops,interviews and written surveys concerning PEG Access
programmers and potential institutional network users.
Randy Bellinger
Telecommunications Specialist
City of Dayton
101 West Third St
City Hall,2nd Floor
Dayton, Ohio 45402
Phone: 937-333-4236
City of Corvallis, Oregon: CBG Communications completed work involving development
and negotiation of technical, I-Net and PEG franchise provisions on behalf of the City of
Corvallis with AT&T/Comcast. Prior to this, CBG Communications completed a technical
audit,past performance review and I-Net and PEG Access technical needs assessment study
as part of the franchise renewal process involving AT&T. The study included extensive
interview work, document review and architectural concept analysis related to existing and
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page a 17 g
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005 •
and
Renewal Consulting Services
planned network operations of the public schools, higher education entities, and local
government.
Mr. Tony Kreig
Franchise Utility Manager
City of Corvalis
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 1083
1245 NE Third Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
Phone: 541-754-1731
Henrico County, Virginia: Completed work concerning a Residential Community,
Business Community and PEG Access Needs Assessment study as part of franchise renewal
proceedings with Comcast. Work included extensive organizational surveys and focused
discussions of K-12, higher education,governmental, and business entities, as well as
PEG Access architectural, facility and equipment review.
Robert J. Harris
Deputy Director of Communications
Henrico County
1590 E. Parham Road
P.O. Box 27032
Richmond,VA 23273-7032
Phone: 804-501-5651
Minneapolis Telecommunications Network(MTN,Minneapolis,Minnesota:
Completed work involving a comprehensive PEG Needs Assessment, including on-site
facilities and equipment analysis and resulting equipment replacement and upgrade
schedule projections, as well as written surveys, workshops and focused discussions.
Pamela Colby
Executive Director
The Minneapolis Telecommunications Network
125 SE Main St.
Minneapolis, MN. 55414
Phone: 612-331-8575 x 304
Miami Valley Cable Council([MVCC] Dayton,.Ohio Metropolitan Area
Communities): Ongoing work involving I-Net use and priority ascertainment, PEG
Needs Assessment, Community survey of PEG Access needs and Customer satisfaction
regarding rates, service,programming choices, reliability,technical audit, customer
services issues etc, and franchise provision drafting.
Kent Bristol
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 18
biap
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Executive Director
Miami Valley Cable Council
1195 E. Alex Bell Road
Centerville, OH 45459
Phone: 937-438-8887
North Metro Telecommunications Commission (Minneapolis St.Paul Metropolitan Area
Communities):Completed work involving comprehensive PEG and I-Net needs
assessments. Worked with the Commission and then with AT&T/Comcast to design an
upgraded I-Net. Completed a past system performance review of AT&T/Comcast. Assisted
the Commission in drafting Franchise language on I-Net,PEG and other provisions as part
of the renewal process with AT&T/Comcast.
Heidi Arnson
Executive Director
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
1630 101st Avenue,NE
Blaine, MN 55449
Phone: 763-780-8241 ext. 2801
Montgomery County, Maryland: Completed a Phase I Needs Assessment and
Requirements Analysis related to the establishment of a satellite PEG Access Center in the
southern area of the County to serve residents with highly diverse demographics. Work
included: focused discussions with community organizations, current and potential access
producers, government and non-profit entities, as well as a bilingual residential survey to
obtain both user and viewer needs and interests. Also completed Phase II of the project, to
determine the economic, organizational, site location and equipment provision parameters
needed to successfully establish a Center that will meet the demonstrated needs and interests
in the southern County area.
Amy Wilson
Program Manager, Cable Communications Administration
Montgomery County, Maryland
100 Maryland Ave.,#250
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-3684
Rockville,Maryland: Completed work involving under grounding of utility
appurtenances. Prior to this,completed work on a comprehensive Telecommunications
Policy and Plan for the City,including extensive review of government agency,business
and residential community telecommunications requirements. The Policy and Plan covers
both external and internal telecommunications issues,related to both wireline and wireless
service provision. Project tasks included working with public sector,private sector and
community advisory groups and organizations on myriad telecommunications subject areas.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 19
& Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Doug Breisch
Cable TV and Telecommunications Coordinator
City of Rockville
111 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240-314-8189
In addition to the above representative sample of cable franchise renewal and other
related projects , CBG Communications has also completed a number of other projects
for local governments nationwide. We would be happy to provide more detailed project
and contact information, if requested.
C. FRONT RANGE CONSULTING INC.REFERENCES
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS &
ADVISORS (NATOA): FRC has been engaged by NATOA to assist NATOA with the
GAO study conducted with regards to Cable Price Increase, preparation of a Petition for
Declaratory ruling on the exclusion of the FCC Regulatory Fee from the 5% Franchise
Fee cap, comments on the issues surrounding FCC Form 1235 and other similar national
policy issues.
Ms. Libby Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 495
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-519-8035
Kissinger & Fellman: FRC is assisting Kissinger & Fellman with a financial review of
the City of Loveland's cable TV franchise and assistance with the renewal of the
franchise agreement.
Kenneth S. Fellman, Esq.
Kissinger&Fellman
Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900
3733 Cherry Creek North Drive
Denver, CO 80209
303-320-6100
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota: FRC is assisting the City of Minneapolis with its
renewal of its franchise agreement with Time Warner Cable.
Ms. Gail J Plewacki
Communications Director
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 20
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-673-3763
City of St. Louis,Missouri: FRC has reviewed FCC Form 1240, 1205 and 1235 filed by
Charter Communications over the past two years. The reviews have resulted in rate
reductions and refunds to subscribers. FRC is currently reviewing the franchise fee
payments by Charter for a two-year period.
Ms. Susan Littlefield
Telecom Regulatory Manager
Communications Division
City of St. Louis
4871 Oakland Ave
St. Louis,MO 63110
314-522-2900, ext. 2962
SECTION IV—STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
A. EXPERIENCE
1. BRADLEY& GUZZETTA,LLC
The Firm has participated in, managed and negotiated hundreds of franchise renewals
throughout the United States. Given its experience level, the Firm is uniquely qualified
to understand the connection between law and technology, and the impact changing
regulations and technologies have on the renewal process.
The Firm has recently completed renewal negotiations on behalf of numerous clients and
is currently in the process of negotiating renewals with several communities. Since the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we have negotiated franchise renewals
on behalf of no less than 60 municipalities representing no less than 200,000 subscribers
in Minnesota alone. We are intimately familiar with the limitations placed on local
franchising authorities by the Cable Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and the
FCC's Cable Reform Orders, but seeks to construe these limitations in the manner most
favorable to local governments in an effort to maximize the financial and in-kind benefits
that can be obtained through franchise renewal. The Firm also knows how to identify and
articulate cable-related needs and interests in a manner that increases the likelihood that
those needs and interests will be met through the renewal/franchising process.
Negotiations on behalf of municipalities have included work where the cable operators
were Comcast, Time Warner Cable, AT&T Broadband, MediaOne, Intermedia, Charter
Communications, Mediacom, TCI, Bresnan, Triax, Continental Cablevision, Scripps
B&G TEAM
=' . Request for Proposals Page 21
{ Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Howard, Adelphia, United Video Cablevision and others. The Firm believes its
experience in the area of franchise renewals is unparalleled.
Over the years, the Firm has utilized both the informal and formal renewal processes set
forth in § 626 of the Cable Act to compel cable operators to meet municipalities' present
and future cable-related needs and interests. In so doing, the Firm has conducted and
overseen numerous needs assessments, compliance audits, technical audits, subscriber
surveys and financial analyses, has drafted Requests for Renewal Proposals, and has
prepared for administrative proceedings, although it has not yet proven necessary to hold
such proceedings. The Firm has also developed creative solutions for renewing
franchises informally, if a particular local franchising authority does not wish to pursue or
cannot afford the formal renewal process. Although each renewal is different, and the
conditions in each jurisdiction are unique,the Firm routinely negotiates renewal packages
that are worth approximately eight percent(8%)of a cable operator's gross revenues.
The Firm has extensive experience in negotiating with multiple system operators,
meeting and working with local government staff and making presentations to
Cable/Telecommunications Commissions, Boards and City Councils. The Firm believes
that an innovative, multi-faceted approach is the best way to arrive at a comprehensive
picture of a municipality's cable-related needs. Our overall approach to any project is to
simply and directly-communicate options and ideas to decision-makers, and to explain
the risks and benefits associated with each option/idea. Once a decision is made, the
Firm quickly and efficiently takes all necessary actions to produce the desired outcome,
within the parameters of applicable law.
In addition to legal cable franchise negotiation services, we also have qualified staff that
has significant experience in off-site telecommunications/cable administration for cities
and telecommunications consortiums. Currently, our staff serves as the
Telecommunications Administrator for numerous communities and telecommunications
consortiums throughout the Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan areas. B&G provides
on-going telecommunications off site support services in the areas of legal, administrative
.and technical telecommunications for the cities and their City Councils and
Telecommunications Commissions: B&G staff has performed annual cable franchise
compliance reviews, conducted strategic planning and goal setting sessions,.assembled
monthly Telecommunications packets for Commission and Council, prepared annual
telecommunications budgets, resolved cable franchise compliance issues, handled all
residential cable complaints and served as a liaison between the City and the cable
operator.
Although the B&G Team is not located in Renton, Washington,we are confident that our
team approach method and experience will still result in a successful cable franchise
process. We have found that the majority of work and issues can be worked through
using email and the phone,thus minimizing travel costs to the City, coupled with
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 22
i g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
planning multi-purpose strategic trips to cities to save on expense costs for the City's
budget.
2. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC. OVERVIEW .
CBG Communications, Inc. ("CBG") has established a national reputation in cable
television, technology, and telecommunications matters. CBG has a proven record of
accomplishment in providing consulting services for public sector entities that produce
effective results. CBG understands the cable environment in the Pacific Northwest, since
CBG has served clients in ,the Seattle and Vancouver/Clark County areas since 1996.
CBG's successful handling of projects have ranged from wireless/telecommunication
studies to assisting cities with PEG, cable franchise renewal, community survey and I-Net
needs. Working with such communities has given CBG a thorough understanding of the
political environment, players at Comcast and the needs of communities in the Pacific
Northwest.
CBG's principal consultant, Tom Robinson, has had his work published, and he is a
frequent speaker at regional and national NATOA (National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) Conferences. Specifically, Tom has been a
guest speaker at NATOA Annual Conferences on the subjects of communications
technology, institutional networks, telecommunications planning, and wireless services.
Tom has also spoken at NATOA seminars on the subjects of past performance, compliance
review, community, and local government video, voice and data applications of broadband
communications networks. In addition, Tom has been a guest at the National League of
Cities' seminars on local government issues emanating from the Telecommunications Act of
1996 and the relationship between telecommunications infrastructure and economic
development.
CBG has extensive experience in performing a variety of cable television,technology, and
telecommunications review,analysis,survey,and other project tasks,negotiating with
industry providers,meeting and working with local elected and appointed officials and staff
personnel,facilitating the activities of advisory committees(that include both public and
private sector representatives)and making presentations to City and County Councils,
Commissions,and Boards. Additionally,the principals are very knowledgeable about and
stay current on governmental issues and regulatory matters.
CBG Communications provides consulting expertise to local governments in numerous
areas of telecommunications and cable television. Collectively, CBG's principals have
decades of telecommunications and cable experience, which provides them with a
knowledgeable, seasoned and expert background.
CBG has worked on behalf of local governments and other public sector organizations all
across the country. Successful results have been achieved in numerous settings from
large metropolitan areas to small towns. Its representatives have had- their work
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 23
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
published, and they have spoken at local and national conferences and received
recognition in national publications.
Although the B&G Team is not located in Renton, Washington, CBG currently provides
a wide range of telecommunications services to communities in the Vancouver/Clark
County and Seattle, Washington areas, providing the B&G Team with local knowledge
and understanding of the issues and players in the cable industry in the Pacific Northwest.
We are confident that our team approach method and experience will result in a
successful cable franchise process for the City of Renton.
3. FRONT RANGE CONSULTING,INC.
Front Range Consulting, Inc. (FRC) was formed in 2002 by Mr. Richard D. Treich,
formerly Senior Vice President, Rate and Regulatory Matters at AT&T Broadband. Mr.
Treich serves as FRC's CEO and is responsible for the strategic direction of the company-
and all of the consulting activities of FRC. In forming the company Mr. Treich decided to
use his ten years of Cable TV knowledge with AT&T and its predecessor TCI and twenty
years of utility regulatory knowledge to assist clients in the governmental
telecommunications sector. FRC is solely dedicated to this arena. The company is
incorporated in the State of Colorado and maintains its principal office in Castle Rock,
Colorado.
FRC believes that its governmental clients are best served by conducting a thorough and
cost effective review of the potential issues. FRC is committed to ensuring our clients
that the consulting activities are performed with the utmost integrity with regards to the
recommendations and conclusions. FRC believes its consulting projects will stand the
scrutiny by the cable operators, the FCC and/or the judicial system. Mr. Treich prior to
joining AT&T had extensive experience in leading.a large national consulting practice for
an accounting firm and this experience has created a sound foundation for meeting and
exceeding his client's expectations on both the resulting recommendations and the cost
effectiveness of the engagement. •
FRC can assist governmental entities with a variety of professional services in the
telecommunications arena including:
• Financial Analysis surrounding Franchise Transfers and Renewals;
• Franchise Fee Reviews and Audits;
• FCC Rate Regulatory Filings(Forms 1205, 1210 and 1240);
• Effective Competition Filings;
• Customer Service Standards and Reviews; and
• Regulatory and Litigation Support.
With Mr. Treich's extensive experience of the internal workings of a cable operator
including his several years of responsibility for all of AT&T's franchising efforts, FRC is
well positioned to address each of these areas with detailed knowledge of the internal
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 24
lJ! g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
processes used by the operators and the workings of the FCC. Mr. Treich also brings to
the consulting engagements detailed understandings of others areas like Late Fee
litigation.
FRC is dedicated solely to serving the governmental sector with high quality and cost
effective consulting services in the telecommunications arena. Through detailed in-depth
industry knowledge, a proven consulting track record and a commitment to this important
sector, FRC is becoming one of the leading professional consulting organizations. The
skills and qualifications of Mr. Treich are set forth below.
B. RESOURCES OF THE FIRM
1. AUTHORIZED OFFEROR PERSONNEL
Michael Bradley, Owner
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
2. COMPANY ADDRESS
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900
651-379-0999—fax
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Size of Business—Seven employees
CBG Communications—Philadelphia Office
73 Chestnut Road
Suite 301
Paoli,PA 19301
610-889-7470
CBG Communications—St.Paul Office
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
B>EAM
b &
Request for Proposals Page 25
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and •
Renewal Consulting Services
St. Paul, MN 55101 .
651-379-0900
Size of Business—Three employees
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
4152 Bell Mountain Drive
Castle Rock, CO 80104
Size of Business—One employee
C. FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE CORPORATION& OWNERSHIP
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC and CBG Communications, Inc. are privately held companies
in good financial standing. Due to the sensitivity of such records, the B&G Team would
be happy to discuss the financial status of the respective companies, if the City of Renton
awards the B&G Team a contract for cable franchise consulting services. Both
companies are independently owned and in good financial standing with ample financial
and human resources to meet the cable franchise consulting needs of the City of Renton.
SECTION V—SAMPLE OF WORK
Due to size of the documents,the work samples have been included as attachments.
SECTION VI—PROPOSED OVERALL WORK PLAN
A. CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
In order to meet the needs and desires of the City of Renton—performance analysis,
upgrade evaluation, consumer protection and complaints, senior citizen/disabled person
discounts, ordinance compliance, compliance with the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Documents, Access Utilization, Collection of
Franchise Fees, Bond and Insurance,FCC Regulations,Annual Reports, Other Reports,
Technical Assistance-to perform the following tasks,the B&G Team would recommend
the following services:
1. Performance Analysis & Upgrade Evaluation
a. Purpose Statement
We understand that the City's goal is to evaluate the technical performance and physical
condition of the City of Renton's Comcast Cable System. Each area will be fully
assessed concerning compliance with pertinent requirements and standards. An overall
report will be produced spelling out findings, consistency, deficiencies, and
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 26
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
recommendations.
The technical audit will be performed by Dick Nielsen and Tom Robinson from CBG.
CBG believes that a multi-faceted approach is the best way to arrive at a.comprehensive
picture of the technical aspects of the cable system serving,Schenectady, Specifically,
CBG would begin by reviewing and auditing the existing system- "to determine its
strengths and weaknesses. CBG would use the following methodologies to attain a clear
understanding of the technical and physical attributes of the cable system.
b. Future Technological Advances
CBG would initially seek information from the City and a written survey response from
Comcast, and then engage in discussions with the company's engineering and technical
staff, in order to review, for example, the cable system's current design, age, condition,
capacity, functionality, cascade length, homes per node, headend and any interconnects.
As part of the survey effort, CBG would request and review as-built and other system
maps to determine whether the system has been built within specifications. CBG would
also examine recent Proof-of-Performance results to look at noise and distortion
characteristics and determine whether the system is operating within franchise and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required specifications. In addition, CBG
would review additional City and company records related to the technical operation of
the system, including complaint logs, signal leakage logs, outage logs, etc.
Then CBG would compare current system characteristics with future system development
and upgrade plans and needs. CBG would look at what is currently available (including
current channels in use, channel capacity, and planned expansion), plans for any near-
term upgrades and additions, and planned and required capabilities of a future system
including the ability to provide a wide range of technologically advanced and interactive
services (such as video-on-demand, advanced data-over-cable services, cable telephony,
high definition television, etc.). CBG would further review issues related to system
reliability, including types of back-up and network monitoring systems, and any impacts
related to system reliability as they may affect both existing and planned services.
Based on the information gained from the Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation
as spelled out herein, combined with our experience and depth of knowledge in cable
television technology, CBG will make recommendations for future technical as well as
physical plant modifications for the Renton Comcast cable systems. CBG has identified
state-of-the-art technologies/practices that are available, and that have been applied by
Comcast, and by other companies, which may be of value to the City. Specifically,
CBG's experience, as demonstrated elsewhere herein, shows that it has extensive
knowledge and understanding of existing, commonly employed, advanced, near-term,
and future technologies/practices that cable companies, including Comcast,have
successfully employed and will employ in the future that will be of benefit to Renton
subscribers and the City. Examples include:
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 27
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
• Interactive systems and uses, including advanced high speed data-over-
cable(cable modem) services, video-on-demand (VOD), Interactive
Television(ITV) and other two-way technologies.
• High Defmition TV (HDTV), including current activation in a variety of
systems.
• Universal service provision and lifeline service provision, to ensure that
basic cable services (including critical PEG and broadcast services) are
available to all at no or low cost.
• Both compressed and uncompressed video, for a variety of applications
including residential cable services, video conferencing, distance learning
and PEG Access origination (including a variety of digital transport,
technologies such as 8- and 10-bit digital, MPEG, Serial Digital, and
others).
• Emergency Alert Systems, including those that interface with the Federal
EAS system and those that provide local inputs from Emergency Operations
Centers,mobile command centers, etc.
In each case, CBG will be able to make a realistic assessment of how these technologies
are or can be employed in the existing system as well as after any upgrades that may be
planned or would be implemented in the future.
c. System Technical Performance Testing
With the information gained from the initial stages of the Performance Analysis and
Upgrade Evaluation, CBG would then perform a full field audit, where CBG would
conduct an on-site inspection and performance testing at the headend and in the field at
several representative test locations.
CBG would conduct the audit.process to thoroughly assess the current condition of the
system. Comparisons would be made between our on site findings and the information
initially received from Comcast. We would then make appropriate recommendations,
where necessary to bring the system into technical compliance with pertinent rules and
regulations, and also develop recommendations regarding future system requirements.
CBG would then work with the City to take the audit findings and turn them into realistic
requirements, objectives and strategies with respect to the franchise renewal process.
d. Physical Plant Inspection
CBG would also perform a ride-out independently or with system technical personnel to
look at physical plant characteristics. CBG would review and document non-compliance
issues pertaining to the construction of the physical plant, including service drops to
subscriber's homes, as well as the maintenance of the plant. All violations found will be
documented along with specification of the appropriate codes or regulations that are not
being satisfied.
B>EAM
)11
01-
Request for Proposals Page 28
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
e. Summary Report of Findings
Once the above work is completed, CBG will issue a draft and then a final report that will
summarize all findings, and recommend directions for the City to pursue, especially as
these directions may be incorporated in the franchising process. As noted above, CBG
will incorporate recommendations where necessary to bring the system into technical
compliance with pertinent rules and regulations. CBG will also make recommendations
regarding future system requirements and related franchise language.
The final written report will include necessary supporting documentation.
B. DATA COLLECTION METHODOLOGIES
As indicated above and outlined below, CBG will collect data utilizing several methods.
1. Paper Technical Review of System
CBG will obtain technical documentation from the City and Comcast that will give us a
baseline understanding of the age, architecture and past, as well as current, performance
of the system. This information will become the platform for the following technical
audit tasks.
2. System Technical Performance Testing
Further information will be gathered by CBG during a site visit to the cable system.
CBG will work with Comcast to tour their facilities and perform testing at the headend
and hub facilities as well as at a representative number of test points throughout the
system.
3. Physical Plant Inspection
During the site visit, CBG will drive out portions of the physical plant, including service
drops to subscriber's homes, throughout the participating jurisdictions to determine the
level of compliance with national and local codes and regulations. Individual issues or
violations will be documented with pictures where practical and also in a list form that
will be provided to the City. Conclusions regarding the overall condition of the physical
plant will be included in the final report.
4. Discussions with Key Personnel
In the beginning and throughout the technical audit process, CBG will seek input from
the City on known issues that the City or its residents have with cable TV service in the
system. CBG will then investigate any potential technical issues related to the City's
concerns. CBG will also initiate discussions with Comcast early in the process and will
request follow-up information and/or clarification from Comcast. The technical audit
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals
,:¢ qPage 29
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
process will be completed based on final clarification and input from the City, the
municipalities and Comcast.
a. Work Plan
1. Tasks
a. Gather historic information from the City
b. Data requisition letter to Comcast
c. Paper Audit,review of information received from the City and Comcast
d. Onsite electronic testing and technical review of the system
e. Physical drive-out of the system
f. Draft summary report
g. Issue Final Report
2. Consumer Protection and Complaints, Senior Citizen/Disabled Person
Discounts,Ordinance Compliance, Compliance With the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Documents,Bond and Insurance,FCC Regulations,Annual Reports,
Other Reports, and Technical Assistance
Duties of the Cable/Telecommunications Administrator would include the following to
meet the above needs:
Assisting city staff with general day-to-day cable franchise administration.,reviewing
Renton's current franchise including reviewing current bond and insurance certificates
for compliance, and working with Comcast and city staff to ensure completion on all
ordinance and cable franchise issues. A status report would be delivered to appointed
and elected officials outlining all details and recommended action. We would issue a
dedicated phone number to handle all cable-related questions and complaints from cable
subscribers in the City franchise area. Resolve all complaints with Comcast in a timely
manner. Also, complaints will be logged as to name, address,phone number and e-mail
address. In addition, a dedicated e-mail address and phone to allow cable subscribers to
e-mail or call with questions and complaints will be established. The B & G Team will
prepare all Commission/City Council briefings regarding telecommunications policies
related to the City. Lastly,the administrator would also keep elected and appointed
officials abreast to the changing dynamics of the telecommunications arena and
specifically regional and national issues that may affect the City of Renton and its cable
franchise renewal process.
Legal staff would assist with general Franchising legal issues including compliance with
the cable television consumer protection Act of 1992 and other FCC regulations.
Preparing legal memoranda to elected and appointed officials as necessary(except for
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 30
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
memoranda related to uncovered legal services listed), noncompliance issues up through
drafting notice of violation to franchisee and general resolution drafting for current cable
franchise issues.
3. Access Utilization.
B&G Team fully understands that the City's goal is to assess the cable-related Public,
Educational and Governmental Access (PEG) needs of a variety of Communities of
Interest ("Communities") in the City, as well as the overall cable-related needs of the
residential community within the City as part of the cable franchise renewal process.
These types of assessments will help the City decide what terms and conditions are
needed in a cable franchise that will help expand outreach for individuals and
governmental and educational entities through continued enhancement of PEG access
communications opportunities.
We also believe that a PEG needs assessment is tied closely to assessing the current and
future capabilities of an I-Net. An I-Net's functionality can greatly enhance or reduce the
potential value of PEG channels. Live origination programming from sites such as
Council Chambers, School Board meeting rooms and many others, are likely to be
identified as current and future needs. An I-Net's current and potential value to the City
regarding traditional video services as well as data and voice communications transport
should be assessed as part of the renewal process.
We believe that an innovative, multi-faceted approach is the best way to arrive at a
comprehensive picture of the City's PEG, I-Net, and residential cable-related needs.
a. PEG Access Needs Assessment
As the City is aware, capacity set aside on a cable television system for PEG access
channels can be used effectively to provide a host of public services including:
• Comprehensive coverage of public meetings
• Information about a wide variety of government services and programs
• Information about new and planned Citty-wide or area specific initiatives
• In-service training
• Coverage of community events
• Educational outreach to parents and students at home
• Adult and continuing educational programs
• News shows focusing on the Renton area
Future channel capacity and production facility and equipment needs are identified through
the needs assessment process. Subsequently, provisions for implementation of such
channels are negotiated as part of cable franchise renewal or included as requirements in a
Request for Renewal Proposal if the formal renewal process is followed.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 31
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Regarding the PEG access needs assessment, B&G Team will perform the following
information gathering,review and analysis tasks as part of the overall work plan:
1. Background Information Review - This would entail meeting with
current and potential Access providers and touring the currently available production
facilities. We would also review and analyze the information which the City and affected
'parties have already gathered about access facilities and service needs.
2. User Profile Development—B&G Team would develop a profile of the
current and expected user population, through information gleaned from the background
review and a variety of other techniques,including:
a. A survey of current and potential client use, patterns, and
attitudes—
As part of its overall survey work, we will spend a significant portion of time gathering
information from pertinent franchise authority representatives and current and potential
access users. The target audience includes those currently involved in the development,
production and dissemination of public access programming, various educational
entities involved in the production of educational access programming and those
involved in the City's government access television operations. Additionally, input
would be sought from potential providers of access programming, including some of the
same entities listed below related to Institutional Network development, as well as
additional individuals and organizations such as:
• Parent-Teacher organizations
• Disability service organizations
• Minority service organizations
• Churches and religious organizations
• Arts organizations
• Youth service organizations
• Service clubs
• Labor organizations
• Business organizations(such as the Chamber of Commerce)
The B&G Team will draw on survey instruments from its current PEG access work,
past access reviews and other, similar access reviews to develop an instrument that
will provide an accurate reflection of access service and facility needs, client profiles
and attitudes towards access. If the City desires a mass mailing to reach a large target
audience, the City would need to be responsible for certain administrative costs
(postage,tabulation, etc.) associated with the mailing and response.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 32
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
• Workshop with or focus group of current and projected Access users—
We will work with the City and other associated organizations to establish
the best representation of diverse current and potential Educational,
Governmental, and Public Access television and multimedia content
producers, clients and users in a workshop or focus group format to ensure
that there is a broad expression of opinion, meaningful dialogue and
information gathering that is highly pertinent to the project requirements.
• Workshop with or focus group of community leaders and community
and non-profit organizations and agencies—We can work with the City to
establish a meaningful and effective workshop or focus group to determine
the opinions and reactions of the diverse organizational populations that
would affect, guide,produce and use access services. This would include a
group centered on diverse community leaders, community groups,business
leaders, educational groups,non-profit organizations,pertinent government
representatives and others. B&G Team has been effective in the operation
of,and analysis of the information gathered from, such groups through its
previous franchise work. As such,we have a keen awareness of their value
to accurately forecast both short and long-term access needs and interests.
4. Service Growth and Development& Local Programming
In determining the production, post-production and transmission facilities and equipment
required to meet the present and future needs of the user population, several techniques
will be used. Current and anticipated uses of facilities will be evaluated, including
remote and studio, live and taped production, post production, tape duplication and
transmission capabilities. Specifics that will be looked at include types of cameras
needed and the technology required to achieve the desired level of quality. Post-
production equipment would be evaluated according to the types of editing systems
needed to meet desired quality levels.
Anticipating initial needs and equipment replacement requirements will require an
evaluation of the goals and objectives of each access facility. Projected equipment usage
and overall facility demand would be considered. For example, if the demand were mainly
for live productions,the access facility would have to accommodate mainly studios and/or a
viable mobile production facility with live transmission capability from various remote
origination points. Different equipment needs would also be evaluated for the combined
live and post-production environment. For example, a demand for magazine format
programs where much of the footage is recorded at various times in the field would require
increasing amounts of remote camera equipment and more editing. In contrast, live
productions require studio cameras and place more emphasis on other fixed, mobile or
"suitcase" studio equipment. Another requirement is the ability to meet the demands of all
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 33
• g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
the projected users of a facility. Multiple programs will typically be in production
simultaneously, such as field and studio type programs.
After all needs are assessed, the information would then be projected out and incorporated
with technology shifts, such as incorporation over time of greater digital compression,video
streaming and non-linear production technology. Digital compression would enable the
facility to compress more channels into the same bandwidth, possibly giving multi-channel
transmission capability. Video streaming will enable access organizations to provide
programming in a digital format over the Internet or through organizational wide area
networks (potentially also through an I-Net), as well as through traditional analog video
access channels on the cable system. Non-linear editing enables shared use by many users,
saves editing time (especially when changes need to be made), provides the ability to make
fast edit changes, and is format independent, so various users could output to different tape
and storage formats, such as SVHS, VHS,3/4", Betacam or a digital video server,to fit their
needs. Non-linear editing also allows multi-layered effects without experiencing loss of
quality. Another advantage is the ability to layer multiple audio tracks.
Once all necessary information is gathered and resultant needs are determined, a list of
equipment and facilities with associated cost projections and replacement schedules would
be developed to meet the identified needs.
a. Service Level Evaluation
B&G Team would determine the number of PEG access channels and the level of access
services, including personnel, training, outreach and program/channel promotion, necessary
to satisfy the expected user population and demand for channel time. The determination of
services and the number of access channels needed would include projections of producer
demand. Specifically, analyzing:
b. Resource Requirements
We will use a combination of standard organization analysis techniques, interviews, surveys
and focus groups with current and potential access users, producers and other pertinent
parties, along with an evaluation of any previously identified viewer attitudes towards
access services to assess projected utilization of and requirement for various resources.
B&G Team will also look at the number and types of channels that would be needed to meet
user demand and provide the level of programming anticipated. As part of the total analysis,
an evaluation of the projected costs to meet resource needs would be made. A survey of
subscribers and non-subscribers regarding PEG access attitudes can also be performed as
part of the residential needs ascertainment,as described further below.
c. Delivery of Training,Facilitation,Promotion and Programming services
B&G Team will project the delivery of training, facilitation, promotion and programming
services needed to provide appropriate diversity, quality,efficiency and effectiveness. B&G
Team members will use their broad experience with such matters, as well as focus groups
and comparative analysis to accomplish this portion of the task. We would also assess ways
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 34
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
to promote Access viewership and maintain and enhance community use and viewership in
the future.
d. Contribution to Community Dialogue and Debate on Public Issues
B&G Team would study the present and past issues for the City and the surrounding area(s)
to determine ways in which the PEG access channels could continue to enhance their
contribution to community dialogue and debate on issues. We would compare these issues
to the types of issue-oriented programming that has been or could be produced to cover such
issues. During its survey, focus group and other work, B&G Team will also ask issue-,
oriented questions to respondents and then compare their views with related access services.
e. Contribution to Success of the Cable Operator
B&G Team believes strongly that effective local access programming contributes
significantly to the success of the cable operator. We believe that this fact has already been
demonstrated in other cable franchises. We would draw on this experience, as well as
conduct a comparative analysis with similar cable systems to project the contribution of
access. This facet of the review will also look at the necessary ongoing role of the operator
in contributing to the continued success of access.
f. Report
Once the above work is completed, we will issue a draft and then a final report that will
summarize all findings, assess the needs and interests of those involved with and served by
PEG access and new technologies (clients, users, subscribers, supporters, staff, etc.), assess
the potential for PEG access to meet the determined needs and interests, including an
assessment of facility, equipment and other requirements, and recommend directions for the
City and PEG organizations to pursue, especially as these directions may be incorporated in
the franchising process. The final report will include necessary supporting documentation.
5. Institutional Applications—I-Net
Institutional Networks are wide area networks designed primarily to serve governmental and
educational facilities. I-Net development can also help spur installation of infrastructure that
meets business networking needs, which in turn helps promote economic development. I-
Nets further provide an advanced network resource that can expand data communications
connectivity and speed, satisfy voice-networking requirements and, at the same time,reduce
networking costs by eliminating leased lines. I-Nets also provide opportunities to develop
cost-effective video communications, including video conferencing, distance learning and
teletraining. The infrastructure and equipment required for an I-Net are typically identified
through the needs assessment process.
We would perform the following as part of the overall I-Net Assessment work plan:
a. Review Existing Information —B&G Team would begin by meeting with
City by telephone and in person, reviewing existing documents and analyzing current
B>EAM
{ Request for Proposals Page 35
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
information, in order to establish a baseline understanding of the City its current networking
environment. Examples of such information would include:
1. Descriptive documents about each organization
2. Existing organizational reports and/or position papers related to cable,
telecommunications, information technology, networking services and
existing network use
3. Any applicable documents from the cable operator pertaining to its
approach to I-Net provision
4. Any other pertinent materials, documents, correspondence or minutes
which are germane to this process
B&G Team anticipates that targeted Communities could include:
• City agencies and staff
• CityCouncil, Commissions and Boards (at least from the Chief of Staff's or-
Chairperson's perspective)
• Public Schools
• Parochial and private schools
• Colleges,universities,seminaries and trade schools
• Potentially pre-schools and daycare centers
• Libraries and museums
• Hospitals,clinics,healthcare facilities and allied organizations
• Community centers
• Senior centers/organizations
• Public transportation agencies
• Federal, State and County Government offices
Additionally, it will be prudent to seek information from the Chamber of Commerce,
allied business organizations, and individual businesses in order to determine what
synergies may be evident between the networking needs of the institutional community
and those of the business community. Similarly, it will be prudent to seek input from
some of the major non-profit community organizations to determine their synergistic
networking needs.
b. Disseminate Information - All the various Communities of Interest,
including government, educational, library, community and business representatives, and
other interested parties will need information about the I-Net's potential in order to
maximize their participation in the needs assessment process. Topics to be reviewed could
include:
• Evolution of Institutional and Business Networks—both locally and around
the country
• Applications for Institutions and Businesses - including examples of current
and potential future applications
B'&G TEAM
b
Request for Proposals Page 36
& Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Such information can be disseminated in a presentation and hard copy format directly to
interested parties, through workshops/briefings, through educational or governmental
Websites, Chamber of Commerce newsletters and other business publications, educational
publications,broadcast E-Mail and a variety of other means.
c. Gather Information - The most intensive part of the needs assessment
process is the information gathering stage. Obtaining clear and comprehensive input from
all necessary representative constituencies is critical to the success of the needs assessment
effort and the validity and utility of the resulting information and recommendations.
Some feedback would occur in response to the initial information dissemination effort. The
majority of the input, though, would come from the following subsequent tools that B&G
Team would work with the City to employ:
d. Interviews/Surveys - Representatives from the constituent groups will be
interviewed and/or surveyed. As indicated above, target entities can include government
agencies, libraries, public and private school systems, local higher education institutions,
community groups, Chambers of Commerce, healthcare organizations and others.
Interviewees will include key decision-makers, IT/Video Production staff and other
pertinent respondents. Site visits to some organizations will also be conducted to review
current and planned organizational network architectures and applications.
B&G Team will develop an interview format which will be used to gather information in-
person, over the telephone and in written form. The format will be determined in
consultation with City staff and tailored to address the needs and interests of the interviewee
(be it an educational institution, government agency, community group or other entity). We
have prepared questionnaires which were used to .successfully gather information and
formulate I-Net, cable and telecommunications needs of both the public and private sector.
Examples of interview topics include: current and future organizational communications
network structures; video, voice and data formats; provision of internal and external
services; community communications architectures; facilities; equipment; capacity needs;
current and planned use of cable services; relationships between different community
components (business and government, educational and business, etc.); Internet use and
many other topics.
Regarding written surveys, B&G Team would prepare a comprehensive, yet concise
instrument that focuses on the topics discussed above. Such an instrument can be used
where a significant amount of information can be obtained efficiently in a self-administered
form, and any necessary clarification obtained through telephone follow-up. B&G Team
has employed such instruments successfully in a number of needs assessments to elicit a
wealth of useful information in a timely manner.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 37
• Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
} and
Renewal Consulting Services
e. Focus Groups - For in-depth discussion to more finitely explore initial
findings,B&G Team would work with City staff to establish meaningful and effective focus
groups to determine the overall opinions and reactions of the diverse organizational groups
that currently, or in the future, would utilize the I-Net. This could include group discussions
centered on the needs of government agencies, potential educational and library users and
other pertinent groupings. The discussion agenda for these groups would be structured in
such a way to ensure a broad expression of opinion, meaningful dialogue and specific
reactions to issues that are highly pertinent to the project requirements.
f. Analyze Information —B&G Team will take all the information gathered,
review, compile and analyze it, and determine what I-Net needs are being demonstrated by
the various Communities in the City. B&G Team will then look at ways a cable company-
provided I-Net can meet the demonstrated needs.
g. Prepare Written Assessment Report — B&G Team will prepare and
submit a draft report to the City which identifies the I-Net and business related needs elicited
from the assessment process. After review by the City, B&G Team will prepare a final
report and summary containing the full results of the needs assessment. The report will
incorporate input from City staff and the identified Communities of Interest and include a
description of methodologies employed and recommendations. B&G Team will use results
from site visits, interviews, surveys, focus groups and other work to develop the
recommendations in its report. B&G Team, through its research and analysis into all facets
of this project, and using the research tools previously described, will be able to focus on a
recommended I-Net plan to meet demonstrated needs that identifies potential technologies,
architecture, capacity and other factors. From this, B&G Team will also recommend a list
of requirements to successfully implement the I-Net plan.
The report will be thorough and concise. It will provide a needs assessment foundation to
be utilized in cable franchise negotiations and future communications network planning.
We will present the report at a meeting with City staff and/or elected officials as appropriate.
6. Collection of Franchise Fees
Financial/franchise fee reviews are an important part of the process to determine
franchise compliance and put oneself in the strongest position possible to commence
renewal negotiations. In our experience, a financial review will show some amount of
underpayment of franchise fees at least half the time, although the amounts will vary.
Mr. Treich will review the franchise provisions regarding payment to the City of Renton,
and then will request data from Renton. From this,the City can review and examine the
operator's responses to the data requests. The City will be given a written report detailing
the results, and in the event of non-compliance or other problems,recommendations for
franchise modifications and other potential action to address these issues will be given. It
should be noted that this work will not be an"audit" as defined in the traditional
accounting terminology, since Mr. Treich is not a certified public accountant. The
B>EAM
IN Request for Proposals Page 38
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
financial review proposed will be an initial review of the franchise fee payments by
Comcast with an identification of underpayments from the initial review and an
identification of additional areas where either Comcast has not provided the necessary
documentation or areas where Comcast has refused to support its procedures. The City
will be provided with cost options for any follow-up work the City wishes to investigate.
Franchise Renewal Specific
In order to meet the needs and desires of the City of Renton—training and evaluation,
work plan, special presentation, survey, comparative studies,public hearings, financial
implications, solicit providers,negotiations and implementation-to perform the
following tasks,the B&G Team would recommend the following services:
A. General Compliance Review
B&G Team would complete the following tasks and action steps in order to meet the
objectives for the general franchise compliance review:
1. Review and Analyze Franchise
B&G Team would list and review pertinent franchise requirements, review Citty and
municipal records and Comcast reports, make inquiries of the operator and assess
compliance with a host of franchise provisions including:
• Line extension and density requirements
• Overall customer service requirements
• Overall PEG Access requirements
• Overall I-Net requirements
• Right-of-Way(ROW)occupancy requirements and conditions
• Provision of cable drops and cable services for public buildings
• Overall franchise technical requirements
• Availability of emergency override capability
• Reporting requirements
• Level of insurance and provision of insurance certification
• Bonding requirements
• Provision of a local office
• Required upgrades of the cable system and other services
• Other provisions of the franchise
2. Customer Service
In this specific review of a customer service standard component, B&G Team would
obtain and review service and repair call records from the cable operator, as well as any
records the City and municipalities had for the most recent quarter, and verify
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 39
& S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
consistency between Comcast's and the City's records and compliance with both local
and national customer service standards. We would also obtain a list of complaints and
identified resolutions from both Comcast and the City, compare the records for
consistency, and further review them for compliance with local and national customer
service standards. Additionally, B&G Team will cross-reference complaints/results of a
technical nature with information gleaned from the audit of technical facilities as it is
performed. We would also review Comcast's phone system and its reporting and record
keeping capability. B&G Team would then review Comcast's telephone response
records including hold times, abandoned calls, transfer times, instances of busy signals,
etc. and compare such records with any records kept by the City. These then would be
further compared with local and national customer services standards to determine
compliance and the telephone responsiveness of Comcast.
The following is our proposed project/work plan for successful franchise,renewal, using
the informal renewal process. The vast majority of renewals are settled using the
informal renewal process. As stated above, we will need to work closely with the City to
construct a scope of work to best achieve their goals under the required budget.
1. PLANNING FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
a. Hold "kick-off' meetings with selected leadership personnel in the cities,
including but not limited to, administration, legal, Council, IT/video
programming, public works, GIS, public library, and planning/zoning
commission to discuss process, organizational concerns, issues and
general goals of the process.
i. Initial meetings in small department-specific groups
ii. Overview of franchise renewal process,both formal and informal
iii. Discuss organizational concerns and issues
iv. Identify goals of process
v. Discuss timetable for process
vi. Overviews and understandings of budgets and funds available for
project
b. Develop initial assessment of proposed general direction of project and
emerging priorities of project and areas of direct study.
c. Prepare written report of overall initial assessment and report to staff and,
if necessary, brief the Council for policy-maker support of general
direction and emerging priorities of project.
d. Agree at project team level on direction of project, tasks, timetable and
budgets.
2. PERFORMING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
a. Identify Interest Groups/Departments/Agencies/Educational Institutions
that may have cable/communications-related needs and interests.
i. Administration
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 40 g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
ii. Municipal Attorney
iii. Communications/Public Information
iv. Council & Mayor's Office
v. Video/Cable Programming
vi. Police
vii. Fire/EMS
viii. IT/Telecommunications
ix. Management Services
x. Human Relations
xi. Finance
xii. Public Service
xiii. Public Works/GIS
xiv. Economic Development
xv. Planning&Neighborhood Development
xvi. Business Resource Center
xvii. Parks and Recreation
- xviii. Environmental
xix. Public Libraries
xx. Public Schools
xxi. Private Schools
xxii. County Institutions
xxiii. Business Community/Chamber of Commerce
xxiv. Large Non-Profit Entities
b. Discuss direct study (customer service — new technology) options and
feasibility of ascertainment techniques and instruments (will depend, in
part, on budget allocated to renewal, and type of renewal being conducted
(formal vs. informal)).
c. Conduct surveys, interviews, workshops and/or focus groups with
identified Interest Groups/Departments/Agencies/Educational Institutions.
i. Assist with preparing and review survey instruments
ii. Assist with preparing and review interview questions
iii. Assist with preparing and review focus group guide
d. Review Community Needs Assessment (Technical Section) already
completed for the City.
i. Identify violations, if any
ii. Send notices of violation
f. Compile data from surveys, interviews, focus groups and audits and
prepare report(s) setting forth any identified cable-related needs and
interests, and support therefore to determine customer service, PEG
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 41
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
access, institutional applications, local programming and new technology
needs.
g. Draft Needs Assessment/Direct Study Report(s).
3. PREPARATION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS
a. Review current franchise ordinance/agreement.
b. Review any other relevant City Code provisions.
c. Prepare up-to-date franchise ordinance and agreement.
i. Incorporating specified needs, if in informal renewal process
ii. Incorporating certain needs, leaving facilities and equipment
provisions blank for Comcast to propose, if in formal renewal
process
iii. Generic ordinance that reflects best practices and current state of
the law
4. PRESENT FINDINGS TO CITY STAFF/CITY COUNCIL
5. "AT THE TABLE" NEGOTIATIONS ON BEHALF OF RENTON
a. Set priorities based on findings and conclusions in needs assessment
report.
b. Strategy discussion(s)with the City to discuss ways of best meeting goals.
c. Face-to-face discussions with Comcast after transmitting model agreement
and ordinance to company officials.
d. Negotiation via telephone, as necessary.
e. Negotiation via e-mail, as necessary.
f. Brief Council, Municipal Attorney, Mayor, or others, as necessary, on
status of negotiations and on issues requiring policy decisions.
g. Obtain approval for final agreed upon terms from the Municipal Attorney
and/or Mayor.
6. PREPARE FINAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/ADOPTION
ORDINANCE (CONTINUED PREPARATION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS)
a. Prepare document(s)incorporating agreed upon provisions.
b. Prepare summary of final terms and conditions for decision-makers.
c. Brief Council, Mayor and Municipal staff on agreed upon terms and
conditions, as necessary.
d. Present final franchise document(s) to the Council and Mayor for
adoption.
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 42
& • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
TIME SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT—CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE & FRANCHISE RENEWAL SPECIFIC**
a. Perform Performance Analysis/Upgrade Evaluation 3 -6 months*
b. Access Utilization 3 —6 months*
c. Consumer Protection, Senior Discounts, FCC Compliance, On-going
Documents, Bond&Insurance, FCC Regulation, Annual
Reports, Other Reports and Technical Assistance
d. Collection of Franchise Fees (Financial Audit) 3 —6 months*
e. Training&Evaluation, Work Plan and Comparative Studies, 6—9 months*
Public Hearings, Financial Implications
f. Survey(telephone or mail 4—6 months*
g. Negotiations 12—18 months
h. Implementation 3 —6 months
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for a.,b., c., d., and f. is 6—9 months.
**Please reference the discussion on team members for the person(s) responsible for
each phase.
CONCLUSION
Thank you for asking our firm to submit this proposal. The B&G Team would welcome
the opportunity to discuss it further with the appropriate City of Renton officials.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April 14, 2005
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Owner
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Owne
Bradley&Gnz7etta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999—fax
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 43
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Attachment I— Samples of Work
1) Shakopee, MN(Twin Cities Suburb)
Ms. Schaefer, Mr. Nielsen and Mr. Guzzetta conducted a thorough compliance audit of
Shakopee's newly renewed cable franchise agreement, 2004,with Time Warner Cable,
Inc.
2) Marin County, CA
Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nielsen, Mr. Hamline and Dr. Book conducted a detailed PEG access
review, I-Net review, residential community needs assessment and past performance
review.
B&G TEAM
Request fOr Proposals Page 44
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Price Proposal —
Cable Television
Franchise Management and
Renewal Consulting Services
For the City of
Renton, Washington
Submitted to:
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall, Room 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Respectfully Submitted by:
Bradley
Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999
April 14, 2005
A. COST PROPOSAL CONSULTANT DETAILS
The B&G Team will work with the City to establish a scope of work that will not exceed
the City's desired budget. Although we have submitted a total project estimate, these
figures can vary, depending on the level of detail and number of studies the City chooses
to complete. With that in mind, B&G would be happy to discuss with City officials a
specific budget for management and renewal services to meet your needs. We
understand that the City has an annual budget of $22,500 for management renewal
services, so the B&G Team would,work with the City to identify and phase cable
management services to meet Renton's budget before the franchise term expires in
September, 2008.
Fees and Hourly Billing Rates:
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guz7etta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
'£ B&G TEAM
PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 1
B. COST PROPOSAL & PROJECT HOURS***
City of Renton,Washington-Cost Proposal&Hours*
Cost Hours
Perform Performance Analysis/Upgrade $17,000- 100- 120
Evaluation(Includes technical review of $20,400
system,safety,continuity of service and
new technologies/growth)
$12,800- 80- 100
Access Utilization(PEG) $13,600
$11,200- 70-85
Access Utilization(I-Net)Optional $13,600
Consumer Protection,Senior Discounts $11 0- 70- 100
FCC Compliance,Documents,Bond and $13,,66 00
Insurance,FCC Regulation,Annual
Reports,Other Reports and Technical
Assistance
Collection of Franchise Fees(Financial $4,500- 30-40
Audit) $6,000
Training&Evaluation,Work Plan, $8,000- 50- 100
Comparative Studies,Public Hearings, $13,600
Financial Implications
$8,000- 50-70
Subscriber/Non-Subscriber Survey $11,200**
$6,270- 33 -333
Negotiations $63,270
$2,500- 16-50
Implementation $8,000
**If the County and municipalities wish to have us perform a mail-out survey, the County and
municipalities would need to be responsible for all printing and mailing costs(send and receive). If a
telephone survey is chosen, add$12,000 to the above figures for the subcontractor services of a telephone
survey firm.
***The costs for the professional services have been calculated using a blended hourly rate of$160/hour.
B&G would be reimbursed for such expenses as fax,photocopies,postage, long distance
phone calls, copy and reproduction, contract clerical,FedEx or courier,travel and other
similar expenses. The B&G Team always works with the city to minimize all expenses.
Reimbursable costs would be billed to the City on an actual cost basis.
B>EAM
PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 2
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April 14, 2005
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
L � -.
Michael R. Bradley, Owner
Stephen J. Gnz7etta, Owner
Bradley&Guzzetta,LL
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999—fax
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
B>EAM
0 & PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 3
a
From: "Tracy J. Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 8/9/2005 1:59:20 PM
Subject: Contract& New Timeframe
Bonnie,
Attached is copy of a sample contract. Exhibit A has the new timeframe
with the information you requested. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need any adjustments made. I will be in the office all day
tomorrow. Good luck with your meeting.
Thank you,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com <http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/>
oRyi
8 9OS-
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON AND
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT is entered into this
day of August, 2005, by and between the law firm of Bradley & Guzzetta LLC, a
Minnesota limited liability company, and the City of Renton, Washington a municipal
corporation,whereby the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Basic Services.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor", shall, as
specified in Exhibit A, attached herto and incorporated herewith, perform services to
assist the City of Renton, Washington (hereinafter the "City") with the cable television
franchise renewal process.
Section 2. Expenditure Limitation.
Contractor fully understands that total expenditures for the professional services
related to cable franchise renewal specified in Section 1 herein for the period from the
effective date of this agreement to June 30, 2006 shall be $ , which
expenditures shall include the employment of sub-consultants, Contractor's travel
expenses, cash disbursements, including long distance telephone calls, copy charges,
postage and delivery charges, and photocopier charges, etc. It is the Contractor's sole
responsibility to notify the City in writing marked to the attention of the City Attorney if
it appears that such expenditures will exceed the level of$ . Contractor
fully understands and agrees that the City will not be responsible for any expenditures for
professional services and cost in excess of a total of $ unless prior
written approval has been received by the Contractor from the City. The City
understands that the Contractor shall not be required to provide or complete any services
or products for which funds are not available.
For the Administrative services listed in Section 1, the City agrees to pay
Contractor a flat fee of$2,000.00 per month.
Section 3. Terms of Payment.
Contractor shall submit to the City of Renton, City Attorney's Office, an itemized
billing on a monthly basis covering all professional services and expenses provided
hereunder. Such billing shall be itemized showing the date and services performed, time
expended, and hourly rate for services, and total amount due. Within thirty (30) working
days after receipt of such a billing, the City shall make full payment to the Contractor,
except for any amount that may be properly disputed by the City in writing. Notice of
any disputed time or expense shall be provided to the Contractor within thirty (30) days
of the applicable invoice date, or within such time as is provided by state or local law,
whichever is shorter. Invoices for work will be submitted to the City monthly and are
due and payable 30 days after submission.
Section 4. Idemnification.
The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Contractor and its owners,
officers, and employees from and against any and all loss, injury, damage, claim or
liability (including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) by any third party to
the extent arising out of the City's negligent acts, errors or omission, including claims
made by the employees of City.
2
Section 5. Subconsultants.
CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book, Ph.D and Front Range Consulting,
Inc. are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the Contractor in
the performance of this Agreement.
The Contractor may, after obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or
employ additional sub-consultants in connection with the performance of services under
this Agreement.
Section 6. Provision of Information.
The City shall use its best efforts to provide or arrange for the provision of
information requested by the Contractor that is needed to perform the services hereunder.
The Contractor shall not be responsible for any or all errors or omissions in such
information, nor for any damages attributable to defects in information provided or
prepared by others, unless the Contractor knew of the defects and expressly advised the
City to rely on the defective information in performing services hereunder. The
Contractor shall not incur any liability as a result of requested information that is not
timely provided.
Section 7. Relationship Between Parties.
In the performance of the services hereunder, the Contractor is an independent
contractor and shall not be considered an employee, agent or representative of the City
for any purpose. Likewise, no employee, official, agent or elected official of the City
shall be considered an employee or agent of the Contractor. Unless specifically identified
otherwise in this Agreement, the services performed by Consultant under this Agreement
are solely for the benefit of the City. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create
any duties on the part of the Contractor toward any person not a party to this Agreement.
3
Section 8. Term ofAgreement.
Both parties fully understand and agree that this Agreement automatically
terminates on any of the following conditions:
1. The expenditure of the total amount set forth in Section 2.
2. The conclusion to the satisfaction of the City of the professional
services identified in Section 1. of this Agreement; or
3. The submission by either party of thirty(30) days written notice to
the other party, in accordance with the notice provisions of this Agreement. In the event
of termination, the City shall pay the Contractor for all professional services rendered to
the date of termination,plus reasonable expenses for winding down the services.
Section 9. Conflict of Interest.
The City understands that because Contractor represents a large number of clients
in a wide variety of matters around the country, it is possible that, while the City is a ,
client, Contractor will be asked to represent a client whose interests are actually or
potentially.adverse to the City's interests. Contractor agrees that it shall not undertake
any such adverse representation unless, among other things; the City waives any conflict
of interest in writing.
Section 10. Performance Requirements.
The services provided under this Agreement shall be performed as soon as good
practice and due diligence will permit. Contractor agrees that it shall consult with
designated representatives) of the City before undertaking any actions on the City's
behalf or engaging in any negotiations or making any commitments on behalf of the City.
4
Section 11. Waiver Modification.
Both parties understand that any waiver or amendment to any of the terms of this
Agreement is not valid unless said amendment or waiver is in writing and,executed by
both parties to this Agreement.
Section 12. Anti Discrimination.
Contractor agrees that it will not discriminate against an employee or an applicant
for employment with regard to age, tenure, terms, conditions, or provisions of
employment based on religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight,
marital status or because of a handicap that is unrelated to the individual's ability to
perform the duties of a particular job or position.
Section 13. Notices.
Any notices required or permitted hereunder shall be sufficient,if personally
delivered or sent by overnight delivery or certified mail, return receipt requested,
addressed as follows:
if to the Contractor: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
if to the City: Insert City Contact
Renton City Hall
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Notices personally delivered shall be effective upon delivery. Notices sent by overnight
mail shall be effective upon receipt. Notices sent by regular mail shall be effective five
business days after mailing.
5
Section 14.'Entire Ajireement.
With respect to the subject matter hereof, this Agreement supercedes all previous
understandings and agreements, either written or oral, between the parties hereto or their
representatives and constitutes the entire agreement between the parties.
Section 15. Miscellaneous.
(a) If any provision of this Agreement is invalid or unenforceable, the
remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect and ,
provision declared invalid or unenforceable shall continue as to other
circumstances.
(b) This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with,
the laws of the State of Minnesota.
(c) The failure of either party to exercise any of its rights under this
Agreement shall not be a waiver of those rights. A party waives only
those rights it specifies in writing.
(d) Paragraph headings have been inserted for convenience only and in no
way limit or define the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement
Section 10. Effective Date of Ajreement.
This Agreement shall be effective beginning on date of execution.
•
IN WITNESS WHEREOF we have executed this Agreement on the date
and year first above written.
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC City of Renton, Washington
By: By:
Michael R. Bradley Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor
Its: Owner
By:
Bonnie Walton, City Clerk
Approved as to form only:
City Attorney
7
EXHIBIT A
Scope of Service - Administration
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public
inquiries regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such
inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable
operator whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—Quarterly (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance
compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to
request additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and
Government (PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets);
and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may
be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system
maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,
performance tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City
of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal
franchise procedures; and
8
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable
operations, financial information pertinent to the local system,new programming
and similar developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service
delivery and system administration. -
Scope of Services - Renewal
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's
present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City
Code, state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly
adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner
on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density,
system leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,
rates and programming,reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to,
generally accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,
external pass-through and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
9
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise
Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and
either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage, positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the event
of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for
such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow
up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and
complete payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the
planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms and
conditions.
Public Hearings— 1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
10
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a total
cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations— 12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to
nine months.
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 - 2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city
staff(Public Works/IT) to identify and report cable violations/safety
issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, in
lieu of conducting written community wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
11
Cost Proposal
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of
$2,000 per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis&Upgrade Evaluation $ ,000,400
0.-
y pg CBG
$2 0400 1Q-2Q-
2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200-
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 B&G&CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$12,800-
Access Utilization $13,600 B&G&CBG
IQ-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
$3,120-
Training and Evaluation $5,850 B&G&CBG
1Q-2006
$1,560-
Work Plan $2,340 B&G&CBG
1Q-2006
$1,560-
Special Presentation $2,340 B&G 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays mailing $8,000-
costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q 4Q-2006
$1,560-
Public Hearings $2,340 B&G
1Q-2006
$2,560-
Financial Implications $7,680 B&G
2Q-4 Q-2007
,2Negotiations $6 , B&G
$63270 27 1Q-4Q-2007
$2,500-
Implementation $8,000 B&G
4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and report $1,360- CBG
cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
*Q=Quarter. The times listed are estimates
and subject to change.
12
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting, Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable
30 days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
13
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Michael Bradley
Date: 9/29/2005 7:18:01 PM
Subject: Consultant Contract
Dear Mr. Bradley:
I am pleased to be able to submit the contract agreement as attached for your signature. As you look it
over, you will see that most of your suggested changes to the form were incorporated, as were a few
minor changes requested by City officers. The Renton City Council approved the contract at their meeting
on Sept. 26, 2005.
We will want two originals of the contract executed and returned to me, along with the required insurance
documentation. Upon receipt, I will then obtain the Mayor's signature and return one fully-executed
original contract to you, keeping the other original for our file.
While email is less formal, I chose this method to submit the contract to you as it is faster. I hope you do
not mind.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Ph. 425-430-6502
Fax: 425-430-6516
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Tracy Schaefer
(cY o ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
\vNT, MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 29, 2005
TO: Larry Warren, City Attorney
FROM: V) Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, x6502
SUBJECT: Cable TV Consultant Agreement
I request approval to form for the attached contract. The changes you previously recommended
have been incorporated, as have a few other minor changes requested by the Consultant,Risk
Management, and the Mayor's office, with the Mayor's office having final review.
Thank you.
bw
Attachment
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005, by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose office
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A", `B", "C", and
"D„
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract,the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest,in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A", `B", "C", and"D".
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise Renewal
Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006), the City will give advance approval to
initiate each task before billable work on that task begins. Approval may be given by
the City Clerk/Cable Manager or by the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) or his
designee, in writing by letter or e-mail, or orally. If approval is oral, both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to proceed.
9-29-05 1
2.3 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
Consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services, unless before the Consultant commences such performance, the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.4 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City, provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
sub-consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc., Thomas G. Robinson, Constance Book,Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully described in the Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC
proposal dated April 14, 2005, and Exhibit"D" attached herewith, are approved sub-
• consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals, their business names, if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the project director and will have supervisory responsibility for
the performance,progress, and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
subject to the prior written approval of the project manager(as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
9-29-05 2
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant'or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and sub-
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four (4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and sub-.
consultants deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services. All
employees and sub-consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or sub-consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1, the Consultant may perform at its
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
9-29-05 3
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager, the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.11.2 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.3 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit`B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, or his designee, and Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager, will represent the City for all purposes under this contract.
4.3 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, will review and approve, as necessary and in a timely manner the reports,
survey instruments and methods, and other documents, and each phase of work
performed by the Consultant.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00) per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit`B,"the City will pay the
Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($ 157,500.00). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit"D"
and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit, up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment for the Services will be based on quarterly invoices for actual services
rendered and will be paid by the City with thirty(30) days of receipt of the invoice.
The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports,
surveys, and other documents, including,without limitation,reports which have been
approved by the City.
9-29-05 4
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared,maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3) years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability (needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work, including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number);
9-29-05 5
•
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance (ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all sub-consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination or Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving sixty(60) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
9-29-05 6
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. In the event of termination of this
contract or suspension of work on the Services by the City where the Consultant is not
in default, the Consultant will be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed
upon by the City. The total compensation payable under this contract will not exceed
the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants, or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 -fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
9-29-05 7
To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 - fax
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington, relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
9-29-05 8
16.6 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.11 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract;provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, Owner
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
9-29-05 9
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of_ , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owner of Bradley&
Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
9-29-05 10
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going (or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily (or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-29-05 1 1
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-29-05 12
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation —3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programming, reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3 —4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-29-05 13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation— 1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies— 1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input, including traditional
communications, public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-29-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3 —6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-29-05 15
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe_*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q -2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200 - B&G &
Protection& Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G &
$13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120 - B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000 -
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q - 4 Q -2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q -2007
Implementation $2,500 - B&G
$8,000 4Q - 2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q -4Q -2006
* Q= Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-29-05 16
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers,Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies and Reproduction (in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-29-05 17
From: Linda Herzog
To: Covington, Jay; Walton, Bonnie
Date: 9/16/2005 2:27:48 PM
Subject: Cable franchise contract agenda bill—HERZOG REVISIONS
Bonnie/Jay—Here is a VERY MUCH MODIFIED agenda bill and issue paper. Please read carefully. I
have not"accepted"the edits I made, so you can still tinker with it. I hope the two documents are
consistent with each other, but at this point I'm not confident.
I don't have an electronic version of the contract (except the one that B&G edited), so I will just leave my
written-in-the-margin comments/edits on the printed copy, which I have laid on Jay's chair.
(cY 0 ADMINISTRATIVE,JUDICIAL,AND
* ® ± LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 14, 2005
TO: Terri Briere, Council President
Members of the Renton City Council
VIA: Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
FROM: Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer
STAFF CONTACT: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
SUBJECT: Consultant Agreement for Cable Television Franchise
Issue:
A contract for professional consulting services for a term through 2008 is presented
relating to cable television franchise administration and management, and cable
television franchise renewal.
Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the contract with Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC:in the total
amount of$233-5,5000 for professional consulting services related to ongoing cable
television franchise administration, as well as for the upcoming franchise renewal
process.
Background:
The City's long-time cable television consultant, Lon Hurd;of 3H Cable
Communications, died in July 2004. Mr. Hurd assisted in negotiating the City's current
cable franchise in 1993, and also assisted with ongoing cable franchise
managementadministration services. Although 3H Cable continued to provide limited
services after Mr. Hurd's death, Lynne Hurd, sister of Lon, took over the company and
has attempted to carry on his work. Oon March 14, 2005;the City sissued a request for
proposals olicited Requests for Proposal for Cable Television Franchise Management and
Renewal Consulting Services. Seven responses were received by the closing date of
April 14, 2005. 3H Cable opted-did not to-submit a proposal.
The seven proposals submitted were evaluated by the Assistant to the Chief
Administrative Officer, the Development Services Director, the Information Services
Director and the City Clerk/Cable Manager. From thes„ evaluateo„s, IFour proposals
respondents were selected as candidates for interview. Interviews were conducted on
c:\documents and settings\mpetersen\local settings\temp\issue paper on cable
contract.doce4doc - >>1nc22uoc.,lc- i\temp\n ,n 05: . doe
Members,City Council
Page 2 of 4
9/14/2005
June 10 and 13, 2005. Interview panel members included:were-Jay Covington, CAOl;
Ben Wolters, Economic Development Director,—iGeorge McBride, Information Services
Director,--Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manageri and Kayren Kittrick, Development
Services Engineering Supervisor.
The Bradley and & Guzzetta, LLCM team (B&G) was selected as the-rnebest qualified
to provide the needed services.accomplish the objectives of the proposal. B&G has
extensive experience dea-lt-with all aspects of the cable refranchising processing;
including informal proceedings and formal proceedings. As part of its due diligence in
this consultant selection process, sStaff contacted several has checked references and all
other cities who have engaged B&G and members of its subconsultant team. All
contacted-reported great positive satisfaction with the services they received.relationships
with the B&G team.
The proposed contract with B&G includes two work scopes: one to provide ongoing
daily management of the current cable franchise agreement with Comcast Cable, and the
other to perform specific franchise renewal tasks and advise and guide City staff through
the complex renewal (or replacement)process. The work included in both scopes is
described below.
Cable Franchise Administration and Management Assistance:
The consultant team will provides ongoing assistance by assisting the City Clerk/Cable
Manager on a continuous basis to address citizen inquiries and complaints, process senior
and disabled discount applications, communicate with Comcast on behalf of the City, as
needed,performing the annual rate increase and franchise fee payment analysis, and
addressing citizen complaints, interacting with Comcast on City issues, processing senior
and disabled discount applications,keeping-the City officials informed of local, regional
and national issues,providing reports as required,and assisting in other franchise
compliance matters.
Cable Franchise Renewal:
The franchise agreement between the City and Comcast Cable expires on September 13,
2008. During thoBeginning as early as periedthree years prior to , which begins thirty six
months before the expiration of the franchise, Comcast may request that the City to-begin
the process of determining whether the franchise will be renewed. commence
proceedings to determine whether or not to renew the franchise. Federal law and the
current franchise agreement between the City and Comcast govern the franchise renewal
proceedings,. U ,which include:
• conducting a technical inspection and assessment of the current cable system
infrastructure;
• identifying future cable-related needs and interests of the community17
• evaluating the past performance of the cable provider for compliance with the
existing franchise;
• reviewing the level of customer satisfaction with the operator,
• anfl cote-analyzin;sis of public, educational, and government (PEG)
access;
c:\documents and settings\mpetersen\local settings\temp\issue paper on cable 2
contract.docc:\docume 1\10522\locals 1\temp\9 19 05 issue paper.doe
Members,City Council
Page 3 of 4
9/14/2005
• assessing the a-needs assessment of users and other interested parties, through
surveys, focus groups, and public hearings; and
• developin.gment a formal request proposal for renewal. ,
beee
—To successfully complete the renewal process and negotiate a new franchise agreement
requires expertise in areas as diverse as cable programming, PEG access and
programming, cable law and regulation and law, public opinion polling and market
research, rate setting, the electrical engineering-field, and telecommunications systems
design. Due to the dept of the scope of services and the range of expertise required,
including specialized legal knowledge, services, staffs consultant
help is mandatory. The team assembled by B&G has the expertise Renton needs.
Assuming the proposed contract is effected, B&G will prepare a franchise renewal work
program and will brief the City Council on the renewal process and requirements.
If the proposed contract is approved, staff intends t„ retu,.., with the B&G tear, to bf e_f
the Council on the franchise renewal process within the next few months.
Cost:
Under this contract The cost proposal from B&G will be paid for ongoing cable franchise
administration and management assistance is a flat fee of$2,000 per month for ongoing
cable franchise administration and management assistance. The current budget for this
service is $1,875 per month. The difference of$125 per month will not require a budget
increase for the remaining months of No budget increase is requested for 2005. In 2006-
2008 $24,000 per year will be budgeted from the Cable Communications Development
Fund (Fund 127).
or franchise renewal services B&G's cost proposal is-for
a-ranges from$72,630 to $183,900 including56,620, excluding options that may be
chosen by the City at various points in the process. ,_based-en yen ly rate—The actual
tetal-cost will be-dependent on the types and quantities of services
providednecessaiy, and the complexity and duration of the final negotiations.the time and
depth of review needed, and the optional services necessary to best carry out the
franchise renewal process. Staff has-estimateds a total budget of$157 5300 over the
period ef-2006-2008.
2007, though that could extend into 2008. It is requested that the contract be funded out
of Fund 127, Cable Communications Development Fund.
> b
renewal process. In order to effectively support the process, a working group comprised
of staff fro '
Services Department and the Mayor's Office has been established. Significant staff
support will be provided by the City Clerk Office throughout the cable refranchising
b
c:\documents and settings\mpetersen\local settings\temp\issue paper on cable 3
contract.docc:\docume 1\10522\locals 1\temp\9 19 05 issue paper.doe
Members,City Council
Page 4 of 4
9/14/2005
b
Cost Recap:
2005 2006 2007-2008 Total
Ongoing $6,000 $24,000 $24,000/year $78,000
Administration
strat'o
&Management
Assistance with
cable franchise
management
Cable -0- Up to $100,000 Up to $50,000 Up to $150,000
franchise
Negoti t o
renewal
pProcess
Reimbursable -0- Est. $2,500 Est. $2,500/year Est. $7h,5000
Direct Costs
TOTAL $6,000 $126,500 $1030,5000 Up to
$233235,5000
Funding is available in the City Clerk/Cable Manager operating budget to cover the
$6,000 required in 2005. The $126,500 needed to fund 2006 work under this contract
(both ongoing cable franchise management and franchise renewal tasks) will be included
in the 2006 budget request for the Cable Communications Development Fund (Fund
127). Likewise, staff would intend that 2007-2008 contract costs be funded out of Fund
127.
Substantial policy, legal, administrative and financial issues are involved in the franchise
renewal process. To effectively support the process, a working group comprised of staff
from the City Clerk's Office, City Attorney's Office, Finance and Information Services
Department and the Mayor's Office has been established.
c:\documents and settings\mpetersen\local settings\temp\issue paper on cable 4
contract.docc:`doc ,� nc��u ,�_ , temp\9 ,n nc: r.des
Summary of Action:
Renton requires the services of a cable television consultant for two purposes: to assist
with ongoing management of the Comcast Cable franchise agreement now in force, and
to prepare for renewal or replacement of the current franchise agreement that expires in
September 2008. Due to the complexity and unpredictability of both cable technology
and applicable federal law, it is most cost-effective for the City to retain expert
consultation in cable franchise matters. For many years Lon Hurd, President of 3H
Cable Communications, provided this consultation. With Mr. Hurd's death in 2004, 3H
continued to provide limited services to the City.
Recognizing that the current cable franchise expires in three years, the City determined
to initiate the thorough analysis and preparation needed'to assure a good successor
agreement. An RFP for consultant assistance was issued in March 2005, describing the
City's need for assistance in regard to both franchise renewal, and ongoing management
of the standing franchise agreement. Seven proposals were received; 3H Cable did not
submit a proposal.
The team assembled by Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC. (B&G)was ultimately chosen as best
able to meet the City's multiple cable-related needs. Funding for the proposed contract
will come from the Cable Communications Development Fund (Fund 127).
Staff Recommendation:
Approve the consultant agreement with Bradley & Guzzetta. LLC in the total amount of
$235,500 and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the agreement.
(SY
♦ ��
egD
ru
�Nv �Noe
CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
Due Date: April 14, 2005
No later than 2:30 p.m.
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall,Rm. 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
RFP SUBMITTED BY:
COMPANY
CONTACT PERSON
MAILING ADDRESS
PHONE NUMBER
FAX NUMBER
E-MAIL ADDRESS
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service, as
more fully described in the Proposal document.
The current cable TV franchise agreement between the City and Comcast is set to expire in
accordance with Ordinance No. 4412 on September 13, 2008.
Interested parties should contact the Office of the City Clerk at 425 430-6510 to receive the
complete Request for Proposal document.
Proposals must be received no later than April 14, 2005, at 2:30 p.m. in the City Clerk's office,
7th floor of Renton City Hall, 1055 S. Grady Way,Renton, WA 98055,to be eligible for
consideration. Each proposal shall be submitted in a sealed envelope that is clearly marked,
"RFP for Cable TV Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services"
The City of Renton reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or any part thereof, to waive
any formality, informality or information in the proposal, and to accept the proposal considered
to be in the best interest of the City.
13e,t4A,a`.d C(Ja tt60 -
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Daily Journal of Commerce
March 14 &28, 2005
2
City of Renton, Washington
Request for Proposal
Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
The City of Renton, Washington, is soliciting a person or firm experienced in the field of Cable
TV Franchising for the purpose of providing management assistance and advisory service. See
www.ci.renton.wa.us for full proposal notice (click on Site Index, Call for Bids), or call 425-430-
6510 for more information or to receive the proposal document.
o-R,KALV l,chi te,k)
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Published: Puget Sound Business Journal
March 18, 2005
•
•
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. GENERAL INFORMATION 5
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES 5
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS 7
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD 9
4
1. INTRODUCTION
The City of Renton, Washington, is seeking proposals from an experienced and qualified
telecommunications consulting service with excellent technical, legal, administrative and
financial consultant resources to assist with cable franchise management and with the upcoming
cable franchise renewal process.
This RFP requests that vendors describe in detail how the consulting company would provide the
services indicated herein, what services would be provided,projected time lines, costs, and
availability of the company to provide the service.
2. GENERAL INFORMATION
The City of Renton,population 55,360,has a cable television franchise agreement with Comcast,
which will expire in September of 2008. Franchise fee receipts for 2004 totaled approximately
$543,000. The current budget for the work of the consultant identified under this request is
$22,500 annually.
A copy of the City's current cable franchise, Ordinance No. 4412, is available upon request to
the City Clerk office, 425-430-6502.
A copy of the City's regulatory code is available on-line on the City website at
www.ci.renton.wa.us. Click on Site Index, then City Code (Renton Municipal Code)to review
Chapters 17 and 19 of Title V,Finance and Business Regulations.
At a minimum,the consultant must have 5 to 7 years' experience in cable franchise work. The
consultant must also, at the time of contract execution,be licensed to do business in the City of
Renton and State of Washington, and must furnish insurance certificates to the City as deemed
acceptable by the City's risk management officer.
•
3. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Cable consultant will ideally provide overall guidance, leadership and support for both day-
to-day cable television franchise management, and for the upcoming franchise renewal process.
The responsibilities of the contractor would include,but not be limited to:
CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE:
A. Performance Analysis. Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of
the City's present cable television franchise, and provide a report of such findings to the
City upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
B. Upgrade Evaluation. Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator
and duly adopted by ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike
5
manner on a timely basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality
of new components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting any deficiencies discovered immediately to the City.
C. Consumer Protection and Complaints. Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly
responding to all public inquiries regarding cable television services, making every effort
to bring such inquiries of complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the
cable operator whenever possible. On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed
when necessary for reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
•
D. Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts. Certify to the cable operator(s) that applicants
for senior citizen/disabled person discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated
in Washington state guidelines.
E. Ordinance Compliance. Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to
permit the City to request additional non-entertainment features such as Public,
Educational and Government(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks
(I-Nets). Additionally analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the
operator that may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
F. Compliance With the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992. Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC benchmark
tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally accepted
accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-throughs and,if
appropriate, GNP-P 1 configurations. Based upon these assessments and consistent with
FCC regulations, advise Renton to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole
or in part and either order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. This function shall also
include verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated technical
specifications. Consultant will also recommend fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable
or appropriate in the event of non-compliance.
G. Documents. Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current
system maps showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other
projects, and maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance
tests, citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
H. Access Utilization. Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the
access channels provided, including the monitoring of the availability of such channels,
time allocations provided for such use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the
franchisee.
I. Collection of Franchise Fees. Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if
required, that the franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and
follow up on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
J. Bond and Insurance. Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by
the franchise ordinances, immediately advise the City of any default of any such
requirements, and monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to
the City of any cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
6
K. FCC Regulations. Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to
municipal franchise procedures and advise the City as to any significant change or
modifications to these or any other Federal or State legislation applicable
L. Annual Reports. Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,
reviewing, analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
M. Other Reports. Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television
franchise administration as they occur, to include, but not be limited to, such items as
changes in federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations,
financial information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
N. Technical Assistance. Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise
evaluation, service delivery and system administration.
FRANCHISE RENEWAL SPECIFIC:
O. Training and Evaluation. Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the
franchise renewal process, including routine preparation, conducting site visits and
evaluation of cable provider
P. Work Plan. Develop a franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and review of the planning
process, development of charts and phasing;
Q. Special Presentation. Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council
R. Survey. Survey community input and analyze results
S. Comparative Studies. Compile and compare typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions
T. Public Hearings. Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications;
U. Financial Implications. Prepare budget and financial information, and franchise analysis
for a total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years of
cable TV effort;
V. Solicit Providers. Develop RFP to solicit competitive providers, including preliminary
visits, follow-up visits, and presentation and proposal response evaluation;
W. Negotiations. Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers
X. Implementation. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract
compliance and acceptance
4. PROPOSAL CONTENTS
In order to facilitate evaluation of the proposals, the proposer is instructed to follow the outline
below in responding. Proposals shall be submitted using eight and one-half by eleven(8 Y2 x 11)
inch paper. One original and two copies of each proposal must be submitted. Proposals should
cover both cable television franchise management and cable franchise renewal services as
indicated in this document. If necessary,however, cable franchise renewal services can be
proposed separately,but must be identified as "Proposal for Cable TV Franchise Renewal ,
Services Only." All proposals must include the following:
7
A. Letter of Submittal
Along with introductory remarks,the Letter of Submittal is to include the following information
about the Consultant and any proposed subcontractors:
Understanding of the Request: Provide a statement of the proposer's understanding of the City's
request for services
Personnel: Identify key personnel who will provide the required services directly to the City
under this request, including their qualifications, education, and relevant recent experience.
References: Provide a list of three(3)previous and current references,which are considered
identical or similar to the scope of services discussed herein, to include: a) contract duration,
including dates,b) services performed, and c)name, address and telephone number of
contracting agency which may be contacted for verification of all data submitted.
Statement of Qualifications, experience and resources of the firm, including the ownership and
financial wherewithal to assume the work identified herein.
Sample of Work, including two recent samples of work(reports and RFPs that the proposer feels
most closely parallels the work required under this request and that will reflect the experience
and qualifications desired, including the project manager name and team identification.
Proposed Overall Work Plan-Recommend and detail the steps and methodology necessary to
complete the scope of work. Include hours, dates, deliverables and persons responsible for
phases.
Signature: The proposal shall be signed by an official authorized to bind the proposer and shall
contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for a forty-five(45) day period.
The proposal shall also provide the following information: Name,title, address, telephone
number, e-mail address and fax number of the individual(s)with authority to contractually bind
the company, and also of those who maybe contacted during the period of proposal evaluation
for the purpose of clarifying submitted information.
B) Cost Proposal
The evaluation process is designed to award this procurement not necessarily to the Consultant
of least cost,but rather to the Consultant, whose proposal best meets the requirements of this
RFP.
Pricing is to be submitted with the proposal document with a cover sheet marked"Price Proposal
- Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services." (If Cable TV •
Franchise Renewal Process Services Only is proposed,then the pricing cover sheet is to be
marked"Price Proposal - Cable TV Franchise Renewal Services Only
Pricing should identify all costs, including expenses to be charged for performing the services
necessary to accomplish the objectives of the contract. Consultants are required to collect and
pay Washington state sales tax, if applicable. Costs for subcontractors are to broken out
separately. Consultant is encouraged to break out costs for various services listed in the RFP.
8
5. EVALUATION AND CONTRACT AWARD
A two-step evaluation process is envisioned. First, a cut will be made to the top few proposals
from written submissions. The top proposals will then be interviewed. The City may award a
contract based on offers received, without additional submissions from the proposer.
Accordingly, each offer should be submitted on the most favorable terms from a price and
technical standpoint. However, the City reserves the right to request additional data, or oral
discussions, or presentation in support of written proposals. In addition, the City reserves the
right to negotiate all offers received.
Proposals will be evaluated in the following areas:
• Technical
• Management/Legal/Fiscal
• Cost
• Communication Skills
• Local Availability
• Knowledge of Washington state law and municipal requirements
This Request for Proposal does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs
incurred in the preparation of a response to this request, or to procure or contract for services or
supplies. The City reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result
of this request, or to cancel in part or in its entirety this Request for Proposal, if in the best
interest of the City to do so.
The contract may be awarded as soon as practical after the proposal opening unless otherwise
stated,but generally not before ten(10)working days or after sixty(60) days from the proposal
opening.
9
CITY OF RENTON
Office of the City Attorney
Lawrence J.Warren
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor
MEMORANDUM Senior Assistant City Attorneys
Mark Barber
OF�� �� Zanetta L.Fontes
- Assistant City Attorneys
Ann S. Nielsen
To: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk AUG 3, 120.05 Garmon Newsom II
Sasha P. Alessi
From: Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney RECEIVED -
CITY CLERK'S OFF'IOE
Date:- - , August 30, 2005
Subject: . Cable Television Franchise Management and Renewal Consulting Services
Agreement
I have reviewed the contract and have the following comments:
4ections 3.8 and 3.11 are partially redundant and the redundancy should either be eliminated or
the two paragraphs combined. -
In Section 9..1 I• would think that errors and omissions insurance or legal malpractice insurance
would be more beneficial to the City than commercial liability insurance. You might want to
check with Risk Management on this issue.
Section 16.2 is.a discussion of non-binding arbitration. I generally fmd that process to be of little
value. Either there should be binding arbitration or there should be some sort of a requirement that
the principals get together and meet and try and work out a solution. I would skip non-binding
arbitration.
Section 16.4 I would change the designation of the courts to the King County Superior,Court or
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. • .
/Section 16.7 has little significance to me and could be dropped: ,
Section 16.12 may have some problems. With respect to negotiation strategy,'I presume that such,
information can be kept confidential until the negotiations are terminated. However, for any other
type of contact the documents involved are undoubtedly a public record. For example, any
records of month-to-month efforts to handle consumer complaints would be•a public record.
If I can provide you with any further information,,please let - know.
Lawrence . Warren
LJW:tmj
.T10.43:44
cc: Jay Covington
Post Office Box 626-Renton,Washington 98057-(425)255-8678/FAX(425)255-5474 RENTON
n AHEAD OF THE,CURVE
y,;* This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer
/ i
DRAFT 8/22/2005 — .
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005, by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta, LLC, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza, 444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas, the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A" and
//`B", and
Whereas, the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and �ib-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and expert fce in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Sery 6es on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions,of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by th /City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this coact. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and cluding the date of expiration of
. the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, c., or its successor in interest, in
September2008. Upon the receipt of the City's directio or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the perfo ce of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B"and C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not com Ye ed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant, the City's Chief Adminis ative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule fort'period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay aused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: C nges & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be perfo ed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A" and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
neJiatia s with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule./
Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1Cv'Q-(j2`' ) 1
c ,
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services, unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation, reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents, will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City, provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the S rvices and that the Services will be e_xeouted-by\
them or under their su ervision.)CBG Communications, Inc., Const nca e Book, Ph.D1
nd Front Range Consulting, inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit "D"attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
onsultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on t e representations an warran ies se o in is con ac , e City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the projec ,dir�,ect to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason, the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
L �
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
(73.81 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the proj ec •mana e . 4 '72
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, ""as may be required by the City:
�L d9 v GIl: cu� .h-ceu4frtSv mau*-kys
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subse went to the execution of this contract; and
3. O 4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
( 3.1 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City -
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A" and "B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer, the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney, Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors, will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance, progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant, the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expense tie City will.pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty 150,000.00 ,.as)detailed irr Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of c• ; ion will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis, up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants, who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits"C" and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including, without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting, Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared, maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed, upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
40
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant, by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause, by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services, the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment,will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore, the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
7
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer, Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4
651-379-0999 -fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color,national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington,relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that 0compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled b 0-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration As Miation, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excluding its conflicts of law.
6., In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
6.7 All provisions of this contract, whether covenants or conditions, will be deemed to be
0both covenants and conditions.
6.8 The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time, may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
/ 6.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Michael Bradley, President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney.
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
) ss.
County of )
On this day of , 2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
& Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:
10
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints-On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually (or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary, to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
1 • .
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6,months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include, but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections, rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992-2-4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to, generally
accepted accounting pr-incip�l stifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate,GNP-P l'configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required, that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewallsolicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3 —6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
• e
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000 -
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q - 2Q - 2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G &
$13,600 ' CBG 1Q - 2Q -2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q - 2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G &
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560 - B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q - 2006
Special Presentation $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
Public Hearings $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q - 2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q - 4 Q- 2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q -2007
Implementation $2,500- B&G
$8,000 4Q -2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q - 2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000 -
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q - 2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
u H
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D. Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher • $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
•
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
CITY OF RENTON
SFp 0 6 2005
`SY 0 HUMAN RESOURCES/ RECEIVED
�ka" ® RISK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT CITY CLERKS OFFICE
MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 2, 2005
TO: nn e Walton, City Clerk, AILS
FROM: . Webby, Administrator
SUBJECT: Insurance Review/ Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
Cable Television Franchise Contract
I have reviewed the insurance language for the above referenced contract. The insurance
language, provided for this contract, will meet risk management requirements when the
following items have been provided for:
Please add this insurance language to your Consulting Services Contract:
• $1,000,000 Commercial General Liability, with $2,000,000 in the aggregate
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability (Needed if a vehicle will be used in.performance of
work. This would include delivery of products to worksite)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number)
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
• Name the City of Renton as an Additional Insured and provide the
endorsement page from the policy
• Modify the cancellation clause to state:
"Should any of the above described policies be canceled before the
expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 45 days written
notice to the certificate holder to the left."
Please provide the ACORD form and Endorsement page to HR when received
i:\risk documents\contract cancel clause2.doc
•
o�Y o� ADMINISTRATIVE, JUDICIAL, AND
LEGAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Office of the City Clerk
—
��'NT°� MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 31, 2005 Would ai°Pre
(par response moo.
TO: Michael Webby, HRRM Administrator --#12/1!C
FROM: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk, x6502
SUBJECT: Insurance Review - Cable Consultant Contract
The City Attorney has completed a preliminary review of the draft Cable Consultant Contract as
attached. He has indicated that, in Section 9.1,that errors and omissions insurance or legal
malpractice insurance might be more beneficial to the City than commercial liability insurance,
and that I check with you on this issue.
Please review Section 9.1 and provide any rewording that you feel should be made to this
document.
Thank you.
bw
attachment
City of Renton
Received
SEP 0 1 2005
Human Resources &
Risk Management
DRAFT 8/22/2005
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This agreement is entered into the day of , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to
as "City" and Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC,hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose
office is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza,444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul, MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas,the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of,without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services") as more fully described in Exhibit"A"and`B", and
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant, including its employees and sub-
consultants, in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms, conditions, and provisions of this
Contract, the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008,unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance, the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B" and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant,the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes & Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits"A"and`B".
2.2 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the City's City Council, as may be required, the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to an extension
of the time schedule. Any increase in compensation for substantial changes will be
1
DRAFT 8/22/2005
determined in accordance with the provisions of this contract. The City will not be
liable for the cost or payment of any change in the Scope of Services,unless before the
Consultant commences such performance, the City agrees in writing to the amount of
additional compensation attributable to the change.
2.3 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of,without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents,will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications, Status, and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents andwarrants that the project director and every individual, including any
consultants, charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington, to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law, to perform the Services, and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision. CBG Communications, Inc., Constance Book,Ph.D
and Front Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully descripted in Exhibit"D" attached
herewith, are approved sub-consultants who may be employed and used by the
Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. The Consultant may, after
obtaining the prior written approval of the City, use or employ additional sub-
consultants in connection with the performance of services under this contract.
3.2 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed, the Services in accordance with the provision of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.3 The Consultant will assign Tracy J. Schaefer as the project director to have
supervisory responsibility for the performance,progress, and execution of the
Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or her designated representative will be assigned as the
project coordinator who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day
performance of the Services. If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the
execution of this contract cause the substitution of the project director or project
coordinator for any reason,the appointment of a substitute project director or
substitute project coordinator will be subject to the prior written approval of the
project manager.
3.4 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
3.4.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.4.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.4.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and
consultants, if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
2
DRAFT 8/22/2005
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances, regulations, orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.4.4 .Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances,regulations, orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys, and other
documents.
3.5 Any report, survey, and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its consultants, if any, without the prior express written approval of the
Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.6 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4) copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.7 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents, the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.8 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to
perform the Services. All consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant,which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to carry
out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent, the affected employee
or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance under this
contract on demand of the project manager.
3.9 In the execution of the Services, the Consultant and its sub-consultants, if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.10 The Consultant will perform or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
all of the following optional Services, as may be required by the City:
3.10.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in.connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of'a court of record;
3.10.2 Incurring travel and subsistence expenses for the Consultant and its staff
beyond those normally authorized or reasonably required under the Services;
3.10.3 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.10.4 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit"B".
3.11 The Consultant will be responsible for employing all sub-consultants deemed
reasonably necessary to assist the Consultant in the performance of the Services. The
appointment of the sub-consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and
must remain acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided,however, all
sub-consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will furnish or cause to be furnished the services, if any, listed in Exhibits
"A"and"B" and such information regarding its requirements applicable to the
Services, as may be reasonably requested by the Consultant.
4.2 The City, represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, the City Attorney and the Finance arid Information Services Administrator,
will review and approve, as necessary, in a timely manner the reports, surveys, and
other documents and each phase of work performed by the Consultant. The City's
estimated time of review and approval will be furnished to the Consultant at the time
of submission of each phase of work, as needed. The Consultant acknowledges and
understands that the interrelated exchange of information among the City's various
departments makes it extremely difficult for the City to firmly establish the time of
each review and approval task. The City's failure to review and approve within the
estimated time schedule will not constitute a default under this contract.
4.3 Jay Covington, Chief Administrative Officer, Larry Warren, City Attorney,Mike
Bailey, Finance and Information Services Administrator, and Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager, or their respective successors,will represent the City for all
purposes under this contract, and they are designated, collectively, as the project
manager. The project manager will supervise the performance,progress, and
execution of the Services, and will be assisted by such other individuals as may be
designated by the Chief Administrative Officer.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A", the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, on an informal or formal basis consistent with the
applicable federal cable act laws including any authorized reimbursable direct
expenses, the City will pay the Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred
Fifty($ 150,000.00), as detailed in Exhibit"C" attached hereto. The amount
of compensation will be calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule
set forth in Exhibit"D", on a time and materials basis,up to the maximum
amount set forth in this contract. The City will approve the fees of the sub-
consultants,who have direct contractual relationships with the Consultant, in
advance. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of such fees, if the
Consultant does not obtain such prior approval.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
4
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Payment of the Services will be made in monthly progress payments in proportion to
the quantum of services performed, or in accordance with any other schedule of
payment mutually agreed upon by the parties, as set forth in Exhibits"C"and"D", or
within thirty(30) days of submission, in triplicate, of such requests if a schedule of
payment is not specified. The City will make final payment after the Consultant has
submitted all reports, surveys, and other documents, including,without limitation,
reports which have been approved by the project manager.
Section 6. Accounting,Audits, Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct personnel expenses and expenses incurred in connection with the
performance of Services and the optional Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be
prepared,maintained, and retained by the Consultant in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles and will be made available to the City for auditing
purposes at mutually convenient times during the term of this contract and for three
(3) years following the expiration or earlier termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed,upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its Council
members, officers, employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts, errors, or omissions, or willful misconduct, or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term, condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant, term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term, condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money,which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term, condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment, partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will,
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
5
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense,will obtain and maintain, in full force and
effect during the term of this contract, commercial liability insurance in the amount of
$1,000,000, insuring the Consultant and its consultants. A certificate of insurance
shall be delivered to the City before executing the work of this agreement. The
certificate shall name the City as an additional insured.
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VlI or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage, injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage, injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington,which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination of Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services,in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract,with or without cause,by giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice, the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30) days' prior written notice thereof to the City,but only in the event of
6
DRAFT 8/22/2005
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment, together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and, if necessary, approval
of the City's City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant, the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion.
11.4 In the event of termination of this contract or suspension of work on the Services by
the City where the Consultant is not in default, the Consultant will receive
compensation as follows:
11.4.1 For approved items of services,the consultant will be compensated for each
item of service fully performed in the amounts authorized under this contract.
11.4.2 For approved items of service on which notice to proceed is issued by the City,
but which are not fully performed, the Consultant will be compensated for each
item of service in an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fee
otherwise payable for the performance of the service as the quantum of service
actually rendered bears to the services necessary for the full performance of
that item of service.
11.4.3 The total compensation payable under the preceding paragraphs of this Section
will not exceed the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective
Services and optional Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.5 Upon such suspension or termination, the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys, and other
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its consultants, or
given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this contract. Such
materials will become the property of the City.
11.6 The failure of the City to agree with the Consultant's independent findings,
conclusions, or recommendations, if the same are called for under this contract, on the
basis of differences in matters of judgment,will not be construed as a failure on the
part of the Consultant to fulfill its obligations under this contract.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant, therefore,the Consultant will not
assign, transfer, convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney, this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
7
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given, in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid, by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 - fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
To Consultant: Tracy J. Schaefer,Project Director/Coordinator
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x..4
651-379-0999 - fax
schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract, the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise,which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that, in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City; this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age, race, color, national origin, ancestry, religion, disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
•
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Government Code and
the Health and Safety Code of the State of Washington,relating to access to public
8
DRAFT 8/22/2005
buildings and accommodations for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for
disabled persons. The Consultant will comply with or ensure by its advice that
compliance with such provisions will be effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 Upon the separate agreement of the parties, any controversy or claim arising out of or
relating to this contract may be settled by non-binding arbitration in accordance with
the Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and judgment upon the award
rendered by the Arbitrators may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof.
16.3 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington, excludingits conflicts of law.
16.4 In the event that an action is brought, the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in the state courts of Washington or in the United States District
Court in King County, State of Washington.
16.5 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.6 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument,which is signed by the
parties.
16.7 All provisions of this contract,whether covenants or conditions,will be deemed to be
both covenants and conditions.
16.8 The covenants,terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to, and will
bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.9 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.10 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.11 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.12 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. The
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.13 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a) at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b) at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.13 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term, condition, or
provision of this contract.
9
,
DRAFT 8/22/2005
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY & GUZZETTA, LLC
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Michael Bradley,President
ATTEST:
Taxpayer ID NO:
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
Approved as to Form:
Lawrence J. Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of )
ss.
County of )
On this day of ,2005,before me, the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification, to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as President of Bradley
&Guzzetta, LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
Signature of Notary Public
who resides in
My Commission Expires:_
10
}
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management & Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection & Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries of
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic (or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public, Educational and Government
(PEG) access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare reports on such periodic reports from the operator that may be
required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status of upgrading and locations of such efforts and other projects, and
maintain records of subscriber charges,channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations, if necessary,to the City of any
cause to exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
11
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
FCC Regulation—Monthly (or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to these or any other
Federal or State legislation as applicable.
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period, reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly (or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law,technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system,new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
12
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the consultant that non-compliance with the City Code, state
law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis, to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage, channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming, reporting in writing any deficiencies discovered immediately to the
City.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services, FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including, but not limited to, generally'
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates, or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates;
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• •Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Monitor the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
13
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits, if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1 —3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process, including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1 —3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community, input and analyze results, identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report.
Comparative Studies—1 —3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1 —3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and input, including traditional communications,
public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1 —2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations, including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations— 12—18 months -
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for these items would be roughly six to nine
months.
14
•
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey, input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
15
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "C"
Cost Detail
Administrative
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month, exclusive of costs.
Renewal
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q -2Q -2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G &
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q -2Q - 2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500 - Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q - 3Q -2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q -2006
Work Plan $1,560- B&G &
$2,340 CBG 1Q-2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q -2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey- City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q -4Q- 2006
Public Hearings $1,560 - B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Financial Implications $2,560 - B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q=2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q -4Q-2007
Implementation $2;500- B&G
$8,000 4Q -2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360 -
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q -2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q - 4Q -2006
•
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
16
DRAFT 8/22/2005
Exhibit "D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications, Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin, Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and would be due and payable 30
days after submission.
Reimbursable Direct Costs: Clerical/Word Processing, Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies, Courier,Reproduction, Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
17
Cable Franchise Renewal
Internal Team Meeting and Status Report
July 31, 2006, 4:00 - 5:00 p.m.
AGENDA
1. Contract status: B&G and CBG
a. Subcontract status
b. Schedule for deliverables
2. Consulting Team B&G visit: Week of August 7
a. Proposed visit schedule (see attached)
b. Franchise Compliance Review(B&G—Mike Bradley)
• If out of compliance, what is hearings process?
c. Franchise Fee Review(B&G—Dick Treich)
d. Conducting the system technical review/audit(including INet) (CBG—
Tom Robinson)
• What are city's primary concerns?
e. Franchise fee review(B&G—Warren O'Hearn) '
f. Council presentation(CBG and B&G)
g. Involvement of Puget Sound Access Group
h. Role of participating cities in review process (if any)
i. Visit logistics & other issues
3. Other Issues
a. Valley Cities project coordination
b. Whatever else is on your mind regarding this topic
SS
PIPE
- 49??9rV .77/V
tvd
(17n9 w �-)
Q 0
, - p7?42 -
14Pee0i 1172°9-
/ '7) 7 ' - .9 2 u/° UI
vd -1, / w'rilf
ira
fir? '1141
'�T P� j,(,( v
�
rxr /tra-x/77-471v,
emcpiy, y)wrizAteop
4 /. 4 'tu
ram' �� ���� '��` ���� °� '
90/A-A
`
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL DRAFT SCHEDULE
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA TEAM SITE VISIT
WEEK OF AUGUST 7, 2006
Monday, August 7
• Bradley arrives in Renton around 11:00 a.m., Nielsen at airport around 1:30
• 3:30 p.m. Field Trip
o Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, representatives from Utilities
and Maintenance (inspections), George McBride (if applicable)
o Purpose:
• Discuss the Technical Audit Process
• Identify any issues/concerns previously identified by staff(if
any) related to technical compliance
• Input on the I-Net-review maps and sites
• 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting
o Very brief update and introduction of Dick Nielsen
o Overview of workplan, deliverables and schedule
o Describe the Technical Audit
Tuesday,August 8
• Morning: Franchise Renewal Team Meeting - Proposed Agenda:
o Update on Compliance Review
o Update on Franchise Fee Review
o Update on Rate Review
o Update on Technical Audit
o Update on Cable Drops to Government Buildings and service to each
building
o Cable Related Needs and Interest Study Status
o Identify any new City Staff Issues
• Mid-Day: Tour of Government Access Facilities in Renton
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, George McBride
o Proposed Agenda
• Tour facilities and begin to identify goals and needs
• Review budget for Access TV spending - operations and capital
• Afternoon: Puget Sound Access Group and Facility Meeting
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, Executive Director of PSAG
o Proposed Agenda:
• Tour of Facility
• Receive Report on Accomplishments and Goals
• Receive Report on Renton's Needs & Benefits
• Receive Financial Reports
• Hear PSA Needs
Wednesday August 9
• Morning: Meeting with Comcast
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Terry Davis (Comcast)
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Listen to important issues and goals from Comcast
• Convey important issues and goals of the City
Thursday, August 10
• Morning: Rate Review Meeting
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Bonnie Walton
o Agenda: Review Rate Review Process
• Morning: Meeting with Dick Treich and Warren O'Hearn
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, Dick Treich and Warren
O'Hearn
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Update on Franchise Fee Review(Treich)
• Update on Rate Review(O'Hearn)
• Mid-Day: Strategy Meeting
o Mike Bradley and Marty Wine
o Agenda: Review Renewal Strategies, amend if appropriate,
discuss/identify other local government partners
• Afternoon: Post Drive-Out Meeting
o Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, George McBride,
representatives from PBPW, IS
o Agenda: Dick Nielsen will report on his activity and preliminary findings
Friday,August 11
• Morning: open- could invite other cities to Renton for renewal meeting
• Afternoon: depart
r
MEMORANDUM
•
To: Marty Wine and Linda Herzog, City of Renton
From: Michael R. Bradley
Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Status Report and Briefing
Date: July 5, 2006
Bradley
Guzzetta, LLC
City of Renton
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Status Report and Briefing
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 As we transition from Ms. Herzog to Ms. Wine as the cable franchise renewal
P/(651)379-0900
99 project lead for the City of Renton, you asked for a status report to assist in
F/(651)379-0999
bringing Ms. Wine up to date with the project. The cable franchise renewal
Attorneys at Law process is not a typical one, so I expect that this memorandum will start the
Michael R.Bradleyt dialog and education process and I of course welcome any questions that you
Stephen J.Guzzetta* may have.
Senior Project Manager
Tracy J.Schaefer To assist the City,we have put together a team of nationally recognized
consultants consisting of my firm, Front Range Consulting and CBG
Legal Assistants Communications, Inc. My firm, Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC, provides legal and
Thomas R.Colaizy administrative services and is the project manager for this cable franchise
Brian Laule renewal project. We also provide daily cable franchise administrative services
Of Counsel to the City. Some of our representative clients include the cities of Minneapolis,
Thomas C.Plunkett Nashville and Oklahoma City. We will be using Mr. Dick Treich of Front
Gregory S.Uhl Range Consulting for financial analysis, such as rate reviews. Mr. Treich has
over twenty years of experience in the cable rate field and was the Vice
President in charge of rate filings with TCI and AT&T Broadband. I started the
technical firm of CBG Communications in 2001. Although I no longer have an
ownership interest in the company, the company still employs the lead
consultants Tom Robinson and Dick Nielsen,whom I initially hired. Both are
technically sound and have worked across the country with cities. You should
also know,that our firms work exclusively with cities and therefore have no
conflicts of interests with the cable or telephone industries.
In March, 2006, we put together our current work plan. I am happy to report to
you that we are on schedule, but we have a couple of tasks that need to be
completed in July. The following is the work plan from March and I have
indicated below our current status on each task.
1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan(March 2006)
Status: Complete. I gave a power point presentation to the City Council and
fielded questions.
2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006)
www bradl eyguzzetta.com
'+Also admitted in\Viscomm
"Also admitted in Ma sacltucetts and the
District of Columbia
•
a. Identify City Staff Priorities
b. Identify Roles for City Staff
Status: Complete. We had a lengthy meeting with key city staffers to discuss their interests
in the cable franchise renewal. One of the most important issues that were raised is the use
and future need for the institutional network that Comcast provides to the City. This will be
a major issue for us going forward. An institutional network is a communications network
dedicated for the City's use. Another issue will be the funding for access television. The
City has joined with about 5 other cities to fund Puget Sound Access, which provides public
access television. The City also runs a government channel. We will be discussing the
City's future involvement and present satisfaction with Puget Sound Access and of course
the appropriate funding levels for public, educational, and governmental access television.
3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure Compliance(B&G)
Status: In Progress. I expect our review of franchise compliance to be complete by late July.
A report will be produced.
b. Franchise Fee Review (Front Range Consulting)
Status: In Progress. Mr.Treich is gather in the information that he needs and should have a
preliminary report to us by late July. I would also like to review Comcast's rate forms. We
should discuss this in our call tomorrow. We recently entered into one of the largest rate
settlements in the Country with Comcast on behalf of some of our clients. It is worth doing,
especially given the fact that the City really has not ever reviewed the forms.
c. System Technical Review (including Institutional Network) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
Status: This was originally scheduled to be performed in mid-July, but was moved back to
accommodate vacation schedules. It will now be performed the week of August 7, 2006 and
I would expect a report by the end of August. Mr.Nielsen will perform the review and I will
assist in identifying the appropriate franchise standards that they need to follow.
4. Notice Non-compliance (if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study(September 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
a. Identify Role(participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
2
J
b. Identify Role (participation and financial) of other Participating Cities(Auburn,
Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG Communications, Inc.)
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance(November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council (February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP(February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP (February 2007)
12.Receive Formal Renewal Proposals (April 2007)
13.Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations(approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14.Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal (August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15.Act on Formal Renewal Proposal (September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
Hopefully, you now have a flavor of the tasks that we will be performing. To give you some
context, I am attaching a renewal memorandum that I put together for the City in March. I am
looking forward to working with you (although sad to see Linda move on) and assisting the City
in a successful cable franchise renewal process.
Mike Bradley
3
From: Marty Wine
To: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil
Date: 8/8/2006 7:57:15 AM
Subject: First meeting with Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen
Hi all, this email serves to recap our initial conversation with B&G and CBG folks yesterday regarding their
visit and activities, and outlines their initial information needs from us (most of which I think we have
handled).
Any records or maps that we have showing the location of Comcast facilities throughout the city(Bonnie
provided a 2002 map, George/Ron Hansen will follow up with their records). Any inspections, field reports,
or information that suggests that Renton may have issues or concerns related to technical
compliance/Comcast's physical presence in Renton (Neil, since you were not at the meeting yesterday,
just want to doublecheck whether you have any information to contribute here.)Contact information and
background about the agreement Renton has to participate in the Eastside Fiber Consortium with the UW,
Bellevue, Kirkland, and school districts (went through Council in May, Bonnie, can you find this
please?).Site inventory-can we provide Mike and Dick Nielsen information about which
buildings/addresses are served by the INet(George and Dick were going to discuss on Monday
afternoon)Renton School District is not included in the original franchise agreement- is it desired for us to
discuss RSD's interests? (Marty can arrange a meeting with the superintendent and staff if so)Potential
annexation area map-where are these areas and what is the status of Comcast's physical plant outside
the city?Also, can we confirm whether post-1993 annexation areas are actually receiving service per the
agreement? (Marty will get these maps and give to Mike Bradley.)Meeting with Puget Sound Access
(Bonnie, Marty, Mike Bradley) is targeted for Thursday afternoon.Participation of other cities in both
renewal process and PEG to be confirmed (Marty will make calls to other cities).Thanks -
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer, City of Renton
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
P 425.430.6526
F 425.430.6523
mwine@ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay
•
City of Renton, Washington
Request for:Proposals
Cable Television-Franchise Management.
and
Renewal:Consulting Services
For the City of
Renton, Washington
Submitted to:
Bonnie I. Walton .
CityClerk/Cable Manager
Renton.City Hall,Room 728
1055 S..Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Respectfully Submitted by:
b & g
Bradley
Guzzetta; LLc
The B&G Team
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC . CBG Communications,Inc. Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Michael R.Bradley,Esq. Thomas Robinson,Executive VP Richard D.Treich,CEO
Stephen J.Guzzetta,Esq. 73 Chestnut Road,Suite 301 4152 Bell Mountain Drive
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Paoli,PA 19301 • Castle Rock,CO 80104
444 Cedar Street 610-889-7470
St.Paul,MN55101
651-379-0900
April14,2005
SECTION I: UNDERSTANDING OF THE REQUEST
Thank you for your Request for Proposals for Cable Television Franchise Management
and Renewal Consulting; Services. In;response, Bradley. & Guzzetta, LLC hereafter
known as the "Firm" has put together a nationally_recognized team of consultants that
exclusively represents municipalities in'cable franchise renewal matters, consisting of
the Firm, CBG.Communications, Inc. and. Front Range Consulting (collectively the
"B&G-Team"). The Firm has significant experience managing renewal projects and off
sight administrative services :assisting cities with .telecommunications administrative
issues.
When a cable franchise is up for renewal, as.in Renton's case on September 13, 2008, a
city has the rare opportunity to review the performance of its cable operator, Comcast,
and to ensure that•Comcast will meet the future cable related needs and interests of the
community. This opportunity is rare because franchises are typically issued for periods
of years. In addition,'Renton wants to make certain that the cable system will be reliable,
and that.Comcast will be in a position to bring benefits of advances in cable technology
into the area's homes, .businesses and schools.. At the time of renewal, Renton can
establish requirements for system improvements to provide it with adequate
infrastructure.
Our Firm represents local governments of all sizes and works with each one to tailor a
work plan that best meets the jurisdiction's needs given its resources. We believe that the
B&G Team has experience 'and talents like no other team in the country. Including the
cities as an important part of our team will offset many risks for project performance, cost
and schedule. We are certain that the municipalities have many talented employees in a
variety of areasgermane to the franchise renewal process, such as video production
specialists, attorneys, finance and IT professionals. These people may just lack
familiarity with the cable franchise renewal process. Using the talents and institutional
knowledge of municipal employees can result in significant cost savings. Coupled with
the extensive experience of the B&G Team, we feel confident that we will produce a
successful cable franchise renewal process for City of Renton with minimal risk.
Our team has recognized that to keep the process moving forward and to produce a
successful cable'franchise renewal, it takes a team:approach. We,have recognized that
we need attorneys for legal work, researchers for needs assessment work, engineers for
technical work and fmancial advisors for auditing work. Unlike our competitors, we
have recognized that we also need personnel trained in municipal project management to
keep the processing, moving and have a thorough understanding of municipal 'and
administrative needs.
Although the B&G Team is'not'locate'd in Renton, Washington, we currently provide a
wide range of telecommunications services to communities in the Vancouver/Clark
County and Seattle,Washington areas,providing us with local knowledge and
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page
b & • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
understanding of the issues and players in the cable industry in the Pacific Northwest.
We are confident that our team approach method and experience will result in a
successful cable franchise renewal process for the City of Renton. In addition to
negotiating cable franchises and conducting technical, financial and needs assessments
across the country,we also assist cities with cable franchise administration throughout
the Minneapolis metropolitan area. We have found that the majority of work and issues
can be worked through using email and the phone,thus minimizing travel costs to the
City.
It is our hope that after reviewing our credentials, you will find that the B&G Team is the
best qualified to assist the.City with its franchise management and renewal projects. The
B&G Team believes that by submitting a comprehensive proposal for all categories we,
as team, will be able to provide a team approach, experience, and value for the City of
Renton.
SECTION H—PERSONNEL
A. B&G TEAM OVERVIEW
Michael Bradley, Partner, and Steve Guzzetta,Partner,will be the specific attorneys
assigned to perform legal work on the Comcast cable renewal cable franchise
management assistance including but not limited to: ordinance compliance,compliance
with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992, FCC
Regulations. Mr. Bradley and Mr. Guzzetta will also be the specific attorneys assigned to
perform the,legal work for the franchise renewal specific areas including but not limited
to:training and evaluation, work plan, special presentation,public hearings;comparative
studies,negotiations and implementation. Tracy Schaefer, Senior Project Manager, will
be assigned to various areas of the cable franchise management assistance including but
not limited to: consumer protection and complaints, senior citizen/disabled person
discounts, documents, access utilization,bond and insurance, annual reports, other
reports.and technical assistance. She will also be assigned to perform the following work
for the franchise renewal specific areas: training and evaluation,work plan, comparative
studies, financial implications, solicit providers and implementation. The skills and
qualifications of Mr. Bradley, Mr. Guzzetta, and Ms. Schaefer are set forth below.
Michael R. Bradley
Michael R. Bradley is a partner of Bradley & Guzzetta, "LLC. Mr. Bradley has been
practicing for eleven years and was named'a "Rising Star" Attorney by Minnesota Law
and Politics in 2001, 2003 and 2004. Mr. Bradley represents governmental entities
across the country on communications issues, particularly cable franchise renewals,
master telecommunications ordinance drafting, rights-of-way management planning,
competitive cable franchising, open video system franchising, cable franchise transfers of
ownership, competitive access to multiple_dwelling units and tower siting. He has
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 2
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
experience practicing before Federal and State Courts,: the .Federal Communications
Commission, State Public Utilities.Commissions and State Legislatures.
Mr..Bradley has extensive government affairs experience on telecommunications issues.
He has represented franchising authorities before the Minnesota State Legislature,
working to develop statewide policy on telecommunications issues. He has also worked
on legislation aimed at promoting competition.in multiple dwelling.units. During the
1998 legislative session, Mr..Bradley represented the City.of Saint Paul in its successful
request for $65,000,000.00 in.State assistance to build a new arena for. the Minnesota
Wild,the new National.Hockey League team.
Mr. Bradley was recently appointed to a,statewide Telecommunications Task Force led
by Minnesota Technology,Inc., which was formed to bring together the stakeholders in
Greater Minnesota to sustain and foster future economic growth in Greater'Minnesota.
Mr. Bradley is a member of the American Bar Association where he serves on the section
of Public. Utility, Communications and Transportation, and the Communications Law
Forum.
Mr. Bradley is also a leader in the Minnesota State Bar Association("MSBA"), where he is the founder and Co-Chair of the Military Affairs Committee,past Chair of the
Insurance for Members Committee, and a member of the MSBA Communications
Committee. Mr.Bradley served honorably as a Judge Advocate with the Minnesota
Army National Guard for seven years,where he attained the rank of Major and the
position of the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate. He is also a member of the Minnesota
Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators ("MACTA"), where he
serves on the.Legislative Committee and the National Association of
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA"),where he serves on the legal
and public policy committees: Mr. Bradley is a graduate of the University of Minnesota
(Hull Scholarship) and earned his law degree from Hamline University School of Law in
St. Paul, Minnesota..
Mr.Stephen J. Guzzetta,Esq.
Stephen J: Gu77etta is currently licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota, the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the District of Columbia. Mr. Guzzetta graduated
from Boston College in 1990, magna.cum laude, with. a Bachelor of Arts in political
science. He received his law degree from American University's Washington College of
Law in 1993.. Mr. Guzzetta's practice areas primarily include cable television franchising
and .renewal, cable television rate regulation, cable system transfers, tower siting,
municipal right-of-way management, telecommunications system franchising and
administrative law.
Mr. Guzzetta began his legal career as a regulatory attorney with the Office of Cable
Television for:the District of Columbia where his responsibilities included franchise
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals : Page 3
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
enforcement, .rate regulation and..constituent communications. Mr. Guzzetta also
represented the District of Columbia government before the Public Service Commission
on a number of telecommunications policy issues. In addition, Mr. Guzzetta updated the
District's cable .ordinance, developed .a telecommunications policy task. force, and
authored a city report on right-of-way management issues.
After working for the:District government for several years, Mr. Guzzetta moved to the
private sector joining: Miller & Van Eaton,.:P.L.L.C., a .Washington, D.C.-based
telecommunications 'law firm representing municipalities throughout the country. Mr.
Guzzetta assisted numerous municipalities with cable television franchise renewals and
transfers, right-of-way management and compensation, and rate regulation issues. Mr.
Guzzetta also drafted franchise agreements for cities which authorized competitive cable
television systems. : . I
Mr. Guzzetta has substantial experience practicing before the Federal Communications
Commission. In particular,Mr. Guzzetta has participated in several rate proceedings, the
Troy; . Michigan preemption: .proceeding, the Ghibardun/Rice: Lake , preemption
proceeding,, the: Baltimore/United Artists franchise. fee-proceeding, the right-of-way
management notice of inquiry, and the FCC's emergency alert proceeding: 'Mr: Gil7,7etta
has also counseled municipalities on a variety of telecommunications issues, including
telecommunications providers' :use. of municipal utility easements and various issues
relating to public, educational and governmental access programming:
With regard to. renewal, Mr. Guzzetta has performed extensive legal research on the
requirements of Section 626 of the Cable Act, and on case law,interpreting state renewal
procedures. Mr. Guzzetta has .also drafted .numerous franchise ordinances and
agreements as part of the franchise:renewal process, and has managed and participated in
the:negotiation of many renewal :franchises around the country. : Mr:: Guzzetta has
particular expertise in overseeing and performing the many tasks that must be undertaken
when the formal renewal track is being followed. For: instance, Mr. Guzzetta has
conducted compliance audits and drafted.'several'Requests for.Renewal Proposals. . In
addition,Mr. Guzzetta has managed.the performance of many formal and informal needs
assessments for both large and small municipalities. He: has also drafted a needs
• ascertainment report on behalf of a client in Tennessee.
Mr. Guzzetta is a member of NATOA, where he serves on the Policy Committee, and a
member.of MACTA, where he serves on the Legislative Committee. Mr. Guzzetta is a
frequent speaker.at NATOA and•MACTA conferences.
Ms.Tracy J. Schaefer
Tracy J. Schaefer is the Senior Project Manager for.Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC. Ms.
Schaefer assists public entities with telecommunications planning, contracting, fiscal
administration and organizational'development.
Request for Proposals Page 4
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Ms: Schaefer has a wealth of experience in municipal telecommunications planning.: Her
experiences include the design, development :and implementation of institutional
networks (I-Nets), VoIP and WiFi systems, new and upgraded municipal building multi-
media systems and cable franchising Ms. Schaefer recently developed and coordinated a
nationally recognized fiber I-Net.using VoIP technology that is owned and.used by the
City of Shakopee, Minnesota, Scott County,.and the local school district. The I-Net is
projected to.create .a significant savings :to the public, while providing state-of-the-art
technologies to all of the public entities. Ms. Schaefer's fiber I-Net and VoIP system was
featured in the NATOA.Journal of Municipal Telecommunications Policy due to the I-
Net's innovative nature and successful completion.
Ms. Schaefer has significant experience in Public Administration.. She has worked
closely with cities on determining the viability of:projects, performing cost-benefit
analyses and cable needs assessments, and making successful recommendations before
decision-making bodies: Working with decision-making bodies and staff, she has
developed joint powers agreements; RFPs, capital_improvement plans (CIPs), short-term
and long-term budgets, refuse/recycling contracts, police service contracts, labor union
contracts, building project management, municipal service contracts and purchasing
agreements. Ms. Schaefer's cutting-edge refuse and recycling contract has been featured
in a number of professional-refuse and recycling journals as a model document for the
country.
Ms: Schaefer is also a leader in civic and professional associations. She serves in
leadership. roles with the International City 'Manager's Association . (ICMA). and
Minnesota City/County Management Association (MCMA). . She also served as an
officer:with the Association of Public Management Professionals (APMP) and was
named Assistant of the Year twice by APMP. ` She is President of the Winona State
University Alumni Board of Directors where she is currently serving on the Presidential : .
Replacement.Search Committee and is also a member.of NATOA and MACTA. .
Prior to joining the Firm, Ms.Schaefer was the:Assistant City Administrator for the City
of Shakopee, MN (Twin Cities). Ms. Schaefer has also held positions with the cities of
Winona, MN, Sugar Grove, IL (Chicago suburb) and Ottawa, IL, and she worked on the
Minnesota tobacco litigation under.then Attorney General Hubert `.`Skip" Humphrey III:.
Ms: Schaefer graduated with honors from Northern Illinois University (Urban
Management Scholarship) with a Masters of Public Administration" (MPA).degree in
urban management with a strong focus on:fiscal administration. She graduated magna
cum:laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics and Public Administration.
from Winona State University(Presidential Scholarship):
B. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
As part of the RFP,the City of Renton requested several PEG,needs ascertainment and
technical services,which would be provided by CBG Communications; Inc. Thomas
B&G TEAM
• Request for;Proposals Page 5
b
& Cable Franchise Management . . . 4/13/2005
and .
Renewal Consulting Services
Robinson,Executive Vice President is located in Philadelphia and Dick Nielsen, Senior
Engineer,is located in St..Paul, MN. Mr. Robinson will be the primary research
consultant for the PEG and needs ascertainment work and in conjunction with Mr.
Nielsen will conduct the performance analysis and upgrade evaluation and provide the
technical.assistance for the.cable franchise management assistance. In conducting the
system technical review, an analysis of upgrade scenarios and plans, and a review of
system technological components, such as cable modems, digital video services, hybrid
coax (HFC) architectures, and fiber(INET), among other things could be completed.
In addition,Mr. Robinson would work collaboratively with Ms. Schaefer on the access
utilization,needs ascertainment, annual report, other reports for the cable franchise
management assistance area and assist the Firm in developing the work plan, comparative
studies, financial implications and implementation of the franchise renewal specific areas.
CBG Communications, Inc. ("CBG")provides consulting expertise to local governments
in numerous areas of telecommunications and cable television. Collectively, CBG's
principals have decades of telecommunications and cable experience, which provides
them with a knowledgeable, seasoned, and expert background.
CBG has worked On behalf of local governments and other public sector organizations all
across the country,with extensive experience in the Washington area. Successful results.
have been achieved in numerous settings from large metropolitan areas to small towns.
Its representatives.have had their work published, and they have spoken at local and
national conferences and received recognition in national publications.
In addition to the other needs assessment services, community subscriber satisfaction
surveys can also play an important role to help decision makers determine priorities and
to outline the needs and demands of their cable company. If after completing the cable
franchise management assistance areas,the-City of Renton deemed it necessary to
conduct a community-wide statistically valid customer satisfaction'survey, Dr. Constance
Book, Communications Professor at Eton University, could assist the B&G Team in
drafting and conducting such a survey. She could survey both the subscribers and non-
subscribers.
Further, if additional video engineering expertise is needed, Mr. Carson Hamlin, video
engineer and operations manager for government access;television in Fort Collins and
Larimer County, Colorado,.could be engaged by CBG to provide such necessary task
assistance. Mr. Hamlin has worked on a number of projects with:CBG, and his hands-on
access television experience has proven invaluable.
The skills and qualifications of Mr. Robinson, Mr. Nielsen, Dr. Book and Mr. Hamlin are
set forth below.
B>EAM
w Request for Proposals 'Pa e 6
• g
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Mr. Thomas G. Robinson
Tom Robinson is Executive Vice President of CBG Communications, Inc. and is based in
the Philadelphia,_Pennsylvania.office. Mr: Robinson has worked with local governments
all across the country on a variety of cable and telecommunications projects, including;
institutional networks; infrastructure issues; needs assessments; telecommunications
planning and policy. development; Public, Educational and Governmental (PEG) access
issues; :technical reviews; wireless networking; competitive communications system.
reviews; cable television franchise renewals; ROW management, regulatory agreements
and.other matters.:He is a frequent speaker at telecommunications;local government and .
technical conferences. Mr. Robinson is published bimonthly in. Communications
Engineering&Design (CED) magazine.
Prior to joining CBG, Mr. Robinson was, for seven years, Director of. Technology
Development.for River Oaks Communications Corporation, where he worked with
numerous local,government clients on telecommunications and.cable television projects.
Mr. Robinson also served for 10 years as Chief of the Cable Regulatory Division of the
Department of Consumer Affairs for Fairfax County, Virginia. While there, he was.
involved in:a host of activities related to oversight of one of the nation's largest cable
systems. Prior to his work:in:Fairfax, Mr: :Robinson was with Magnavox CATV
Systems, Inc. (now part.of C-COR),where he worked first as a system designer and then,
in product management. While. at Magnavox; he helped develop and market new
amplification systems and products that paved the way toward today's high capacity cable
systems.
Mr: Robinson began:his :career.as an: announcer,' program director and operations
engineer in radio and television at several radio stations in the Baltimore/Washington
area and at the public. broadcasting..television and radio. stations (WCNY-TV/FM) in
Syracuse,New:York:
He holds - an M.S.: :in Telecommunications/Film from Syracuse University's S.I.
Newhouse School of Public Communications and a B.A. in Mass Communications from
Towson University where he.graduated Summa Cum Lauder
Mr:Richard D.Nielsen
Dick Nielsen is CBG Communications; Inc's Senior Engineer and is based out of:the.
Saint Paul, Minnesota office. Mr. Nielsen works as lead technical staff for the firm. His
work includes underground and'aerial,construction planning review and analysis, cable
television system performance audits, ' institutional network design, application
development and performance review, telecommunications system design application
development and review, data communication system and equipment planning as well as
review and analysis of other technical issues:
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page,7
b & Cable Franchise Management • 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Prior to Mr. Nielsen joining CBG Communications; he spent 19 years with AT&T
Broadband and its predecessor companies. The last four were spent as the Institutional
Network Manager. While managing he was involved in a wide range of activities,
including.maintenance of institutional networks ("I-Net'.') representing over 20 franchise
areas and over 1000 miles of coaxial, HFC and fiber optic plant, designing new and
upgrading existing .I-Nets,: budgeting. for new and updated. I-Nets, supervision, of
construction activities, and activation of.fiber optic nodes, power supplies, amplifiers,
pilot generators and status monitoring systems. Mr.Nielsen regularly represented AT&T
Broadband at various meetings relating to I-Net issues. He also worked closely with
consultants in evaluating and designing upgrades to existing I-Nets.
For the 8_years prior to being I=Net Manager, Mr.Nielsen was the Technical Supervisor.
He supervised 35 Maintenance Technicians and Service Technicians, implemented a plan
to bring service levels up to NCTA and FCC standards, and was in charge.of reporting all
engineering and technical data for national reporting FCC testing and reporting and
public files,for.CLI and Proof of Performance. Additionally Mr.:Nielsen spent.4 years as.
a Headend Technician and was involved in designing, wiring:and maintaining headends,
hubs and antennas: He was on call24 hours a day for problems related to headends. Mr.
Nielsen's:first 3 years were spent as'a Maintenance Technician. He was'responsible for
maintaining HSN and I-Net plants,.field testing of FCC CLI and Proof of Performance
requirements as well as working on call (24/7) for outages and problems.
Mr. Nielsen began his career as'a technician and installer for Best Vision SMATV and
Muller Prybell. Formal education.was received at Dakota County Vocational Technical
School m its Cable Television Degree Program.
Dr. Constance L. Book,Ph.D.
Dr. Constance L. Book is a professor and researcher in the field of telecommunications.
She has explored the pivotal role television plays in American society and public policy.
She is the author of the recently released DTV and Consumers,.the first book dedicated to
understanding how our nation's transition to digital television impacts the general
consumer... Dr. Book's research has received five, first place awards in the past six years . .
from the National Association of Broadcasters educational.group..Her work included the
first: national: assessment of municipal officials' attitudes toward, cable television.
oversight and the subsequent national assessment of municipal cable administrators'
attitudes toward cable television oversight. - She =has conducted quantitative and
qualitative assessments.of cable television service in large, medium and small markets
across the United States.
Dr. Book's research has been recognized in several nationwide competitive settings;
including the National Cable Television .Association, the National Association of
Broadcasters, the National Association of Telecommunication Officers and Advisors; the
B&G TEAM : .,
Request:for Proposals Page 8
b Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal.Consulting.Services .
Broadcast.Education Association and the Association for Educators in Journalism and
Mass Communication. Her work has also been published in legal and academic journals.
Dr. Book was recently awarded.a fourth.competitive-grant from the National Association
of Broadcasters to conduct research studies related to the impact of satellite radio on local
broadcasting: As a professor, she has been awarded several research grants for
assessments related to cable television service, has been recognized on several occasions
: for: outstanding teaching and her :students have won awards in national competitions
sponsored by the Society.of Professional Journalists and the American Advertising
Federation. .
. . .
Dr.: Book:has appeared on panels at the Federal Communications Commission,. the
National.Cable Television Association, the National Association of Broadcasters, the
: National Association of TelecommunioationS Officers and Advisors and regional cable
television associations. She is often invited to lecture and moderate discussions on
telecommunications issues.
As a working broadcaster for several years, .Dr. Book's work received honors from the '
Associated Press and the Louisiana Association of Broadcasters:.
Dr. Book is originally:from:Baton Rouge, Louisiana. She graduated with degrees in
Mass: Communication from Louisiana State University, Northwestern: State University:
r
and the. :University :of Georgia. Her doctoral studies focused. on cable television
oversight. She currently is Professor of Communications at Elon University in.North
Carolina.
:Mr. Carson Hamlin. : : : ' ' :
Carson Hamlin,received a B.A. degree m Technical Communications from Colorado State
University:_Mr. Hamlin worked for.the Hewlett Packard Company for.12 years, eventually .
leaving HP's Interactive.Television Network in Cupertino, California'to return to Colorado.
He is now the Media Integration.Specialist for the City of Fort Collins, Colorado where he
oversees all the technical aspects of analog/digital video communications for.the City of
Fort Collins and Latimer County,-Colorado.
Mr.: Hamlin has:worked extensively as:a Technical: Director; both linear and nonlinear
editor, audio engineer and design engineer. His qualifications include video facility and
system design; including the evaluation and purchasing of equipment used in cablecast and
broadcast facilities, integration'Of equipment, and troubleshooting. He has'consulted'with
many communities regarding the .technical aspects of their PEG systems and equipment
including:such jurisdictions as the City of Seattle, Washington, St Paul, Minnesota, and
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.: His experience will contribute greatly to the.PEG facility technical
review tasks.
B>EAM
b
Request for Proposals Page 9
& • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
C. FRONT RANGE CONSULTING,INC.
Mr. Treich will be responsible.for reviewing the collection of franchise fees through
comparative analyses and audit as well as assisting the City through attorneys Mr.
Bradley and Mr. Guzzetta with any following up delinquent payments.
Mr. Richard R. Treich
Richard.R. Treich is the CEO and Founder:of Front Range Consulting, Inc. (FRC). The
company is dedicated .to assisting and consulting with the local: government.
telecommunications sector, primarily focused on franchising and regulatory activities of
franchised telecommunications companies like , cable . television organizations.
Mr. .Treich has been actively engaged in providing regulatory assistance to numerous
local governmental clients on a wide range of issues. He has reviewed FCC Forms 1240
and 1205.and:provided findings that have lead to the issuance of rate orders by the local
governments, which resulted in refunds to the community's subscribers. In addition, his
reviews have lead to significantly reduced amounts of add-on rates. Mr. Treich has also
provided assistance to cities on how the pass-through of the franchise fees of
nonsubscriber revenues should be accomplished: He continues to be a member of the
NATOA's Policy. committee and -actively participates in the committee .as well as
providing consulting assistance to the Executive Director .of NATOA on national
regulatory policy issues. He has spoken before several NATOA meetings and roundtables
on a wide range of current issues facing the local governments with regards to cable
television. Prior to. founding Front Range Consulting, -Mr. Treich.was Senior Vice
President, Rates & Regulatory Matters, for AT&T Broadband (AT&T). In that capacity,.
he was responsible for all of AT&T's (and its predecessor TCI Communications) rate
regulatory filings and analyses. His duties during his tenure with AT&T also included
responsibility for the franchising_activities of the company. This regulatory task involved
supervision of several thousand annual rate filings. Mr. Treich's responsibilities included
contacts.with, and.appearances before, all of.AT&T's'regulatory bodies, including the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state public utility commissions, and local
franchising authorities. Mr. Treich met frequently with FCC staff regarding AT&T and
cable industry regulatory issues over the years. He was a leading participant in the
"Accountants Group"of the National.Cable Television Association.
Mr.Treich's duties'for'AT&T included responsibility for coordinating the regulatory due
diligence reviews of cable operations and'coordinating with AT&T's internal accounting
and outside auditors regarding the financial reporting of regulatory matters.
Before joining AT&T,Mr. Treich was a Principal and Partner-in-Charge of KPMG Peat
:Marwick'.s 'National Cable Television Consulting Practice, Principal and Partner-in-
Charge of KPMG Peat Marwick''s National- Utility -Consulting Practice, the Director,
Utility Regulatory Advisory. Services Group, of Coopers and Lybrand, and Manager,
Client Services,_of Ebasco Business Consulting Company. At KPMG Peat Marwick
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 10
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005'
Renewal Consulting Services
LLP, Mr. Treich consulted with cable television,telecommunications,:electric,gas,water
and wastewater organizations on engagements related to strategic and competitive
regulatory analyses.- These engagements included competitive assessments; regulatory
studies, like cost-of-service, rate design, revenue requirements, and working capital;
marketing strategies related to incentive rates; operations management; merger. and
acquisition investigations; financial analyses, like sale/leaseback transactions; utility
bankruptcy proceedings; and cogeneration analyses. Many of these engagements included
the presentation of direct and rebuttal testimony before numerous federal, state and
local regulatory authorities.
Developed cost-of-service . methodologies for cable operators to determine the
advisability of selecting.between the FCC's benchmark approach or cost-of service
approach. Assisted the National.Cable Television Association in assessing the impact of
cost-of-service regulations on its members. Developed and testified to a regulatory plan
for the acquisition of a utility by another utility. Such engagements included assessments
of the proper regulatory basis on which the utility could share the benefits of the merger
between ratepayers and shareholders. Directed and testified to a complete cost allocation
and rate design study for several gas utilities. Analyses included determination of
individual rate tariffs and development of a computerized cost allocation model.
Mr. Treich graduated from Susquehanna University with a B.S. in Finance and
Management Science and:he was a.member.of the Member, Kappa Mu Epsilon Honorary
Mathematics Fraternit
y.
SECTION HI—REFERENCES
A. BRADLEY& GUZZETTA.REFERENCES
The Firm has worked on a multitude of cable franchise renewal and negotiation projects,
with communities ranging in size from hundreds,or thousands to a half million people. In
addition,we have significant experience in off-site telecommunications/cable
administration for cities and telecommunications consortiums. The following list is an
attempt to provide a representative sample of previous experience on renewals,
telecommunications and cable management assistance and general cable related issues:.
City of Minneapolis,Minnesota::The Firm provides ongoing representation to the City
on cable television and telecommunications matters. By way of example,the Firm is
currently assisting the City with the development of a right-of-way management plan and
ordinance, and with the renewal of the cable television franchise currently held by Time
Warner Cable.
B&G has had an on-going relationship with the City of Minneapolis for over seven years,
the current contract for cable franchise renewal services is from 2004- 2006.
Gail Plewacki
Request for Proposals Page 11
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Communications Director
City of Minneapolis.
300M City Hall.
35.0.South Fifth Street
Minneapolis,Minnesota 55415.
Phone: 612- 673-2911
Shakopee,Minnesota:In June,2004, B&G staff successfully negotiated a 15-year
franchise agreement with Time.Warner,including dark fiber strands to selected city
buildings,cable hook-up and free cable service to new community buildings and critical
language outlining the parameters of the franchise fees in relation to TW bundling
services and franchise fee payments under GAAP:
In October 2004,the City of Shakopee hired B&G Team to handle all legal,
administrative and technical telecommunications needs and issues for the City and its
City Council and Telecommunications Commission: .B&G staffff has perform annual
cable franchise compliance reviews, assembles monthly Telecommunications,packets for
Commission and Council,prepares the annual telecommunications budget and goals and
objectives for the City, handles all residential cable complaints and serves as a liaison.
between the City:and Time Warner Cable. . .
Mark McNeill, City Administrator
City of Shakopee
129 South Holmes Street.
Shakopee,MN 55379
Phone:.952-233=3 800.
Lansing,Michigan: In March,2005,the B&G Team was awarded the cable franchise.
renewal services agreement to conduct a needs assessment, city-wide survey,technical
review,negotiate the cable franchise and handle all legal aspects of the City's cable
franchise renewal process with Comcast:
Margo Vroman
Assistant City Attorney
City of Lansing
124 W. Michigan` . . . .
Lansing,MI 48933
Phone: 517-483-7638
B>EAM. .
Request for Proposals Page 12
& S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Murfreesburo, Tennessee: B&G successfully negotiated a franchise renewal for the City
of Murfreesburo: B&G worked amicably with Comcast to negotiate a franchise that
benefited both the City and its residents.
Alan Bozeman
Cable,TV Coordinator, City Cable TV Department
111 West Vine.St.
PO Box 1139
Mufreesboro, TN 37133
Phone: 615-848-3245
North Metro. Telecommunications Commission, Twin Cities, Minnesota: B&G is
general telecommunications and cable television. counsel to the North Metro
Telecommunications Commission. The Firm's attorneys have helped the Commission
with almost every conceivable cable-related issue over the last twenty years. Recently,
B&G finished negotiating a renewal franchise agreement with.AT&T.Broadband (now
Comcast) on behalf of the .Commission and its member cities. Although the firm
managed the drafting of detailed and comprehensive needs assessment documents as part
of the formal renewal process, B&G was able to reach an agreement with AT&T
Broadband, pursuant to the informal renewal process, based on a proposal provided by
the company. ..
Ms. Heidi Arnson
Executive Director
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
1630 lo1st Ave.NE
Blaine,Minnesota.55449-4419
Phone: 763-780-8241 ext.24
Northfield, Minnesota: B&G successfully negotiated a franchise renewal for the City of
Northfield. B&G worked amicably with .Charter Communications to negotiate a
franchise that benefited both the City and its residents.
Scott Neal, City Administrator
801 Washington Street
Northfield, MN 55057
Phone: 507-645-8832
South Washington Cable Communications Commission, Twin Cities, Minnesota (a
cable regulatory commission made up of five Minnesota cities):. B&G successfully
negotiated a franchise renewal for..the Commission. B&G worked amicably with the
incumbent cable operator to. negotiate .a franchise that benefited both the City and its
residents.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 13
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Fran Hemmesch,Assistant Administrator ..
7584 70th Street South
Cottage Grove,MN 55016
Phone:.651-458-9241
Urbandale,Iowa:B&G served as a.general telecommunications and cable advisor for the
City of. Urbandale, which included providing advice on.virtually: every cable: related
issue. B&G also completed FCC regulatory projects on behalf of the City.. In addition,
B&G engaged in cable rate work with the local cable provider.
City of Urbandale
Suzanna Profit.
P.O. Box 3540
Urbandale, Iowa 50322
Phone: 515-278-3900
B. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC.REFERENCES
CBG Communications has extensive experience in performing,a variety of cable television,
- technology,and telecommunications review,assessment, analysis, survey and other project
tasks,negotiating with industry providers,meeting and working with local elected and
appointed officials and staff personnel, facilitating the activities of advisory committees that
include public and private sector representatives and also making presentations to City
Councils, Commissions and Boards.
CBG has successfully been and continues to.be involved with numerous cable television and
telecommunications projects that have been very beneficial for public sector clients. CBG
knows and:has a.thorough understanding of the cable environment in the Pacific Northwest,
since CBG has worked with numerous communities in the Vancover/Clark County and
Seattle,Washington areas. We continue to work successfully with these communities on
various telecommunications projects, so CBG is not only familiar with the.
telecommunications issues in the Pacific Northwest,but also the main players at Comcast as
well. Examples of CBG projects.include:
City of Vancouver& Clark County,Washington : .CBG most recently has been
assisting the City and County with several telecommunications activities, including a
review of a potential local government-sponsored wireless system and use of radio for
emergency information/communication systems. Prior to this, CBG assisted in cable
franchise renewal activities including needs assessment studies,PEG, I-Net review, and a
comprehensive technical audit. Additionally,:CBG worked with the City to develop I-
Net and PEG channel operations. CBG Communications,has been serving the City and
County on an on-going basis since 1996 with various cable and telecommunications
projects.
B&G TEAM
b
Request for Proposals Page 14& • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
.
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Ms. Donna Mason
Director, Dept. of Media Services
City of Vancouver
PO.Box 1995
202 E. Mill Plain Blvd:.
Vancouver,;WA 98668
Phone: 360-696-8016
Metropolitan Area Communications Commission(MACC);Portland, Oregon
Metroplitan'Area Communities: Ongoing work involving:Public Communications
Network(PCN)technical audit and certification, oversight and network application
development. Prior to this, completed work on residential cable system upgrade
certification, I-Net franchise provisions and assistance in negotiations. Also performed
technical review and needs assessment work related to'franchise renewal with
AT&T/TCI (now Comcast), including subscriber and Institutional Network performance,
architecture; services,applications.and upgrade review. 'CBG Communications has been
serving MACC on an on-going basis since 1996 with various telecommunications
projects:
Bruce Crest
Administrator..
Metropolitan Area:Communications Commission:
1815 NW 169th Place
Suite 6020
Beaverton, OR 97006.
Phone: 503-645-7365 x200
Marin Telecommunications Agency (County of Marin and Ten Municipalities):
Completed work on PEG Access, Institutional Network, and general Residential
Community Needs Assessment, Technical Audit and Review, and Past.Performance
Review related to the cable franchise renewal process. Time Warner is the cable
operator: Work included a telephone-based Residential Community Survey, a number of
PEG.organizational surveys and focused discussions,on-site evaluation of existing and
planned facilities and equipment,review of Governmental and Educational Institutional
Networking requirements, and a review of Time Warner's current and past performance
under the existing Franchise Agreement.
Martin Nichols
Executive Director
Marin Telecommunications.Ag en cy
27 Commercial Blvd., Suite C
Novato,CA 94949
Telephone Number: (415) 883-9100
E-mail: mnichols@marin.org
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 15
b Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
City of Dubuque,Iowa: Currently CBG is providing ongoing assistance related to the
final stages of franchise renewal and cable ordinance negotiations between the City and
Mediacom. CBG Communications has completed a comprehensive technical review for
the City. A thorough needs assessment has already been completed including review of existing PEG facilities,review of the existing I-Net, determination of a network
architecture required to meet future needs;comprehensive survey and statistical analysis
of the Dubuque residential subscriber/non-subscriber population, and business
community needs assessment. After completing the needs assessment, CBG outlined for
Dubuque its future cable needs.
CBG Communications is also engaged in ongoing work involving assistance to the City
on PEG, I-Net, customer service,programming services and other issues in the City's
franchise renewal negotiations with Mediacom. As part of this,CBG Communications
has been involved in discussions with City staff, elected officials and senior-Mediacom
management,legal and engineering staff.
Mr.Merrill E. Crawford
Cable Franchise Administrator
City of Dubuque
City Hall Annex
1300 Main St
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Phone: 563=589-4181
Charles County,Maryland: CBG Communications most recently provided assistance
with franchise implementation tasks. Comcast is the cable operator. Prior to this, CBG
completed a technical review and an I-Net and PEG Access needs assessment study,
including extensive organizational surveys of K-12,higher education, governmental,non-
profit and business entities,PEG.Access and I-Net architectural and equipment review
and workshops. CBG contract period was from 2000-2004.
Ms. Victoria Greenfield
Deputy County Administrator
Charles County Government Center
PO Box 2150
LaPlata, Maryland 20646
Phone: 301-645-0691
Charlottesville, Virginia: Completed work concerning a technical audit and PEG facility
and equipment analysis as part of franchise renewal proceedings with Adelphia. Work ..
included an audit of FCC Proof-of-Performance testing at various system locations
throughout the City,on-site review of public,educational and government access facilities
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals b Page 16 Cable Franchise Management. 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
and equipment,analysis of a number of technical performance documents,maps and system
design information,headend analysis, etc.
Renee Knake,Assistant Attorney
Office of the City Attorney .
City Hall
P.O. Box 911
Charlottesville,VA 22902
434-970-3131
Auburn,New York: Ongoing work related to a Technical Audit, as well as a PEG and I-
Net Needs Assessment. Specific tasks included both a paper and on-site technical review
and audit,as well as focused discussions,on-site facilities and equipment analysis and
development of detailed equipment replacement and upgrade schedule projections related to
the PEG Needs.Assessment. . .
John Salamone
City Manager
Memorial City Hall .
24 South Street
Auburn,NY 13021
Phone: 315-255=4146
Dayton, Ohio: Currently,assisting with various franchise renewal tasks..Completed
ongoing work involving Technical,PEG,and I-Net Review and Needs Ascertainment
related to the franchise renewal process with Time Warner. Activities have included a
residential telephone-based survey,paper and on-site technical review and audit,focused
discussions and workshops,interviews and written surveys concerning PEG Access
programmers and potential institutional network users.
Randy Bellinger
Telecommunications Specialist. . .
City of Dayton
10.1. West.Third St
City Hall, 2nd Floor
Dayton, Ohio_45402
Phone: 937-333-4236
City of Corvallis,.Oregon: CBG Communications completed work involving development
and negotiation of technical, I-Net and PEG franchise provisions on behalf of the City of
Corvallis with AT&T/Comcast. Prior to this, CBG.Communications completed a technical
audit,past performance review and I-Net and PEG Access technical needs assessment study
as part of the franchise renewal process involving AT&T. The study included extensive
interview.work, document review.and architectural concept analysis related to existing and
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 17
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
planned network operations._of.the public schools, higher education entities, and local
government.
Mr. Tony Kreig
Franchise Utility Manager
City of Corvalis
Department of Public Works
P.O. Box 1083
1245.NE Third Street
Corvallis, .,Oregon 97330
Phone:.541-754-1731
Henrico County; Virginia: Completed work concerning a Residential Community,
Business Community and PEG Access Needs Assessment study.as part of franchise renewal
proceedings with Comcast. Work included extensive'organizational surveys and focused
discussions of K-12,higher education, governmental, and business entities, as well as
PEG Access architectural, facility and equipment review.
Robert J.Harris
Deputy Director of Communications
Henrico County
1590 E. Parham Road
P.O. Box'27032
Richmond,VA. 23273-7032
Phone: 804-501-5651
Minneapolis Telecommunications Network(MT1V,Minneapolis,Minnesota:
Completed work involving a comprehensive PEG Needs Assessment, including on-site
facilities and equipment analysis and resulting equipment replacement and upgrade
schedule projections, as well as written surveys, workshops and focused discussions.
Pamela Colby
Executive Director
The Minneapolis Telecommunications Network.
125 SE Main St.-
Minneapolis, MN. 55414
Phone: 612-331-8575 x 304
Miami Valley.Cable Council([MVCC] Dayton,Ohio Metropolitan Area
Communities): Ongoing work involving I-Net use and priority ascertainment, PEG
Needs Assessment,Community survey of PEG Access needs and Customer satisfaction
regarding rates, service, programming choices, reliability,technical audit, customer
services issues etc, and franchise provision drafting.
Kent Bristol
B&'G TEAMb & . .
Re Proposals
II Cable Franchise Management Page 18 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Executive Director
Miami Valley Cable Council
1195 E. Alex Bell Road
Centerville,OH 45459 .
Phone: 937-438-8887
North Metro Telecommunications Commission (Minneapolis St.Paul Metropolitan Area
Communities):Completed work involving comprehensive PEG and I-Net needs
assessments Worked with the Commission and then with AT&T/Comcast to design an
upgraded I-Net. Completed a past system performance review of AT&T/Comcast. Assisted
the Commission in drafting Franchise language'on I-Net,PEG and other provisions as part
of the renewal process with AT&T/Comcast.
Heidi Allison
Executive Director
North Metro Telecommunications Commission
1630 101st Avenue,NE
Blaine,MN 55449
Phone: 763-780-8241 ext. 2801
Montgomery..County, Maryland: Completed a Phase I Needs Assessment and
Requirements Analysis related to the establishment of a satellite PEG Access Center in the
southern area of the.County to serve residents with highly diverse demographics. Work
included: focused discussions.with community organizations, current and potential access
producers, government and non-profit entities, as well as a bilingual residential survey to
obtain both user and viewer needs and interests. Also completed_Phase II of the project,to
determine the economic, organizational, site location and equipment provision parameters
needed to successfully establish a Center that will meet the demonstrated needs and interests
in the southern County area.
Amy Wilson
Program Manager, Cable Communications Administration
Montgomery County,Maryland .
100 Maryland.Ave., #250
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: 240-777-3684
Rockville,Maryland: Completed work involving under grounding of utility
appurtenances.Prior to this, completed work on a comprehensive Telecommunications
Policy and Plan for the City, including extensive review of government agency,business
and residential community telecommunications requirements. The Policy and Plan covers
both external and internal telecommunications issues,related to both.wireline and wireless
service provision. Project tasks included working with public sector,private sector and
community advisory groups and organizations on myriad telecommunications subject areas.
. .
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 19
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Doug Breisch
Cable TV and Telecommunications Coordinator
City of Rockville
111 Maryland Ave.
Rockville,`MD 20850
Phone: 240-314=8189
In addition to the above representative sample of cable franchise renewal and other
related projects , CBG Communications has also completed a number of other projects
for local governments:nationwide: We would be happy-to-provide more detailed project -
and contact information, if requested.
C..FRONT.RANGE CONSULTING INC.REFERENCES .
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS &
ADVISORS (NATOA): FRC has been engaged by NATOA to assist NATOA with the
GAO study conducted with regards to Cable Price Increase, preparation of a Petition for
Declaratory ruling on the exclusion of the FCC Regulatory Fee from the 5%o Franchise
Fee cap; comments on the issues:surrounding FCC Form 1235 and other similar:national
policy issues. .
Ms. Libby.Beaty.
Executive.Director •
NATOA .
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 495
Alexandria,VA 22314
703-519-8035
Kissinger & Fellman: FRC.is.assisting Kissinger & Fellman with:a financial review of
the. City of Loveland's cable .TV franchise and assistance with the renewal of the
franchise agreement
Kenneth S. Fellman, Esq.
Kissinger&Fellman
Ptarmigan Place, Suite 900
3733.Cherry Creek.North Drive
Denver, CO 80209
303-320-6100
City of Minneapolis, Minnesota: FRC is assisting the City of Minneapolis with its
. renewal of its franchise agreement with Time Warner Cable.
Ms. Gail J Plewacki • .
Communications Director
B&G TEAM.
Request for Proposals Page 20
b Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting:Services
City of Minneapolis
350 South 5th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-673-3763
City of St. Louis,Missouri: FRC has reviewed FCC Form 1240, 1205 and 1235 filed by
Charter Communications over the past two years. The reviews have resulted in rate
reductions and refunds to subscribers. FRC is currently reviewing the franchise fee
payments by Charter for a two-year period.
Ms. Susan Littlefield
Telecom Regulatory Manager
Communications Division
City of St. Louis.
4871 Oakland Ave
St. Louis, MO 631.10
314-522-2900, ext. 2962 .
SECTION IV-STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
A. EXPERIENCE : .
1. BRADLEY& GUZZETTA,LLC.
The Firm has participated in, managed and negotiated hundreds of franchise renewals
throughout the United States. Given its experience level, the Finn is uniquely qualified
to understand .the connection between law and technology, and the impact changing
regulations and:technologies:have on the renewal,process:
The.Firm has recently completed renewal negotiations on behalf of numerous clients and
is currently in the process of negotiating renewals with several communities.Since the
passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, we have negotiated franchise renewals
on behalf of no:less than 60 municipalities representing no:less than.200,000 subscribers
in Minnesota alone. We are intimately familiar with the limitations placed on local
franchising authorities by the Cable Act, the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and_the
FCC's Cable Reform Orders, but seeks to construe these limitations in the manner most
favorable to local governments in an effort to maximize the fmancial and in-kind benefits
that can be obtained through franchise renewal. The Firm also knows how to identify and
articulate cable-related needs and interests in a manner that increases the likelihood that
those needs and interests will be met through the renewal/franchising process. .
Negotiations on behalf of municipalities have included work where the cable operators
were Corncast, Time.Warner Cable,AT&T Broadband, MediaOne, Intermedia, Charter
Communications, Mediacom, TCI, Bresnan, Triax, Continental Cablevision, Scripps
B&G TEAM . . .
Request for Proposals: Page 21
b Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and .
Renewal Consulting Services
Howard, Adelphia, United. Video Cablevision and others. The Firm believes its
experience in the:area of franchise renewals is unparalleled.
Over the years,the Firm has utilized both the informal-and formal renewal processes set
forth in § 626 of the Cable Act to compel cable operators to meet municipalities' present
and future cable-related needs and interests. In.so doing, the Firm has conducted and
overseen numerous needs assessments, compliance:audits, technical-:audits, subscriber
surveys and financial analyses, has drafted Requests for Renewal Proposals; and has
prepared for administrative proceedings, although it has not yet proven necessary to hold
such proceedings.' The Firm .has also developed creative solutions for renewing
franchises informally, if a particular local franchising authority does not wish to pursue or
cannot afford the formal renewal process. Although each renewal,is: different, and the
conditions in each jurisdiction are unique,the Firm routinely negotiates renewal packages
that are worth,approximately eight percent(8%)of a cable operator's gross revenues.
The Firm has extensive experience in negotiating with. multiple system operators,
meeting and working with local .government staff: and Making: presentations to
Cable/Telecommunications.Commissions,Boards and City Councils. The Firm believes. .
that an innovative, multi-faceted approach is the best way to arrive at a comprehensive
picture of a municipality's cable-related needs.. Our overall approach to any project is to
simply and directly communicate options and ideas to decision-makers, and to explain
the risks.and benefits associated with each.option/idea Once a decision is made, the
Firm quickly and efficiently:takes all:necessary actions.to produce the.desired-outcome, . .
within the parameters of applicable law
In addition to legal cable franchise negotiation services;we also have qualified staff that
has significant experience in off-site.telecommunications/cable administration for cities
and telecommunications :consortiums. : Currently, :'our - staff serves . as the
• Telecommunications Administrator for numerous communities and telecommunications
consortiums throughout the Minneapolis and St. Paul metropolitan areas. B&G provides
on-going telecommunications off site support services in the areas of legal, administrative
and technical telecommunications for the cities and their City Councils and
Telecommunications Commissions. :B&G staff has performed annual cable franchise
compliance reviews, conducted strategic planning and goal setting sessions, assembled
monthly Telecommunications packets for Commission and Council, prepared annual
telecommunications budgets, resolved cable franchise compliance- issues, handled all
residential cable complaints and served as a liaison between .the: City.and the cable
operator.: : ' .
Although the B&G Team is not located in Renton, Washington,we are confident that our
team approach method and experience will still result in:a successful cable franchise
process. We have found that the majority of work:and issues can be worked through
using email and the phone,thus minimizing travel costs to the City, coupled with
Request for Proposals Page 22
. • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
:Renewal Consulting Services
planning multi-purpose strategic trips to cities to save on expense costs for the City's.
budget.
2. CBG COMMUNICATIONS,INC. OVERVIEW
CBG Communications, Inc. ("CBG") has established a national reputation in cable
television, technology, and telecommunications matters.. CBG has a proven record of
accomplishment in providing consulting services for public sector entities that produce
effective results. CBG understands the cable:environment in the Pacific Northwest, since
CBG has served clients in the 'Seattle and Vancouver/Clark County areas since :1996.
CBG's successful handling of projects have ranged from wireless/telecommunication
studies to assisting cities with PEG, cable franchise renewal,community survey and I-Net
needs. Working with such communities has given CBG a thorough understanding of the
political environment,.players at. Comcast and.the needs.of f.communities in the Pacific
Northwest. .
CBG's principal consultant, Tom Robinson, has had his work published, and he is a
frequent speaker. at regional and national NATOA (National Association of
f
Telecommunications Officers and Advisors) Conferences.: Specifically, Tom has been a
guest speaker: at .NATOA Annual Conferences: on the subjects: of .communications
technology, institutional networks, telecommunications planning, and:wireless services..
Tom has also spoken at NATOA seminars on the subjects of past performance, compliance
review, community, and local government video, voice and data applications of broadband
communications networks. In addition, Tom has been a guest at the.National League.of
Cities' seminars on local government issues emanating from the Telecommunications Act of
1996 and the relationship between telecommunications infrastructure and economic
development
CBG has extensive experience in performing a variety of cable television,technology,and
telecommunications review,analysis, survey,and other project tasks,negotiating with
industry providers,meeting and working with local elected and appointed officials and staff
personnel,facilitating the activities of advisory committees(that include both public and
private sector representatives)and making presentations to City and County Councils,
Commissions,and Boards. Additionally,the principals are very knowledgeable about and
stay current on governmental issues and regulatory matters.
CBG Communications provides consulting expertise to local governments in numerous.
areas of telecommunications and cable television. Collectively, CBG's principals have
decades of telecommunications and cable experience, which provides them with a
knowledgeable, seasoned and expert background.
CBG has worked on behalf of local governments and other public sector organizations all
across the country. "Successful results have been achieved innumerous settings from
large metropolitan areas to small :towns. Its representatives have had their work
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 23
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
published, and they have spoken at local: and national conferences and received
recognition in national publications..
Although the B&G Team is not.located in Renton, Washington, CBG.currently provides.
a wide range of telecommunications services to communities'in the Vancouver/Clark
County and Seattle,:Washington areas, providing.the B&G.Team with local knowledge
and understanding of the issues and players in the:cable industry in the Pacific.Northwest.
We: are confident that our team. approach method and: experience will result in a
successful cable franchise process'for the-City of Renton.
3. FRONT RANGE CONSULTING,INC. '
Front Range Consulting, Inc.' (FRC) was formed in:2002.by'Mr..Richard D. Treich,
formerly Senior Vice President, Rate and Regulatory Matters at AT&T Broadband. Mr.
Treich serves as FRC's CEO and is responsible for the strategic direction of the company
and all of the consulting activities of FRC. In forming the.company Mr. Treich decided to
use his ten years of Cable TV knowledge with AT&T and its predecessor TCI:and twenty .
years of : utility. regulatory. knowledge .to .assist . clients in the :governmental
telecommunications '.sector.. FRC is solely dedicated to this arena. The -company is
incorporated in the State of Colorado and maintains its principal office in Castle Rock,
Colorado. : . . . .
FRC believes that its governmental clients are best served by conducting a thorough and
cost effective review of the potential issues. FRC is committed to ensuring our clients
that the consulting activities are performed with the:utmost integrity with regards to the
recommendations and conclusions..FRC believes its consulting projects will stand.the
scrutiny by the cable operators, the FCC and/or the judicial system. Mr. Treich prior to
joining AT&T had extensive experience in leading a large national consulting practice for
an accounting firm and this experience has created a sound foundation for meeting and
exceeding his client's expectations on both the resulting recommendations and the cost
effectiveness of the engagement.
FRC can assist governmental entities with a variety of professional services in the
telecommunications arena including:.
• Financial'Analysis surrounding Franchise Transfers and Renewals; '
• 'Franchise Fee Reviews and Audits;
• FCC Rate Regulator :Filings (Forms 1205, 1210 and 1240);
• Effective Competition Filings;
• Customer Service Standards and Reviews; and..
• Regulatory.and Litigation Support.
With Mr. Treich's extensive experience of the'internal workings of a cable operator
including his several years of responsibility for all of AT&T's franchising efforts, FRC is
well positioned to address each of these areas with detailed knowledge of the internal
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 24
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting.Services
processes,used by the operators and the workings of the FCC..Mr. Treich also brings to
the :consulting engagements detailed understandings of others areas like Late .Fee
litigation.
FRC is dedicated solely to serving the governmental sector with high quality and cost
effective consulting services in the telecommunications:arena. Through detailed in-depth
industry knowledge, a proven consulting track record and a commitment to this important
sector, FRC is becoming one of the leading professional consulting organizations. The
skills and qualifications of Mr.Treich are set forth below. .
B. RESOURCES OF THE FIRM
1. AUTHORIZED OFFEROR.PERSONNEL .
Michael Bradley,:Owner
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St..Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
2. COMPANY ADDRESS
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 .
651-379-0999—fax .
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Size of Business-Seven employees
CBG Communications-Philadelphia Office
73 Chestnut Road
Suite 3.01 .
Paoli,PA.19301
610-889-7470
CBG.Communications—.St.Paul Office
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
b &I
.
Request for Proposals Gable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and Page 25
Renewal Consulting Services
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900
Size,of Business-Three employees
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
4152 Bell.Mountain Drive
Castle Rock,.CO 80104
Size of Business.=One employee
C. FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE CORPORATION& OWNERSHIP
Bradley & Guzzetta,LLC andCBG Communications, Inc: 'are privately held.companies in good financial standing. Due to the sensitivity of such records,the B&G Team would
be happy to discuss the financial status of the respective companies, if the City of Renton
awards the B&G: Team a :contract for cable franchise consulting : services.: Both
companies are independently owned and in good financial standing with ample financial
and human resources to meet the cable franchise consulting needs of the City of Renton.
SECTION V—SAMPLE OF WORK
Due to size of the documents,the work samples have been included as attachments.
SECTION.VI—PROPOSED OVERALL.WORK PLAN
A. CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT ASSISTANCE
In order to meet the needs and desires of the City of Renton—performance analysis,
upgrade evaluation, consumer protection and.complaints,.senior citizen/disabled.person
discounts, ordinance compliance,compliance with the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992,Documents, Access Utilization, Collection of
Franchise Fees, Bond and Insurance, FCC Regulations,Annual Reports, Other Reports,
Technical Assistance-to perform the following tasks,the B&G Team would recommend
the following services:
1. Performance Analysis & Upgrade Evaluation
a. Purpose Statement
We understand that the City's goal is to.evaluate the technical performance and physical
condition of the City of Renton's Comcast Cable System. Each area will be fully.
assessed concerning compliance with pertinent requirements and standards. An overall
report will be produced spelling out findings, consistency, deficiencies, and
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 26
b Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
recommendations.
The technical audit will be performed by Dick Nielsen and Tom Robinson from CBG.
CBG believes that a multifaceted_approach is the best way to arrive:at a comprehensive picture of the technical aspects of the cable system serving Schenectad Specifically,
CBG would begin by reviewing and auditing the existing�`'�system to determine its
strengths and weaknesses. .CBG would use the following methodologies to attain a.clear
understanding of the technical and physical attributes of the cable system.
b: Future Technological Advances .
CBG would initially seek information from the City and a written survey response from
Comcast, and then engage in discussions with the company's engineering and technical
staff, in order to review, for example; the cable system's current design, age, condition,
:capacity,:functionality,cascade:length, Homes per node,:headend and any:interconnects..
As part of the survey effort, CBG would.request and review:as-built and other system
maps to determine whether the system has been built within specifications. CBG would
also examine recent Proof-of-Performance results to look. at noise and distortion
characteristics and determine whether the system is operating within franchise and
:Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required:specifications. :In addition, CBG
would review additional City and company records related to the technical operation of
the system,including complaint logs, signal leakage logs outage logs;etc.
Then CBG would compare:current system characteristics with future system development
and upgrade plans and needs. CBG would look at what is currently.available (including
current channels in use; channel capacity; and planned expansion),:plans:for any near-
term upgrades ail&additions,:and planned and required capabilities of a future system
including the ability to provide a.wide range of.technologically advanced and interactive
services (such as video-on-demand, advanced data-over-cable services, cable telephony,
high definition television, etc.): :CBG would .further review issues related to system
reliability,:including types of back-up and network monitoring systems, and any:impacts
related to system reliability as they may affect both existing and planned services.
Based on the information gained from the Performance Analysis and Upgrade Evaluation
as spelled out herein, combined.with our experience and:depth of knowledge in cable
television technology, CBG.will:make recommendations for future technical as well as
physical plant modifications for the Renton Comcast cable systems. CBG has identified
state-of-the-art technologies/practices that are available; and that have been applied by
Comcast, and by other companies, which may be of value to_the :City. Specifically;
CBG's experience, as demonstrated elsewhere herein; shows that it .has extensive
knowledge :and understanding of.existing, commonly employed, advanced, near-term,
and future technologies/practices that cable companies, including Comcast,have
successfully: employed and will employ in the future that will be of benefit to Renton
subscribers and the City, Examples include:
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 27
b
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and:
Renewal Consulting Services
• Interactive systems.and.uses, including advanced high speed data-over-
cable(cable modem) services, video-on-demand (VOD), Interactive
Television(ITV) and othertwo-way technologies. . .
• High Definition:TV (HDTV), including current activation in a variety of
systems.
• Universal service provision and lifeline service.provision, to ensure that
basic cable services (including critical PEG and broadcast services) are
available to all at no or low cost.
• Both compressed and uncompressed video, for a variety of applications
including residential cable services, video_conferencing; distance learning
and PEG Access origination (including a variety of digital transport
technologies. such as 8- and 10-bit digital, MPEG, Serial Digital, and
others)..
• Emergency Alert Systems, including those that interface with the Federal
EAS system and those that provide local inputs from.Emergency Operations
Centers,mobile command centers, etc.
In each case, CBG will be able,to,make a realistic assessment of how these technologies
are or can be employed in the existing system_ as well as after any upgrades that may be
planned or would be'implemented in the future:
c..System Technical Performance Testing
With the.information gained from the initial stages of the .Performance. Analysis and
Upgrade-Evaluation, CBG would then perform a full field audit, where CBG would
conduct an on-site.inspection and performance:testing at the headend and in the field at
several representative test locations.
CBG would_conduct the audit process to thoroughly assess the current condition of the
system. Comparisons would be made.between-our on site findings and the information
initially received from Comcast. We would then make appropriate recommendations,
where necessary to bring the system into technical compliance with pertinent rules and
regulations, and also develop recommendations regarding future system requirements.
CBG would then work with the City to take the audit findings and turn them into realistic :
requirements, objectives and strategies with respect to the franchise renewal process..
d. Physical Plant Inspection
CBG would also perform a ride-out:independently or with system technical personnel to
look at,physical plant characteristics. CBG would review and document non-compliance
issues pertaining to the construction of the physical plant,including service drops to
subscriber's homes, as well as the maintenance of the plant. All violations found will be
documented along with specification of the appropriate codes or regulations that are not.
being satisfied.
•
. B&G TEAM
b I
Request for Proposals Page 28
Gable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
e..Summary Report,of Findings
Once the above work is.completed;CBG will issue a draft and then a fmal report that will
summarize all findings, and recommend directions for the City to pursue,.especially as
these directions may be incorporated in the franchising process. As noted above, CBG
will incorporate. recommendations where necessary to bring the. system into technical
compliance with pertinent rules and regulations. CBG will also make recommendations
regarding future system requirements and related franchise language:
The final written report will include necessary supporting documentation.
B. DATA COLLECTION.METHODOLOGIES
As indicated above and outlined below, CBG will collect data utilizing several methods.
1. Paper Technical Review of System
CBG will obtain technical documentation from the City and Comcast that will give us a
baseline understanding of the age, architecture and past, as well as current, performance
of the system. : This:information will become the platform for the.following technical
audit tasks:
2. System Technical Performance Testing
Further information.will be gathered by.CBG during a site visit.to the cable system..
CBG will work with Comcast to tour their facilities and perform testing at the headend
and hub facilities.as well as at a representative number of test points throughout the
system.
3. Physical:Plant Inspection
During the site visit, CBG will drive out portions of the physical plant, including service
drops to subscriber's homes, throughout the participating jurisdictions to determine the
level of compliance'with national and local .codes and regulations. Individual issues or
violations will be documented with pictures where practical and also in a list form that
will be provided to the City: Conclusions regarding the overall condition of the physical
plant will be included in the final report.
4. Discussions with Key.Personnel
In the beginning and throughout,the technical audit process, CBG.will seek input from
the City on known issues that the City or its residents have with cable TV service in the
system: CBG will then investigate any potential technical issues related to the City's
concerns. CBG will also initiate discussions with Comcast.early in the process and will
request follow-up information and/or clarification from Comcast. The technical audit
B>EAM.
Request for Proposals Page 29.
• Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
_._ & and
Renewal Consulting Services
process will be completed based on final clarification and input from the City, the
municipalities and:Comcast:
a.. .Work Plan . . .
1: Tasks
a. Gather historic information from the City.
b. Data requisition letter to Comcast
c. Paper Audit,review of information received from the City and Comcast
d. . Onsite electronic testing and technical review of the system
e. Physical drive-out of the system
f. .Draft summary.report. .
g. Issue Final Report
2. Consumer Protection and Complaints,Senior Citizen/Disabled Person
Discounts, Ordinance Compliance, Compliance With the Cable
Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Documents,Bond and Insurance,FCC Regulations,Annual Reports,
Other Reports,and Technical Assistance
Duties of the.Cable/Telecommunications Administrator would include the following to
meet the above needs:
Assisting city staff with general day-to-day cable franchise administration.,reviewing
Renton'.s.current franchise including reviewing current bond and insurance certificates.
for compliance,and working with Comcast and city staff to ensure completion on all
ordinance and cable franchise issues.. A status report would be delivered to appointed
and elected officials outlining all details and recommended action. We would issue a
dedicated phone number to handle all cable-related questions and complaints from cable
subscribers.in the City franchise area.Resolve all complaints with Comcast in a timely
manner._ Also, complaints will be logged as to name, address,phone number and e-mail
address.. In addition, a dedicated e-mail address and phone to allow cable subscribers to
e-mail or call with questions and complaints will be established. The B & G Team will
prepare all Commission/City Council briefings regarding telecommunications policies.
related to the City.: Lastly,the administrator would also keep elected and appointed
officials.abreast to the changing dynamics of the telecommunications arena and
specifically regional and national issues that may,affect the City of Renton and its cable
franchise renewal process:
Legal staff would assist with general Franchising legal issues including compliance with
the cable television consumer protection Act of 1992 and other FCC regulations.
Preparing legal memoranda to elected and appointed officials as necessary(except for
.i. B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 30
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
memoranda related to uncovered legal services listed),noncompliance issues up through
drafting notice of violation to franchisee and general resolution.drafting for current cable . .
franchise:issues.
3. Access Utilization
B&G Team fully understands that the City's goal is to assess the cable-related Public,
Educational and Governmental Access (PEG) needs of a variety of Communities of
Interest ("Communities") in the City, as well as the overall cable-related needs of the
residential community within the City as part of the cable franchise renewal process.
These types of assessments will help the City decide what terms and conditions are
needed . in a cable franchise. that will' help expand- .outreach for. individuals and
governmental and educational entities through continued enhancement of PEG access
communications opportunities.
We also:believe that a PEG needs assessment is tied closely to assessing the current and
future capabilities of an I-Net. An.I-Net's functionality can greatly enhance or reduce the
potential value of PEG channels. Live origination programming from sites such as.
Council Chambers, School Board meeting rooms and many others, are likely to be
identified as current and future needs. An I-Net's current and:potential value to the City
regarding traditional video services as well as data and voice communications transport
should be assessed as part of the renewal process.
We believe that an innovative, multi-faceted.approach is the best way to arrive at a
comprehensive picture of the City's PEG, I-Net, and residential cable-related needs.
a. PEG Access Needs Assessment
As the: City is aware,.capacity set: aside on a cable television 'system.for PEG 'access
channels can be used effectively to provide a host of public services.including:
• Comprehensive coverage of public meetings
•. Information about a wide variety of government services and programs
• Information about new and planned Citty-wide or area specific initiatives
• In-service training
• Coverage of community events .
• Educational outreach to parents and students at home
• Adult and continuing educational programs
• News shows focusing on the Renton area..
Future channel capacity and production facility and equipment needs are identified through
the needs assessment process. Subsequently, .provisions for implementation of such
channels are negotiated as part of cable franchise renewal or included as requirements in a
Request for Renewal.Proposal if the formal renewal process is followed.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 31
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Regarding the PEG access needs assessment, B&G Team will perform the following
information gathering,review and analysis tasks as part of the overall work plan:
1. Background Information Review This would entail meeting with
current and: potential Access providers and touring the currently available 'production
facilities. We would also review and analyze the information which the City and affected
parties have already gathered about access facilities and service needs.
2. User.Profile Development—B&G Team would develop a profile of the
current and expected user population, through information gleaned from the background
review and a variety of other techniques,including:
a. . A survey of current and potential client .use, patterns,. and
attitudes '
As part of its overall survey work, we will spend a significant portion of time gathering
information from pertinent franchise authority representatives and current and potential
access users. The target audience includes those currently involved in the development,
production and .dissemination. of public access programming, .various.educational
entities involved in. the production of educational. access programming and those
involved in the City's government access television operations. Additionally, input
would be sought from potential providers of access programming, including some of the
same entities listed below related to Institutional Network development, as well as additional individuals and organizations such as:
• Parent-Teacher organizations
•. Disability service organizations
• Minority service organizations
• Churches and religious organizations
• Arts organizations
• Youth service organizations
• Service clubs
• Labor organizations
•: Business organizations(such as the Chamber of Commerce)
The B&G.Team will draw on survey instruments from its current PEG access work,
past access reviews and other, similar access reviews to develop an instrument that
will provide an accurate reflection of access service and facility needs, client profiles
and attitudes towards access. If the City desires a mass mailing to reach a large target
audience, the City would need to be responsible for certain administrative costs
(postage,tabulation, etc.) associated with the mailing and response.
B&G TEAM
Request.for Proposals Page 32
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
• Workshop with or focus group of current and projected Access users—
We will work with the City and other associated organizations to establish
the best representation of diverse current and. potential Educational,
Governmental, and Public Access .television. and multimedia content
producers, clients and users in a workshop or focus group format to ensure
that there is a broad expression of opinion, meaningful dialogue and
information gathering that is highly pertinent to the project requirements.
• Workshop with or focus group of community leaders and community
and non-profit organizations and agencies-We.can work with the City to
establish a meaningful and effective workshop or focus group to determine
the opinions and reactions of the diverse organizational populations that
would affect,guide,produce and use access.services. This would include a
group centered on diverse community leaders,community groups,business
leaders,educational groups,non-profit organizations,pertinent government
representatives and others. B&G Team has been effective in the operation
of,and analysis of the information gathered from, such groups through its
previous franchise work. As such,we have a keen awareness of their value.
to accurately forecast both short and long-term access needs and interests.
4. Service Growth and.Development& Local Programming
In determining the production, post-production and transmission facilities and equipment
required to.meet the present and future needs of the user population, several techniques
will be used. Current and anticipated uses of facilities will be evaluated, including
remote and studio, live and taped production, post production, tape duplication.and
transmission capabilities. Specifics that will be looked at include types of cameras
needed and the technology required to achieve the desired level of quality. Post-
production equipment would be evaluated according to the types of editing systems
needed to meet desired quality levels.
Anticipating initial needs .and. equipment replacement requirements will require an
evaluation of the goals and objectives of each access facility. Projected equipment usage
and overall.facility demand would be considered. For example, if the demand were mainly
for live productions,the access facility would have to accommodate mainly studios and/or a
viable mobile production facility with live transmission capability from various remote
origination points. Different equipment needs would also be evaluated for the combined
live and post-production environment For example, a demand for. magazine format
programs where much of the footage is recorded at various times in the field would require
increasing amounts of remote camera equipment and more editing. .. In contrast, live
productions require studio cameras and place more emphasis on other fixed, mobile or
"suitcase" studio equipment. Another requirement is the ability to meet the demands of all
B&G TEAM .
Request for Proposals Page 33
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal.Consulting.Services
the: projected..users of a facility. Multiple programs will typically .be in production
simultaneously, such as field and studio type programs.
After all-needs are assessed, the information would then be projected out and incorporated
with technology shifts, such as incorporation over time of greater.digital:compression,video
streaming and non-linear production technology. Digital compression.would enable the
facility to compress more channels into the same bandwidth,:possibly.giving multi-channel
transmission capability. . Video streaming will enable access organizations to provide
programming in a digital format over the Internet or through organizational wide area
networks (potentially also through an I-Net), as well as through traditional analog video
access channels on the cable system.. Non-linear editing enables shared use by many users,
saves editing time (especially when changes need to be made), provides the:ability to make
fast edit changes, and is format independent, so various users could output to different tape
and storage formats,such as SVHS,VHS, 3/4", Betacam or a digital video server,to fit their
needs. Non-linear editing alsci. allows multi-layered effects. without experiencing loss of
quality..Another advantage is the ability to layer multiple audio tracks.
Once all .necessary information is gathered and resultant needs are deter pined, a list of
equipment and facilities with associated cost projections and replacement schedules would
be developed to meet the identified needs.
a. Service Level Evaluation
B&G Team would determine the number of PEG access channels and the level Of access
services, including personnel,training,outreach and program/channel promotion, necessary
to satisfy the expected user population and demand for channel time. The determination of
services and the number of access channels needed would include projections of producer
demand. Specifically, analyzing:
b: Resource Requirements
We will use a combination of standard organization analysis techniques, interviews, surveys
and focus groups with current and potential access users; producers and other pertinent
parties, along with an evaluation of any previously, identified viewer attitudes towards
access services_to assess projected utilization of and requirement for various resources.
B&G Team will also look at the number and types of channels that would be needed to meet
user r demand and provide the level of programming anticipated. As part of the total analysis,
an evaluation of the projected costs,to meet resource needs would be made. A survey of
subscribers and non-subscribers regarding PEG access attitudes can also be performed as
part of the residential needs ascertainment,as described further below.
c. Delivery of Training,Facilitation,Promotion and Programming services
B&G Team will project'the delivery of training, facilitation, promotion and programming
services needed to provide appropriate diversity, quality, efficiency and effectiveness. B&G
Team members Will use their broad experience with.such matters, as well as focus groups
and comparative analysis to accomplish this portion of the task. We would also assess ways
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 34
S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
._. and .
Renewal Consulting.Services
to.promote Access viewership and maintain and enhance.community use and viewership in
the future.
d.. Contribution to Community Dialogue and Debate on Public Issues
B&G Team would study the present and past issues for the City and the surrounding area(s)
to determine ways in which the PEG access channels: could continue to enhance :their
contribution_to:community dialogue and debate on issues. .We would compare these issues
to the types of issue-oriented programming that has been or could be produced to cover such
issues. During its survey, focus .group and other work, B&G.Team will also ask.issue-
oriented questions to respondents and then compare their views with related access services.
e. Contribution to Success of the Cable Operator
B&G Team believes strongly :that: effective: local access programming contributes
significantly to the success.of the cable.operator.. We believe that this fact has already been
demonstrated in other, cable franchises. We would draw on this experience, as well as
conduct ja`comparative analysis with similar cable systems to project the contribution of
access. This facet of the review will also look at the necessary ongoing role of the operator
in contributing to the continuedsuccess of access.
f. : Report
Once the above work is completed,, we will issue a draft and then a fmal report that will
summarize all findings,assess the needs and interests of those involved with and served.by
PEG access:and.new technologies (clients, users, subscribers; supporters,,staff, etc.), assess
the-potentil.for. PEG access to meet.the determined needs .and .interests, including an
assessment of facility,equipment and other requirements, and recommend directions for the
City and PEG organizations-to pursue, especially as these directions may be incorporated in
the franchising process. The final:report will include necessary supporting documentation.
5. 'Institutional Applications-'I Net . •
Institutional Networks are wide area networks designed primarily to serve governmental and
educational.facilities. I-Net.development can also help spur installation:of:infrastructure that.
meets business networking needs,:which in turn helps promote economic development. I-
Nets.further provide.an.advanced.network.resource that can expand.data communications
connectivity and speed, satisfy voice-networking requirements and, at the same time;reduce
networking costs by eliminating leased lines. I-Nets also provide opportunities to develop
cost-effective video communications,'including video conferencing, distance learning and
teletraining.. The infrastructure and equipment required:for an I-Net are typically identified
through the needs assessment process. •
We would perform the following as part of the overall I-Net Assessment work plan:
a. Review Existing Information —B&G Team would begin by meeting with
City by telephone and in person, reviewing existing documents and.analyzing current
B`>EAM
Request for Proposals Page:35
• Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and .
Renewal.Consulting Services '
information,in order to establish a baseline understanding of the City its current networking
environment. Examples of such information would include:
1 Descriptive documents about each organization
2.: Existing'organizational reports and/or position papers related to cable,
telecommunications, information technology,.networking services and
existing network.use.
3. Any applicable documents.from the cable operator pertaining to its
approach to I-Net provision
4.: Any other pertinent materials, documents, correspondence or minutes
which are germane to this process
B&G Team anticipates that targeted Communities could include:
• City agencies and staff
• CityCouncil, 'Commissions and Boards (at least.from .the Chief of Staff's or.
Chairperson's perspective)
• Public Schools
• Parochial and private schools
• Colleges,universities, seminaries and trade schools . .
• Potentially pre-schools and daycare centers.
▪ Libraries and.museums
• Hospitals, clinics,healthcare facilities and allied organizations
• Community centers
• Senior centers/organizations .
• Public transportation agencies
• Federal, State and County Government offices,
Additionally, it will be prudent to seek information from the Chamber of Commerce,
allied .business organizations, and individual businesses in order to determine :what
synergies may be evident between the networking needs of the institutional community
and those of the business community. Similarly, it will be prudent to seek input from
some of the major non-profit community organizations to determine their synergistic
networking needs:
b.: Disseminate: Information - All the various Communities of Interest,
including government, educational, library, community and business representatives, and
other interested parties will need information.about the I-Net's potential in order to
maximize their participation in the needs assessment process. Topics to be reviewed could
include:
• Evolution of Institutional and Business Networks- both locally and around
the country
• Applications for Institutions and Businesses - including examples of current
and potential future:applications
B>EAM
b &I
Request for Proposals Page 36
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting:Services
Such information can be disseminated in a presentation.and hard copy format directly to
interested parties, through workshops/briefings, through. educational or governmental
Websites, Chamber of Commerce newsletters and other business publications, educational
publications,broadcast E-Mail and a variety of other means.
c. Gather Information - The most intensive part of the needs assessment
process is the information gathering stage. Obtaining clear and comprehensive input from
all necessary representative constituencies is critical to the success of the needs assessment
effort and the validity and utility of the resulting information and recommendations.
Some feedback would occur in response to the initial information dissemination effort. The
majority of the input, though, would come from the following:subsequent tools that:B&G
Team would work with the City to employ:
d. Interviews/Surveys - Representatives from the constituent groups will be "
interviewed and/or surveyed. As indicated above, target entities can include government
agencies, libraries, public and private school systems, local higher education institutions,
community groups,. Chambers. of Commerce, healthcare organizations and others.
Interviewees .will include key decision-makers, IT/Video. Production staff and other
pertinent respondents. Site visits to some organizations will also be conducted to review
current and planned organizational network architectures and applications.
B&G.Team will develop.an interview format which will be used to gather information in-
person, over the telephone and in written form. The format will be determined in
consultation with City staff and tailored to address the needs and interests of the interviewee
(be it an educational institution, government agency, community group or other entity). We
have prepared questionnaires which were used to successfully gather information and
formulate I-Net,cable and telecommunications needs of both the public and private sector.
Examples of interview topics include: current and future organizational communications
network structures; video, voice and data formats; provision: of internal and external
services; 'community communications architectures; facilities; equipment; capacity needs;
current and planned.use of cable services; .relationships between different community
components (business and government, educational and business, etc.); Internet use and
many other topics. .
Regarding written surveys, B&G Team would prepare a comprehensive, yet concise
instrument that focuses on the topics discussed above. Such an instrument can be used
where.a significant amount of information can be obtained efficiently in a self-administered
form, and any necessary clarification obtained through telephone follow-up. B&G Team
has employed such instruments:successfully in:a number of needs assessments to elicit a
wealth of useful information in a timely manner.
B&G TEAM.
Request for Proposals Page 37
• Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting'Services
e. Focus__Groups - For in-depth.discussion.to:more finitely explore :initial
findings,B&G Team:would work with City staff to establish meaningful and effective focus
groups to:determine the overall opinions and reactions of the diverse,organizational groups
that currently, or in.the future,would utilize the I-Net: This could include group discussions
centered on the needs of government agencies, potential educational and library users and
other pertinent.groupings. The discussion agenda for these groups would be structured in
such a way to ensure a broad:expression of opinion; meaningful dialogue and :specific
reactions to issues that are highly pertinent to the project requirements.
f Analyze,Information -B&G Team will take all the information gathered,
review, compile and analyze it, and determine what I-Net needs are being demonstrated by
the various Communities in the City.. B&G Team will then look at ways a cable company-
provided I-Net can meet the demonstrated needs.
g. Prepare Written Assessment Report B&G Team will prepare. and
submit.a draft report to the City which identifies the.I-Net and business related needs elicited
from the assessment process. After:review by the City, B&G Team will prepare a final
report.and:summary.containing the full results of the. needs :assessment. The report will
incorporate input from City staff and the identified.Communities of Interest and include a
description of methodologies employed and recommendations:. B&G Team will use results
from site -visits, . interviews, surveys, focus groups and other work to develop the
recommendation§.in its report. B&G Teain,through its research and analysis into all facets
of this project,'and using the research tools previously described, will be ableto focus on a
recommended.I-Net plan to meet demonstrated needs that identifies potential technologies,
architecture, capacity and other factors. From this; B&G Team will also recommend a list
of requirements to successfully implement the I-Net.plan.
The report:will be thorough and concise. It will provide a needs assessment foundation to
be utilized in cable franchise negotiations and future communications network planning.
We will present the report at a meeting with City staff and/or elected officials as:appropriate.
6. Collection of Franchise Fees
Financial/franchise fee reviews are an important part of the process to determine
franchise compliance and put oneself in the strongest position possible to commence
renewal negotiations.:. In'our experience, a financial review will show some amount of
underpayment of franchise fees at least half the time,although the amounts will.vary.
Mr. Treich will review the franchise provisions regarding payment to the City of Renton,
and then will request data from Renton. From this,the City can review and examine the
operator's responses to the data requests. The City-will be given a written report detailing
the results,and in the eventof non-compliance or other problems, recommendations for
franchise modifications and other potential action to address these issues will be given. It
should be noted that this work will not be an"audit"as defined in the traditional
accounting terminology, since Mr. Treich is not a certified public accountant. The
B>EAM
Request for Proposals Page 38
• Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
financial review proposed will be an initial review of the franchise fee payments by
Comcast with an identification of underpayments from the initial review and an
identification of additional areas where either Comcast has not provided the necessary
documentation or areas where Comcast has refused to support its procedures. The City
will be provided with cost options for.any follow-up work the City wishes to investigate.
Franchise Renewal Specific
In order to meet the needs and desires of the City of Renton—training and evaluation,
work plan, special presentation,survey, comparative studies,public hearings,financial
implications, solicit providers, negotiations and implementation-to perform the
following tasks,the B&G Team would recommend the:following services:
A. General:Compliance Review
B&G Team would complete the following tasks and action steps in order to meet t the
objectives for the general franchise compliance review:
1. Review and Analyze Franchise
B&G Team would list and review pertinent franchise requirements, review Citty and
municipal records and Comcast.reports, make inquiries of the operator and assess
compliance with a host of franchise provisions including:
• . Line extension and density requirements
• Overall customer service requirements
• Overall PEG Access requirements
• Overall I-Net requirements
• Right-of-Way(ROW)_.occupancy requirements and conditions
• Provision of cable drops and cable services for public buildings
• Overall franchise technical requirements
• Availability of emergency override capability:
• Reporting requirements .
• . Level of insurance:and provision of insurance certification
•. .Bonding:requirements
• Provision of a local office
• • Required.upgrades of the cable system and.other services.
• Other provisions of the franchise
2. Customer Service
In this.specific. review.of a customer service standard component, B&G Team would
obtain.and review service and repair call records.from the cable operator, as well as any
records the City and municipalities: had for the most -recent quarter; and .verify
..;.,.a B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 39
b & Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
consistency between Comcast's and the City's records and compliance with both local
and national customer service standards. We would also obtain a list of complaints and
identified resolutions from both Comcast and the. City, compare the records for
consistency, and further review them for.compliance with local and national customer
service standards. Additionally,B&G Team will cross-reference complaints/results of a
technical nature with information gleaned from the audit of technical facilities as it is
performed.: We would also review.Comcast's phone system and its reporting and record
keeping capability. B&G Team would then review Comcast's :telephone response
records including hold times, abandoned calls, transfer.times,.instances of busy signals,
etc. and compare such records with any records kept by the City. These then would be
further compared with local and national customer services standards to determine
compliance and the telephone responsiveness of Comcast.
The following is our proposed project/work plan for a successful franchise renewal, using
the informal renewal process. The vast majority of renewals are settled .using the
informal renewal process.. As stated above, we will need to work closely with the City to
construct a scope of work to best achieve their goals under the required budget.
1. PLANNING FOR NEEDS ASSESSMENT
a. Hold "kick-off' meetings with selected leadership personnel in the cities,
including but not limited to, administration, legal, Council, IT/video
programming, public works, GIS, public library, and planning/zoning
commission to discuss . process, organizational concerns, issues and
general goals of the:process.
i. Initial.meetings m small department-specific groups
ii. Overview of franchise renewal process,both formal and informal
iii. Discuss organizational concerns and issues
iv. Identify goals of process
v. Discuss timetable for process
vi. Overviews and understandings of budgets and funds available for
project . : .
b.. Develop.initial.assessment of.proposed general direction of project and
emerging priorities of project and:areas of direct study..
c.: . : Prepare written report.of overall initial assessment and report to staff and,
if necessary, brief the Council for policy-maker support of general
direction and emerging priorities of project..
d. Agree at project team.level on direction of project, tasks, timetable and
budgets.:
2. PERFORMING,NEEDS ASSESSMENT
a. • Identify Interest Groups/Departments/Agencies/Educational Institutions
that may have cable/communications-related needs and interests.
i Administration
B&G TEAM. . .
Request for Proposals Page 40
Cable Franchise. Management: 4/13/2005
4 ;
and
Renewal Consulting Services
ii. Municipal Attorney
iii. Communications/Public Information
iv. Council &Mayor's Office
v. . . . Video/Cable Programming
vi: Police
vii. : Fire/EMS . .
viii: . IT/Telecommunications
ix: Management Services.
x. . .'. Human Relations
xi: Finance.
xii. . .Public Service
xiii: Public Works/GIS
xiv.- Economic Development
xv. Planning&Neighborhood Development
xvi. Business Resource Center
xvii. : Parks and Recreation
xviii. : Environmental
xix. Public Libraries
xx. Public Schools
xxi: Private Schools
xxii: County Institutions.
xxiii. Business Community/Chamber of Commerce
xxiv. Large Non-Profit Entities
b. Discuss direct study (customer service — new technology) options and
feasibility of ascertainment techniques:and instruments (will depend, in
part, on budget allocated to renewal, and type of renewal being conducted
(formal vs informal))
c. Conduct surveys, interviews, workshops and/or focus groups with
identified.Interest Groups/Departments/Agencies/Educational Institutions.
i. ' Assist with preparing and review survey instruments
ii. Assist with preparing and review interview questions
iii.. Assist with preparing and review focus group guide.
d. Review Community Needs Assessment (Technical Section) already
completed for.the City.
i.. Identify violations,if any
ii. Send notices of violation
f. Compile data from surveys, interviews,- focus groups and audits and
prepare report(s).setting forth any identified cable-related needs, and
interests, and support therefore to determine customer service, PEG
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 41,
b • Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
. and. . .
Renewal Consulting Services
access, institutional applications; local programming and new technology
needs.
g.. Draft Needs Assessment/Direct.Study Report(s).
3. PREPARATION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS
a.. Review current franchise ordinance/agreement.
b. Review any other relevant City.Code provisions.
c.: : : : Prepare up-to-date franchise ordinance and agreement:
is Incorporating specified needs, if in informal renewal process
ii. Incorporating certain needs, leaving facilities and equipment
provisions blank for Comcast to propose, if in formal renewal
process
iii. Generic ordinance that reflects best practices and current state of
the law
4.. . PRESENT FINDINGS TO CITY STAFF/CITY.COUNCIL
5. "AT THE TABLE"NEGOTIATIONS ON BEHALF OF RENTON
a. ' Set priorities based :on findings and.conclusions in needs assessment
report. .
b. Strategy discussion(s)with the City to discuss ways of best meeting goals.
c. Face-to-face discussions with Comcast after transmitting model agreement.
and ordinance to company officials.
d. : : Negotiation:via telephone,as necessary. .
e.: Negotiation via'e-mail, as necessary.
f Brief. Council, Municipal Attorney, Mayor, or others, as necessary, on
status of negotiations and on issues requiring policy decisions.
g. .. Obtain approval for final agreed upon terms from.the.Municipal Attorney
and/or Mayor.
6. PREPARE FINAL FRANCHISE AGREEMENT/ADOPTION.
ORDINANCE (CONTINUED PREPARATION OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS)
a. Prepare document(s) incorporating agreed upon provisions.
b. .Prepare summary'of final terms and conditions for decision-makers.
c. Brief Council, Mayor and Municipal staff on agreed upon terms and
conditions, as necessary.
d. Present final franchise document(s) to the Council and Mayor for
adoption..
• B'&G TEAM.
Request for Proposals b
Page 42
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting:Services
TIME:SCHEDULE FOR PROJECT.—CABLE FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE & FRANCHISE RENEWAL SPECIFIC**
a. Perform Performance Analysis/Upgrade Evaluation 3 - 6 months*
b. Access Utilization 3 —6 months*
c. Consumer Protection, Senior Discounts, FCC Compliance, On-going
Documents, Bond& Insurance, FCC Regulation,.Annual
Reports, Other Reports and Technical Assistance
d. Collection.of Franchise Fees. (Financial Audit) 3 —6 months*
e. Training&Evaluation, Work Plan and Comparative Studies, 6—9 months*
Public Hearings,Financial.Implications .
f. Survey(telephone or mail 4—6 months*
g. Negotiations . 12-18 months
h. Implementation 3 -6 months
*Project tasks can run concurrently, so total time for a., b., c., d., and f is 6—9 months.
**Please reference the discussion on team members for the person(s) responsible for
each phase..
CONCLUSION.
Thank you for asking our firm to submit this proposal. The B&G Team would welcome
the opportunity to discuss it further with the appropriate City of Renton officials.. .
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April 14, 2005
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley, Owner
Stephen.J.Gu77etta; Ovine
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray.Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999-fax
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
B&G TEAM
. .
Request for Proposals Page 43
Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005b &
and
Renewal Consulting Services
Attachment I- Samples of Work
1) Shakopee, MN(Twin Cities Suburb)
Ms. Schaefer, Mr.Nielsen and Mr. Guzzetta conducted a thorough compliance audit of
Shakopee's newly renewed cable franchise agreement,2004, with Time Warner Cable,
Inc.
2)Mann County, CA
Mr. Robinson, Mr.Nielsen,Mr.;Hamlin and Dr. Book conducted a detailed PEG access
review, I-Net review,residential,community needs assessment and past performance
review.
B&G TEAM
Request for Proposals Page 44
b & S Cable Franchise Management 4/13/2005
and
Renewal Consulting Services
• ,..
Price Proposal —
Cable Television
Franchise Management and
Renewal Consulting Services
For the City of
Renton, Washington
Submitted to:
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Renton City Hall,Room 728
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Respectfully Submitted by:
g
lor
Bradleye;-
Guzzetta, LLc
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
• Saint Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900 •
F/651-379-0999
April 14, 2005
A. COST PROPOSAL CONSULTANT DETAILS
The B&G Team will work with the.City to establish a scope of work that will not exceed
the City's desired.budget. Although we have submitted a total project estimate, these
figures can vary, depending.on the level•of detail and number of studies the City chooses
to complete. With that in mind, B&G.would be happy to discuss with.City officials.a
specific budget for .management and renewal : services: to meet your needs. We.
understand that the City has an annual budget of $22,500 for management renewal
services, so the B&G Team would work with the.City to identify and phase cable
management services to meet:Renton's budget before the franchise term expires in
September,.2008.
Fees and Hourly Billing Rates:
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson, Executive Vice President: $170.00
RichardD.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L. Book, Survey:Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC
Michael:It. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Gu77etta, Attorney . $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00.
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and:would be due and payable
30.days after submission: .
Reimbursable Direct Costs: : Clerical/Word Processing,Long Distance.Phone Calls,
Fax, Photocopies, Courier, Reproduction,Postage,
Fed Ex,Travel, and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.b & I .
B>EAM
- PRICE PROPOSAL-CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL.CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 1
}
B. COST PROPOSAL& PROJECT HOURS***
City of Renton,Washington-.Cost Proposal&Hours*
Cost Hours
Perform Performance Analysis/Upgrade $17,000 100= 120
Evaluation(Includes technical review of $20,400
system,safety,continuity of service and
new technologies/growth) . . . .
$12,800 80- 100
Access Utilization(PEG) $13,600
$11,200- 70-85
Access Utilization(I-Net)Optional - $13,600
Consumer Protection,.Senior Discounts, $11;200- 70- 100
$13,600
FCC Compliance,Documents,Bond and"
Insurance,FCC:Regulation,Annual
Reports,Other Reports and Technical
Assistance
Collection of Franchise Fees(Financial : $4,500- 30-.40
Audit) . $6,000
Training.&Evaluation,Work Plan, $8,000 50- 100
Comparative Studies,'Public Hearings, $13;600
Financial Implications ". . .'
$8,000= 50=70 •
Subscriber/Non-Subscriber Survey $11,200**.
$6,270 33 -333
Negotiations $63,270
$2,500- 16-50
Implementation $8,000 •
**If the County and municipalities wish to have us perform a mail-out survey, the County and
municipalities would need to be responsible for all printing and mailing costs(send and receive). If a
telephone survey is chosen, add$12,000 to the above figures for the subcontractor services of a telephone
survey firm:
***The costs for the professional services have been calculated using a blended hourly rate of$160/hour.
B&G would be reimbursed for such expenses as fax,photocopies,postage, long distance
phone calls,.copy and reproduction, contract clerical,FedEx or courier,travel and other
similar expenses.:The B&G Team always works with the city to:minimize all expenses.
Reimbursable costs would be billed to the City on an actual cost basis.
B>EAM
� PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 2
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: April.14, 2005
Bradley& Guzzetta,LLC.
Michael R.Bradley, Owner.
Stephen J. Guzzetta, Owner
Bradley&G»7etta,LL
950 Piper JaffrayPlaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
P/651-379-0900
F/651-379-0999—fax
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
b &IB&G.TEAM.
PRICE PROPOSAL—CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
M ANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL CONSULTING
SERVICES
Page 3 .
City of Renton-Cable Consultant RFP Log
Date Hard Date pdf Date RFP
' Copy File E- Submitted
• Mailed Mailed to City Company Contact Person Mailing Address City,State Zip Phone Number Fax Number E-Mail Address
3/16/2005 3-H Cable Communications Consultants Lynne Hurd 504 E.Main St. Auburn,WA 253-833-8380 253-833-8430 I nehurd3hc.aol.com
3/24/2005 41-14-OAs ction Audits,LLC Robert Sepe 101 Pocono Lane Cary,NC 27513 919-467-5392 919-460-6868 rsepenc.rr.com
Winterpark,FL 32789- '
3/15/2005 Ashpaugh&Sculco CPA's,PLC Garth Ashpaugh 1133 Louisiana Ave,#106 2350 407-645-2020 gashpaugh(a�ascpas.com
��.�// 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza,444
3/17/2005 i'-ii4'O�Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC Tracy Schaefer Cedar Street St.Paul,MN 55101 651-379-0902 651-379-0999 schaefer.bradle .uzzetta.com
3/24/2005 no bid COMgroup,Inc. Pete McGhee 4030 Lake WA BI,Ste.303 Kirkland,WA 98033 425-688-3021 425-637-7059 petemecomgroup-inc.com
L
3/24/2005 Law Office of Lynne G Masters Lynne Masters 6 EAlder St,#307 Walla Walla,WA 99362 509-522-4750 509-526-4916 ImastersmasterslIc.com
3/24/2005 Miller Canfield Paddock&Stone,PLC Tim Lay 1900 K St NW,#880 Washington DC 20006 202-429-5575 202-331-1118 busch(amillercanfield.com
3/25/2005 4b-/1L415I4f uni Corn -0- Stephen Jolin • 20 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 503-675-3523 503-296-5329 ste.henolin(a�teleport.com
3/24/2005 Rice Williams Associates Jean Rice 2121 K St NW,#800 Washington DC 20037 202-737-2400 703-467-9849 rwatelcomiTherols.com
3/16/2005 Riedel Communications Bunnie Riedel 8775 Centre Park Dr.,#255 Columbia,MD 21045 410-992-4976 info riedelcommunications.com
3/24/2005 3/28/2005 Tely,cdmmunications Management Michael Friedman —101 Flat Rock Gap Rd ?e,. Waynesville,NC 28785 7 323-931-2600 323-931-7355 friedmanetelecom-megmt.com_
f`Ti `` 3/24/2005 F/ Jy 1ps':ite.Baller Herbst Law Group Adrian Herbst 400 S 4th St,#953E ` ' Minneapolis,MN 55415 612-339-2026 612-339-4789 cogden(8baller.com
4/1/2005 he Law Office of Randall D Fisher Randy Fisher • 124 South St Annapolis,MD 21401 410-897-0009 410-573-9343 rfisher(a�fisherbusinesslaw.com
3/16/2005 'f-t'3 Vie
&Co Cheryl Johnson 7900 Xerxes Ave S,Ste 2400 Minneapolis,MN 55431 952-351-4633 952-835-5845 cl_ohnson.virchowkrause.com
The Tower at Erieview,1301 E-Cleveland,OH 44114-
3/25/2005 „Walter&Haverfield Janet Alter 9th St,#3500 1821 216-928-2920 216-916-2358 jalter(o walterhay.com •
r{ •• 4/6/2005 4J_J -C1;Muni Corn 'i Stephen John 20 Oswego Summit Lake Oswego,OR 97035 503-675-3523 503-296-5329 ste.henolin.tele.ort.com
I atoLO .. d 1 '
Irk •WIL.a, :fr/ FP Z• W/'ir`rriAMOi f IC ihM',; ,ysti flair 'E1L7 wt 1 ' •I o-.
'UMW - a , , :1 a a AI. - - TIi AIMIVIIMes
M+ m> ivp Feted Ptah 7 ,3SdP
63c
h:City Clerk/Cable Consultant RFP Log.xls 4/6/2005
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION I of 7
Proposer: Actio 1L4difS, &iry, N
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
•
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
•
a oaf 7
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Proposer: Brad I y 4 &4Z&e-Hc , Sy, And,, MINI
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
•
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION 3 of 7
Proposer: Lynne Maskers (walla Waite)* £all. .' Yirbst aip ("Is,AN)
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance _
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
of ?
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION
(OM ,Proposer: I�11�1�1 Lax OSWe o 0 R
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
of 7
CABLE3
CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION
Telecom.Telecom. eossuliin AS Howell (&øytttiil!e , Nv')
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral,interview/presentation? Yes No
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION of 7
Proposer: Tek.dbM• rng m+. e01' , (LOS Tw ,ee, dl
P �
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
c
CABLE CONSULTANT PROPOSAL EVALUATION 7 4 T
7
Proposer: V ,' how' Krause (Ms',wie4/ob , $119
Evaluator: Date
Check off if Proposal includes:
Day-to-Day Cable Management Assistance
Franchise Renewal/Renegotiation Process Assistance
Comments and Scores:
Technical Proposal: Score: out of 25 points
(Project Approach/Methodology; Quality of Work Plan, Schedule, Deliverables)
Management/Legal/Fiscal Score: out of 30 points
(Team structure/Internal Controls, Qualifications, Experience)
Cost: Score: out of 20 points
Communication Skills: Score: out of 5 points
Local Availability Score: out of 5 points
(in person/telephone access)
Knowledge of Washington state law & municipal Requirements
Score: out of 15 points
TOTAL out of 100 points
Other Comments:
Recommended for oral interview/presentation? Yes No
From: George McBride
To: Bonnie Walton; Jay Covington; Marty Wine; Michael Bailey
Date: 7/6/2006 8:07:49 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting with Senator Cantwell's Staff on the Telecom Bill
good morning. yesterday afternoon i attended a briefing from mike baum, senator cantwell's legislative
aid on technology issues, at the city of bellevue. without getting in the all the political wrangling that have
taken place, a house version allowing national franchising has passed and a senate version has passed
senator stevens' committee.
there are now three possibilities:
1) the senate devotes a week of the remaining eight in this session to debate the bill before voting (not
likely given all of the other issues of importance to the majority).
2) senator stevens adds the bill, as approved by his committee, to an omnibus bill for appropriations at
the end of the session.
3) congress takes no further action this session and the fcc expands its rule making to encompass the
changes it believes are appropriate.
the general feeling is that local franchising will be a dead issue in a very short amount of time. so, the
question for us might be"do we continue to spend time and effort on a franchise extension?" it would
appear that this could be a smart play given that the major telecom players here are verizon and at&t, not
qwest. neither verizon nor at&t have infrastructure serving the city of renton, nor have i been able to
determine whether any plans exist to expand into this market (this could be a very real possibility north of
bellevue where verizon already serves a large area). qwest does not have the capital resources
necessary to tackle this type of build out. by renegotiating our franchise agreement, we continue to benefit
from the franchise conditions until such time as a competitor enters the market at which time both
comcast and the new market entrant compete under the same terms as the new rules.
although watoa's parent organization wrote senator steven's saying they would not object to his legislation
in its current form (they essentially gave away the store on this one!), it is important that we continue to
push our interests by 1) thanking senator cantwell for her vote and 2) continue to write our delegation and
press our points in opposition to the legislation.
gm
>>> <DKerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us> 6/29/2006 11:03 AM >>>
Hello!
Thank you for attending the meeting a while back with Michael Daum from Senator Cantwell's office
regarding telecom issues. Michael will be in out in the state next week and would like to provide an update
on the telecom bill reported out of the Senate this week. The meeting will be Wednesday July 5th at 3:30
p.m. at the new Bellevue City Hall 450 110th Avenue NE, Rm 1E-112. Directions are available at this link
http://www.ci.bellevue.wa.us/page.asp?view=43596. Please let me know if you will be able to attend so
that we can make sure we can accommodate everyone. Feel free to invite other city colleagues that have
not been included on this email. Thanks- Shakti Hawkins Shakti HawkinsKing County Outreach
DirectorOffice of U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell915 Second Ave. Suite 3206Seattle, WA 98174(206)
220-6400(206)220-6404 faxshakti_hawkins@cantwell.senate.gov
3/6/2006
Tracy Schaefer's replacement:
Gregory S. Uhl
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Ste 950
St.Paul, MN 55101
651 .379.0900, ext 1 - phone
651 .379.0999 - fax
uhl(a�bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL COSTS
Budget: 2006 $102,500
2007 $ 55,000
Contract Total $157,500
Date Invoice Init Description Amount Remaining
Balance
2/27/2006 13735 MRB Draft proposed workplan; $487.50 $102,500
Review/Revise workplan $97.50 -585
$585.00 $101,915
4/14/2006 13753 MRB Draft memo &powerpt, -4,353.12
attend mtgs here 3/12-14 4,353.12 $97,561.88
From: Marty Wine
To: McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil
Date: 8/7/2006 7:50:12 AM
Subject: Revised Cable Renewal Team Schedule
Hi all, an update for you including tentatively planned cable activities for the week. I will need, when Mike
Bradley arrives today, to discuss our concerns and questions with him, the primary question focused on
what they plan to do this week.
At the moment, this is the revised schedule of activities during his visit, much-reduced in terms of our
participation for several reasons. For right now, I'm anticipating a short meeting this afternoon to discuss
activities for the week, and an internal and consulting team meeting all together on Thursday.
George, I will ask Mike and Dick Treich to work with you tomorrow and be clear about when your
participation is most needed related to the I-Net and field trips.
Bonnie, I think our involvement is most needed on Tuesday morning to work with Jay and discuss fee and
rate reviews.
Neil, if I recall our conversation correctly, there's not a great deal of involvement that you need or want to
have in this visit? Please review this schedule and please feel free to join us as you like, but for sure on
Thursday morning.
Attached is a preliminary schedule for the week that reflects our availability and concerns from last week's
meeting, and I'll revise as needed once I talk with Mike Bradley. Questions and revisions are welcome.
Thanks,
Marty
CC: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL DRAFT SCHEDULE
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA TEAM SITE VISIT
WEEK OF AUGUST 7, 2006
Monday,August 7
• Bradley arrives in Renton around 11:00 a.m.,Nielsen at airport around 1:30
• 3:30 p.m. Pre-Drive-Out Meeting (CONFIRMED)
o Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, George
McBride
o Staff question: what involvement by staff is needed during this visit? What
specific facilities and services are desired to tour/discuss?
o Purpose:
• Discuss the Technical Audit Process
• Identify any issues/concerns previously identified by staff(if any)
related to technical compliance
• Input on the I-Net-review maps and sites
• 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting(CONFIRMED)
o Very brief update and introduction of Dick Nielsen
o Overview of workplan, deliverables and schedule
o Describe the Technical Audit
Tuesday, August 8
• Staff question: what involvement is needed (particularly by George McBride) in
the Drive-Out?
• Morning: Rate Review and Contract Administration Meeting (CONFIRMED FOR
9-10 AM)
o Mike Bradley, Jay Covington, Marty Wine, and Bonnie Walton
o Agenda:
• Review Rate Review Purpose and Process
• Discuss Contract Administration Issues
• Morning: Meeting with Dick Treich and Warren O'Hearn (CONFIRMED FOR
10-11 AM)
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine,Bonnie Walton, Dick Treich and Warren
O'Hearn
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Update on Franchise Fee Review (Treich)
• Update on Rate Review(O'Hearn)
• Mid-Day: Tour of Government Access Facilities in Renton (MUST CONFIRM
AVAILABILITY WITH GEORGE)
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine (only available till 11 am), George McBride
o Proposed Agenda
• Tour facilities and begin to identify goals and needs
• Review budget for Access TV spending - operations and capital
• Afternoon: Puget Sound Access Group and Facility Meeting (NOT
CONFIRMED—NEED TO DISCUSS)
•
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, Executive Director of PSAG
o Staff question: if a meeting is not possible,what are the questions that need
to be answered?
o Proposed Agenda:
• Tour of Facility
• Receive Report on Accomplishments and Goals
• Receive Report on Renton's Needs &Benefits
• Receive Financial Reports
• Hear PSA Needs (Renton's interest: ILA compliance,
annexations)
Wednesday,August 9
• Morning: Meeting with Comcast (NOT CONFIRMED)
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Terry Davis (Comcast)
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Listen to important issues and goals from Comcast
• Convey important issues and goals of the City
Thursday, August 10
• Morning: Franchise Renewal Team Meeting (CONFIRMED FOR 8:30-10:30
AM) -Proposed Agenda:
o Post Drive-Out Meeting: Dick Nielsen will report on his activity and
preliminary findings Update on Compliance Review
o Update on Franchise Fee Review
o Update on Rate Review
o Update on Technical Audit
o Update on Cable Drops to Government Buildings and service to each
building
o Cable Related Needs and Interest Study Status
o Discussion of Valley Cities Survey Approach
o Identify any new City Staff Issues
• Mid-Day: Strategy Meeting(CONFIRMED FOR 2-4:30 PM)
o Mike Bradley and Marty Wine
o Agenda: Review Renewal Strategies, amend if appropriate,
discuss/identify other local government partners
Friday,August 11
• Morning: open - could invite other cities to Renton for renewal meeting (Auburn,
Kent?) (NEITHER MEETING NOR CITY PARTICIPATION IS CONFIRMED)
• Afternoon: depart
1
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL DRAFT SCHEDULE
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA TEAM SITE VISIT
WEEK OF AUGUST 7, 2006
Monday,August 7
• Bradley arrives in Renton around 11:00 a.m.,Nielsen at airport around 1:30
• 3:30 p.m. Pre-Drive-Out Meeting (CONFIRMED)
o Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, George
McBride
o Staff question: what involvement by staff is needed during this visit?What
specific facilities and services are desired to tour/discuss?
o Purpose:
• Discuss the Technical Audit Process
• Identify any issues/concerns previously identified by staff(if any)
related to technical compliance
• Input on the I-Net- review maps and sites
• 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting (CONFIRMED)
o Very brief update and introduction of Dick Nielsen
o Overview of workplan, deliverables and schedule
o Describe the Technical Audit
Tuesday,August 8
• Staff question: what involvement is needed (particularly by George McBride) in
the Drive-Out?
• Morning: Rate Review and Contract Administration Meeting (CONFIRMED FOR
9-10 AM)
o Mike Bradley, Jay Covington,Marty Wine, and Bonnie Walton
o Agenda:
• Review Rate Review Purpose and Process
• Discuss Contract Administration Issues
• Morning: Meeting with Dick Treich and Warren O'Hearn(CONFIRMED FOR
10-11 AM)
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, Dick Treich and Warren
O'Hearn
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Update on Franchise Fee Review(Treich)
• Update on Rate Review(O'Hearn)
, • AMvidA-DmaAy:BTIoLurnoyf
F
GovernmentAccess Facilities in Renton(MUST CONFIRM
WITH GEORGE)
8))o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine (only available till 11 am), George McBride
Jr o Proposed Agenda
• Tour facilities and begin to identify goals and needs
• Review budget for Access TV spending - operations and capital
Wednesday,August 9
• Morning: Meeting with Comcast(NOT CONFIRMED) !/;Ov
4 Last revised 8/7/2006,2:58:13 PM
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Terry Davis (Comcast)
o Agenda:
• Introductions
• Listen to important issues and goals from Comcast
• Convey important issues and goals of the City
Thursday,August 10
• Morning: Franchise Renewal Team Meeting (CONFIRMED FOR 8:30-10:30
AM) -Proposed Agenda:
o Post Drive-Out Meeting: Dick Nielsen will report on his activity and
preliminary findings Update on Compliance Review
o Update on Franchise Fee Review
o Update on Rate Review
o Update on Technical Audit
o Update on Cable Drops to Government Buildings and service to each
building
o Cable Related Needs and Interest Study Status
o Discussion of Valley Cities Survey Approach
o Identify any new City Staff Issues
• Mid-Day: Strategy Meeting (CONFIRMED FOR 2-4:30 PM)
o Mike Bradley and Marty Wine
o Agenda: Review Renewal Strategies, amend if appropriate,
discuss/identify other local government partners
• Afternoon: Puget Sound Access Group and Facility Meeting (TARGETING 3:00
THURSDAY. NOT CONFIRMED—NEED TO DISCUSS)
o Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, Executive Director of PSAG
o Staff question: if a meeting is not possible, what are the questions that need
jpoi- to be answered?
o Proposed Agenda:
/:°,140°
• Tour of Facility
• Receive Report on Accomplishments and Goals
V ,Q,� • Receive Report on Renton's Needs & Benefits
L1 • Receive Financial Reports
• Hear PSA Needs (Renton's interest: ILA compliance,
annexations)
Friday,August 11
• Morning: open - could invite other cities to Renton for renewal meeting (Auburn,
Kent?) (NEITHER MEETING NOR CITY PARTICIPATION IS CONFIRMED)
• Afternoon: depart
Last revised 8/7/2006,2:58:13 PM
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL INTERNAL TEAM MEETING
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA TEAM SITE VISIT
AUGUST 10, 2006
Primary Franchise Potential Renewal Issues:
• Institutional Network
• Equipment
• PEG Access (?)
• Other?
•
Workplan Updates:
Task/Action Item Responsible DRAFT
Deliverable
Due Date
System Technical Review: Post Drive-Out CBG/Dick Nielsen Preliminary
findings, preliminary findings report: August
• Cable Drops to Government Buildings 10. Final report:
and service to each building Late September
• Institutional Network needs
• Other Issues
Identify any new City Staff Issues Coordinate with Marty Wine Week of August
• Documentation of INet Ownership 10 and August
• Other Issues 14
Confirm role of other cities in renewal process Marty Wine Week of August
14
Information/Data Requests to Comcast B&G/Mike Bradley Week of August
14
Franchise Fee Review/Audit Front Range/Dick Treich Late September
Rate Review Warren O'Hearn Late September
Access Utilization Review B&G/Mike Bradley, Bonnie Mid-October
• Understand PSA benefits/needs Walton, Marty Wine
• Equipment needs
• Other?
Franchise Renewal Strategy development B&G/Mike Bradley, Marty Ongoing
Wine, and interdepartmental
team
Cable-Related Needs and Interest Study CBG/Tom Robinson Scope in
September;
complete by end
of 2006
Discussion/Coordination: Valley Cities Survey George McBride, coordinating
Approach with CBG
Discuss overall timeline for deliverables from proposed work plan
• Draft Needs Assessment Report: CBG Communications, complete November
2006
• Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance, B&G, complete November 2006
• (If Formal Renewal will proceed) Staff Report and RFRP, January 2007
• Present Staff Report and Issue RFRP, February 2007
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL INTERNAL TEAM MEETING
BRADLEY & GUZZETTA TEAM SITE VISIT
AUGUST 10, 2006
Primary Franchise Potential Renewal Issues:
• Institutional Network
• Equipment
• PEG Access (?)
• Other?
•
Workplan Updates:
Task/Action Item Responsible DRAFT
Deliverable
Due Date
System Technical Review: Post Drive-Out CBG/Dick Nielsen Preliminary
findings, preliminary findings report: August
• Cable Drops to Government Buildings 10. Final report:
and service to each building ) many Late September
• Institutional Network needs d,0 pde�
• Other Issues g ►.° d I
Identify any new City Staff Issues Coordinate with Marty Wine Week of August
• Documentation of INet Ownership 10 and August
• Other Issues 14
Confirm role of other cities in renewal process Marty Wine Week of August
14
Information/Data Requests to Comcast B&G/Mike Bradley Week of August
14
Franchise Fee Review/Audit Front Range/Dick Treich Late September
Rate Review Warren O'Hearn Late September
Access Utilization Review B&G/Mike Bradley, Bonnie Mid-October
• Understand PSA benefits/needs Walton, Marty Wine
• Equipment needs
• Other?
Franchise Renewal Strategy development B&G/Mike Bradley, Marty Ongoing
Wine, and interdepartmental
team
Cable-Related Needs and Interest Study CBG/Tom Robinson Scope in
September;
complete by end
of 2006
Discussion/Coordination: Valley Cities Survey George McBride, coordinating
Approach with CBG
Discuss overall timeline for deliverables from proposed work plan
• Draft Needs Assessment Report: CBG Communications, complete November
2006
• Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance, B&G, complete November 2006
• (If Formal Renewal will proceed) Staff Report and RFRP, January 2007
• Present Staff Report and Issue RFRP, February 2007
U o,,t\ CITY. OF RENTON
♦ ;F ♦ City Clerk
Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
�NT
September 7, 2006
Michael Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Ste. 980
St.Paul, MN 55101
Re: Document Copies
Dear Mike:
Enclosed are copies of the several files and pages you reviewed in my office and had
flagged for copying. Hope this information is helpful.
As you suggested, I spoke with the former City Clerk/Cable Manager about her
recollections on the I-Net agreements. She said she would not be much help on that
subject, that everything is in the City files. .
Let me know if you need anything further. '
Sincerely,
le6friim,a: Gda)16-,--
•
Bonnie I. Walton
City.Clerk/Cable Manager
•
Enclosures
cc: Marty Wine, Assistant•CAO
•
•
1.055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-.(425)430-6510%FAX(425)430-6516 R-E .L r .1 O N
AHEAD OF'THE CURVE
�,This Daper Contains50%recvdedrnaterial-30%nnct rnnciima-r '
ti�Y o CITY. OF RENTON
♦ -as rM ♦ City Clerk
�— �O� Kathy Keolker,Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
.N
September 7, 2006
Michael Bradley
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
' 444 Cedar Street, Ste. 980
St. Paul, MN 55101
Re: Document Copies
Dear Mike:
Enclosed are copies of the several files and pages you reviewed in my office and had
flagged for copying. Hope this information is helpful.
As you suggested, I spoke with the former City-Clerk/Cable Manager about her
recollections on the I-Net agreements. She said she would not be much help on that
subject, that everything is in the City files. .
Let me know if you need anything further. •
Sincerely, .
86vitmxi:J. Gdaiten
Bonnie I. Walton
City.Clerk/Cable Manager
Enclosures S
cc: Marty Wine, Assistant•GAO
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425) 1 L V ;430-6510/FAX(425)430-6516 E . T 0 N
AHEAD OF'THE CURVE
M Thispapercontains50%recycled material.30%oostconsumer A
From: Marty Wine
To: 7th Floor Council Conference Room#720; Bailey, Michael; ljwarren@seanet.com;
McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil; Wine, Marty
Date: 7/31/2006
Time: 4:00:00 PM -5:00:00 PM
Subject: Internal Status Report/Planning Meeting
Place: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720
Good morning,
I have a phone call with Mike Bradley of Bradley&Guzzetta this morning to confirm that our workplan for
franchise renewal is on track. I'm hoping that we, internally, can cover at this meeting:
1. Contract status with B&G and CBG, and schedule status (for example, if the subcontract is newly in
place, are we on track to complete the technical review and fee review on schedule?)
2. Status of Compliance Review (B&G)
3. Status of System Technical Review(CBG)
4. Status of Franchise Fee Review(CBG)
5. Week of August 7 B&G visit, including conducting the system technical review and what they need from
us, meeting with Comcast representatives, Council presentation, involvement of Puget Sound Access
Group.
6. Other-Valley Cities project coordination,whatever else is on your mind regarding this topic(I'm sure I
have not thought of everything).
Thanks- please chime in &add anything you'd like to this list. Our 7/31 meeting is for our own internal
organization; I'll set another one for the week of 8/7 as well once I talk with Mike. Thanks -
(Alex, Ben was tracking this project from a federal legislation standpoint-do you want someone from
EDNSP to track the renewal process as it goes forward as well?Just checking.)
Marty
x6526
CC: Covington, Jay; Pietsch, Alexander
From: Marty Wine
To: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720; Bailey, Michael; Ijwarren@seanet.com;
McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil; Wine, Marty
Date: 7/31/2006
Time: 4:00:00 PM -5:00:00 PM
Subject: Internal Status Report/Planning Meeting
Place: 7th Floor Council Conference Room #720
Good morning,
I have a phone call with Mike Bradley of Bradley& Guzzetta this morning to confirm that our workplan for
franchise renewal is on track. I'm hoping that we, internally, can cover at this meeting:
1. Contract status with B&G and CBG, and schedule status (for example, if the subcontract is newly in
place, are we on track to complete the technical review and fee review on schedule?)
2. Status of Compliance Review (B&G)
3. Status of System Technical Review(CBG)
4. Status of Franchise Fee Review(CBG)
5. Week of August 7 B&G visit, including conducting the system technical review and what they need from
us, meeting with Comcast representatives, Council presentation, involvement of Puget Sound Access
Group.
6. Other-Valley Cities project coordination,whatever else is on your mind regarding this topic (I'm sure I
have not thought of everything).
Thanks- please chime in & add anything you'd like to this list. Our 7/31 meeting is for our own internal
organization; I'll set another one for the week of 8/7 as well once I talk with Mike. Thanks -
(Alex, Ben was tracking this project from a federal legislation standpoint-do you want someone from
EDNSP to track the renewal process as it goes forward as well? Just checking.)
Marty
x6526
CC: Covington, Jay; Pietsch, Alexander
i ( it cNisr,-
'4
From: Linda Herzog
To: Covington, Jay; Wolters, Ben
Date: 4/21/2006 1:15:31 PM
Subject: Re: Video franchising
Yes, Ben, I think we're all wondering this. Even if we do negotiate a new franchise, it's not clear whether it
wd remain effective for very long. But I don't think it's wasted effort to collect the financial & service data
that B&G is going after now.
I'll be eager to hear what add'I intelligence you pick up.
CC: Pietsch,Alexander; Walton, Bonnie
From: Ben Wolters
To: Herzog, Linda, Covington, Jay
Date: 4/21/2006 12:14:20 PM
Subject: Video franchising
Jay and Linda, •
On my trip, had an interesting conversation with Kathy Putt, director of franchisng and gov't affairs for
Comcast in western washington. She said that Comcast is in no hurry to negotiate local franchises
because they are confident a national franchising bill will pass either this year or next because of the
political weight of the phone companies. I think they are going to try running out the clock. She also
expressed that there was a good chance Congress would take the 5 percent fee rather than directing it to
localities because of the federal budget deficit. Finally it was her view that locals would keep ROW
management authority and might still get some PEG support.
I am meeting with Cantwell TC aide Mike Daum Mon. and ask where he sees things going.
Kathy's views make me wonder how much time, money and effort we should spend on franchise
negotiaton prep if there may not be any local-franchise.
Back Tuesday. Ben.
CC: Walton, Bonnie, Pietsch, Alexander
From: Linda Herzog
To: cable franchise wkgrp
Date: 2/27/2006 11:41:02 PM
Subject: franchise renewal workplan &Thurs meeting
Attached please find Mike Bradley's draft work program for the cable franchise renewal effort over the
coming 18 months.
I need your comments and suggestions to make this a useful guide for the work of our cross-departmental
group. We'll be able to go over this work plan with Mike on Tuesday 3/14. However, since he'll be
presenting to the Council the evening before, it will be very useful to critique the work program now, so he
can confidently discuss with them the timing of the major steps.
Please look this over and bring your comments to a VERY BRIEF meeting of the"Franchise Renewal
Work Group"at 10:00 this Thursday, 3/2. We can meet in the Mayor's conference room. And I promise
we'll be quick.
CC: Covington, Jay
¢ ' MEMORANDUM
tt •
To: City of Renton
lei -�.�
[ifj,, From: Michael R. Bradley
Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan
Date: February 27, 2006
Bradley&
Guzzetta, LI..0
City of Renton
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Proposed Work Plan
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The following is the work plan for the City's Cable Franchise Renewal Project.
P/(651)379-0900 I will be the lead consultant, assisted by Tracy Schaefer from my office,who
F/(651)379-0999
will help coordinate efforts between our firm and our Team Members (CBG
Attorneys at Law Communications, Inc. and Front Range Consulting, Inc.). I have indicated the
Michael R.Bradleyt major steps of the project and have indicated where certain B&G Team
Stephen J.Guzzetta* members are to participate, as well as the expected completion dates.
Senior Project Manager
Tracy J. Schaefer 1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan (March 2006)
Legal Assistants 2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006)
Thomas R.Colaizy
Brian Laule a. Identify City Staff Priorities
Of Counsel b. Identify Roles for City Staff
Thomas C.Plunkett
Gregory S.Uhl 3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure
Compliance (B&G)
b. Franchise Fee Review(Front Range Consulting)
c. System Technical Review(including Institutional Network)
(CBG Communications, Inc.) .
4. Notice Non-compliance(if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study (September 2006)
(CBG Communications, Inc.)
a. Identify Role (participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
b. Identify Role (participation and financial) of other Participating
Cities (Auburn,Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
wnvw.bradleyguzzetta.com -
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
*Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
a
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance (November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council (February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP (February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP (February 2007)
12. Receive Formal Renewal Proposals (April 2007)
13. Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations (approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14. Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal (August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15. Act on Formal Renewal Proposal (September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
2
•
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Greg Uhl" <uhl@BradleyGuzzetta.com>
Date: 5/31/2006 9:55:27 AM
Subject: RE: Citizen Complaint
We'll do that for you.
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2006 11:33 AM
To: Michael Bradley; Greg Uhl
Subject: RE: Citizen Complaint
This is good. Thank you for your assistance with this. That will make
the citizen happy.
As I mentioned on the phone, one thing we should do is to request a map
from Comcast to see Renton's cable service area, and then compare that
to the City's annexation and boundary maps. Is that something you could
request and see that both you and I get copies? Or should I just ask?
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk
City of Renton
425-430-6502
>>>"Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 05/30/06 8:55 AM >>>
Bonnie,
Good news. After speaking with Comcast, they have agreed that Mr.
Whittacker is eligible to receive service. They will be calling him
today to see what services he would like to order. They were very
surprised to hear that their customer service reps were advising
potential customers to order sattelite. As a result, they will be
conducting some ghost testing.
Mike
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 12:14 PM
To: Greg Uhl
Cc: Michael Bradley
Subject: Citizen Complain
I received a call from Stewart Whittacker, 821 Duvall PI. NE, Renton, WA
98059 (cell: 206-949-1734, home: 425-271-4936) He indicated that his
area was annexed to the City of Renton in November or December 2005.
They(he and his neighbors)did not and still do not have cable service
to their area. (Under our franchise, Comcast has one year after
annexation to provide service, I believe.)
He recently called Comcast to ask if and when they would receive cable •
service. In his conversation, Comcast advised that they just go with
satellite.(!!!) I was astonished to hear that Comcast customer service
would make such a suggestion!
Would you please check into this and see what the deal is and how we can
assist or reassure this citizen?
•
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
From: Linda Herzog
To: cable franchise wkgrp
Date: 3/13/2006 1:10:06 PM
Subject: background memo on cable franchise renewal
Last week I asked Mike Bradley to supply us with a general description of the franchise renewal process,
to get us ready for tomorrow's discussion (11:00 to 1:30 in the Conferencing Center). This morning I
rec'd the attached memo. It is, indeed, quite general, but it's a good refresher and provides a simple
explanation of the informal vs formal franchise renewal processes--see esp. pp 2-4.
Mike actually prepared this memo for another client, so you will see a reference on p. 8 to Time Warner
rather than Comcast, and at top of page 2 you will note that he advises we ask for I-net capability,which
we already have (by way of a non-compliance settlement). However, I encourage you to read quickly thru
this memo and note any Qs you may have in the margins, so we can all start off with a good
understanding of the basics.
I am also preparing a"workbook"containing the major documents relevant to this process. I will have one
for each of you tomorrow at the meeting, but if you'd like to have yours ahead of time, let me know.
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
F .7 ,.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Linda Herzog, City of Renton
FROM: Michael R. Bradley,Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
Bradley
Guzzetta, I.,I.0 DATE: March 12,2006
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 The following information is provided to give you additional background on the
F/(651)379-0999
cable franchise renewal process that the City will undertake with Comcast. Over
Attorneys at Law the last several years, cable franchise renewals have become more and more
Michael R.Bradleyt contentious and difficult. This is due in large part to industry consolidation, to
Stephen J.Guzzetta* changes in the law, to the cable industry's decision to devote large amounts of
Legal Assistants capital to the improvement of cable systems and to the popular (but mistaken)
Thomas R.Colaizy belief that local government franchising acts as an impediment to the deployment
Brian Laule of infrastructure that is needed to foster reliable, high-speed access to video and
data programs and applications. In practical terms, this means the franchise
Of Counsel renewal process is generally taking longer and longer to complete, and that the use
Thomas C.Plunkett ,of the formal renewal process is becoming more prevalent.
Gregory S.Uhl
J.David Abramson
The cable industry has also become more inclined to use litigation as a means of
intimidating local governments and avoiding local processes. For instance,
Comcast sued the City of San Jose, California rather than following the hearing
process established by city officials as part of the formal renewal process. With
respect to the informal renewal process, many cable operators, including Comcast,
have adopted a strategy of attrition. This strategy is designed to drag out renewal
negotiations until municipalities run out of funding or political will. The operator
is then typically able to obtain renewal on very favorable terms and conditions,
which do not necessarily benefit the local franchising authority or its citizens.
With this in mind, it is very important for the City to wisely manage the renewal
process, and to develop an overall renewal strategy from which it does not deviate.
Although the renewal of a cable television franchise can be difficult, expensive
and very time-consuming,and specific results cannot be guaranteed, it is important
to dedicate sufficient financial and staff resources to the process for a variety of
reasons. First, a cable television franchise is usually granted for a long period of
time—often ten to fifteen years. Consequently, it is important to renew a franchise
on terms and conditions that will meet the community's cable-related needs and
interests during the entire franchise term. Second, the grant of a franchise confers
a very valuable right to Comcast—the authority to use the City's public rights-of-
way for private profit. City officials may therefore want to ensure that the people
who pay for the maintenance, management and repair of the public rights-of-way—
www.bradleyguuetta.com
(Also admitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
taxpayers — are adequately compensated by Comcast. Such compensation should reflect the fair
market value of the City property and rights-of-way that are used, and usually takes the form of
franchise fees and in-kind benefits, such as free cable service and cable drops at public institutions.
If the compensation received from Comcast does not reflect fair market value, the City's residents
are essentially subsidizing Comcast's operations in the City. Lastly, compensation received through
the renewal of a cable franchise can provide significant tangible benefits to the City and its citizens.
By way of example, financial support for government access can ensure that the City is able to
communicate broadly and effectively with its residents in a video format, including during
emergencies. In addition, a fiber-optic institutional network requirement could be included in a
renewal franchise, if warranted. The construction of such a network could save the City a
substantial amount of money because leased lines could be eliminated. An institutional network
could also provide the City with a reliable,high-speed platform that could be utilized to deploy new
video, voice and data applications, such as Internet Protocol telephony. Comcast, however, has a
history of combating municipal efforts to obtain institutional networks.
With the foregoing in mind, this memorandum will outline the franchise renewal requirements
applicable to the City.
I. OUTLINE OF THE FEDERAL CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
The City's cable franchise renewal is subject to the renewal provisions of the federal Cable Act, 47
U.S.C. § 546, which set out two ways of arriving at a renewal decision: the formal and the informal
processes.
Informal Process
• The City and Comcast may, at any time, agree on a renewal franchise through informal
negotiations, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h). Conversely, the City may deny an informal
renewal proposal at any time.
> Informal renewals are essentially contract negotiations.
> Adequate public notice and opportunity to comment must be provided before
granting or denying an informal renewal proposal submitted by Comcast.
> The City's decision to deny an informal renewal proposal does not need to be based
on the criteria delineated below for the formal renewal process. In other words, the
City may deny an informal renewal proposal for any reason.
Formal Process
• If the City and Comcast are unable to agree on renewal terms through negotiation, and
Comcast has properly invoked the formal renewal process under 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), the
only way that the City may deny renewal is to take the following steps:
2
•
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
> The City conducts an"ascertainment"process to develop facts about Comcast's past
performance and the community's future cable-related needs and interests. The
public must be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to participate in the
needs ascertainment and past performance review. This is often times accomplished
through public hearings and surveys (e.g., telephone, mail and/or Internet surveys).
The City has significant discretion in determining how to conduct its needs
assessment and past performance"proceeding."
> Once the City completes the ascertainment and past performance review process, it
issues a request for renewal proposal ("RFRP") to Comcast. The RFRP should
clearly specify the requirements for cable-related facilities and equipment and
capital support needed to satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests.
In addition, based on identified needs and interests, the RFRP should establish
requirements for public, educational and governmental access channel capacity and
capacity on institutional networks for educational or governmental use. An RFRP
generally may not establish requirements for specific video programming or "other
information services." The City may establish a deadline for the submission of a
renewal proposal in its RFRP.
> Comcast submits a proposal for renewal. This proposal must contain such material
as the City may require, including (but not limited to) proposals for system
upgrades.
> The City must provide"prompt"public notice of Comcast's renewal proposal. State
and local publication requirements should be strictly followed.
> The City has four months from submission of Comcast's proposal in which to renew
the franchise or issue a preliminary denial of renewal.
➢ If the City issues a preliminary denial, it begins a formal administrative proceeding
to consider whether the franchise should be renewed, basing its decision on the four
factors listed below. Comcast must be given adequate notice of the hearing and a
fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to
require the production of evidence and to question witnesses. A transcript of the
administrative hearing must be made.
➢ At the end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision
granting or denying the renewal proposal, based on the record of the administrative
hearing,which decision states the reasons for the City's determination.
➢ Comcast may appeal the City's decision in state or federal court.
3
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
• Under the formal renewal process,the only four criteria upon which a denial of renewal may
be based are whether:
> Comcast has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise
and with applicable law;
> The quality of Comcast's service, including signal quality, response to consumer
complaints, and billing practices (but without regard to the mix or quality of cable
services or other services provided over the system) has been reasonable in light of
community needs;
> Comcast has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services,
facilities,and equipment as set forth in its proposal; and
> Comcast's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs
and interests,taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
Renewal may be denied if there is a negative finding with respect to any one of the
foregoing criteria. In practice, however,the City would be well advised to ensure that it has
the strongest possible case before denying renewal. It should also be noted that the City
may not deny renewal based on Comcast's failure to substantially comply with material
franchise terms and applicable law or to provide reasonable quality service in light of
community needs unless Comcast has been given notice and an opportunity to cure.
• Normally, the formal ascertainment process goes-on simultaneously with the informal
renewal process. If an informal agreement is reached, however,there is no need to complete
the formal process. Reactivating the formal renewal process would not prevent the City
from continuing to negotiate with Comcast informally, and the denial of an informal
renewal proposal would not impact any formal renewal proposal that has been submitted.
A. Why Renewal is Important.
Cable television systems operate pursuant to franchises issued by local governments. A
franchise authorizes a cable system operator to provide cable service, and to occupy valuable
public rights-of-way for that purpose. A franchise sets out the terms and conditions under which
service is to be provided.
When a franchise is about to expire or has expired, a local franchising authority has a rare
opportunity to review the performance of the cable operator, and to ensure that the operator will
meet the future cable-related needs and interests of the community. This opportunity is rare
because franchises are typically issued for periods of years. At the time of renewal, a City can
establish requirements for system improvements to ensure that the community has adequate
infrastructure. The City can also ensure that everyone has real opportunities to originate, as well
as receive, video programming. In addition, the City can ensure that cable service will be
4
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
reliable, and that Comcast will be in a position to bring the benefits of advances in cable
technology into the City's homes, businesses and schools. As part of the franchise renewal
process, the City will look to the past, and assess Comcast's performance under the current
franchise, and will identify what is needed for the future.
In looking at future cable-related needs and interests, the City may conclude that there is a need
for channels, facilities and equipment that will permit members of the public, educational
institutions and government agencies to produce and disseminate programming. This type of
programming — so-called "public, educational and governmental" access (or "PEG" access) —
serves critical public interests.) PEG access requirements help eliminate the danger that our
society will be sharply divided between information "haves" and "have-nots." As the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration has noted, "[b]ecause information means
empowerment — and employment — government has a duty to ensure that all Americans have
access to the resources and job creation potential of the Information Age."2
Cable systems once served merely to retransmit broadcast television signals. They have now,
however, become a "dominant nationwide video medium,"3 with many companies maintaining or
upgrading to 2-way transmissions used for cable modem service, telephony and video on
demand. The development of these electronic highways has the potential to significantly change
the way people live, work, and interact with each other by providing users access to vast
quantities of information, services and entertainment in a variety of forms. As a result, a local
government has a compelling interest in ensuring that a cable system is adequately designed and
constructed to help satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests, that good service is
provided at a fair price, that services are available to all, and that the flow of information is not
monopolized by the companies that own the cable networks. These interests are reflected in
federal, state and local law.4
The foregoing interests are particularly strong because, in order to operate, cable systems must
occupy scarce and valuable public property —property that the public effectively pays to acquire
and maintain. Comcast's facilities are located on poles and under rights-of-way throughout the
City. The City, as a trustee of the public's interest in public rights-of-way, has a compelling
interest in ensuring that Comcast utilizes this public property in a way that benefits the entire
community. This means, among other things, that the City should ensure that public property is
used in optimal ways, and that the public receives fair compensation — in the form of franchise
fees and other conditions—for the use of its public property to provide cable service.
As Congress has pointed out,one of the primary purposes of PEG access is to afford groups and individuals who
generally have not had access to electronic media the"opportunity to become sources of information in the
electronic marketplace of ideas." H.Rep.No.934,98th Cong.2d Sess.at 30,reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,
4667(1984)("1984 House Report").
2 National Telecommunications Information Administration, The National Information Infrastructure:Agenda for
Action at 1 (September 1993).
3 H.Rep.No.862, 102d Cong.2d Sess.at 50,reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1232(1992).
4 For federal law,see e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 544(requiring facilities and equipment); § 546(c)(1)(D)(satisfying
community's cable-related needs and interests); §543 (ensuring reasonable rates); § 541(a)(3)(anti-redlining);and
§531 (access channels).
5
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
These interests and others are protected, in part, through the franchising process. For example,
during renewal proceedings a community is permitted to establish basic requirements for system
design, and to require that cable operators provide facilities and equipment and set aside channel
capacity for public, educational and governmental use. Thus, the legislative history of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 521, et seq.,
(the"Cable Act") explains:
The ability of a local government entity to require particular cable
facilities (and to enforce requirements in the franchise to provide
those facilities) is essential if cable systems are to be tailored to the
needs of each community [and the legislation] explicitly grants this
power to the franchising authority.5
This is why the franchise renewal process is so important to both the operator and the
community.6 The City is able to protect the interests of cable subscribers and the general public
through the franchising process by identifying present and future cable-related needs and
interests, and translating those needs and interests into franchise requirements.
B. The Renewal Process Under Federal Law.
Certain individuals and organizations in the community no doubt want the City simply to put the
Comcast franchise up for competitive bid, and then award a franchise to the best operator. That,
however, is not an option. In 1984, the federal government passed a law that was intended to
provide cable operators with a fair opportunity to obtain renewal. To that end, the Cable Act
establishes two possible ways a community can respond to a request for a franchise renewal.
Under the informal renewal process, the City and a cable operator can meet informally at any
time and attempt to resolve franchise issues through negotiations. If the issues are resolved the
City can, after providing the public with adequate notice and an opportunity to comment, adopt a
renewal franchise. An informal proposal can be rejected at any time, and for any reason. Most
renewals are settled informally.
Either the operator or the City can invoke the more formal renewal procedures set out at 47
U.S.C. § 546(a)-(g) during a six-month window which begins with the thirty-sixth (36th) month
prior to franchise expiration. These "formal" procedures give the operator the opportunity for a
fair hearing on its renewal request. At the same time, the procedures insure that the City can
1984'House Report at 26, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4663.
6 Congress intended that:"the franchise process take place at the local level where[local]officials have the best
understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet
those needs." 1984 House Report at 24, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4661. However,the Cable Act does not give local
government unlimited authority to impose conditions on cable operators. For example,it limits local authority to
require an operator to carry a specific programming service. Id.at 4663.
7 47 U.S.C. §546(h).
6
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
deny renewal if an operator has performed poorly in the past, or is not qualified, or is not willing
to make a reasonable proposal for meeting the community's needs and interests for the future
(taking into account the cost of meeting those needs and interests). Under the formal process,the
City is given broad authority to define what the cable-related needs and interests of the
community are.8 The operator must then submit a proposal that is reasonable to meet the
community's cable-related needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting those
needs and interests (the focus is the community, not the individual subscribers who may receive
service today).
More specifically,the formal renewal process under the Cable Act is a four-stage process.
First, the City must conduct a proceeding to identify future cable-related needs and interests of
the community, and to review the past performance of the cable operator serving the
community.9
Once that proceeding is complete, the City may issue a request for renewal proposals ("RFRP").
Because each renewal proposal is evaluated on its own merits, this RFRP cannot simply be a
competitive bidding document)° The Cable Act allows the City to establish requirements in an
RFRP:
(1) "that channel capacity be designated for public, education or government
use, and channel capacity on the institutional networks be designated for
educational or governmental use, and may require rules and procedures for
the use of channel capacity designated . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 531(b).
(2) "for facilities and equipment." The legislative history of the Cable Act
explains that this includes requirements for institutional networks, studios,
equipment for public, educational and government use, two-way networks,
and so on. 47 U.S.C. § 544.
The Cable Act also states that "[a] franchising authority may establish and enforce (1) customer
service requirements of the cable operator and (2) construction schedules and other construction-
related requirements, including construction-related performance requirements of the cable
operator." 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(a)(2). This language arguably permits the City to establish
these requirements unilaterally in a franchise (or through a regulatory ordinance), along with
various other requirements established pursuant to the City's police and other governmental
powers.
In the next stage of the renewal process, the franchised cable operator submits a renewal
proposal in response to the City's RFRP. "[A]ny such proposal shall contain such material as the
franchising authority may require . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2). If an operator submits a timely,
$ See, e.g., Union CATV,, Inc. v. City of Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434(6th Cir. 1997).
9 47 U.S.C. § 546(a)(1).
10 47 U.S.C. § 546(b).
7
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
complete and proper response,'1 the City has four months to evaluate the proposal, and to decide
whether to grant renewal based on the proposal, or to preliminarily deny renewal. 47 U.S.C.
§ 546(c).
Finally, if renewal is preliminarily denied, and an operator desires it, the City must commence an
administrative proceeding to consider whether the franchise should be renewed. Time Warner
Cable must be given adequate notice and a fair opportunity for full participation in the
proceeding, including the right to introduce evidence, to require the production of evidence and
to question witnesses.12 Four issues are considered at that proceeding:
(A) whether the cable operator has substantially complied with the material
terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law;
(B) whether the quality of the operator's service, including signal quality,
response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard
to the mix or quality of cable services or other services provided over the
system, has been reasonable in light of community needs;
(C) whether the operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability to
provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in the operator's
proposal; and
(D) whether the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-
related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of
meeting such needs and interests.13
These criteria do not include considerations such as programming selection or rate levels. A
franchise renewal request can be denied on any one (or more) of the foregoing grounds. At the
end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision granting or denying the
renewal proposal, based on the record and stating its reasons.14 Comcast can appeal the City's
decision in state or federal court. A court will overturn a decision to deny if the City's denial
was not based on a preponderance of the evidence included in the record of the administrative
proceeding.
C. General System Design and Capability.
Under the Cable Act, franchising authorities may establish and enforce requirements for
"facilities and equipment."15 In particular:
11 The proposal must be submitted by a deadline established by the City. If the operator fails to do so,then its rights
are ended.
12 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2).
13 47 U.S.C. §546(c)(1)(A)-(D).
14 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(3).
15 47 U.S.C. §544(b)(1)-(b)(2).
8
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Facility and equipment requirements may include requirements which
relate to channel capacity; system configuration and capacity, including
institutional and subscriber networks; headends and hubs; two-way
capability; addressability; trunk and feeder cable; and any other facility or
equipment requirement, which is related to the establishment and
operation of a cable system, including microwave facilities, antennae,
satellite earth stations, uplinks, studios and production facilities, vans and
cameras for PEG use.16
Accordingly, a local franchising authority may not only determine certain requirements for the
facilities and equipment used in the subscriber network, but may also require that a cable
operator provide an institutional network and PEG support'?
D. Support for Public,Educational and Governmental Use.
As Congress noted when it first passed cable legislation:
One of the greatest challenges over the years in establishing
communications policy has been assuring access to the electronic media
by people other than the licensees or owners of those media. The
development of cable television, with its abundance of channels, can
provide . . . the meaningful access that . . . has been difficult to obtain.
Almost all recent franchise agreements provide for access by local
governments, schools, and non-profit and community groups over so-
called "PEG" (public educational and governmental) channels. Public
access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soapbox or
the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet ... PEG channels also
contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home
and by showing the public local government at work.'$
Given the important policy considerations underlying PEG access, Congress empowered local
franchising authorities to establish PEG access requirements as part of the franchising process.
16 1984 House Report at 68,reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705. The exercise of this authority,however,must take
into consideration 47 U.S.C. §544(e),which states that no local franchising authority"may prohibit,condition,or
restrict a cable system's use of any type of subscriber equipment or any transmission technology."
17 See, e.g., Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,CS
Docket No.94-46,Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd.20227,11146(Aug.
8, 1996)(FCC acknowledges that"a local franchising authority may require a cable operator to provide institutional
networks as a condition of the initial grant,renewal or transfer of a franchise"). See also Implementation of the
Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,CS Docket No.96-85,Report and Order, 14
FCC Rcd.5296,¶142(March 29, 1999)("Section 621(b)(3)(D)[of the Cable Act] allows an LFA to require
institutional networks.").
1s 1984 House Report at 30, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4667.
9
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Under the Cable Act, PEG requirements may take several forms.19 Franchising authorities can
require operators to designate channels for public, educational and governmental use in an RFRP
or in a franchise agreement. Franchising authorities can also establish requirements for
equipment and facilities — for example, requirements for studios and cameras. In addition,
franchising authorities can establish rules for the management and use of the facilities and
channels devoted to PEG use. Furthermore, franchising authorities can enforce promises for
broad categories of programming or other services made by a franchise applicant. In any event,
before issuing a franchise, a franchising authority can insist that a cable operator "provide
adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities or financial
support."2
It should be noted that setting aside channels for public, educational and governmental use does
not guarantee that the community will be able to use those channels. As indicated above, there
must also be adequate support for access operations, in the form of facilities and/or other
financial support. Accordingly, franchises in many communities require cable operators to
provide facilities, equipment and services to support PEG use. Such facilities and equipment
include upstream transmission paths for PEG signals from certain origination sites. In order for
Comcast to carry PEG access programming on its network, it must provide a means of
transporting audio and video signals from the locations where such programming it produced,
played back or originated to its headend. This is accomplished by establishing an upstream
transmission path from an origination point to Comcast's headend facilities (as opposed to a
"downstream" transmission path which supplies subscribers with video programming). The
quality of an upstream transmission path is extremely important, because the signal reaching
subscribers can be no better than the signal that reaches the headend. Thus, high-quality and
reliable upstream transport is essential to providing high-quality access programming.
Accordingly, communities generally have a need and interest in high-quality, and reliable
bidirectional transmission paths (equivalent to an uncompressed digital optical connection)
between origination sites and the cable system headend.
E. System Construction and Extension Issues.
Under federal law, the City must allow Comcast a reasonable time to make any improvements
required to upgrade the system, consistent with identified needs and interests.21 The City,
however, has an interest in ensuring that any construction and system modifications dictated by
the community's cable-related needs and interests are completed expeditiously, so as to
minimize any necessary service interruptions, as well as disruption of economic activity and of
the rights-of-way. To adequately protect its economic and property interests, the City should be
able to enforce timing and construction requirements. Major system upgrades typically take two
to three years to complete.
19 1984 House Report at 68, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705(franchising authorities may require,among other things,
"satellite earth stations,uplinks,studios and productions facilities,vans and cameras for PEG use").
20 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(B).
21 See 47 U.S.C.§541 (a)(4)("[i]n awarding a franchise,the franchising authority...shall allow the applicant's cable
system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service...").
10
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Even though construction of the current cable system in the City has been completed, the system
may often need to be extended to new developments and multiple dwelling units. There may
also be areas within the boundaries of the existing service area that are not now reachable by the
cable system, without extending the network plant to a point where the home or business can be
served by a drop. As a policy matter, the City may want to consider whether all of its residents
have access to Comcast's system, and the services offered over that system now and in the
future, both from an economic development and information delivery standpoint. At a
minimum, the City should ensure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in
which such group resides. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3).
F. Past Performance.
In reaching a decision to grant or deny renewal under the formal renewal process, a local
franchising authority can consider whether a "cable operator has substantially complied with the
material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law." 22 According to the legislative
history of the Cable Act, this particular consideration "does not require that the operator meet each
and every specific provision of a franchise." 23 Consequently, minor violations of a franchise
agreement probably would not justify denying a renewal proposal because the operator would still
have "substantially complied" with the franchise. Additionally, violations which do not concern
"material" terms may not constitute grounds for denial. If, however, a cable operator repeatedly
breaches its franchise agreement or violates important franchise provisions (e.g., PEG support,
channel capacity, signal quality, etc.), a franchising authority may be able to deny renewal under 47
U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A). Depending on the circumstances, a single violation of an extremely
significant franchise term, which deprives the franchising authority of a major benefit it bargained
for, could be a sufficient basis on which to reject a renewal proposal.24
In addition to franchise compliance, § 546(c)(l)(A) allows franchising authorities to consider
whether a cable operator has substantially complied with applicable law. The reference to
"applicable law" apparently provides local governments with the authority to explore a variety of
federal, state and local law requirements in connection with renewal, regardless of whether such
requirements are cable-related. Thus, for example, local franchising authorities may be able to
consider whether a cable operator has complied with federal equal employment opportunity
requirements, federal subscriber privacy requirements, local tax laws, local zoning laws, state and
local construction requirements, civil rights laws, and state antitrust laws. If a cable operator has
repeatedly or completely failed to comply with a provision of applicable law, a franchising authority
can probably deny renewal.
22 47 U.S.C.§546(c)(1)(A).
23 House Committee on Energy and Commerce,Report on Cable Franchise Policy and Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984,H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Cong.,2nd Sess.74(1985)("House Report").
24 An example of this scenario might be if the operator unjustifiably refused to pay the franchise fees required by a
valid franchise agreement.
11
PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
It is important to note that 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A) can only be used if certain statutory
requirements are met. Section § 546(d), stipulates that a franchising authority cannot deny renewal
under Section 626(c)(1)(A) based on events that occurred after the effective date of the Cable Act,
unless the franchising authority has provided the operator with notice and an opportunity to cure.25
Additionally, a local franchising authority cannot invoke Section 626(c)(1)(A) if it has waived its
right to object, or if the operator has provided "written notice of a failure or inability to cure, and the
franchising authority fails to object within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice." 26 A
franchising authority can waive its right to object by expressly or implicitly failing to require
compliance (e.g., by failing to enforce a requirement or to assert a right, or by modifying a franchise,
etc.), unless a franchise ordinance or agreement provides otherwise. Thus, franchising authorities
should think carefully before affirmatively assenting to noncompliance, and should not ignore
repeated franchise violations. Furthermore, a franchising authority must promptly respond to
noncompliance letters from cable operators, and unequivocally object to the stated violations or
inability to cure. Unless it diligently enforces the franchise, it is easy for a local franchising authority
to unintentionally waive its renewal rights.
CONCLUSION
We look forward to working with the City throughout the cable franchise renewal process. Our
goal is to help the City maximum the use of its available resources to obtain the best franchise
possible under the circumstances.
25 Adequate notice for purposes of invoking Section 626(c)(1)(A)as grounds for denial must be specific in its
explanation of the problem and must come directly from the franchising authority. Rolla Cable Systems,Inc.v.City
of Rolla,761 F. Supp. 1398, 1409(E.D.Mo. 1991). Notice need not be given in writing,however,as long as"the
franchising authority discloses to the cable operator its position and that position is expressed with specificity." Id.
26 47 U.S.C. § 546(d).
12
From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
To: <jharman@natoa.org>
Date: 2/14/2006 10:25:43 AM
Subject: Speakers for the 2006 NATOA Litigation & Regulation Seminar are now available
Important Updates & Deadlines:
- Speakers have been announced for the Seminar! The list is
available using the Agenda &Speakers link below, and will be updated on
the web regularly.
Hotel reservations must be made by February 27 in order to
receive the discounted room rate. Complete details are available using
the Hotel &Travel Information link below.
Requests for CLE accreditation in a particular state must be
emailed to jharman@natoa.org by this Friday, February 17.
Registrations for the Seminar must be received at NATOA
Headquarters by Thursday, March 9. Onsite registration will be available
on a limited basis. See below for registration details and forms.
NATOA Announces the 2006 NATOA Litigation & Regulation Seminar, March 23
-24, 2006, at the Hotel Washington in Washington, DC. Brochures are in
the mail. For more information, visit the Conference/Events page at
www.natoa.org <http://www.natoa.org/> or visit the links below.
Click Here for a PDF of the Brochure
<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/Brochure_for_Web.pdf> (must be
printed on legal sized paper)
(http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/Brochure_for_Web.pdf)
Click here for the Agenda and Speakers
<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/details.html?id=1034>
(http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/details.html?id=1034)
Click here for Hotel &Travel Information
<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/details.html?id=1032>
(http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/details.html?id=1032)
To register online using a credit card, click here
<https://www.natoa.org/forms/form.html?id=63>
(https://www.natoa.org/forms/form.html?id=63)
To register and pay with a check of Government PO, use the registration
form located in the Brochure
CLE Accreditation is being sought. If you are registered and interested
in accreditation for a particular state, you must contact
jharman@natoa.org <mailto:jharman@natoa.org> by Friday, February 17,
2006.
Several Sponsorship Opportunities are available for this Seminar. For
more details, click here
<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/2006_Legal_Seminar_Sponsor_Opps.pd
f> .
(http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/2006_Legal_Seminar Sponsor_Opps.pd
From: George McBride
To: Ben Wolters; Bonnie Walton; Linda Herzog
Date: 2/17/2006 4:56:14 PM
Subject: Re: saving municipal franchise authority. . . to-do list
thanks linda. i met today with the IS directors from tukwila, kent, auburn & puyallup and all have agreed in
the value of collaborating and using the group to leverage our position with comcast in an attempt to gain
direct fiber connections between municipalities. we were not sure, in our discussions, who the right player
might be, nor the exact status of franchise discussions. if you could include this group in your invite for the
14th, they have agreed to get the right franchise staff from their jurisdictions involved. gm
tukwila- mary miotke, mmiotke@ci.tukwila.wa.us
kent-mike carrington, mcarrington@ci.kent.wa.us
auburn -lorrie rempher, Irempher@auburnwa.gov
puyallup- ron tiedeman, rtiedeman@ci.puyallup.wa.us
>>> Linda Herzog 2/17/2006 1:47 PM >>>
Yesterday when we met, I passed out a copy of the "action plan"we developed when we first met the last
week in December, regarding federal action on telecom & local franchise authority. But since Tom
Robinson was our unexpected guest(thanks so much, Bonnie, for making this happen!), we didn't talk
about any of the items on the to-do list. Just to follow up, my notes indicate that every item on that work
plan is completed except these 3:
1. George, I don't know whether you have a list of strong allies among other cities whose I-net interests &
infrastructure are similar to Renton's (our item #2). It dznt look like we need to use these alliances at the
moment, but it wd be good to know you have a"stable"of people who can sing along with us if/when
needed.
2. Bonnie, I know you sent our FCC comment document to the Commission and I think to NATOA.
Toward the bottom of our work plan table there's a task assigned to me that says we shd share our
comments with our"institutional partners"who we defined as NATOA, NLC, USCM and GFOA. You can
either let me know who you've already sent our comments to, or ship off a copy to each of the orgs you
have not already covered. Let me know, pls.
3. The only other unfinished item on the list is the Council resolution. We had agreed we wd put a reso on
the Council agenda around Feb 15,when senate hearings began. Well, we missed opening day, but I
assume a Council reso would still be useful. Ben, wd you weigh in here? Or maybe McMaken can advise?
CC: Gregg Zimmerman; Jay Covington; ljwarren@seanet.com; Michael Bailey
46.06—
Specific actions:
Lead
Task I Action Person Timing Notes
Response to FCC: Prepare comments on FCC Ben & Send by NATOA template sections are
NPRM, using NATOA template as a guide, but Linda will mid- "assigned"to workgroup
modifying to focus on Renton's highest-priority issues: Collaborate January members. See below, page
ROW control and I-Net capacity. These issues should 3
be stated at least 3 times for emphasis and clarity of on initial
Renton's position—at opening of comment document, draft
expanded upon in body, and again stated in
conclusion. Use this FCC comment document as
basis for future communications; add, expand and
modify to fit specific circumstances&audiences.
Find other municipalities whose I-Net interests& George Right George will prepare Renton's
infrastructure/capability are similar to Renton's. away initial statement regarding I-Net
Collaborate with them on developing strong arguments protection, to include in FCC
supporting local franchise authority. comments. This will be basis
for future work with
VanNess/Feldman & local
Congressional delegation.
Draft paragraph describing Renton's successful Ben To use in
streamlining of regulatory processes & public FCC
recognition for this comment •
document
Draft paragraph on conduit already installed in Renton George to Troublesome issue. Use this
and how it can/should be used to foster competition & opportunity to establish Renton
multiple-provider environment prepare
initial draft position and see if/how conduit
ownership/control issue can be
resolved.
Find out whether WA State has any state-wide Linda will
franchise authority or regulations. research
Use meeting and pre-meeting notes to express All will
Renton's principles, interests &special concerns in contribute
FCC comment document
Explore B&G services: Examine B&G's offer to help Bonnie, Come to
with lobbying. Summarize Renton's strategy and with agree-
action plan and discuss with Mike Bradley. Find out assistance ment w/
precisely what they are offering. Determine whether B&G by
we want to pay"extra"for the services they describe, from Jay & Wed.,
and/or if we consider their help to be part& parcel of Linda Jan. 11
the contract to help Renton with franchise renewal.
(No franchise, no contract!)
Contact institutional partners, let them know of our Linda By mid-
interest in participating &share with them our FCC January
comments, and other documents as they are
prepared.
Request that Council adopt resolution supporting ?? when Senate hearing is scheduled for
retention of local franchise authority; time carefully for Sen. hrgs 2/14 on State & local issues,
greatest effect focus on and municipal I-nets
our
issues
Prepare letters for Mayor to send to Renton ?? As
delegation, Senate & House Cmte members Congres-
sional
debate
dictates
Engage Ben Macken (sp???) of VanNesslFeldman in George &
effort to inform Renton's Congressional delegation of Ben
importance of maintaining city-wide I-net capability and
opportunity to expand network.
3/7/2006
1:00 p.m. Bonnie Walton's phone call from Mike Bradley of B&G; Greg Uhl of B&G on
speakerphone;
Mike: Transition with Tracy leaving was a surprise. Something came up on Fri. and she
resigned on Mon.
Phone calls are now going to Greg's number; they have all of Tracy's emails and feel they
are up to speed. Greg has taken two calls for Renton for Senior Discount applications and
one call for a person who lived in unincorporated KC,who he correctly referred to King
County. Greg indicated that my email to Tracy clarifying how to identify citizen addresses
was clear and easy to follow.
Responses to Bonnie's questions:
1. Who will handle our Management &Administrative Services assistance work? Greg
Uhl will take over for Tracy Schaefer.
2. What is this person's background as regards Cable Franchise Management &Renewal?
Greg has been with B&G for 1 year and involved in government for 20 years through
military services.
3. Will Greg perform annual rate review analysis? No, when that comes in,just forward
a copy, and Mike or Gregg will have Dick Treich of Front Range Consulting take a look
at it.
4. What is the contact information for the new Project Manager? Greg is at Extension 1.
His email address is uhl@bradleyguzzetta.com. Copy Mike on any emails, particularly if
there is a particular concern. Ultimate decisions are Mike's.
5. Hourly billing rate for new person? Greg will be at the same hourly rate as Tracy.
6. Do we need a contract addendum because of this change of Project Manager? Mike
said he was not sure,but he will take a look at the contract.
7. What effect will this have on our renewal process? Mike said he anticipates no change.
He will discuss the schedule more fully when he comes here next week and proceed from
there.
8. Will coordination with the sub-consultants continue as it had with Tracy? Yes, continue
to submit the historical information as I have been for the renewal process. Greg and
Mike will see that it is forwarded to the appropriate sub-consultant.
9. Will B&G be able to carry out the terms of the contract as written, within the timelines
stated? Mike said he anticipates no problem with this.
In conclusion, Mike stated that he was sorry about this transition. He said Tracy was well-liked
by their customers and he was disappointed to lose her. But these things happen. Mike said he
looks forward to meeting us here next week.
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC -Firm Profile Page 1 of 2
The Law Firm of Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC
In March 2003, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC moved into its new offices in
Downtown Saint Paul. The Firm is located in Suite 950 of the Piper
Jaffray Plaza. The office is conveniently located near the Minnesota
state Capitol, the League of Minnesota Cities, the Public Utilities
Commission and City Hall. The Firm was founded for the primary
purpose of representing municipalities in cable and telecommunications
matters. The Firm represents a wide variety of municipal clients
ranging from large cities to small cities to municipal joint powers
commissions. The Firm also represents several access television non-
profit organizations. Representative clients include the City of
Minneapolis, Minnesota, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Nashville, Tennessee, and Lincoln, Nebraska. The Firm
also represents a majority of the Twin Cities suburban cable
commissions.
The Firm assists local governments in enforcing their property rights
and franchising authority before state and federal courts, the Federal
Communications Commission ("FCC") and state public utility
commissions. The Firm recently had a major victory at the FCC in favor
of local governments that "made clear that the open video system
certification process does not usurp the authority of local governments
to control use of the public rights-of-way." This case was a big win in
favor of local government control over its public rights-of-way. The firm
has also recently litigated successfully Section 253 telecommunications
franchising authority, and cable modem service issues. The Firm also
assists local governments in drafting rights-of-way,
telecommunications, cable, open video system, and zoning and siting,
ordinances concerning cellular, PCS and 3G facilities.
Experiences in cable television law include franchise renewal, franchise
transfers, competitive franchising, rate regulation, customer service
disputes, franchise noncompliance litigation, public, educational, and
governmental access policies, defamation and Constitutional issues.
The Firm also assists local governments in the review and advocacy of
legislation, including legislative testimony. The Firm has assisted to
thwart many attempts to limit or eliminate local franchising authority
over the years.
In addition to legal services, the Firm also provides Cable
Administrative Services. Through the Firm's administrative services,
the firm is able to save franchising authorities a considerable amount of
money. Our experience in providing ongoing legal services regarding
franchise enforcement and day-to-day administration is unequaled.
http://www.bradleyguzzetta.com/firminfo.html 3/7/2006
Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC -Firm Profile Page 2 of 2
The material on this web site does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney client
relationship. This information is offered in order to provide a starting point for your further
investigation and should not be relied upon as legal advice. Each particular situation will be
factually unique. You should consult an attorney if you wish to determine your rights and
obligations under applicable law.
h //www.bradle uzzetta.com/firminfo.html 3/7/2006
tp� Yg
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Andrew.Long@fcc.gov; Info@natoa.org; John.Norton@fcc.gov
Date: 1/24/2006 4:05:37 PM
Subject: City of Renton Comments to FCC - MB Docket No. 05-311
The attached comments were submitted today to the FCC via the Electronic Comment Filing System at
www.fcc.qov/cqb/ecfs by Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager, on behalf of Kathy Keolker, Mayor,
City of Renton, Washington.
If I can provide further information, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
Ph.425-430-6502
Fax 425-430-6516
bwaltonci.renton.wa.us
CC: Kathy Keolker; Linda Herzog
a
•
i .
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984)
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No. 05-311
Protection and Competition Act of 1992
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens.At the same time, Renton's
policies and actions clearly demonstrate that the City values its business partnerships and
understands the advantages to the community of competition among multiple service providers.
Although Renton affirms its long-standing commitment to healthy competition and supportive
business development practices,the City will resist any action by the Federal Communications
Commission to diminish its direct authority to protect valuable public assets. Renton further
advises that cities are much better positioned to address customer concerns about cable services
in a specific locality. There would be nothing gained from moving customer service complaints
from city hall to a distant federal agency.
We recognize that time and predictability are essential to business success. The City takes pride
in its reputation as a jurisdiction that is responsive,timely and efficient in processing land use
applications and construction permits.As evidence of its success in regulatory reform, Renton
cites special recognition by the Washington State Competitiveness Council for the City's
streamlined permit process.
Renton has worked hard to create both a general environment and municipal business plan goals
that support business development,while prudently managing public assets and enhancing the
quality of life in our community.
The City of Renton can and will maintain its local cable franchise authority with the highest
standards of clarity, timeliness, and fairness. In order to assure its citizens appropriate choice,
high quality and reasonable cost, Renton supports the entry of new video service providers,and
welcomes market competition.
There are important facts for FCC Commissioners to know about the City of Renton and
hundreds of other local jurisdictions like it across the United States. Here are some facts about
Renton that bear on the question of cable franchise authority and management of the cable
franchise relationship:
The City of Renton
Renton has 57,000 residents and 36,000 daytime workers. Voluntary annexations of
unincorporated areas to the east and the west of the City are expected to double the City's
-- - - resident population within 7-8 years.
, 4
The Cable Television Franchise
Comcast(and its predecessor companies)has held the City's only cable television franchise
since 1977. The current franchise agreement has been in effect since 1993;it will expire in
September 2008. Comcast has filed a notice of intent to renew the franchise. The renewal
process is expected to begin within the next few months.
Franchise Fee
Under the current franchise,Comcast has access to all households, businesses and institutions
within city limits. The franchise fee it pays to the City of Renton equals 5%of gross revenues.
Public, Educational,and Government Access
Comcast also provides Renton with three"PEG"access channels on the cable system. Two of
those are now in operation: one for government access, and the other for public access. Under
the agreement, Comcast will make available additional channels when use of the current PEG
channels warrants.
The franchise agreement requires Comcast to provide, install and maintain equipment necessary
for local government cable-casting; provide service to public buildings and schools in Renton
without charge;and (in exchange for release of certain obligations)contribute funds to a non-
profit foundation for construction, operation and maintenance of a public access studio shared by
six adjoining cities all of which hold franchise agreements with Comcast.
Institutional Network(I-net)
The City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network installed by Renton's initial
cable franchisee, a predecessor of Comcast. The network is made up of 12-strand fiber runs
from City Hall to:
• the city attomey's office
• four fire stations
• the municipal airport control tower
• the public works shops
• three community centers and a community use building in a downtown park
• a senior center
• two libraries
• the Renton Museum and Historical Society
• a downtown parking garage and a public transit"Park and Ride"facility
• the former city hall and 2 other buildings the city leases out.
The fiber network is critical to daily operation of the City and its public agency partners, and
fundamental to the high quality of public service they provide.
Altogether these network links connect a total of thirty-two city facilities to Renton's main data
center,the hub of all City government telecommunication services including voice(dial tone),
data, some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety communications and dispatch. In addition,the
network supports cashiering, back office business and data base services, and reservation,
scheduling,financial and emergency management applications. The City's traffic management
system(signal timing&adjustment)also operates on this same fiber network.
The City also uses the I-net fiber to backhaul a city-wide wireless network system including all fire
and police vehicle data. This wireless network covers 80%of the land area within Renton's
corporate boundaries.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts on the I-net,the fiber
network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition, firefighters and
police officers have access across the I-net to both the fire and police records management
systems,along with regional, state and federal emergency management and public safety data.
One of Renton's great concerns about the FCC's current telecommunication discussion is the
dependence of our police and fire operations on this cable I-net. If local franchise authority is
removed or diminished, Renton and other cities that have modernized their public safety
communications in this way may lose access to the systems that enable them to function.
Customer Service
Renton's franchise agreement assures the quality of service described in Federal standards.
These are good business practices that any cable service provider should endorse. Under the
terms of the Renton franchise agreement:
• In no case can a franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established by the
National Cable Television Association.
• If there is a service failure,the cable operator renders repairs promptly and with the shortest
service interruption possible,to restore the quality of the signal to pre-failure conditions.
Repair-related interruptions are preceded by notice, and occur during a period of minimum
use of the cable system.
• The cable operator responds to any system outage affecting more than five subscribers.
• The operator maintains an adequate force of customer service representatives and incoming
trunk lines,so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsibly. A summary of
customer service measures is provided by the operator quarterly.
• An employee of the franchise operator answers and responds to all individual complaints no
later than 5:00 p.m.weekdays, but may use an answering service after regular business
hours.
• The cable operator has a technician on call 24/7 and maintains a sufficient repair force to
respond to service requests within two working days. All complaints are resolved within
seven days, to the extent reasonable.
• If a subscriber has notified the operator of an outage,there is no charge for service if the
outage lasts more than 24 hours.
• When a new connection is made, and periodically at least once a year,the operator supplies
the title,address, and telephone number of the City official who subscribers can call with
questions or complaints.
Build Out
Another component of Renton's cable franchise agreement is especially important to our citizens
—the requirement for cable service to be available to all. Only a few small areas in Renton have
not been able to receive Comcast services because of extraordinary conditions.
The agreement specifies that service must be available city-wide within 12 months from granting
of the franchise(i.e.by September 1994). Areas subsequently annexed to the City must be
provided with cable availability within 12 months of annexation,subject to stipulated extraordinary
installation conditions. (Note that Renton has accepted nearly sixty annexations of
unincorporated King County territory since the initiation of the current franchise.)
Regarding low-density areas, our franchise agreement holds that cable service must be available
to all Renton residents provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per street mile. If a potential
new subscriber lives in a less dense area,the cable operator must enter into an agreement
wherein the new subscriber reimburses the operator for the costs of making the connection.
Whenever any subsequent subscriber(who did not contribute to the cost of the extension)
connects to the extended line,that subscriber must pay his/her pro rata share directly to the cable
operator. Then the operator passes that payment back to the original subscriber.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications technologies,
Renton's franchise stipulates a schedule completion of upgrades (such as internet connection)
within 48 months from the beginning of the franchise. Comcast now offers internet service to all
City residents who have cable.
New Entrants into the Renton Market
Directly pertinent to the FCC's concerns about assuring a"level playing field"for new entrants
into the local maket, Renton's franchise contains an"Equalization of Civic Contributions"section.
Under this provision:
• If one or more additional franchises are granted,the City may require that such subsequent
franchisees pay an amount proportionally equal to franchising costs experienced by the initial
franchisee.These costs may include but are not limited to access and institutional network
costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable installed to municipal buildings,and similar expenses.
• On the anniversary of each later-awarded franchise,those franchisees must pay to the City
an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee, based on the
number of subscribers held by the franchisees.
• Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel(s)and emergency override
systems currently available to the subscribers of the existing franchisee(s). In order to provide
these access channels, new franchisees may interconnect, at their cost, with the existing
franchisee(s),subject to reasonable terms and conditions imposed by the existing franchisee.
These interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees. In case of
dispute, the City Council may arbitrate.
Operation in the Public Rights of Way
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way for the purpose of
providing cable television service. As is the case with all ROW users,the cable provider must
obtain a construction permit from the City,and must pay an approval/inspection fee. Upon
application for each construction permit the franchisee must submit an"advance notification"plan
for the proposed construction.
Insurance and Performance Bond
According to the franchise agreement the City of Renton holds with Comcast:
• Comcast maintains a general comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect the City and
all persons against liability for personal injury,death and property damage, and errors or
omissions related to the operations of the franchisee. The insurance policy provides
minimum limits of$1 million for both personal injury and/or property damage, and names the
City as additional insured.
• The franchisee must promptly repair any damage to City property caused by a franchisee or
any of its agents.
• The franchisee must comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations regarding
excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City,shall be required to post a
performance bond in favor of the City warranting that all restoration work will be done
promptly and in a workmanlike manner.
The Franchising Process and Enforcement Mechanisms
The City of Renton treats it cable franchise agreement as a contract between the City, acting on
behalf of its citizens,and the cable television/internet connection provider.
Renton agrees with the Federal Cable Act that the statutory obligation of the local government is
to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests,and ensure that these are
addressed in the franchising process.
If any portion of our franchise is inconsistent or conflicts with any FCC rule or regulation or other
Federal law,the FCC or Federal rule controls. Our franchise further states that matters involving
technical standards, rates,franchise renewal, franchise fees,compensation for involuntary
abandonment, and termination for non-compliance are subject to Federal and State law.
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the franchise process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights. For instance, Renton's City Code
(Section 5-19-9)requires the City to give public notice of the grounds for revocation of a
, •
franchise. Also, the franchisee may elect a hearing before the City Council,who has authority to
issue a sanction less severe than revocation, based on factors specified in the Code.
There are three sections of the Renton City Code that enable the City to enforce the terms of the
cable franchise agreement:
• City Code Section 5-19-5N provides that no franchise shall be renewed until violations or
defaults in the franchisee's performance have been corrected, or a plan of correction has
been approved by the City.
• Code Section 5-19-4P, mirrors this language to describe the conditions warranting non-
renewal of a telecommunications license.
• City Code Section 5-109-8U provides for revocation or termination of a franchise for
certain violations.
Competitive Cable Systems
The City of Renton was approached once several years ago by a competitive cable television
provider, but the provider chose not to enter into formal discussions. The City has not and will not
deny any provider the opportunity to serve this community. There is already a procedure on our
books allowing competitive providers to establish a franchise relationship with the City.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in Renton,Washington. Renton has
experience working with cable providers to both see that the needs of the local community are
met, and ensure that the practical business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that cable operators are allowed access to the public rights of
way in a fair and even-handed manner, that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced,and that uses of the rights of way assure adequate protection of this valuable
public asset. Our cable franchising process also ensures that our community's specific needs are
met, and that the City of Renton is able to intervene on behalf of its citizens if need be.
Franchises provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the operations of
cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to handle matters of specifically local
interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including Renton, a voice in implementation of
local cable systems, and the features (such as PEG access and I-Nets)that will be available to
meet local needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing providers.
The City of Renton,Washington therefore respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from
interfering with local government franchising authority, or to otherwise impair the operation of the
local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Renton,Washington
By:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
cc: NATOA, info(a�natoa.orq
John Norton, John.Nortonfcc.qov
Andrew Long,Andrew.Lonq cr fcc.gov
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 12/28/2005 7:25:19 PM
Subject: FCC NPRM re: franchise authority
I've attached some notes to myself regarding our meeting—Friday morning at 10:30?—to pull together
info for our comments to the FCC. Pls add your own Qs and concerns to share with others before or
during our meeting.
CC: Covington, Jay; ljwarren@seanet.com; Zimmerman, Gregg
•
Herzog Notes on FCC's NPRM re: Cable Franchise authority 12/27/05
Renton agrees with the following principles of the FCC and Section 621 of the
Cable Communications Policy Act (and its successor Cable TV Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992):
• It is important to have multiple competitors in the video marketplace
• Competition tends to engender higher quality and cost/price
consciousness among providers
Renton does NOT agree with the presumption (evident throughout the NPRM)
that:
• LFAs are heedless of the value of competition
• LFAs (in general) impose unreasonable regulatory and/or timeliness
constraints on potential entrants into the cable communications
environment
• the FCC has or should seek to exercise authority over the practices of
local franchising authorities (see below)
See Adelstein's statement—We shd be using some of his arguments & his
terminology. He argues that Congress expressly gave LFAs authority to "prevent
economic redlining, to establish reasonable build-out requirements to 'all
households in the franchise area,' and to 'provide adequate public, educational
and governmental access channel capacity,facilities or financial support" and
that the FCC "indeed cannot usurp for [itself] the authority granted by Congress
to local governments." And, further, "[competitors' arguments] . . . that the
franchising process is cumbersome and unwieldy . . . are better made before
Congress, not the Commission."
Renton believes that its own cable franchising practices
• Do not impede competition or bar new providers from entering this market
• Protect the rights of its constituents
• Are necessary to protect the quality and utility of its public rights of way
• Do not "unreasonably deny a franchise to potential competitors"
• Do not, and do not have the effect of, granting exclusive franchise to any
provider
• Do not in any way hinder federal communications policy objectives
Remarkably little is said about protection of the public rights of way, except in
NPRM section 22, addressing the distinction between new entrants and entities
that already have franchises authorizing their use of rights of way.
Questions:
• Shd Renton argue that the FCC does not have the authority to adopt
rules, but only to provide "guidance"? (Ask Mike Bradley. Dz Larry W
have an opinion?)
• Likewise, would we argue against the FCC's "tentative conclusion" that
Sec. 621(a)(1) authorizes the Cmsn to take actions, consistent with Sec.
636(a), to ensure that the local franchising process does not undermine
the . . . [federal] policy goal of increased MVPD competition . . ."?
• Does WA state have any state-wide franchise authority or regulation?
• Is there any way to calculate an average amount of time (in Renton) to
obtain a franchise, and/or an average time taken to negotiate a franchise?
• Has Renton ever denied a franchise?
• Can Renton be said to have "demanded concessions that are not relevant
to providing cable services? What "concessions" have been negotiated in
past and present franchise agreements?
• Does Renton incorporate "level playing field" provisions in its cable
ordinance or its current franchise agreement?
Regarding the form and content of our comments to the FCC:
Is it better to represent ourselves as the City of Renton (describing our specific
standing in this debate), or to affiliate ourselves with NATOA, NLC, US Conf of
Mayors, etc.?
Who has or can find the information NATOA suggests we gather and include in
our comments, regarding:
Bonnie year of first franchise agreement, inclusive dates of current cable franchise,
franchise fee rate (percentage of Comcast gross revenues), #of PEG channels
of dif't types, support from Comcast(under franchise agreement)for PEG
facilities.
George Franchise requirements for I-Net support& uses of our I-Net
Emergency alert requirements under franchise
Bonnie Customer service provisions of franchise
Bonnie?? Phased-in build-out. (Anything about annexations???)
Re-build and upgrade requirements; cable modem service?
Bonnie? Level-playing-field provisions in ordinance or franchise agreement
Bonnie? Insurance &bonding requirements
Gregg? regulations/permit requirements/fees, etc.for use of ROWs
enforcement mechanisms (see page 4 of template)
provision within current franchise agreement for law changes
How Renton assures due process rights for franchisee, and what obligations the
City has
Renton's experience with competitive providers (see p. 5 of template)
Other:
Other:
Other:
Other:
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters,
Ben; Zimmerman, Gregg
Date: 12/22/2005 5:14:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW: NATOA Call to Action -Assists Local Governments to File in FCC
Franchise Proceeding
Yes, certainly Ben,we need to"get right on this". (I know what you're thinking . . .WE'RE ALREADY right
on this. If only Herzog would get her xxx in gear.)
The NATOA template covers substantial ground. I'd be surprised if any one of us, or even any group of
us, could provide all the info called for in this template without a LOT of work. But I also think all of this is
important for us to know, since it is all important to our arguments to retain city franchise authority.
I wd like to propose that each of you on the"to"line download both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the template provided by NATOA and identify the elements on which you are the"authority" in regard
to the current cable franchise. If there are others who shd be included in this annointed group (of r
authoritative people), please let me know—either right now or as you are reviewing the template.
Timing? Soon as possible.
Then very soon we should start pulling together the info we will need to establish Renton's standing, and
prepare/send our comments on the proposed FCC rules.
In addition,we need to figure out who will carry our water in DC, and how much we're willing to pay extra,
if that is necessary. B&G suggests they will add us to their list of cities when they send their comments,
and they will limit their fee to $2500 per jurisdiction. I can't make a judgment about the value of this
"service"without knowing more. Bonnie, have you talked with Bradley? Or with other cities (e.g.
vancouver)who have used B&G's lobbying assistance in the past?
At this point, I'm inclined to think that some of what we will need (for instance assessment of the service
we're receiving now and our franchisee's performance under the current contract) is already included in
the scope of our new contract with B&G. We may, however, need to re-think the scheduling of some of
the work.
I understand that both Bonnie and Ben will be here over the holidays, but I don't know about the rest of
you. If we can, perhaps we shd meet next week? Will YOU be available??
I'd love to hear from each of you. "Reply all"so we can get moving on (a)scheduling a meeting and (b)
completion of the template and .
Linda
P.S. in case some of you don't have the link to the NATOA notice, I'll fwd the e-mail to you, next up.
>>> Ben Wolters 12/21/05 2:28 PM >>>
This seems like an appropriate place for Renton to comment in support of our franchise agreements and
process and the importance of maintaining local control of ROW. Our response can serve as a basis for
communicating on the legislative side. On this issue, I think its best we team up with existing
organizations and when the time is right carry our own story to our congressional delegation.
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/21/05 1:52 PM >>>
FYI...
Bonnie
CC: Covington, Jay
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 12/30/2005 10:19:34 AM
Subject: outline for this morning's meeting
sorry I didn't send this off earlier. Got busy, forgot. Attribute this to old age!
r
FCC action re: local franchise authority
12/30/05 meeting: Walton, Wolters, Bailey, Herzog
WHAT is Renton arguing for?
- preservation of local franchise authority
WHY?
- to protect the public rights of way
- to preserve current tax/fee base
- to represent and advocate on behalf of our constituents (for access and
high quality service)
HOW?
- respond to FCC NPRM . . . using NATOA template or other format??
- Retain Bradley & Guzzetta . . . to include Renton in its comments &/or to
represent Renton with FCC, House & Senate Cmte members, our own
delegation
- Request that [newly hired lobby firm] advocate on our behalf . . . with
- Indiv letters from Mayor/ Council to . . . Renton delegation, FCC, Cmte
members??
WHEN?
- comments to FCC not later than
- request B&G assistance
- request [new lobby firm] assistance
WHO will be our lead person responsible for making all of this happen?
g0')
,v774v1717 ,
veptly
rrpie yr --1WittMe 7vir
yQ.do log (77,(
-k11/)-972 /ill 0
e.:7/W /I, rill0
S .JA(\
114;0.0rolv /
/77?-rwr
p921-Pi (m(pAir 3°
eel-pv-(12 in-,7rwl?tia
((v'n9)-
<-4442iria' tf/ (vpy xvio
4v774- —
4.'v7rr/749vfr
"742/1117 ''Z-a 741 - -n7Pir
1 �
44 ' ors - .-4 ,776;flaYre 4
. E 1' 2y" . J a /S/ W 6/ "40
Atr
-, �.
FCC action re: local franchise authority
12/30/05 meeting: Walton, Wolters, Bailey, Herzog
WHAT is Renton arguing for?
- preservation of local franchise authority
WHY?
- to protect the public rights of way
- to preserve current tax/fee base
- to represent and advocate on behalf of our constituents (for access and
high quality service)
HOW?
- respond to FCC NPRM . . . using NATOA template or other format??
- Retain Bradley & Guzzetta . . . to include Renton in its comments &/or to
represent Renton with FCC, House & Senate Cmte members, our own
delegation
- Request that [newly hired lobby firm] advocate on our behalf . . . with
/0 - lndiv letters from Mayor/ Council to . . . Renton delegation, FCC, Cmte
members??
A
WHEN?
- comments to FCC not later than /-1c 0S
- request B&G assistance bead... '
.
- request [new lobby firm] assistance ra G -. - G"g/''vi
- send letters from Mayor/ Council Ati-',-y,f— Ito 4" -7..4/.
WHO will be our lead person responsible for making all of this happen?
oad�amarlo,
OFN EWS
a
cr
• vsr'
Federal Communications Commission News Media Information 202/418-0500
44512th Street, S.W. Internet:http://www.fcc.gov
Washington, D. C. 20554 TTY:1-888-835-5322
This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v.FCC.515 F 2d 385(D.C.Clrc 1974).
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE News Media Contact:
November 3,2005 Rebecca Fisher(202)418-2359
FCC Initiates Rulemaking to Ensure Reasonable
Franchising Process for New Video Market Entrants
Washington,DC—The Federal Communications Commission(FCC)today adopted a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on issues relating to the implementation of
Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act of 1934. The Notice seeks input on what can be
done to ensure that local franchising authorities(LFAs)do not unreasonably refuse to award
cable franchises to competitive entrants.
This Notice initiates a proceeding to further the interrelated goals of enhanced cable
competition and accelerated broadband deployment. The FCC tentatively concludes that the
mandate of Section 621(a)(1)should be interpreted to prohibit not just the ultimate refusal to
award a franchise,but also a broader range of behaviors,and the Notice seeks comment on that
conclusion.
Specifically,the Notice addresses a broad range of questions,including:
• The Notice asks if local franchising authorities are unreasonably refusing to grant
competitive franchises. The Notice also asks what problems cable incumbents have
encountered with LFAs, including how best the Commission can ensure that the local
franchising process is not inhibiting the ability of incumbent cable operators to invest in
broadband services.
• The Notice also asks whether the Commission has authority to implement the pro-
competitive mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The Notice tentatively concludes that the
Commission is empowered by provisions of both Title I and Title VI of the
Communications Act to take steps appropriate to ensure that the local franchising process
does not serve as an unreasonable barrier to entry for competitive cable operators. The
Notice also tentatively concludes that the Commission may deem to be preempted and
superseded any law or regulation of a State or LFA that causes an unreasonable refusal to
award a competitive franchise in contravention of Section 621(a).
• The Notice tentatively conclude that it is not unreasonable for an LFA, in awarding a
franchise,to"assure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of potential
residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in
which such group resides";"allow[a] cable system a reasonable period of time to
become capable of providing cable service to all households in the franchise area"; and
"require adequate assurance that the cable operator will provide adequate public,
educational and governmental access channel capacity,facilities, or financial support."
• Assuming there is both the need and the authority for Commission intervention,the
Notice asks how the Commission should interpret the mandate of Section 621(a)(1). The
item tentatively concludes that the Commission should interpret the relevant language of
Section 621(a)(1)broadly in order to prohibit not only unreasonable refusals to award
competitive franchises,but also the establishment of procedures and other requirements
that unreasonably interfere with the ability of would-be new entrants to introduce quickly
their competitive offerings.
• The item seeks comment on what specific steps should the Commission take to
implement Section 621(a)(1).
• The Notice seeks comment on whether the Commission has authority to establish a
minimum amount of time for potential competitors with existing facilities to build out
their networks beyond their current service territories. It also seeks commenters to
address what would constitute a reasonable minimum timeframe.
• Finally,the Notice asks whether the Commission should address actions at the state level,
to the extent we find such actions create unreasonable barriers to entry for potential
competitors.
• The Commission announced it plans to hold an en banc hearing to supplement the record
in this proceeding.
The Notice will be available online at www.fcc.gov.
Action by the Commission,November 3,2005,by Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(FCC 05-
189). Chairman Martin, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps and Adelstein. Chairman Martin,
and Commissioners Abernathy, Copps,and Adelstein issued separate statements.
MB Docket 05-311
--FCC--
Media Bureau Contacts: Andrew Long(202)418-1043
Mary Beth Murphy(202)418-7200
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; Ijwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts,
Neil; Wolters, Ben
Date: 3/3/2006 1:25:05 PM
Subject: proposed message to Mike Bradley
This is long and tedious, but I'd appreciate your review and corrections/additions if you have any. I want
to send this to Bradley before I leave today.
While you're reviewing, I'll be making a list of topics I want to be sure he covers when he presents to the
Council and meets with the finance cmte on the 13th, as well as agenda items for our meeting with him
the following day. Your suggestions are welcome on those things as well.
Thanks!
CC: Covington, Jay
-text of e-vita%I, to mike Brcw(Le
Subject: Comments on the draft work program:
Mike— Members of the staff work group (including me) are confused about the relationship between tasks in the contract work scope
and items listed in your draft work program. We want to take this opportunity to raise our questions, although we are prepared to wait
— until the March 14 to discuss these points with you. We do want to be sure to come out of our meeting on the 14th will a full
understanding of what will be done within the data-gathering and analysis phases, what options are available to the City, and what
specific involvement will be required of various staff members. _Aaptchise.
Most importantly, we want to move quickly forward on our franchise renewal process. Although the currentnagreement runs to mid-
September 2008, we are hoping that the renewal agreement will be in place a full year earlier. If you advise we should not assume this
time frame, we'll want to discuss that with you — before your presentation to the Council on March 13.
In an effort to be both thorough and clear about our questions, I've prepared a table that lists the contract tasks on one side, and the
work program items on the other. As you can see, I've tried to match the items according to their content instead of their estimated
timing. But because the wording differs from the contract scope to the work program, I'm not at all confident that the "match" has been
done correctly. Whatever enlightenment you can provide will be appreciated!
In addition to the work program questions, I am also attaching a list of topics I hope you can cover when you_present to the City Council
on March 13, and the topics the staff work group will want to include in our own agenda on the 14th.
By the way, we have decided that inviting representatives of other cities to join us on the 14th may unduly complicate the process.
Although we are interested in strengthening the working partnership with our neighboring cities on telecommunications, we will need to
think further about the best ways to do that.
Thanks for all your preparation for our kick-off event. We're looking forward to the process.
COMPARISON OF B&G CONTRACT PROPOSED TASK TIMELINE & WORK PLAN PROPOSED FEB. 2006
CONTRACT EXHIBIT C FEB. 06 WORK PLAN DRAFT
Task description Timing Lead Task description Timing Lead
9 Work plan 1st qtr '06 B&G and
CBG
0Special presentation 1st qtr '06 B&G ✓1. Brief City Council on renewal & proposed Mar '06 B&G
work plan
Training & evaluation - educate city work 1st qtr '06 B&G and 1j2. Meet with City staff to identify staff Mar '06
team members CBG priorities and roles
Financial Implications (see Exhibit B) - 1st qtr ??
prepare written budget & fin. info, and
franchise analysis for a total cost of ops,
incl budget devt for remaining yrs of cable
TV effort. [Note A]
Comparative Studies (see Exhibit B) 1st qtr'06 ?? [Note B]
OPublic hearings 1st qtr'06 B&G [Note C]
OPT -Training of PW/IT staff to identify & 1st qtr '06 CBG
report cable violations/safety issues
0 Performance analysis & upgrade qtrs 1&2 '06 CBG /3. Compliance Review - review all current July '06 B&G
evaluation [also described in Exh B as franchise commitments to assure kev�4,4'
"Implementation - Oversee franchise compliance Fia 0 =�
implementation and technical and contract Sy sfP►'n-'� TPA' Rev'Puv CBG
compliance and acceptance"] "Compliance Review- system technical
review incl I-Net [Note D]
0 Compliance w/ Cable TV Consumer qtrs 1&2 '06 B&G and [Note D]
Protection & Competition Act of 1992 CBG
41. Notice non-compliance (if any)t BrailN9s Aug '06
14' nc(ess0'y
pAccesQufr_ nn — review status of PEG qtrs 1&2 '06 B&G and /5. Cable-related needs & interest study — Sep `06 CBG
use, assess availability of PEG channels, CBG identify roles of Puget Sd Access & other
time allocations & sharing arrangements participating cities [Note E]
[Note E]
v6. Draft needs assessment report [Note F] Nov 06 CBG
@ Collection of franchise fees — be sure qtrs 1-3 '06 Front Rg compliance review: fees Front
franchisee if paying correct amt & on time Consult
P Y g �,� -tef�pho� Range
Survey (mail out, city pays mailing costs qtrs 2-4 '06 CBG [NoteG]
OPT —Telephone survey (in lieu of written qtrs 2-4 '06 CBG
community survey)
Financial implications — see above item qtrs 2-4 '07 B&G
taken from Exhibit B — what is difference?
1/7. Prepare draft franchise agreement and Nov `06 B&G
ordinance [Note H]
A. Draft staff report and Request for Jan `07 B&G with
Renewal Proposals [Note H] CBG &
r Front Rg
pWrr V9-10-11. Present staff report and RFRP to Feb `07 B&G and
City Council / Council accepts & authorizes CBG
staff to issue / staff issues [Note H]
2. Receive formal renewal proposals OR Apr `07
entertain informal renewal negotiations
[Note H]
713. Informal renewal negotiations [Note H] Complete
by
Jun '07
04. Prepare report on formal renewal Aug 07 Entire
proposal [Notes H and I] B&G team
e. Negotiations qtrs 1-4 '07 B&G VI5. Act on formal renewal proposal [Note J] Sep `07 Entire
B&G team
CImplementation 4"1 qtr '07 B&G
Y J
Specific comments below relate to Notes in the chart above:
P►— Not certain what financial implications are referenced here. The contract work scope says "Prepare written budget and financial
information, and franchise analysis for a total cost of operations, including budget development for remaining years of cable TV effort."
Since this task was projected to be completed within the first quarter of the contract period (i.e. now), we assume that the "remaining
years" those that remain in the current franchise agreement. If not, how can budget implications be projected for the yet-to-be-
negotiated franchise period? Also, we note that there is no equivalent item on the draft work program.
— Re: comparative studies, this would be very useful to us, and we assume you have this information already developed through your
past work. However, this item does not appear in the draft work program.
—We have been assuming there will be public processes to solicit from our citizens their satisfaction and their issues with current
services. You and I agreed that the public hearing the contract suggests for the first quarter of this year is premature. But I don't see
any other citizen input opportunities listed in the draft work program.
-The work program shows three elements of."Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review" — assuring compliance with current
franchise commitments, assuring compliance with fee payment requirements, and assuring compliance with technical system
requirements (including the I-Net, which you know is a special concern for us). There are two questions here: The contract work scope
also addressed compliance with 1) system upgrade requirements and 2) the Cable TV Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992 (and presumably its successor laws and regulations). We want to be sure both of these are included in the compliance
assessment work that B&G and its partners will be doing.
-Are these two items — "Access utilization / PEG review" and "Cable-related needs and interests study" the same? Perhaps you can
amplify on March 14 what will be included in this part of the analysis.
- Does this work program item refer specifically (and only) to public access or to the franchisee's performance more broadly?
G—The contract work scope included a survey of current cable customers, either by mail or telephone. The draft work program does
not include a survey.
H—We will need a full discussion with you on March 14 regarding the alternatives available to the City in regard to "informal" and
"formal" franchise renewal processes, and the steps that are part of each of these processes. We're assuming that all of the work
program tasks numbered 7 through 14 relate to this question, and that some of these are "either/or" tasks, depending on the process
we follow. We will want both the staff work group and the City Council to come away from our discussions 10 days from now with full
clarity on this subject.
1—Who is the intended audience for/ recipient of this report?
We are not clear about the wording "act on". Does this mean "accept the proposal or enter negotiations"?
From: Linda Herzog
To: cable franchise wkgrp
Date: 2/27/2006 11:41:02 PM
Subject: franchise renewal workplan &Thurs meeting
Attached please find Mike Bradley's draft work program for the cable franchise renewal effort over the
coming 18 months.
I need your comments and suggestions to make this a useful guide for the work of our cross-departmental
group. We'll be able to go over this work plan with Mike on Tuesday 3/14. However, since he'll be
presenting to the Council the evening before, it will be very useful to critique the work program now, so he
can confidently discuss with them the timing of the major steps.
Please look this over and bring your comments to a VERY BRIEF meeting of the"Franchise Renewal
Work Group"at 10:00 this Thursday, 3/2. We can meet in the Mayor's conference room. And I promise
we'll be quick.
CC: Covington, Jay
J"
))/
- _�, ,e;'. MEMORANDUM Ps/ Pj9
►/
';"T'LS / g )9.
( <'
To: City of Renton
a., From: Michael R. Bradley
Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan
Date: February 27,2006
Bradleye;- ijifippetiji; of"
Guzzetta, i,LC
City of Renton4
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Proposed Work Plan
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The following is the work plan for the City's Cable Franchise Renewal Project.
P/(651)379-0900 I will be the lead consultant' assisted by Tracy Schaefer from my office, who
F/(651)379-0999
will help coordinate efforts between our firm and our Team Members (CBG
Attorneys at Law Communications, Inc. and Front Range Consulting, Inc.). I have indicated the
Michael R.Bradleyt major steps of the project and have indicated where certain B&G Team
Stephen J.Guzzetta* members are to participate, as well as the expected completion dates. Q Senior Project Manager (
Tracy J. Schaefer 1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan (March 2006) aoO
Legal Assistants 2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006) IS' �15`- 1U� y �
"Thomas R.Colaizy /d
Brian Laule a. Identify City Staff Priorities
b. IdentifyRoles for CityStaff 15 �b�
Of Counsel
Thomas C.Plunkett s$-2°07
Gregory S.Uhl 3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure
Compliance (B&G)
b. Franchise Fee Review(Front Range Consulting)
c. System Technical Review(including Institutional Network)
(CBG Communications, Inc.)
4. Notice Non-compliance (if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study (September 2006)
(CBG Communications, Inc.)
a. Identify Role (participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
b. Identify Role (participation and financial) of other Participating
Cities (Auburn, Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
.Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
,
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance (November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council (February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP (February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP (February 2007)
12. Receive Formal Renewal Proposals (April 2007)
13. Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations (approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14. Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal (August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15. Act on Formal Renewal Proposal (September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
2
r 40 CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Bonnie I.Walton
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor• •
November 18, 2005
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
• 444 Cedar Street
• : St. Paul, MN 55101 •
• Re: Consultant Contract
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Enclosed is a fully executed original.cif the Franchise Management&Renewal
Consulting Services Agreement between your company and the City of Renton. As
agreed;the contract is effective November 1, 2005. The.City has.also retained one
• original contract.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely,
&.71,yuce:Bonnie
—
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable IVIanager
Enclosure
cc: Jay Covington, CO
•
1055 South Grady.Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510/FAX(425)410-6516 REN •
TON
AHEAD OF THE CURVE
•::,* This paper contains 50%recycJed material,30%post consumer
CAG-05-183
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
Est IvOtJem ber
This agreement is entered into the., day of-45:1r , 2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to •
as"City"and Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC,hereinafter referred to as"Consultant"whose office
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza,444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul,MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas,the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services,and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation,one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services")as more fully described in Exhibit"A", "B", "C", and
"D„
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant,including its employees and sub-
consultants,in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and inthe manner set forth herein;
Now therefore,in consideration of the covenants,terms,conditions,and provisions of this
Contract,the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31,2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest, in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance,the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", `B"and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant,the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes &Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits"A",`B", "C", and"D".
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise Renewal
Work Plan(within the first quarter of 2006),the City will give advance approval to
initiate each task before billable work on that task begins. Approval may be given by
the City Clerk/Cable Manager or by the Chief Administrative Officer(CAO)or his
designee,in writing by letter or e-mail,or orally. If approval is oral, both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to proceed.
9-29-05 1
2.3 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services,either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered,subject to the approval of the Renton City Council,as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
Consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services,unless before the Consultant commences such performance,the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.4 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions,or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications,Status,and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual, including any
sub-consultants,charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington,to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law,to perform the Services,and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications,Inc.,Thomas G. Robinson, Constance Book,Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully described in the Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC
proposal dated April 14, 2005,and Exhibit"D"attached herewith, are approved sub-
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals,their business names,if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees,if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed,the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the project director and will have supervisory responsibility for
the performance,progress, and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason,the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
subject to the prior written approval of the project manager(as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
9-29-05
2
•
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees,and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal,State of
Washington,and local laws,ordinances,regulations,orders,and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and sub-
consultants,if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances,regulations,orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager,in writing,any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws,ordinances,regulations,orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys,and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey,and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants,if any,without the prior express written approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4)copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents,the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and sub-
consultants deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services. All
employees and sub-consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or sub-consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent,the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services,the Consultant and its sub-consultants,if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1,the Consultant may perform at its
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
9-29-05 3
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management,as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding,or proceeding of a court of record;
3.11.2 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.3 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit`B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer,or his designee,and Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager, will represent the City for all purposes under this contract.
4.3 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager,will review and approve,as necessary and in a timely manner the reports,
survey instruments and methods,and other documents,and each phase of work
performed by the Consultant.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit`B,"the City will pay the
Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($ 157,500.00). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit"D"
and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit,up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment for the Services will be based on quarterly invoices for actual services
rendered and will be paid by the City with thirty(30)days of receipt of the invoice.
The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports,
surveys, and other documents,including, without limitation,reports which have been
approved by the City.
9-29-05
4
Section 6. Accounting,Audits,Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B"will be prepared,maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3)years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys,and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City,irrespective of whether the Services are completed,upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect, indemnify,defend and hold harmless the City,its Council
members,officers,employees and agents, from any and all demands, claims,or liability of
any nature,including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss,caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's, its officers', agents',consultants' or employees'
negligent acts,errors,or omissions, or willful misconduct,or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term,condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,term, condition,provision,ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term,condition provision,ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term,condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance,or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant,at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain,in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work, including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage(provide the number);
9-29-05
5
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance(ACORD form)shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured,the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached,and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof,the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all sub-consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract,identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five(45)days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration,and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance,the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage,injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract,including
such damage,injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
• Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions,as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination or Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,on behalf of the City, may
suspend the performance of the Services, in whole or in part,or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving sixty(60)days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice,the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30)days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
9-29-05
6
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City,the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment,together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and,if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant,the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. In the event of termination of this
contract or suspension of work on the Services by the City where the Consultant is not
in default;.the Consultant will be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed
upon by the City. The total compensation payable under this contract will not exceed
the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination,the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys,and other
documents,whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants,or given to the Consultant or its consultants,in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant,therefore the Consultant will not
assign,transfer,convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right,title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law. '
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given,in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton,City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516 -fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
9-29-05
7
To Consultant: Michael R.Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St.Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999-fax
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com ,
• Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract,the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest,direct or indirect,financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that,in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City;this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race,color,national origin,ancestry,religion,disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington,relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington,excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought,the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
9-29-05
8
16.6 The covenants,terms,conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to,and will
bind,the heirs, successors,executors,administrators, assignees,and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts,each of which will be
an original,but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a,manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential nature of such communications. :The.
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the City seeks to protect,any and 411
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws,and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City,its
Council members and its employees,as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a)at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year,or(b)at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.11 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term,condition,or
provision of this contract;provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY&GUZZETTA, LLC
/4.04,01 ktae,t_
Kathy eolker-Wheeler,Mayor Michael Bradley, Owner
ATTEST:
3,5 wci1t %-) Taxpayer ID NO: H/- /(7/496 2
Bonnie I. Walton,.City Clerk/Cable Manager
•
n 7
9-29-05 +• •.
9
JApp ed as to Form:
y7
Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney
Attachments
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services.
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
' Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of Minnescf'o )
) ss.
County of iambey )
On this 3 day of 0c4aber> ,2005,before me,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owner of Bradley&
Guzzetta,LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
` r 1 THOMAS C.PLUNl�1T
" Notary Pubfic Mlnr>MOta
�, My commission Expires Jan 31,solo ignature of Notary Public
who resides in tii r4 ti e50+41/4
My Commission Expires: 39031 cgbi o
9-29-05
10
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection&Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services, making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible;and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled.Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic(or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public,Educational and Government
(PEG)access and implementation of Institutional Networks(I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges,channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints,as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements; and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-29-05
11
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur,to include, but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
•
9-29-05
12
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise,and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law,and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components,workmanship of new construction,line extension density, system
leakage,channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services,external pass-through
and, if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations,advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates,or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen, educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels, time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-29-05 13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits,if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary,in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1—3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process,including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1—3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process,development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community,input and analyze results,identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks,for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1—3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1—3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input,including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1—2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations,including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation,and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-29-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey,input and analyze results,and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-29-05 15
Exhibit"C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month,exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis&Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q-2006 •
Work Plan •
$1,560- B&G&
$2,340. CBG 1Q-2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
Public Hearings $25340 B&G 1Q
-2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q-2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q-4Q-2007
Implementation $2'S00 B&G
$8,000 4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360-
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
*Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-29-05
16
Exhibit"D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen,Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr.Constance L. Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley&'Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R.Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J.Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing,Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7),Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex,Travel,and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-29-05
17
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC (1 i CiTY OF RI NTON
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street fj) MAR I Ia 2006 4,f
Saint Paul, MN 55101 FtFC .IVi~'i
P/(651) 379-0900 F/(651)379-0999 erry CLERK'S OFFICE
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
March 10, 2006
In reference to:Cable Franchise Renewal
Invoice#13735
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Amount
2/27/2006 MRB Draft proposed work plan 487.50
MRB Review/revise work plan per client direction. Forward to client. 97.50
For professional services rendered $585.00
Balance due $585.00
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> CITY OF RENTON
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us> � � ��
Date: 3/10/2006 4:36:14 PM
Subject: Your Bill RECEIVED
CITY CRt{'S OFFICE
For your convenience, your bill is attached to this message.
Please review the attached bill and submit your payment.
Thank you.
Note: The attached bill is in PDF file format.Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to view this file. If you do
not have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, please download the free reader from the Adobe website
(http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)and install it on your computer.
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 3/15/2006 3:31:26 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Your Bill
Yes, I am making the Scope A payments. I will remind Mike about billing quarterly.
I will mark this billing as okay then and pay it from here.
bw
>>> Linda Herzog 03/15/06 2:24 PM >>>
Odd that Mike should bill us at the end of February when the contract specifies quarterly invoices, and we
only gave him notice to proceed on this part(Scope B) in January. I guess I don't mind paying him for
these limited hours a month early, but I think we should remind him that he's supposed to bill us quarterly.
If you can do payment there, that would be best, since both Scope A and Scope B are the same contract
number and I presume you're making payment from there for the Scope A work.
>>> Bonnie Walton 03/14/06 3:41 PM >>>
This is a cable franchise renewal billing. After you okay it, you can either send it back to me to make the
payment, or you can have your office prepare the PO. Just let me know.
Bonnie, x6502
CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL COSTS
Budget: 2006 $102,500
2007 $ 55,000
Contract Total '$157,500
Date Invoice Init Description Amount Remaining
Balance
2/27/2006 13735 MRB Draft proposed workplan; $487.50 $102,500
Review/Revise workplan $97.50 -585
$585.00 $101,915
A
From: Linda Herzog
To: cable franchise wkgrp; Watts, Neil
Date: 3/3/2006 9:37:56 PM
Subject: Calendar this!
Pls note the footnote on the list of topics we want Mike Bradley to cover when he meets with us:
The City Council meeting will be taped, and also broadcast live. We will request that all members of the
staff workgroup either attend the Council Finance Committee meeting at 5:00 on 3/13, attend your
presentation at the beginning of the full Council meeting at 7:00, watch that presentation at home on Cable
Channel 21, or view the videotape on Tuesday morning the 14th. When the workgroup convenes,
participants will come prepared with questions and topics for more in-depth discussion.
This will save us some time and allow Mike to get into the meatier-discussions we need to have with him.
Thanks.
CC: Covington, Jay
From: Linda Herzog
To: bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
Date: 3/3/2006 9:28:02 PM
Subject: Comments on draft work program,and topics for Council presentation &staff workgroup
meeting
Mike—Members of the staff work group (including me) have reviewed your draft work program and are
confused about the relationship between tasks in the contract work scope and items listed in the work
program. We want to take this opportunity to raise our questions, although we are prepared to wait until
March 14 to discuss these points with you. We do want to be sure to come out of our meeting on the 14th
will a full understanding of what will be done within the data-gathering and analysis phases, what options
are available to the City for the renewal process, and what specific involvement will be required of various
staff members.
Most importantly,we want to move quickly forward on our franchise renewal process. Although the
current franchise agreement runs to mid-September 2008, we are hoping that the renewal agreement will
be in place a full year earlier. If you advise we should not assume this stepped-up time frame,we'll want
to discuss that with you—before your presentation to the Council on March 13.
In an effort to be both thorough and clear about our questions, I've prepared a table that lists the contract
tasks on one side, and the work program items on the other. As you can see, I've tried to match the items
according to their content instead of their estimated timing. But because the wording differs from the
contract scope to the work program, I'm not at all confident that the"match" has been done correctly. I
have annotated the table with about a dozen specific questions. Whatever enlightenment you can provide
will be appreciated!
In addition to the work program questions, I am also attaching a list of topics I hope you can cover when
you present to the City Council on March 13, and also the topics the staff work group will want to include in
our own agenda for the 14th. Regarding the entry on your draft work program, we are not sure what you
intend by"Identify staff priorities." If you can clarify with a message during the week of March 6, we will be
able to prepare for this discussion.
By the way,we have decided that inviting representatives of other cities to join us on the 14th may unduly
complicate the process. Although we are interested in strengthening the working partnership on
telecommunications with our neighboring cities,we will need to think further about the best ways to do
that.
Thanks for all your preparation for our kick-off event. We're looking forward to the process.
CC: cable franchise wkgrp; Covington, Jay; Watts, Neil
COMPARISON OF B&G CONTRACT PROPOSED TASK TIMELINE & WORK PLAN PROPOSED FEB. 2006
CONTRACT EXHIBIT C FEB. 06 WORK PLAN DRAFT
Task description Timing Lead Task description Timing Lead
Work plan 1st qtr'06 B&G and
CBG
Special presentation 1 St qtr'06 B&G 1. Brief City Council on renewal & proposed Mar '06 B&G
work plan
Training & evaluation— educate city work 1st qtr'06 B&G and 2. Meet with City staff to identify staff Mar '06
team members CBG priorities and roles
Financial Implications (see Exhibit B) — 1st qtr ??
prepare written budget & fin. info, and
franchise analysis for a total cost of ops,
incl budget devt for remaining yrs of cable
TV effort. Note—Al
Comparative Studies (see Exhibit B) is'qtr'06 ?? [Note'B]
Public hearings 1 St qtr'06 B&G Note
OPT— Training of PW/lT staff to identify 1 St qtr'06 CBG
& report cable violations/safety issues
Performance analysis & upgrade qtrs 1&2 '06 CBG 3. Compliance Review - review all current July '06 B&G
evaluation [also described in Exh B as franchise commitments to assure
"Implementation - Oversee franchise compliance
implementation and technical and contract CBG
compliance and acceptance"] Compliance Review— system technical
review incl I-Net INotemmD]
Compliance w/Cable TV Consumer qtrs 1&2 '06 CBG and Note,DI
Protection & Competition Act of 1992
4. Notice non-compliance (if any) Aug '06
Access utilization — review status of PEG qtrs 1&2 '06 B&G and 5. Cable-related needs & interest study— Sep '06 CBG
use, assess availability of PEG channels, CBG identify roles of Puget Sd Access & other
time allocations & sharing arrangements participating cities Note E
{Note El
6. Draft needs assessment report [Note Fl Nov 06 CBG
Collection of franchise fees— be sure qtrs 1-3 '06 Front Rg 3. Compliance review: fees Front
franchisee if paying correct amt & on time Consult Range
Survey(mail out, city pays mailing costs) qtrs 2-4 '06 CBG [Note Gl
OPT— Telephone survey (in lieu of qtrs 2-4 '06 CBG
written community survey)
Financial implications— see above item qtrs 2-4 '07 B&G
taken from Exhibit B —what is difference?
7. Prepare draft franchise agreement and Nov '06 B&G
ordinance INote"Hl
8. Draft staff report and Request for Jan '07 B&G with
Renewal Proposals [Note Hi CBG &
Front Rg
9-10-11. Present staff report and RFRP to Feb '07 B&G and
City Council / Council accepts & authorizes CBG
staff to issue / staff issues [Note H]
12. Receive formal renewal proposals OR Apr '07
entertain informal renewal negotiations
'[Note,.Hi
13. Informal renewal negotiations [Note,H} Complete
by
Jun `07
14. Prepare report on formal renewal Aug 07 Entire
proposal [Notes;'Ny'and;.'I] B&G team
Negotiations qtrs 1-4 '07 B&G 15. Act on formal renewal proposal [Note 41 Sep '07 Entire
B&G team
Implementation 4"'gtr'07 B&G
Specific comments below relate to Notes in the chart above:
A— Not certain what financial implications are referenced here. The contract work scope says "Prepare written budget and financial
information, and franchise analysis for a total cost of operations, including budget development for remaining years of cable TV effort."
Since this task was projected to be completed within the first quarter of the contract period (i.e. now), we assume that the "remaining
years" those that remain in the current franchise agreement. If not, how can budget implications be projected for the yet-to-be-
negotiated franchise period? Also, we note that there is no equivalent item on the draft work program.
B— Re: comparative studies, this would be very useful to us, and we assume you have this information already developed through your
past work. However, this item does not appear in the draft work program.
O—We have been assuming there will be public processes to solicit from our citizens their-satisfaction and their issues with current
services. You and I agreed that the public hearing the contract suggests for the first quarter of this year is premature. But I don't see
any other citizen input opportunities listed in the draft work program.
-The work program shows three elements of"Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review" — assuring compliance with current
franchise commitments, assuring compliance with fee payment requirements, and assuring compliance with technical system
requirements (including the I-Net, which you know is a special concern for us). There are two questions here: The contract work scope
also addressed compliance with 1) system upgrade requirements and 2) the Cable TV Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992 (and presumably its successor laws and regulations). We want to be sure both of these are included in the compliance
assessment work that B&G and its partners will be doing.
E-Are these two items — "Access utilization / PEG review" and "Cable-related needs and interests study" the same? Perhaps you can
amplify on March 14 what will be included in this part of the analysis.
- Does this work program item refer specifically (and only) to public access or does it refer to the franchisee's performance more
broadly? Can you outline the usual components of a franchise renewal needs assessment?
Ga—The contract work scope included a survey of current cable customers, either by mail or telephone. The draft work program does
not include a survey.
H,—We will need a full discussion with you on March 14 regarding the alternatives available to the City in regard to "informal" and
"formal" franchise renewal processes, and the steps that are part of each of these processes. We're assuming that all of the work
program tasks numbered 7 through 14 relate to this question, and that some of these are "either/or" tasks, depending on the process
we follow. We will want both the staff work group and the City Council to come away from our discussions 10 days from now with full
clarity on this subject.
1—Who is the intended audience for/recipient of this report?
11—We are not clear about the wording "act on". Does this mean "accept the proposal or enter negotiations"?
TOPICS FOR 3/13/06 CITY CNCL PRES/N ON CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL—20 MIN+ QS
Who is B&G/other members of the consultant team/a few examples of past noteworthy work
Status of Renton's current cable franchise/major components of agreement
Term/expiration of agreement& rules governing renewal—federal, State, Renton
Work program—tasks/timing—for Renton's renewal process
Issues frequently faced by cities during franchise renewal
The citizen input component of data-gathering, issue-raising, and identification of technology
wants/needs
Federal activity in re: telecommunications, provider competition, local franchise authority, etc. and
implications for Renton
Advice on communicating with franchisee representatives during renewal and/or renegotiation
process
AGENDA TOPICS FOR 3/14/06 STAFF WORKGROUP DISCUSSION:
All of the above (Council presentation topics) as orientation •
Detailed review and discussion of the revised work program (including questions forwarded to
you in the March 3 e-mail from L. Herzog and tentative dates for public meetings, hearings and
Council appearances)
City staff priorities—see comment in my cover e-mail.
Roles of City staff
Advice regarding Congressional deliberation on telecommunications legislation
Pros and cons of collaborating with neighboring cities during franchise renewal process
*The City Council meeting will be taped, and also broadcast live. We will request that all
members of the staff workgroup either attend the Council Finance Committee meeting at 5:00 on
3/13, attend your presentation at the beginning of the full Council meeting at 7:00, watch that
presentation at home on Cable Channel 21, or view the videotape on Tuesday morning the 14tn
When the workgroup convenes, participants will come prepared with questions and topics for
more in-depth discussion.)
From: Linda Herzog
To:
Gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us,Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us,BWolters@ci.renton.wa.us,Gzim
merman@ci.renton.wa.us,MEBailey@ci.renton.wa.us
Date: 2/25/2006 1:31:24 PM
Subject: Fwd:work program for Renton
folks -- I'm having trouble getting Mike Bradley to produce a work program in time for us to review it, get
comments back to him, then set him up to present to the Council at COW on March 13. See the e-mail
(attached)that I sent him yesterday.
Mike said he wd prepare the draft work program over this weekend. The minute I get it, I'll send it out for
all of you for review. I want to make sure we're able to work with B&G at the times they lay out for the
various steps in the data-gathering and renegotiation process.
As you'll see in the e-mail, I'm suggesting we all meet on Thursday to gather up our comments &get them
back to him on Friday. The timing is dictated by(a) Mayor's state of the city address mid-day Wednesday,
and (b) my own absence from March 4 thru March 12, which I regret but cannot change.
I don't have the ability to check all of your calendars right now-- I'm doing this from home--but if you wd
do that soon as you can, and let me know when you're available on Thursday, then I'll set a time for us to
meet.
Thanks much,
Linda
CC: Jcovington@ci.renton.wa.us
From: Linda Herzog
To: cable franchise wkgrp
Date: 2/27/2006 11:41:02 PM
Subject: franchise renewal workplan &Thurs meeting
Attached please find Mike Bradley's draft work program for the cable franchise renewal effort over the
coming 18 months.
I need your comments and suggestions to make this a useful guide for the work of our cross-departmental
group. We'll be able to go over this work plan with Mike on Tuesday 3/14. However, since he'll be
presenting-to the-Council the evening before, it will be very useful to critique the work program now, so he
can confidently discuss with them the timing of the major steps.
Please look this over and bring your comments to a VERY BRIEF meeting of the"Franchise Renewal
Work Group"at 10:00 this Thursday, 3/2. We can meet in the Mayor's conference room. And I promise
we'll be quick.
CC: Covington, Jay
o
i
'y 3 MEMORANDUM
To: City of Renton
tp From: Michael R. Bradley
Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Work Plan
Date: February 27,2006 .
Bradley&
Guzzetta, nc
City of Renton
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Proposed Work Plan
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The following is the work plan for the City's Cable Franchise Renewal Project.
P/(651)379-0900 I will be the lead consultant, assisted by Tracy Schaefer from my office,who
F/(651)379-0999
will help coordinate efforts between our firm and our Team Members (CBG
Attorneys at Law Communications, Inc. and Front Range Consulting, Inc.). I have indicated the
Michael R.Bradleyt major steps of the project and have indicated where certain B&G Team
Stephen J.-Guzzetta* members are to participate, as well as the expected completion dates.
Senior Project Manager ,3 ems*,
Tracy J.Schaefer 1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan (March 2006) /3 &ono/
Legal Assistants 2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006) //:06- Oat gtot p, .3//�
Thomas R.Colaizy
Brian Laule a. Identify City Staff Priorities
Of Counsel b. Identify Roles for City Staff
Thomas C.Plunkett
Gregory S.Uhl 3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure
Compliance (B&G)
b. Franchise Fee Review(Front Range Consulting)
c. System Technical Review(including Institutional Network)
(CBG Communications, Inc.)
4. Notice Non-compliance(if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study (September 2006)
(CBG Communications,Inc.)
a. Identify Role (participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
b. Identify Role(participation and financial) of other Participating
Cities (Auburn,Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
www.brad l eyg uzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance (November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council (February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP (February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP (February 2007)
12. Receive Formal Renewal Proposals (April 2007)
13. Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations (approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14. Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal (August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15.Act on Formal Renewal Proposal (September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
2
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 6/8/2006 5:24:22 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal
As you have read, George wants to delay the technical audit. What schedule do you want? Please cc me
on communications you may have with George or Mike Bradley on this timing.
Thank you.
Bonnie, x6502
Marty Wine -Cable Meeting Schedule Page 2
Listen to Needs of PSA
Wednesday in the A.M.
Meeting with Comcast
Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Terry Davis (Comcast)
Agenda
Introductions
Listen to important issues and goals from Comcast
Convey important issues and goals of the City
Wednesday in the P.M. ./hb
Rate Review Meeting
Mike Bradley, Marty:Wine, and Bonnie Walton
Agenda
Review Rate Review Process
Meeting with Dick Treich and Warren O'H a
Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonni�Walaltor m
Dick Treich and Warren O'Hearn 't-e- ek J c.�•� _r
Agenda testa_•
Introductions
Update on Franchise Fee Review(Treich)
Update on Rate Review(O'Hearn)
Strategy Meeting
Mike Bradley and Marty Wine
Agenda
Review Renewal Strategies and Amend if appropriate
Discuss/identify other local government partners
Thursday in the A.M.
Open
Thursday in the P.M.
Post Drive-Out Meeting
Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, George McBride, rep from Public
Works
Agenda
Dick Nielsen will report on his activity and preliminary findings
Friday in the A.M.
Open -could invite other cities to Renton for Renewal meeting.
Friday in the P.M.
Depart
Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
P/(651) 379-0900 ext. 2
M/(651) 592-7472
F/(651) 379-0999
MartyloVine-Cable Meeting Schedule Page 1
pit ve.
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> i i1 b7f4 c.a.-
To: "Marty Wine" <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us> /Zg
Date: 7/27/2006 12:37:41 PM ' �M'
Subject: Cable Meeting Schedule
" $(Lt
Marty,
Here is a draft of a proposed meeting schedule for discussion purposes
later this afternoon.
Pe
Monday in the A.M. 4Ne6-- r ',,,1
Bradley arrives in Renton around 11:00 a.m. Nielsen Arrives at airport 4c_G140'•,co4f2 f'
eGe
around 1:30. wall g'_ to e Cc4_4A
Open
'" ,t e't-I W.e,Pk
Monday-3:30 p.m.
Pre-Drive Out Meeting
Mike Bradley, Dick Nielsen, Marty Wine, George McBride, rep from public
works
Agenda
Discuss the Technical Audit Process Pf
Identify any issues/concerns previously identified by staff(if any) ,
related to technical compliance F
Input on the I-Net-review maps and cites 1 iI
Coordinate Schedules if necessary
Monday 7:00 p.m.
Council Meeting -very brief update and introduction of Dick Nielsen.
Describe the Technical Audit.
* Tuesday in the A.M.
Renewal Team Meeting
Renton Renewal Team
Agenda
Update on Compliance Review
Update on Franchise Fee Review
Update on Rate Review
Update on Technical Audit
Update on Cable Drops to Government Buildings and service to each
building
Identify any new City Staff Issues
Tour of Government Access Facilities in Renton
Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, and Bonnie Walton
Agenda
Tour facilities and begin to identify goals and needs
Review budget on Access TV spending-operations and capital
46 Tuesday in the P.M. @ Puget Sound Access Facility
lly
Meeting with Puget Sound Access Group Ken. 540 Wad
Mike Bradley, Marty Wine, Bonnie Walton, and Exec. Director of PSA
Agenda
Tour of Facility
Receive Report on Accomplishments and Goals
Receive Report on Benefits to Renton
Receive Financial Reports
From: Linda Herzog
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 6/8/2006 6:23:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal
I'm not opposed to setting the schedule to begin this work later in the summer or even early in the fall.
There are a number of franchise-renewal items I want to discuss with Jay when he returns. I will not be
discussing "this timing"with Bradley before I talk with Jay.
>>>Bonnie Walton 06/08/06 5:24 PM >>>
As you have read, George wants to delay the technical audit. What schedule do you want? Please cc me
on communications you may have with George or Mike Bradley on this timing.
Thank you.
Bonnie, x6502
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Warren, Larry; Watts, Neil; Wine,
Marty; Zimmerman, Gregg
Date: 6/15/2006 5:44:44 PM
Subject: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal your availability on 8/7-8
Bonnie--Thanks for your patience on the scheduling of this next phase--the technical audit, headed up
by Dick Nielson.
All—Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson are nearing agreement on their contractual relationship. It appears
we'll be good to go very soon.
Mike and I talked about starting this phase the week of August 7, including a brief"status report"
presentation to the City Council at the Aug. 7 Council meeting.
Mike and Dick will want to meet with the entire Renton team (everyone on the"to"line)either Monday the
7th or Tuesday the 8th.
Please let me know your availability on those two days.
Thx very much,
LH
>>>George McBride 06/08/06 3:34 PM >>>
bonnie, thanks for the heads-up. ron, steve, and i will want to pariticpate in one way or another in this very
important effort. unfortunately,we are up to our eye balls, especially the network team. given their
vacation schedules, existing customer commitments and pre-scheduled work, it would be very helpful if
this could be put off until late August or early September. i know that is a ways off, but both ron and steve
will be participating in this effort and i really need them to stay focused on work that is already underway,
some of which impacts mission critical systems. thanks for understanding, gm.
>>> Bonnie Walton 6/8/2006 12:01 PM >>>
George&Neil:
I received a call from Mike Bradley of B&G. If the technical audit were to commence the week of July 17th,
would you be available to meet with him and with his subconsultant? It is important to Mike that you be
here when they do this, and not away on vacation.
Also, if anyone has particular expectations of the technical audit that are not specifically identified in the
B&G contract or work plan, the consultant would like to know of those concerns asap so he can include
that in his subconsultant contract. Items already noted are: identification of the entire cable system (the
head end, our area,...), identifying the I-Net area, public buildings being served, access channels,
emergency override, certain citizen complaints, and overhead cable placement violations.
Bonnie Walton
x6502
CC: Covington, Jay
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 6/20/2006 11:19:57 AM
Subject: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal your availability on 8/7-8
As far as I know now, I will be here on Aug 7-8.
Bonnie
>>> Linda Herzog 06/15/06 5:44 PM >>>
Bonnie--Thanks for your patience on the scheduling of this next phase--the technical audit, headed up
by Dick Nielson.
All-Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson are nearing agreement on their contractual relationship. It appears
we'll be good to go very soon.
Mike and I talked about starting this phase the week of August 7, including a brief"status report"
presentation to the City Council at the Aug. 7 Council meeting.
Mike and Dick will want to meet with the entire Renton team (everyone on the"to"line)either Monday the
7th or Tuesday the 8th.
Please let me know your availability on those two days.
Thx very much,
LH
>>>George McBride 06/08/06 3:34 PM >>>
bonnie, thanks for the heads-up. ron, steve, and i will want to pariticpate in one way or another in this very
important effort. unfortunately,we are up to our eye balls, especially the network team. given their
vacation schedules, existing customer commitments and pre-scheduled work, it would be very helpful if
this could be put off until late August or early September. i know that is a ways off, but both ron and steve
will be participating in this effort and i really need them to stay focused on work that is already underway,
some of which impacts mission critical systems. thanks for understanding, gm.
>>> Bonnie Walton 6/8/2006 12:01 PM >>>
George&Neil:
I received a call from Mike Bradley of B&G. If the technical audit were to commence the week of July 17th,
would you be available to meet with him and with his subconsultant? It is important to Mike that you be
here when they do this, and not away on vacation.
Also, if anyone has particular expectations of the technical audit that are not specifically identified in the
B&G contract or work plan, the consultant would like to know of those concerns asap so he can include
that in his subconsultant contract. Items already noted are: identification of the entire cable system (the
head end, our area,...), identifying the I-Net area, public buildings being served, access channels,
emergency override, certain citizen complaints, and overhead cable placement violations.
Bonnie Walton
x6502
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 6/27/2006 11:50:02 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal your availability on 8/7-8
Has a date been set yet to start the technical audit? Will a revised work plan be coming? I would
appreciate an update if possible.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
x6502
>>> Bonnie Walton 06/20/06 11:19 AM >>>
As far as I know now, I will be here on Aug 7-8.
Bonnie
>>> Linda Herzog 06/15/06 5:44 PM >>>
Bonnie--Thanks for your patience on the scheduling of this next phase--the technical audit, headed up
by Dick Nielson.
All - Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson are nearing agreement on their contractual relationship. It appears
we'll be good to go very soon.
Mike and I talked about starting this phase the week of August 7, including a brief"status report"
presentation to the City Council at the Aug. 7 Council meeting.
Mike and Dick will want to meet with the entire Renton team (everyone on the"to" line)either Monday the
7th or Tuesday the 8th.
Please let me know your availability on those two days.
Thx very much,
LH
>>> George McBride 06/08/06 3:34 PM >>>
bonnie, thanks for the heads-up. ron, steve, and i will want to pariticpate in one way or another in this very
important effort. unfortunately, we are up to our eye balls, especially the network team. given their
vacation schedules, existing customer commitments and pre-scheduled work, it would be very helpful if
this could be put off until late August or early September. i know that is a ways off, but both ron and steve
will be participating in this effort and i really need them to stay focused on work that is already underway,
some of which impacts mission critical systems. thanks for understanding, gm.
>>> Bonnie Walton 6/8/2006 12:01 PM >>>
George& Neil:
I received a call from Mike Bradley of B&G. If the technical audit were to commence the week of July 17th,
would you be available to meet with him and with his subconsultant? It is important to Mike that you be
here when they do this, and not away on vacation.
Also, if anyone has particular expectations of the technical audit that are not specifically identified in the
B&G contract or work plan, the consultant would like to know of those concerns asap so he can include
that in his subconsultant contract. Items already noted are: identification of the entire cable system (the
head end, our area,...), identifying the I-Net area, public buildings being served, access channels,
iy
emergency override, certain citizen complaints, and overhead cable placement violations.
Bonnie Walton
x6502
CC: Jay Covington; Marty Wine
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Linda Herzog
Date: 6/27/2006 11:50:02 AM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Cable Franchise Renewal your availability on 8/7-8
Has a date been set yet to start the technical audit? Will a revised work plan be coming? I would
appreciate an update if possible.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
x6502
>>> Bonnie Walton 06/20/06 11:19 AM >>>
As far as I know now, I will be here on Aug 7-8.
Bonnie
>>> Linda Herzog 06/15/06 5:44 PM >>>
Bonnie--Thanks for your patience on the scheduling of this next phase -- the technical audit, headed up
by Dick Nielson.
All - Mike Bradley and Tom Robinson are nearing agreement on their contractual relationship. It appears
we'll be good to go very soon.
Mike and I talked about starting this phase the week of August 7, including a brief"status report"
presentation to the City Council at the Aug. 7 Council meeting.
Mike and Dick will want to meet with the entire Renton team (everyone on the "to" line) either Monday the
7th or Tuesday the 8th.
Please let me know your availability on those two days.
Thx very much,
LH
>>> George McBride 06/08/06 3:34 PM >>>
bonnie, thanks for the heads-up. ron, steve, and i will want to pariticpate in one way or another in this very
important effort. unfortunately, we are up to our eye balls, especially the network team. given their
vacation schedules, existing customer commitments and pre-scheduled work, it would be very helpful if
this could be put off until late August or early September. i know that is a ways off, but both ron and steve
will be participating in this effort and i really need them to stay focused on work that is already underway,
some of which impacts mission critical systems. thanks for understanding, gm.
>>> Bonnie Walton 6/8/2006 12:01 PM >>>
George & Neil:
I received a call from Mike Bradley of B&G. If the technical audit were to commence the week of July 17th,
would you be available to meet with him and with his subconsultant? It is important to Mike that you be
here when they do this, and not away on vacation.
Also, if anyone has particular expectations of the technical audit that are not specifically identified in the
B&G contract or work plan, the consultant would like to know of those concerns asap so he can include
that in his subconsultant contract. Items already noted are: identification of the entire cable system (the
head end, our area,...), identifying the I-Net area, public buildings being served, access channels,
emergency override, certain citizen complaints, and overhead cable placement violations.
Bonnie Walton
x6502
CC: Jay Covington; Marty Wine
From: Linda Herzog
To: Denison, Steven; Hansen, Ronald; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton,
Bonnie; Watts, Neil; Wine, Marty
Date: 6/30/2006 2:11:48 PM
Subject: cable franchise renewal - baton-passing &team meeting
You may be wondering what's happening with the cable franchise renewal contract. Well, here's a brief
update . . .
Our new Asst. CAO Marty Wine will be taking over responsibility for management of the cable franchise
renewal effort under contract to Bradley&Guzzetta. Bonnie will, of course, continue to deal with Bradley
& Guzzetta on all the "daily franchise administration"and customer service aspects of the contract. Marty
and I will have a phone meeting with Mike Bradley on Thursday or Friday of next week, to be sure all of
Marty's questions are answered at the outset.
Mike Bradley will prepare a status report summarizing the work completed to date, and looking forward to
the next phase. We'll distribute Mike's report when it comes in, likely mid-next week.
Marty will want to pull the in-house team together before August 7, so be on the look-out for a meeting
invitation from her. On the evening of Aug. 7 Mike Bradley and Dick Nielson will do a presentation to
Council at the opening of the Council meeting. Mike will describe the status of the contract work, and
introduce Nielson & his phase of the work.
The next day, Aug. 8, Mike and Dick will want to meet with our in-house work group. To prep for that
meeting you will want to read Bradley's status report(forthcoming) and review the materials in the"Cable
Franchise Renewal Workbook"you received back in March.
Last words from me: Thank you all for working so cooperatively with me over the past year. I've very
much enjoyed my time here, and have come to love this community as I'm sure you do. Best to all of you
for continued success!
Linda
CC: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay; Zimmerman, Gregg
From: Marty Wine
To: Denison, Steven; Hansen, Ronald; Herzog, Linda; ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride,
George; Walton, Bonnie; Watts, Neil
Date: 7/10/2006 9:09:06 PM
Subject: Re: cable franchise renewal - baton-passing &team meeting
Hi all, attached is the briefing that Linda referenced below with a status report from Mike Bradley. This
helped me to get up to speed on our renewal status (I understand we're on step 3 and will pick up there in
August) and I'd welcome any background information you each may have to offer about the renewal
process and what Renton's interests are. I would like to schedule a meeting among us, so look for a
Groupwise invitation from me for late next week.
Thanks - more soon.
Marty
x6526
>>> Linda Herzog 06/30/06 2:11 PM >>>
You may be wondering what's happening with the cable franchise renewal contract. Well, here's a brief
update . . .
Our new Asst. CAO Marty Wine will be taking over responsibility for management of the cable franchise
renewal effort under contract to Bradley& Guzzetta. Bonnie will, of course, continue to deal with Bradley
&Guzzetta on all the"daily franchise administration"and customer service aspects of the contract. Marty
and I will have a phone meeting with Mike Bradley on Thursday or Friday of next week, to be sure all of
Marty's questions are answered at the outset.
Mike Bradley will prepare a status report summarizing the work completed to date, and looking forward to
the next phase. We'll distribute Mike's report when it comes in, likely mid-next week.
Marty will want to pull the in-house team together before August 7, so be on the look-out for a meeting
invitation from her. On the evening of Aug. 7 Mike Bradley and Dick Nielson will do a presentation to
Council at the opening of the Council meeting. Mike will describe the status of the contract work, and
introduce Nielson & his phase of the work.
The next day, Aug. 8, Mike and Dick will want to meet with our in-house work group. To prep for that
meeting you will want to read Bradley's status report(forthcoming) and review the materials in the "Cable
Franchise Renewal Workbook"you received back in March.
Last words from me: Thank you all for working so cooperatively with me over the past year. I've very
much enjoyed my time here, and have come to love this community as I'm sure you do. Best to all of you
for continued success!
Linda
CC: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay; Zimmerman, Gregg
MEMORANDUM
,1,:i'M - ,
w -1 ,40 • ` To: Marty Wine and Linda Herzog, City of Renton
From: Michael R. Bradley
` i Re: Cable Franchise Renewal Status Report and Briefing
Date: July 5, 2006
Bradley
Guzzetta, ',Lc
City of Renton
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza Cable Franchise Renewal—Status Report and Briefing
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 As we transition from Ms. Herzog to Ms. Wine as the cable franchise renewal
P/(651)379-0900 project lead for the City of Renton, you asked for a status report to assist in
F/(651)379-0999
bringing Ms. Wine up to date with the project. The cable franchise renewal
Attorneys at Law process is not a typical one, so I expect that this memorandum will start the
Michael R.Bradleyt dialog and education process and I of course welcome any questions that you
Stephen J.Guzzetta* may have.
Senior Project Manager
Tracy J. Schaefer To assist the City, we have put together a team of nationally recognized
consultants consisting of my firm, Front Range Consulting and CBG
Legal Assistants Communications, Inc. My firm, Bradley & Guzzetta, LLC, provides legal and
Thomas R.Colaizy administrative services and is the project manager for this cable franchise
Brian Laule renewal project. We also provide daily cable franchise administrative services
Of Counsel to the City. Some of our representative clients include the cities of Minneapolis,
Thomas C.Plunkett Nashville and Oklahoma City. We will be using Mr. Dick Treich of Front
Gregory S.Uhl Range Consulting for financial analysis, such as rate reviews. Mr. Treich has
over twenty years of experience in the cable rate field and was the Vice
President in charge of rate filings with TCI and AT&T Broadband. I started the
technical firm of CBG Communications in 2001. Although I no longer have an
ownership interest in the company,the company still employs the lead
consultants Tom Robinson and Dick Nielsen,whom I initially hired. Both are
technically sound and have worked across the country with cities. You should
also know,that our firms work exclusively with cities and therefore have no
conflicts of interests with the cable or telephone industries.
In March, 2006,we put together our current work plan. I am happy to report to
you that we are on schedule, but we have a couple of tasks that need to be
completed in July. The following is the work plan from March and I have
indicated below our current status on each task.
1. Brief City Council on Renewal and Proposed Work Plan (March 2006)
Status: Complete. I gave a power point presentation to the City Council and
fielded questions.
2. Meet with City Staff(March 2006)
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
tAlso admitted in Wisconsin
•Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
•
a. Identify City Staff Priorities
b. Identify Roles for City Staff
Status: Complete. We had a lengthy meeting with key city staffers to discuss their interests
in the cable franchise renewal. One of the most important issues that were raised is the use
and future need for the institutional network that Comcast provides to the City. This will be
a major issue for us going forward. An institutional network is a communications network
dedicated for the City's use. Another issue will be the funding for access television. The
City has joined with about 5 other cities to fund Puget Sound Access, which provides public
access television. The City also runs a government channel. We will be discussing the
City's future involvement and present satisfaction with Puget Sound Access and of course
the appropriate funding levels for public, educational, and governmental access television.
3. Current Cable Franchise Compliance Review(July 2006)
a. Review all current Franchise Commitments to Assure Compliance (B&G)
Status: In Progress. I expect our review of franchise compliance to be complete by late July.
A report will be produced.
b. Franchise Fee Review (Front Range Consulting)
Status: In Progress. Mr. Treich is gather in the information that he needs and should have a
preliminary report to us by late July. I would also like to review Comcast's rate forms. We
should discuss this in our call tomorrow. We recently entered into one of the largest rate
settlements in the Country with Comcast on behalf of some of our clients. It is worth doing,
especially given the fact that the City really has not ever reviewed the forms.
c. System Technical Review (including Institutional Network) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
Status: This was originally scheduled to be performed in mid-July, but was moved back to
accommodate vacation schedules. It will now be performed the week of August 7, 2006 and
I would expect a report by the end of August. Mr. Nielsen will perform the review and I will
assist in identifying the appropriate franchise standards that they need to follow.
4. Notice Non-compliance (if any) (August 2006) (B&G)
a. Conduct Hearings if Necessary
5. Conduct Cable Related Needs and Interest Study (September 2006) (CBG
Communications, Inc.)
a. Identify Role (participation and financial) of Puget Sound Access
2
b. Identify Role (participation and financial) of other Participating Cities (Auburn,
Burien, SeaTac and Tukwila)
6. Draft Needs Assessment Report(November 2006) (CBG Communications, Inc.)
7. Prepare Draft Franchise Agreement and Ordinance (November 2006) (B&G)
8. Draft Staff Report and Request for Renewal Proposals (RFRP) (January 2007) (B&G
with some assistance from CBG and Front Range Consulting)
9. Present Staff Report and RFRP to City Council (February 2007) (B&G and CBG)
10. City Council Accepts Staff Report and authorizes staff to issue RFRP (February 2007)
11. City Staff Issues RFRP (February 2007)
12. Receive Formal Renewal Proposals (April 2007)
13. Entertain Informal Renewal Negotiations (approximately 2 months) (June 2007)
14. Prepare Report on Formal Renewal Proposal (August 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
15. Act on Formal Renewal Proposal (September 2007) (Entire B&G Team)
Hopefully,you now have a flavor of the tasks that we will be performing. To give you some
context, I am attaching a renewal memorandum that I put together for the City in March. I am
looking forward to working with you(although sad to see Linda move on) and assisting the City
in a successful cable franchise renewal process.
Mike Bradley
3
1 MEMORANDUM
r—L,1 .
:; r:1;51 &
TO: Ms.Linda Herzog, City of Renton
'fb FROM: Michael R. Bradley,Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
Bradley DATE: March 12,2006
Guzzetta, LI..0
SUBJECT: Cable Franchise Renewal
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul,MN 55101 The following information is provided to give you additional background on the
P/(651)379-0900
F/(65I)379-0999 cable franchise renewal process that the City will undertake with Comcast. Over
the last several years, cable franchise renewals have become more and more
Attorneys at Law contentious and difficult. This is due in large part to industry consolidation, to
Michael R.Bradleyt changes in the law, to the cable industry's decision to devote large amounts of
Stephen J.Guzzetta* capital to the improvement of cable systems and to the popular (but mistaken)
Legal Assistants belief that local government franchising acts as an impediment to the deployment
Thomas R.Colaizy of infrastructure that is needed to foster reliable, high-speed access to video and
Brian Laule data programs and applications. In practical terms, this means the franchise
renewal process is generally taking longer and longer to complete, and that the use
Of Counsel of the formal renewal process is becoming more prevalent.
Thomas C.Plunkett
Gregory S.Uhl
J.David Abramson The cable industry has also become more inclined to use litigation as a means of
intimidating local governments and avoiding local processes. For instance,
Comcast sued the City of San Jose, California rather than following the hearing
process established by city officials as part of the formal renewal process. With
respect to the informal renewal process, many cable operators, including Comcast,
have adopted a strategy of attrition. This strategy is designed to drag out renewal
negotiations until municipalities run out of funding or political will. The operator
is then typically able to obtain renewal on very favorable terms and conditions,
which do not necessarily benefit the local franchising authority or its citizens.
With this in mind, it is very important for the City to wisely manage the renewal
process, and to develop an overall renewal strategy from which it does not deviate.
Although the renewal of a cable television franchise can be difficult, expensive
and very time-consuming, and specific results cannot be guaranteed, it is important
to dedicate sufficient financial and staff resources to the process for a variety of
reasons. First, a cable television franchise is usually granted for a long period of
time—often ten to fifteen years. Consequently, it is important to renew a franchise
on terms and conditions that will meet the community's cable-related needs and
interests during the entire franchise term. Second, the grant of a franchise confers
a very valuable right to Comcast—the authority to use the City's public rights-of-
way for private profit. City officials may therefore want to ensure that the people
who pay for the maintenance, management and repair of the public rights-of-way—
taxpayers— are adequately compensated by Comcast. Such compensation should
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
'Also adnitted in Wisconsin
'Also admitted in Massachusetts and the
District of Columbia
reflect the fair market value of the City property and rights-of-way that are used, and usually takes
the form of franchise fees and in-kind benefits, such as free cable service and cable drops at public
institutions. If the compensation received from Comcast does not reflect fair market value, the
City's residents are essentially subsidizing Comcast's operations in the City. Lastly, compensation
received through the renewal of a cable franchise can provide significant tangible benefits to the
City and its citizens. By way of example, financial support for government access can ensure that
the City is able to communicate broadly and effectively with its residents in a video format,
• including during emergencies. In addition, a fiber-optic institutional network requirement could be
included in a renewal franchise, if warranted. The construction of such a network could save the
City a substantial amount of money because leased lines could be eliminated. An institutional
network could also provide the City with a reliable, high-speed platform that could be utilized to
deploy new video, voice and data applications, such as Internet Protocol telephony. Comcast,
however,has a history of combating municipal efforts to obtain institutional networks.
With the foregoing in mind, this memorandum will outline the franchise renewal requirements
applicable to the City.
I. OUTLINE OF THE FEDERAL CABLE FRANCHISE RENEWAL PROCESS
The City's cable franchise renewal is subject to the renewal provisions of the federal Cable Act, 47
U.S.C. § 546, which set out two ways of arriving at a renewal decision: the formal and the informal
processes.
Informal Process
• The City and Comcast may, at any time, agree on a renewal franchise through informal
negotiations, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 546(h). Conversely, the City may deny an informal
renewal proposal at any time.
> Informal renewals are essentially contract negotiations.
➢ Adequate public notice and opportunity to comment must be provided before
granting or denying an informal renewal proposal submitted by Comcast.
> The City's decision to deny an informal renewal proposal does not need to be based
on the criteria delineated below for the formal renewal process. In other words, the
City may deny an informal renewal proposal for any reason.
Formal Process
• If the City and Comcast are unable to agree on renewal terms through negotiation, and
Comcast has properly invoked the formal renewal process under 47 U.S.C. § 546(a), the
only way that the City may deny renewal is to take the following steps:
> The City conducts an"ascertainment"process to develop facts about Comcast's past
performance and the community's future cable-related needs and interests. The
2
public must be given appropriate notice and an opportunity to participate in the
needs ascertainment and past performance review. This is often times accomplished
through public hearings and surveys (e.g., telephone, mail and/or Internet surveys).
The City has significant discretion in determining how to conduct its needs
assessment and past performance"proceeding."
> Once the City completes the ascertainment and past performance review process, it
issues a request for renewal proposal ("RFRP") to Comcast. The RFRP should
clearly specify the requirements for cable-related facilities and equipment and
capital support needed to satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests.
In addition, based on identified needs and interests, the RFRP should establish
requirements for public, educational and governmental access channel capacity and
capacity on institutional networks for educational or governmental use. An RFRP
generally may not establish requirements for specific video programming or "other
information services." The City may establish a deadline for the submission of a
renewal proposal in its RFRP.
> Comcast submits a proposal for renewal. This proposal must contain such material
as the City may require, including (but not limited to) proposals for system
upgrades.
> The City must provide"prompt"public notice of Comcast's renewal proposal. State
and local publication requirements should be strictly followed.
> The City has four months from submission of Comcast's proposal in which to renew
the franchise or issue a preliminary denial of renewal.
> If the City issues a preliminary denial, it begins a formal administrative proceeding
to consider whether the franchise should be renewed, basing its decision on the four
factors listed below. Comcast must be given adequate notice of the hearing and a
fair opportunity for full participation, including the right to introduce evidence, to
require the production of evidence and to question witnesses. A transcript of the
administrative hearing must be made.
> At the end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision
granting or denying the renewal proposal, based on the record of the administrative
hearing,which decision states the reasons for the City's determination.
> Comcast may appeal the City's decision in state or federal court.
• Under the formal renewal process,the only four criteria upon which a denial of renewal may
be based are whether:
> Comcast has substantially complied with the material terms of the existing franchise
and with applicable law;
3
> The quality of Comcast's service, including signal quality, response to consumer
complaints, and billing practices (but without regard to the mix or quality of cable
services or other services provided over the system) has been reasonable in light of
community needs;
➢ Comcast has the financial, legal, and technical ability to provide the services,
facilities, and equipment as set forth in its proposal; and
> Comcast's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-related community needs
and interests,taking into account the cost of meeting such needs and interests.
Renewal may be denied if there is a negative finding with respect to any one of the
foregoing criteria. In practice, however,the City would be well advised to ensure that it has
the strongest possible case before denying renewal. It should also be noted that the City
may not deny renewal based on Comcast's failure to substantially comply with material
franchise terms and applicable law or to provide reasonable quality service in light of
community needs unless Comcast has been given notice and an opportunity to cure.
• Normally, the formal ascertainment process goes on simultaneously with the informal
renewal process. If an informal agreement is reached, however,there is no need to complete
the formal process. Reactivating the formal renewal process would not prevent the City
from continuing to negotiate with Comcast informally, and the denial of an informal
renewal proposal would not impact any formal renewal proposal that has been submitted.
A. Why Renewal is Important.
Cable television systems operate pursuant to franchises issued by local governments. A
franchise authorizes a cable system operator to provide cable service, and to occupy valuable
public rights-of-way for that purpose. A franchise sets out the terms and conditions under which
service is to be provided.
When a franchise is about to expire or has expired, a local franchising authority has a rare
opportunity to review the performance of the cable operator, and to ensure that the operator will
meet the future cable-related needs and interests of the community. This opportunity is rare
because franchises are typically issued for periods of years. At the time of renewal, a City can
establish requirements for system improvements to ensure that the community has adequate
infrastructure. The City can also ensure that everyone has real opportunities to originate, as well
as receive, video programming. In addition, the City can ensure that cable service will be
reliable, and that Comcast will be in a position to bring the benefits of advances in cable
technology into the City's homes, businesses and schools. As part of the franchise renewal
process, the City will look to the past, and assess Comcast's performance under the current
franchise, and will identify what is needed for the future.
In looking at future cable-related needs and interests, the City may conclude that there is a need
for channels, facilities and equipment that will permit members of the public, educational
institutions and government agencies to produce and disseminate programming. This type of
4
programming — so-called "public, educational and governmental" access (or "PEG" access) —
serves critical public interests.1 PEG access, requirements help eliminate the danger that our
society will be sharply divided between information "haves" and "have-nots." As the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration has noted, "[b]ecause information means
empowerment — and employment — government has a duty to ensure that all Americans have
access to the resources and job creation potential of the Information Age."2
Cable systems once served merely to retransmit broadcast television signals. They have now,
however, become a "dominant nationwide video medium,"3 with many companies maintaining or
upgrading to 2-way transmissions used for cable modem service, telephony and video on
demand. The development of these electronic highways has the potential to significantly change
the way people live, work, and interact with each other by providing users access to vast
quantities of information, services and entertainment in a variety of forms. As a result, a local
government has a compelling interest in ensuring that a cable system is adequately designed and
constructed to help satisfy the community's cable-related needs and interests, that good service is
provided at a fair price, that services are available to all, and that the flow of information is not
monopolized by the companies that own the cable networks. These interests are reflected in
federal, state and local law.4
The foregoing interests are particularly strong because, in order to operate, cable systems must
occupy scarce and valuable public property —property that the public effectively pays to acquire
and maintain. Comcast's facilities are located on poles and under rights-of-way throughout the
City. The City, as a trustee of the public's interest in public rights-of-way, has a compelling
interest in ensuring that Comcast utilizes this public property in a way that benefits the entire
community. This means, among other things, that the City should ensure that public property is
used in optimal ways, and that the public receives fair compensation — in the form of franchise
fees and other conditions—for the use of its public property to provide cable service.
These interests and others are protected, in part, through the franchising process. For example,
during renewal proceedings a community is permitted to establish basic requirements for system
design, and to require that cable operators provide facilities and equipment and set aside channel
capacity for public, educational and governmental use. Thus, the legislative history of the Cable
Communications Policy Act of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection
and Competition Act of 1992 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. § 521, et seq.,
(the"Cable Act") explains:
As Congress has pointed out,one of the primary purposes of PEG access is to afford groups and individuals who
generally have not had access to electronic media the"opportunity to become sources of information in the
electronic marketplace of ideas." H.Rep.No.934,98th Cong.2d Sess.at 30,reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.4655,
4667(1984)("1984 House Report").
2 National Telecommunications Information Administration,The National Information Infrastructure:Agenda for
Action at 1 (September 1993).
3 H.Rep.No.862, 102d Cong.2d Sess.at 50,reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1231, 1232(1992).
4 For federal law,see e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 544(requiring facilities and equipment); § 546(c)(1)(D)(satisfying
community's cable-related needs and interests); § 543 (ensuring reasonable rates); § 541(a)(3)(anti-redlining);and
§ 531 (access channels).
5
The ability of a local government entity to require particular cable
facilities (and to enforce requirements in the franchise to provide
those facilities) is essential if cable systems are to be tailored to the
needs of each community [and the legislation] explicitly grants this
power to the franchising authority.5
This is why the franchise renewal process is so important to both the operator and the
community.6 The City is able to protect the interests of cable subscribers and the general public
through the franchising process by identifying present and future cable-related needs and
interests, and translating those needs and interests into franchise requirements.
B. The Renewal Process Under Federal Law.
Certain individuals and organizations in the community no doubt want the City simply to put the
Comcast franchise up for competitive bid, and then award a franchise to the best operator. That,
however, is not an option. In 1984, the federal government passed a law that was intended to
provide cable operators with a fair opportunity to obtain renewal. To that end, the Cable Act
establishes two possible ways a community can respond to a request for a franchise renewal.
Under the informal renewal process, the City and a cable operator can meet informally at any
time and attempt to resolve franchise issues through negotiations. If the issues are resolved the
City can, after providing the public with adequate notice and an opportunity to comment, adopt a
renewal franchise. An informal proposal can be rejected at any time, and for any reason. Most
renewals are settled informally.
Either the operator or the City can invoke the more formal renewal procedures set out at 47
U.S.C. § 546(a)-(g) during a six-month window which begins with the thirty-sixth (36th) month
prior to franchise expiration. These "formal" procedures give the operator the opportunity for a
fair hearing on its renewal request. At the same time, the procedures insure that the City can
deny renewal if an operator has performed poorly in the past, or is not qualified, or is not willing
to make a reasonable proposal for meeting the community's needs and interests for the future
(taking into account the cost of meeting those needs and interests). Under the formal process,the
City is given broad authority to define what the cable-related needs and interests of the
community are.8 The operator must then submit a proposal that is reasonable to meet the
community's cable-related needs and interests, taking into account the costs of meeting those
needs and interests (the focus is the community, not the individual subscribers who may receive
service today).
More specifically,the formal renewal process under the Cable Act is a four-stage process.
5 1984 House Report at 26, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4663.
6 Congress intended that:"the franchise process take place at the local level where[local]officials have the best
understanding of local communications needs and can require cable operators to tailor the cable system to meet
those needs." 1984 House Report at 24, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4661. However,the Cable Act does not give local
government unlimited authority to impose conditions on cable operators. For example, it limits local authority to
require an operator to carry a specific programming service. Id.at 4663.
47 U.S.C.§ 546(h).
8 See, e.g., Union CATV Inc. v. City of Sturgis, 107 F.3d 434(6`h Cir. 1997).
6
First, the City must conduct a proceeding to identify future cable-related needs and interests of
the community, and to review the past performance of the cable operator serving the
community.9
Once that proceeding is complete, the City may issue a request for renewal proposals ("RFRP").
Because each renewal proposal is evaluated on its own merits, this RFRP cannot simply be a
competitive bidding document.10 The Cable Act allows the City to establish requirements in an
RFRP:
(1) "that channel capacity be designated for public, education or government
use, and channel capacity on the institutional networks be designated for
educational or governmental use, and may require rules and procedures for
the use of channel capacity designated . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 531(b).
(2) "for facilities and equipment." The legislative history of the Cable Act
explains that this includes requirements for institutional networks, studios,
equipment for public, educational and government use, two-way networks,
and so on. 47 U.S.C. § 544.
The Cable Act also states that "[a] franchising authority may establish and enforce (1) customer
service requirements of the cable operator and (2) construction schedules and other construction-
related requirements, including construction-related performance requirements of the cable
operator." 47 U.S.C. § 552(a)(1)-(a)(2). This language arguably permits the City to establish
these requirements unilaterally in a franchise (or through a regulatory ordinance), along with
various other requirements established pursuant to the City's police and other governmental
powers.
In the next stage of the renewal process, the franchised cable operator submits a renewal
proposal in response to the City's RFRP. "[A]ny such proposal shall contain such material as the
franchising authority may require . . ." 47 U.S.C. § 546(b)(2). If an operator submits a timely,
complete and proper response,]1 the City has four months to evaluate the proposal, and to decide
whether to grant renewal based on the proposal, or to preliminarily deny renewal. 47 U.S.C.
§ 546(c).
Finally, if renewal is preliminarily denied, and an operator desires it, the City must commence an
administrative proceeding to consider whether the franchise should be renewed. Comcast must
be given adequate notice and a fair opportunity for full participation in the proceeding, includin.
the right to introduce evidence,to require the production of evidence and to question witnesses.]
Four issues are considered at that proceeding:
9 47 U.S.C. §546(a)(1).
10 47 U.S.C.§ 546(b).
11 The proposal must be submitted by a deadline established by the City. If the operator fails to do so,then its rights
are ended.
12 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(2).
7
(A) whether the cable operator has substantially complied with the material
terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law;
(B) whether the quality of the operator's service, including signal quality,
response to consumer complaints, and billing practices, but without regard
to the mix or quality of cable services or other services provided over the
system, has been reasonable in light of community needs;
(C) whether the operator has the financial, legal, and technical ability to
provide the services, facilities and equipment as set forth in the operator's
proposal; and
(D) whether the operator's proposal is reasonable to meet the future cable-
related community needs and interests, taking into account the cost of
meeting such needs and interests.13
These criteria do not include considerations such as programming selection or rate levels. A
franchise renewal request can be denied on any one (or more) of the foregoing grounds. At the
end of the administrative proceeding, the City issues a written decision granting or denying the
renewal proposal, based on the record and stating its reasons.14 Comcast can appeal the City's
decision in state or federal court. A court will overturn a decision to deny if the City's denial
was not based on a preponderance of the evidence included in the record of the administrative
proceeding.
C. General System Design and Capability.
Under the Cable Act, franchising authorities may establish and enforce requirements for
"facilities and equipment."15 In particular:
Facility and equipment requirements may include requirements which
relate to channel capacity; system configuration and capacity, including
institutional and subscriber networks; headends and hubs; two-way
capability; addressability; trunk and feeder cable; and any other facility or
equipment requirement, which is related to the establishment and
operation of a cable system, including microwave facilities, antennae,
satellite earth stations, uplinks, studios and production facilities, vans and
cameras for PEG use.16
13 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A)-(D).
14 47 U.S.C.§ 546(c)(3).
15 47 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1)-(b)(2).
16 1984 House Report at 68,reprinted in U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705. The exercise of this authority,however,must take
into consideration 47 U.S.C. §544(e),which states that no local franchising authority"may prohibit,condition,or
restrict a cable system's use of any type of subscriber equipment or any transmission technology."
8
Accordingly, a local franchising authority may not only determine certain requirements for the
facilities and equipment used in the subscriber network, but may also require that a cable
operator provide an institutional network and PEG support"
D. Support for Public,Educational and Governmental Use.
As Congress noted when it first passed cable legislation:
One of the greatest challenges over the years in establishing
communications policy has been assuring access to the electronic media
by people other than the licensees or owners of those media. The
development of cable television, with its abundance of channels, can
provide . . . the meaningful access that . . . has been difficult to obtain.
Almost all recent franchise agreements provide for access by local
governments, schools, and non-profit and community groups over so-
called "PEG" (public educational and governmental) channels. Public
access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soapbox or
the electronic parallel to the printed leaflet ... PEG channels also
contribute to an informed citizenry by bringing local schools into the home
and by showing the public local government at work.]$
Given the important policy considerations underlying PEG access, Congress empowered local
franchising authorities to establish PEG access requirements as part of the franchising process.
Under the Cable Act, PEG requirements may take several forms.19 Franchising authorities can
require operators to designate channels for public, educational and governmental use in an RFRP
or in a franchise agreement. Franchising authorities can also establish requirements for
equipment and facilities — for example, requirements for studios and cameras. In addition,
franchising authorities can establish rules for the management and use of the facilities and
channels devoted to PEG use. Furthermore, franchising authorities can enforce promises for
broad categories of programming or other services made by a franchise applicant. In any event,
before issuing a franchise, a franchising authority can insist that a cable operator "provide
adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel capacity, facilities or financial
support."2
17 See, e.g.,Implementation of Section 302 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996: Open Video Systems,CS
Docket No.94-46,Third Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd.20227,¶146(Aug.
8, 1996)(FCC acknowledges that"a local franchising authority may require a cable operator to provide institutional
networks as a condition of the initial grant,renewal or transfer of a franchise"). See also Implementation of the
Cable Act Reform Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,CS Docket No.96-85,Report and Order, 14
FCC Rcd.5296,¶142(March 29, 1999)("Section 621(b)(3)(D)[of the Cable Act] allows an LFA to require
institutional networks.").
18 1984 House Report at 30, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4667.
19 1984 House Report at 68, 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N.at 4705(franchising authorities may require,among other things,
"satellite earth stations,uplinks,studios and productions facilities,vans and cameras for PEG use").
20 47 U.S.C.§541(a)(4)(B).
9
It should be noted that setting aside channels for public, educational and governmental use does
not guarantee that the community will be able to use those channels. As indicated above, there
must also be adequate support for access operations, in the form of facilities and/or other
financial support. Accordingly, franchises in many communities require cable operators to
provide facilities, equipment and services to support PEG use. Such facilities and equipment
include upstream transmission paths for PEG signals from certain origination sites. In order for
Comcast to carry PEG access programming on its network, it must provide a means of
transporting audio and video signals from the locations where such programming it produced,
played back or originated to its headend. This is accomplished by establishing an upstream
transmission path from an origination point to Comcast's headend facilities (as opposed to a
"downstream" transmission path which supplies subscribers with video programming). The
quality of an upstream transmission path is extremely important, because the signal reaching
subscribers can be no better than the signal that reaches the headend. Thus, high-quality and
reliable upstream transport is essential to providing high-quality access programming.
Accordingly, communities generally have a need and interest in high-quality, and reliable
bidirectional transmission paths (equivalent to an uncompressed digital optical connection)
between origination sites and the cable system headend.
E. System Construction and Extension Issues.
Under federal law, the City must allow Comcast a reasonable time to make any improvements
required to upgrade the system, consistent with identified needs and interests.21 The City,
however, has an interest in ensuring that any construction and system modifications dictated by
the community's cable-related needs and interests are completed expeditiously, so as to
minimize any necessary service interruptions, as well as disruption of economic activity and of
the rights-of-way. To adequately protect its economic and property interests, the City should be
able to enforce timing and construction requirements. Major system upgrades typically take two
to three years to complete.
Even though construction of the current cable system in the City has been completed, the system
may often need to be extended to new developments and multiple dwelling units. There may
also be areas within the boundaries of the existing service area that are not now reachable by the
cable system, without extending the network plant to a point where the home or business can be
served by a drop. As a policy matter, the City may want to consider whether all of its residents
have access to Comcast's system, and the services offered over that system now and in the
future, both from an economic development and information delivery standpoint. At a
minimum, the City should ensure that access to cable service is not denied to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers because of the income of the residents of the local area in
which such group resides. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(3).
F. Past Performance.
In reaching a decision to grant or deny renewal under the formal renewal process, a local
franchising authority can consider whether a "cable operator has substantially complied with the
21 See 47 U.S.C. §541 (a)(4)("[i]n awarding a franchise,the franchising authority...shall allow the applicant's cable
system a reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service...").
10
material terms of the existing franchise and with applicable law." 22 According to the legislative
history of the Cable Act, this particular consideration "does not require that the operator meet each
and every specific provision of a franchise." 23 Consequently, minor violations of a franchise
agreement probably would not justify denying a renewal proposal because the operator would still
have "substantially complied" with the franchise. Additionally, violations which do not concern
"material" terms may not constitute grounds for denial. If, however, a cable operator repeatedly
breaches its franchise agreement or violates important franchise provisions (e.g., PEG support,
channel capacity, signal quality, etc.), a franchising authority may be able to deny renewal under 47
U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A). Depending on the circumstances, a single violation of an extremely
significant franchise term, which deprives the franchising authority of a major benefit it bargained
for, could be a sufficient basis on which to reject a renewal proposa1.24
In addition to franchise compliance, § 546(c)(1)(A) allows franchising authorities to consider
whether a cable operator has substantially complied with applicable law. The reference to
"applicable law" apparently provides local governments with the authority to explore a variety of
federal, state and local law requirements in connection with renewal, regardless of whether such
requirements are cable-related. Thus, for example, local franchising authorities may be able to
consider whether a cable operator has complied with federal equal employment opportunity
requirements, federal subscriber privacy requirements, local tax laws, local zoning laws, state and
local construction requirements, civil rights laws, and state antitrust laws. If a cable operator has
repeatedly or completely failed to comply with a provision of applicable law, a franchising authority
can probably deny renewal.
It is important to note that 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A) can only be used if certain statutory
requirements are met. Section § 546(d), stipulates that a franchising authority cannot deny renewal
under Section 626(c)(1)(A) based on events that occurred after the effective date of the Cable Act,
unless the franchising authority has provided the operator with notice and an opportunity to cure.25
Additionally, a local franchising authority cannot invoke Section 626(c)(1)(A) if it has waived its
right to object, or if the operator has provided "written notice of a failure or inability to cure, and the
franchising authority fails to object within a reasonable time after receipt of such notice." 26 A
franchising authority can waive its right to object by expressly or implicitly failing to require
compliance (e.g., by failing to enforce a requirement or to assert a right, or by modifying a franchise,
etc.), unless a franchise ordinance or agreement provides otherwise. Thus, franchising authorities
should think carefully before affirmatively assenting to noncompliance, and should not ignore
repeated franchise violations. Furthermore, a franchising authority must promptly respond to
noncompliance letters from cable operators, and unequivocally object to the stated violations or
22 47 U.S.C. § 546(c)(1)(A).
23 House Committee on Energy and Commerce,Report on Cable Franchise Policy and Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984,H.R.Rep.No.934,98th Cong.,2"d Sess.74(1985)("House Report").
24 An example of this scenario might be if the operator unjustifiably refused to pay the franchise fees required by a
valid franchise agreement.
25 Adequate notice for purposes of invoking Section 626(c)(1)(A)as grounds for denial must be specific in its
explanation of the problem and must come directly from the franchising authority. Rolla Cable Systems,Inc.v.City
of Rolla,761 F.Supp. 1398, 1409(E.D.Mo. 1991). Notice need not be given in writing,however,as long as"the
franchising authority discloses to the cable operator its position and that position is expressed with specificity." Id.
26 47 U.S.C.§ 546(d).
11
inability to cure. Unless it diligently enforces the franchise, it is easy for a local franchising authority
to unintentionally waive its renewal rights.
CONCLUSION
We look forward to working with the City throughout the cable franchise renewal process. Our
goal is to help the City maximum the use of its available resources to obtain the best franchise
possible under the circumstances.
12
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Marty Wine
Date: 7/12/2006 10:24:19 AM
Subject: Fwd: Bailer Herbst List: 7-12-06
FYI...
bw
>>> "Judy" <jd@midvalleytv.com> 7/12/2006 9:39:36 AM >>>
FYI
I apologize for any duplicate emails. I thought this was a good
collection of news articles.
Thank you,
Judy Devall
WATOA President
From: Casey Lide fmailto:casey(a baller.coml
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:16 AM
To: members(cr�lists.natoa.orq
Subject: [members] Bailer Herbst List: 7-12-06
BROADBAND
FTTH connections increasing demand
for consumer electronics and broadband
applications, says survey report
http://www.prnewswire.com/cqi-bin/stories.p
I?ACCT=dan ews.story&STORY=/www/story
/07-11-2006/0004394959&EDATE=TU E+Jul+11
+2006,+11:59+AM
<http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=danews.story&STORY=/w
ww/story/07-11-2006/0004394959&EDATE=TUE+Jul+11+2006,+11:59+AM>
"The fake broadband price war"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060711/12
2200.shtml <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060711/122200.shtml>
FiOS vs. Cablevision competition on
Long Island: Cablevision testing 50Mbps
http://www.broadbandreports.com/showne
ws/76273 <http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/76273>
Congressional passage of telecom bill
unlikely this session, but cable franchise
issues could see action
http:/Iwww.multichannel.com/article/CA635
1498.html?display=Breaking+News
<http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6351498.html?display=Breaking+New
s>
"Net neutrality debate still simmers"
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+debate
+still+simmers/2100-1028_3-6092927.html?
tag=html.alert
<http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+debate+still+simmers/2100-1028 3-609
2927.html?tag=html.alert>
In-depth net neutrality piece from Drew Clark
http://isen.com/blog/2006/07/good-net-neu
tral ity-piece-by-d rew.h tm I
<http://isen.com/blog/2006/07/good-net-neutrality-piece-by-drew.html>
http://nitelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/liv
e/tb-GMDB1152648438194.html
<http://nitelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-GMDB1152648438194.html>
Summary of wide-ranging podcast interview
with Don Berryman of EarthLink
http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006747.html
South Korea ramping up IPv6
http://english.etnews.co.kr/news/detail.html?
id=200607120001
<http://encilish.etnews.co.kr/news/detail.html?id=200607120001>
WIRELESS
Gwinnett County, Georgia studying
countywide wireless
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s
=&url_channel id=32&url_article_id=17135&u
rl_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
<http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url channel id=32&url art
icle_id=17135&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2>
"Multiple antennas [MIMO, AAS, etc.]
key to mobile broadband"
http://www.lightreadinq.com/document.asp?do
c_id=98936&W T.svl=news 1_1
<http://www.lightreadinq.com/document.asp?doc id=98936&WT.svl=news1 1>
"Life as a WISP tower climber"
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shown
ews/76256 <http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/76256>
http://www.isp-planet.com/fixed wireless/bu
siness/2006/tower_climber_insurance_bol.html
<http://www.isp-planet.com/fixed wireless/business/2006/tower climber in
surance_bol.html>
VIDEO
Mark Cuban skeptical about broadband
video programming, predicts television
will remain dominant: "with thousands of
Web sites competing for eyeballs, no content
provider is going to spend the necessary
dollars to create quality broadband-exclusive
programming that has little chance of generating
a significant financial return via advertising or
sponsorships"
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA63515
37.html?display=Breaking+News&referral=SU
PP&nid=2226
<http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6351537.html?display=Breakinq+New
s&referral=SUPP&nid=2226>
http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/76275
North Carolina statewide franchising bill
heads to governor for signature
http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article ap?id=88202
"[A]s Stevens' bill now stands, cable TV
operators would be required to carry all local
Digital TV signals while DIRECTV and EchoStar
would not." . . . •
http://www.tvpredictions.com/stevens070906.htm
. . . Sen. Stevens received substantial donations
from News Corp.
Sen. Stevens, set to a techno beat
http://www.freepress.net/docs/di teds techn
o_tubes.mp3 <http://www.freepress.net/docs/dj teds techno tubes.mp3>
DARPA funding computer-brain interface
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/m
edtech/0,71364-0.htm l?tw=wn_i ndex_1
<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/medtech/0,71364-0.html?tw=wn index
1>
If you would like to be added to or removed from our list, please
send an e-mail to infoballer.com.
THE BALLER HERBST LAW GROUP
A Professional Corporation
www.baller.com <http://www.baller.com/>
Jim Bailer Adrian Herbst
Sean Stokes 377N Grain Exchange
Bldg
Casey Lide 301 Fourth Avenue
South
2014 P Street, NW Minneapolis, MN 55415
Washington, DC 20036 (612) 339-2026
(202) 833-5300
From: Marty Wine
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 7/20/2006 5:05:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: Re: cable franchise renewal -baton-passing &team meeting
Bonnie, I would like to hear from you what services from the B&G team affect you most. I am going to call
Mike Bradley tomorrow and ask for another status report to begin to prepare for the Aug 7 meeting, and I
need to get the City team together. George's note below is a concern to me-about what progress has
been made if one of the subs is not on contract yet. I'd welcome your thoughts about this contract and our
renewal next time we talk.
Thanks
Marty
>>> George McBride 07/18/06 3:55 PM >>>
marty, i hope i didn't miss the appointment but my early understanding was that one of the consultants
would be here the first week of August to begin the system technical review. we have also scheduled that
same consultant to begin work for the valley cities initiative at the same time. in speaking with dick from
CBG, he indicated that he does not yet have a contract from our consultant, B&G yet. this means that
they, CBG, can not begin their work of contacting comcast for data to be used during the technical review
stage and will now perhaps have to postpone the work.
anyway, this all came up during our discussion on the valley cities issues and i thought you might want to
know about it. thanks, gm.
>>> Marty Wine 7/10/2006 9:08 PM >>>
Hi all, attached is the briefing that Linda referenced below with a status report from Mike Bradley. This
helped me to get up to speed on our renewal status (I understand we're on step 3 and will pick up there in
August) and I'd welcome any background information you each may have to offer about the renewal
process and what Renton's interests are. I would like to schedule a meeting among us, so look for a
Groupwise invitation from me for late next week.
Thanks - more soon.
Marty
x6526
>>> Linda Herzog 06/30/06 2:11 PM >>>
You may be wondering what's happening with the cable franchise renewal contract. Well, here's a brief
update . . .
Our new Asst. CAO Marty Wine will be taking over responsibility for management of the cable franchise
renewal effort under contract to Bradley& Guzzetta. Bonnie will, of course, continue to deal with Bradley&
Guzzetta on all the "daily franchise administration" and customer service aspects of the contract. Marty
and I will have a phone meeting with Mike Bradley on Thursday or Friday of next week, to be sure all of
Marty's questions are answered at the outset.
Mike Bradley will prepare a status report summarizing the work completed to date, and looking forward to
the next phase.We'll distribute Mike's report when it comes in, likely mid-next week.
Marty will want to pull the in-house team together before August 7, so be on the look-out for a meeting
invitation from her. On the evening of Aug. 7 Mike Bradley and Dick Nielson will do a presentation to
Council at the opening of the Council meeting. Mike will describe the status of the contract work, and
introduce Nielson & his phase of the work.
The next day, Aug. 8, Mike and Dick will want to meet with our in-house work group. To prep for that
meeting you will want to read Bradley's status report (forthcoming) and review the materials in the"Cable
Franchise Renewal Workbook"you received back in March.
Last words from me: Thank you all for working so cooperatively with me over the past year. I've very much
enjoyed my time here, and have come to love this community as I'm sure you do. Best to all of you for
continued success!
Linda
From: Linda Herzog
To: McBride, George
Date: 5/16/2006 6:50:37 PM
Subject: Re: franchise renewal
Thanks, George. I am cc'ing Bonnie in this reply so she hears the latest thinking on this possibility of
piggy-backing our cable survey onto the valley cities needs assessment work Tom is doing.
>>> George McBride 05/16/06 4:30 PM >>>
linda, i have a call into mike but have not heard back from him on our regional discussion. i did, however,
hear back from torn on the survey issue. he and his survey expert agree that the subject matter for both
the franchise renegotiation and the valley cities project are decidedly different and so, two surveys 30 days
apart should be no problem. if we believe it will be a problem, we can simply select two distinct survey
populations as the city is big enough to do so. i will let you know when mike and i connect. gm
CC: Walton, Bonnie
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Greg Uhl
Date: 5/20/2006 10:13:49 AM
Subject: Citizen Complain
I received a call from Stewart Whittacker, 821 Duvall Pl. NE, Renton, WA 98059 (cell: 206-949-1734,
home: 425-271-4936)
He indicated that his area was annexed to the City of Renton in November or December 2005. They(he
and his neighbors)did not and still do not have cable service to their area. (Under our franchise, Comcast
has one year after annexation to provide service, I believe.)
He recently called Comcast to ask if and when they would receive cable service. In his conversation,
Comcast advised that they just go with satellite.(!!!) I was astonished to hear that Comcast customer
service would make such a suggestion!
Would you please check into this and see what the deal is and how we can assist or reassure this citizen?
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
CC: Michael Bradley
d, i,
V 17944 r
',7 0--ici7 ,/-71,777or
i "ler xkmo'
, ,, ,74,i7,
•,;7/-77 ').-
4l21 6zw7
tv)y e--i-7, F2--r ri-mfi,4077A- $
-- ?-7,2722y227
/)71.4 1j3/ K
""72i77 Gy)71,-,7
/ 91 1P- -2X' Atie-PV -72V-
---
7~r
p-73,6-pr
`.. -77-p,1-0/2y ' • .'-f-01 -1°.
eFi7 frvi-1 , 1
• `2 nr27(" /7 " / / ' • 717 &-iv
2Z•
22-19, 5-147 •
j4 n12,11`) ,_
--ytia 9 cmy anis-
may, � /*2''
,,., „ � ,floj I _ 44 ter'
A1'10''1-1/1W*1
rar ..._.• 1 I
Ili I!
..,,.,
-i
.•-:' -?,:1-1,-::•-•:- \ ',‘,.":-. , :1-, .\,i,,,.\ ''' '.'', . •?7, r_....,... -,‘, ' V;:- - -4.1
t I
t I i I .
I I
- \ • -;:1,1--••,:j-„. 1---. 7:''.---..7.'..-. t...,I ,".,,':... !_- '.-',-;:!,. .:::,..-:....s.z. 1
i 1
i!
.73
i
I
, I
" •
_ : --,,,,,,,,:.:, .,..e,..,A-,.,,,,,,,,, I--Y-'-='".-- • 'SVI1,-.:'s . •1.„:.: —;,.—..
r
c Q!
I
-,‘....II.;:*'-,,,,,'..:.,„ A.L.,...:-, , •,:-
0-, ....• /1--- ; 1 •
... I i
\,,',
"• - ..--,-._`,, • . -,, .-...- ',-.' -,,---,.'--ets-',v1 , , ‘,- 1.-.• .i- III,,
11/17172(1.31.A1 .. i ._...-• \
,._-..i,•!,-*7... . :.:, , „, . *
I 1
I,
.._ ...,
1 I
WV/
II
* ''
ey5
f
..1
1 I
i t
... ,.
I I
. .,. ,...,
_ . ,, .,. ,_ .. ... // _.-,,..
I
a , , - . —
I.4.....
, '1.: .•,,,,,'-, '',
.,t..,'/C..,`. ./ ,,.• LA, ''' ,,,..
ti!,
It
,.:& — •„ ,,..-.;.- ..
. - ,,,i,..P.r-mir:. " "', :\. ..
,. ,,,,
, . ,Acecral......„ 6: 4 t,u.•,:•„••z-r-----. .
li . .. .... ,
,, ., .. ... .... ,•e.... ., •,._ „. •.. ,
il :,..
.. ,, ,zed.,0, , ,,• ,, ,-- .::, ..
I1. _ .,. .„........._ • ,.. ,...... ...\, ,,,..,. .:•. •._,...•
I(.._.,. Iv.:6':.-'',.:::-',.,!,•;,.7.C.,--c-•,:z...-.,,,,,.!. ... MI/
I±
I t .
1
A. k ...
illir
I I ' c''''• ''. '‘..-,.:7.-.....,,_,',''. •:.'-,•,'.
11
1
i
1
, 1 1
I,
. 1
! i '',,,,,t -; ''''' ,'t . ..-,''-,-,•;'''',.. ''f.'''''l
4040" - N'M.'', - • -' ."'A.'`"..\.'T---''''' . • ,,.., • •
I A
'`.:.) ..
....
. . ..,. ,.. , .
•
' A
1 ...,.t C s':'t 7 AC •-• --\. ---. .c• .-,'',!::t—::..'t,
I t
ft
1 tr
I t
I I
i r
i ; ,,,„ . •• .--' ,
,..
i .._.
1 r
. .._
•".'0,6 i i ..-
'N. : ,!, ,. • . .
'• - --' '•
..,-
. _
. i
, 1
,
1 II
vt' Pl/Y 1 1
if.,7 _ ,--t,v-pp7
22-9 -V-
/29 v-y-pri i I
I.
i I
I /V--/MS"Zrril i i
I'
i I
I I
, I
__"4 , 77/LisQ st L
i / i1 iI
A i
, H
:..
it
I f
ii,.,.
/17)Z107 72,19V I I
11911' I 1 I
___ 12,Ayiyi ___ II
i 1
I !
...
11
"tc-A4009791.r i I
WI 1 I i
. I I
. I
90..0 Z i 1 .
/ I
• / -1
4x)11-ir "72-77/°2 PaV ' II
"--9-ciaffe7-2-47/, - rp-rpvi- . b/pili
- i'
il
11
I.i
. .
CITY OF RENTON
City Clerk
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler, Mayor Bonnie I.Walton
November 18, 2005
Michael R. Bradley ,
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul,MN 55101
Re: Consultant Contract
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Enclosed is a fully executed original of the Franchise Management&Renewal
Consulting Services Agreement between your company and the City of Renton. As
agreed,the contract is effective November 1, 2005. The City has also retained one
original contract.
We look forward to working with you.
Sincerely, .
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
Enclosure .
cc: Jay Covington, CAO .
1055'South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98055-(425)430-6510%.FAX(425)430-6516. RENTON
:: This paper contains 50%recycled material,30%post consumer AHEAD O F THE CURVE
CAG-05-183
CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE MANAGEMENT AND RENEWAL
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
sf
November
This agreement is entered into the. day of ,2005,by and between
the City of Renton, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,hereinafter referred to
as"City" and Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC,hereinafter referred to as "Consultant"whose office
is located at 950 Piper Jaffray Plaza,444 Cedar Street, Saint Paul,MN 55101.
RECITALS:
Whereas,the City desires certain cable franchise management and renewal consulting
services, and the preparation and delivery of, without limitation, one or more sets of reports,
surveys, and other writings ("Services")as more fully described in Exhibit"A", `B", "C", and
Whereas,the City desires to engage the Consultant,including its employees and sub-
consultants,in providing the Services by reason of its qualifications and experience in
performing the Services, and the Consultant has offered to complete the Services on the terms
and conditions and in the manner set forth herein;
Now therefore, in consideration of the covenants, terms,conditions, and provisions of this
Contract,the parties agree:
Section 1. Term
This contract will commence on the date of its execution by the City, and will terminate on
December 31, 2008, unless the City earlier terminates this contract. The parties contemplate
that the Services may be required to be rendered up to and including the date of expiration of
the cable franchise with Comcast Cable of Washington, Inc., or its successor in interest,in
September 2008. Upon the receipt of the City's direction or notice to commence
performance,the Consultant will commence the performance of Services in accordance with
the time schedule set forth in Exhibits"A", `B"and"C". Time is of the essence of this
contract. In the event that the services are not completed within the time required through any
fault of the Consultant,the City's Chief Administrative Officer and City Attorney will have
the option of extending the time schedule for any period of time. This provision will not
preclude the recovery of damages for delay caused by the Consultant.
Section 2. Scope of Services: Changes &Corrections
2.1 The Services will be performed in accordance with the Scope of Work set forth in
Exhibits "A", `B", "C", and"D".
2.2 Upon delivery by the Contractor and approval by the City of the Franchise Renewal
Work Plan (within the first quarter of 2006),the City will give advance approval to
initiate each task before billable work on that task begins. Approval may be given by
the City Clerk/Cable Manager or by the Chief Administrative Officer(CAO)or his
designee, in writing by letter or e-mail,or orally. If approval is oral,both the
Contractor and the City will maintain written documentation of each notice to proceed.
9-29-05 1
i
2.3 The City may order changes in the scope or character of the Services, either
decreasing or increasing the amount of work required of the Consultant, as the
negotiations with the cable franchisee may warrant. In the event that such changes are
ordered, subject to the approval of the Renton City Council, as may be required,the
Consultant will be entitled to full compensation for all work performed prior to the
Consultant's receipt of the notice of change and further will be entitled to request an
extension of the time schedule if necessary. Any increase in compensation for
substantial changes will be determined in accordance with the provisions of this
contract. The City will not be liable for the cost or payment of any change in the
Scope of Services,unless before the Consultant commences such performance,the
City agrees in writing to the amount of additional compensation attributable to the
change.
2.4 Where the Services entail the preparation or drafting and submission of, without
limitation,reports, surveys, and other documents, any and all errors, omissions, or
ambiguities in the reports, surveys, and other documents will be corrected by the
Consultant at no cost to the City,provided the City gives notice to the Consultant.
Section 3. Qualifications,Status,and Duties of the Consultant
3.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has the expertise and professional
qualifications to furnish or cause to be furnished the Services. The Consultant further
represents and warrants that the project director and every individual,including any
sub-consultants,charged with the performance of the Services are duly licensed or
certified by the State of Washington,to the extent such licensing or certification is
required by law,to perform the Services,and that the Services will be executed by
them or under their supervision.
3.2 CBG Communications, Inc., Thomas G. Robinson, Constance Book,Ph.D and Front
Range Consulting, Inc., as more fully described in the Bradley and Guzzetta,LLC
proposal dated April 14, 2005, and Exhibit"D"attached herewith, are approved sub-
consultants who may be employed and used by the Consultant in the performance of
this Agreement. The Consultant may use or employ additional sub-consultants in
connection with the performance of services under this contract only after obtaining
the prior written approval of the City of named individuals,their business names,if
any, and their rates and fee charges. The City reserves the right to refuse payment of
such fees, if the Consultant does not obtain prior approval.
3.3 In reliance on the representations and warranties set forth in this contract, the City
hires Consultant to perform, and the Consultant shall perform, or cause to be
performed,the Services in accordance with the provisions of this Contract and its
exhibits.
3.4 The Consultant will be the project director and will have supervisory responsibility for
the performance,progress, and execution of the Services. Tracy J. Schaefer or a
designated representative of Consultant will be assigned as the project coordinator
who will represent the Consultant during the day-to-day performance of the Services.
If circumstances or conditions subsequent to the execution of this contract cause the
substitution of the project director or project coordinator for any reason, the
appointment of a substitute project director or substitute project coordinator will be
subject to the prior written approval of the project manager(as defined below).
3.5 The Consultant represents and warrants that it will:
9-29-05 2
3.5.1 Procure all permits and licenses,pay all charges and fees, and give all notices
which may be necessary and incidental to the due and lawful prosecution of the
Services;
3.5.2 Keep itself fully informed of all existing and future Federal, State of
Washington, and local laws, ordinances,regulations, orders, and decrees which
may affect those engaged or employed under this contract and any reports,
surveys and other documents to be prepared by or at the direction of the
Consultant or in furtherance of the Consultant's performance of the Services;
3.5.3 At all times observe and comply with, and cause its employees and sub-
consultants,if any, who are assigned to the performance of this contract to
observe and comply with, the laws ordinances,regulations,orders and decrees
mentioned above, and
3.5.4 Will report immediately to the project manager, in writing, any discrepancy or
inconsistency it discovers in the laws, ordinances,regulations,orders, and
decrees mentioned above in relation to the reports, surveys,and other
documents.
3.6 Any report, survey,and other document given to, or prepared or assembled by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants under this contract will become the property of the
City and will not be made available to any individual or organization by the
Consultant or its sub-consultants,if any, without the prior express written approval of
the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney.
3.7 The Consultant will provide the City with four(4)copies of any and all writings,
which are made a part of the reports, surveys, and other documents upon their
completion and acceptance by the City. There shall be no extra cost to the City for
provision of these multiple documents or reports.
3.8 If the City requests additional copies of any writings which are a part of the reports,
surveys, and other documents,the Consultant will provide such additional copies and
the City will compensate the Consultant for its reasonable duplicating costs.
3.9 The Consultant will be responsible for employing or engaging all persons and sub-
consultants deemed necessary to assist the Consultant in performing the Services. All
employees and sub-consultants of the Consultant will be deemed to be directly
controlled and supervised by the Consultant, which will be responsible for their
performance. If any employee or sub-consultant of the Consultant fails or refuses to
carry out the provisions of this contract or appears to be incompetent,the affected
employee or consultant will be discharged immediately from further performance
under this contract on demand of the project manager. The appointment of the sub-
consultants must be approved in advance by the City in writing, and must remain
acceptable to the City during the term of this contract,provided, however, all sub-
consultants identified in the Consultant's proposal and accepted by the City upon
execution of this contract are not subject to this provision.
3.10 In the execution of the Services,the Consultant and its sub-consultants,if any, will at
all times be considered independent contractors and not agents or employees of the
City.
3.11 In addition to the services listed in paragraph 2.1, the Consultant may perform at its
hourly rate listed in Exhibit D or obtain or cause to be performed or obtained any and
9-29-05
3
all of the following optional Services related to cable franchise management, as may
be required by the City:
3.11.1 Providing services to the City Clerk/Cable Manager,the Chief Administrative
Officer,the City Attorney and the Finance and Information Services
Administrator in connection with any public or non-public hearing or meeting,
arbitration proceeding, or proceeding of a court of record;
3.11.2 Performing any other optional Services that may be agreed upon by the parties
subsequent to the execution of this contract; and
3.11.3 Other optional Services now or hereafter described in Exhibit`B".
Section 4. Duties of the City
4.1 The City will timely furnish or cause to be furnished information relating to
Consultant's requirements under this Contract.
4.2 Jay Covington,Chief Administrative Officer, or his designee, and Bonnie Walton,
City Clerk/Cable Manager, will represent the City for all purposes under this contract.
4.3 The City,represented by the Chief Administrative Officer,the City Clerk/Cable
Manager, will review and approve, as necessary and in a timely manner the reports,
survey instruments and methods, and other documents, and each phase of work
performed by the Consultant.
4.4 If the City observes or otherwise becomes aware of any default in the performance of
the Consultant,the City will use reasonable efforts to give written notice thereof to the
Consultant in a timely manner.
Section 5. Compensation
5.1 The City will compensate the Consultant for the following services and work:
5.1.1 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise management services, as indicated in Exhibit"A",the City will
pay the Consultant a flat fee of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00)per month.
5.1.2 In consideration of the full performance of the Services in connection with
cable franchise renewal, as indicated in Exhibit`B,"the City will pay the
Consultant a fee not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Seven Thousand Five
Hundred Dollars ($ 157,500.00). The amount of compensation will be
calculated in accordance with the hourly rate schedule set forth in Exhibit"D"
and including reimbursable direct costs as noted in that Exhibit,up to the
maximum amount set forth in this contract.
5.2 The schedule of payments will be made as follows:
Payment for the Services will be based on quarterly invoices for actual services
rendered and will be paid by the City with thirty(30)days of receipt of the invoice.
The City will make final payment after the Consultant has submitted all reports,
surveys, and other documents,including,without limitation,reports which have been
approved by the City.
9-29-05 4
Section 6. Accounting,Audits,Ownership of Records
6.1 Records of the direct expenses incurred in connection with the performance of
Services listed in Exhibit"B" will be prepared,maintained, and retained by the
Consultant in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and will be
made available to the City for auditing purposes at mutually convenient times during
the term of this contract and for three(3) years following the expiration or earlier
termination of this contract.
6.2 The originals of the reports, surveys, and other documents prepared by or under the
direction of the Consultant in the performance of this contract will become the
property of the City, irrespective of whether the Services are completed,upon the
City's payment of the amounts required to be paid to the Consultant. These originals
will be delivered to the City without additional compensation.
Section 7. Indemnity
The Consultant agrees to protect,indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City,its Council
members, officers,employees and agents,from any and all demands, claims, or liability of
any nature,including death or injury to any person,property damage or any other loss,caused
by or arising out of the Consultant's,its officers', agents', consultants' or employees'
negligent acts,errors,or omissions, or willful misconduct,or conduct for which applicable
law may impose strict liability on the Consultant in the performance of or failure to perform
its obligations under this contract.
Section 8. Waivers
8.1 The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant,term,condition
or provision of this contract or of the provisions of any ordinance or law will not be
deemed to be a waiver of any such covenant,term, condition,provision, ordinance, or
law or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other covenant,
term,condition provision, ordinance or law. The subsequent acceptance by either
party of any fee or other money, which may become due hereunder will not be deemed
to be a waiver of any preceding breach or violation by the other party of any covenant,
term,condition or provision of this contract or of any applicable law or ordinance.
8.2 No payment,partial payment, acceptance, or partial acceptance by the City will
operate as a waiver on the part of the City of any of its rights under this contract.
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain,in full force and
effect during the term of this contract:
• Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with
$2,000,000 in the aggregate;
• $1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of
work,including delivery of products to worksite.)
• $1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage(provide the number);
9-29-05
5
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance(ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City
executes this agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an
additional insured, the endorsement page from the policy shall be attached, and the
cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of the above described
policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with
Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact
insurance business in the State of Washington. Any and all sub-consultants of the
Consultant retained to perform Services under this contract will obtain and maintain,
in full force and effect during the term of this contract,identical insurance coverage,
naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance,preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be
filed with the City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates
will be subject to the approval of the City's risk manager and will contain an
endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and will not be canceled or
altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five(45)days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named
as an additional insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file
with the city clerk at all times during the term of this contract.
9.4 The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to
limit the consultant's liability hereunder or to fulfill the indemnification provisions of
this contract. Notwithstanding the policy or policies of insurance, the consultant will
be obligated for the full and total amount of any damage,injury, or loss caused by or
directly arising as a result of the Services performed under this contract, including
such damage,injury, or loss arising after the contract is terminated or the term has
expired.
Section 10. Workers' Compensation
The consultant,by executing this contract, certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the
Labor Code of the State of Washington, which requires every employer to be insured against
liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and certifies that it will comply with such provisions, as applicable,
before commencing the performance of the Services.
Section 11. Termination or Suspension of Contract or Services
11.1 The Chief Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,on behalf of the City,may
suspend the performance of the Services,in whole or in part, or terminate this
contract, with or without cause,by giving sixty(60)days' prior written notice thereof
to the Consultant, or immediately after submission to the City by the consultant of any
completed item of Services. Upon receipt of such notice,the consultant will
immediately discontinue its performance under this contract.
11.2 The Consultant may terminate this contract or suspend its execution of the Services by
giving thirty(30)days' prior written notice thereof to the City, but only in the event of
9-29-05
6
a substantial failure of performance by the City or in the event the City indefinitely
withholds or withdraws its request for the initiation or the continuation of Services.
11.3 Upon such suspension or termination by the City, the Consultant will be compensated
for the Services and the optional Services performed and approved prior to the receipt
of written notice from the City of such suspension or abandonment,together with
authorized additional and reimbursable expenses then due. If the Services are resumed
after they have been suspended for more than 180 days, any change in the
Consultant's compensation will be subject to renegotiation and,if necessary, approval
of the Renton City Council. If this contract is suspended or terminated on account of a
default by the Consultant,the City will be obligated to compensate the Consultant
only for that portion of the Consultant's services which are of direct and immediate
benefit to the City, as such determination may be made by the Chief Administrative
Officer in the reasonable exercise of his discretion. In the event of termination of this
contract or suspension of work on the.Services by the City where the Consultant is not
in default,the Consultant will be paid for all services rendered and previously agreed
upon by the City. The total compensation payable under this contract will not exceed
the payment specified under Section 5 for the respective Services and optional
Services to be furnished by the Consultant.
11.4 Upon such suspension or termination,the Consultant will deliver to the City
Clerk/Cable Manager immediately any and all copies of the reports, surveys,and other
documents, whether or not completed,prepared by the Consultant or its sub-
consultants, or given to the Consultant or its consultants, in connection with this
contract. Such materials will become the property of the City.
Section 12. Assignment
This contract is for the personal services of the Consultant,therefore the Consultant will not
assign,transfer,convey, or otherwise dispose of this contract or any right, title or interest in or
to the same or any part thereof without the prior written consent of the City. A consent to one
assignment will not be deemed to be a consent to any subsequent assignment. Any
assignment made without the approval of the City will be void and, at the option of the Chief
Administrative Officer and the City Attorney,this contract may be terminated. This contract
will not be assignable by operation of law.
Section 13. Notices
All notices hereunder will be given,in writing, and mailed,postage prepaid,by certified mail,
addressed as follows:
To City: Bonnie Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
425-430-6502
425-430-6516-fax
bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us
www.ci.renton.wa.us
9-29-05
7
To Consultant: Michael R. Bradley
Bradley&Guzzetta,LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St.Paul,MN 55101
651-379-0900 x.4
651-379-0999 -fax
bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com
www.bradleyguzzetta.com
Section 14. Conflict of Interest
14.1 In accepting this contract,the Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest,
and will not acquire any interest,direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which
would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services.
14.2 The Consultant further covenants that,in the performance of this contract, it will not
employ consultants or other persons having such an interest mentioned above. The
Consultant certifies that no one who has or will have any financial interest under this
contract is an officer or employee of the City;this provision will be interpreted in
accordance with the applicable provisions of the Renton Municipal Code and the
Revised Code of Washington.
Section 15. Nondiscrimination
No discrimination will be made in the employment of persons under this contract because of
the age,race, color,national origin, ancestry,religion,disability, sexual preference or gender
of such person.
Section 16. Miscellaneous Provisions
16.1 The Consultant represents and warrants that it has knowledge of the requirements of
the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Health and Safety Code
of the State of Washington,relating to access to public buildings and accommodations
for disabled persons, and relating to facilities for disabled persons. The Consultant
will comply with or ensure by its advice that compliance with such provisions will be
effected pursuant to the terms of this contract.
16.2 This contract will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of Washington,excluding its conflicts of law.
16.3 In the event that an action is brought,the parties agree that trial of such action will be
vested exclusively in King County Washington Superior Court or in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington.
16.4 The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the terms of this contract or
arising out of this contract may recover its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees
expended in connection with that action.
16.5 This document represents the entire and integrated contract between the parties and
supersedes all prior negotiations,representations, and contracts, either written or oral.
This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the
parties.
9-29-05
8
16.6 The covenants,terms, conditions and provisions of this contract will apply to,and will
bind, the heirs, successors,executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants, as the
case may be, of the parties.
16.7 If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this contract or
any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable,the unaffected provisions of this
contract and any amendments thereto will remain in full force and effect.
16.8 All exhibits referred to in this contract and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and
schedules which, from time to time,may be referred to in any duly executed
amendment hereto are by such reference incorporated in this contract and will be
deemed to be a part of this contract.
16.9 This contract may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be
an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.
16.10 All communications between the parties shall be conducted in a manner that protects
and is intended to protect the confidential_nature of such communications..; he
Consultant acknowledges and agrees that the,City seeks to protect:any and all
communications with the Consultant under applicable laws, and the Consultant agrees
to maintain the confidentiality of any and all communications with the City, its
Council members and its employees, as practicable.
16.11 This contract is subject to the fiscal provisions of the approved City Budget. This
contract will terminate without any penalty(a)at the end of any fiscal year in the
event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or(b)at any time
within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the
fiscal year and funds for this contract are no longer available. This Section 16.11 will
take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant,term, condition, or
provision of this contract;provided however that the City provide Notice to
Consultant in accordance with paragraph 11.1.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives
executed this contract on the date first above written.
CITY OF RENTON BRADLEY&GUZZETTA,LLC
'KtiViLy /Zterie4 1,3ktae,t_
Kathy Keolker-Wheeler,Mayor Michael Bradley, Owner
ATTEST:
18,60-n yu.G.e w cUe -i Taxpayer ID NO: 4/- /q/°9 6 2
Bonnie I. Walton, City Clerk/Cable Manager
•
ei:
S
9-29-05 ,. S'. ► .
App ed as to Form: 'f
o .1.26....4._.....e.A........
Lawrence J.Warren, City Attorney
Attaclunents
Exhibit"A": Scope of Services-Franchise Management&Administration Services
Exhibit"B": Scope of Services-Franchise Renewal Process Services
• -Exhibit"C": Cost Detail
Exhibit"D": Hourly Billing Rates
Certificate of Acknowledgement
State of Ili nnt6o+6 )
) ss.
County of ictM6ey )
On this 3 day of October ,2005,before me,the undersigned notary public,
personally appeared Michael Bradley,proved to me through satisfactory evidence of
identification,to be the person whose name is signed on the preceding document, and
acknowledged to me that he signed it voluntarily for its stated purpose as Owner of Bradley&
Guzzetta,LLC, a limited liability company.
Witness my hand and official seal.
•
��.'��i� Notary APubCI�io-MUEnnMolt
�= °'�-` My co,r PU expires Jae st,2010
NKETr ignature of Notary Public
who resides in Mints cso#G1/4
My Commission Expires: 3403/ 4610
9-29-05
10
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management &Administration Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Consumer Protection& Complaints—On-Going
• Assume responsibility for reviewing and promptly responding to all public inquiries
regarding cable television services,making every effort to bring such inquiries or
complaints to a satisfactory conclusion by negotiation with the cable operator
whenever possible; and
• On-site inspection of areas of dispute to be performed when necessary for
reconciliation between the citizen and the cable operator.
Senior Citizen/Disabled.Person Discounts—On-going(or as otherwise specified for
compliance)
• Certify to the cable operator(s)that applicants for senior citizen/disabled person
discounts meet age and income limitations,incorporated in Washington state
guidelines.
Ordinance Compliance—Periodic(or as otherwise specified for ordinance compliance)
• Monitor time or other triggering criteria when appropriate to permit the City to request
additional non-entertainment features such as Public,Educational and Government
(PEG)access and implementation of Institutional Networks (I-Nets); and
• Analyze and prepare written summaries of such periodic reports from the operator as
may be required by the Franchise Agreement.
Documents—Daily(or as needed)
• Assume responsibility for the development and maintenance of current system maps
showing the status and location of system upgrades and other cable-related projects.
Maintain records of subscriber charges, channel allocations,performance tests,
citizen's complaints, as well as other franchise records.
Bond and Insurance—Annually(or as needed)
• Maintain a complete record of all bonds and insurance required by the franchise
ordinances;
• Advise the City of any default of any such requirements;and
• Monitor performance bonds to make recommendations to the City of any cause to
exercise City options in the case of non-performance.
FCC Regulation—Monthly(or as needed)
• Maintain and update a file of FCC regulations as they pertain to municipal franchise
procedures; and
• Advise the City as to any significant change or modifications to FCC regulations or
any other Federal or State legislation as applicable.
9-29-05
11
Exhibit"A"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Management&Administration Services
Page 2
Annual Reports—Annually
• Furnish a report to the City not less than once in a 12-month period,reviewing,
analyzing and commenting upon activities during this period.
Other Reports—Monthly(or as otherwise requested)
• Prepare reports on other matters of importance to cable television franchise
administration as they occur, to include,but not be limited to, such items as changes in
federal or state law, technological improvements effecting cable operations, financial
information pertinent to the local system, new programming and similar
developments.
Technical Assistance—As Needed
• Assist in technical matters related to cable TV franchise evaluation, service delivery
and system administration.
9-29-05
12
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Consultant shall perform the following services and corresponding deliverables:
Performance Analysis—3—6 months*
• Inspect and analyze the technical and operational effectiveness of the City's present
cable television franchise, and provide a written report of such findings to the City
upon determination by the Consultant that non-compliance exists with the City Code,
state law, and/or FCC regulations exist.
Upgrade Evaluation—3—6 months*
• Inspect and verify that all features proposed by the cable operator and duly adopted by
ordinance are constructed and/or performed in a workmanlike manner on a timely
basis,to include,but not be limited to such items as type and quality of new
components, workmanship of new construction, line extension density, system
leakage,channel capacity, local access equipment,public connections,rates and
programming,reporting immediately in writing any deficiencies discovered.
Compliance with the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992—2—4 months*
• Analyze cable operator's initial and subsequent submissions and justifications for
determination of maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services,FCC
benchmark tables and other FCC guidelines including,but not limited to,generally
accepted accounting principles,justifications of cost of services, external pass-through
and,if appropriate, GNP-P1 configurations;
• Based upon these assessments and consistent with FCC regulations, advise Renton in
writing to either approve submitted rates,or disapprove in whole or in part and either
order a refund or prescribe reasonable rates. If rate analysis takes place at a time when
rate adjustments are not currently at issue, advise Renton regarding the
appropriateness of past rate-related requests and approvals.
• Verifying operator adherence to FCC regulations such as carriage,positioning and
must-carry restrictions as well as consumer relation minimums and mandated
technical specifications; and
• Recommend in writing fines or monetary forfeitures if allowable or appropriate in the
event of non-compliance.
Access Utilization—3—4 months*
• Review the status of citizen,educational and governmental use of the access
channels provided; and
• Assess the availability of such channels,time allocations provided for such
use, and equitable sharing arrangements made by the franchisee.
9-29-05
13
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 2 of 3
Collection of Franchise Fees—3—6 months*
• Determine through comparative analyses and audits,if required,that the
franchisee is paying fully such fees as mandated by ordinance, and follow up
on delinquent payments if necessary, in order to ensure prompt and complete
payment of such fees on a timely basis.
Training and Evaluation—1—3 months*
• Educate City work team members regarding cable law and the franchise
renewal process,including routine preparation and conducting site visits.
Work Plan—1—3 months*
• Develop and provide a written franchise renewal/solicitation strategy and
review of the planning process, development of charts and phasing.
Special Presentation—1 month*
• Present franchise renewal process action plan to City Council.
Survey—3—6 months*
• Survey community,input and analyze results,identify needs and interests, and
provide a written report. (See also optional tasks, for telephone survey as an
alternative to mail survey.)
Comparative Studies—1—3 months*
• Compile and compare in writing typical franchise agreements and their terms
and conditions.
Public Hearings—1—3 months*
• Facilitate public hearings and other forms of citizen input, including traditional
communications,public relations and web-based communications.
Financial Implications—1—2 months
• Prepare written budget and financial information, and franchise analysis for a
total cost of operations,including budget development for the remaining years
of cable TV effort.
Negotiations—12—18 months
• Facilitate franchise negotiation with leading providers.
Implementation—3—6 months
1. Oversee franchise implementation, and technical and contract compliance and
acceptance.
*Project tasks can run concurrently. Total elapsed time for completion of all of these items is 12 months or less.
9-29-05 14
Exhibit"B"
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Franchise Renewal Process Services
Page 3 of 3
Optional Renewal
Training and Evaluation—1 -2 months*
• Conduct technical cable system infrastructure field training to help city staff
(Public Works/IT)to identify and report cable violations/safety issues.
Telephone Survey-3—6 months*
• Conduct community wide telephone survey,input and analyze results, and
provide a written report, in lieu of conducting written community-wide survey.
*Optional Renewal project tasks can run concurrently with other Renewal tasks.
9-29-05 15
1 • '
Exhibit"C"
Cost Detail
Administrative Services described in Exhibit A:
All Administrative work will be completed by Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC for flat fee of$2,000
per month,exclusive of costs.
Franchise Renewal Services described in Exhibit B:
All renewal work will be completed according to the chart below:
Renewal
Cost Consultant Timeframe*
Performance Analysis &Upgrade $17,000-
Evaluation $20,400 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Compliance with Cable TV Consumer $11,200- B&G&
Protection&Competition Act of 1992 $13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
Access Utilization $12,800- B&G&
$13,600 CBG 1Q-2Q-2006
$4,500- Front Range
Collection of Franchise Fees $6,000 Consulting,
Inc. 1Q-3Q-2006
Training and Evaluation $3,120- B&G&
$5,850 CBG 1Q-2006
Work Plan $1,560- B&G&
$2,340 CBG 1Q-2006
Special Presentation $1,560- B&G
$2,340 1Q-2006
Survey(Mail Out Survey-City pays $8,000-
mailing costs) $11,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
Public Hearings $25340 B&G 1Q -2006
Financial Implications $2,560- B&G
$7,680 2Q-4 Q-2007
Negotiations $6,270 B&G
$63,270 1Q-4Q- 2007
Implementation $2,500- B&G
$8,000 4Q-2007
Optional
Renewal
Costs Consultant Timeframe
Training of PW/IT staff to identify and $1,360-
report cable violations/safety issues. $4,080 CBG 1Q-2006
Telephone Survey(in lieu of written $20,000-
community survey) $23,200 CBG 2Q-4Q-2006
* Q=Quarter. The times listed are
estimates and subject to change.
9-29-05 16
. n 1 '
Exhibit"D"
Hourly Billing Rates
CBG Communications,Inc.
Thomas G. Robinson,Executive Vice President $170.00
Richard D.Nielsen, Senior Engineer $170.00
Dr. Constance L.Book, Survey Researcher $150.00
Carson Hamlin,Video Engineer $150.00
Krystene Rivers, Administrative Assistant $35.00
Bradley &Guzzetta,LLC
Michael R. Bradley,Attorney $195.00
Stephen J. Guzzetta,Attorney $195.00
Tracy J. Schaefer, Senior Project Manager $150.00
Paralegal/Law Clerk $125.00
Front Range Consulting,Inc.
Richard R. Treich $150.00
Invoices for work would be submitted to the City monthly and are due and payable 30 days
after submission.
Cable Franchise Renewal Services Reimbursable Direct Costs:
Clerical/Word Processing,Long Distance Phone Calls,
Fax,Photocopies and Reproduction(in excess of those to be
provided under Section 3.7), Courier,Postage,
Fed Ex, Travel,and Other Similar Expenses*
*All reimbursable direct costs are billed at the actual cost.
9-29-05
17
From: "Linda Herzog"<lindaherzog@verizon.net>
To: <jcovington@ci.renton.wa.us>, <gmcbride@ci.renton.wa.us'>,
<mebailey@ci.renton.wa.us>, <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, <bwolters@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 1/23/2006 12:52:02 AM
Subject: NEED YOUR REVIEW &COMMENTS! --draft of comments to FCC re: cable franchise
authority for local govts
I am attaching a 6-page (!!) draft of a statement from the City on the FCC's
proposed rulemaking in regard to local franchise authority over
telecommunications providers.
This is an URGENT request for your review and comments.
The reason for the rush is
(a) I didn't get it done last week as promised, and
(b)the Mayor will be leaving tomorrow morning for DC, and she should have
copies of our comments to the FCC with her, as she meets with members of our
Congressional delegation.
You will note that there are a few yellow-highlighted places. Where I need
to insert material from others (e.g. Larry Warren) I will do that first
thing in the morning, and send you another copy of this. But if you can
send me your comments as I am gathering up the few remaining pieces, it will
be a great advantage for me to make the changes you recommend, insert
additional wording, etc.before I send out the next draft.
If you have no suggestions, send me an e-mail anyway, so I know I got your
attention!
Thanks for all your help on this. I'll be glad to have it out of here
today!
Linda
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375/Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006
CC: <Ijwarren@seanet.com>, <Iherzog@ci.renton.wa.us>
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984)
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No. 05-311
Protection and Competition Act of 1992
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON, WASHINGTON
The City of Renton believes that local governments have a responsibility to their citizens
to responsibly manage the public assets that belong to those citizens, and to represent
them in important decisions about cable communication systems. Renton's policies and
actions clearly demonstrate that the City values its business partnerships and
understands the advantages to the community, its residents and its workforce of healthy
competition among a broad range of providers of services and retail goods.
[Linda will add para here that paraphrases.Ben's description of Renton's commitment to
competition and regulatory reform. This wording has been stored in a file inaccessible to
me from home.]
The City of Renton can and will maintain its local cable franchise authority with the
highest standards of clarity, timeliness, and fairness. In order to assure its citizens
appropriate choice, high quality and reasonable cost, Renton supports the entry of new
video service providers, and looks forward to the effects of market competition to bring
services to its citizens at highest quality and lowest cost.
There are important things for FCC Commissioners to know about the City of Renton
and hundreds of other local jurisdictions like it across the United States. Here are some
facts about Renton that bear on the question of cable franchise authority and
management of the video franchise relationship:
The City of Renton
The City of Renton has 56,840 residents and [xxxx] daytime workers. Voluntary
annexations of unincorporated areas to the east and the west of the City are expected to
more than double the City's resident population within 7-8 years.
The Franchise Agreement with Comcast
Comcast has held the City's only cable television franchise since 1977. The current
franchise agreement has been in effect since 1993; it will expire in September 2008.
Comcast has filed a notice of intent to renew the franchise. The renewal process is
expected to begin within the next few months.
Franchise Fee
Under the current franchise, Comcast has access to all households, businesses and
institutions within city limits, and pays the City of Renton 5% of its gross revenues.
PEG Access Channels
Comcast also provides Renton with three "PEG" access channels on the cable system.
Two of those are now in operation: one for government access, and the other for public
access. Additional channels are to be made available by Comcast when use of the
current PEG channels has reached certain defined criteria.
Under the franchise agreement, the cable operator must provide, install and maintain
equipment necessary for local government cablecasting; provide service to public
buildings and schools in Renton without charge; and in exchange for release of certain
obligations, contributes funds to a Community Foundation for the purpose of
constructing, operating and maintaining a public access studio in south King County
(Puget Sound Access).
Institutional Network (I-net)
The City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network made up of 12-
strand fiber runs from City Hall to these facilities:
• the City Attorney's office
• four fire stations
• the municipal airport control tower
• the Public Works shops
• three community centers and a community use building in a downtown park
• a senior center
• two libraries
• the Renton Museum and Historical Society
• a downtown parking garage and a public transit"Park and Ride"facility
• the former city hall and 2 other buildings that the city leases out. [ASK GEORGE if
this the correct way to characterize 200 Mill Building, Edmonds Ave. NE & NE
Sunset Blvd., and Harrington Ave. NE & NE 9th St.]
The city's network is critical to the daily operation of the City, and to maintaining the high
quality of service it provides to our citizens and businesses. These network links
connect the noted eighteen locations (above) and an additional fourteen city facilities to
the City's main data center from which all telecommunications services are provided,
including voice (dial tone), data, some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety
communications and dispatch. In addition, the network supports cashiering, back office
business and data base services, as well as reservation, scheduling, financial and
emergency management applications. The City's traffic management system (signal
timing & adjustment) also operates on this same I-net fiber network.
The City also uses the I-net fiber to backhaul a city-wide wireless network system
including all fire and police vehicle data. This wireless network covers 80% of the
outdoor area within the corporate boundaries of the City of Renton.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts, the City's dark
fiber network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition,
firefighters and police officers have access across the I-net to both the fire and police
records management systems, along with regional, state and federal emergency
management and public safety data.
Customer Service
Renton's franchise agreement assures good service to City residents in accordance with
Federal standards. These are good business practices that we believe any cable
service provider will endorse. Under the terms of the Renton franchise agreement:
• In no case can a franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established
by the National Cable Television Association.
• If there is a service failure or damage to any component that causes a failure, the
cable operator renders repairs promptly and with the shortest service interruption
possible, to restore the quality of the signal to pre-failure standards. Any such
interruptions are preceded by notice and occur during a period of minimum use of
the cable system. A log of all service interruptions is maintained by the operator for
at least a year.
• The cable operator responds to any system outage affecting more than five
subscribers.
• The operator maintains an adequate force of customer service representatives as
well as incoming trunk lines so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and
responsibly. A summary of customer service measures must be provided by the
operator quarterly.
• An employee of the franchise operator answers and responds to all individual
complaints no later than 5:00 p.m. weekdays, and may use an answering service
after regular business hours.
• A technician is on call 24/7. The operator responds immediately to service
complaints in an efficient manner.
• The cable operator maintains a sufficient repair force to respond to repair service
requests within two working days. All complaints are resolved within seven days, to
the extent reasonable.
• If a subscriber has notified a franchisee of an outage, there is no charge for service if
the outage lasts more than 24 hours
• The operator supplies at the time of a new connection, and periodically at least once
a year, the title, address, and telephone number of the City official subscribers may
call with questions or complaints.
Build Out
Another component of Renton's cable franchise agreement is especially important to our
citizens —the requirement for build-out so that cable service is available to all. Only a
few small areas in Renton have not been able to receive Comcast services because of
extraordinary conditions.
The agreement specifies that service must be available city-wide within 12 months from
granting of the franchise (i.e. by September 1994). Areas subsequently annexed to the
City must be provided with cable availability within 12 months of annexation, subject to
stipulated extraordinary installation conditions. (Note that Renton has accepted nearly
sixty annexations of unincorporated King County territory since the initiation of the
current franchise.)
Regarding low-density areas, our franchise agreement holds that cable service must be
available to all Renton residents provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per street
mile. If a resident lives in a less dense area, the cable operator must enter into a
contractual agreement wherein the new subscriber reimburses the operator for
construction costs. Whenever any subsequent subscriber(who did not contribute to the
cost of the extension) connects to the extended line, that subscriber must pay his/her pro
rata share directly to the cable operator, and then the operator passes that payment
back to the original subscriber.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications
technologies, our franchise stipulates a schedule for reasonable upgrade completion
within 48 months from the commencement of the franchise agreement (by September
1997). (This deadline was subsequently extended, but the upgrade was completed in
the late 1990's.) Comcast now offers Internet service to all City residents who have
cable.
What about New Entrants into the Renton Market?
Directly pertinent to the FCC's concerns, Renton's franchise contains an "Equalization of
Civic Contributions" section. Under this provision:
• If one or more additional franchises are granted, the City may require that such
subsequent franchisees pay to the City an amount proportionally equal to franchising
costs contributed by the initial franchisee. These costs may include but are not
limited to access and institutional network costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable
installed to municipal buildings and similar expenses.
• On the anniversary of each later-awarded franchise, those franchisees must pay to
the City an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee,
based on the number of subscribers held by the franchisees.
• Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel(s) and emergency
override systems currently available to the subscribers of the existing franchisee(s).
In order to provide these access channels, new franchisees may interconnect, at
their cost, with the existing franchisee(s), subject to any reasonable terms and
conditions of the existing franchisee. These interconnection agreements shall be
made directly between the franchisees. In case of dispute, the City Council may
arbitrate.
Operation in the Public Rights of Way
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way for the
purpose of providing cable television service. As is the case with all ROW users, the
cable provider must obtain a construction permit from the City, and must pay an
approval / inspection fee. Upon application for each construction permit the franchisee
must submit to the City its plan for advance notification for the proposed construction
project.
Insurance and Performance Bond
According to the franchise agreement the City of Renton holds with Comcast:
• Comcast maintains a general comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect the
City and all persons against liability for loss or damage for personal injury, death and
property damage, and errors or omissions occasioned by the operations of a
franchisee. The insurance policy provides minimum limits of$1 million for both
personal injury and/or property damage, and names the City as additional insured.
• The franchisee must promptly repair or cause to be repaired any damage to City
property caused by a franchisee or any of its agents.
• The franchisee must comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations
regarding excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City, shall be
required to post a performance bond in favor of the City warranting that all
restoration work will be done promptly and in a workmanlike manner.
The Franchising Process and Enforcement Mechanisms
The City of Renton treats it cable franchise agreement as a contract between the City,
acting on behalf of its citizens, and the cable television/internet connection provider
whose services hold great value for Renton citizens.
Renton agrees with the Federal Cable Act that the statutory obligation of the local
government is to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests, and
ensure that these are addressed in the franchising process.
If any portion of our franchise is inconsistent or conflicts with any rule or regulation now
or hereafter adopted by the FCC or other Federal law, then to the extent of the
inconsistency or conflict the rule or regulation of the FCC or other Federal law controls,
provided the remaining provisions of the franchise are not affected. Our franchise further
states that matters involving technical standards, rates, franchise renewal, franchise
fees, compensation for involuntary abandonment, and termination for non-compliance
are subject to Federal and State law.
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights, and consequent additional
obligations on the local government. For instance:
• [Insert L. Warren material on PUBLIC READING/PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC,
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. Note ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH SUCH
REQUIREMENTS, STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS GOVERNING THESE AREAS,
and DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.]
The franchise agreement provides for the following enforcement mechanisms by which
the City of Renton may ensure that the cable operator is abiding by the agreement:
• [Insert L. Warren contribution here.]
Competitive Cable Systems
The City of Renton was approached once several years ago by a competitive cable
television provider, but the provider chose not to enter into formal discussions. The City
of Renton has not denied any provider the opportunity to serve this community, and
already has a procedure on its books allowing competitive providers to establish a
franchise relationship with the City.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in Renton, Washington. Renton has
experience working with cable providers to both see that the needs of the local
community are met, and ensure that the practical business needs of cable providers are
taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that cable operators are allowed access to the public
rights of way in a fair and even-handed manner, that other users of the rights of way are
not unduly inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way assure adequate
protection of this valuable public asset. Our cable franchising process also ensures that
our community's specific needs are met, and that the City of Renton is able to intervene
on behalf of its citizens if need be.
Local franchises provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee
the operations of cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance
with applicable laws. There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to handle
matters of specifically local interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including Renton, a voice in
implementation of local cable systems, and the features (such as PEG access and (-
Nets) that will be available to meet local needs. These factors are equally present for
new entrants as for existing providers.
The City of Renton, Washington therefore respectfully requests that the
Commission refrain from interfering with local government authority over franchising, or
to otherwise impair the operation of the local franchising process as set forth under
existing Federal law.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Renton, Washington
By:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
cc: NATOA, infonatoa.orq
John Norton, John.Norton a(�.fcc.gov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Lonqafcc.gov
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Tracy Schaefer
Date: 2/21/2006 12:12:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pass Thru Fee
Thank you,Tracy. It is great that you caught this in the first place and that you are following up.
Regarding the Comcast website, I have asked before to have Renton's basic rate posted on their website,
to no avail. Hopefully, you will be more successful in making that happen.
Yes, I have another batch of additional information almost ready to go, so will get that off to you yet today
or tomorrow.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
PS We had a nice chat here with Tom Robinson on 2/16.
>>> "Tracy Schaefer" <schaefer@bradleyguzzetta.com>02/21/06 11:57 AM >>>
Bonnie,
As I mentioned to you last week, I called four different Comcast customer
service representatives and 3/4 gave me the correct answers to adding an
additional channel like HBO or an international channel. I followed up
today and called four more Comcast customer service representatives and 4/4
gave me the correct answer. All customer service representatives offered
the digital box option right away and didn't even push the digital package.
It is on my calendar to follow-up in about a month to make sure that you
continue to receive this service.
While checking Comcast's website for verification of package prices, I
noticed that they don't have the Basic Cable rate on their website. I have
left a message for Terry Davis and we have been playing phone tag to try to
get Comcast to update their website to reflect that Comcast offers a Basic
Cable rate of$12.48 as well.
Lastly, let me know if you have had a chance to put together any of those
additional documents.
Thanks,
Tracy J. Schaefer
Senior Project Manager
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
444 Cedar Street, Suite 950
St. Paul, MN 55101
651-379-0900 x. 4-phone
651-379-0999 -fax
CC: 'Michael R. Bradley'
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza a CITY OF RENTON
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101 V MAR 1.4 2006
P/(651)379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
CITY RECEIVEDL FFICE
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
March 10, 2006
In reference to:Cable Adminsitration
Invoice#13734
Professional Services
' Date Init. Description Amount
2/1/2006 MRB Cable Administration - February 2006. $2,000.
3/1/2006 MRB Cable Administration -March 2006. 2.000.
For professional services rendered $4,000.
Balance due $4,000.
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651) 379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
March 10, 2006
In reference to:Cable Adminsitration
Invoice#13734
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Amount
2/1/2006 MRB Cable Administration - February 2006. 2,000.00
3/1/2006 MRB Cable Administration - March 2006. 2,000.00
For professional services rendered $4,000.00
Previous balance $2,000.00
Balance due - $6 0.00
.4
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/10/2006 4:36:14 PM
Subject: Your Bill
For your convenience, your bill is attached to this message.
Please review the attached bill and submit your payment.
Thank you.
Note: The attached bill is in PDF file format.Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to view this file. If you do
not have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, please download the free reader from the Adobe website
(http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html) and install it on your computer.
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 6/16/2006 1:19:05 PM
Subject: RE: Comcast Cable Service
They did appologize for the delay and said they are re-examining how to
best handle these requests in the future.
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 1:18 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Subject: RE: Comcast Cable Service
That's great! Thank you for your assistance with this. I wonder why
Comcast wasn't more responsive and ignored me before! At least it's
getting done.
Bonnie
>>>"Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com> 06/16/06 11:19 AM
>>> >>>
More good news-Comcast left word on my voice mail that the North
Highlands Neighborhood Center should have its connection by the end of
the day! Have a great weekend.
Mike
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 4:50 PM
To: Michael Bradley
Subject: Comcast Cable Service
Mike:
As I mentioned on the phone, we are having a little problem with Comcast
being responsive to our request for cable service for one of our
outlying buildings. Here is the background:
On January 4, 2006, a work order was submitted by the City of Renton to
Comcast requesting cable connection to the city-owned North Highlands
Neighborhood Center, 3000 NE 16th St., Renton.
In March, I called Ann Svensson, Comcast Cable Franchising Contracts
Administrator, to inquire about the status of the request, as the
Neighborhood Center was anxious. I was unable to reach her at her desk,
but left phone messages a few different times. Finally on April 21,
2006, I connected with Ann on the phone. When I mentioned I had left a
few messages for her, she said she did not have my direct phone number
to return the calls, but she had left a message for me with the Mayor's
office two weeks ago. (I checked with the Mayor's office secretaries
down the hall who recalled no such call or message, and would have just
transferred the call to me.) Anyway, Ann also stated that the
contractor was supposed to be out to the site to take care of the job
that very week.
I relayed this information to the Community Services Dept. manager who
had placed the initial request. He said he would put it on his list of
;. h
things to check up on to ensure it had been completed. So this week I
was surprised to receive an email stating that there still is no cable
service to this building.
I have not followed up on this with a written status inquiry. Should I,
or do you want to check into it from here?
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Tracy Schaefer
Date: 2/22/2006 7:37:27 AM
Subject: Payment History- Comcast
Tracy:
We do not have copy of the checks Comcast paid the City, but I was able to get a Transaction History
from our Finance Dept. Copy is attached.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
arCtHstA.rpt Customer Transaction History Page: 1
01/18/2006 5:18:59PM City of Renton
Department: 1
Customer: COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 1043 On Account: 0.00
Phone: (253) 864-4200 Balance: 600.00
Type Date Document No Category/Description Amount _ Balance
IN 01/11/2006 09180 Permit Fees 600.00 600.00
through December 31, 2005
RC 12/28/2005 01-45028 PAYMENT 08806 -1,500.00 0.00
RC 12/15/2005 01-44779 PAYMENT 08464 -100.00 1,500.00
IN 12/05/2005 08806 Annual video maintenance 1,500.00 1,600.00
Annual video maintenance
IN 11/10/2005 08464 Permit Fees 100.00 100.00
through Oct 31, 2005
RC 10/27/2005 01-42541 PAYMENT 07977 -500.00 0.00
IN 09/30/2005 07977 Permit Fees 500.00 500.00
Through September 2005
RC 08/22/2005 01-39405 PAYMENT 07325 -300.00 0.00
IN 06/30/2005 07325 Permit Fees 300.00 300.00
Billing through June 30, 2005
RC 05/23/2005 01-34621 PAYMENT 07006 -900.00 0.00
IN 04/28/2005 07006 Permit Fees 900.00 900.00
Billing through April 21, 2005
RC 03/18/2005 01-30995 PAYMENT 06532 -100.00 0.00
IN 01/11/2005 06532 Permit Fees 100.00 100.00
RC 01/04/2005 01-27092 PAYMENT 06327 -1,500.00 0.00
IN 12/05/2004 06327 Annual video maintenance 1,500.00 1,500.00
Annual video maintenance
RC 10/04/2004 01-22455 PAYMENT 05875 -350.00 0.00
IN 09/07/2004 05875 Permit Fees 350.00 350.00
May through August 2004
RC 07/01/2004 01-18001 PAYMENT 05036 -350.00 0.00
IN 06/11/2004 05036 Permit Fees 350.00 350.00
through May 31, 2004
RC 05/03/2004 01-15268 PAYMENT 04762 -350.00 0.00
Page: 1
arCtHstA.rpt Customer Transaction History Page: 2
01/18/2006 5:18:59PM City of Renton
Department: 1
Customer: COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 1043 (continued)
Type Date Document No Category/Description Amount Balance
IN 04/14/2004 04762 Permit Fees 150.00 350.00
January 2004
Permit Fees 100.00
February 2004
Permit Fees 100.00
March 2004
Document Total 350.00
RC 04/07/2004 01-14106 PAYMENT 04338 -150.00 0.00
RC 02/05/2004 01-11492 • PAYMENT 03925 -50.00 150.00
IN 02/03/2004 04338 Permit Fees 150.00 200.00
Billing through 12/31/03
RC 01/27/2004 01-11054 PAYMENT 03925 -200.00 50.00
RC 01/02/2004 01-09924 PAYMENT 04036 -1,500.00 250.00
RC 12/19/2003 01-09652 PAYMENT 03729 -400.00 1,750.00
IN 12/05/2003 04036 Annual video maintenance 1,500.00 2,150.00
Annual video maintenance
RC 12/02/2003 03-34672 PAYMENT 03729 -200.00 ' 650.00
IN 12/02/2003 03925 Permit Fees 250.00 850.00
Permit C3-035, C3-037, 038,
039, 040
RC 11/07/2003 03-33814 PAYMENT 03729 -50.00 600.00
RC 10/22/2003 10-22001 APPLY TO 03747 0.00 650.00
Reduce on-account -1,030.00
on-acct bal$1030 researched&refunded to customer
IN 10/22/2003 03747 Miscellaneous 1,030.00 1,680.00
Account correction
IN 10/16/2003 03729 Permit Fees 650.00 650.00
RC 10/15/2003 03-32752 PAYMENT 03471 -250.00 0.00
RC 10/06/2003 03-32460 PAYMENT 03471 -50.00 250.00
RC 08/27/2003 03-30865 PAYMENT 03168 -50.00 300.00
IN 08/27/2003 03471 Permit Fees 300.00 350.00
3 permits-June 2003-
3 permits-July 2003
Page: 2
arCtHstA.rpt Customer Transaction History Page: 3
01/18/2006 5:18:59PM City of Renton
Department: 1
Customer: COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 1043 (continued)
Type Date Document No Category/Description Amount Balance
RC 08/18/2003 03-30377 PAYMENT 03167 -50.00 50.00
RC 08/11/2003 03-30107 PAYMENT -150.00 100.00
Increase on-account 150.00
RC 07/24/2003 03-29478 PAYMENT 03010 -200.00 100.00
IN 07/17/2003 03168 Permit Fees 50.00 300.00
June 2003
IN 07/17/2003 03167 Permit Fees 50.00 250.00
June 2003
IN 06/13/2003 03010 Permit Fees 200.00 200.00
April 2003
RC 05/19/2003 03-26922 PAYMENT 02676 -570.00 0.00
Increase on-account 570.00
RC 05/19/2003 03-26934 PAYMENT 02676 -790.00 0.00
IN 04/09/2003 02676 Permit Fees 550.00 790.00
January 2003-March 2003
Miscellaneous 240.00
Inspections-
January 22 thru March 26
Document Total 790.00
RC 02/21/2003 03-23581 PAYMENT 02187 -370.00 0.00
RC 02/10/2003 03-23146 PAYMENT 02033 -1,350.00 370.00
IN 01/13/2003 02187 Permit Fees 250.00 1,720.00
12/24/02-12/31/02
Miscellaneous 120.00
Inspections 3 hours
Document Total 370.00
IN 12/31/2002 02033 Permit Fees 1,350.00 1,350.00
Sept 12 - Dec 19, 2002
RC 12/27/2002 03-21612 PAYMENT 01951 -1,500.00 0.00
IN 12/05/2002 01951 Annual video maintenance 1,500.00 1,500.00
Annual video maintenance
RC 10/15/2002 03-19436 PAYMENT 01432 -950.00 0.00
Page: 3
arCtHstA.rpt Customer Transaction History Page: 4
01/18/2006 5:18:59PM City of Renton
Department: 1
Customer: COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 1043 (continued)
Type Date Document No Category/Description Amount Balance
IN 09/12/2002 01432 Permit Fees 750.00 950.00
Inclusive of 9/10/02
Miscellaneous 200.00
Inspections 5 hrs @$40 per
h r-
8/16/02-8/22/02
Document Total 950.00
RC 08/29/2002 03-18037 PAYMENT 00914 -990.00 0.00
RC 07/29/2002 03-17323 PAYMENT 00975 -420.00 990.00
IN 07/03/2002 00975 Permit Fees 300.00 1,410.00
May 2002
Miscellaneous 120.00
Inspections 3 hrs @$40/hr
Document Total 420.00
IN 06/20/2002 00914 Permit Fees 150.00 990.00
Miscellaneous 840.00
Inspections 21 hrs @$40/hr—
permit#C2-17, C2-18, C2-19,
C2-21
Document Total 990.00
RC 05/28/2002 03-16275 PAYMENT00591 -450.00 0.00
IN 05/01/2002 00591 Permit Fees 450.00 450.00
RC 04/16/2002 03-14838 014827 -550.00 0.00
IN 04/13/2002 00296 Miscellaneous 550.00 550.00
invoice 014827
RC 04/12/2002 00-00000 Payment -310.00 0.00
Increase on-account 310.00
Document Total 0.00
Customer Total 600.00
Grand Total 600.00
Page: 4
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:12:26PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1994
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 207,000.00 0.00 207,000.00
2 0.00 54,183.24 152,816.76
3 0.00 0.00 152,816.76
4 0.00 56,567.73 96,249.03
5 0.00 0.00 96,249.03
6 0.00 0.00 96,249.03
7 0.00 56,678.19 39,570.84
8 0.00 0.00 39,570.84
9 0.00 0.00 39,570.84
10 0.00 53,879.18 14,308.34-
11 0.00 0.00 14,308.34-
12 0.00 858.70 15,167.04-
Totals : 207,000.00 222,167.04 15,167.04-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
2 GJ GJ genjrnal 2/1/1994 2/1/1994 FN7 JE02-39 53,939.34 C
2 AR RC receipt 2/3/1994 2/3/1994 SYS 02-06563 WATER DIST#1 243.90 C
4 AR RC receipt 4/25/1994 4/25/1994 SYS 02-08935 TCI WEST, INC 56,567.73 C
7 AR RC receipt 7/26/1994 7/26/1994 SYS 02-12054 TCI WEST, INC 56,678.19 C
10 AR RC receipt 10/28/1994 10/28/1994 SYS 02-15314 TCI WEST INC 53,879.18 C
12 AR RC receipt 12/22/1994 12/22/1994 SYS 02-16905 OLYMPIC PIPEL 858.70 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 222,167.04
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:12:45PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1995
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 207,000.00 46,949.41 160,050.59
3 0.00 243.90 159,806.69
7 0.00 104,862.28 54,944.41
10 0.00 42,919.03 12,025.38
Totals : 207,000.00 194,974.62 12,025.38
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/24/1995 2/9/1995 cr01/24/95 02-17783 T C I WEST 46,949.41 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/15/1995 3/16/1995 nancyg 000 A/R receipt posting 243.90 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/26/1995 7/27/1995 cr07/26/95 02-24277 TCI WEST, INC.-SPECIAL DEPOSIT 50,201.45 C
7 GJ GJ genjrnal 7/31/1995 7/26/1995 jimb JE7-17 54,660.83 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/24/1995 10/30/1995 cr10/24/95 02-27611 TCI WEST, INC. 42,919.03 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 194,974.62
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:13:02PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1996
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 197,000.00 50,552.08 146,447.92
4 0.00 53,812.07 92,635.85
6 0.00 23,614.67 69,021.18
7 0.00 55,086.78 13,934.40
10 0.00 70,876.31 56,941.91-
Totals : 197,000.00 253,941.91 56,941.91-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/12/1996 1/17/1996 r01/12/96 000 A/R receipt posting 858.70 C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/26/1996 2/5/1996 cr01/26/96 02-31081 TCI WEST, INC-SPECIAL DEPOSI 49,693.38 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/18/1996 4/30/1996 cr04/18/96 02-34120 TCI WEST-SPECIAL DEPOSIT 53,812.07 C
6 AR RC ar-receipt 6/17/1996 6/17/1996 r06/17/96 000 A/R receipt posting 23,614.67 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/30/1996 7/31/1996 cr07/30/96 02-38337 TCI -SPECIAL DEPOSIT 55,086.78 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/22/1996 10/24/1996 cr10/22/96 02-41817 METRICOM 10,000.00 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/22/1996 10/24/1996 cr10/22/96 02-41903 TCI CABLE 60,876.31 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 253,941.91
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:13:19PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1997
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 194,000.00 60,789.02 133,210.98
2 0.00 487.80 132,723.18
7 0.00 118,019.71 14,703.47
8 0.00 177.46 14,526.01
10 0.00 64,591.76 50,065.75-
Totals : 194,000.00 244,065.75 50,065.75-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/27/1997 1/28/1997 cr01/27/97 02-10772 TCI 60,789.02 C
2 AR RC ar-receipt 2/24/1997 2/26/1997 r02/24/97 000 A/R receipt posting 487.80 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/23/1997 7/24/1997 cr07/23/97 02-18148 T.C.I 60,848.35 C
7 GJ GJ genjrnal 7/25/1997 7/29/1997 je07/25/97 JE7-48 CORRECT CODING FRANC. FEE 56,829.24 C
7 GJ GJ genjrnal 7/31/1997 8/4/1997 je07/31/97 JE7-62 MOVE REV FROM CABLE TO PHONE 342.12 C
8 GJ GJ genjrnal 8/29/1997 9/4/1997 je08/29/97 JE8-54 Corr Cable/Phone Utltx 177.46 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/1/1997 10/3/1997 cr10/01/97 02-20957 CABLE &WIRELESS 184.57 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/8/1997 10/9/1997 cr10/08/97 02-21221 TELE-COMM. INC 64,407.19 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 244,065.75
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:13:36PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1998
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 225,000.00 60,305.46 164,694.54
3 0.00 243.90 164,450.64
4 0.00 66,321.23 98,129.41
7 0.00 95,814.04 2,315.37
11 0.00 69,552.18 67,236.81-
Totals : 225,000.00 292,236.81 67,236.81-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/21/1998 1/23/1998 cr01/21/98 02-25221 TCI 60,305.46 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/9/1998 3/10/1998 r03/09/98 000 A/R receipt posting 243.90 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/30/1998 5/4/1998 cr04/30/98 02-29562 TCI 66,321.23 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/27/1998 7/28/1998 cr07/27/98 02-33279 TCI 69,964.74 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/29/1998 7/30/1998 cr07/29/98 02-33453 TCI 25,849.30 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/3/1998 11/4/1998 cr11/03/98 02-37230 TCI 69,552.18 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 292,236.81
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:13:54PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 1999
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 0.00 0.00 0.00
2 275,000.00 65,575.97 209,424.03
3 0.00 243.90 209,180.13
4 0.00 67,227.05 141,953.08
6 0.00 97,765.25 44,187.83
7 0.00 68,904.03 24,716.20-
11 0.00 66,471.94 91,188.14-
Totals : 275,000.00 366,188.14 91,188.14-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
2 GJ GJ revday 2/1/1999 2/4/1999 cr02/01/99 02-40380 TCI 65,575.97 C
2 GJ BA budadjust 2/28/1999 3/4/1999 pramon 000 ADOPTED BUDGET 275,000.00
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/15/1999 3/16/1999 r03/15/99 000 A/R receipt posting 243.90 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/22/1999 4/23/1999 cr04/22/99 02-43213 TELE-COMMUNICATION, INC 67,227.05 C
6 AR RC ar-receipt 6/9/1999 6/14/1999 r06/09/99 000 A/R receipt posting 97,765.25 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/30/1999 8/4/1999 cr07/30/99 02-47161 TCI 68,904.03 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/2/1999 11/4/1999 cr11/02/99 02-50723 METRICOM 358.01 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/2/1999 11/4/1999 cr11/02/99 02-50724 TCI 66,113.93 C
Budget Adjustments: 275,000.00 Activity: 366,188.14
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:14:11PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2000
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 325,000.00 34,519.17 290,480.83
2 0.00 76,176.12 214,304.71
3 0.00 243.90 214,060.81
5 0.00 84,370.35 129,690.46
8 0.00 87,332.07 42,358.39
10 0.00 5,000.00 37,358.39
11 0.00 103,258.16 65,899.77-
Totals : 325,000.00 390,899.77 65,899.77-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/3/2000 1/5/2000 r01/03/00 000 A/R receipt posting 34,519.17 C
2 GJ GJ revday 2/1/2000 2/7/2000 cr02/01/00 02-53758 TCI 76,176.12 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/8/2000 3/9/2000 r03/08/00 000 A/R receipt posting 243.90 C
5 GJ GJ revday 5/1/2000 5/4/2000 cr05/01/00 02-57321 TCl/AT&T 84,370.35 C
8 GJ GJ revday 8/1/2000 8/7/2000 cr08/01/00 02-61062 AT&T 87,332.07 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/26/2000 10/27/200C cr10/26/00 02-64161 PBPW PUBLIC WORKS 5,000.00 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/1/2000 11/2/2000 cr11/01/00 02-64333 PBPW PUBLIC WORKS/DEV SVCS DIV 5,000.00 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/3/2000 11/6/2000 cr11/03/00 02-64494 RCN OPERATING SVCS INC 6,000.00 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/3/2000 11/6/2000 cr11/03/00 02-64524 AT&T 92,258.16 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 390,899.77
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:14:28PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2001
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 350,000.00 0.00 350,000.00
2 0.00 107,607.74 242,392.26
3 0.00 5,000.00 237,392.26
4 0.00 106,106.83 131,285.43
5 0.00 892.45 130,392.98
6 0.00 40,716.99 89,675.99
7 0.00 109,904.98 20,228.99-
11 0.00 114,674.94 134,903.93-
Totals : 350,000.00 484,903.93 134,903.93-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
2 GJ GJ revday 2/2/2001 2/6/2001 cr02/02/01 03-02251 AT&T 102,607.74 C
2 GJ GJ revday 2/23/2001 2/28/2001 cr02/23/01 02-66538 PBPW PUBLIC WORKS/DEV 2-22-01 5,000.00 C
3 GJ GJ revday 3/29/2001 3/31/2001 cr03/29/01 03-03638 PUBLIC WORKS 3/28 5,000.00 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/25/2001 4/26/2001 cr04/25/01 02-67838 AT&T BROADBAND 106,106.83 C
5 AR RC ar-receipt 5/11/2001 5/11/2001 r05/10/01 000 A/R receipt posting 892.45 C
6 AR RC ar-receipt 6/1/2001 6/1/2001 r05/30/01 000 A/R receipt posting 35,716.99 C
6 GJ GJ revday 6/19/2001 6/21/2001 cr06/19/01 03-04849 PBPW 6/15/01 5,000.00 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/30/2001 7/31/2001 cr07/30/01 02-69618 AT&T 2ND QTR 109,904.98 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/6/2001 11/7/2001 cr11/06/01 02-70605 AT&T BROADBAND 114,674.94 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 484,903.93
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:14:46PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2002
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Q3 Gov- Business Taxes Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 500,000.00 118,284.14 381,715.86
2 0.00 892.45 380,823.41
3 0.00 36,859.94 343,963.47
4 0.00 120,639.04 223,324.43
5 0.00 200.00 223,124.43
7 0.00 108,685.48 114,438.95
10 0.00 106,918.32 7,520.63
Totals : 500,000.00 492,479.37 7,520.63
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/28/2002 1/29/2002 cr01/28/02 03-11978 AT&T BRAODBAND FQ2001 118,284.14 C
2 AR RC ar-receipt 2/22/2002 2/25/2002 r02/22/02 000 A/R receipt posting 892.45 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/5/2002 3/6/2002 r03/05/02 000 A/R receipt posting 36,859.94 C
4 GJ GJ genjrnal 4/30/2002 5/3/2002 je04/30/02 JE4-35 AT&T BROADBAND 4/26/02 120,639.04 C
5 GJ GJ revday 5/16/2002 5/17/2002 cr05/16/02 03-16020 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS 2002 200.00 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/23/2002 7/26/2002 cr07/23/02 03-17220 AT&T BROADBAND 108,685.48 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/21/2002 10/24/2002 cr10/21/02 03-19616 AT&T BROADBAND 106,918.32 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 492,479.37
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:15:03PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2003
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Q3 Gov- Business Taxes Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 500,000.00 37,560.27 462,439.73
2 0.00 109,681.10 352,758.63
3 0.00 1,092.45 351,666.18
4 0.00 107,920.65 243,745.53
7 0.00 127,611.48 116,134.05
10 0.00 125,920.51 9,786.46-
Totals : 500,000.00 509,786.46 9,786.46-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/10/2003 1/14/2003 r01/10/03 000 A/R Receipt Posting 37,560.27 C
2 GJ GJ revday 2/10/2003 2/11/2003 cr02/10/03 03-23157 COMCAST/AT&T BROADBAND 109,681.10 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/11/2003 3/13/2003 r03/11/03 000 A/R Receipt Posting 892.45 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/25/2003 3/26/2003 r03/25/03 000 A/R Receipt Posting 200.00 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/28/2003 4/30/2003 cr04/28/03 02-78772 COMCAST FINANCIAL 107,920.65 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/28/2003 7/31/2003 cr07/28/03 02-79869 COMCAST 121,198.38 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/28/2003 7/31/2003 cr07/28/03 02-79873 COMCAST 6,413.10 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/27/2003 10/30/2003 cr10-27-03 03-33261 COMCAST 125,920.51 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 509,786.46
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:15:19PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2004
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Q3 Gov- Business Taxes Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 510,000.00 39,145.34 470,854.66
2 0.00 128,904.12 341,950.54
3 0.00 200.00 341,750.54
4 0.00 135,456.99 206,293.55
8 0.00 138,928.60 67,364.95
11 0.00 139,730.99 72,366.04-
12 0.00 37,560.27 109,926.31-
Totals : 510,000.00 619,926.31 109,926.31-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal`Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/5/2004 1/8/2004 r01/05/04 000 A/R Receipt Posting 692.62 C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/9/2004 1/12/2004 r01/09/04 000 A/R Receipt Posting 37,560.27 C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/26/2004 1/27/2004 r01/26/04 000 A/R Receipt Posting 892.45 C
2 GJ GJ genjrnal 2/11/2004 2/12/2004 j1d02/11a JE2-07 RECLASS COMCAST FRANCHISE FEE 128,904.12 C
3 AR RC ar-receipt 3/1/2004 3/2/2004 r03/01/04 000 A/R Receipt Posting 200.00 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/26/2004 4/29/2004 cr04/26/04 01-14928 COMCAST 135,456.99 C
8 GJ GJ revday 8/5/2004 8/10/2004 cr08/05/04 01-19812 COMCAST 138,928.60 C
11 GJ GJ revday 11/1/2004 11/3/2004 cr11/1/04 01-24061 COMCAST 139,730.99 C
12 AR RC ar-receipt 12/21/2004 12/22/2004 r12/21/04 000 A/R Receipt Posting 37,560.27 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 619,926.31
Page: 1
glAlnq Account Information Page: 1
1/18/2006 4:15:36PM City of Renton
Account No: R 000.000000.000.3160.0030.00.000000 Title: FRANCHISE FEES Fiscal Year: 2005
Debit/Credit: C Account Class: Q3 Gov- Business Taxes Budgeted: Y Year End Estimate: 0.00
Status Code: 0 Allotment: N
JC Required: N Locked: N
Standard Acct: N Budget Account:
Account Activity
Period Total Budget Revenues Balance
1 510,000.00 143,847.52 366,152.48
2 0.00 200.00 365,952.48
4 0.00 149,757.89 216,194.59
7 0.00 154,209.68 61,984.91
8 0.00 892.45 61,092.46
10 0.00 153,099.52 92,007.06-
12 0.00 38,838.25 130,845.31-
Totals : 510,000.00 640,845.31 130,845.31-
Transaction Detail
Period Jrnal Doc Type Doc Date Post Date Group Reference Description Amount D/C
1 AR RC ar-receipt 1/27/2005 1/28/2005 r01/27/05 000 A/R Receipt Posting 1,277.98 C
1 GJ GJ revday 1/28/2005 1/31/2005 cr01/28/05 02-87830 COMCAST 142,569.54 C
2 AR RC ar-receipt 2/1/2005 2/3/2005 r02/01/05 000 A/R Receipt Posting 200.00 C
4 GJ GJ revday 4/22/2005 4/25/2005 cr04/22/05 01-32957 COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 149,757.89 C
7 GJ GJ revday 7/22/2005 7/25/2005 cr07/22/05 01-37901 COMCAST OF WASHINGTON 154,209.68 C
8 AR RC ar-receipt 8/31/2005 9/1/2005 r08/31/05 000 A/R Receipt Posting 892.45 C
10 GJ GJ revday 10/24/2005 10/25/2005 cr10/24/05 01-42390 COMCAST 153,099.52 C
12 AR RC ar-receipt 12/20/2005 12/30/2005 r12/20/05 000 A/R Receipt Posting 38,838.25 C
Budget Adjustments: 0.00 Activity: 640,845.31
Page: 1
Print View Page 1 of 2
From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
Date: Tuesday -December 20, 2005
Subject: NATOA Needs Your PEG Video -HELP!!
NATOA PEG Managers,Producers, People-
As part of our effort to educate and inform our members of congress on
the great and incredibly professional programming that we offer on the
PEG channels,we need to very quickly produce some compilation programs.
We are very fortunate that TelVue(TVTN)has stepped up and has offered
to assist us in this regard-BUT WE NEED YOUR HELP!
IF you receive a call from Joe Murphy or any of the staff at TelVue
(TVTN)for clips from any of your channels (Public,Educational or
Gov't),please,please respond quickly!!! We will be asking you to
overnight video in response to such requests - Congress is only out of
session for a brief holiday break-and we'd like to put together some
great looking clips on DVDs for our congressional oversight committee
member's to see and to be in awe of.
If we want to protect PEG-and to ensure its future success -we need
to impress on our congressional representatives how incredibly
informative and professional this programming is - and there's no better
way than by showing it to them!
SO -if TelVue(TVTN)calls -please respond right away -and thank you
in advance for all of your support!!!
You should not send any materials to NATOA headquarters- and wait until
TelVue contacts you seeking specific clips or info from your community -
we are asking a lot of them to do this work in short order, so your help
is greatly appreciated. Thanks!!!
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbqqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 2 of 2
703-519-8035
703-519-8036
lbeaty@natoa.org<mailto:lbeaty@natoa.org>
www.natoa.org<http://www.natoa.org/>
Mark Your Calendars Now!
NATOA's 26th Annual Conference
August 22-26,2006
Buena Vista Palace -Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista, Florida
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbqqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 1 of 1
From: Ben Wolters
To: Bonnie Walton,Jay Covington,Linda Herzog
Date: Wednesday-December 21,2005
Subject: Re: Fwd: FW:NATOA Call to Action-Assists Local Governments to File in FCC Franchise
Proceeding
This seems like an appropriate place for Renton to comment in support of our franchise agreements and
process and the importance of maintaining local control of ROW. Our response can serve as a basis for
communicating on the legislative side. On this issue,I think its best we team up with existing organizations
and when the time is right carry our own story to our congressional delegation.
>>>Bonnie Walton 12/21/05 1:52 PM>>>
FYI...
Bonnie
hops://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRibgqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 1 of 2
-From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
To: lbeaty@natoa.org
Date: Monday-December 19,2005
Subject:NATOA Call to Action-Assists Local Governments to File in FCC Franchise Proceeding
This message has been sent in HTML format. If you are unable to use this
format,please see this same information as posted on the
Policy/Advocacy page of the NATOA website. Also,please feel free to
share this message with any other local government- it is being sent to
our partners in sister organizations to encourage as many local
governments as possible to participate. Thank you.
Call to Action
FCC Seeks Comment on Franchising
The Federal Communications Commission("FCC")has issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking("NPRM") (MB Docket 05-311)in which it makes a
number of assumptions and asserts that franchising of cable services by
local governments may be an unreasonable barrier to entry for new telco
video providers. To this end the FCC is seeking comment from local
government(and others) on"what can be done to ensure that local
franchising authorities (LFAs) do not unreasonably refuse to award cable
franchises to competitive entrants."[1]
This NPRM strikes at the heart of local government's authority over
those using the public property in their community to deliver video
services, and could result in the preemption of local governments'
ability to control their rights-of-way. NATOA urges all local
government entities to participate in this process by filing comments.
It is important that the FCC be obligated to deal in facts and not
anecdote, and that local government inform the FCC of the important role
it plays protecting local communities'needs and interests.
NATOA and other national organizations will be filing comments on the
broad scope of the FCC's authority in this matter. However, it is
critical that individual local governments file factual comments with
the FCC to instruct them on the true value and importance of
franchising. NATOA is providing a template for your use in filing
comments.
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbqqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print�View Page 2 of 2
The industry is quick to make generalizations and accusations of
wrong-doing by local governments. It is important that local
governments provide the FCC with the FACTS. The FCC questions the
willingness and ability of LFAs to expeditiously franchise new video
providers and ignores the long history of local government efforts to
obtain such competition. Local government must provide the FCC with the
local perspective on inviting and issuing competitive franchises,
including typical timeframes for negotiation. It is important to share
with the FCC the challenges local governments face,and the creative
solutions achieved when opportunities presented themselves. It is
equally important for the FCC to hear how few communities have ever had
the opportunity to welcome a competitive provider in their community.
The FCC and the industry must not be allowed to frame the issue-it is
important that you speak for yourself.
Your comments are needed to protect local government control over
rights-of-way and the cable franchising process. In addition,comments
filed with the FCC in this rulemaking will likely become part of the
debate in Congressional rewrites of the Telecommunications Act. It is
important that local government present a strong case for retaining
local control.
All initial comments to the proceeding are due by February 13,2006,
with replies due March 14,2006. Do not delay-please review the
attached template and begin preparing your comments today. Use this
link to access the Comments Template
C<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/FranchiseCommentsTemplate.DOC>
and Instructions
(<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/FranchiseFilingInstructions.pdf>
Please join us in this critical endeavor and file your comments
immediately!
[1] A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available on the
NATOA website under Policy/Advocacy and on the FCC's website at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs j,ublic/attachmatch/FCC-05-189A1.doc
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbqqbmgfEid&action=Item,.... 12/29/2005
„ ,,N
' .-::, NBTOB
Dear NATOA Member:
Local government's authority is being challenged on Capitol Hill, before our state
legislatures and before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by
telecommunication companies seeking exemptions from current local, state and federal
laws. Already there are a number of pieces of legislation that, if adopted, would strip
local governments of much authority, control, services and revenue.
The House Energy and Commerce Sub-Committee on Technology and the Internet have
thus-far released two draft proposals for amending the Communications Act which
would significantly impact, if not completely preempt, all local video service franchise
agreements. Simultaneously, the FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) alleging that the franchise process is a barrier to entry. The importance of this
decision and its adverse impact on local governments cannot be overstated.
The financial risk of any actions - by Congress, the states or the FCC - while unknown,
is necessarily substantial. Actions which negatively impact local government's authority
to charge for use of its property, and to require other forms of compensation (like PEG,
INet and emergency alerts), will be very detrimental to our communities. Although the
battle cry appears to be one of "offering competition” — the reality is one of special
concessions and special interests — all in an effort to avoid working with local
governments to serve our communities, to provide essential services in our
communities, and to protect our citizens.
NATOA is working hard to combat this attack on local government. We recognize that
this is a critical issue for our members and for all local governments nationwide. Local
government is the major stakeholder in this debate, both with respect to the financial
repercussions, as well as the impact on our ability to provide customer services and
parity in competitive services to our constituents. We want to protect local
governments' rights — but we need your help to do so effectively. We have been and
will continue to work closely with our sister associations including the National League
of Cities (NLC), the National Association of Counties (NACo), the United States
Conference of Mayors (USCM), the Alliance for Community Media, the International
Municipal Lawyers Association and others. We encourage all local governments to work
together to ensure that your community is represented, is participating, and is
contributing to this effort.
We want to represent you to the best of our abilities and we must muster the resources
necessary to do so. Our objective is to speak with one voice for all cities, counties and
communities, and to have a coordinated lobbying and response to counteract the force
of the industries seeking special treatment for their entry into the video services
market.
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
Writing letters and making phone calls to our elected representatives is crucial but with
the lobbying and market power of the industry, it will not be enough. NATOA has
engaged counsel as needed to assist us in both the legislative issues and the FCC
NPRM. NATOA will be working with our sister associations to join in efforts to support
our public relations needs and our lobbying goals. We will continue to support the
interests of local government through testimony at hearings and written statements for
the record. We seek to ensure local government's full participation before the House
and Senate and at the FCC. We will work to provide you with up to date, accurate and
helpful information along the way. Our goal is to ensure that local governments'voice is
heard loudly and clearly (and repeatedly) and that all local governments participate
through joint efforts of the associations, as well as by individually expressing your
concerns.
The one thread that flows through these and the many proceedings in which NATOA
participates, is that local communities must be willing to fight for their rights if they
wish to retain authority over issues like franchising, rights-of-way management, public
safety, and taxes and to provide services like public, educational and governmental
access, institutional networks and good customer service. NATOA is committed to
making sure that your concerns about these critical communications issues are heard by
Congress, by the FCC and, when necessary, by the courts. We have fought and will
continue to fight the industry's well-financed efforts to override local authority. It is
critical that NATOA obtain the legal funds necessary to fully participate in these and
other proceedings. Our ability to protect the rights of local communities such as yours
is dependent upon these efforts.
In the words of former NATOA President Tom Weisner (now Mayor of Aurora, IL); "The
question, considering the critical challenges that will confront us all in the coming year,
is not whether your community can afford to lend your support. Rather, the question is
whether your community can afford NOT to support NATOA's efforts."
We are asking each of our members to make a supplemental payment to assist us in
this regard. While the annual assessment may be used as a guidepost, we would also
ask those members with sufficient resources to consider a more significant contribution.
We will welcome any amount and are grateful to those of you who are in a position to
help. Any member that requires a special invoice may call Melissa Robinson at NATOA
Headquarters at (703) 519-8035.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, thank you for your consideration and your support.
Best regards,
tort3
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
Filing Instructions
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System
("ECFS") or by filing paper copies. Instructions for both forms of filing are included below.
Comments must be filed by February 13, 2006 in order to be included in the comment
round. Otherwise, they can be submitted until March 14, 2006 to be considered in the
Reply Comment round. Comments must also be sent to FCC staff - John Norton
(John.Norton@fcc.gov) and Andrew Long (Andrew.Long(afcc.gov). We also ask that a copy
be sent to infoOnatoa.org.
Filing Electronically
Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet at
http://www.fcc.gov/cqb/ecfs or else they may be sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal
at http://www.regulations.gov. In completing the transmittal screen, electronic filers should.
include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number: which in this case is MB Docket No. 05-311. More detailed
instructions are available on the FCC website and on NATOA's website.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. These are instructions
for members of the public who want or need to send comments on FCC Proceedings via
Email instead of through the Electronic Comment Filing System's interactive web site. Click
on one of the links below to review instructions and information. If you need further
assistance, please contact the Help Desk at ecfshelp@ fcc.gov or (202) 418-0193.
Instructions ; Blank Form ; Data Requirements ; Sample Forms
Filing by Mail or in Person
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies (for a total of
five) of each filing in MB Docket No. 05-311. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. However, note that comments must be received by the due date, regardless of when
the comments were mailed, and that U.S. Postal Service mail is typically delayed and may
make the filing late. All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Marlene
Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission to one of the
following addresses:
• Filings via U.S. Postal Service should be addressed to 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20554.
• Filings via commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service mail) must
be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
• Filings via hand-delivered or messenger-delivered filings must be delivered to the
Commission's filing location at 236 Massachusetts Avenue;N.E., Suite 110,
Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this facility are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.
Note that in accordance with FCC rules, any local government named in the
comments of any party must be served with a copy of the comments to provide them with
an opportunity to respond. Otherwise, the comments may be disregarded as violating the
FCC's ex parte rules. See, Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings,
GC Docket No. 95-21, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 18831 (October 28,
1999).
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495,Alexandria,VA 22314,(703)519-8035,(703)519-8036—Fax,www.natoa.org
INSTRUCTIONS—ALL AREAS IN [BRACKETS] MUST BE FILLED IN. ALL AREAS fN
7GRAY ARE EXPLANATORY FOR THE COMMUNITY(INCLUDING THESE
STRUCTIONS)AND SHOULD BE DELETED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION OF THE
COMMENTS. SEE ATTACHED DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO FILE",
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of )
Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of )
the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 ) MB Docket No. 05-311
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer )
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 )
COMMENTS OF [NAME OF COMMUNITY]
These Comments are filed by [Name of Community] in support of the comments filed by
the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors ("NATOA"). Like
NATOA, [Name of Community] believes that local governments can issue an appropriate local
franchise for new entrants into the video services field on a timely basis, just as they have for
established cable services providers. In support of this belief, we wish to inform the
Commission about the facts of video franchising in our community.
[IF IN YOUR COMMUNITY A CABLE FRANCHISE GOES BY ANOTHER NAME, SUCH AS
LICENSE," STATE SOMETHING LIKE THE FOLLOWING]I In our community a cable
"franchise" is termed a . The Federal Cable Act refers to this as a "franchise" so we will
use that term in these comments. Also, many communities have a cable ordinance which
operates in conjunction with the franchise agreement, the terms of which are often negotiated
with the cable company in conjunction with the franchise agreement. These documents
collectively referred to as the "franchise" below.
Cable Franchising in Our Community
Community Information
[Name of Community] is a [city/county/town, etc.] with a population of . Our
franchised cable provider(s) is/are [name of cable provider]. Our community has negotiated
cable franchises since [year first franchise was issued].
Our Current Franchise [USE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS ONLY IF THEY APPLY TO
YOUR FRANCHISE. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE FRANCHISE, PROVIDE THE
INFORMATION IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS FOR EACH]
Our current franchise began on [date] and expires on [date]. Under the statutory timeline
laid out in the Federal Cable Act,the cable operator has a 6-month window beginning 36 months
before the expiration of the franchise in which to request a renewal under the Federal Act. As a
result, at this time we [are/are not] currently negotiating a franchise renewal with the incumbent
provider.
Our franchise requires the cable operator to pay a franchise fee to the [city/county/town,
etc.] in the amount of % of the cable operator's revenues. The revenues for franchise fee
purposes are calculated based on the gross revenues of the operator, in accordance with the
Federal Cable Act.
We require the cable operator to provide the following capacity for public, educational,
and/or governmental ("PEG") access channels on the cable system. We currently have _
channels (or capacity) devoted to public access; channels (or capacity) devoted_ to
educational access; and channels (or capacity) devoted to government access. [ONLY AS
NECESSARY, DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR FRANCHISE FOR PROVISION BY
THE CABLE OPERATOR OF CHANNELS FOR PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, AND
GOVERNMENTAL ("PEG') USE. BREAK THEM DOWN BY CATEGORY -- HOW MANY
CHANNELS FOR PUBLIC, HOW MANY FOR EDUCATIONAL, HOW MANY FOR
GOVERNMENTAL.] _.�
Our franchise requires that our PEG channels be supported in the following ways by the
cable operator: [DISCUSS GRANTS (SPECIFY ONE-TIME OR ONGOING, SUBSCRIBER=
BASED OR FLAT RATE) YOUR COMMUNITY RECEIVES TO ASSIST WITH PEG
FACILITIES. ALSO DISCUSS ANY IN-KIND PROVISIONS OF EQUIPMENT OR SERVICES
IN AID OF PEG CHANNELS. NOTE, THE FEDERAL STATUTE SPECIFIES THAT
COMMUNITIES CAN ONLY REQUIRE MONEY TO BE USED FOR FACILITIES (NOT
OPERATIONS). IF YOU ARE RECEIVING OPERATIONAL MONEY BECAUSE THE CABLE
OPERATOR HAS OFFERED IT AND YOU ACCEPTED IT, THAT IS ALLOWED BUT IT
SHOULD BE SPECIFICALLY NOTED HERETHAT THE OPERATOR OFFERED IT -- THE
COMMUNITY DID NOT REQUIRE IT_.] — Y—
_Our franchise contains the following institutional network ("I-Net") requirements:
[DISCUSS ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR ANY I-NET OR SIMILAR TELECOMMUNICATIONS
FACILITIES LINKING MUNCIPAL BUILDINGS. THE SAME AS FOR PEG SUPPORT
(ABOVE), DESCRIBE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR IN-KIND OR MONETARY SUPPORT OF
THESE FACILITIES]; We use our I-Net facilities in the following ways: [DESCRIBE THE
FACILITIES THAT ARE CONNECTED VIA THE INET AND HOW YOU USE THE CAPACIT1
OF THE INET -- E.G., SOME MUNICIPALITIES USE THEM FOR POLICE OR
FIREFIGHTER REMOTE TRAINING, SOME FOR CONTROL OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS,ETC.])
2
Our franchise contains the following requirements regarding emergency alerts:
[DESCRIBE_REQUIREMENTS FOR CARRIAGE OF EMERGENCY ALERT MESSAGES (FOR
EXAMPLE, DOES IT REQUIRE CARRIAGE OF STATE AND/OR LOCAL EMERGENCY
ALERTS? DOES IT ALLOW LOCAL OFFICIALS ACCESS TO THE ALERT SYSTEM IN AN
EMERGENCY, OR REQUIRE FORCE TUNING TO THE GOVERNMENT CHANNEL WHERE
EMERGEN_CY, MESSAGES ARE CARRIED?)Jj These emergency alert requirements provide an
important avenue of communication with our residents in the event of an emergency. [USE THE
FOLLOWING IF APPLICABLE], An example of when this function has been helpful is the
following: [PROVIDE AN EXAMPLE OF YOUR COMMUNITY'S USE OR RELIANCE ON THE
LOCAL EMERGENCY ALERT SYSTEM AS CARRIED OVER THE CABLE SYSTEMC
Our franchise contains the following customer service obligations, by which we are able
to help ensure that the cable operator is treating our residents in accordance with federal
standards and the terms it agreed to in its franchise. [DESCRIBE THE CUSTOMER SERVICE
PROVISIONS IN YOUR FRANCHISE. SUCH PROVISIONS MAY INCLUDE THE
FOLLOWING: ENFORCEMENT OF FCC CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDARDS, CUSTOMER
NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS FOR CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATORS,
LOCAL OFFICE AND/OR AFTER HOURS DROP-OFF/BILL PAY SERVICES, INSTALLATION
AND SERVICE CALL STANDARDS, CUSTOMER COMPLAINT PROCEDURES,AND THE
__`... ._-�.
Our franchise [or,_if applicable: "Our original franchise"] contains the following
reasonable build schedule for the cable operator: [DESCRIBE THE REQUIREMENT IN YOUR
CURRENT OR ORIGINAL FRANCHISE FOR THE CABLE OPERATOR'S PHASED-IN BUILD-I,
OUT TO ITS FRANCHISED SERVICE AREA. THESE ARE MOST COMMONLY FOUND IIV
FIRST FRANCHISES, WHERE AN OPERATOR IS NEW AND REQUIRES TIME TO BUILD
OUT TO THE DEFINED FRANCHISE AREA
Our franchise requires that the cable operator currently provide service to the following
areas of our community: [DESCRIBE THE SERVICE REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR FRANCHISE 1
THESE ARE OFTEN EXPRESSED AS DENSITY (HOMES PER MILE) REQUIREMENTS IFf
THERE ARE ANY AREAS CURRENTLY NOT SERVED, POINT THIS OUT AND DISCUSS
WHY (FOR EXAMPLE, THE POPULATION DENSITY IS TOO LOW TO MAKE PROVISION
;WHY
SERVICE ECONOMICALLYFEASIBLE)] a�
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications
technologies, our franchise contains the following rebuild or upgrade requirements: [DISCUSS
ANY REQUIREMENTS IN YOUR FRANCHISE FOR REBUILD OR UPGRADE OF THE;
SYSTEM ALSO, DISCUSS WHETHER YOUR SYSTEM WAS REBUILT IN THE LAST 10
YEARS, OR WHETHER YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE ADVANTAGES OF CURRENT(
TECHNOLOGIES AND CAPACITIES. FINALLY, DISCUSS WHETHER YOUR SYSTEM
PROVIDES CABLE MODEM SERVICE TO THE SAME SET OF RESIDENTS WHICH
RECEIVE CABLE VIDEO SER VICES.]'� —�—�
3
Our franchise_[OR ANOTHER ORDINANCE] contains a "most-favored-nations" [OR
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD']' provision which states the following: PROVIDE_THE
LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION FROM THE FRANCHISE OR ORDINANCE]
Our franchise contains the following insurance and bonding requirements: UPROVIDE A,
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ANY BONDING OR
LETTER-OF-CREDIT OR SIMILAR REQUIREMENTS]
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way and
compatible easements for the purpose of providing cable television service. Apart from the
franchise, the cable provider [is/is not] required to obtain a permit from the_appropriate
municipal office as well before it may access the public rights of way. [DESCRIBE ANY
RIGHT-OF-WAY PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, FEES, ETC. ASSOCIATED WITH ANY
SEPARATE RIGHT-OF_WAYPERMIT]!
The franchise agreement provides for the following enforcement mechanisms by which
we are able to ensure that the cable operator is abiding by its agreement: [DISCUSS ANY
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS IN THE FRANCHISE, SUCH AS RIGHTS OF INSPECTION
RIGHTS OF AUDIT, AND LIQUIDATED DAMAGES PROVISIONS OR THE LIKE]!
The Franchising Process
[IF YOU HAVE EVER WORKED TOGETHER WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES,1
FORMALLY OR INFORMALLY, TO FRANCHISE OR RENEW A CABLE OPERATOR,_MIA
CAN SAY THE FOLLOWING -- OTHERWISE DELETE THIS PARAGRAPH.•] _The_cable
system(s) serving our community also serves many adjoining communities: [insert as many as
you easily know]. In [year] our community worked together with approximately [number] other
communities to issue a cable franchise for the [name] cable company. This allowed the company
to quickly obtain franchises in these communities so as to be able to serve a large region, while
also allowing for individual provisions in specific franchises in order to tailor them to meet local
needs.
Under the law, a cable franchise functions as a contract between the local government
(operating as the local franchising authority) and the cable operator. Like other contracts, its
terms are negotiated. Under the Federal Cable Act it is the statutory obligation of the local
government to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests and to ensure that
these are addressed in the franchising process — to the extent that is economically feasible.
However derived (whether requested by the local government or offered by the cable operator),
once the franchise is approved by both parties the provisions in the franchise agreement function
as contractual obligations upon both parties.
Our current franchise provides that changes in law which affect the rights or
responsibilities_of either party under this franchise agreement will be treated as follows:_
[DESCRIBE HOW CHANGES IN LAW SUBSEQUENT TO ENTERING INTO THE
FRANCHISE ARE ACCOMODATED UNDER THE FRANCHISE. FOR EXAMPLE, DOES IT
PROVIDE THAT THE FRANCHISE IS SUBJECT TO CURRENT LAW AS AMENDED FROM
4
TIME TO TIME, OR DOES IT CONTAIN A PROVISION ENSURING THAT TERMS MAY BE
MODIFIED TO ENSURE BOTH PARTIES MAINTAIN THE BENEFITS OF THE
AGREEMENT?]
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights, and consequent additional obligations
on the local government. For instance: [DESCRIBE AND DISCUSS PUBLIC
READING/PUBLIC HEARING/PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS. FOR INSTANCE, IS
THERE AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH SUCH REQUIREMENTS? ARE THERE STATE,
LAW REQ'UIREMENTS'GOVERNING THESE AREAS?DESCRIBE THE PROCESS.]'`
Competitive Cable Systems
Our community PICK ONE OR FILL IN AS APPROPRIATE],
• has never been approached by a competitive provider to provide service.
• was approached once [D SCUSS WHE 1, but the provider chose not to enter into any
formal discussions.
• has actively sought out competitive providers,but has not been successful.
• granted a competitive franchise to [name of company], a cable overbuilder, in [year]
and that provider [is/is not] providing service in my community today. [IF
PROVIDER IS NO LONGER PROVIDING SERVICE, EXPLAIN WHY. IF
PROVIDER IS STILL PROVIDING SERVICE, DESCRIBE ANY DIFFERENCES IN
THE AGREEMENTS OF THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER'S FRANCHISE
(DISCUSSED ABOVE) AND THE AGREEMENT HELD BY THE OVERBUILDERj
INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF WHY THOSE DIFFERENCES ARE PRESENT.f
• has been threatened or sued by an incumbent provider when considering a grant of a
competitive franchise. [DISCUSS THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS
EVEN.
• has recently been approached by a Bell Operating Company to provide service.
`[DISCUSS THE STATE OF THESE NEGOTIATIONS AND WHAT THE COMPANY
HAS SOUGHT IN TERMS OF FRANCHISE REQUIREMENTS AS COMPARED TO
THE INCUMBENT PROVIDER.]T�
• has [OR has not] denied any provider the opportunity to serve in our community.
• does [OR does not] have mechanisms in place to offer the same or a comparable
franchise to a competitor upon request.
[IN GENERAL, WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE -- WHERE DISCUSSIONS AND/OR
NEGOTIATIONS WERE CONDUCTED, PLEASE PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE
NATURE OF THE NEGOTIATIONS: SUCH AS WHEN FIRST APPROACHED, LENGTH OF
ACTUAL TIME SPENT IN DISCUSSIONS, LENGTH OF TIME FROM RECEIPT OF FORMA L
APPLICATION TO GRANT OR DENIAL, ETC. DESCRIBE HOW COOPERATIVE THE
COMPETITIVE FRANCHISE APPLICANT WAS IN NEGOTIATING THE FRANCHISE (FO
AMPLE WAS IT WILLING TO AGREE TO A FRANCHISE COMPARABLE TO THE
INCUMBENT'S IN TERMS OF PEG AND I-NET SUPPORT, OR DID IT INSIST ON USING ITS
SOWN "FORM" OF FRANCHISE WHICH WAS MORE FAVORABLE TO IT THAN THE
`INCUMBENT'S?). ALSO, DISCUSS WHETHER YOU SOUGHT TO HAVE THE NEW!
5
ENTRANT-BUILD OUT THE ENTIRE FRANCHISE AREA (OR THE SAME AREA_A_S THE
INCUMBENT), AND IF SO HOW MUCH TIME YOU GAVE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in [Name of community]. As the above
information indicates, we are experienced at working with cable providers to both see that the
needs of the local community are met and to ensure that the practical business needs of cable
providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that local cable operators are allowed access to the rights
of way in a fair and evenhanded manner, that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way, including maintenance and upgrade of
facilities, are undertaken in a manner which is in accordance with local requirements. Local
cable franchising also ensures that our local community's specific needs are met and that local
customers are protected.
Local franchises thus provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the
operations of cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with
applicable laws. There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy in Washington to handle
matters of specifically local interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including ours, to have a voice in how
local cable systems will be implemented and what features (such as PEG access, institutional
networks or local emergency alerts, etc.) will be available to meet local needs. These factors are
equally present for new entrants as for existing users.
The [Name of community] therefore respectfully requests that the Commission do nothing
to interfere with local government authority over franchising or to otherwise impair the operation
of the local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law with regard to either
existing cable service providers or new entrants.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name of Community]
By: [Name of Municipal Official]
Address
cc: NATOA, info@natoa.org
John Norton, John.Norton@fcc.gov
Andrew Long,Andrew.Long@fcc.gov
6
NaToa
For Immediate Release: Contact: Libby Beaty, Executive Director
December 15, 2005 Phone: 703-519-8035
NATOA CALLS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PARTICIPATE ACTIVELY IN FCC
PROCEEDING ON LOCAL FRANCHISING AND QUESTIONS FCC'S AUTHORITY
Alexandria, VA — The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA) is working with all of its local government members in assisting with the preparation of
comments in response to the recent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) by the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) regarding local competitive franchising.
"NATOA has reviewed the NPRM and has identified a number of issues of concern and
interest to local governments, and we will be specifically responding to those issues in our
comments," stated Libby Beaty, NATOA's Executive Director. "We also believe the Commission lacks
the authority under the Cable Act to adopt or enforce rules in this area."
"It is critical that the Commission use this opportunity to learn the facts about franchising and
that policy should not be based on anecdote," according to Lori Panzino-Tillery, NATOA's President
from San Bernardino County, California. "We are urging all of our local government members to
prepare and submit comments that will provide the Commission with the facts about the benefits and
pro-competitive nature of local franchising—facts that seem to be lacking in the NPRM's discussion of
the issues."
NATOA is a national trade association based in Alexandria,VA, representing local government
jurisdictions and consortiums, including elected and appointed officials and staff, who oversee
telecommunications and cable television franchising.
###
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors♦1800 Diagonal Road,Suite 495♦Alexandria,VA 22314
703-519-8035 Phone•703-519-8036 Facsimile♦info@natoa.org•www.natoa.org
#1. LL7dI VP
Year of first franchise agreement:
Current cable franchise: 9/13/1993 - 9/12/2008 - Ordinance No. 4412
Franchise fee rate: 5%
#PEG Channels: 1 Government Access Cable Channel - Renton Channel 21
1 Community Access Cable Channel -PSA Channel 77
1 Educational Channel - UW TV - Channel 26
Support from Comcast for PEG Channels: In exchange for release of certain
obligations, AT&T agreed to a buyout with Renton and other neighboring cities. AT&T
contributed$3,701,942.78 to a Foundation to in turn be granted over 10 years to Puget
Sound Access (PSA) for constructing, operating and maintaining a public access studio in
South King Co. for the use and benefit of the citizens of the Cities through January 1,
2011, or for so long as the financial means to do so,whichever is earlier.
#2.
Emergency alert requirements under the franchise: The franchise states that the cable
Operator is to establish a process which will provide a character generated scroll, and
make the best effort to furnish a voice override,notifying viewers and listeners of an
emergency,with control of this feature to be the responsibility of the City. Under the
franchise, the City has authority, at its option, to share this service with adjoining
communities. (Note: This part of the franchise was not realized. The City does not have
control of an emergency alert feature.)
#3.
Customer Service provisions of franchise: The Master Cable Ordinance, which is part
of the franchise, states the provisions of customer service as regards repair service
interruptions and repair, customer complaint service and response, repair force response,
contact information, and service standards. This can be found in RMC 5-17-19.
#4.
Phased in build-out:
Print View Page 1 of 2
From: "NATOA Headquarters" <NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org>
To: lbeaty@hq.natoa.org
Date: Monday -November 21,2005
Subject: Important Information-FCC Franchising NPRM
Good morning to all-
I wanted to first make sure that you are aware that the Federal
Communications Commission(FCC)issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) on the issue of local government franchising on Friday,November
18, 2005. This rulemaking is particularly problematic and challenges
local government authority at its base. The Commission opens with
statements such as "potential competitors seeking to enter the
multichannel video programming distributor(MVPD)marketplace have
alleged that in many areas the current operation of the local franchise
serves as a bather to entry." Further, "whether the franchising
process unreasonably impedes the achievement of the interrelated federal
goals of enhanced cable competition and accelerated broadband deployment
and, if so,how the Commission should act to address that problem."
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT PREEMPTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY AND
CONTROL.
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ITEM!!!
I've posted both the NPRM and the Press Release to the Policy/Advocacy
page of the NATOA website,and the links on the FCC's web site are:
NPRM: Word
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DCC-05-189A1.doc>
Acrobat
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DCC-05-189A l.pdf
News Release (11/3/05): Word
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-262015A1.doc>
Acrobat
<http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-262015A1.pdf
NATOA(possibly joined by other national organizations)will be filing
comments on behalf of all of our members that are directly responsive to
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 2 of 2
the Policy and Legal issues raised by the NPRM.
NATOA will be encouraging all of our members, and indeed, all local
franchise authorities to file separate comments with the FCC in response
to the questions they raise,and to provide specific facts for the
proceeding. We will be providing additional information and assistance
in this regard, and anticipate providing a template for use, along with
instructions on how to file comments directly with the FCC.
We are working on all of these issues and will provide additional
information and assistance as rapidly as we are able. For today,we
just wanted to alert you to the issue, and to let you know that we are
working on it.
Thanks!
Libby Beaty
Executive Director
NATOA
703-519-8035
703-519-8036
lbeaty@natoa.org<mailto:lbeaty@natoa.org>
www.natoa.org<http://www.natoa.org/>
Mark Your Calendars Now!
NATOA's 26th Annual Conference
August 22-26, 2006
Buena Vista Palace- Walt Disney World
Lake Buena Vista,Florida
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servletlwebacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj 0nnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
I-a3- se 60� a `
ge4),
From: Linda Herzog 4 "
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 1/23/2006 2:59:11 PM
rt)4111442 "
Subject: need your review, comments &/or approval.
I know it's long, but I have shortened it up at least a little. Do you have time to look this over and let me know if you can endorse it? I'd like to send it with the Mayor when she leaves for D.C. —
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)
of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984)
as amended by the Cable Television Consumer MB Docket No. 05-311
Protection and Competition Act of 1992
COMMENTS OF THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON
The City of Renton believes local governments must be responsible to their citizens for careful
management of the rights of way that belong to those citizens.At the same time, Renton's
policies and actions clearly demonstrate that the City values its business partnerships and
understands the advantages to the community of healthy competition among multiple service
providers.
Although Renton affirms its long-standing cormit to m nt h th competition and supportive
business development practi ens, the City d"'��aYny a 4Iy the Federal Communications
Commission to diminishTscThI ority to protect valuable public assets through franchise
mechanisms�,ro T ac 00r
--- We recognize that time and predictability are essential to business success. The Citytakes
pride in its reputation as a jurisdiction that is responsive, timely and efficient in processing land
use applications and construction permits.As evidence of its success in regulatory reform,
Renton cites special recognition by the Washington State Competitiveness Council for the City's
streamlined permit process.
-- Renton has worked hard to create both a general environment and municipal business plan goal
t&that suppolbusiness development,while prudently managing public assets and enhancing the
quality of life in our community.
The City of Renton can and will maintain its local cable franchise authority with the highest
standards of clarity, timeliness, and fairness. In order to assure its citizens appropriate choice,
high quality and reasonable cost, Renton supports the entry of new video service providers, and
welcomes market competition.
There are important things for FCC Commissioners to know about the City of Renton and
hundreds of other local jurisdictions like it across the United States. Here are some facts about
Renton that bear on the question of cable franchise authority and management of the cable
franchise relationship:
The City of Renton
Renton has 57,000 residents and 36,000 daytime workers. Voluntary annexations of
unincorporated areas to the east and the west of the City are expected to double the City's
resident population within 7-8 years.
The Cable Television Franchise
Comcast(and its predecessor companies) has held the City's only cable television franchise
since 1977. The current franchise agreement has been in effect since 1993; it will expire in
September 2008. Comcast has filed a notice of intent to renew the franchise. The renewal
process is expected to begin within the next few months.
Franchise Fee
Under the current franchise, Comcast has,,,gccess to all households, businesses and institutions
r• within city limits. The franchise fee it payspe City of Renton equals 5% of gross revenues.
Public, Educational, and Government Access
Comcast also provides Renton with three"PEG"access channels on the cable system. Two of
those are now in operation: one for government access, and the other for public access. Under ,
the agreement, Comcast will make available additional channels when use of the current PEG
channels warrants.
The franchise agreement requires Comcast to provide, install and maintain equipment necessary
for local government cable-casting; provide service to public buildings and schools in Renton
without charge; and (in exchange for release of certain obligations)contribute funds to a non-
-f(vG profit foundation for construction, operation and maintenance of a public access studio shared by
,,djoining cities all of which hold franchise agreements with Comcast.
Syus
AY "' Institutional Network(I-net)
The City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network made up of 12-strand fiber
runs from City Hall tf
• the city attorney's office
• four fire stations
• the municipal airport control tower
• the public works shops
• three community centers and a community use building in a downtown park
• a senior center
• two libraries
• the Renton Museum and Historical Society
• a downtown parking garage and a public transit"Park and Ride"facility
• the former city hall and 2 other buildings the city leases out. [ASK GEORGE'if this the
2 correct way to characterize 200 Mill Building, Edmonds Ave.NE&NE.Sunset.Blvd:,,and
Harrington Ave. NE &.NE 9th.St.?]
The fiber network is critical to daily operation of the City and its public agency partners, and
fundamental to the high quality of public service they provide.
Cjky OOodGthtnet-
'` Altogether these net rk links connect a total of thirty-two city facilities to Renton's main data
center from which all elecommunications services are provided, including voice (dial tone), data,
some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety communications and dispatch. In addition, the network
supports cashiering, back office business and data base services, and reservation, scheduling,
financial and emergency management applications. The City's traffic management system
(signal timing &adjustment)also operates on this same fiber network.
The City also uses the I-net fiber to backhaul a city-wide wireless network system including all fire
and police vehicle data. This wireless network covers 80% of the land area within Renton's
corporate boundaries.
-n61"
While our franchise does not require the carriage ofitemergency alerts, the fiber network carries all
of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition, firefighters and police officers have
access across the I-net to both the fire and police records management systems, along with
regional, state and federal emergency management and public safety data.
Customer Service
cra." cold& _gry .r_oetott;
11 Dr . pecria../ )5-4,:iitj
ofpe-5 i i G
Renton's franchise agreement assures the quality of service describ-d in ederal standards.
These are good business practices that any cable service provider •141. -ndorse. Under the
terms of the Renton franchise agreement:
• In no case can a franchisee's service standards fall below the standards established by the
National Cable Television Association.
• If there is a service failure, the cable operator renders repairs promptly and with the shortest
service interruption possible, to restore the quality of the signal to pre-failure conditions.
Repair-related interruptions are preceded by notice, and occur during a period of minimum
use of the cable system.
• The cable operator responds to any system outage affecting more than five subscribers.
• The operator maintains an adequate force of customer service representatives and incoming
trunk lines, so that telephone inquiries are met promptly and responsibly. A summary of
customer service measures is provided by the operator quarterly.
• An employee of the franchise operator answers and responds to all individual complaints no
later than 5:00 p.m. weekdays, but may use an answering service after regular business
hours.
• The cable operator has a technician on call 24/7 and maintains a sufficient repair force to
respond to service requests within two working days. All complaints are resolved within
seven days, to the extent reasonable.
• If a subscriber has notified the operator of an outage, there is no charge for service if the
outage lasts more than 24 hours.
• When a new connection is made, and periodically at least once a year, the operator supplies
the title, address, and telephone number of the City official who subscribers can call with
questions or complaints.
Build Out
Another component of Renton's cable franchise agreement is especially important to our citizens
—the requirement for cable service to be available to all. Only a few small areas in Renton have
not been able to receive Comcast services because of extraordinary conditions.
The agreement specifies that service must be available city-wide within 12 months from granting
of the franchise (i.e. by September 1994). Areas subsequently annexed to the City must be
provided with cable availability within 12 months of annexation, subject to stipulated extraordinary
installation conditions. (Note that Renton has accepted nearly sixty annexations of
unincorporated King County territory since the initiation of the current franchise.)
Regarding low-density areas, our franchise agreement holds that cable service must be available
to all Renton residents provided there are at least 35 dwelling units per street mile. If a potential
new subscriber lives in a less dense area, the cable operator must enter into an agreement
wherein the new subscriber reimburses the operator for the costs of making the connection.
Whenever any subsequent subscriber(who did not contribute to the cost of the extension)
connects to the extended line, that subscriber must pay his/her pro rata share directly to the cable
operator. Then the operator passes that payment back to the original subscriber.
In order to ensure that our residents have access to current telecommunications technologies,
Renton's franchise stipulates a schedule completion of upgrades (such as internet connection)
within 48 months from the beginning of the franchise. Comcast now offers internet service to all
City residents who have cable.
New Entrants into the Renton Market
Directly pertinent to the FCC's concerns, Renton's franchise contains an "Equalization of Civic
Contributions"section. Under this provision:
• If one or more additional franchises are granted, the City may require that such subsequent
franchisees pay an amount proportionally equal to franchising costs experienced by the initial
franchisee. These costs may include but are not limited to access and institutional network
costs, bi-directional or equivalent cable installed to municipal buildings, and similar expenses.
• On the anniversary of each later-awarded franchise, those franchisees must pay to the City
an amount proportional to the amount contributed by the original franchisee, based on the
number of subscribers held by the franchisees.
• Additional franchisees shall provide all PEG access channel(s)and emergency override
systems currently available to the subscribers of the existing franchisee(s). In order to provide
these access channels, new franchisees may interconnect, at their cost, with the existing
franchisee(s), subject to reasonable terms and conditions imposed by the existing franchisee.
These interconnection agreements shall be made directly between the franchisees. In case of
dispute, the City Council may arbitrate.
Operation in the Public Rights of Way
The cable franchise grants the cable operator access to the public rights of way for the purpose of
providing cable television service. As is the case with all ROW users, the cable provider must
obtain a construction permit from the City, and must pay an approval/inspection fee. Upon
application for each construction permit the franchisee must submit an"advance notification"plan
for the proposed construction.
Insurance and Performance Bond
According to the franchise agreement the City of Renton holds with Comcast:
• Comcast maintains a general comprehensive liability insurance policy to protect the City and
all persons against liability for personal injury, death and property damage, and errors or
omissions related to the operations of the franchisee. The insurance policy provides
minimum limits of$1 million for both personal injury and/or property damage, and names the
City as additional insured.
• The franchisee must promptly repair any damage to City property caused by a franchisee or
any of its agents.
• The franchisee must comply with all present and future ordinances and regulations regarding
excavation or construction and, if deemed necessary by the City, shall be required to post a
performance bond in favor of the City warranting that all restoration work will be done
promptly and in a workmanlike manner.
The Franchising Process and Enforcement Mechanisms
The City of Renton treats it cable franchise agreement as a contract between the City, acting on
behalf of its citizens, and the cable television/internet connection provider.
Renton agrees with the Federal Cable Act that the statutory obligation of the local government is
to determine the community's cable-related needs and interests, and ensure that these are
addressed in the franchising process.
If any portion of our franchise is inconsistent or conflicts with any FCC rule or regulation or other
Federal law,the FCC or Federal rule controls. Our franchise further states that matters involving
technical standards, rates, franchise renewal,franchise fees, compensation for involuntary
abandonment, and termination for non-compliance are subject to Federal and State law.
While a franchise is negotiated by the local government as a contract, the franchise process
provides the cable operator additional due process rights. For instance, Renton's City Code
(Section 5-19-9) requires the City to give public notice of the grounds for revocation of a
franchise. Also, the franchisee may elect a hearing before the City Council, who has authority to
issue a sanction less severe than revocation, based on factors specified in the Code.
There are three sections of the Renton City Code that enable the City to enforce the terms of the
cable franchise agreement:
• City Code Section 5-19-5N provides that no franchise shall be renewed until violations or
defaults in the franchisee's performance have been corrected, or a plan of correction has
been approved by the City.
• Code Section 5-19-4P, mirrors this language to describe the conditions warranting non-
renewal of a telecommunications license.
• City Code Section 5-109-8U provides for revocation or termination of a franchise for
certain violations.
Competitive Cable Systems
The City of Renton was approached once several years ago by a competitive cable television
provider, but the provider chose not to enter into formal discussions. The City has not and will not
deny any provider the opportunity to serve this community. There is already a procedure on our
books allowing competitive providers to establish a franchise relationship with the City.
Conclusions
The local cable franchising process functions well in Renton, Washington. Renton has
experience working with cable providers to both see that the needs of the local community are
met, and ensure that the practical business needs of cable providers are taken into account.
Local cable franchising ensures that cable operators are allowed access to the public rights of
way in a fair and even-handed manner, that other users of the rights of way are not unduly
inconvenienced, and that uses of the rights of way assure adequate protection of this valuable
public asset. Our cable franchising process also ensures that our community's specific needs are
met, and that the City of Renton is able to intervene on behalf of its citizens if need be.
Franchises provide a means for local government to appropriately oversee the operations of
cable service providers in the public interest, and to ensure compliance with applicable laws.
There is no need to create a new Federal bureaucracy to handle matters of specifically local
interest.
Finally, local franchises allow each community, including Renton, a voice in implementation of
local cable systems, and the features (such as PEG access and I-Nets)that will be available to
meet local needs. These factors are equally present for new entrants as for existing providers.
The City of Renton, Washington therefore respectfully requests that the Commission refrain from
interfering with local government franchising authority, or to otherwise impair the operation of the
local franchising process as set forth under existing Federal law.
Respectfully submitted,
City of Renton, Washington
By:
Mayor Kathy Keolker
cc: NATOA, infonatoa.orci
John Norton, John.Norton(a7fcc.gov
Andrew Long, Andrew.Lonq@fcc.gov
Print View Page 1 of 3
From: "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguz7etta.com>
To: Bonnie Walton
Date: Wednesday -December 21, 2005
Subject: FW:NATOA Call to Action-Assists Local Governments to File in FCC Franchise Proceeding
Bonnie,
We will be putting together comments in this proceeding. Our fee will not
exceed$2,500 per city. Please let me know if you are interested in joining
our comments.
Mike Bradley
From:NATOA Headquarters [mailto:NATOAHQ@hq.natoa.org]
Sent:.Monday,December 19, 2005 10:12 PM
To: lbeaty@natoa.org
Subject:NATOA Call to Action-Assists Local Governments to File in FCC
Franchise Proceeding
This message has been sent in HTML format. If you are unable to use this
format,please see this same information as posted on the Policy/Advocacy
page of the NATOA website. Also,please feel free to share this message
with any other local government-it is being sent to our partners in sister
organizations to encourage as many local governments as possible to
participate. Thank you. ,
Call to Action
FCC Seeks Comment on Franchising
The Federal Communications Commission("FCC")has issued a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking("NPRM") (MB Docket 05-311) in which it makes a number
of assumptions and asserts that franchising of cable services by local
governments may be an unreasonable barrier to entry for new telco video
providers. To this end the FCC is seeking comment from local government
(and others)on"what can be done to ensure that local franchising
authorities (LFAs) do not unreasonably refuse to award cable franchises to
competitive entrants."[1]
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbgqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 2 of 3
This NPRM strikes at the heart of local government's authority over those
using the public property in their community to deliver video services, and
could result in the preemption of local governments' ability to control
their rights-of-way. NATOA urges all local government entities to
participate in this process by filing comments. It is important that the
FCC be obligated to deal in facts and not anecdote, and that local
government inform the FCC of the important role it plays protecting local
communities'needs and interests.
NATOA and other national organizations will be filing comments on the broad
scope of the FCC's authority in this matter. However,it is critical that
individual local governments file factual comments with the FCC to instruct
them on the true value and importance of franchising. NATOA is providing a
template for your use in filing comments.
The industry is quick to make generalisations and accusations of wrong-doing
by local governments. It is important that local governments provide the
FCC with the FACTS. The FCC questions the willingness and ability of LFAs
to expeditiously franchise new video providers and ignores the long history
of local government efforts to obtain such competition. Local government
must provide the FCC with the local perspective on inviting and issuing
competitive franchises, including typical timeframes for negotiation. It is
important to share with the FCC the challenges local governments face, and
the creative solutions achieved when opportunities presented themselves. It
is equally important for the FCC to hear how few communities have ever had
the opportunity to welcome a competitive provider in their community. The
FCC and the industry must not be allowed to frame the issue - it is
important that you speak for yourself.
Your comments are needed to protect local government control over
rights-of-way and the cable franchising process. In addition, comments
filed with the FCC in this rulemaking will likely become part of the debate
in Congressional rewrites of the Telecommunications Act. It is important
that local government present a strong case for retaining local control.
All initial comments to the proceeding are due by February 13,2006,with
replies due March 14,2006. Do not delay -please review the attached
template and begin preparing your comments today. Use this link to access
the Comments
C<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/FranchiseCommentsTemplate.DOC>
Template and Instructions
C<http://www.natoa.org/public/articles/FranchiseFilingInstructions.pdf> .
Please join us in this critical endeavor and file your comments immediately!
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbgqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 3 of.3
[1] A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available on the NATOA
website under Policy/Advocacy and on the FCC's website at
Chttp://hrumfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-189A1.doc
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gy6ugeRjbqqbmgfEid&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
From: Linda Herzog
To: ljwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 1/4/2006 4:39:48 PM
Subject: Renton's comments to FCC re: cable franchise authority
We agreed that we would get our"comments"to the FCC by the middle of January. I've just been looking
at my calendar and the substantial work that is already piling up this year.
I'm thinking we won't make that deadline (Monday Jan 16) unless we get all the pieces of the response
collected by the prior Wednesday evening (Jan. 11).
Please look at the third page of the new"Summary of Agreements"document you received Friday night,
and note which topics you are responsible for. (I'll attach another copy here.) Please send your
paragraphs (or sentences) by Wednesday evening.
Then Ben and I will pull it all together into the comments document and get it to Jay&the Mayor for review
/signing.
Summary of agreements made by
Walton, Bailey, Wolters & Herzog at 12/30/05 meeting
Protection of City's Cable Franchise Authority
In-house workgroup:
Bonnie Walton Ben Wolters Mike Bailey
George McBride Larry Warren Linda Herzog
Purpose / responsibility: continuously monitor Congressional & FCC actions,
stay knowledgeable about potential effects on Renton, advise CAO, Mayor &
Council, develop strategy and assure its implementation
Leadership: Ben agreed to serve as "focal point" and convenor. All will
continuously share info and ideas with the entire group via e-mail.
Renton's Interests / Position (numbering does not necessarily indicate priority):
1) Protect rights of way and the city's ability to manage this public asset
2) Protect wireless network that enables emergency communication and public
agency operations
3) Maintain PEG access capability and channels
4) Represent the interests of, and advocate for, Renton citizens to assure
universal access and high quality service
5) Preserve revenue and in-kind resource associated with franchise
Institutional Partners:
NATOA (National Assn of Telecommunications Officers & Advisors)
NLC (National League of Cities)
USCM (U.S. Conference of Mayors)
GFOA (Government Finance Officers Assn)
NACO (National Assn. of Counties)
What these partners mean to Renton:
• Help us to stay informed of federal activity
• Alert us to opportunities to comment, influence, lobby
• We will respond to their calls-to-action, but will endeavor to "personalize" our
communications and make comments Renton-specific
General Strategy:
Begin with basic statement of Renton's interests and position on the major
issues. Cooperate and collaborate with institutional partners. Determine how
Bradley & Guzzetta can help (and at what cost) in general lobbying effort.
Develop statement of concerns / interests unique to Renton (i.e. I-Net); engage
VanNess/Feldman in lobbying Renton Congressional delegation on this specific
issue.
Specific actions:
Lead
Task/Action Person Timing Notes
Response to FCC: Prepare comments on FCC Ben & Send by NATOA template sections are
NPRM, using NATOA template as a guide, but Linda will mid- "assigned"to workgroup
modifying to focus on Renton's highest-priority issues: Collaborate January members. See below, page
ROW control and I-Net capacity. These issues should 3
be stated at least 3 times for emphasis and clarity of on initial
Renton's position—at opening of comment document, draft
expanded upon in body, and again stated in
conclusion. Use this FCC comment document as
basis for future communications; add, expand and
modify to fit specific circumstances & audiences.
Find other municipalities whose I-Net interests & George Right George will prepare Renton's
infrastructure/capability are similar to Renton's. away initial statement regarding I-Net
Collaborate with them on developing strong arguments protection, to include in FCC
supporting local franchise authority. comments. This will be basis
for future work with
VanNess/Feldman & local
Congressional delegation.
Draft paragraph describing Renton's successful Ben To use in
streamlining of regulatory processes & public FCC
recognition for this comment
document
Draft paragraph on conduit already installed in Renton George to Troublesome issue. Use this
and how it can/should be used to foster competition & prepare opportunity to establish Renton
multiple-provider environment initial draft position and see if/how conduit
ownership/control issue can be
resolved.
Find out whether WA State has any state-wide Linda will
franchise authority or regulations. research
Use meeting and pre-meeting notes to express All will
Renton's principles, interests &special concerns in contribute
FCC comment document
Explore B&G services: Examine B&G's offer to help Bonnie, Come to
with lobbying. Summarize Renton's strategy and with agree-
action plan and discuss with Mike Bradley. Find out assistance ment w/
precisely what they are offering. Determine whether B&G by
we want to pay"extra"for the services they describe, from Jay & Wed.,
and/or if we consider their help to be part& parcel of Linda Jan. 11
the contract to help Renton with franchise renewal.
(No franchise, no contract!)
Contact institutional partners, let them know of our Linda By mid-
interest in participating &share with them our FCC January
comments, and other documents as they are
prepared.
Request that Council adopt resolution supporting 9? when Senate hearing is scheduled for
retention of local franchise authority; time carefully for Sen. hrgs 2/14 on State &local issues,
greatest effect focus on and municipal I-nets
our
issues
•
Prepare letters for Mayor to send to Renton ?? As
delegation, Senate & House Cmte members Congres-
sional
debate
dictates
Engage Ben Macken (sp???)of VanNess/Feldman in George &
effort to inform Renton's Congressional delegation of Ben
importance of maintaining city-wide I-net capability and
opportunity to expand network.
For each of these sections of the NATOA template, the named staffer will take
the lead in preparing a statement for inclusion in Renton's comments to the FCC:
Bonnie year of first franchise agreement, inclusive dates of current cable franchise,
franchise fee rate (percentage of Comcast gross revenues),#of PEG channels
of different types, support from Comcast(under franchise agreement)for PEG
facilities.
George Franchise requirements for I-Net support& uses of our I-Net
Bonnie Emergency alert requirements under franchise
Bonnie Customer service provisions of franchise
Bonnie Phased-in build-out. (Anything about annexations???)
Bonnie Re-build and upgrade requirements. Note that our franchise is silent on cable
modem service.
Bonnie Level-playing-field provisions in ordinance or franchise agreement—franchise
does not address, but we will craft a Renton "position" on this topic
Bonnie Insurance & bonding requirements
Kayren Kittrick regulations/permit requirements/fees, etc.for use of ROWs
Bonnie&
Larry W. enforcement mechanisms (see page 4 of template)
Bonnie provision within current franchise agreement for law changes
Larry W How Renton assures due process rights for franchisee, and what obligations the
City has
Bonnie &
Larry W Renton's experience with competitive providers (see p. 5 of template)
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 12/28/2005 11:12:44 AM
Subject: Cable meeting THURSDAY- Note correction !
You got me, George. My intention was to call this meeting for TOMORROW, Thursday at 1:30—not
today. Thanks for catching this goof. See you all tomorrow.
>>> George McBride 12/28/05 9:49 AM >>>
in charge, huh? hummmm...well, is this on Thursday which would be the 29th or today, the 28th? don't
want to miss it! gm
>>> Linda Herzog 12/23/2005 5:48 PM >>>
Far as I can tell, all of the people except Greg Zimmerman and Larry Warren will be available to meet on
this topic on Thursday the 28th. I'm going to suggest we go for 1:30 here in the Mayor's Office. Please be
sure to read the NPRM and work thru the NATOA template before we meet.
See you Thursday, and if you're still here- Happy Holiday Weekend!
Linda
>>> George McBride 12/23/05 10:59 AM >>>
•
linda, i will be available wed-fri, gm.
>>> Linda Herzog 12/22/05 5:14 PM >>>
Yes, certainly Ben,we need to"get right on this". (I know what you're thinking . . . WE'RE ALREADY right
on this. If only Herzog would get her xxx in gear.)
The NATOA template covers substantial ground. I'd be surprised if any one of us, or even any group of us,
could provide all the info called for in this template without a LOT of work. But I also think all of this is
important for us to know, since it is all important to our arguments to retain city franchise authority.
I wd like to propose that each of you on the"to" line download both the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and the template provided by NATOA and identify the elements on which you are the"authority" in regard
to the current cable franchise. If there are others who shd be included in this annointed group (of
authoritative people), please let me know-either right now or as you are reviewing the template. Timing?
Soon as possible.
Then very soon we should start pulling together the info we will need to establish Renton's standing, and
prepare/send our comments on the proposed FCC rules.
In addition, we need to figure out who will carry our water in DC, and how much we're willing to pay extra,
if that is necessary. B&G suggests they will add us to their list of cities when they send their comments,
and they will limit their fee to $2500 per jurisdiction. I can't make a judgment about the value of this
"service"without knowing more. Bonnie, have you talked with Bradley? Or with other cities (e.g.
vancouver)who have used B&G's lobbying assistance in the past?
At this point, I'm inclined to think that some of what we will need (for instance assessment of the service
we're receiving now and our franchisee's performance under the current contract) is already included in
the scope of our new contract with B&G.We may, however, need to re-think the scheduling of some of the
work.
I understand that both Bonnie and Ben will be here over the holidays, but I don't know about the rest of
you. If we can, perhaps we shd meet next week?Will YOU be available??
I'd love to hear from each of you. "Reply all"so we can get moving on (a)scheduling a meeting and (b)
completion of the template and .
Linda
P.S. in case some of you don't have the link to the NATOA notice, I'll fwd the e-mail to you, next up.
>>> Ben Wolters 12/21/05 2:28 PM >>>
This seems like an appropriate place for Renton to comment in support of our franchise agreements and
process and the importance of maintaining local control of ROW. Our response can serve as a basis for
communicating on the legislative side. On this issue, I think its best we team up with existing organizations
and when the time is right carry our own story to our congressional delegation.
>>> Bonnie Walton 12/21/05 1:52 PM >>>
FYI...
Bonnie
CC: Covington, Jay; ljwarren©seanet.com; Zimmerman, Gregg
From: "Michael R. Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "'Plewacki, Gail J"' <Gail.Plewacki@ci.minneapolis.mn.us>, "'Harrison, C John"'
<CJohn.Harrison@ci.minneapolis.mn.us>, "'Jim Skelly"' <jim.skelly@ci.burnsville.mn.us>, "'Mark
Hotchkiss"' <mark.hotchkiss@ci.burnsville.mn.us>, "'Fran Hemmesch"' <fran@swctc.org>, "'Tim
Finnerty"' <timfinnerty@rwcable.com>, "John Lanza" <john.lanza@townofsmyrna.org>,
<marsha.ingersoll@okc.gov>, "'Moore, Mark"' <MMoore@ci.apple-valley.mn.us>, "Kris Busse"
<krisb@ci.waseca.mn.us>, "Susan Hoyt" <Susan.Hoyt@ci.northfield.mn.us>,
<Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Mike Woolsey' <mikewoolsey@yahoo.com>
Date: 1/16/2006 2:10:23 PM
Subject: FW: Questionnaire Soliciting Information to Include in Comments for FCC Franchising
NPRM
I have not had the chance to touch base with all of you yet concerning your
participating in comments to the FCC that our firm is preparing on behalf of
local governments. I will talk to all of you this week. To keep things
moving along, I am enclosing a questionnaire that we will need all
participants to complete as best they can. There are a number of questions.
Many of the questions may not apply to you and some of you simply may not
have the time to complete all of them. That's OK. Just pass along what you
can. The more information we get from you, the better our Comments will be.
Please see Steve Guzzetta's message below for additional information.
Thanks and I'll talk to you later this week.
Mike Bradley
651-379-0900 ext. 2
Original Message
From: Stephen J. Guzzetta [mailto:guzzetta@bradleyguzzetta.com]
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:40 PM
Cc: Michael R. Bradley; Greg Uhl
Subject: Questionnaire Soliciting Information to Include in Comments for FCC
Franchising NPRM
Importance: High
Attached is a questionnaire requesting important information we would like
to include in the comments to be filed with the FCC in the pending FCC
Competitive Franchising Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proceeding (MB Docket
No. 05-311). Please respond fully to each question, to the extent possible
or applicable. We know how busy you are, but believe it is important to
obtain as much high-quality data as possible to include in the comments.
Given that the telephone industry will certainly expend a great deal of time
and money to dispute local government comments, it is imperative that our
written comments be as detailed and defensible as possible. Concrete and
detailed data will also be most persuasive to the FCC.
We have drafted the questions in the questionnaire so that they may serve as
the basis for affidavits/declarations that can be attached to the comments.
As we prepare the comments, it may prove necessary to have you execute
declarations/affidavits as support for points made in the comments.
Accordingly, even though certain questions may be"no-brainers,"we would
ask you to respond fully in your own words. If you are unable to respond to
a question, please solicit the requested data from the appropriate person,
or let us know as soon as possible to we can conact the individual.
Because the FCC's deadline for initial comments is February 13, 2006, we
would like to receive completed responses by January 24, 2006, so that we
have sufficient time to review your answers and to prepare written comments.
If you are unable to finish the questionnaire by January 24, get us whatever
information you can by that date, and provide additional information as soon
as possible thereafter.
Please let Mike Bradley or me know if you have any questions.
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Steve
Stephen J. Guzzetta
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffrey Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651)379-0900 x3 (Voice)
(651)379-0999 (Fax)
guzzetta@bradleyguzzetta.com
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bradley, Michael
Date: 2/24/2006 2:13:30 PM
Subject: work program for Renton
Mike—Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. Just got"sprung"from a bunch of unexpected
back-to-back meetings.
Back on Jan 27 you and I agreed it was time to start work on the franchise renewal process here in
Renton, and we laid out the tasks that need to begin within the first quarter. I'm attaching here an e-mail I
sent to our staff workgroup right after you & I talked,just to refresh both of our memories on that
convrsation. Items# 1, 2 &4 (of the e-mail)still pertain, but we have all agreed that a public hearing (item
#3) is premature.
The urgency for the delivery of the draft work program (item #1) is driven by the date of your address to
the City Council on March 13. They'll want to know WHAT we're doing, WHO will be doing it, and what the
TIMING will be--all the components of a work program. (they'll also need to know how the franchise
renewal process affects them as our Council, but more about that below.)
We (you, me and the staff workgroup)will need to be in synch on the WHAT, WHO and WHEN before
you get here. Staff have their own work programs for 2006, and we need to be sure they make time for
the franchise renewal work that may be substantial at some stages of the process. Without a Franchise
Renewal Work Program we'll be shooting in the dark.
Exhibit B of our contract lays out all the work scope tasks, and Exhibit C summarizes the time frame for
each task. As you can see, dev't of the Work Plan and the Special Presentation to"present franchise
renewal process action plan to City Council"are scheduled, appropriately, for the 1st quarter.
I don't think any of us care about the format of the work program. But we do need to know the major
steps in the process, when you expect they're likely to happen, who's the lead person, and who else will
need to be on deck here in Renton. Getting that info early next week will allow me to get the staff group
together on Thursday, and comments back to you before I leave on Sat. morning (the 4th). I won't be
back until March 13—the day you arrive—so if this preliminary work is not done by March 3rd we're
taking a risk on a smooth start-up.
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; Covington, Jay; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters, Ben
Date: 1/27/2006 5:32:04 PM
Subject: Cable franchise renewal/Bradley&Guzzetta contract work
I just talked with Mike Bradley about starting work on "Scope B"of our contract with Bradley&Guzzetta,
the scope that deals with the franchise renewal process. I've given him formal "authorization to begin"on
four of the tasks laid out for the first quarter:
1) Written work plan for the renewal process—Mike has been heavily involved in litigation on behalf of
the City of Mpls but sees that work winding down within the next couple of weeks. He believes he can get
us a draft work program and timeline by the 3rd week in Feb. When we receive the draft, all of us (as the
"project team")should meet, go over the work program and get comments back to Bradley so he can be
finalize it within the first week of March.
2) Presentation to the City Council—Mike is agreeable to meeting with the Council at COW on March 13,
to explain the process and the potential issues as the renewal work begins.(I suspect the Council will also
want to know about federal activity regarding local franchise authority, and Mike is well-versed in that
area).
3) Public Hearing—The contract calls for a public hearing in the first quarter. Bradley will do the opening
remarks for a hearing that night at Council meeting. This will be the first of several opportunities for
citizens to come forward with comments on their current cable service and future needs.
4)"Training"for the City work team (that's you guys)on cable law and the franchise renewal process.
This will be a time to get all the info the City will need to engage in the renegotiation process, go over the
work program, identify what city staff must do to gather data, etc. If it seems wise, we can schedule Mike
to do this"training"during the Mayor's staff meeting on Tues March 14, expanding the group to include
other staff who need to participate.
I'll leave it to you to decide whether franchise renewal is a topic you'd like to expose all Administrators
to, or whether we shd schedule Mike to meeting with the small work group on Tues. morning March 14.
/ I
/ Y
From: Linda Herzog
To: Bailey, Michael; Ijwarren@seanet.com; McBride, George; Walton, Bonnie; Wolters,
Ben
Date: 1/30/2006 11:13:48 AM
Subject: Re: Cable franchise renewal/Bradley&Guzzetta contract work
No, Mike& I didn't talk about that, but I'm assuming we are not part of his effort. I read through the
"questionnaire" B&G sent to everyone and it's a LOT more detailed than I think will be useful for us. Altho
B&G indicated they would take any part of the info they can get from each city,just filling out this Q'aire is
certainly more than I can manage, and I'm not sure any of us has this kind of time.
I understand B&G's current effort to "represent their cities" is a response to the FCC NPRM. We've sent
Renton's response, and will turn our attn now to lobbying Congressional offices involved in revising the
Cable Act. My sense is that our own efforts directly communicating with those Congressional offices and
thru our lobbyists will be more cost-effective than B&G's piece with our name added to the"sincerely
yours" line.
If anyone out there in e-mail land disagrees, please let everyone know by"replying to all". If no one
DIS-agrees, we'll leave this topic until Feb 16 at 10:00. Bonnie, if you think we need to respond
specifically to B&G that we are not interested in joining their effort at this time, either one of us can
certainly give them a call.
>>> Bonnie Walton 01/30/06 10:52 AM >>>
Linda,
Did Mike Bradley say anything about the letter to the FCC or the$2500 to join in the efforts of his office?
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Linda Herzog 01/27/06 5:32 PM >>>
I just talked with Mike Bradley about starting work on "Scope B"of our contract with Bradley& Guzzetta,
the scope that deals with the franchise renewal process. I've given him formal "authorization to begin"on
four of the tasks laid out for the first quarter:
1) Written work plan for the renewal process - Mike has been heavily involved in litigation on behalf of the
City of Mpls but sees that work winding down within the next couple of weeks. He believes he can get us
a draft work program and timeline by the 3rd week in Feb. When we receive the draft, all of us (as the
"project team") should meet, go over the work program and get comments back to Bradley so he can be
finalize it within the first week of March.
2) Presentation to the City Council - Mike is agreeable to meeting with the Council at COW on March 13,
to explain the process and the potential issues as the renewal work begins.(I suspect the Council will also
want to know about federal activity regarding local franchise authority, and Mike is well-versed in that
area).
3) Public Hearing -The contract calls for a public hearing in the first quarter. Bradley will do the opening
remarks for a hearing that night at Council meeting. This will be the first of several opportunities for
citizens to come forward with comments on their current cable service and future needs.
4) "Training"for the City work team (that's you guys) on cable law and the franchise renewal process.
This will be a time to get all the info the City will need to engage in the renegotiation process, go over the
work program, identify what city staff must do to gather data, etc. If it seems wise, we can schedule Mike
to do this "training"during the Mayor's staff meeting on Tues March 14, expanding the group to include
other staff who need to participate.
Jay, I'll leave it to you to decide whether franchise renewal is a topic you'd like to expose all Administrators
to, or whether we shd schedule Mike to meeting with the small work group on Tues. morning March 14.
Y
CC: Covington, Jay
Print View Page 1 of 13
From: "Thomas G. Robinson" <robinson@cbecommunications.com>
To: Bonnie Walton
Date: Monday - October 10, 2005
Subject: Articles/Info. Legislation
Bonnie:
It was a pleasure seeing and talking with you on Friday. Per our
discussion,below and attached is some information related to the
current draft National Franchise Legislation. After you have a chance
to review, call me if you have any questions.
Concerning our wireless discussion,I'll follow-up with George later
today or tomorrow related to some of the information that we discussed.
Talk to you soon,
Tom
>National Journal
>The Clash Of The High-Tech Titans
>By Bara Vaida
>(Wednesday, September 28)This spring,Dia Black's roommate walked
into the living room of their Washington,D.C., apartment to find Black
talking to her laptop. "It looked really weird," acknowledged Black, a
30-year-old trade association manager. "My roommate said, 'Who are you
talking to?' "
>Black was having a three-way conversation with her brother,who works
for a company in Shanghai, and her sister,who lives in Boston. They
were talking through a piece of software called Skype,which delivers
clear conversations and is easy to use. "We can all talk at once," Black
says. "It's just like being together."
> Skype Technologies,a Luxembourg-based company that is being acquired
by eBay, developed the software of the same name using a geeky-sounding
technology called Voice-over-Internet Protocol, or VOIP. At least 54
million people worldwide-- including an estimated 10 million in the
United States --have downloaded the Skype program over the Internet,
and are using it to make unlimited phone calls at no charge.It is free
--but computers using Skype must be connected to a high-speed data> ->
or so-called broadband>-> line.
>To get her broadband hookup,Black had two choices. She could sign up
with Comcast,the local cable provider in her Northwest Washington, D.C.
neighborhood, and get a package that includes both TV programming and a
high-speed line. Or, she could sign up with Verizon Communications,her
phone company,which offers telephone service, as well as broadband
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 2 of 13
through digital subscriber line service,or DSL.
>Black chose Comcast, and now uses Verizon only for local phone calls.
She uses her cell phone for long-distance calls in the United States.
"My land line is for the doorbell," Black says.
>Comcast,which began life in the early 1960s as a tiny cable TV
operator but is now emerging as a leading communications company,will
begin offering telephone services in D.C.next year. When that happens,
Black says, she might drop Verizon altogether.
>The Dia Blacks of the world are causing Verizon a lot of heartburn.
Although the behemoth telecom company is still raking in money from its
local phone market and is about to complete a nearly $7 billion merger
with long-distance firm MCI Communications,Verizon has staked its
future on being a dominant player in the high-speed data services
market, as well as in cable video.These are ambitious changes for a
company that originally provided only land-line local telephone service.
>But for now,traditional cable companies like Comcast have a head
start. According to the FCC,more Americans subscribe to cable broadband
service than to the DSL services offered by regional phone companies
such as Verizon.And cable firms are trying to leverage this subscriber
advantage to enter the telephone market.
>Meanwhile,Verizon and its sister regional phone companies, SBC
Communications,BellSouth,and Qwest Communications--unofficially
known as "the Bells" --continue to lose traditional wire-line
customers.
> Since the end of 2000,the number of wire-line services paid for by
consumers has dropped by about 15 million,to 178 million, according to
the FCC.In the second quarter of 2005 alone,Verizon lost 500,000
residential line accounts. While most of those consumers have switched
to cellphone services owned by Verizon Wireless or by the wireless
affiliates of the other Bells,many other people are moving to cable
telecom or to other kinds of telecom providers such as Skype or Vonage,
a U.S.-based VOIP company.>
>Wall Street has taken notice of the shift. In the year ending Sept.
21, according to Bloomberg.com,Verizon's stock price had dropped 17.8
percent,while SBC's has slid 4.6 percent and BellSouth's has dropped
3.2 percent. By contrast, cable company stock prices have all risen over
the past year,with Comcast up 4.3 percent, Time Warner up 9.4 percent,
and Cablevision up an eye-popping 51.6 percent.
> **Bells Vs. Cable
>The fast pace of the transformation and the billions of dollars on the
line have drawn Congress into the telecom-versus-cable battle.Nine
years after passing what many saw as the mother of all telecom laws --
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5 Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 3 of 13
the 1996 Telecommunications Act-- federal lawmakers,regulators, and
administration officials are facing the prospect of yet another huge
legislative fight.
>
>Verizon, SBC, and the trade group to which they belong--the United
States Telecom Association--have been the main drivers of the policy
debate.te. The heavily regulated Bells are looking to Congress and the FCC,
as well as to state leaders, for regulatory relief in their effort to
gain a competitive edge. In January 2004,the Bells,through the
U� STele oni,began a reported$30-million-to-$40-million multiyear
lobbying and media campaign. The simple but consistent message to the
535 lawmakers in Congress and the five FCC commissioners has been:
"Deregulate."
>
> "What the Bells are doing is a political strategy," said Blair Levin,
a former top FCC official who is now managing director of investment
firm Legg Mason Wood Walker. "They are creating a political environment
favoring a big bang of deregulation."
>
>In the past year and a half,Washington has been blanketed with images
reminding people that, TO years ago,hardly anyone imagined the
technological changes to come.For example, one USTelecom ad picturing a
snuggling couple notes that when the Telecom Act was adopted in 1996,
"PDA" meant "public display of affection," rather than"personal digital
assistant," as it does today. The point: The 1996 Telecom Act is
outdated.
>
> "We have moved, as a country,beyond voice to a variety of other forms
of communications, including a combination of voice, data,and video,"
said Tom Tauke, a Republican House member from Iowa who is now Verizon's
executive vice president for public affairs,policy,and communications.
The assumptions written into the 1996 act have been"decimated" by
technology, Tauke said, adding, "Cable companies are now in the voice
business, and voice companies will soon be in the video business, and
technology has produced a much different world."
>
>The Bells' deregulation mantra succeeded in spurring Republican
leaders on the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Commerce
committees to begin work last year on an update of the 1996 law.But
business factors are driving most of the Hill activity this year--a
combination of the Bell companies' desire to enter the video market and
the cable industry's growing presence in the voice market.
>
> One of the Bells'targets is "franchising." Most cities and counties
require a cable company to sign a franchise agreement before it can use
public streets, alleys,and other rights of way to lay its network of
cables into homes and businesses.In exchange for the right to lay its
network,the cable carrier pays a franchise fee and agrees to provide
public access TV channels,as well as to connect schools and libraries
to its network and to help with other community projects.
>
>Cable companies now have approximately 12,000 such franchise pacts,
which earn municipalities a total of about$3 billion a year. "Cities
need the franchise agreements to maintain safety and upkeep of streets,"
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj0nnfos4Hmf&action Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 4 of 13
said Cheryl Leanza,principal legislative counsel for the National
League of Cities.
>But the Bell companies,with phone service competition biting at their
heels, see the franchise process as an impediment to their speedy entry
into the video market. The Bells have argued that because municipalities
across the country have different rules and f>ees for acquiring
franchises,telecom companies might have to spend decades to work out
agreements.
>Hence,the Bell companies have stepped up their lobbying efforts,
hoping to persuade lawmakers that they are essentially "new entrants"
into a market controlled by cable company monopolists and should
therefore be exempted from the piecemeal franchising process.
> "We think the entry process for [the Bells to get into] video is
difficult and a barrier to competition," Tauke said. "If we are able to
remove that barrier,we think that consumers will have choice more
quickly,and there will be competition in the video market more
quickly."
>Unsurprisingly,the Bells' effort to evade franchising has the cable
industry up in arms; cable has been through this competitive scenario
before. The 1996 law benefited the cable industry by relieving it of
price caps and other rules--but it also gave cable a new challenger,
by clearing the way for satellite video services, such as DirecTV. The
satellite industry now boasts about 27 million subscribers,and cable
companies,in response to this competition,have invested about$100
billion,upgrading their systems and improving service.
>In this round of legislation,cable executives have to contend with a
new wave of competition--the Bells'push into cable services. The
cable sector wants Congress to subject the Bells to the same local level
regulatory process-- franchising--that the cable companies have had
to go through.
> "Why would Congress pass rules that give special favors and subsidies
to [the telephone industry,which] has five times the market
capitalization of the cable companies and just practically squashed all
its competition?" asked Kyle McSlarrow,president of the National Cable
and Telecommunications Association--referring to the pending mergers
of Verizon with MCI,and SBC with AT&T. McSlarrow has been telling
Congress that if the Bells get an exemption from franchise agreements,
so should the cable companies.
> "It doesn't bother us if the Bells want to enter our market," said
Kerry Knott, Comcast's vice president of federal government affairs and
a onetime chief of staff to then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey,
R-Texas. "Where it does bother us is if they get to play in our market
with a different set of rules."
>Further,the Bells' argument that obtaining franchises is an onerous,
time-consuming process rings hollow to Richard Ramlall, senior vice
president of strategic and external affairs at RCN,a small Herndon,
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=anelcm5Rionnfos4Hmf&action=Item..__ l2/29/2005
Print View Page 5 of 13
Va.-based firm that provides cable,Internet, and telecom services.
>RCN --formerly known as Starpower and,before that,Erols-- obtained
130 franchises, in Boston, San Francisco, Washington,D.C.,and other
places,within two years without serious difficulty, Ramlall said. "We
are a tiny company with little money," he says. "We had to go through
the whole franchise process, so why should the Bells,who have deep
pockets, get a free pass?"
> **New Entrants?
>With the well-heeled telecom and cable industries clashing over
federal policy,the rhetoric from their lobbying shops has become
heated.
>For example, cable has seized on an incident that occurred at a fall
2004 investor conference.According to news reports, and to analysts who
attended, SBC presented a slide show outlining its
$4-billion-to-$6-billion"Project Lightspeed," a multiyear expansion of
its fiber-optic networks. One slide highlighted the company's plan to
focus most of its initial investment on affluent neighborhoods,where
households would be willing to pay from$110 to $200 a month for a
package of video,telecom,and data services.
>Word of the SBC plan spread rapidly to consumer groups,which called
the business plan an example of illegal "redlining" of low-income
communities. Cable companies' franchise agreements require them to build
their networks to all neighborhoods,regardless of income. The cable
industry seized on the SBC plan to demand that the Bells be subject to
franchising,with all of its rules.>
> "What that tells me is that [the Bells]business model doesn't work
very well unless they get those rules changed," McSlarrow said. "The
cable industry spent$100 billion upgrading their lines,and that isn't
something that[the Bells] business plan can support."
>Legg Mason's Levin said the SBC slide has been politically damaging to
the Bells and helpful to the cable industry's arguments on Capitol Hill.
"It was a gaffe," Levin said. "But many say that in Washington,a
'gaffe' is when someone speaks the truth."
> SBC and Verizon vigorously deny that they plan to redline poorer
neighborhoods. Tim McKone, SBC's senior vice president for federal
relations, said that all of the company's customers who have access to
high-speed data services will also have access to video service.
According to McKone, SBC's service area in Chicago's low-income South
Side is "92 percent DSL-capable," meaning that 92 percent of customers
live in areas where the streets are wired for high-speed access. "Is
South Side Chicago an example of redlining?We think 92 percent is
pretty good," he says.
>Cable firms note the irony of the Bells'arguing they should be exempt
hops://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=anekm5Ri Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 6 of 13
from current rules because they are "new entrants" in a monopoly market.
The Bells have used the opposite end of the argument over the past
decade in fighting to keep long-distance competitors from getting into
their markets. "The problem is that the Bells have been arguing for
parity for years," said Legg Mason's Levin, "and now the sector is
arguing there shouldn't be parity."
>Bell companies,however, argue they are "new entrants" into the video
market because they invested heavily to build their own high-speed
networks into consumers'homes. In 2004,for instance,Verizon spent at
least$1 billion on broadband fiber-optic lines.By the end of 2005,
Verizon plans to have fiber services available to 3 million homes. Just
last week,Verizon launched its new video service in Keller, Texas,
where the company first started laying its fiber network a year ago.
>The two industries are spending a lot of lobbying money as this
tit-for-tat escalates. "There is the danger of a holy war breaking out
over these franchise issues," said Adam Thierer, a senior fellow at the
Progress and Freedom Foundation, a Washington-based free-market-oriented
think tank.
>
>NCTA's McSlarrow agrees that a huge battle is in the offing. "I've
been watching the Bell companies for years," he said. "I know how they
pursue their agenda. They are at a time and place where they feel that
for their own survival,they need to train their guns on the cable
industry."
>Up to now,the Bells have outgunned cable in terms of spending. The
four Bell operating companies --plus USTelecom,their trade association
-- spent$40.5 million to lobby Congress in 2004,while the National
Cable and Telecommunications Association, along with Comcast,Time
Warner, and four other prominent cable companies, spent$16.94 million
on lobbying, according to PoliticalMoneyLine's analysis of federal
lobbying disclosures.
>At least publicly,representatives from both sectors have tried to
downplay the fight. "I'm not convinced that, at the end of the day,
there necessarily will be huge conflict," Tauke said. Comcast's Knott
agreed. "We don't think there has to be" a big lobbying clash,he said.
> Still, one senior cable-industry executive argues that most cable
companies are expecting "to go to war" with the telecom companies, given
the aggressive,no-holds-barred lobbying style that the Bells have used
in the past.
> So far,the Bells' legislative and lobbying strategy appears to be
paying off. On Sept. 7,Texas Republican Gov.Rick Perry signed a bill
allowing each Bell company to apply for a single statewide franchise
rather than having to negotiate individual franchises in different
municipalities.>
> SBC,which is based in San Antonio,hired 123 lobbyists and spent as
much as$6.8 million lobbying the Texas Legislature to support the
measure, according to the group Texans for Public Justice. Verizon hired
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=anekm5Ri0nnfos4Hmf&action=Item____ 17/29/20N15
Print View Page 7 of 13
38 lobbyists and poured in about another$1.8 million,the group said.
On the other side,the Texas Cable and Telecommunications Association
and Time Warner Cable hired a combined 25 lobbyists and spent$1.2
million opposing the Bells'efforts. The Texas cable industry has filed
suit to block Perry's decision.
>Nevertheless,the emboldened Bell companies are pushing for a
statewide franchise in New Jersey, and they may seek statewide
franchises in California and Virginia. They are also seizing the moment
to argue their position in Washington. Their success in Texas "shows
that the Bells have a politically potent argument" in Washington, said
Peter Davidson, senior vice president of federal government relations
for Verizon.
> **Demolished Dividing Lines
>The architects of the 1996 Telecom Act never envisioned scenes like
the three-way long-distance conversation in Dia Black's living room.
Just ask former House Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley,R-Va.,who was one
of the key players a decade ago.
>Bliley,now a partner at the law and lobbying firm Collier Shannon
Scott in Washington,recalls spending years on getting the language
right in the 1996 act. The key purpose back then was to allow the long
distance firms and the local service Baby Bells to enter one another's
voice markets.
>The act also lifted the prohibition against the Bells' entering the
video market. This competition from the Bells was a legal possibility
nine years ago --but has only recently become a practical reality.
>The language of the act underscored the fact that telecom and cable
were two distinctly different communications networks, each regulated
under its own set of rules--in industry terms, "silos." The phrase>
">telecom" meant hand devices held to the ear; "cable" meant television
sets for the eyes.
>In the 128 pages of the legislation passed in 1996,the word
"Internet" occurs a mere 11 times.Dozens of references to "interactive
computer services" and"advanced telecommunications services" suggest
that lawmakers knew that the technology was changing--but were not
certain how. Congress intended the act to give the FCC sufficient
flexibility to adapt federal telecom regulations to evolving technology.
>Less than a decade later,however,technology has demolished the
dividing lines between phone and cable. Wireless phone service and
Internet software like Skype have ended the concept of a long distance
phone market "silo," and the price of stand-alone voice services has
plummeted. K Street lobbyists say that many on Capitol Hill and at the
FCC agree that these unforeseen changes are cause enough to reform that
"mother of all telecom policies."
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5RjOnnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 8 of 13
> "A lot of what we did then doesn't make sense now," said Larry Irving,
who headed the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and
Information Administration at the time of the 1996 act. Bliley agreed:
"We never even thought about voice over the Internet....I do think the
act needs revisiting." Bliley's firm represents MCI.
>But it is not quite that simple. The 1996 law covered many other
industries beyond telecom and cable,including television and radio
broadcasters,newspaper publishers, interactive computer services,
satellite companies,and wireless firms. Revisiting the law gives all of
those sectors an opportunity to lobby Congress for particular provisions
that might help them competitively.
>Rewriting the legislation could thus prove to be a slow process,
opening a can of worms.
> "The telecom bill was one of the most complex pieces of legislation to
pass Congress, and everyone complains about it. It was a thankless job,"
said former Senate Commerce Chairman Larry Pressler,R-S.D.,another
architect of the Telecom Act. "So I welcome all the critics that want a
new one.">
>Internet-based companies have expressed a strong interest in looking
at how a reform effort might help them.Paul Misener,vice president of
global public policy for Amazon.com, is "delighted" about the prospect
of telecom reform because he sees it as an opportunity for his sector to
push for provisions to prohibit companies that deliver services over the
Internet from using technology to control users'access to content.
>However,the technology companies have not launched a
multimillion-dollar campaign similar to the Bells' effort. "The Bells
are the only ones who want something passionately," said Legg Mason's
Levin, who has questioned whether Congress will in fact pass a major
overhaul.
>Levin, who was a chief of staff to former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt
during the Clinton administration, also said, "There is a cost in
writing a bill, in that you now have uncertainty on Wall Street" --
because the rules governing the communications sector could change yet
again.
> Soon after the 1996 act passed,the Bell companies filed a series of
lawsuits challenging the FCC's implementation of the law.At the time,
the seven Bell companies had a monopoly over the markets for local phone
calls.
>To spur competition in those markets, lawmakers wrote a"checklist" of
rules that the Bells had to meet before they could enter the long
distance market.Among other regulations,the FCC required that the Bell
companies lease their lines and networks at a discount to competitors.
That rule spawned competition in the local phone markets,with AT&T and
MCI as the largest competitors.
>Lawmakers had envisioned the checklist as just one mechanism to
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 9 of 13
encourage competition. They thought that the act would also spur the
Bells to enter each other's markets.
>But it did not turn out that way.Instead,the Bells began to merge
with one another, even as they were filing numerous lawsuits to overturn
the FCC rules. After an appeals court battle,the Bells finally
prevailed in June 2004 to end the requirement that forced them to lease
their lines to competitors at a discount.
> "Now, 10 years later,we are just getting to where we have settled
precedent on key provisions related to the act--so now we are going
change that?" wondered James Bradford Ramsey, general counsel of the
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. "We could end
up re-litigating it all again."
> **Barton Sets The Stage
>Despite the resistance,the Bells are pushing their pro-reform
campaign forward, saying they are optimistic about getting legislation
in this Congress.
>As of Sept. 21, lawmakers had introduced about a dozen bills that
would make major changes to the Telecom Act. The most significant is the
proposal by House Energy and Commerce Chairman Joe Barton,R-Texas, and
ranking member John Dingell,D-Mich.,which is expected to shape the
telecom debate in the House.
>Barton's chief telecom aide,Howard Waltzman,and aides to several key
Energy and Commerce Committee members>-> including Reps.Fred Upton,
R-Mich., Chip Pickering,R-Miss., and Edward Markey, D-Mass., as well as
Dingell--had been meeting since the spring to hammer out a proposal.
"The [Barton] bill sets the stage for where the negotiating and
horse-trading will begin," said Jessica Zufolo, an analyst with Medley
Global Advisors.
>To address the issues raised by the Bell companies and the cable
sector, as well as to account for changes in technology,the proposed
legislation would replace a section of existing law with specific rules
for services provided over the Internet, including telecommunications.
The language defines broadband as an"interstate service" and creates a
single set of federal rules for Internet Protocol-based networks and
services. The rules are blind to the technology used to deliver those
services--meaning that cable,wireless,telecom, and satellite
companies would all follow the same rules.>
>The bill also would require the companies that own the existing
broadband infrastructure to make their networks available for
interconnection by competitors--the "network neutrality" sought by
Amazon.com and other Internet-based companies.
>To address video franchising questions,the draft establishes federal
jurisdiction over video services delivered through a broadband
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servletlwebacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 10 of 13
connection, freeing companies from having to go through the local
franchise process.
>However,the proposal also would require companies to pay a franchise
fee to local communities, and it gives communities control over how and
where the networks are built.
> "No one could have foreseen the magnitude of the challenges and
opportunities that the Internet age has presented," Barton said in a
statement when he introduced the proposed bill. "New services shouldn't
be hamstrung by old thinking and outdated regulations."
>Barton's staff had hoped to finish committee work on the bill in
September,but Hurricane Katrina has pushed back the timetable by at
least a month. "Our plan hasn't changed" to pass a telecom update in
2005, said committee spokesman Terry Lane.He declined to provide
further details.
>While Barton's committee wrestles with a possible Telecom Act rewrite,
it has also been struggling this year to reach agreement on setting the
deadline for broadcasters to transfer all of their broadcasts to the
digital spectrum. The 1996 act required television broadcasters to move
their broadcasts to digital, and to return a portion of the airwaves to
the public for auction.
>Many wireless companies are hoping to buy up the airwaves on the
analog spectrum when they finally come up for sale.Barton's draft
legislation requires the broadcasters to return spectrum to the FCC by
Dec. 31,2008. That bill,which has been tied to the budget process,is
slated to pass by the end of the year.
> **Stevens Moves Slowly
>The Senate has moved more slowly on telecom reform,in part because
Sen. Ted Stevens,R-Alaska,just took over the Commerce Committee in
January. Stevens eliminated the panel's communications subcommittee
because he wanted to take charge of telecommunications issues himself.
>Early in the year,he said he was "in no hurry"to revamp the Telecom
Act. In the months before the August recess, Stevens and ranking member
Daniel Inouye,D-Hawaii,conducted 14 closed-door meetings on telecom
issues with consumer groups and with technology,telecom,and cable
executives.
> Stevens and his staff are still mulling their approach. Several
committee aides told National Journal that they do not expect Stevens to
introduce a bill until at least spring 2006.
> Stevens has stated only that he wants to reform the Universal Service
Fund, before steep price hikes can occur.All telephone companies that
provide interstate services--including local,long distance,wireless,
pay phone, and paging --must pay a portion of their interstate revenues
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5RjOnnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 11 of 13
into the fund,which keeps basic phone services affordable for
low-income and rural regions of the country.
>As prices for voice services have dropped, so has the flow of money
into of the fund. Stevens,who represents a rural state,wants to
restore the pot of federal money to support rural phone services. The
FCC has begun a process to determine how it can boost and maintain the
fund, but many analysts say the FCC does not have the authority to fix
the USF funding problem.
>A related issue involves a regulatory structure called "inter-carrier
compensation," which is the rate that phone companies pay each other to
complete calls over their networks. Communications over the Internet are
exempt from the inter-carrier rules, and the Bells have been agitating
for a change in the way companies pay into the system.
> So Stevens' committee has reason to look at changes to the 1996 act.
Many lobbyists have been frustrated,however,because the chairman has
not indicated whether he wants to simply address the Universal Service
Fund and make other narrow fixes, or to consider a broad rewrite of the
law.>
> "We don't know yet whether we want to handle this with a single-fire
approach on each item, or whether we want to wrap them all together,"
says one Senate committee aide.
>With Stevens playing it close to the vest, senators on the committee
have begun to introduce their own bills to signal where they stand. In
July, Sen. John Ensign,R-Nev.,chairman of the Senate Commerce
Technology Subcommittee, introduced a sweeping reform bill that has
garnered support from the Bells.And the cable industry's McSlarrow said
that while his association has some questions about Ensign's bill,it is
pleased that the legislation "treats like services alike."
>The proposal would allow Bell companies and others to immediately
enter the market for video services,without obtaining local or state
franchises.New entrants would have to pay up to a 5 percent franchise
fee to municipalities, as do current pay television providers--but
would not have to follow the current lengthy franchising process.
>Ensign said that his bill would provide cities with "even more"
revenue than they get now,because both the cable companies and the
Bells would be paying franchise fees. Said SBC>'> s McKone,> ">If
Congress is looking for a legislative vehicle that doesn't create a
clash of the titans,then the Ensign bill does that> ">
>It is no slam dunk,however. The bill has sparked opposition from
cities, consumer groups, and so-called competitive exchange carriers,
which are competitors to the Bells.
>Leanza said the bill would effectively take regulation of sidewalks
"away from localities,putting it into the hands of Washington,D.C."
She also worries that Ensign's bill would give municipalities the right
to build their own broadband networks,but only with numerous
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 12 of 13
restrictions.
>The Bells have been fighting cities that have been investing in their
own broadband networks, arguing that government should not compete with
the private sector. But "many small businesses can't get affordable
broadband," Lean7a said. "That is why cities are stepping in." The
National League of Cities,which represents 18,000 municipalities, is
mobilizing its grassroots to fight Ensign's legislation.
>Jeannine Kenney, a senior policy analyst at Consumers Union, said
legislation like Ensign's is encouraging monopolization of the
communications sector, "where two industries will dominate" in
broadband,eventually leading to higher prices for consumers. Earl
Comstock,president of CompTel/ALTS --the association that represents
small local competitive exchange carriers in the long distance phone
market--argues that Ensign's proposal does not require the cable and
Bell companies to let a competitor buy access to their broadband
networks.
> "Nascent technologies, such as VOIP," Comstock said, "would be killed
in the cradle under this regime,because entrepreneurs would be denied
the nondiscriminatory access to infrastructure they need to deliver
their cutting-edge products and services."
> Chances are slim that Ensign's bill could pass the committee as
written. Lisa Sutherland,the Senate Commerce Committee's staff
director, said that Stevens will draw upon the efforts of committee
members in writing his own bill. "We are going to do a side-by-side
comparison of all the bills introduced and look at where there are
things in common and where there are conflicts we'll have to work out,"
she said.
> Senate hearings have been postponed,however. Stevens has said that
for the immediate future,Katrina relief will take precedence over all
issues, including telecom.
>As telecom lobbyists cool their heels,committee members say they are
still optimistic that a bill will pass this Congress, although not this
year. "I think we can get something passed," said Sen.John Sununu,
R-N.H.,who may introduce a bill aimed at spurring VOIP development.>
>Meanwhile, on the regulatory front,the FCC has been moving ahead with
changes to telecom regulations. Zufolo of Medley Global Advisors said
that the agency,under newly appointed Chairman Kevin Martin,has been
"active in making far-reaching" rulings aimed at speeding up competition
in the telecom markets,thus "giving lawmakers ideas" on what direction
their policies should take.
>In August,the FCC voted to put broadband services offered by cable
and by Bell companies under the same regulatory framework, and that
decision has influenced how legislation is developing on Capitol Hill.
> Some have questioned why Congress continues to move ahead with
legislation,when the FCC is adapting its rules to technology changes.
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj Onnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
Print View Page 13 of 13
In response,Verizon's Tauke said that as the FCC proceeds with rule
changes, questions remain about whether the agency "is attempting to
force-fit some kind of policy into a statute that didn't really
envision" today's world--where there is no difference between
telephone service offered by a Bell company and that from a cable
company.
> Scott Cleland, founder of the investment research firm Precursor,
noted that the FCC's chairman"can only interpret the law.He can't make
new law."
>Yet whatever happens, Sununu admitted: "There is no guarantee that
technology won't change.No piece of legislation is immune from
obsolescence."
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gpekm5Rj 0nnfos4Hmf&action=Item.... 12/29/2005
•
From: Bonnie Walton
To: Tracy Schaefer
Date: 10/24/2005 11:35:14 AM
Subject: Insurance Certificates
Tracy,
I'm sorry, but the insurance certificates you faxed do not pass muster with our Risk Management office.
Attached are the City of Renton insurance form guidelines that may help your insurance company to
prepare them as needed, plus the following is the language from the contract agreement as regards the
insurance requirements. These together should help your insurance company prepare the forms in the
manner we need.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
425-430-6502
Fax: 425-430-6516
Section 9. Insurance
9.1 The Consultant, at its sole cost and expense, will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect
during the term of this contract:
Commercial general liability insurance in the amount of$1,000,000 with $2,000,000 in the
aggregate;
$1,000,000 Auto Liability(needed if a vehicle will be used in performance of work, including
delivery of products to worksite.)
$1,000,000 Excess Liability;
• Proof of Workers' Compensation coverage (provide the number);
• $1,000,000 Professional Liability
A certificate of insurance (ACORD form) shall be delivered to the City before the City executes this
agreement. The certificate shall name the City of Renton as an additional insured, the endorsement page
from the policy shall be attached, and the cancellation clause shall be modified to state: "Should any of
the above described policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail
45 days written notice to the certificate holder to the left."
9.2 All insurance coverage required hereunder will be provided through carriers with Best's Key
Rating Guide ratings of A:VII or higher which are admitted to transact insurance business in the State of
Washington. Any and all sub-consultants of the Consultant retained to perform Services under this
contract will obtain and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this contract, identical insurance
coverage, naming the City as an additional insured under such policies as required above.
9.3 Certificates of such insurance, preferably on the forms provided by the City, will be filed with the
City concurrently with the execution of this contract. The certificates will be subject to the approval of the
City's risk manager and will contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and
will not be canceled or altered by the insurer except after filing with the City's city clerk forty-five (45) days'
prior written notice of such cancellation or alteration, and the City of Renton is named as an additional
insured. Current certificates of such insurance will be kept on file with the city clerk at all times during the
term of this contract.
OCT.24.2005 11: 19RM BRRDLEY' GUZZETTA LLC NO.821 P. 1/2
•
g Fax
Braclleydi •
Guzzetta, tic
To: City of Renton Prom: Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street Attn: Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Tracy Schaefer,Senior Project Manager
Saint Paul,MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 Fax: (425)430.6516 Date: October 24,2005
F/(651) 379-0999
Phone: Pages: 2 including cover page
Attorneys at Law
Michael Tt.Bradley; Re: Certificate of Insurance CC:
Stephen J.Guzzetta*
Emily Paye Jewett
❑ Urgent x For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
Of Counsel
Thomas C.Plunkett
Greg S.Uhl .Comments
Senior Project Manager
Tracy J.Schaefer Bonnie,
Legal Assistants Attached is the copy of the Certificate of Insurance. Please let me know if there need to
Brian P.Laule be any changes/additions.
Thank you,
TracyJ. Scha ' r
I
www.bradleygurzetta.com
i AID wlnat d in Wioamsi',
"Non edinitted Itleignaelmettl and rite
Dig u icr of Cnlumhto
1bCT.24.2005:u11:19AMDz SERADLEY GUZZETTA LUCImy s Jul ita NO.821 • P.2/2 Uuc
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE(I�!l)DTYY)
I n.0.1 cI, 1,0/24/2005
PRODUCER T IS CERTLFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MA TrIR OF INFORMATION ONLY AA doplFERS NO)U I ITS
UPON TIM CERTIFICATE HOLDEf., THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND,(OCCEND OR ALTER
Marsh Affinity Group Services THE COVMAGE AFFORDED BY T:1E?0UC1EN BELOW. .
11000 Prairie Lakes Drive
Suite 400 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE
Eden Prairie,MN 55344 COMPANY A Liberty Insurance Underwriters)Inc_
LETTER
INSURED COMPANY )3
LETTER
Bradley& Guzzetta,L.L.C.
"COMPANY C
LETTER
Ca PANY D
LETTER
COMPANY E -
LETTL•R
( OVE.AIaL'•5
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW I')AVT;BEEN ISSUED TO ThI..INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR
THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITI•TSTANDING ANY REQUTRIIMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR
OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS C1=RTrvTCATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE
AFFOItDB.D BY THE POLICES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUB•TECT TO ALL TIE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS,AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES.
In TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER �aurrv'Arrry iligg-'� '" ALL LIMITS 1N THOUSANDS
cATtt(wvnom1l D.Tto•Mroorsl7
GENERAL LI.1]7II1.rT'Y OfirTIIM.AGGREGATE
COMMSRCT4LG•FNERALLIABILITYI
tRcoucrLcow �OtS�GdP(IGA',n
CwM MADE occunnErCB i'gso N.B1 V T2 ImlayOWNER'S&CONI)IAC�DRS FROTECflVE face otCli m NCB
■ ma o.MAOP,(ANY oRiT'1AT)
I.®ILAL dK!'OLFL+I(AM 7 010382R9OM
ATTPOMOR,LF,LIABILITY GAL
_ ANY AUTO
ALL OWNFD AUTOS fataLY
MUM'11111 SCIIL�ULEDAUTOS 011I.PaASON) $
111 FARED AUTOS BODILY
MOURN*
NON-OWNED AU ToS (PER S
ACCD)EN n
a GA .AGE LLIEIUTY PROPERTY
DAMAGE
S
EXCESS L1AMary FAZE MS
Dcctllut>:rtL� AV
all S S
lin OT13F&THAN UMBRELLA FORM
STATUTORY j
WORRIES'COMPENSATION $ (tACHaccstan
(olaoza-pcmcruuIT)
EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY $ ,pl .slizAcn'tom.07103
X OTHER LPM199171- 6/1/2005 6/1/2006 LIMITS: s S1,000,000/
Prorepaional Liability Insuratice 01 OS
$3,000,000
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONSArEIIICLES/RESTRICTIONS/SPECIAL ITEMS
cuk)irk, al.Ito ,ol R t 't•It'i I I \I'I0N
9RDULu ANY OF TEE ABOVE •- aaMED POLICES BE +► .1' •D eI;PORB ase
1MRATION DATE TIMR➢OF, TM ISSUD•tO COMPANY WILL ENDe_AVOR TO Mnn.
10 DAYS IVIUTr2N NOTICB TO TM CERTIVICATY ISOLD aR NAIL TO urn urr, acrr
FAII.URII'ro MAIL S(JCU NOTICE IDEAL.D+(POSL'NO 06L1QATION at mon.rrr or ANY
KIND LOON TEE COM:PANY.ITS AC NTS Of.E.1°$,ISSEVTATMIs.
AUTHORIZED `• . a1 ar...,°‘kr°114161:464".
ACORL.; li S(11/lti) IiR'A(''rltlI'.(eltl.t atAIII.)N I461.
OCT.24.2005 10: 15RM BRADLEY GUZZETTA LLC NO.819 P. 1/Z
•
b & g Fax
Bradley&
Guzzetta, LLC
To• City of Renton From: Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street Attn:Bonnie Walton,City Clerk Tracy Schaefer,Senior Project Manager
Saint Paul,MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 Fax: (425)430-6516 Date: October 24,2005
F/(651)379-0999
Phone: Pages: 2 including cover page
Attorneys at Law
Michael R.Bradley, Re: Certificate of Insurance CC:
Stephen J. Guzzetta
Emily Faye Jewett
❑Urgent x For Review ❑ Please Comment 0 Please Reply ❑Please Recycle
Of Counsel
Thomas C.Plunkett
Greg S.Uhl •Comments
Senior Project Manager Bonnie,
Tracy J.Schaefer
Legal Assistants Attached is the copy of Certificate of Liability Insurance. Please let me know if there
Brian F.Laule need to be any changes/additions.
Thank you,
fe2
www.bradkygunetta.com
to w,I 1 Hirai in Wisconolr
'Aisn admired in Mar.„.,IWit„,and rIb,
Dievict% CnIU fl O
A )OT.24.2005 10: 15AM BRADLEY GUZZETTA LLC., t'HL C. vvr./ vve- r ai% '-NO.819. P.2/2
ACORD. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(n+IMIDD/VYYY)
10/14/200b
PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION
Answ■r Sinancial/Sam'a Club ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE
P.°. sox 10660 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR
Jacksonville FL 32247 ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES_BELOW.
(966) 972-7379 (800) 455-9611
INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL#
INSURED INSURER Maryland Carualty 19356
Bradley c Guzzetta LLC INSURERS
950 131,par Jay Plazas 444 Cedar St. INS URERC
S . Paul MN 551012179 INSURERO'
INSURFF P.
COVERAGES
THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED.NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR
MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH
POLICIES.AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS.
INtlq 4-13(5'L POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPIRATION
LTR IN.9RI" TYPF CIF!NSJIRANCE POLICY NUMBER 0AT'(MMIDOIYYI DATE(MMIDDtYYI LIMITS
GENERALLIABIUTY EACH OCCURRENCE $ Z.000,000
1:17?TAZE"ruRIMID
A A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY PASO43407601 6/7/2005 6/7/2006 PREMISE'LEn occurnncnl $ 2,000,000
CLAIMS MACE Q OCCUR MED EXP(Any ono parson) `1 10,000
_ PERSONAL BAOVINJURY $ 2,000,000
GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000,000
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER PRODUCTS-COMwOP AGG $ 4,000,000
7 POLICY jR X LOC
AUTOMOBILE UABIUTY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $
A A ANY AUTO PAS 043407601 6/7/2005 6/7/2006 lEa ocadonll 1,000,000
ALL OWNED AUTOS— BODILY INJURY
_ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Pot porcon) $
X HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY
X NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per EICOaorn)
PROPERTY DAMAGE
(Per oocIdcnl) w
GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY•EA ACCIDENT $
7 ANY AUTO - OTHER THAN EA ACC $
AUTO ONLY' AGO $
EXCE391UMBRELLA UABIUTY EACH OCCURRENCP $
7 OCCUR n CLAIMS MADE AGGREGATE II
$ __
- DEDUCTIBLE $
RETENTION $ t
A w TORY 1 oRKER6COMPENSATIONAND WC 043407213 6/7/2005 6/7/2006 ORYI IMITS ER
¶H.
R
EMELOYERS•LIABILITY
ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNEF/EXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ 100,000
OFFICER/MFMBER EXCLUDED? E.L.DISEASE•EA EMPLOYEE $ 500,000
II yea deecrlbo undo,'
SPtCIAL PROVISIONS balow E.L.DISEASE•POLICY LIMIT 3 100,000
OTHER
DESCRIpTION OF OPERATIONS,LOCATIONS I VEHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENT r SPECIAL PROVISIONS
CERTIFICATE SOLDER IS DESIGNATED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED.
'CERTIFICATE HOLDER _ CANCELLATION
SHOULD ANY OP THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORETHE EXPIRATION
DATE THEREOF.THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN
UNITF23 PROP>wG,TIES LLC
NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT,OUT FAILURE TO Do SO DHALL
900 PIPER JEE 'RAY PLAZA IMPOSE NO 06UQATION OR UARILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSURER,ITS AGENTS OR
444 mDAR STREET REPRESENTATIVES.
Saint Paul MN 55101 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE /, ,,//
ACORD 25(2001/08) 0 ACORD CORPORATION 1988
rags 1 Of 1
146 -to
hind& f{ervvg
Bradley&Guzzetta, LLC
950 Piper Jaffray Plaza
444 Cedar Street
Saint Paul, MN 55101
P/(651) 379-0900 F/(651)379-0999
Invoice submitted to:
City of Renton
ATTN: Ms. Bonnie Walton, City
Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton WA 98055
March 10, 2006
In reference to:Cable Franchise Renewal
Invoice#13735
Professional Services
Date Init. Description Amount
2/27/2006 MRB Draft proposed work plan 487.50
MRB Review/revise work plan per client direction. Forward to client. 97.50
For professional services rendered $585.00
Balance due $585.00
From: "Michael Bradley" <bradley@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: <bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: 3/10/2006 4:36:14 PM
Subject: Your Bill
For your convenience, your bill is attached to this message.
Please review the attached bill and submit your payment.
Thank you.
Note: The attached bill is in PDF file format.Adobe Acrobat Reader is necessary to view this file. If you do
not have Adobe Acrobat Reader installed, please download the free reader from the Adobe website
(http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html)and install it on your computer.
From: George McBride
To: Ben Wolters; Bonnie Walton; Linda Herzog; ljwarren@seanet.com
Date: 1/9/2006 2:26:58 PM
Subject: Renton's comments to FCC re: cable franchise authority
try this, gm.
>>> Ben Wolters 1/9/2006 1:42:10 PM >>>
Should we also make reference here to our wireless network?
»> George McBride 01/09/06 11:42 AM >>>
as requested, gm.
>>>;Linda Herzog 1/4/2006 4:39:48 PM >>>
We'agreed that we would get our"comments"to the FCC by the middle of January. I've just been looking
at my calendar and the substantial work that is already piling up this year.
I'�rn thinking we won't make that deadline (Monday Jan 16)unless we get all the pieces of the response
collected by the prior Wednesday evening (Jan. 11).
Please look at the third page of the new"Summary of Agreements"document you received Friday night,
Land note which topics you are responsible for. (I'll attach another copy here.) Please send your
paragraphs (or sentences) by Wednesday evening.
Then Ben and I will pull it all together into the comments document and get it to Jay&the Mayor for review
/signing.
CC: Michael Bailey
Our franchise contains the following institutional network("I-Net") requirements: The
City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network made up of 12-strand
fiber runs to each of the following facilities from city hall:
Facility Address
1 City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way
2 Fire Station 11 211 Mill Ave. South
3 Fire Station 12 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE
4 Fire Station 13 17040 108th SE
5 Fire Station 14 1900 Lind Ave. SW
6 Renton Community Center 1515 Maple Valley Hwy.
7 Historical Society(Museum) 235 Mill Ave. South
8 200 Mill Building 200 Mill Ave. South
9 Main Library 100 Mill Ave. South
10 Liberty Park Community Bldg. 1101 Bronson Way North
11 City Central Parking 655 S. 2nd St,
12 Senior Center 211 Burnett Ave North
13 PBPW Shops Al 3555 NE 2nd St.
14 Airport Tower 616 Perimeter Rd. West
15 Highlands Community Center 800 Edmonds Ave. NE
16 Highlands Library 2902 NE 12th St
17 N. Highlands Community Center 3000 NE 16th St.
18 City Attorney's Office 100 S. Second Street
19 Grady Way Park N Ride
20 Edmonds Ave. NE & NE Sunset Blvd.
21 Harrington Ave. NE & NE 9th St.
These network links connect the noted city locations to the city's main data center at city
hall from which all telecommunications services are provided including voice (dial tone),
data, some fire/intrusion alarms, public safety communications and dispatch. In addition,
the city's network supports cashiering, back office business and data base services as well
as reservation, scheduling, financial and emergency management applications. The city's
network is critical to the day to day operation of the city. Along with business
applications, the city's traffic management system (signal timing & adjustment)utilizes
this same fiber network. And, while only 18 facilities are noted, a total of 32 city
facilities are served by I-Net fiber.
The city also uses the I-Net fiber to backhaul all wireless network systems including all
fire and police vehicle data. The city's wireless network covers 80% of the outdoor area
within the corporate boundaries of the City of Renton.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts, the city's dark
fiber network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition,
access to both the fire and police records management systems, from officers in the field,
also transit this network along with regional, state and federal emergency management
and public safety data.
Our franchise contains the following institutional network ("I-Net") requirements: The
City of Renton operates an extensive metropolitan area network made up of 12-strand
fiber runs to each of the following facilities from city hall:
Facility Address
I City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way
2 Fire Station 11 211 Mill Ave. South
3 Fire Station 12 1209 Kirkland Ave. NE
4 Fire Station 13 17040 108th SE
5 Fire Station 14 1900 Lind Ave. SW
6 Renton Community Center 1515 Maple Valley Hwy.
7 Historical Society(Museum) 235 Mill Ave. South
8 200 Mill Building 200 Mill Ave. South
9 Main Library 100 Mill Ave. South
10 Liberty Park Community Bldg. 1101 Bronson Way North
11 City Central Parking 655 S. 2nd St,
12 Senior Center 211 Burnett Ave North
13 PBPW Shops Al 3555 NE 2nd St.
14 Airport Tower 616 Perimeter Rd. West
15 Highlands Community Center 800 Edmonds Ave. NE
16 Highlands Library 2902 NE 12th St
17 N. Highlands Community Center 3000 NE 16th St.
18 City Attorney's Office 100 S. Second Street
19 Grady Way Park N Ride
20 Edmonds Ave. NE & NE Sunset Blvd.
21 Harrington Ave. NE & NE 9th St.
These network links connect the noted city locations to the city's main data center at city
hall from which all telecommunications services are provided including voice (dial tone),
data, fire alarms, intrusion alarms,public safety communications and dispatch. In
addition, the city's network supports cashiering,back office business and data base
services as well as reservation, scheduling, financial and emergency management
applications. The city's network is critical to the day to day operation of the city. Along
with business applications, the city's traffic management system (signal timing &
adjustment) utilizes this same fiber network.
While our franchise does not require the carriage of emergency alerts, the city's dark
fiber network carries all of the E-911 dispatch services for fire and police. In addition,
access to both the fire and police records management systems, from officers in the field,
also transit this network along with regional, state and federal emergency management
and public safety data.
Print View Page 1 of 2
From: Linda Herzog
To: George McBride,Bonnie Walton,Ben Wolters
CC: Alexander Pietsch,Michael Bailey,BLM@vnfcom
Date: Wednesday -May 3,2006
Subject: Re: Federal Video Franchising legislation
folks, I'm sorry I have not responded to any of this yet. Buried!
Regarding Ben's question"Linda, can Jay shed any more light on the history of this with TCl/Comcast?"the
answer is—No,I don't believe Jay has any add'l info. When I inquired about this topic many months ago,
he pointed me to George as the institutional expert. All tho this may be unwise,I've considered George in
that light ever since!
>>>Ben Wolters 05/02/06 4:14 PM>>>
Do we have anything written down with TCI signature on it? The horse is out of the barn in the House,but
maybe we could get something in the bill on the Senate side via Cantwell, it's still 50/50 a bill passes this
year,but I don't want to bet against it.
George, I recall you've might have been asked this question before,but do you know of any other City in the
country that is in at least a similar situation? It would help tremendously to make a case for legislative
language to bolster our position and build support. Also,I want to confirm that the conduit in question that
Comcast is claiming ownership too supports our fire and police network. I want to make a homeland security
and disaster preparedness case.
Ben McMakin is out of the office on a family emergency,but I will discuss with him to see what's feasible.
>>> George McBride 05/02/06 3:46 PM>>>
ben, i have been trying to find something already written on the subject but have failed in that endeavor. so, i
hope this is consistent with what i have said previously. circa 1997/98 the city entered into an agreement that
amended the original franchise agreement with TCI. the purpose of the agreement was to allow TCI to
provide the city with specified dark(unused)fiber for its exclusive use and by my understanding ownership.
this view was reinforced from the beginning of the project installation meetings wherein expeditious
completion and turn-over to the city was the goal. TCI had not met the requirements of the original
agreement and was subject to huge monetary penalties. in exchange for the fiber,the city waived the
penalties. ownership was clearly the city's intent from the council meeting minutes and from the ordinance
language itself.
we found out during attempted negotiations(larry and i)with then AT&T for a maintenance agreement on
the fiber,that they had a completely different view. not only did we not own it,but they wanted a ridiculous
sum for a maintenance agreement. negotiations broke down and we have never gone back to the table.
this is a much different circumstance that other cities. TCI was not in the i-net business when we negotiated
this agreement. now,the water gets muddy. in our desire to cooperate and speed the project along we
allowed TCI to install the fiber in some city owned conduit and we allowed them to run our fiber within their
own sheath. the city has invested significantly in its fiber network under the presumption that it owned the
infrastructure. because of the dispute,the city could,potentially,loose use of the fiber,be charged a fee for
usage, etc. it is my intent to work this issue during the franchise renegotiations,however, as you say, if this
is a done deal with the congress,getting comcast to work with us will be difficult.
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gv8os3Zn7hs 1 d12Hu8&action=Item.Rea... 5/3/2006
Print View Page 2 of 2
bonnie?
gm
>>> Ben Wolters 5/2/2006 11:42:46 AM>>>
I wanted to share with you the section below on federal video franchising legislation from a larger report I
did on my visit to DC last to visit with staff of our Congressional delegation.
George,I'd like to get more background information on our fiber backbone system that Comcast built for us
and the terms under which we got it. I recall there was some dispute over that.I want to share with Inslee and
Cantwell's staff. Read more below.
Video Franchising
We met with Michael Daum, Senator Cantwell's Telecom Policy Advisor and Brian Peters, Congressman
Inslee's lead Legislative Assistant on telecom legislation. Both staff indicated that on three of our key issues
with this legislation,preserving City control to manage the right of way,maintaining the 5 percent franchise
fee for localities,preserving funding for PEG,there was developing support on Capitol Hill that a telecom
bill should meet municipalities'concerns on these points. However,on the key point of retaining local control
on franchising,they indicated there was solid support in Congress for replacing local franchises with state or
national franchises with Inslee already voting for that and Cantwell very likely to do so.In fact,the bill the
House Committee passed last week that Inslee voted for establishes a national franchise while addressing the
City's other issues to one degree or another.
Both staffers indicated that whether a final bill passes Congress this year depended on factors beyond video
franchising. While a passage of a House bill is practically a certainty,in the Senate the question is can
Senator Stevens, Commerce Committee Chair,round up enough votes to overcome a filibuster threat by
loading it up with special provisions. He introduced his bill yesterday,which has the novel, if impractical,
approach of allowing localities just 30 days to act on franchise requests before a national franchise is granted.
The phone companies are pushing hard with all their enormous clout on Capitol Hill to get a bill this year,
believing this Congress is their best chance to get legislation most favorable to them. However,internet
companies led by Microsoft,Amazon, and Google fiercely oppose the bill unless it prohibits the phone and
cable companies from charging variable rates to favor their services over competitors.Another issue that
could still have strong political resonance is whether phone and cable companies should be required to build
out services to all of a service area and not to just high income neighborhoods. That provision failed in the
House but the Senate version establishes a fund providers must pay into to cover the cost of building out to
poorer areas.
One big issue for Renton that Brian Peters suggested we watch closely is that any legislation not cause cities
to lose ownership of backbone fiber built by cable companies for municipal use under previous franchise
agreements.He implied a concern of such a provision getting slipped in below the radar during the legislative
process.
I came away from these meetings and other conversations on the Hill with the strong impression that whether
this year or the next, local video franchising days are numbered.
https://webmail.ci.renton.wa.us/servlet/webacc?User.context=gv8os3Zn7hs 1dl2Hu8&action=ltem.Rea... 5/3/2006
Governments
Ask for Reversal
of
FCC Rulingo
n Video Franchising
by Carolyn Coleman and Sherry Conway Appel also "violates both the Communications were to stand.According to these officials,
Act and Administrative Procedure Act's the order provides little recognition of the
Local government organizations repre- public notice requirements."
q need by local governments to protect pub-
senting municipal and county officials Besides NLC,organizations participat- lic rights of way,and to ensure that all their
across America asked the Federal courts ing in the court challenge to the FCC citizens benefit from increased competi-
last week to reverse the recent franchising order include the Alliance for tion and advances in telecommunications
order adopted by the Federal Communications Democracy, Alliance technology —not just a chosen few.
Communications Commission (FCC) that for Community Media, National Local governments are not alone in
would-severely restrict the ability of local Association of Counties, National their disagreement with the FCC's fran-
governments to protect their citizens,rights Association of Telecommunications chising rule. Spearheaded by FCC
of way, community channels and public Officials and Advisors, and the -U.S. Chairman Kevin Martin, the rule also
safety networks. - Conference of Mayors. - - drew protests from Democrats on the
In addition,the FCC order would lead According to these,groups, the reper- commission as well asfrom Rep.John D.
too-a4r-ome.ndousaeduction:inthe.revenues-_-cussions.of-the FCC's order:.are.far-reach- -=Dingell-(D-Mich.), chair of the House
received by local governments for use of ing and extreme on numerous fronts.Local Energy and Commerce-Committee:
their rights of way,as well as loss of cable governments want competition in the The court challenges eventually will be
services to many governmental buildings video marketplace, but the FCC's order consolidated into one circuit following a
and schools. - ignores local interests,provides regulatory lottery.Arguments won't begin for several
The formal Petitions for Review filed advantages for a few of the largest months,and the case could go on for a year
last week said the FCC order"exceeds the telecommunications companies in the or more before it is decided.The local gov-
FCC's statutory authority,"is"arbitrary and country and is simply contrary to law in ernment organisations also may ask the
capricious,""an abuse of discretion,unsup-P many respects. FCC or the courts to stay the order pend-
ported by substantial evidence,and in viola- Local government representatives also ing a resolution of the court challenge.
tion of the United States Constitution." expressed concern over the loss of protec- For copies of the petitions, go to
According to the petitions,the FCC order tions for their residents if the FCC.order www.n1c.org.
9 l 'c a
,,,,,,A k
'‘'''''Mom t 1 N voy;54-ff ,,,,..
ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, .CPAs, PLC 4' V
Certified Public Accountants and Consultants 'V
INVOICE NO.NR06012
November 7,2006
AS 1050-04
Bonnie I. Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager CM OF RENTON
City of Renton N O V 1 3 2006
City Clerk Div., 7th Floor
1055 S. Grady Way CITY SKI OFFICE
Renton, WA 98055
Project: Review of Comcast's 2006 FCC Form 1205
The City of Renton, Washington is participating in the national review of Comcast's 2006 FCC
Form 1205. This review is being performed jointly by Ashpaugh & Sculco, CPAs, PLC
("A&S") and Front Range Consulting, Inc ("FRC") with A&S being responsible for contracting
and invoicing.
Calculation of
Local Franchise Authority Subscription Amount
City of Renton, Washington
Projected Number.of Subscribers 18,114
Subscription Rate $.10
Total Based on Subscribers $1,811.00
Maximum Subscription Amount $10,000.00
Minimum Subscription Amount $750.00
TOTAL DUE (not to exceed maximum or be less than minimum) $1,811.00
If you have any questions regarding this invoice,please call me at(407) 645-2020.
Very truly yours,
ASHPAUGH & SCULCO, CPAs,PLC
"1
Garth T. Ashpaugh, CPA
President and Member
1133 Louisiana Avenue, Suite 106 •Winter Park, FL 32789 •407.645.2020 • Fax 407.645.4070
gshpaugh@ascpas.com •csculco@ascpas.com
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
O&itsispEGTED
POM
Washington,DC 20554
DEC 2 9 2006
In the Matter of ) FC
� �i�1L�OOM
i
Annual Assessment of the Status of )
Competition in the Market for the ) MB Docket No. 06-189 CITY OF RENTON
Delivery of Video Programming ) JAN 1 7 2007
RR
CITY CLERKvsOF1`ICE
)
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; THE NORTH METRO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THE CITY OF
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA; THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON; AND
THE SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Stephen J. Guzzetta
Michael R. Bradley
BRADLEY&GUZZETTA, LLC
41141 Cedar Street
Suite 950
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
December 28, 2006
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
SUMMARY ii
I. INTRODUCTION. 2
II. LOCAL CABLE SYS lEM FRANCHISING HAS NOT AND WILL NOT
DELAY WIRELINE VIDEO COMPETITION 5
III. APPLICABLE LAW PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REQUIRE
COMPENSATION FROM CABLE SYSTEM OPERATORS FOR THE USE
OF VALUABLE AND SCARCE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. 12
IV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD PROVISIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY
INHIBIT COMPETITION OR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED
BROADBAND NETWORKS. 14
V. BUILD-OUT REQUIREMENTS IN FRANCHISES ARE NOT
ANTICOMPETITIVE. 16
VI. CONCLUSION 19
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 47 C.F.R. § 76.6(a)(4) 19
i
SUMMARY
AT&T Inc: ("AT&T") and Verizon Communications, Inc. ("Verizon")make unsupported
and ambiguous claims about how local franchising of cable systems inhibits or prohibits the
development of competition in the multichannel video distribution market in an attempt to
convince the Federal Communications Commission (the "Commission" or the "FCC") to
preempt or impair local franchising, presumable above and beyond the actions taken by the FCC
on December 20, 2006. Because there is no credible factual record of any widespread
anticompetitive behavior by local franchising authorities, any regulations issued by the Federal
would necessarily be arbitrary and capricious.
Federal, state and local interests and objectives are often embodied in franchise
agreements in the form of compensation requirements negotiated for the use of scarce and
valuable public rights-of-way. Franchise fees, institutional networks, capital support for public,
educational and governmental ("PEG") access facilities and free cable drops and outlets for PEG
entities are all forms of right-of-way compensation countenanced by the Cable Act.
Accordingly, such compensation is not inconsistent with federal law, and any elimination or
reduction of compensation for right-of-way usage would raise Constitutional issues.
A review of the real facts about local franchising shows there is no problem that needs to
be addressed, as neither level playing field provisions nor build-out requirements inhibit or
prohibit video competition. Level playing field provisions, for instance, do not require a
competitive provider's franchise terms and conditions to be identical to an incumbent cable
service provider's and thus do not prevent competition or the deployment of advanced broadband
networks. Similarly, build-out provisions can be structured in such a way that they take the
financial condition of a new entrant into consideration and are not anticompetitive. Any delays
ii
in the franchising process are typically due to a competitive franchise applicant's behavior or
internal business decisions, and should not be attributed to local franchising authorities. Indeed,
available data show that local governments are authorizing Verizon and AT&T to construct their
networks expeditiously, to the point where franchising is outpacing the companies' construction
capabilities.
iii
Before the
FEDERAL COMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington,DC 20554
)
In the Matter of )
)
Annual Assessment of the Status of )
Competition in the Market for the ) MB Docket No. 06-189
Delivery of Video Programming )
)
)
)
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE BURNSVILLE/EAGAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION; THE NORTH METRO TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION;
THE NORTH SUBURBAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; THE CITY OF
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA; THE CITY OF RENTON,WASHINGTON; AND
THE SOUTH WASHINGTON COUNTY TELECOMMUNICATIONS.COMMISSION
The City of Renton, Washington, the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma and the
following municipal joint powers commissions respectfully submit reply comments in the above-
captioned proceeding: the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission (a municipal
joint powers commission consisting of the cities of Burnsville and Eagan, Minnesota); the North
Metro Telecommunications Commission (a municipal joint powers commission consisting of the
cities of Blaine, Centerville, Circle Pines, Ham Lake, Lexington,Lino Lakes.and Spring Lake
Park, Minnesota); the North Suburban Communications Commission (a municipal joint powers
commission consisting of the cities of Arden Hills,Falcon Heights, Lauderdale, Little Canada,
Mounds View, New Brighton, North Oaks, Roseville, St. Anthony and Shoreview, Minnesota);
and the South Washington County Telecommunications Commission (a municipal joint powers
commission consisting of the municipalities of Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Newport, Grey Cloud
Island Township and St. Paul Park, Minnesota) (collectively, the "LFAs"). Although numerous
s.
telecommunications service providers and industry groups filed comments in response to the
Notice of Inquiry issued by the Federal Communications Commission (the "FCC" or the
"Commission"),1 these reply comments will focus on a number of claims made by Verizon
Communications Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries ("Verizon"), and AT&T Inc. (AT&T")
in their initial comments to the Commission, because they are the entities most aggressively
rolling out video services nationwide and most vociferously complaining about local
franchising.2
I. INTRODUCTION.
The Verizon Comments and the AT&T Comments are largely comprised of self-serving,
unsupported statements alleging that local franchising is a barrier to market entry and, thus, an
impediment to the continued development of wireline video competition. Many of these same
statements were made in MB Docket No. 05-311,3 which specifically addressed the existing dual
federal-state/local franchising structure. There was nothing in the record of Docket No. 05-311
to support AT&T's and Verizon's contentions, and no credible and verifiable evidence has been
submitted in this proceeding to prove the proposition that local franchising is in any way anti-
competitive. In fact, there is ample data which shows that the existing federal-state/local
franchising structure has promoted competition in the delivery of a variety of services (e.g.,
In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery
of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 06-189 (Rel. Oct. 20, 2006) (the
"NOI").
2 See Comments of Verizon on the Status of Competition in the Video Marketplace, In the
Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming,Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 06-189 (Nov. 29, 2006) (the "Verizon
Comments"), and the Comments of AT&T Inc.,In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the Status
of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,Notice of Inquiry, MB
Docket No. 06-189 (Nov. 29, 2006) (the "AT&T Comments").
3 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1) of the Cable Communications Policy Act
of 1984, as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No. 05-311 (Rel. Nov. 18, 2005).
2
high-speed Internet access) and encouraged the construction of advanced cable systems that are
capable of providing a panoply of state-of-the-art services.4 These cable systems now offer
significant amounts of digital and high-definition programming services, and true on-demand
programming. In addition, cable operators generally provide a high-speed Internet access
product that is superior to the Internet access services furnished by local exchange carriers.
Local franchising has also directly led to increased diversity in programming (e.g., through the
production of a myriad of public, educational and governmental ["PEG"] access programs)
which was one of Congress' primary goals in enacting the Cable Communications Policy Act of
1984, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 521 et seq. (the "Cable Act").5 All of these benefits have been
achieved under a longstanding market entry process (i.e., local franchising) that the telephone
industry has erroneously couched as arcane, lengthy, unreasonable and antithetical to federal
objectives.
More specifically, the Verizon Comments and the AT&T Comments purportedly identify
four major problems with the local franchising process currently established by federal, state and
local law: (i) local franchising authorities unreasonably delay the review of franchise
applications and the award of competitive franchises; (ii) local franchising authorities make
unreasonable demands during franchise negotiations; (iii) build-out requirements requested by
local franchising authorities impede the development of video competition; and(iv) level playing
4 See the Comments of the North Suburban Communications and the Comments of the
Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission,In the Matter of Annual Assessment of the
Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Notice of Inquiry,
MB Docket No. 06-189 (Nov. 28, 2006).
5 See, e.g., Section 601(2) of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 521(2) (one of the purposes of Title VI
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, is to "assure that cable systems are responsive
to the needs and interests of the local community") and Section 601(4) of the Cable Act, 47
U.S.C. § 521(4) (the Cable Act is intended to "assure that cable communications provide and are
encouraged to provide the widest possible diversity of information sources and services to the
public.").
3
field requirements create entry barriers which cannot be overcome by potential competitive
providers of cable service. The LFAs do not believe that the alleged"problems"identified by
Verizon and AT&T are problems at all, and that local franchising authorities and the local
franchising process that has been in place for decades encourage the development of competition
in the video marketplace and foster the deployment of advanced networks.
As in MB Docket No. 05-311, the LFAs believe it is important for the FCC to recognize
that the telephone industry's comments in this proceeding largely rely on speculation, anecdotal
"evidence" and unsubstantiated claims of anticompetitive behavior by local franchising
authorities. In many cases, AT&T and Verizon do not even identify the communities they assert
have acted unreasonably or provide any details about the specific situations of which they
complain, which makes it impossible to respond meaningfully to or rebut the companies' claims.
This tactic, in effect, deprives local governments of their due process because they do not know
they have been "indicted"by the telephone industry and are unable to defend themselves.
Because the Commission does not have the benefit of all the facts or any exculpatory evidence
that may exist, it should give little or no weight to the telephone industry's anecdotal stories of
alleged local government "misdeeds" when deciding whether any action is warranted based on
the record of this NOI.
When the actual facts about local government treatment of potential video competitors
are collected and reviewed fairly, they show that local franchising authorities are utilizing the
franchising processes established by state and local law, and preserved by Congress through the
Cable Act, to facilitate competition and to advance important federal objectives. Thus, action by
4
4
the FCC is not needed or required.6 Although there is no credible support for altering the dual
federal-state/local franchising structure initially recognized by the FCC during the genesis of the
cable television industry and codified by Congress, the FCC adopted an order on December 20,
2006, that appears to both preempt and limit local franchising in certain respects. The LFAs
believe the FCC's decision in MB Docket No. 05-311 is unlawful, arbitrary and capricious, and
will ultimately hinder the development of video competition and the widespread deployment of
advanced communications networks around the nation. The LFAs also wish to make clear that
any further action the FCC might take to preempt or control local franchising based on the record
in this proceeding would be arbitrary and capricious, as no party has proffered concrete evidence
that local franchising has inhibited in any meaningful way the ongoing growth of competition in
the video marketplace.
II. LOCAL CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISING HAS NOT AND WILL NOT DELAY
WIRELINE VIDEO COMPETITION.
Both Verizon and AT&T claim that the local franchising process is slow and has delayed
the widespread development of video competition. Verizon, for instance, states "the local
franchising system is plagued by long delays . . . which burden competitive entry."8 The
company goes on to assert that"[o]f negotiations currently pending (outside of Texas, New
Jersey, and California),74%have been going on for fifteen months or more, and a majority of
them(56%) for eighteen months or more. A full 83% of pending negotiations have been under
6 See, e.g., Home Box Office, Inc. v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (a"regulation
perfectly reasonable and appropriate in the face,of a given problem may be highly capricious if
that problem does not exist.").
See, e.g., People of the State of California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir. 1990) (agency
decision must be overturned if the decision lacks record support) and Home Box Office, Inc. v.
FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 36 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (comments which are themselves speculative require no
response).
8 See Verizon Comments at 9.
5
{
`A
way for one year or more."9 AT&T similarly claims that the "negotiation of a franchise can be
protracted, taking at least several months to several years."10 None of these statements, however,
is supported by the facts in this proceeding or identifies a widespread problem that is endemic to
the local franchising process. In fact, Verizon and AT&T have really just begun applying for
franchises and other authorizations to provide video service in a few select markets across the
country.11 Accordingly, it is impossible to draw any sort of definitive or reliable conclusions
about whether local franchising is an actual barrier to competitive market entry based on
AT&T's and Verizon's limited experiences to date.
When analyzing the AT&T Comments and the Verizon Comments, it is important to
place the companies' unsubstantiated complaints about local franchising in their proper context.
When Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 approximately ten years ago, it
repealed the telephone company/cable company cross-ownership ban12 and established a variety
of means by which the telephone industry could enter the multichannel video program distributor
business.13 Few local telephone companies, however, availed themselves of the new
opportunities afforded by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Instead,the local telephone
industry primarily focused on entering the long distance business that has been eviscerated by
the rise of cellular telephone service. Those local exchange carriers that did enter the
multichannel video program distribution business exited the market between 1998 and 2001 of
9 Id. at 11.
to See AT&T Comments at 9.
11 See JON KREUCHER,FORCED FRANCHISING: WHY TELEPHONE INDUSTRY CALLS FOR"SHALL
ISSUE"VIDEO FRANCHISING SHOULDN'T BE ANSWERED, Position Paper published by ICMA at
14, 123-27 (October 2006) (the "ICMA Position Paper") ("telephone companies have applied for
traditional video franchises in far fewer than 2 percent of all communities nationwide.").
12 See Section 302(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 118
(1996).
13 See, e.g., Section 651 of the Cable Act, 47 U.S.C. § 571.
6
{
their own volition after having obtained or inherited local cable television franchises.14 In other
words, incumbent local exchange carriers made the calculated business decision to abandon their
cable franchises and other video assets to pursue other lines of business. That turned out to be a
disastrous decision, as the cable television industry opted to upgrade its systems over the last ten
years and has used these state-of-the-art systems to make inroads into the incumbent local
exchange carriers' core local telephone business and to offer a litany of digital video
programming and high-speed Internet access services that are generally faster than the telephone
industry's_DSL product, which is constrained by outdated telephone network facilities. The
telephone industry is therefore trying to play "catch-up" and is using local franchising as a
convenient"scapegoat"in an attempt to mask its poor business decisions and to force its way
into public rights-of-way so that legacy telephone networks can be upgraded to compete with
incumbent cable operators more effectively.15 Thus, it is evident that the telephone industry's
own miscalculations and lack of foresight—not local franchising—have delayed the pervasive
development of wireline video competition over the last decade.
Available data show that local telephone companies have only recently begun to obtain
the authorizations they need to provide video service using public rights-of-way. According to
ICMA surveys, "most of Verizon's local franchising requests appear to be recent: 14 percent of
the requests were made in the second quarter of 2005; 23 percent in the third quarter of 2005; 8
percent in the fourth quarter of 2005; and nearly 20 percent in the first quarter of 2006.i16
Moreover, according to ICMA, "the majority of the telephone industry's franchise requests
14 See, e.g., the ICMA Position Paper at 14 and 53-57.
15 See id. at 35 ("[i]n the broadband world, telephone companies can't rely on old POTS
networks . . . [T]elephone companies must first build higher bandwidth, digital networks capable
of delivering video services . . . More bandwidth means more construction in local rights-of-way
—a lot of it.").
16 ICMA Position Paper at 89.
7
c i
appear to have been made since the middle of last year, timing which, incidentally, seems to
track closely with comments being prepared in FCC dockets addressing local franchising
issues."17 It is therefore premature to conclude that local franchising is a barrier to entry given
that Verizon has applied for relatively few franchises nationwide, and AT&T has consistently
refused to seek local franchises.18 This is particularly true since the telephone industry "set a
record pace for fiber-to-the-premises deployments in 2005 and the first quarter of 2006."19
Based on this data, it is obvious that competition is developing as quickly as possible.
Contrary to AT&T's and Verizon's accusations, the facts just do not support the
conclusion that local franchising is impeding or delaying competition, and the telephone industry
has admitted as much. Verizon,for instance, has stated that"[franchising] was an area where we
had to learn and see if this was going to be an issue for us. Right now, we feel very, very
confident that we have [our franchising] moving in the right direction, and this isn't holding us
back in our deployment of video."20 Verizon has also conceded that "we have been very
successful with our franchising lately . . . we will have enough franchising for where we're
building to be able to sell."21 AT&T has likewise admitted"moving . . . faster would be difficult
just in terms of the residential requirements and the ability to launch to the number of markets
that we plan to launch . . ."22 Accordingly,•it is evident that local franchising is not an
17 Id.
18 AT&T's unwillingness to obtain local franchises is based upon its untenable claim that its
video service is not a service that is subject to state and local franchise requirements.
19 ICMA Position Paper at 14 and 47-48.
20 ICMA Position Paper at 4 (citing Comment of Virginia Ruesterholz, President of Verizon
Telecom, made during Verizon Communications Inc. FiOS Briefing Session, on September 27,
2006).
21 Id. at 44 (citing Comments of Doreen Toben at Bear, Stearns & Co. 19th Annual Media
Conference,February 27, 2006).
22 Id. at 45 (citing Exec Sheds Some Light on Lightspeed Trial, Telco-IP Update, January 16,
_ 2006).
8
•
impediment to wireline video competition and that internal construction limitations (e.g.,
availability of capital, labor and materials) are negatively affecting the widespread development
of wireline video competition.23 In this regard, AT&T has indicated that it can upgrade no more
than 50 percent of its network to provide video services over the next 2'h years.24 According to
Verizon's business plan,the.Verizon network will not be completely upgraded until at least
2013.25 Elimination or preemption of local franchising will not alter these construction
schedules and hasten the expansion of competitive video networks.26
When evaluating the credibility of Verizon's and AT&T's assertions, it is important to
remember that the LFAs and other local government units desire robust video competition
between telephone companies and traditional cable operators and have every incentive to award
cable franchises rapidly. It is only through effective wireline competition that the price of cable
service will significantly decrease27 and the quality of service will increase. Moreover, local
23 Id. at 45 and 33-42
24 Id. at 45 (citing Peter Grant,AT&T Readies Serving Uniting Internet and TV,WALL STREET
JOURNAL, June 19, 2006 at B 1).
25 Id. at 36 (citing Seeking Alpha Transcript, Verizon Communications, Inc. Q4 2005 Earnings
Conference Call Transcript, January 26, 2006), available at www.seekingalpha.com.
26 The elimination of local franchising in Texas,for example, has not appreciably increased
video competition. According to ICMA,Verizon and AT&T "will provide video competition in
portions of just 42 of Texas' 1,210 incorporated communities by the end of 2006—fewer than 4
percent of all cities in Texas." See the ICMA Position Paper at 48-50 (citing Texas Almanac,
2006-2007 ed., available at www.texasalmanac.com/facts.).
27 In this regard, the United States Government Accounting Office has observed that:
[t]oday, wire-based competition—that is, competition from a
provider using a wire technology, such as a local telephone
company or an electric utility—is limited to very few markets,
with cable subscribers in about 2 percent of markets having the
opportunity to choose between two or more wire-based video
operators. However, in those markets where this competition is
present, cable rates are significantly lower—by about 15 percent
—than cable rates in similar markets without wire-based
competition, according to our analysis of rates in 2001 . . .
9
governments recognize that the widespread deployment of broadband networks will encourage
economic development. For instance:
• The City of Eagan, Minnesota"will continue to work with public utilities to facilitate
appropriate support for communications technology infrastructure" and "ensure that all
businesses have access to the appropriate physical infrastructure to meet their business
needs";28
• Burnsville,Minnesota has "adopted an ordinance to facilitate the development of fiber
optics technology within the City's rights-of-way, while maintaining the integrity of
existing utilities";29
• Renton, Washington has a stated objective of promoting "the timely and orderly
expansion of all forms of telecommunications services within the City and the remainder
of its Planning Area";30 and
• The City of Woodbury, Minnesota wishes to "[e]ncourage and promote the development
of advanced, state of the art telecommunication technology to and within" the City.31
It is therefore in the interest of the LFAs other local government units to act expeditiously on
cable franchise applications and to negotiate franchise agreements as quickly as possible. In this
regard, Verizon itself has commented that "[c]ities [are] eager to bring competition to [their]
market[s]."32 Because it is in their own self-interest to do so, local franchising authorities have
"generally responded promptly" to franchise requests.33 In Minnesota,for example, most
Competition from DBS operators has induced cable operators to
lower cable rates slightly . . .
United States Government Accounting Office, Issues Related to Competition and
Subscriber Rates in the Cable Television Industry 9 (October 2003).
28 City of Eagan, Minnesota, Comprehensive Guide Plan 2000, § 10 Economic Development, at
4-5 (Feb. 20, 2001), available at http://www.ci.eagan.mn.us/live/page.asp?menu=2085.
29 City of Burnsville,Minnesota, Comprehensive Plan 2000 Update, at 7-21 (2000), available at
h ttp://w ww.ci.burns ville.mn.us/government/Departments/pl anningmain.htm.
30 City of Renton,Washington, Comprehensive Plan, at II-39 (December 12, 2005), available at
http://209.196.175.64/ednsp/compplan.htm.
31 City of Woodbury,Minnesota, Comprehensive Plan, at 7-4 (May 10, 2000), available at
http://www.ci.woodbury.mn.us/planning/cpbychapter.html.
32 ICMA Position Paper at 8 (citing to Verizon Communications Inc. FiOS Briefing Session,
September 27, 2006, at slide 14).
33 Id. at 92.
10
competitive franchises were awarded within four to six months of the receipt of a franchise
application (and in some cases, as quickly as one month).34 However, it is important to
recognize that telephone companies have frequently made unreasonable demands during the
franchising process and have failed to diligently prosecute their franchise applications.35 Thus, it
is frequently franchise applicants-not local franchising authorities—that are responsible for any
delays in the franchising process.
It is also important to recognize that it is not in the public interest to provide telephone
companies with unfettered and completely unsupervised access to public rights-of-way for
purposes of allowing them to upgrade their networks and to provide video services. This is
because the operation and maintenance of video systems raise serious safety concerns. The
importance of preserving local authority to impose public safety requirements on video system
operators and to supervise system construction and maintenance is highlighted by the violent
explosion of a portion of AT&T's network in the Houston, Texas area.36 In light of the risks
posed to the public by advanced networks and their high-voltage equipment, reviewing a
franchise applicant's technical qualifications and construction techniques and including safety
precautions in franchise agreements cannot be considered unreasonable or a delaying tactic on
the part of the LFAs and other local franchising authorities.
34 See Exhibit B of the Comments of the Comments of the League of Minnesota Cities and the
Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators,In the Matter of
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming, Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 06-189 (Nov. 29, 2006).
35 Id. at 92-96.
36 See Phil Harvey &Andrea Quezada,AT&T Investigates DSLAM Explosion,Light Reading
(November 7, 2006), available at www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=109923.
11
III. APPLICABLE LAW PERMITS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO REQUIRE
COMPENSATION FROM CABLE SYSTEM OPERATORS FOR THE USE OF
VALUABLE AND SCARCE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY.
Verizon and AT&T allege that local franchising authorities attempt to include
unreasonable and expensive compensation demands in franchise documents.37 By way of
example, Verizon asserts local franchising authorities should be proscribed from"impos[ing]
expensive demands on new entrants in excess of the,Cable Act's 5% franchise fee cap."38
Verizon also claims that financial and in-kind support for public, educational and governmental
access channels and institutional networks are "demands"which are "unlawful under the Cable
Act"39 and that the "Cable Act denies localities the power to require operators to provide any
PEG support beyond a reasonable amount of channel capacity."40 AT&T similarly claims that
the "record is,replete with patently egregious demands made by franchising authorities as a
condition of entry" such as the provision of fiber optic,links to City facilities and free cable
drops to fire stations and recreation centers.41
Both companies, however, conveniently ignore the fact that the receipt of these types of
compensation for the use of public property is a longstanding principle of law. This settled
principle was recognized and incorporated into the Cable Act, which (among other things)
permits local franchising authorities to establish requirements:
■ "that channel capacity be designated for public, educational, or governmental use, and
channel capacity on institutional networks be designated for educational or governmental
”.42
use . . . ,
■ for cable-related"facilities and equipment";43
37 See, e.g., the Verizon Comments at 10-11 and 13-14 and the AT&T Comments at 9.
38 Verizon Comments at 10.
39 Id. at 13-14.
40 Id.
41 AT&T Comments at 9.
42 47 U.S.C. § 531(a) and (b).
12
■ for a franchise fee up to five (5) percent of a cable operator's gross revenues derived
from the operation of the cable system to provide cable services;44 and
■ for capital support for PEG facilities and equipment over and above the federal 5 percent
franchise fee ceiling.45
Minnesota law also contains valid compensation requirements that are to be included in all
franchises.46 Despite this clear authority to require cable-related facilities and equipment, PEG
channel capacity, franchise fees and financial and in-kind PEG support, the telephone industry
and its supporters continue to claim that such compensation for the use of public rights-of-way is
impermissible.47 These claims must be rejected because they are not supported by federal and
state law. Moreover, to the extent compensation requirements have an anticompetitive effect on
video competition (which the evidence does not show), the FCC does not have the power to craft
an appropriate remedy, because it cannot re-write the provisions of the Cable Act which
authorize the compensation about which the telephone industry and its supporters are
43 47 U.S.C. § 544. The legislative history of the Cable Act explains that this includes
requirements for institutional networks, studios, equipment for public, educational and
government use, two-way networks, and so on. In particular:
Facility and equipment requirements may include requirements
which relate to channel capacity; system configuration and
capacity, including institutional and subscriber networks; headends
and hubs; two-way capability; addressability; trunk and feeder
cable; and any other facility or equipment requirement, which is
related to the establishment and operation of a cable system,
including microwave facilities, antennae, satellite earth stations,
uplinks, studios and production facilities, vans and cameras for
PEG use.
1984 House Report at 68, reprinted in 1984 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4705.
as 47 U.S.C. § 542(a) and (b). For the record, the LFAs do not believe that this provision can be
lawfully interpreted to proscribe the collection of franchise fees on revenues derived from
information and other services offered over a cable system.
45 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 542(a)(4)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 542(g)(2)(C).
46 See, e.g., Minn. Stat. §§ 238.084, subd. 1(z) (a franchise must contain a provision establishing
the minimum number of access channels on the cable system).
47 See, e.g., the Verizon Comments at 13-14.
13
. y
complaining. In other words, the FCC cannot prohibit what Congress has explicitly sanctioned
in the Cable Act.
IV. LEVEL PLAYING FIELD PROVISIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY INHIBIT
COMPETITION OR THE DEPLOYMENT OF ADVANCED BROADBAND
NETWORKS.
AT&T attacks level playing field requirements on the ground that they are
anticompetitive. AT&T, however, provides no compelling evidence that this is truly the case.
The company merely makes unsupported conclusory statements that the "imposition of any . . .
`level playing field' requirements as a condition of entry for competitive video service providers
is anathema to the development of competition. `Level playing field' in this instance is merely
code for entry barriers designed to protect the incumbent market."48
Level playing field requirements, however, are actually designed to promote competition
between video service providers by ensuring that one provider is not able to obtain an unfair
competitive advantage over another by negotiating more favorable market entry terms. Contrary
to what the telephone industry claims, level playing field requirements do not typically require a
competitive provider's franchise terms and conditions to be identical to an incumbent cable
service provider's.49 Rather, level playing field provisions have almost universally been
interpreted to require a competitive cable franchise to be no more favorable or less burdensome,
taken as whole, than the cable franchise granted to the incumbent cable operator.50 Level
playing field requirements have also been construed to require incumbent and competitive cable
48 •
AT&T Comments at 9.
49 See, e.g., Cable TV Fund 14-A, Ltd. V. City of Naperville, 1997 WL 280692 at * 12 (N.D. Ill.
1997), United Cable Television Service Corp. v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Utility Control,
1994 WL 495402 at *5-*6 (Conn. Super. 1994) and Knology, Inc. v. Insight Communications
Co., 2001 WL 1750839 at *2 (W.D. Ky. 2001).
5°Id.
14
franchises merely to be similar.5' Thus, the LFAs and other local franchising authorities have
the flexibility to craft franchise provisions that work for all parties and take into consideration
the marketplace, state requirements, local demographics and topology, population density and
current needs and interests. In some cases, for instance, it may be possible to convert the dollar
value of an incumbent provider's franchise commitments into a per subscriber fee that can be
paid by a competitive cable service provider. This approach would eliminate significant up-front
capital expenditures that could possibly make it difficult for a particular provider to deploy its
cable system. Consequently, it is possible for local franchising authorities to work with a
competitive cable operator to establish social obligations that satisfy the community's needs and
interests and applicable level playing field requirements,while structuring financial and in-kind
compensation and build-out requirements in such a way as to ease market entry. Competitive
providers, however, must be willing to cooperate with local governments and to be creative—in
many cases they are not.52
The Commission should also be aware that courts have previously considered level
playing field requirements and concluded that they are not anti-competitive. For instance, the
City of Naperville court found that:
the [Illinois] Overbuild Act's requirement that additional
franchises be granted on terms no more favorable or less
burdensome than those in the incumbent's franchise area
does not inhibit competition by excluding potential
competitors. Rather, the Overbuild Act is designed to
ensure fair competition, a goal that certainly does not
conflict with the pro-competitive purpose of the Cable
Act.53
51 See, e.g., WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.29 390, 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
52 See, e.g., the ICMA Position Paper at 94 ("68 percent of[surveyed member] communities
currently negotiating the franchise note that the negotiation has been slowed because the
telephone company has been reluctant to modify its standard boiler-plate franchise.").
53 City of Naperville, 1997 WL 280692 at *16.
15
Similarly, the United States District Court in the Knology case determined that"[t]he ordinance
here requires that additional franchises be granted on terms no more favorable of less
burdensome than those in the incumbent's franchise. Such a requirement does not inhibit
competition by excluding potential competitors. Rather, it ensures fair competition."54
Finally, it is important to note that several playing field statutes were in effect at the time
Congress enacted the 1992 amendments to the Cable Act promoting competition.55 Congress
chose not to preempt those statutes. Accordingly, it is appears that Congress did not consider
level playing field requirements to be an insurmountable obstacle to the pro-competitive
objectives of the Cable Act.
V. BUILD-OUT REQUIREMENTS IN FRANCHISES ARE NOT
ANTICOMPETITIVE.
Verizon and AT&T assert that build-out requirements for a franchise area impair
competition by rendering the construction of new cable systems economically impossible.
AT&T, for instance, claims that"[e]conomic analysis fully supports the conclusion that
ubiquitous build out requirements imposed on competitive video service providers are, as a
matter of basic economic theory, manifestly anticompetitive."56 Verizon likewise argues that
build-out requirements have an "entry-deterring effect."57 None of these accusations, however,
is supported or proven by objective, verifiable and irrefutable data. Rather, the industry makes
self-serving, unsubstantiated statements based, in part, on flawed or biased economic theories
54 Knology, Inc., 2001 WL 1750830 at *2. See also Comcast Cablevision of New Haven, Inc., v.
Connecticut Dept. of Public Utility Control, 1996 WL 661805 at *3 (Conn. Super. 1996)
(stating that a state level playing field statute "envisions a level playing field so that an applicant
for a new franchise does not enter the market at a competitive advantage").
ss City of Naperville, 1997 WL 280692 at *16.
56 AT&T Comments at 10.
57 Verizon Comments at 15-16.
16
•
propounded by astroturf organizations. AT&T and Verizon expect the Commission to treat their
statements as facts and to preempt or regulate local franchising based on these "facts." The FCC
should reject such requests, as any rules or preemptive actions predicated on unreliable, flawed
or unsubstantiated data would be arbitrary and capricious.
Contrary to the telephone industry's claims, build-out requirements do not necessarily
prohibit the development of video competition. The fact that there are forty-six competitive
franchises in Minnesota proves this is the case.58 Moreover, it is important to recognize that new
entrants will not always be asked to agree to the "same" system build-out requirements as the
incumbent cable service provider. Indeed, build-out requirements will generally be tailored, on a
case by case basis, to reflect the economic capacity of a franchise applicant, an applicant's
existing facilities and the housing density, demographics and geography of the franchise area. In
Minnesota, there is a level playing field provision pertaining to "area served."59 This provision
does not, however, mandate identical build-out requirements for new entrants and incumbents.GO
. - There is still flexibility in determining how to build out the area to be served. In addition,
federal law specifies that a franchising authority "shall allow the applicant's cable system a
reasonable period of time to become capable of providing cable service to all households in the
franchise area . . ."61 This "reasonable" build-out standard in the Cable Act, coupled with
judicial enforcement, could very well operate to prevent the LFAs and other franchising
58 See Exhibit C of the Comments of the Comments of the League of Minnesota Cities and the
Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators,In the Matter of
Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
Programming,Notice of Inquiry, MB Docket No. 06-189 (Nov. 29, 2006).
59 Minn. Stat. § 238.08, subd. 1(b).
60 See, e.g., WH Link, LLC v. City of Otsego, 664 N.W.2d 390, 396 (Minn. Ct. App. 2003).
61 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(4)(A).
17
authorities from imposing build-out requirements that would destroy the economic viability of a
new cable system.
It is also important to understand that build-out requirements encourage competition by
ensuring that as many consumers as possible have access to multiple providers' networks and
services, regardless of income. The laudable objective of ubiquitous network coverage (taking
into consideration housing densities and other economic factors) certainly advances Congress'
goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to state-of-the-art services62 and that the existing
digital divide is narrowed.63 The need for effective build-out requirements is underscored by the
fact that SBC Communications (now AT&T) will focus its network deployment on "high-value"
customers, while largely ignoring "low-value" customers in its franchise areas. Absent
reasonable build-out requirements, the United States may very well become a nation of
information "haves" and "have nots," which is what the Communications Act of 1934 was, in
part,designed to prevent.64
62 See, e.g., the Telecommunications Act of 1996, § 706, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 118 (1996).
63 In many cases, a local government's interest in ubiquitous network coverage within its
boundaries may be consistent with a competitive video service provider's economic interests and
objectives because universal network availability will provide access to the maximum number of
consumers possible. Such access will likely lead to new revenue streams.
64 See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 151 (purpose of the Communications Act of 1934 is to "make available,
so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of
race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire
and radio communications service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges . . .").
18
•`
•
•
VI. CONCLUSION. •.
For the foregoing reasons, the Commission should refrain from adopting any rules and/or
guidelines preempting, limiting and/or managing local cable system franchising based on the
record in this proceeding.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 47 C.F.R. § 76.6(a)(4)
The-undersigned signatory has read the foregoing'Reply Comments of the
Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission; the North Metro Telecommunications
.Commission; the North Suburban Communications Commission; the-City of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma; the City of Renton, Washington; and the South Washington County
Telecommunications Commission and to the best of my knowledge, infoiluiation and belief
foiiued after reasonable inquiry, they are well grounded in fact and are warranted by existing law
or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law; and are not
interposed for any improper purpose.
Respectfully submitted
•
Steph- . . Gn7.7e'
Michael R. Bradley
BRADLEY&GU77FTTA, LLC
444 Cedar Street
Suite 950
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(651) 379-0900
auzzetta(@bradlevgliz7etta.com
Attorneys for the LFAs
December 28, 2006
19
• J
•
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have caused a copy of the foregoing Reply Comments of
the Burnsville/Eagan Telecommunications Commission, the North Metro
Telecommunications Commission,the North Suburban Communications Commission,
the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma,the City of Renton, Washington and the South
Washington County Telecommunications Commission to be mailed this 28th day of
December, 2006, by Federal Express or first-class mail, postage prepaid,to the following
persons:
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch (via FedFx)
Secretary
Office of the Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
9300 East Hampton Drive
Capitol Heights, Maryland 20743
Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (via U.S. Mail)
Portals II
445 12th Street, S.W.
Room CY-B402
Washington, DC 20554
Ms. Marcia Glaubeunan (via U.S. Mail)
Federal Communications Commission
Media Bureau
445 12th Street, S.W.
Room 2-C264
Washington, DC 20554
Ms. Anne Levine (via U.S. Mail)
Federal Comma nications Commission
Media Bureau
445 12th Street, S.W.
Room 2-A864
Washington, DC 20554
Bnan F. LaulV
St. Paul, Minnesota
December 28, 2006
1111111111MII viimismff WIl==.11My
•<>„Q. 4>
_.
.W11'11.11111'1 Ili-H.111r I'YIP dill ili 1 1 IIIIIIII , . . ,-,- _
! =_'-_- .- MAILED FROM Z1P CODE 3
,L.
co
<2- .
<<'
S
S'
.6.
U
F-.
CO
(z. First Class Mail
<<,
> -4
4 0
,z-
Bradley& <
<4` Guzzetta,nc
-,4
,$) Ms. Bonnie Walton a *4.
Co 1>
U City Clerk ---1 ,
0 1 P, Renton City Hall-7th Floor cd,
co
<Z.
«` 1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
,s, I,s, a 4 Co
is Cr)
CO 444 Cedar Street,Suite 950,Saint Paul,MN 55101
e
4. co
•-i
U
47- 7
el'
,i.\D •J.at, _,,A10•J.S'i, ,410•-LSI, .<09•4.8'6, .410•J.S& A O'N •.1.94,,,y Al9•196, „110•1 ,,
cP
T.C� ' RST.c0' RST.CLP Aid)
.cv. RST.0-1"' %-r.0.p ''sr.0.P
y
<9
SS
--1
o
First Class Mail
1
..,t r
_,
. ;
<- 4
sS
/ ,
co
-1
n
<
"7S
S
Il !BIAI ssBl3 191111d
c�'410
•lSIY/a ��'�'0•lSb�y c��'�1 •lsb/ c�5d1C•lsb�r �r'd10•ls7<Y
- ,,;,.,.
„ .:,. .
.., l�
1 City of Seattle
Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor
Department of Information Technology
Bill Schrier, Director and Chief Technology Officer
TO: Judith Pippin,City Clerk
FROM: Tony Perez,Director of Office of Cable Communications
DATE: August 1,2007
SUBJECT: Emergency Rule re Competitive Cable Franchise Applications
The attached rule,entitled"Competitive Franchise Application Rule"("Competitive Franchise Rule")will be
adopted by the Office of Cable Communications("Cable Office")pursuant to the Administrative Code emergency
action procedures,SMC 3.02.050,and the Cable Office's rulemaking authority under SMC 21.60.650. The
Competitive Franchise Rule applies to any cable franchise application submitted by a potential cable service
provider pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.41.
This rule is being adopted to address new procedural requirements for competitive franchise applicants set forth in
the recent FCC Order' ("FCC Order)which adds a new section to Part 76 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations,47 C.F.R. §76.41. The Competitive Franchise Rule will become temporarily effective on the
effective date of the FCC Order,which is expected to be August 1,2007,for a period of sixty(60)days. The
Competitive Franchise Rule will become permanent within the sixty(60)day time period upon completion of the
requirements set forth in SMC 3.02.030.
Statement of Facts in Support of Emergency Action under SMC 3.02.050
The Cable Communications Ordinance,SMC Chapter 21.60,provides regulations pertaining to the operation of
cable communications systems and their use of public streets through,for example,procedures for granting,
transferring,and terminating cable franchises,established customer service standards and related penalties,and
creation of the Citizen's Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board(CTTAB). The Cable Office
administers and enforces the Cable Communications Ordinance.
The FCC Order expressly preempts any regulations set forth in the City's Cable Communications Ordinance that
are inconsistent with the FCC Order,including the City's procedures for granting a cable franchise.2 The FCC
Order mandates a ninety(90)day deadline for the City to grant or deny a cable franchise application for any
applicant with existing authority to access the public right-of-way("ROW")and a one hundred eighty(180)day
deadline for applicants with no existing ROW authority,unless an extension is agreed upon.3 If the City does not
grant or deny the application within the applicable time period,the City is deemed to have granted an interim
franchise based on the terms proposed in the application.4
An emergency action is needed due to the following reasons:
1 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 621(a)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as
amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,FCC Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking;MB Docket No. 05-311,released March 5,2007,pp.56-63.
2Id. atpp.56-63.
3 Id. at pp.34-37.
4 Id. at p.39.
Department of Information Technology
Seattle Municipal Tower,,700 Fifth Avenue,Suite 2700 PO Box 94709 Seattle,WA 98124-4709
Tel(206)684-0600,TDD:(206)233-7810,Fax:(206)684-0911,http//www.seattle.gov
An equal employment opportunity,affirmative action employer. Accommodations for people with disabilities provided upon request.
1. The Cable Communications Ordinance and associated administrative rules do not currently provide
procedures that would comply with timelines for granting a competitive franchise under the FCC Order
which could have the following adverse results:
a. An automatic grant of an interim franchise without City Counsel consent and without adequate
analysis regarding the potential affect on the public ROW,public safety,and other areas related
to consumer protection and public interests;or
b. Premature denial of competitive franchise applications.
2. Clarification is needed so that competitive franchise applicants are aware of the City's requirements for
processing a timely application,the City's expectations pertaining to the operation of cable
communications systems in the City,and procedures the City will follow upon the receipt and review of a
competitive franchise application.
The Cable Communications Ordinance will be amended as a more permanent solution once all legal challenges to
the FCC Order currently in progress have been resolved.
Dated this 1st day of August,2007.
Tony Perez,Director of the Office of Cable Communications
206-386-0070
2
•
From: "Jill Novik"<Jill.Novik@Seattle.Gov>
To: "dwanna richards"<drichards@auburnwa.gov>, "jeremy chevalier"
<jchevalier@auburnwa.gov>, "lorrie rempher"<Irempher@auburnwa.gov>, "victoria lincoln"
<victorial@awcnet.org>, "david kerr"<dkerr@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "laura blechen"
<Iblechen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "cecelia duncan"<cecelia.duncan@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "michael weight"
<michael.weight@ci.bothell.wa.us>, "Jan roegner"<janr@ci.burien.wa.us>, "stephen clifton"
<clifton@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "cinci cruz"<cruz@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "mauri moore"
<spellman@ci.edmonds.wa.us>, "Jon funfar"<jonfunfar@ci.enumclaw.wa.us>, "kate reardon"
<kreardon@ci.everett.wa.us>, "mark somers"<msomers@ci.everett.wa.us>, "chris givens"
<chrisg@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "Joseph meneghini"<joem@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "timothy smith"
<tims@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "marie mosley"<marie.mosley@ci.kennewick.wa.us>, "dea drake"
<ddrake@ci.kent.wa.us>, "mike carrington"<mcarrington@ci.kent.wa.us>, "tim clark"
<tclark@ci.kent.wa.us>, "brenda cooper"<bcooper@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "Janice perry"
<jperry@ci.kirkland.wa.us>, "judy Jones"<judy.jones@ci.longview.wa.us>, "James southworth"
<jims@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "nancy abell"<nabell@ci.monroe.wa.us>, "Jeff johnson"
<jeffj@ci.newcastle.wa.us>, "don kelly"<dkelly@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "shown ward"
<sward@ci.olympia.wa.us>, "bonnie walton"<bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "david tibbot"
<dtibbot@ci.renton.wa.us>, "ronald hansen"<rhansen@ci.renton.wa.us>, "mike charboneau"
<mcharboneau@ci.richland.wa.us>, "wayne collop"<wcollop@ci.richland.wa.us>, "matthew micona"
<mmicona@ci.sammamish.wa.us>, "SorToya Lowry"<slowry@ci.seatac.wa.us>, "tina rogers"
<trogers@ci.seatac.wa.us>, "sam belcher"<belcher@ci.snohomish.wa.us>, "ron lucas"
<ron.lucas@ci.steilacoom.wa.us>, "eric trimble"<etrimble@ci.tumwater.wa.us>, "donna mason"
<donna.mason@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "Jim demmon"<jim.demmon@ci.vancouver.wa.us>, "mehrabian
sam"<samm@ci.woodinville.wa.us>, "randy beehler"<rbeehler@ci.yakima.wa.us>, "shannon murphy"
<smurphy@cityofcentralia.com>, "brian pearson"<brian.pearson@cityoffederalway.com>, "iwen Wang"
<iwen.wang@cityoffederalway.com>, "mehdi sadri"<mehdi.sadri@cityoffederalway.com>, "pam kolacy"
<pkolacy@cityofpt.us>, "carol mathewson"<carol.mathewson@cityoftacoma.org>, "cheryl carison"
<ccarlson@cityoftacoma.org>, "chas hilton"<chilton@cityoftacoma.org>, "John miller"
<Jmiller2@cityoftacoma.org>, "randall lewis"<rlewis@cityoftacoma.org>, "linda seesz"
<LSeesz@cityofup.com>, "sandy garrett"<sgarrett@cityofup.com>, "mitch wasserman"
<mitch@clydehill.org>, "george geyer"<gfgeyer@co.kitsap.wa.us>, "bill oltman"
<boltman@co.pierce.wa.us>, "mark pease" <mpease@co.pierce.wa.us>, "dal neitzel"
<dneitzel@cob.org>, "marty mulholland"<mmulholland@cob.org>, "ann suter"<asuter@comcast.net>,
"corbitt loch"<cloch@desmoines.wa.us>, "daniel dootson"<ddootson@edcc.edu>, "susan kruller"
<sgkruller@gmail.com>, "chris bacha"<CHRIS@kenyondisend.com>, "david Jones"<djones@kpud.org>,
"chuck lare"<chuck@lareassoc.com>, "bruce crest"<bcrest@maccor.org>, "fred christ"
<fchrist@maccor.org>, "craig fischer"<cfischer@medina-wa.gov>, "chris jaramillo"
<chris.jaramillo@metrokc.gov>, "frank abe"<frank.abe@metrokc.gov>, "james burns"
<james.burns@metrokc.gov>, "marcine anderson"<marcine.anderson@metrokc.gov>, "walt yeager"
<walt.yeager@metrokc.gov>, "judy devall"<jd@midvalleyTV.com>, "calvin schimpf'
<fibernetinc@msn.com>, "dave spencer"<dspencer@noanet.net>, "keri stokstad"
<keri@pugetsoundaccess.org>, "kim van ektrom"<kvanekstrom@redmond.gov>, "patrick hirsch"
<phirsch@redmond.gov>, "donn hedden"<donnh@scantv.org>, "elise child"<elisec@scantv.org>, "John
marshal) parker"<marshallp@scantv.org>, "Brenda Tate"<Brenda.Tate@Seattle.Gov>, "Janet Jensen"
<Janet.Jensen@Seattle.Gov>, "Jill Novik"<Jill.Novik@Seattle.Gov>, "Tony Perez"
<Tony.Perez@Seattle.Gov>, "marlene feist"<mfeist@spokanecity.org>, "robert beaumier"
<rbeaumier@spokanecity.org>, "chris latham"<lathamc@u.washington.edu>
Date: 8/7/2007 11:02:52 AM
Subject: July(yes)WATOA newsletter
Late breaking news:
FCC Order
Please note that the FCC Order was published yesterday in the Federal
Register, so we can consider it in effect. See attached newsletter for
more information.
Effective Competition
We understand that Comcast is filing in man places for effective
competition. The main impact--and it is a big one--is that you
could lose your ability to regulate rates. Please see the article below
for more information.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_pu bl is/attach match/DOC-275763A1.doc
from: MultiChannel News (
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6466013.htmI )
Comcast Seeks Rate Relief in 150 Communities
Cable Operator Says It Faces Effective Competition
By Ted Hearn -- Multichannel News, 8/6/2007 7:39:00 PM
Comcast, in a large request, asked the Federal Communications
Commission to remove the last vestiges of rate regulation in nearly 150
communities across the country, the agency said Monday in a public
notice that lacked key details.
Comcast sought deregulation in nearly 50 petitions for effective
competition, including such places as Salt Lake City, the Chicago suburb
of Du Page County and Tuscaloosa, Ala. The request appeared to be one of
the largest the FCC has received from a single cable company since the
onset of rate regulation under the 1992 Cable Act.
In March 1999, the FCC lost authority to regulate the price of expanded
basic. Basic cable rates were still subject to price controls, however,
until the cable operator could demonstrate that pay TV competitors were
serving 15% of the households in the relevant franchise area. When the
pay TV competitor is landline service affiliated with a phone company,
no penetration test applies.
In the public notice, the FCC didn't indicate the legal basis for
Comcast's request for deregulation.
The vast majority of petitions granted by the FCC over the years were
based on the joint subscriber penetration of DirecTV and EchoStar
Communications. Increasing, the so-called phone-company test, created by
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, has come into use with the pay TV
entry of AT&T and Verizon Communications.
When the FCC grants a petition for effective competition, the local
government loses authority to cap the price of the basic tier,which all
cable subscribers must buy.According to the FCC's most recent cable
price survey, the national average price for basic cable is about$14
per month.
In addition, the cable operator is not required to offer a uniform rate
structure, and it may require subscribers to purchase any number of
programming tiers before they may access premium and pay-per-view
offerings.
The FCC doesn't face a formal statutory deadline to act on Comcast's
filings.
Jill Novik
2007 WATOA President
SEATTLE OFFICE OF CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
NOTICE OF RULE ADOPTION
The Office of Cable Communications ("Cable Office")is proposing to adopt a new rule entitled
"Competitive Franchise Application Rule" ("Competitive Rule") which details the process for
applying for a new competitive franchise in the city of Seattle. This rule is being adopted to
address the procedural requirements for competitive franchise applicants set forth in the recent
FCC Order(MB Docket No. 05-311) and is applicable to any cable franchise application
submitted pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 76.41. The Competitive Franchise Application Rule will
become effective upon the effective date of the FCC Order under the emergency action
procedures of the Seattle Administrative Code (SMC 3.02.050) for sixty(60) days. The rule will
become permanent once the City's rulemaking notice requirements under SMC 3.02.030 have
been satisfied within the 60 day time period.
Substance of Rule
The Competitive Franchise Rule contains the following information: application of rule;
definitions; instructions for completing a competitive franchise application; requisite application
information; request for affidavit from applicant; application fee; and the City's review process.
Authority to Impose Rules
SMC 21.60.650 authorizes the Office of Cable Communications to adopt rules, regulations and
standards governing the operation of cable communications in the City, provided that the
adopted rules are consistent with SMC Chapter 21.60 and other applicable City ordinances and
do not materially alter the contents of any franchise. Rules shall be adopted in accordance with
the Seattle Administrative Code(SMC Chapter 3.02).
How to Submit Comments
Any comments regarding this emergency rule may be mailed to Tony Perez, Director of the
Office of Cable Communications, or Janet Jensen at the following address:
City of Seattle
Department of Information Technology
700 5th Avenue, 27th floor
PO Box 94709
Seattle,WA 98124-4709
or comments maybe sent by email at tony.perez@seattle.gov or ianet.iensen@seattle.gov. No
public hearing will be held on this matter. Comments will be accepted through August 20, 2007.
Sat., Aug. 11, 2007
CHAMBERS AUDIO
Michele Mei and Rita:
I was able to re-create the Chambers noise today finally. I had turned on the sound system
and then a I checked on Chambers a few hours later, fuming that I couldn't re-create the
noise, when all of a sudden it started up. I was excited to hear the ugly sound actually and
began trying various things to figure out its source.
I also called the London Controls after-hours number(written on the back of the business card
on my desk). I talked to the technician, Zach, (Nick was not available) and I described what
happened, what we'd done before,what I had tried today, etc. etc.
To make a long story short, this is what I need you to do this Monday night:
1) Prior to the meeting, when turning on the sound system(the black audio wall rack in the
corner of the booth), turn the master power switch on first and off last. This is the
switch by the red Master Power label---at lower left on the rack as you are looking at it.
Be sure to sequence it this way.
Then secondly, turn on the amplifier switch, which is the other switch on the right side,
which is marked"Turn Off First." This amplifier switch should be turned on last and off
first.
2) The room needs to be kept cool. If it seems warm, then set the oscillating fan so that it is
closer to the sound box and is circulating air onto the equipment.
(Because the booth was so warm today, I turned the thermostat down to the lowest degree
possible. The booth needs to stay a sweater-necessary temperature if possible.)
3) If I am right, doing items one and two above should prevent the noise problem we've had.
If unfortunately the noise starts up again during the meeting, then Michele, there is one
more thing that can & should be done right away, sitting right at your regular station at
our staff table: Turn on the wireless microphone and lay it on the little countertop,
right in front of your regular station,near the digital clock. The nasty noise should
then stop or be much quieter at least. If the noise doesn't stop right away with the mic on,
then reposition it until the noise does stop. If repositioning still doesn't stop it,make sure
the battery is still good, &try laying the wireless mic(still in its"on"mode), on the
presenter table,between the Elmo & computer, to see if that does it. Hopefully step 3
won't be necessary at all and for sure you won't have to take it this far.
Think positive, all.
Bonnie
COMPETITIVE FRANCHISE APPLICATION RULE ("CFAR")
Application Form, Instructions and Application Review Process
For Competitive Cable Franchise Applications
Submitted by the Office of Cable Communications
Pursuant o SMC 21.60.650 and 47 CFR. §76.41
A. Application of Rule
Any application for a cable franchise agreement submitted pursuant to 47 CFR. §76.41to the Seattle Office of
Cable Communications ("OCC"), or any future office or department assigned duties relating to the regulation of
cable services, shall contain the requisite information set forth herein. The OCC shall evaluate the application
and make recommendations to the Seattle City Council based on the criteria set forth herein.
B. Defmitions
As used in this local rule, definitions shall be as follows:
1. "Affiliated Entity" or"Affiliate"means any entity having ownership or control in common with
the Grantee, in whole or in part, including, without limitation, Grantee's Parent Corporations and
any subsidiaries or affiliates of such Parent Corporations.
2. "CFAR Franchise Applicant" or"Applicant"means an applicant for a cable franchise pursuant
to the provisions of the Competitive Franchise Application Rule ("CFAR") set forth in Part 76 of
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, §76.41, and includes the Parent Corporation, its
subsidiaries and Principals.
3. "City"means the City of Seattle.
4. "Control"is not limited to majority stock ownership,but includes actual working control in
whatever manner exercised.
5. "Interest"includes officers, directors and shareholders owning five percent or more of the CFAR
Franchise Applicant's outstanding stock or any equivalent voting interest of a partnership or joint
venture.
6. "Model Cable Franchise Template"means the City's Preferred Model Cable Franchise
containing standard franchise terms and conditions for cable franchises granted in the City(see
Attachment A).
7. "Office of Cable Communications" or"OCC"means the office authorized by Ordinance 105427,
codified at SMC Chapter 21.60.040-.050, for the administration and enforcement of the Cable
Communications Ordinance(SMC Chapter 21.60) and other City ordinances related to cable
communications in Seattle.
8. "Parent Corporation"includes any entity with ownership or Control of the CFAR Franchise
Applicant.
9. "Principal"includes any person, firm, corporation, partnership,joint venture, affiliates, or other
entity, who or which has Control of or Interest in a CFAR Franchise Applicant.
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 1
Last Revised July 31,2007.
10. "Regulatory Authority"includes any governmental or quasi-governmental organization or entity
with jurisdiction over all or any portion of the CFAR Franchise Applicant or its operations.
C. Competitive Franchise Application Requirements
CFAR APPLICATION
I. INSTRUCTIONS
A CFAR Franchise Applicant shall include in its application detailed written responses to the requisite
information set forth in section II below, in addition to any information required by 47 CFR §76.41 (hereinafter
collectively the"Application"). A CFAR Franchise Applicant shall submit an application fee required under
SMC 21.60.220 as part of its Application to the City. A CFAR Franchise Applicant shall also provide any
additional information requested by the OCC that is relevant to the evaluation of the Application under the
criteria adopted herein and applicable law. Completed Application and the application fee shall be filed with
the Office of Cable Communications at the following address:
Seattle Department of Information Technology
700 5th Avenue, 27th floor
PO Box 94709
Seattle, WA 98124-4709
The OCC shall accept and review only those Applications that include complete responses to every element of
the information required herein. Submission of an Application that does not include the requisite information
set forth in section II below and the application fee shall not commence the time period set forth in 47 C.F.R.
§76.41 for granting or denying an Application. If the OCC requests any additional information from the CFAR
Franchise Applicant, the time period set forth in 47 C.F.R. §76.41 shall be tolled from the date the information
is requested until the date such information is received by the OCC.
The CFAR Franchise Applicant shall immediately submit additional or updated information as necessary to
ensure the requisite information provided is complete and accurate throughout the OCC's review of the
Application.
Upon request, the OCC will promptly provide access to documents or information in its possession or control
that are necessary for the completion of an Application,provided that the CFAR Franchise Applicant does not
otherwise have access to such documents or information and that such documents or information are subject to
disclosure under Washington public records laws.
II. REQUISITE INFORMATION
A. IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
1. IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICANT AND PROPOSED FRANCHISEE
a. State the name, address, telephone number and web site(if applicable) of the Applicant
and the proposed franchisee (if different from Applicant).
b. State the name, address, primary telephone number and primary e-mail address of all
individual(s) authorized to represent the Applicant before the OCC during their
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 2
Last Revised July 31,2007.
•
consideration of the franchise(s)requested, including the Applicant's primary contact and
any additional authorized contacts.
2. BUSINESS STRUCTURE
a. Corporation:
i. If Applicant is a corporation,please list all officers and members of the Board of
Directors, their principal affiliations and their addresses;
ii. Attach a certified copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
corporation_as well as certificates of good standing from the Secretary of State of
the state of incorporation as well as the State of Washington; and
iii. State whether the Applicant is directly or indirectly controlled by another
corporation or legal entity. If so, attach an explanatory statement and respond to
questions 2.a. (i) and(ii) above concerning the controlling corporation.
b. Partnership:
i. If Applicant is a partnership,please describe the structure of the partnership and
the Interests of general and limited partners.
ii. State whether the Applicant is controlled directly or indirectly by any corporation
or other legal entity. If so,respond to 2.a. (i)—(ii) or 2.b. (i) above, as
applicable, concerning the controlling entity.
3. EXPERIENCE
a. Current Franchises
Please list all cable systems operated by the Applicant in the last five(5) years. For each
system include name of system, address, communities served, number of subscribers,
number of homes passed, date of system award, duration(start and end date) of franchise,
status of construction, and percent of penetration of homes passed as of most recently
available date (indicate date). Also include name, title, and telephone number of the
system manager and authorized representative of the franchising authority.
b. Pending Franchises
List communities where the Applicant or any Affiliate currently has a formal or informal
request pending for an initial franchise, the renewal of a franchise, or the approval of a
transfer of ownership. Include name of communities, date of application, date of
expected action, estimated number of homes. Also include complete contact information
of an authorized representative of the franchising authority.
4. MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE
Attach a management/organizational chart, showing the management structure of the Applicant.
Also,provide a similar chart showing the relationship of the Applicant to all general partners,
Parent Corporations, subsidiaries,Affiliates and all other subsidiaries of Parent Corporations,
including a brief description of each entity's relationship to the Applicant.
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 3
Last Revised July 31,2007.
5. MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT
State whether there are any management agreements existing or proposed between the Applicant
and any Parent Corporation or Affiliate related to construction and operation of the Applicant's
planned system in Seattle. If yes, attach a copy of any such agreement.
B. LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS
1. MEDIA CROSS-OWNERSHIP
Section 613 of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §533 (a), and
applicable FCC rules prohibit certain forms of media cross-ownership. Please state whether the
Applicant or an Affiliate directly or indirectly owns, operates, controls or has an Interest in any
of the following, OR whether the Applicant holds or operates any company or business operating
jointly with any of the following:
a. A national broadcast television network(such as ABC, CBS or NBC, etc.).
b. A television broadcast station whose predicted Grade B contour, computed in accordance
with Section 73.684 of the FCC's rules, overlaps in whole or in part in Seattle, or an
application for license to operate such a station.
c. A telecommunications or telephone company whose service area includes any portion of
Seattle.
If the response to any of the above is affirmative, state the name of the-Applicant or Affiliate, the
nature and percentage of ownership or Interest and the company that is owned or in which the
Interest is held.
2. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
Federal Law requires cable system operators to be certified by the Federal Communications
Commission(FCC) as being in compliance with the equal employment opportunity requirements
of§634(e) of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §554(e). The Applicant
shall attach any current FCC certification(s) for its existing cable system holdings, if any, or
indicate its intention to apply for and abide by same. Applicant shall also state its intention to
abide by Seattle laws and regulations related to equal employment opportunity and outreach and
affirmative efforts to use women and minority business enterprises (see Section 18 of the Model
Cable Franchise Template attached hereto as Attachment A).
3. FRANCHISE VIOLATIONS
State whether the Applicant or any Affiliate been found in violation by a Regulatory Authority or
franchising authority of any franchise ordinance or agreement, contract or regulation governing a
cable system. If so, identify the judicial or administrative proceeding, giving the date, name of
tribunal and result or disposition of that proceeding.
4. OTHER VIOLATIONS
State whether the Applicant or any Affiliate has been found in violation of any franchise,
ordinance, agreement, permit, contract or regulation by a Regulatory Authority of any other type
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 4
Last Revised July 31,2007.
(e.g. public utility commission). If so, identify the judicial or administrative proceeding, giving
the date, name of tribunal and result or disposition of that proceeding.
C. FINANCIAL QUALIFICATIONS
1. For Applicants with existing operations: provide audited financial statements, including
statements of income, balance sheets and cash flow statements, together with any notes
necessary to the understanding of the financial statements for the last three fiscal years for the
Applicant and any Parent Corporation. Please provide associated operating statistics including
distribution plant miles, homes passed, number of basic cable service subscribers, number of
subscribers to other tiers or services, including digital services, Internet access services,
telephone services, and number of premium units, for the operations corresponding to the
financial statements.
2. For all Applicants: provide detailed pro forma projections for both Applicant's operations in the
City and any regional or national planned operations of which the City is a part, for the next five
(5) fiscal years from the date of the Application, including balance sheets, income statements,
and statements of cash flows, or, alternatively, at a minimum, detailed projected income and cash
flow statements. Please include associated operating statistic assumptions for these projections
including distribution plant miles, homes passed, number of basic cable service subscribers,
number of subscribers to other tiers or services (e.g., digital service, high speed Internet access
service, telephone service, etc.), and number of premium units. Also, describe any other
assumptions reflected in the projections, including (1) revenue assumptions, such as service
rates, (2) expense assumptions, such as direct costs of service, staffing levels, or anticipated cost
inflation, (3) capital expenditure assumptions, such as miles of plant to be built and costs per
mile of construction or per subscriber, and (4) financing assumptions, such as funds to be
borrowed and from whom, interest rates, and timing of repayment, or equity infusions and
distributions. Please provide these projections in electronic (Excel spreadsheet) form as well as
in printed form.
D. TECHNICAL QUALIFICATIONS, PLANNED SERVICES AND OPERATIONS
1. Describe the Applicant's planned initial and proposed geographic cable service area, including a
map and proposed dates for offering service to each area;
2. If the Applicant has or asserts existing authority to access the public right of way in any of the
initial or proposed service areas listed in D.1. above, state the basis for such authority or asserted
authority and attach the relevant agreements or other documentation of such authority;
3. Describe with particularity the Applicant's planned residential Cable services, including basic
cable services, cable programming service tiers, and any additional pay-per-view, on-demand or
digital services; and the projected rates for each category or tier or service;
4. Describe with particularity the Applicant's planned system technical design, upstream and
downstream capacity and speed, provision for analog or digital services or packages, distribution
of fiber, and planned count of households per residential node;
5. Describe with particularity the Applicant's planned non-residential cable services;
6. Describe the Applicant's planned construction and extension or phase schedule, as applicable,
including system extension plans or policy; describe current status of the Applicant's existing or
proposed arrangements with area utilities, including pole attachments, vault, or conduit sharing
agreements as applicable;
7. Describe the Applicant's plan to ensure that the safety, functioning and appearance of property
and convenience and safety of other persons not be adversely affected by installation or
construction of the Applicant's facilities, and that property owners are justly compensated for
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 5
Last Revised July 31,2007.
any damages caused by the installation, construction, operation or removal of the facilities; also
state the proposed allocation of costs of installation, construction, operation or removal of
facilities between the Applicant and the subscriber;
8. Describe the availability and cost of a device to enable a subscriber to block obscene or indecent
programming; and
9. Describe the Applicant's plan to comply with the subscriber privacy protections set forth in 47
U.S.C. §551 and SMC 21.60.820.
E. MINIMUM FRANCHISE OBLIGATIONS
Please state the Applicant's intention to meet each of the following minimum cable franchise standards:
1. Customer Service Standards. The Applicant shall comply with the City's Cable Customer Bill of
Rights found at SMC 21.60.800-.830.
2. City Contracting Requirements. The Applicant shall comply with all relevant City contracting
requirements related to insurance, indemnification,bonding, equal employment opportunity and
outreach and affirmative efforts to use women and minority business enterprises as set forth in the
Seattle Municipal Code and Attachment A hereto.
3. Right of Way("ROW") Regulations. The Applicant shall stipulate in writing that it will at all times
comply with all applicable and lawful City laws and regulations related to use of the public ROW
within the boundaries of the City.
4. Nondiscrimination. The Applicant shall stipulate that it shall not deny cable service to any group of
potential residential cable subscribers in the cable service area proposed by Applicant based on their
income.
5. Franchise Fees. The Applicant shall pay franchise fees on a monthly basis,unless otherwise agreed
to by the City, at the franchise fee rate established by ordinance for all cable service providers in
Seattle.
F. CITY EXPECTATIONS
The Applicant will provide a detailed proposal as part of its Application regarding each of the below provisions
to enable the City to determine whether the Application meets the cable-related needs and interests of the City.
1. Build-out. The City expects that all residents within a specified cable service area will have access
to Applicant's cable services consistent with all applicable local, state and federal laws and
regulations. The Applicant shall provide a proposal to provide access to cable services to all
residents in Applicant's proposed cable service area within a reasonable time period. Maps of
existing franchise districts are on file with the City Clerk's Office or available by contacting the
OCC at 206-684-8498. The OCC may consider cable service areas proposed by Applicant that
overlap the geographic boundaries of existing Seattle cable franchise districts. Applicant shall
clearly specify all build-out criteria and exceptions.
2. PEG Channel Capacity. The Applicant shall provide the same channel capacity as available under
existing incumbent City cable franchise agreements. Channel capacity is not limited to channels
currently in use but shall include all available channels under existing franchise agreements.
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 6
Last Revised July 31,2007.
G. PROPOSED FRANCHISE TERMS
The City's Model Cable Franchise Template, Attachment A to this rule, reflects terms and conditions required
of other cable operators in Seattle as of the effective date of the CFAR. The Applicant shall list any proposed
amendments to the Model Cable Franchise Template and an explanation as to why the amendment should be
considered by the City. These proposed amendments may either be included in this section of Applicants
CFAR Franchise Application or shown directly on the Model Cable Franchise Template. An electronic copy of
the Model Cable Franchise Template may be obtained by calling the OCC at 206-684-8498 or on the OCC
website at www.seattle.gov/cable./
H. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
1. State whether the Applicant contemplates the provision of any cable services on its system under
an Open Video Systems ("OVS")regulatory regime, within the meaning of Section 653 of the
1934 Communications Act(47 U.S.C. §573).
III. AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICANT
Each Application shall be accompanied by an affidavit substantially in the form set forth below:
This Application of the Applicant is submitted by the undersigned who has been duly authorized to make the
representations within on behalf of the Applicant and certifies the representations are true and correct.
The Applicant recognizes that all representations are binding on it and that material misrepresentations or
omissions, or failure to adhere to any such representation may result in a negative OCC recommendation to the
Seattle City Council, or denial of a CFAR Franchise Application by the Seattle City Council.
Consent is hereby given to the OCC and their representatives to make inquiry into the legal, character,
technical, financial and other qualifications of the Applicant by contacting any persons or organizations named
herein as references, or by any other appropriate means.
The Applicant recognizes that information submitted is open to public inspection and subject to the Washington
Public Records Law. We advise the Applicant to be familiar with the Washington Public Records Act at RCW
42.56. The Applicant should specifically identify any information it considers proprietary. In the event that the
OCC receives a request from another party to disclose any information which the Applicant has deemed
proprietary, the OCC, as appropriate, will tender to the Applicant the defense of any request to compel
disclosure. By submitting information which the Applicant deems proprietary or otherwise exempt from
disclosure, the Applicant agrees to defend and hold harmless the City of Seattle and the OCC from any claim
for disclosure including but not limited to any expenses including out-of-pocket costs and attorneys' fees, as
well as any judgment entered against the City of Seattle or the OCC for the attorney fees of the party requesting
disclosure.
Name of Applicant's Authorized Representative:
Affiant's Signature:
Official Position:
Date:
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 7
Last Revised July 31,2007.
NOTARIZATION
Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , 200_:
Notary Public for Washington:
My Commission expires:
D. Application Fee
The application fee to cover the reasonable cost of processing applications under this Local Rule can be found
at SMC 21.60.220. Upon request of the Applicant, the OCC may reduce or waive the application fee if, in the
OCC's opinion, the situation warrants a reduction or waiver.
E. Review Process
I. Acceptance of Application.
Within 5 business days of receipt of an Application, OCC staff shall review the Application to ensure all
requisite information is included in the Application.
A. If the Application is not complete, OCC staff will notify the Applicant in writing within 5
business days, listing the requisite information that is required to complete the Application and
notifying the Applicant the that time period for granting or denying the Application set forth in
47 C.F.R. § 76.41 will not begin to run until such information is received.
B. If the Application is complete, staff will notify the Applicant in writing within 5 business days
by certified mail that all requisite information has been received.
II. Staff Review.
OCC staff shall review all completed Applications based on the review criteria set forth herein. If, during the
review of an Application, staff requires additional information from the Applicant, staff will promptly request
the information from the Applicant, in writing, along with a notification that the time period for granting or
denying the Application set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 76.41 will be tolled until such information is received by the
OCC. After completing the review, staff shall provide an analysis of the Application and recommendations to
the Seattle City Council Energy&Technology Committee or its successor.
III. Public Notification and Opportunity to Comment.
The Energy&Technology Committee may hold a public hearing to provide the Applicant and residents in the
proposed cable service area prompt notice and an opportunity to comment on any CFAR Franchise Application.
Notice requirements for public hearings on franchise Applications established under SMC Chapter 21.60 shall
serve as a guideline; however, the OCC may shorten or alter these requirements as needed to meet the deadline
for a Council decision set forth in 47 C.F.R. § 76.41, unless the Applicant and the OCC agree to extend the
deadline.
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 8
Last Revised July 31,2007.
. ,
IV. Review Criteria.
The OCC may recommend to the City Council denial of an Application if any of the following exists:
A. The Applicant does not have the financial, technical, or legal qualifications to provide cable
service; or
B. The Applicant will not provide adequate public, educational, and governmental access channel
capacity, facilities, or financial support, as evidenced by the most recent needs ascertainment
conducted by or on behalf of the OCC or other relevant study of community needs; or
C. The Applicant will not meet the City's minimum reasonable build-out requirements; or
D. The Applicant's proposed terms do not comply with applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations including,but not limited to,local customer service standards (Cable Customer Bill
of Rights, SMC 21.60.800-.830), or relevant existing Seattle contractual obligations; or
E. Applicant has made material misrepresentations or omissions, or has failed to adhere to any such
representations.
Competitive Franchise Application Rule 9
Last Revised July 31,2007.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Six-Year Financial Forecast
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
SOURCES&USES OF FUNDS Adopted Adopted Projected Projected Projected Projected
REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES:
BEGINNING FUND BALANCES $3,841,999 $2,906,234 $2,609,105 $2,252,338 $1,992,674 $1,575,823
Total Beginning Fund Balance $3,841,999 $2,906,234 $2,609,105 $2,252,338 $1,992,674 $1,575,823
OPERATING REVENUES
Property Tax r ' ' P 3,008,172 3,068,636 3,130,316 3,193,235 3,257,419 3,322,893
EMS Property Tax 809,562 825,834 842,433 859,366 876,639 894,260
Sales Tax =Az., , :` 1,854,000 1,909,620 1,931,540 1,951,540 1,971,540 1,991,540
Utility Tax-Gas 221,450 228,094 237,217 246,706 256,574 266,837
Utility Tax-Solid Waste -,; , 227,502 234,327 243,700 253,448 263,586 274,130
Utility Tax-Telephone 782,800 806,284 838,535 872,077 906,960 943,238
Utility Tax-Electricity 659,200 678,976 706,135 734,380 763,756 794,306
Cable Franchise&Cable Utility Tax 334,750 344,793 358,584 372,928 387,845 403,358
Utility Tax-City Utilities 610,473 642,584 672,369 706,888 746,582 783,275
Admission Tax 161,600 163,216 164,848 166,497 168,162 169,843
Gambling Tax 1,500,000 1,560,000 1,622,400 1,687,296 1,854,788 2,028,979
Leasehold Excise Tax 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000
Business Licenses 114,400 118,976 123,735 128,684 133,832 139,185
Animal Licenses 12,480 12,979 13,498 14,038 14,600 15,184
Building Permits 249,337 254,323 259,410 264,598 269,890 275,288
Engineering Fees 245,632 250,545 255,556 260,667 265,880 271,198
Plan Check/Zoning Fees 187,244 190,989 194,809 198,705 202,679 206,733
Other Licenses&Permits 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500 4,500
Liquor Excise Tax 87,065 88,806 90,582 92,394 94,242 96,127
Liquor Board Profits 151,701 154,735 157,830 160,986 164,206 167.490
City Assistance/Legistlative Backfill 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
PUD Privilege Tax 77,265 78,038 78,818 79,606 80,402 81,206
Grants 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000
Edmonds School District Officer 31,534 32,165 32,808 33,464 34,134 34,816
Criminal Justice-Special Programs 19,981 19,981 19,981 19,181 19,181 19,181
Sno-Isle&Other Intergovernmental 2,625 2,678 2,732 2,786 2,842 2,899
PWS Reimbursements-Other Gov 48,069 48,853 50,319 51,828 53,383 54,984
Golf Course Lease 87,000 135,000 135,000 158,010 160,000 160,000
Other Property Rents and Leases 29,517 29,517 29,517 29,517 29,517 29,517
Transport Fees 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020 281,541
Off Duty Police Contracted Services 33,000 33,000 33,990 35,010 36,060 37,142
Solid Waste Service Fees 159,842 163,039 167,930 172,968 178,157 183,502
Passport Fees 26,683 24,480 24,480 24,480 27,217 24,970
Other Charges for Service 24,758 25,254 25,759 26,274 26,799 27,335
Fines&Forfeitures 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,302 270,608 276,020
Home Monitoring Program 74,473 75,963 77,482 79,032 80,612 82,224
Interfund Reimbursements* 1,545,572 1,513,967 1,566,956 1,621,799 1,678,562 1,737,312
Investment Interest 235,398 238,124 231,937 218,522 202,566 184,369
Total Operating Revenue 14,232,587 14,583,375 14,961,108 15,367,321 15,869,741 16,375,382
OTHER FINANCING SOURCES
Judgements&Narcotics Seizures 15,300 15,606 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000
Other Financing Sources 15,300 15,606 20,000 20,000 25,000 25,000
TOTAL REV&OTHER SOURCES $18,089,886 $17,505,215 517,590,214 $17,639,660 $17,887,415 $17,976,206
*See Page 12 for Breakdown
3
10
CITY OF RENTON , a. N'r Y i,t /Z•_y .CelA'lf`e
o m ca st A U G 03 2007 ,a M,a`r *�,r �41- a t
C r4f yi
CITY CLERKS OFFICE � ���7///f�%`'`y i g'
July 30, 2007
I gd. ( � D
Toni Nelson ;
Councilmember '.
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98055
t+h •
ry
Dear Councilmember Nelson,
I'm proud to share with you that 86 high school seniors from Washington have
won college scholarships from the Comcast Foundation. Comcast's 2007 Leaders and
Achievers TM grants, worth $1,000 each, are awarded to high school seniors on the basis
of their community service, leadership skills, positive attitude and academic
achievement. High school seniors attending schools in Comcast communities are
nominated for the scholarship program by their school principals.
Each year, Comcast and the Comcast Foundation commit a significant portion of
company resources to motivating young people to achieve their potential, to be involved
in their schools, and to be catalysts for positive change in their communities.
Involvement in the community is a quality valued by the business community that can
increase their self-esteem and help them develop a sense of citizenship to become
stronger leaders.
Please join me in congratulating these students for their academic success and
community involvement. Should you have any questions
Comcast s Manager of PublicLeaders
and Achievers Scholarship Program, please contact
Relations Shauna Causey at 425-398-6093.
Sincerely,
Len Rozek, Senior Vice President, Washington Market
OMC
"��,,;;� aSt.FOUNDATION
Leaders and Achievers Recipients
,:,,jY,�- 'q :+'?f �y6� '' .-` ;ps�',r r*cs:/ur;Tt•-:d"5"
Comcast �"��� ��;`�
x R; 'fir,+ ir�•s,�,,m;Nf, n �. tk "?m3u rA .. #r E;x S'Y:x4s',, .x'e??t�„«,41.
- rh F e
ton : .;,..,::., it►n �. ��'.= ers
s _ r
... .. _ �.x.... ...�,.. .. .�... . ... . ,. �. ...... ,... �2::. - Col
,r:fix• _
„x,, �.Via- .,1.. _ ,:�.^". .�'f:,. ..u..ro., _,..
te,; ..�. �7?''�- Y+�'.S..� ^''`�3".""x-" .4 -�'.1.- - '^lie _., ..
..:,.,:-y};:.. '�.'Srx:. '�" - '%:S' �yy� .v,.£�r"`,e�.d;i'.a' �(, �- h :* art-.: .c.•;,.r •:�Sg • ,..:i.>°. ;f
"a;1' v'�`�","^ vi`,PV'� e`,�`.�':�.ra.:^a '4.S'v:�. e:.t�. '-'r a h:.p'?x..X>-"b �x�va.1"i t .:�:,. �7 A��.n �t�7�.,.......rya^"
"''_", 'sue "�i,' A',�...:�p°r,•r,;;�'lG,r' _; _ 'r r;WsAt ..-yq• ,j:...T-: .�."; lZ,°. •�- a s7^k'•:w e.' .
f:r,'�;. '� ',�:�«._.. s�+�4 � :'��.��, � �,�' ..:��s�,.,1i;��� � ` �G�L. :.��'„`�'..�,�", �S�a#�,,,� I. Colle
�`��=� ���'�� Gra s Harbor •e
, �;. r� , 4. xs A, e:, dreSse': ,,:4,$474,A Y.r,< WA 98520 HarborHi•h
va -e . .
Fri_ 1003E Market Street Aberdeen Western Washington
Cisneros
Prilli
- 98223 Arlin ton Hi•h School Universi
Scott 23405 23rd Dr NE Arlin ton WA Embry-Riddle Aeronautical
18112 Woodbine Dr. Arlin WA 98223 Grace Academ
Universit
INIIIIIIIIIIIMIll Auburn Riverside
rglIllIll _ IIIIIII 1128 57th Place SE Auburn WA 98092 Senior Nish School Gonza•a Universi
Auburn Mountainview Undecided
Linds 11307 Se 313th PI Auburn
WA 98092 Nish School
27930 36th Ave S Auburn WA 98001 Christian Faith School Universi of La Verne
• Pena-Howell Squalicum High Undecided
3501 Chandler WA 98226 School
Georg Parkwa12111111111110151111111111111 302 Briar Road MEMO WA 98225 Sehome High School Undecided
Sumner Senior High Whitworth Colle•e
4907 197th Ave E onne Lake WA 98391 School
IIPIMIMIIII B Bonney Lake High Western Washington
MEM 12619 195th Ave WA 98391 School Universi
Stevenson Court East Bonne Lake SWhite chool
River High
11008 Mundy Loss WA 98321 School
Christina Siewert
Rd. Buckle Burlington-Edison
Hi•h Ska•it Valle Colle•e
Alicia Devoll 1109 Washington Ave Burlington WA 98233W.F.West High
108 Julianne Ln. 1111M WA 98532 School
Washington State Universit
NMHawthorne Coupeville Middle
P.O. Box 1033 Coupeville
WA 98239 And High School Washington State Universi
Rosenkrance
Comcast Leaders and Achievers Recipients
Washington :�;`:- f. .. e/ n Verstty:,.=,..,.�.,, ;;;
;, .::;z .icons U.,.!i._. :,. . , ..
.,_.. �...,, ,, « :.<_r� t,.. .. . a,... .. ,.. _ -,.. .. ..c,z�..,...,_;..,,�.,. r�`�'� - - i;�'F.} _ �,-+'-�-:�'' 6lIQ� r.4� y '�-d�-wa:}'4:,.o-:`s:
{ .s�..'ca._ ...raY -rc-=; i..h'„ ...Y�' ,grt"-. ,�,.f>. �� I `� ',:., •;f_: e.F C �.Y.3,. - ,.�..:,,
`�.u. q, ... Tom'. •. ro:., tw.��..;�•
yyyyy ;z`G ..'.r.$;'. ::��... .�.a.za�b�'.,.. +r^r r';.t,, ,r�',�'«.s. ^�;irv.�� ..a-:..: µ@yam ;uir r,..;,-�.,..
v;usr:, .. y,�...v�i.%rt�+:,. ..:''�e'.h'_.�"a�-'�_'.4 .�';,.i: t•�""•i`M_�^r..,�^N :Y.e�'t; .:"'vi. ��.. Y 'cS'�.f="ire ,h -:s.L,h... „tc ^Sy;'- �•�.F�..,AFd_...
i4� w�. s...?.C,£.:,s�."¢�,_.�Y. �'�'.'^.,.�aY'''�.�.o.�`°',•�'�..';�xh„ter�,� a,";�-,.:�-�:'�`�Y..:z` %�,�..s.>,�,s r .;;,�.,..��,�,,.�. ,,�s�-:r;<s. .� ..^.a.:..�y;,,t3•'�_>y .�;.,5' ;�a+�.ts�"TH"'=,#...,:� �@ ��E�` }s.�.�=+�...b,�,....v'�`:";?nu„
-e F L s `...',,rc�,7 rfx.. ,i.,. :'t . ^r.e:.s','. 'r:' "r:. ..sue t.,s.��;`,.�avvr�.�azL,»K+? 2i Z1 ,::�'.:�3::ter.a.,
:� .z,s .., a.. v +.v ;=r ..` el x .:.,. SR
�l�a►>� -� � n �: ! ces; �,�,� ' s;::ar��:..,r .,� Kent View JR � ..
;;�,,,,,',��� � ��� '� ry.�p - `dd":.�._.s�����:� �...._.,.-� FoxUniversit
WA 98042 Hi•h School
Geor•e ni
P.O. Box7428 Coven•ton Kentwood High
111111111 Irish Washiri•ton State Universit
25406 155th Ave SE Covin•ton WA 98042 School
Wahlber• Washington High
WA 98328 School Central Washington Universit
Bahr 3103 342nd St. E. EatonvilleEatonville High
Logan 36011 West Clear Lake WA 98328 School Undecided
rrmmm
Rose Rd. E Eatonville
Mark WA 98541 Elma Hi•h School Undecided
State College of
MEM 21 Alder Place Enumclaw High
WA 98022 School Colorado
Timoth Hardin 3120 Chlesea Lane
IIIIM12925 14th Ave W Everett WA 98204 Mariner Hi•h School Universit of Washington
Truon• Nooksack Valley High
10191.11.1.
WA 98247 School Whatcom Communit College
Amber Oliver
P.O. Box 666 Everson Western Washington
1314 Central Rd Everson WA 98247 Meridian Hi•h School Universi
Hannah Sturtevant Todd Beamer High
WA 98003 School Undecided
Karlo
Leonor 2027 S 302nd Place Federal WaBellarmine
Preparatory High Boston College
2nd Ave SW Federal Wa WA 98023 School
Lena Park 32328 WA 98023 Decatur Hi•h School Washin•ton State Universit
Stewart 32721 19th PI SW Federal Wa
Amanda WA 98248 Ferndale Hi•h School Stanford Universit
Tro
Carter 6800 Daffodil Terrace FerndaleWestern Washington
IMINIM _ 521 Montere Lane EINE WA 98466 Wilson His School Universit
Tacoma Baptist Lindse Butler 4314 17th Ave Ct NW Pierce College
Gi• Harbor WA 98335 School Adam Bernstein P.O. Box Graham WA 98338 Graham-Ka Universit of Washin•ton
Ho se Hunderfund P.O. Box 734
Ho•uiam WA 98550 Ho•uiam High School Universit of Washin• on
34 Mikaela Bauer 4671-242nd Ave. SE 12917 205th •• WA , 98029 Issa•uah Nish School Washin•ton State Universi
-
Ct SE -• - WA 98027 Libert His h School Undecided
Trevor SmithKentlake Senior High
20025 Se 302nd Ct Kent
WA 98042 School Undecided
Thomas Clarke
Comcast Leaders and hievers Recipients
Washington
Shin on
0. v y1 " _
-
r
vK� F
�
��r � 1 I � ` x OR� ' ' :Y � . _ e9
1 V e s t
Es�:arf; �astiNar tteP��;.�Ad�itea*Aa. F `rT�<Ciffg State 4c41 . k vC0s.O ,
Charles Wright
Undecided
Trenten Nelson-Rivers 4218 South 245th Court Kent
WA 98032 Academ
IENIIIIIIIIEIEIIIIIIIIIII 20155 105th Ave SE Kent WA 98031 Franklin His School Universit of Washin• on
WA 98034 Juanita Hi•h School Gonza•a Universi
Adam 11420 81st Ave NE Kirkland Lake Washington
-'' hSchool Universit of Washington
WA 98033 Hi. Western Washington
n
David Truon• 614 Third Ne St./P.O.
PI Kirkland La Conner High
614 St./P.O. Box WA 98257 School Universit
Chamberlain 1037 La ConnerTimberline High
Leah Linfield Colle•e
D Ian Walker 5565 37th Ave Se IMIIII
WA 98503 School
8820 Newgrove Ave Travis Hills SW Lakewood WA 98498 Lakes High School Undecided
Clover Park High
9308 57th Ave Ct SW Pacific Lutheran Universit
A•t.#H103 Lakewood WA 98499 School
Sctt Thivanka WA 98264 L nden High School Washington State Universi
Scott 8321 Double Ditch Rd L ndenHenry M.Jackson
Steven NM
WA 98037 Hi•h School
Universi of Washin•ton
17122 12th Ave W L nnwood Marysville Pilchuck
EMI 7904 80th Ave NE IIEM WA 98270 Hi•h School
Grand Can on Universit
Couls WA 98354 Fife High School Eastern Washington Universi
Kaitlin Larson
P.O. Box 966 Milton
29010 Cedar Ponds Laura WA g8272 Sultan Hi.h School Cornell Universit
Fox Road Monroe Montesano Junior- South Puget Sound
1125 E. Elma St.. Montesano WA 98563 Senior High
Communit Colle•e
DawnEMI Mount Vernon High
School
Kaede Kawauchi 227 South 28th Street Mount Vernon WA 98274 Mount Vernon
Christian School Undecided
Mountlake Jennifer Minor 13007 Avon Allen Road Mount Vernonee WA 98273 Mountlake Terrace
St. h School Undecided
5616 220th SW Terrace WA 98043 Hig
Christina MontillaOakville Middle-High
EMI 11 Isaacson Rd Oakville WA 98568 School
St.Martin's Colle•e
Severs Tumwater High
WA 98502 School Undecided
Sheila Kredit 1421 Thomas St. NW 01 m•ia
Comcast Leaders and Achievers Recipients
h•
�;s'i. sr-w;e`-', e•.r�v_' ::,: ,€SN.�nv`,•c:;t d�':s".1k..`�Y.[yu'wt.` tir,; N,i _sv�:.,;,,,,,a,_, sw,'_"'1'n" .`'...a` +b.1:.`.'
-
-
i
Washington --� �,._.,:�..,.. ...,- :�,,._._:�. Hive
- - Ilex _U-
<.�, Y`I1
Q
- *".M?'h'a•^.�:c....... sac,;;-.�,..
.-.�,.:.. - .HEM" _ T.r ',y+ - ..�:a�.. '. s c*:... .,-.._7.."iL- -vein •:� 'i��'� �yr':i`-�ti,,� ,.a,,:, .rJTha •sck: ..�2.'
-�� ���-_' `-"�;'; � � ��r�.- ., .�,�->;��,..;_, _�.< .�. as .�= : �' s.il si i A,��`'p.ILR�r'4s.-x. .r'.s. n...
'' + � ,� -° $ � ,�. ::.: r:. .... Thurston
"�" '`� �� '`' NorthHigh
ate: ��--�::�.
Ellen Macomson 6110 88th Ave NEStanford Universi
01 m•ia WA 98516 School
WA 98501 01 mgia High School Undecided
An•ela
Mathis 2841 41stWa SE 01 m•ia California State University:
Hill Drive 01 m•ia WA 98513 Yelm High School Chico
Sarah Neuharth 8212 DawnCovenant High
ri!llMMIIIIII WA 98371 School Azusa Pacific Universit
1702 14th St SW Pu allu• Raymond
Rutherford 1628 Park Ave Ra mond WA 98577 Junior/Senior High Gra s Harbor College
Charles A. Linbergh
MEM10413 Se 188th Ct Renton WA 98055 Hi•h School
Universit ofWashin•ton
Diana Ridgefield High Undecided
Ridgefield WA 98642 School
EMI Bomber P.O. Box 982 Rochester High
P.O. Box 694 Rochester WA 98579 School
Centralia College
NMHolmes Roosevelt High
WA 98117 School
Lauren Bullin•ton 1011 Nw 65th Street Seattle Roosevelt High
98108 School Universit of Washington
Leo Alfred Gabriel 2144 South Pearl Street Seattle WA Evergreen High
10619 16th Ave SW Seattle WA 98146 School
Universit of Washington
Kim-HongMEI Holy Names
3057 43rd Ave W Seattle WA 98199 Academ
Universit of Washington
Norris
Renae Dei•hton 10635 Alta Vista Dr. Sedro-Woolle WA 98284 Sedro-Woolle Hi•h Georae Fox Universit Brig hm Young Universit
Rachel Smith P.O. Box 3354
Silverdale WA 98383 King's School
98296-
Snohomish WA 8086 Monroe Hi•h School Universit of Washington
Jennifer Revak 8021 207th St. SE
Spokane WA 99208 Home School Whitworth College
Shannon Carlon Joel E.Ferris High Montana State University:
7421 East Tower
l Devon 223 School Bozeman
WA 99
Clark Mountain Lane Spokane Saint George's
HelenaUndecided
2411 S. Ct. Spokane WA 99203 School
Halvor HalvorsonNorth Central High
Maren Meisen-Vehrs 2522 W. Rockwell
Spokane
WA 99205 School Undecided
Comcast Leaders and Achievers Recipients
Washington q
<. _ h sit`.
e
ire
Coe >'
�r
9..
'� ." ./ J�:...,iI�%. A%:-4- ••ate`� _
t`ez� �;7'L•div l�`'ni,i": -iN .�k �i+..��,,,a;..u: u��.,yi.
`;>'s�,�"y''.ro .. ,,...=x ,H'' ,�, ,c��:,��.�s'i x,Z, y *.i�'.. «.Y x'�,€yb?;�" i.!i:' X.. „� >,. .
'� ''`+f;s �-'a'-'' :,,t_:.� y �; .' a :z'.'t.. a`9 :,�',t ..�. .,.sx2-K%:' , ...?.:, ^"�,'kY.-•,`%�y',;.n�o-r,...,;..�` :�su. ' r-.2'q Qs��w�`=r:,n_..
i'��^ ;-�^-es';;�r`.'�''?r`�. a�s:. ?�aa��;q:,�:e�:s�-=,�,?�-�� �,.� r;.r� ,-;'� � ...�''� .a.:, :� �i �„.-.�a,����� Ei sn"�" ;itz+a.::ec; y�. ... �., :: :W. ;.:-1 ,:ki '�r:'%�'w-4 .tf.;<;:s*Sy'u'' �, "_eg . -. a G, + x,..k
�.�. ���.. �, �;;� � .� tax.'�_...,. _tP��.���,.::�.�-,��1....� a���v�� ��.,
' �� ' .. �� ;' .„:� � r� .� ;�:�•s7� -_�.,.; C�,"' �._ >�.� _i,xz._�'.��.:.,: Park g
r. <� 4�,FCS1
lar t al 1 " I,_ #t a,.., .:.. 604 No.:K o anberr ...;r. Shadle High
9604 North Loganberry Gonzaga University
Kramer
Ortman Court Spokane WA 99208 School Penn State University Park
1107 E Wabash Spokane
WA 99207 Gonzaga Preparatory Campus
Jennifer Schilling WA 99207 Rogers High School New York University
Alicia Wheeler 1504 East Rowan Avenue SpokaneCentral Valley High
Nicole Celestino 2521 S.Steen Rd. Spokane Valley WA 99016 School
University of Washington
Thomas Knudsen 10402 E 15th Spokane Valley WA 99206 University High Mount Tahoma High Seattle University
WA 98409 School Claremont McKenna College
Tammy Phan 6005 S. Ferdinand St. TacomaCurtis Senior High
Seattle Pacific University
Rodelio Doria 4242 Beckonridge Dr.W. University Place WA 98466 SchooCastle lRock High
Danielle Perkins 104 Little Pinto Ct. Vader
WA 98593 School St. Martin's College
Bryan Strozyk P.O.Box 676 Winlock WA 98596 Winlock High School Centralia College
Woodland High
Casey Ripp 767 Cc St. Woodland WA 98674 School
Washington State University
Rainier Middle/High
Sadie Willis 12348 Zeller Road Yelm
WA 98597 School Undecided
1717 Nw 38th Ave Camas WA 98607 Camas High School LeTourneau University
David Wiens Mountain View High
Clark College
Alley Blom 3902 Se 187th Loop Vancouver WA 98683 School 9
Gonza a University
Erica Taylor 8705 81st St SW Lakewood WA 98498 Life Christian
r
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington,D.C.20554
In the Matter of )
Report to Congressional Committees Pursuant to )
the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act )
REPORT
Adopted: December 28,2000 Released: January 2,2001
By the Commission:
INTRODUCTION
1. This Report is in response to the requirement of Section 2002(c) of the "Rural Local
Broadcast Signal Act" (RLBSA) that the Commission report to the Congress on the extent to which
licenses and other authorizations under that Section 2002(a) of the RLBSA have facilitated the delivery of
local signals to satellite television subscribers in unserved and underserved local television markets! As
described herein, the Commission, in compliance with the RLBSA, has made a major threshold
determination to authorize a new service, the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service
(MVDDS), that will be capable of delivering local broadcast television station signals to satellite television
subscribers, as well as other viewers, in unserved and underserved local television markets? In addition,
the Commission has identified a spectrum band for this service, i.e., 12.2-12.7 GHz, and has determined
that MVDDS can co-exist with the incumbent Broadcast Satellite Services and the newly authorized non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations in that frequency band. The
Commission has also issued further rule making proposals for technical and service rules for MVDDS.
The adoption of final rules is anticipated in 2001, with licensing assignment process to begin shortly
thereafter. This Report also provides information on the provision of local signals by direct-to-home
(DTH) satellite television providers and other multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) and
the technical, economic, and other impediments each type of multichannel video program distributor has
encountered. The Report discusses possible actions that could be taken to promote the provision of local
signals to MVPD subscribers in unserved and underserved markets, but does not make specific
recommendations in this area at this time. In this regard, the Commission believes it would be premature,
prior to licensing and operation of MVDDS facilities, to make such recommendations. The Report
indicates that the Commission will continue to monitor this area and make such recommendations in the
context of its annual reports to Congress on the status of competition in the markets for the delivery of
video programming.
t The Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act was enacted as Title II of the Intellectual Property and Communications
Omnibus Reform Act of 1999. See Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999,Pub.L.
106-113 Stat.1501.
2 See First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.98-206,FCC 00-418,
adopted November 29,2000,at¶18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
BACKGROUND
2. On November 29, 1999, the Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act
of 1999(1999 IPACORA)was enacted.Title I of this legislation,the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement
Act (SHVIA), generally seeks to place satellite carriers on equal footing with local cable operators
concerning the availability of broadcast programming, and thus is intended to give consumers more and
better choices in selecting a Multichannel Video Program Distributor (MVPD). Title II of the 1999
IPACORA legislation contains the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act. Sections 2002(a) and (b) of the
RLBSA require the Commission to make a determination by November 29, 2000, regarding licenses or
other authorizations for facilities that will utilize, for delivering local broadcast television signals to satellite
television subscribers in unserved and underserved local television markets, spectrum otherwise allocated
to commercial use.3 The RLBSA also mandates that the Commission ensure that no facility licensed or
authorized to deliver such local broadcast television signals "causes harmful interference to the primary
users of that spectrum or to public safety spectrum use."4
3. Section 2000(c) of this legislation further requires that, not later than January 1, 2001, the
Commission shall report to the Congress "on the extent to which licenses and other authorizations under
subsection(a)have facilitated the delivery of local signals to satellite television subscribers in unserved and
underserved local television markets.5 This report is to include:
1) an analysis of the extent to which local signals are being provided by DTH satellite television
providers and by other multichannel video program distributors;
2) an enumeration of the technical, economic, and other impediments each type of multichannel
video program distributor has encountered; and
3) recommendations for specific measures to facilitate the provision of local signals to
subscribers in unserved and underserved markets by DTH satellite television providers and by
other distributors of multichannel video programming service.
AUTHORIZATION OF MVDDS
4. The First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (First Report
and Order and Further Notice) in ET Docket No. 98-206 (12 GHz proceeding) that culminated in the
Commission's decision to authorize MVDDS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band was the result of a proceeding
that involved numerous petitions, pleadings, complex technical and sharing issues, and matters requiring
international agreement and coordination. The 12.2-12.7 GHz band that was sought by prospective
MVDDS operators is currently used by incumbent Broadcast Satellite Service operations, e.g., DirecTV
and EchoStar. In addition, this spectrum was also sought for use by a number of parties for non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) Fixed Satellite Service (FSS). Accordingly, the authorization of
MVDDS use of this spectrum needed to consider and accommodate sharing with the existing BSS
operations and potential new NGSO FSS operations.
3 See RLBSA,Section 2002(a).
4Id.,Section 2002(b)(2).
5Id.,Section 2002(c).
2
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
5. In November 1998, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET
Docket No. 98-206 (Notice) proposing to permit NGSO FSS operations in certain segments of the Ku-
band.6 NGSO FSS can provide a variety of new services to the public,including delivery of local television
programming to DTH consumers, as well as providing multi-channel video programming, high-speed
Internet access, plus other types of high-speed data, video and telephony services. In the Notice, the
Commission proposed to allow NGSO FSS operations to use the 10.7-12.7 GHz band for NGSO downlinks
on a co-primary basis and to use the 12.75-13.25 GHz and 13.8-14.5 GHz bands for NGSO uplinks on a
co-primary basis.7 The Commission took this action in response to a Petition for Rule Making filed by
SkyBridge L.L.C. (SkyBridge).8 The proposals advanced in the Notice were also prompted by actions
taken at the 1997 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-97), which modified the International
Telecommunication Union's Radio Regulations (ITU RR) to permit NGSO FSS operations in various
segments of the Ku-band. WRC-97 also outlined provisional criteria for NGSO FSS operations to protect
existing services in these band segments from unacceptable interference. The Notice also asked for
comments on a Petition for Rule Making filed by Northpoint Technology, Ltd. (Northpoint) that proposed
to provide terrestrial retransmission of local television signals and data services on a secondary basis9 to
the incumbent BSS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, which is one of the bands in which the Commission
proposed to authorize NGSO FSS operations.16
6. Subsequently, on Januariy 8, 1999, Northpoint, through its subsidiary Broadwave Albany,
L.L.C.,et al., ("Broadwave USA"),1 filed waiver requests and applications for licenses for terrestrial use
of the 12.2-12.7 GHz band,in response to the Ku Band Cut-Off Notice.12 Northpoint requested waivers
of multiple provisions in Part 101 of our Rules, as well as any other rules necessary to process its
applications, and asserted that its proposed service would be on a secondary,non-interfering basis to DTH
6 Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No.98-206,14 FCC Rcd 1131(1998).
Except for the 12.2-12.7 GHz band,all of the bands proposed for NGSO FSS use were already allocated to the FSS
on a primary or co-primary basis. The Notice proposed a co-primary allocation for NGSO FSS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band.
8 SkyBridge Petition,RM-9147,filed July 3, 1997.
9 A given frequency band may be allocated to one or more terrestrial or space radiocommunication services or the
radio astronomy service on either a primary or secondary basis. "Stations of a secondary service:a)shall not
cause harmful interference to stations of primary services to which frequencies are already assigned or to which
frequencies may be assigned at a later date;b)cannot claim protection from harmful interference from stations of a
primary service to which frequencies are already assigned or may be assigned at a later date;c)can claim
protection,however,from harmful interference from stations of the same or other secondary service(s)to which
frequencies may be assigned at a later date." See International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations,
Edition of 1998,Article S5,Section II--Categories of services and allocations,S5.28 through S5.31.
to Northpoint Petition,RM-9245,filed March 6, 1998.
t 1 Northpoint states that through its subsidiary BroadwaveUSA,Inc.,it has an affiliate relationship with the 68
entities that have applied for licenses to deploy the Northpoint technology nationwide. The applicants refer to
themselves as Broadwave,followed by their city of proposed service(i.e.,Broadwave Albany,L.L.C.). Broadwave
proposed to use the technology developed by Northpoint to enable sharing of this spectrum with existing DBS,
geostationary satellite,and fixed microwave services.
12 Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Broadwave Albany,L.L.C.,et al.
Requests for Waiver of Part 101 Rules,DA 99-494, 14 FCC Rcd 3937(1999)(Northpoint Waiver Request).
3
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
services and on a co-primary basis with any new FSS, such as that proposed by SkyBridge.13 Thus, in
applying for licenses as a non-DTH affiliate,Northpoint shifted its stance from its earlier petition for rule
making and also expanded the scope of the suggested video offerings beyond local service to supplement
DTH.14
7. On April 18, 2000, PDC Broadband Corporation ("Pegasus") filed an application for authority
to provide terrestrial service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band to deliver data transmission, Internet services, and
MVPD services. Pegasus asserts that its application is mutually exclusive with those filed by
Northpoint.15 On August 23, 2000, Satellite Receivers, Ltd. ("SRL") filed an application for authority to
provide terrestrial television broadcast, Internet and data services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band in Illinois,
Indiana,Iowa,Michigan,Minnesota and Wisconsin.
8. In its November 29, 2000, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in ET Docket No. 98-206, the Commission, among other things, stated that it had determined to
authorize a new service, MVDDS, that will be capable of delivering local broadcast television station
signals to satellite television subscribers in unserved and underserved local television markets.16 It noted
that this determination was made after an exhaustive analysis and a time-consuming effort on the
international front to reach a consensus regarding certain critical technical issues. The sharing issues
involved in this proceeding were among the most complex addressed by the Commission. Extensive
analysis on the ability to share and the risk of interference was required to develop sharing rules. This
analysis was essential to meeting the Commission's obligation under SHVIA to avoid interference to
incumbent services. As noted above, several of the key technical issues were only resolved at WRC-
2000, which concluded in June of this year. Following the completion of WRC, the parties to the
proceeding undertook a series of tests, the results of which were not available until this past summer.
Because of the Commission's obligations under SHVIA regarding interference protection, the Commission
wanted to take full advantage of the technical data resulting from these tests. The Commission found that
MVDDS operations will deliver competition to other video distribution and data services and offer
localized service that may not be possible through other services. It also concluded that a new terrestrial
fixed Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service(MVDDS) can operate in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band
on a non-harmful interference basis with incumbent Broadcast Satellite Services (BSS), and on a co-
primary basis with the non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) Fixed Satellite Service (FSS). The
Commission further found that it can define MVDDS technical requirements that would avoid harmful
interference to BSS and establish power flux density (PFD) limits for MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing. It
therefore stated that it will permit MVDDS operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. However, the
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 Id. Northpoint filed a Motion to Dismiss the Pegasus applications on May 23,2000. See In the Matter of PDC
Broadband Corporation Application to Provide Terrestrial Services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band,Motion to Dismiss
(May 23,2000). On August 21,2000,Pegasus Broadband Corporation filed a Petition to Dismiss or Deny against
the Northpoint applications. See In the Matter of Broadwave Albany,L.L.C.,et al.,Application for License to
Provide New Terrestrial Transport Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band,Petition to Dismiss or Deny(Aug.21,2000).
On September 6,2000,Northpoint filed an Opposition to the Pegasus Petition to Dismiss or Deny. See In the
Matter of Broadwave Albany,L.L.C.,et. al.-Applications for Licenses to Provide Terrestrial Services in the 12.2-
12.7 GHz Band,Opposition of Northpoint Technology,Ltd.And BroadwaveUSA to Petition to Dismiss or Deny
(Sept.6,2000).
16 See First Report and Order and Further Notice,at¶18.
4
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
Commission also concluded that it needed further information to establish technical sharing criteria
between MVDDS and BSS and NGSO FSS operations and to develop appropriate MVDDS service,
technical, and assignment rules under Part 101 of the Commission's Rules. These additional rules need to
be completed before actual licensing can begin.
9. The Commission therefore issued further proposals for rules and requested additional
comments concerning these areas in the First Report and Order and Further Notice. Specifically, the
Commission sought comment on:
- Technical sharing criteria between the MVDDS and BSS and NGSO FSS.
- Whether to license MVDDS on the basis of geographic areas and requested comment on the
most appropriate geographic area licensing scheme for this service. In particular, in light of the
similarities between MVDDS services and cable television and other video services, the
Commission sought comment on whether it should authorize MVDDS on the basis of Nielsen's
designated market areas (DMAs), or whether some other geographic area might be a better
choice.
- Whether to license MVDDS on the basis of a single MVDDS operator for the entire 500
megahertz spectrum block per geographic area. Specifically,the Commission sought comment on
whether licensing in this manner would facilitate competition between MVDDS, cable TV, DTH,
and other broadband video and data providers. It also sought comment on other channel plans
such as 250 megahertz spectrum blocks for each licensee.
- The permitted services, eligibility requirements and regulatory status of MVDDS, including
whether licensees should be required to meet must-carry obligations and provide all local TV
channels to every subscriber.
- The disposition of pending 12.2-12.7 GHz applications filed by Broadwave USA,PDC Broadband
Corporation,and Satellite Receivers,Ltd.
- A proposal to use the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the
Commission's rules if the Commission auctions MVDDS licenses.
10. In the First Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission concluded that the
above actions satisfied compliance with the RLBSA. In particular, it stated that it had made a major
threshold determination to authorize a new MVDDS that will be capable of delivering local broadcast
television station signals to satellite television subscribers in unserved and underserved local television
markets. It further stated that it has identified a spectrum band for this service, i.e., 12.2-12.7 GHz, and
also determined that MVDDS can co-exist with the incumbent Broadcast Satellite Services and the newly
authorized non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) operations. Finally, the
Commission stated that with the further rule making proposals, it has set in motion the final regulatory
process for licensing MVDDS.17 The Commission also stated that it believes that proposed service and
assignment rules will promote Congress' mandate "to make a determination regarding licenses or other
authorizations for facilities that will utilize,for delivering local broadcast television station signals to satellite
television subscribers in unserved and underserved local television markets, spectrum otherwise allocated
to commercial use."18 For example, it proposed that DMA markets be used for service areas, which
would facilitate the ability of each terrestrial licensee to provide all local television channels. In contrast, a
17 The recently enacted Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act H.R.4942(Public Law number not available as
of adoption)contains a statutory requirement for further testing of MVDDS sharing issues which could impact
anticipated timing of regulatory actions.
is Section 2002(a)of the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act.
5
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
DTH satellite system with one Continental United States footprint does not have the capacity to retransmit
all of the local channels nationwide. The Commission stated that in finalizing these rules it intends to
facilitate the introduction of service,most notably,the transmission of local broadcast signals into unserved
and underserved markets.
PROVISION OF LOCAL SIGNALS
11. This section provides an analysis of the extent to which local signals are being provided by
DTH satellite television providers and by other multichannel video program distributors.
A. Cable Television Service
12. Out of 100.8 million TV households nationwide, as of June 2000, 97.1 million households
(96.6%) have franchise cable available ("homes passed") and 67.7 million households (67.2%) subscribe
to franchised cable.19 Under the Commission's cable "must carry" rules implementing the provisions for
carriage of local television signals in Sections 614 and 615 of the Communications Act, cable television
systems are required to carry the signals of local commercial and non-commercial broadcast television
stations, and in some cases local low power television stations20 The Act states that systems with more
than 12 usable activated channels must carry local commercial television stations, "up to one-third of the
aggregate number of usable activated channels of such system[s]."21 Beyond this requirement, the
carriage of additional television stations is at the discretion of the cable operator. In addition, cable
systems are obliged to carry local noncommercial educational television stations ("NCE stations")
according to a different formula and based upon a cable system's number of usable activated channels.22
19 See U.S. Television Household Estimates September 1999,DMA Ranking,Nielsen Media Research;10-Year Cable
TV Industry Projections(1999-2010),Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,The Cable TV Financial Databook,August,2000,
at 10.This estimate is based on data from Paul Kagan Associates,Inc. The Warren Report,another source of data
about the cable industry,estimates 91 million homes passed(90.3%).See Advanced Telecommunications in Rural
America,NTIA and RUS(April,2000). Another way of estimating cable availability is to consider the percentage
based on the total number of U.S.households,both with or without television sets,or based upon the total number
of housing units,including both occupied and unoccupied units. Using these bases the estimate ranges as low as
81%cable availability.Id.at n.62.
20 See 47 U.S.C.§§534 and 535.
2147 U.S.C. §534(b)(1)(B);47 C.F.R.§76.56(b)(2). A cable operator of a cable system with 12 or fewer usable
activated channels shall carry the signals of at least three local commercial television stations,except that if such a
system has 300 or fewer subscribers,it shall not be subject to any requirements under this section so long as such
system does not delete from carriage by that system any signal of a broadcast television station. 47 U.S.C.
§534(b)(1)(A);47 C.F.R.§76.56(b)(1).
22 Noncommercial television stations are considered qualified,and may request carriage if they:(1)are licensed to a
community within fifty miles of the principal headend of the cable system;or(2)place a Grade B contour over the
cable operator's principal headend. Cable systems with:(1) 12 or fewer usable activated channels are required to
carry the signal of one qualified local noncommercial educational station;(2) 13-36 usable activated channels are
required to carry no more than three qualified local noncommercial educational stations;and(3)more than 36
usable activated channels shall carry at least three qualified local noncommercial educational stations. See 47
U.S.C.§535(b)and(e);47 C.F.R.§76.56(a).
6
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
Low power television stations may request carriage if they meet six statutory criteria.23 Section 325 of the
Act 24 generally prohibits cable operators and other multichannel video programming distributors from
retransmitting the signal of a commercial television station unless the station whose signal is being
transmitted consents or chooses mandatory carriage.25 Every three years, commercial television stations
must elect to either grant retransmission consent or pursue their mandatory carriage rights 26 The effect of
these statutory provisions and the Commission's implementing rules is that all local broadcast signals are
carried on cable systems almost everywhere.
13. In a development related to the growth of direct broadcast satellite (DBS) service
(discussed below), several very small and rural cable systems have used a variety of schemes to add
digital channels, expand their program offerings, and take preemptive action against aggressive DBS
marketing without costly expenditures such as headend upgrades.27 These actions range from abandoning
their cable plant and becoming authorized DBS dealers to forming partnerships whereby cable subscribers
receive both cable service and satellite service from DBS overlay vendors such as HITS and WSNet 28
B. DTH Satellite Service: DBS and C-Band
14. There are currently approximately 13 million DBS satellite service subscribers and this
figure is growing by about 8,000 subscribers a day. 29 In addition, there are1.4 million C-Band direct-to-
home BSS Home Satellite Dish (HSD) subscribers. Direct-To-Home (DTH), which includes both DBS
and C-Band HSD service, penetration varies nationwide by state from a low of less than 6 percent to a
high of almost 40 percent,and the trend is toward growth in all geographic areas.30 Forty-four states now
have DTH penetration of more than 10 percent, as compared to the 40 states reported in 1999; 24 states
have more than 20 percent penetration, compared to 10 states in 1999; and three,mostly rural, states have
more than 30 percent DTH penetration. For example,DirecTV's subscribers are distributed evenly across
the continental United States with approximately 50 percent residing in urban counties and 50 percent
living in smaller,rural counties.
15. The Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act amended the Communications Act and
Copyright Act to permit satellite carriers to provide the signals of local broadcast stations to subscribers
residing in the broadcaster's market.31 Commencing on January 1, 2002, satellite carriers that provide
23See 47 U.S.C.§534(h)(2);47 C.F.R.§76.55(d).
2447 U.S.C.§325(b)(1).
2547 U.S.C.§§325(b)(1)(A),(B).
2647 U.S.C.§325(b)(3)(B).
27 Ouray Cablevision in rural Colorado ceased cable service and provided each of its 1,000 customers satellite
service through EchoStar. See John Higgins,Switching to Satellite TV,Broadcasting&Cable,July 17,2000,at 26.
28 See Linda Moss,Eking Out a Living,Multichannel News,August 7,2000,at 54.
29 See SkyReport.com at http:l/www.skvreport.com!dth us.htm.;SBCA Comments in CS Docket No.00-132 at 8,
Table 3.
30 DTH subscribership in Hawaii is approximately one percent. DBS service to Hawaii did not begin until April of
2000 when EchoStar introduced a 44-channel service offering to the islands.
31 Title I of the IPACORA,Pub.Law 106-113,113 Stat. 1501,1501A-526 to 1501A-545(Nov.29,1999).
7
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
local-into-local retransmission of broadcast stations pursuant to the statutory copyright license32 must
"carry upon request the signals of all television broadcast stations within that local market . . ."33 Pursuant
to the SHVIA, the Commission issued rules implementing this carriage requirement on November 29,
1999. Under the SHVIA, a television station, in a market with local-into-local service, must request
carriage. The Commission's rules governing DBS mandatory carriage requires that for the first election
cycle, commercial television stations must request carriage by July 1, 2001, for carriage to commence on
January 1, 2002. For all cycles thereafter, commercial television stations must request carriage by
October 1st of the year preceding the new election cycle. Noncommercial educational television stations
must request carriage on the same dates as commercial television stations. The SHVIA requires that the
Nielsen Research Company's Designated Market Areas be used as the "local" market for purposes of
satellite local-into-local service.34 The Commission's new rules provide that Nielsen's 1999-2000
publications determine market areas at the commencement of the first election cycle, and that satellite
carriers may use future Nielsen publications to add counties to markets where it provides local-into-local
service.
16. As identified in the Commission's Report and Order in the DBS must carry proceeding,
DirecTV and/or EchoStar are currently providing local signals to local viewers (local-into-local service)in
a total of 40 Nielsen DMAs,as follows(as of November,2000)35
(DirecTV: 38 markets;Echostar: 34 markets)
Albuquerque-Santa Fe(Echostar only)
Atlanta,GA
Baltimore,MD(DirecTV only)
Birmingham,AL(DirecTV only)
Boston,MA
Charlotte,NC
Chicago,IL
Cincinnati,OH
Cleveland,OH
Dallas/Ft.Worth,TX
Denver, CO
Detroit,MI
Greensboro,NC(DirecTV only)
Greenville-Spartanburg(Echostar only)
Greenville,SC(DirecTV only)
Houston,TX
Indianapolis,IN
Kansas City,MO
Los Angeles, CA
32 See 17 U.S.C.§122(a)(as amended by§1002 of the SHVIA). Section 122 of the Copyright Act is attached as
Appendix I of the Report and Order.
33 47 U.S.C.§338(a)(1)(as amended by§1008 of the SHVIA).
34 17 U.S.C.§ 122(j).
35 Implementation of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999: Broadcast Signal Carriage
Issues,Docket No. 00-96(adopted,Nov.29,2000) ,Appendices D and E.
8
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
Memphis,TN(DirecTV only)
Miami/Ft.Lauderdale,FL
Milwaukee,WI(DirecTV only)
Minneapolis/St.Paul,MN
Nashville,TN
New York,NY
Orlando/Daytona,FL
Philadelphia,PA
Phoenix,AZ
Pittsburgh,PA
Portland,OR
Raleigh-Durham,NC
Sacramento/Stockton,CA
St.Louis,MO
Salt Lake City,UT
San Antonio,TX
San Diego, CA
San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose,CA
Seattle/Tacoma,WA
Tampa/St. Petersburg/Sarasota FL
Washington,D.C.
C. Satellite Master Antenna Television(SMATV) Systems
17. Satellite Master Antenna Television (SMATV) systems, also known as private cable
operators (PCOs), are video distribution facilities that use closed transmission paths without using any
public right-of-way.36 SMATV systems receive television signals from over-the-air local broadcast
stations and from satellites and distribute them to households located in one or more adjacent buildings,
primarily serving urban and suburban multiple dwelling units (MDUs).37 Because SMATVs do not use
public rights-of-way, and they fall outside of the Communications Act's definition of a cable system.38
They provide, on average, 50-200 channels and often utilize DBS as well as local over-the-air broadcast
stations. In general, SMATV operators are subject to less regulatory oversight than traditional cable
systems.39 Some SMATV systems use microwave transmissions and wires to serve multiple buildings
36 Telecommunications Act of 1996,sec.301(a)(2),47 U.S.C. §522(7). SMATV systems do not use public rights-of-
way,and thus fall outside of the Communications Act's definition of a cable system.
37 SMATV providers receive and process satellite signals directly at an MDU or other private property with an
on-site headend facility consisting of receivers,processors and modulators,and distribute the programming to
individual units through an internal hard-wire system in the building. Regulatory changes in 1991 made 18 GHz
technology available for the point-to-point delivery of video programming services,allowing operators to free
themselves from large networks of coaxial or fiber optic cable and amplifiers. Operators using this technology are
known as enhanced SMATV operators,and because of efficiency savings,they are more competitive with cable
operators than standard SMATV operators. 1997 Report,13 FCC Rcd at 1085¶82-83;1998 Report, 13 FCC Rcd at
24339-40,at¶88.
38 See Telecommunications Act of 1996 Act,Sec.301(a)(2),47 U.S.C.§522(7).
39 1996 Act,sec.301(a)(2),47 U.S.C.§522(7). For example,private cable and SMATV operators: (a)are not
required to obtain cable television franchises;(b)do not face regulatory constraints on the geographic areas in
(continued....)
9
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
that are not commonly owned.40 Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, SMATV operators may use
wires to connect separately owned buildings, as long as the wires do not traverse public rights-of-way.41
There are hundreds of private and public, small and medium size SMATV operators throughout the
nation.42 Currently there are approximately 1.5 million SMATV subscribers.43
D.Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Systems (MMDS)
18. Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Systems, often referred to as "wireless cable,"
transmit video programming and other services to subscribers through 2 GHz microwave frequencies,
using Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) facilities and leased excess channel capacity on Instructional
Television Fixed Service (ITFS) channels. 44 An MMDS system must have a line-of-sight (LOS) path
between the transmitter or signal booster and the receiving antenna, and subscribers need to use a special
antenna and receiver to obtain service. When using analog signals,because of capacity limitations for the
frequencies, MMDS operators have a maximum of 33 microwave channels available in each market,
including 13 MDS channels and 20 ITFS channels. Digital technology significantly increases this channel
capacity, improves picture and audio quality, and makes two-way services, such as high-speed Internet
access and telephony, possible. Traditionally, MMDS operators have not carried local television stations;
their subscribers have used traditional over-the-air television service antennas to receive these services in
conjunction with the MMDS service,typically on one mast. More recently,MMDS systems implementing
digital operation have generally carried the local broadcast television signals. Currently there are
approximately 2,570 MDS providers and about 250 ITFS/MDS-based wireless cable systems in operation
that provide service to about 1 million homes.45 With advances in digital technology,MMDS operators can
now deliver as many as 200 channels of programming. In 1999, the number of homes with a serviceable
line-of-sight to an MMDS operator's transmission facilities was reported to be 62,500,000, and the number
of homes actually capable of receiving an MMDS operator's signal ("homes seen") was reported to be
(Continued from previous page)
which they may offer video services;(c)do not pay franchise and Federal Communications Commission subscriber
fees;(d)are not obligated to pass every resident in a given area;(e)are not subject to rate regulation;and(f)are
not subject to must carry and local government access obligations. Fourth Annual Report on Competition in
Video Markets(1997 Annual MVPD Report),13 FCC Red at 108,¶82,fn.296.
40 See 1997 Annual MVPD Report at¶82. The Commission held in 1991 that microwave transmissions do not
"use"public rights-of-way. Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Private Video
Distribution Systems of Video Entertainment Access to the 18 GHz Band,PR Docket No.90-5,Report and Order,6
FCC Rcd. 1270,1271,¶10(1991).
at See Telecommunications Act of 1996,Sec.301(a)(2),47 U.S.C.§522(7). Prior to the 1996 Act,to qualify for this
exception the buildings had to be under common ownership,control,or management. 1997 Annual MVPD Report,
at¶82,fn 297.
42 See 1997 Annual MVPD Report,at¶84;and 1998 Annual Report,at¶90.
43 See NCTA Comments,CS Docket No.00-132,at 9..
as See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the
Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section
309(j)of the Communications Act-Competitive Bidding,MM Docket.No.94-131 and PP Docket No.93-253,
Report and Order,10 FCC Rcd at 9589,9593¶7(1995);1996 Annual MVPD Report,12 FCC Rcd at 4386.¶51 n.152.
45 See Interim Report: Spectrum Study of the 2500-2690 MHz Band, The Potential for Accommodating Third
Generation Mobile Systems(Interim Spectrum Report),FCC Staff Report,November 15,2000.
10
•
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
35,750,000.46 According to the Wireless Communications Association ("WCA"), there are about one
million MMDS video subscribers. These systems provide competition in smaller markets and rural areas
where, WCA reports, cable overbuilds and/or DBS local-into-local service may not be available for the
foreseeable future. Other estimates indicate, however, that the number of MMDS subscribers has
dropped to approximately 700,000.47
19. Significantly, the MMDS industry is currently transitioning from offering video
programming to offering data services. Sprint Corporation and MCI WorldCom, Inc. have acquired most
of the larger MMDS operators,with the intent of using the acquired frequencies to provide two-way non-
video communication services,and have begun trials of this service. It appears that most MMDS spectrum
will eventually be used to provide high-speed data services. Thus it is likely that most MMDS licenses will
not be used in the future to compete in the MVPD market. These trends indicate that companies will
continue to use MMDS spectrum to provide video services, but only in limited areas, which the
Commission expects will include rural areas that are underserved by other providers. For example, MDS
has become a vehicle for offering high-speed internet access and broadband services to residential and
small office/home office (SOHO) customers. Since 1998, MCI WorldCom and Sprint Corporation have
invested over$2 billion in the acquisition (by purchase or lease) of MDS/ITFS channel rights covering 60
million households. Approximately 25 companies are currently using MDS/ITFS spectrum to offer high-
speed internet access in 43 markets and have announced plans to expand their services to other markets 48
E. Other Video Providers
20. In addition to cable, DTH satellite services, SMATV, MMDS, and the new MVDDS
service described above, electric and gas utilities are teaming with MVPDs in some areas to offer video
and non-video services.49 Local exchange carriers and long distance telephone carriers also provide video
services,most often using MMDS.50 Open Video Systems are facilities similar to cable systems, except
that they are not allowed to discriminate among video service providers with regard to carriage. The
Commission has certified 23 Open Video System (OVS) operators to offer OVS service in 47 mostly
46 Paul Kagan Assocs.,Inc., Wireless Cable Sub Count and Revenue Projections, 1998-2009,Wireless/Private
Cable Investor,July 13, 1999,at 4-5. (Paul Kagan Associates did not update this number for 2000.) The number of
homes with a"serviceable line of sight"counts all homes which an MMDS operator is licensed to serve within a
particular license area,regardless of technical limitations such as signal strength or blockage by terrain. The
number of"homes seen,"on the other hand,is the number of homes that MMDS operators have the technical
ability to serve. For more discussion,see 1997 Annual MVPD Report,at¶74,n.272.
47 Paul Kagan Assocs.,Inc.,Basic Cable Network Economics, 1995-2010,Cable Program Investor,June 16,2000,
at 7. At least one company,Nucentrix,is combining its MMDS spectrum with DBS service to offer a broader array
of video services.See http://www.nucentrix.com/site/television/products/index.html.
48 See Interim Spectrum Report,at p.21.
49 For example,RCN and PEPCO in the Washington,D.C.area operate as Starpower. Similar ventures are underway
or planned in Minnesota,North Carolina,Indiana,California,Texas,and Massachusetts.
50 For example,BellSouth's MMDS service areas cover approximately 3.5 million homes in Florida,Georgia,
Louisiana,and Kentucky.U S West offers video,high-speed Internet access,and telephone service over existing
copper telephone lines using very high speed digital subscriber line("VDSL")in Omaha,Nebraska,and Phoenix,
Arizona. U S West remains the only company in the country using VDSL for video distribution,and reportedly has
31,000 subscribers in Phoenix and 20,000 in Omaha.
11
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
urban and suburban areas.51 The cable must carry rules also generally apply to OVS operators, so that
local television signals are carried on these systems.
IMPEDIMENTS TO MVPD OPERATIONS
21. This section provides an enumeration of the technical, economic, and other impediments
each type of multichanel video programming distributor has encountered. A summary of the general state
of competition in multichannel video programming distribution is provided first followed by a brief summary
of the challenges facing the major types of MVPD service providers.
A. General State of Competition in Multichannel Video Programming Distribution
22. Cable television remains the dominant technology for delivery of video programming to
consumers in the MVPD marketplace, although its 52market share continues to decline. As of June 2000,
80% of all MVPD subscribers received their video programming from a local franchised cable operator,
compared to 82% a year earlier. The total number of subscribers to both cable and noncable MVPDs
continues to increase. A total of 84.4 million households subscribed to multichannel video programming
services as of June 2000,up 4.4% over the 80.4 million households subscribing to MVPDs in June 1999.
This growth accompanied a 2.4 percentage point increase in MVPD's penetration of television households
to 83.8% as of June 2000.53 Much of the increase in the growth of non-cable MVPD subscribers is
attributable to the growth of DBS. DBS appears to attract former cable subscribers and consumers not
previously subscribing to an MVPD. DBS subscribers now represent 15.4%of all MVPD subscribers.
23. Noncable MVPDs continue to report that regulatory and other barriers to entry limit their
ability to compete with incumbent cable operators and to thereby provide consumers with additional
choices.54 Noncable MVPDs also continue to experience some difficulties in obtaining programming from
both vertically integrated cable programmers and unaffiliated programmers who continue to make
exclusive agreements with cable operators.55 In multiple dwelling units("MDUs"),potential entry may be
discouraged or limited because an incumbent video programming distributor has a long-term and/or
exclusive contract.56 Other issues also remain with respect to how, and under what circumstances,
51 RCN is by far the largest OVS operator in the country,operating in New York City,Washington,D.C.,
Gaithersburg,Maryland,South San Francisco,California,and some of the suburbs surrounding Boston.RCN has
additionally been certified as an OVS operator in the city of Boston,Northern New Jersey,Philadelphia,Los
Angeles,Chicago,Portland,Oregon,Seattle,Washington,and Phoenix,Arizona.
52 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at¶5.
53 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at Appendix C,Table C-1;Nielsen Media Research(television households for
2000);Paul Kagan Associates,Inc.,Cable Industry 10-Year Projections,Cable TV Investor,June 19,2000,at 6
(cable subscribers);NCTA Comments,CS Docket No.00-132,at 9(MMDS and SMATV subscribers);
SkyReport.com athttp://www.skyreport.com/dth US.htm(DBS,HSD subscribers);FCC estimates(OVS
subscribers).
54 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at¶13.
55 Id
56 Id.
12
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
existing inside wiring in MDUs may be made available to alternative video service providers.
B. Cable Television Service
24. The cable television industry continues to grow in basic cable subscribership, homes
passed, basic cable penetration, premium service subscriptions, basic cable viewership, and channel
capacity.57 However,in response to increasing competition,primarily from DBS,cable operators will need
to continue to expand channel capacity to offer additional and advanced services and offer service at
competitive rates. 8 Cable will also need to continue to incorporate digital compression techniques so that
operators can also offer their customers improved receptions and resolution quality.59
25. Technical issues facing the cable industry include the resolution of outstanding technical
issues regarding compatibility with digital consumer television receiving equipment, the availability of
component digital descramblers,known as"point of deployment," or"POD,"modules for use with set-top
digital cable receiving devices provided by retailers and cable ready consumer receivers. The introduction
of cable digital services could also be delayed by on-going difficulties in developing agreements on copy
protection technology and policy for digital video programming carried on cable systems. Similar
difficulties with copy protection also affect other digital MVPDs.
C. Direct Broadcast Satellite Services
26. DBS remains cable's largest competitor and continues to show growth. According to
surveys of DBS subscribers, the primary advantages of DBS are superior channel capacity (including the
capacity for"Near Video On Demand" movies on pay-per-view), digital quality picture, CD-quality sound,
and specialized programming such as exclusive sports packages.60 The DBS industry continues to face
barriers to expansion, however. In its Annual Competition Report, the Commission identified several
competitive challenges for DBS, including changes in ownership, reassignment of orbital slots, and signal
interference.61 Access to vertically integrated programming remains an issue for DBS. EchoStar asserts
that large cable operators,because of their size and market share,have overwhelming buying power in the
programming market that restricts access to independent programming as well as to vertically integrated
programming.62
D. C-Band Home Satellite Dishes
27. In contrast to the growth of DBS subscribers, the large dish home satellite industry is
experiencing a steady decline of customers.63 Many customers are migrating to DBS service, which uses
571d.,at¶18.
58 Id.,at¶21.
59 Id.
601d.at¶72.
61 Id.at¶78-80.
62 EchoStar Comments in CS Docket No.00-132,at 6-7.
63 See Satellite Broadcasting Communications Association(SBCA)Comments in CS Docket No.00-132 at 7-8,
Tables 1 and 3.
13
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
smaller antenna dishes.64 Despite the steady decline, SBCA expects C-Band service to continue as a
viable business for the foreseeable future as a niche distribution medium serving rural subscribers
unserved by cable.65
E. Mutichannel Mutipoint Distribution Systems
28. As indicated above,MMDS wireless cable systems transmit video programming and other
services to subscribers through 2 GHz microwave frequencies, using Multipoint Distribution Service
(MDS) facilities and leased excess channel capacity on Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)
channels. Since the 33-channel analog capacity of MMDS s6ystems is generally not competitive with that
of most cable systems, MMDS subscribership has declined. 6 Over the past two years, MCI WorldCom
and Sprint have purchased a significant number of MMDS operators.67 Sprint and MCI WorldCom intend
to use this spectrum as a"last mile" connection to homes for the provision of high-speed Internet access.
It remains unclear whether they will continue to provide analog video service, upgrade to digital video
service, or discontinue multichannel video service.68 The Sixth Annual MVPD Report noted several
barriers to competition identified by industry, including current program access law, lack of non-
discrimination provisions for retransmission consent agreements, access to premises, and jurisdiction over
"home run"wiring.69
F. Satellite Master Antenna Television Systems
29. Over the past several years, private cable operators offering service over SMATV
systems have begun to offer many of the same services offered by franchised cable operators, including
local and long distance residential telephone service and Internet access.70 Some SMATV operators have
expressed concern over a Commission decision to allow franchised cable operators to offer "bulk"
discounts to residents of MDUs on an individual basis?' The Commission continues its review of
comments submitted in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the matter of inside
64 See CableFAX Daily,November 3, 1999,at p. 1.
651999 Annual MVPD Report, 15 FCC Rcd at 1011;Art Durbano,50 Reasons Why Bigger is Better, Satellite Orbit,
March 2000,at 16.
66 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report,Appendix C,Table Cl;NCTA Comments in CS Docket No.,00-132,at 9.
67 In addition,MCI WorldCom and Sprint have agreed to merge,but the merger is still under regulatory review.
MCI WorldCom,Inc.,MCI WorldCom and Sprint Create Pre-Eminent Global Communications Company For 21s`
Century(press release),Oct.5, 1999.
68 Jim Barthold, Wireless Stepchildren Becoming Empowered,CableWorld,Aug. 16, 1999,at 38,41. Kevin Brauer,
Sprint's President,National Integrated Services,indicated that digital video may be part of Sprint's plans. Brauer
specifically mentioned People's Choice TV's digital MMDS and high-speed Internet access services in Phoenix as
a possible model. The Phoenix system also competes with Cox cable and U S West's VDSL system.Alan Breznick,
In Phoenix,Everyone Wants a Piece of the Action,CableWorld,July 19,1999,at 16.
69 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at¶91.
70 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at¶96;Fourth Annual MVPD Report,at¶84;Fifth Annual Report on
Competition in Video Markets(Fifth Annual MVPD Report),13 FCC Rcd at 24342,at¶92.
71 See 1999 Annual MVPD Report at¶99;Implementation of Cable Act Reform Provisions of the
Telecommunication Act of 1996,CS Docket No.96-85,Report and Order,14 FCC Rcd 5296(1999).
14
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
wiring. Additionally, the relationship between SMATV providers and real estate investment trusts
("REITS"),2 national property management companies and ownership groups, has changed. Exclusive
rights to a property in exchange for a revenue share are, according to one report, becoming increasingly
rare.73 Property managers are increasingly aware of MVPD technology issues, and are investing in
infrastructure in order to gain flexibility of choice over video providers.74 SMATV operators, on the other
hand, are focusing on SMATV/DBS combination services and advanced services, such as telephony and
Internet access,to attract property managers.75 Many SMATV operators are becoming CLEC licensees,
while also aligning with third-party providers of high-speed Internet access.76
G. Issues Affecting Unserved and Underserved Areas
30. As indicated by the recent report from the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration("NTIA") and Rural Utilities Service("RUS")report, Advanced Telecommunications in
Rural America, rural areas have less access to local broadcast stations delivered over cable than is found
in cities and towns. It is more costly to deploy cable over large rural areas, and the subscriber base is
smaller and more widely dispersed. This leads to a serious question of whether market forces alone can
ensure rural households access to advanced services as well as to broadcast television.77
31. In many areas, particularly smaller markets and rural areas, MMDS provides the only
local non-DBS competition to cable operators. One problem for continued and improved video service in
these areas is that the MMDS industry is currently transitioning from offering video programming to
offering data services. This transition points out the economic challenges faced by MVPDs seeking to
serve rural areas: there are often not enough people to make the service economically viable. New
entrants tend to gravitate to areas of greater population density that can support the service. Unserved or
underserved areas do not have sufficient density to provide that critical mass. Bell South,which is now an
MMDS provider that delivers video programming, including local broadcast stations, contends that the
consolidation and clustering of cable systems gives cable MSOs leverage vis-à-vis cable programming
networks and broadcast networks,making them less willing to sell programming to cable's competitors.78
72 A real estate investment trust("REIT")is essentially a corporation or business trust that combines the capital of
many investors to acquire or provide financing for all forms of real estate. 1996 Annual MVPD Report,at¶9.
73 See Fourth Annual MVPD Report,at¶94;James Gomez,Business Trends Among MD Us:Looking for Creative
Solutions,Private Cable&Wireless Cable,July 1999,at p.24(Gomez,July 1999).
74 See Gomez,July 1999;see also http://www2.multihousing.com/consulting/techno.html.
75 See Paul Kagan Assocs.,Inc.,ICTA Show:Echostar Gets Serious on MDUAlliances,Wireless-Private Cable
Investor,Aug.6, 1999,at p. 10.
76 Gomez,July 1999.
77 By way of anecdotal information,the FCC Call Center receives 100-300 calls a month from satellite subscribers
seeking delivery of distant network stations via satellite. While some of these callers are interested in distant
network stations in addition to the local broadcast television programming they can receive,many of these callers
claim that they have no way to receive broadcast television programming apart from satellite delivery of distant
network signals.
78 BellSouth further maintains that this consolidation and clustering increases the ability of vertically integrated
MSOs to avoid program access obligations by delivering programming terrestrially and increases incumbent cable
operators'leverage vis-à-vis non-vertically-integrated programming networks.BellSouth Comments in CS docket
(continued....)
15
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
BellSouth suggests this problem can be remedied — and MMDS thereby strengthened as a competing
video provider --by extending the existing program access rules beyond the year 2002 sunset. BellSouth
also proposes that Congress eliminate the non-vertical integration and terrestrial delivery exceptions to the
statute and either require strict justification of volume discounts or clarify the language in the statute.
32. In the DBS context, the National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative79 contends that
the mandatory carriage requirement in the SHVIA, as described above, has the unintended and
undesirable effect of preventing satellite carriers from providing local-into-local service in the markets with
smaller populations and lower profits.80 NRTC contends that the "carry-one-carry-all" carriage
requirement discourages satellite carriers from providing any local-into-local service in these markets due
to capacity limitations.81 Again, as with cable, the subscriber base in the predominantly rural markets is
too small to support the service. NRTC notes that if the two DBS satellite carriers, DirecTV and
Echostar, served the top 65 markets, this would still leave 25 million television households without local-
into-local service. As noted above, these two DBS carriers currently serve only the top 40 markets and
have not announced plans to extend beyond the top 45 markets, which would leave one-third of the 100.8
million television households(roughly 33.6 million)without access to local-into-local service on satellite.82
33. In contrast, the Association for America's Public Television Stations (AAPTS) states that
digital compression,statistical multiplexing,and use of Ka-band satellites with spot beams,in addition to the
Ku-band capacity currently used for DBS service, will eventually enable DBS providers to carry every
local broadcast station in the United States and deliver them to their local markets.83 Thus far, the DBS
satellite carriers have not agreed that spot beam technology and use of the Ka-band will achieve this
desired result. The Commission notes that, at a minimum, current business plans for use of the Ka-band
would have to be significantly revised and re-focused to accomplish what AAPTS describes.84 Whether
the marketplace would welcome such a readjustment and reward it sufficiently is also open to serious
(Continued from previous page)
No.00-132 at 3-7. WCA offers a similar argument noting cable operators'successes at denying regional sports
programming from competitors. WCA Comments in CS Docket No.00-132 at 8-9.
79 NRTC is a non-profit cooperative association comprised of 550 rural electric cooperatives and 279 rural telephone
systems. NRTC has an arrangement with DirecTV to market and distribute DirecTV programming services in large
areas of the United States serving more than 1.5 million rural households. NRTC also distributes C-Band satellite
programming to 50,000 rural subscribers.
80 See 47 U.S.C.338,as amended by the SHVIA.
81 See NRTC Comments filed for the 2000 Competition Report,CS Dkt.No.00-132.NRTC also reports that the
copyright limitations in the SHVIA limit the availability of distant network signals to subscribers in rural areas,thus
preventing them from receiving either local or distant television network programming.Id. See also 17 U.S.C.§§119
and 122,as amended by the SHVIA.
82 Based on planned service by DirecTV and Echostar,NRTC expects that households in the following states
would not receive local-into-local DBS service from stations originating within their states:Alaska,Delaware,
Hawaii,Idaho,Iowa,Maine,Mississippi,Montana,Nebraska,New Hampshire,New Jersey,North Dakota,South
Carolina,South Dakota,Vermont and Wyoming. The Commission notes that many households in some of these
states will receive,or are currently receiving,local-into-local service from neighboring states;including many parts
of Delaware,Nebraska,New Hampshire,New Jersey,South Carolina,and Vermont.
83 See Channel-Carrying Capacity of DBS Systems,prepared by Strategic Policy Research, AAPTS ex parte filing
of November 17,2000 in CS Dkt.No.00-96.
84 DTH providers' current business plans do not incorporate operational spot beam technology.
16
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-454
question. Even if the technological possibilities are as forecast by AAPTS, the economic challenges of
serving smaller markets or markets that have low population density are not resolved by the technological
availability of satellite capacity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
34. Section 2002(c)(3) of the RLBSA requests recommendations on specific measures to
facilitate the provision of local signals to subscribers in unserved and underserved markets by direct-to-
home satellite television providers and by other distributors of multichannel video programming services.
Because the licensing process required by section 2002(a) of that Act has not yet been completed, it
would be premature to make such recommendations at this time. Once specific MVDDS assignments are
made and services begin operation, the Commission can make appropriate recommendations. The
Commission will address these issues in its annual MVPD competition reports. In this regard, Section
628(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended(Communications Act), requires the Commission
to report annually to Congress on the status of competition in markets for the delivery of video
programming.85 Congress imposed this annual reporting requirement in the Cable Television Consumer
Protection and Competition Act of 1992 ("1992 Cable Act") 6 as a means of obtaining information on the
competitive status of markets for the delivery of video programming.87 To date, the Commission has
issued six such reports, with the most recent being the Sixth Annual Report on Competition in Video
Markets Report submitted pursuant to Section 628(g)of the Communications Act.88
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas
Secretary
85 Communications Act of 1934,as amended,section 628(g),47 U.S.C.§548(g).
86 Pub.L.No. 102-385,106 Stat. 1460(1992).
87 The 1992 Act imposed a regulatory scheme on the cable industry designed to serve as a transitional mechanism
until competition develops and consumers have adequate multichannel video programming alternatives. One of the
purposes of Title VI of the Communications Act,Cable Communications,is to"promote competition in cable
communications and minimize unnecessary regulation that would impose an undue economic burden on cable
systems."47 U.S.C.§521(6).
88 The Commission's previous reports appear at: Implementation of Section 19 of the 1992 Cable Act(Annual
Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming),CS Docket No.94-48,
First Annual Report(1994 Annual MVPD Report),9 FCC Rcd 7442(1994);Annual Assessment of the Status of
Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video Programming,CS Docket No.95-61,Second Annual Report
(1995 Annual Report), 11 FCC Rcd 2060(1996);Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the Market for
the Delivery of Video Programming,CS Docket No.96-133,Third Annual Report(1996 Annual Report),12 FCC Rcd
4358(1997);Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming,CS
Docket No.97-141,Fourth Annual Report(1997 Annual MVPD Report),13 FCC Rcd 1034(1998);and Annual
Assessment of the Status of Competition in Markets for the Delivery of Video Programming,CS Docket No.98-102,
Fifth Annual Report(1998 Annual MVPD Report), 13 FCC Red 24284(1998). The seventh annual report will be
submitted to the Congress shortly.
17
From: "Greg Uhl" <uhl@bradleyguzzetta.com>
To: "Bonnie Walton" <Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Michael Bradley"
<bradley@BradleyGuzzetta.com>
Date: 4/2/2007 12:31:03 PM
Subject: RE: Forms 1240 & 1205
Bonnie:
We did receive the filing directly. Mike will be able to address the
remainder of your question, he is out of the office until Friday.
Gregory S. Uhl
Bradley& Guzzetta, LLC
950 UBS Plaza
444 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
P/(651)379-0900 ext. 1
M/(612) 578-5283
F/(651)379-0999
Original Message
From: Bonnie Walton [mailto:Bwalton@ci.renton.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:32 AM
To: Michael Bradley
Cc: Greg Uhl; Marty Wine
Subject: Forms 1240 & 1205
Mike:
On Friday, March 30, 2007, Comcast delivered via Express mail the April
1, 2007 filings as referenced, for implementation on or about July 1,
2007. Did you receive copy of the filing directly, or should I make a
copy to send to you for your review?
I assume the review of this years'forms will be completed under the
administrative assistance side of our contract. As for timing, how
long do you estimate it will take for you to have this years forms
analyzed and we'd receive your report? Would that be before July 1st
or after? Also, please let me know what I should do to assist with this
process.
Thank you.
Bonnie Walton
City Clerk/Cable Manager
City of Renton
1055 S. Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-6502
CC: "Marty Wine" <MWine@ci.renton.wa.us>
Comcast® Comcast Cable
183 Inverness Drive West
Englewood„CO 80112
Via UPS Next Day Air CITY OF Rf`N'r((
April 1,2007
MAR 30 2007
RECEIVED
Bonnie Walton p r MERK'S OFFICE
City Clerk/Cable Manager
1055 S.Grady Way
Renton,WA 98055
RE: WA0068
Dear Bonnie Walton:
On behalf of your local Comcast Cable Communications,LLC-affiliated operator,enclosed are FCC Forms
1240 and 1205. The forms represent Comcast Cable Communications,LLC's annual filing for adjustments
to basic service,equipment and installation prices. Specific assumptions and details regarding the filings are
in the enclosed Documentation Memos..
The selected basic service price is in Attachment 2 of the Form 1240 entitled"Proposed Rate Structure".
The calculated FCC Form 1240,Line I9,maximum permitted rate and Line I10,operator selected rate are
inclusive of the FCC Regulatory fees.
•
Equipment and installation prices can be found in a separate attachment entitled"2007 Installation&
Equipment Rates". We will implement equipment and installation prices that are lower than the maximum
permitted rates calculated on FCC Form 1205.
Comcast Cable Communications,LLC has chosen April 1,2007 as its filing date and plans to implement the attached
basic service,equipment and installation price adjustments on or about July 1,2007. Appropriate notice will be sent
to you and cable subscribers prior to any adjustment in the basic service tier,equipment and installation prices.
Please call me at(720)267-2238 or your local Comcast Cable Communications,LLC-affiliated cable System
Government Affairs contact,Janet Turpen at(425)398-6142,if you have questions about the filing.
Respectfully,
On Behalf of Comcast Cable Communications,LLC
Robbin Pepper
Director,Rates and Regulatory
West Division
cc: Janet Turpen
Enc.H1751G, FCC Form 1240,FCC Form 1205
Attachment 1
FCC FORM 1240 - 2007
Summary of Maximum Permitted Rate
Headend: H1751G
Headend Name: KING COUNTY SOUTH
Basic
A. Maximum Permitted Rate From Form 1240,Line I9. $ 12.90
B. Network Upgrade Add-on,Form 1235,Part III,Line 4 C.Adjusted Maximum Permitted Rate $ 12.90
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Attachment 1
Attachment 2
FCC FORM 1240 - 2007
Proposed Rate Structure
Headend: H 1751 G
Headend Name: KING COUNTY SOUTH
Service Rates Basic
Operator Selected Rate $ 12.90
Less FCC Regulatory Fee 0.06
Net Service Rate $ 12.84
Franchise Related Cost $ -
On the 2007 Installation and Equipment Rates sheet attached to
the FCC Form 1205 are the Operator Selected Rates for 2007.
NOTE: Rates are exclusive of applicable franchise fees and inclusive of FCC
Regulatory fees.
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Attachment 2
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
FCC FORM 1240
UPDATING MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATES FOR REGULATED CABLE SERVICES
Cable Operator:
Name of Cable Operator
COMCAST OF WASHINGTON IV INC
Mailing Address of Cable Operator
4020 AUBURN WAY NORTH
City State ZIP Code
AUBURN WA 98071-1315
YES NO
1.Does this filing involve a single franchise authority and a single community unit? X
If yes,complete the franchise authority information below and
enter the associated CUID number here: SEE ATTACHMENT
YES NO
2.Does this filing involve a single franchise authority but multiple community units? X
If yes,enter the associated CUIDs below and complete the franchise authority information at the bottom of this page:
3.Does this filing involve multiple franchise authorities?
If yes,attach a separate sheet for each franchise authority and include the following franchise authority information with
its associated CUID(s):
Franchise Authority Information:
Name of Local Franchising Authority
SEE ATTACHED
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
City State ZIP Code
Telephone number Fax Number
4.For what purpose is this Form 1240 being filed? Please put an"X"in the appropriate box.
a.Original Form 1240 for Basic Tier X
b.Amended Form 1240 for Basic Tier
c.Original Form 1240 for CPS Tier
d.Amended Form 1240 for CPS Tier
TO
5.Indicate the one year time period for which you are setting rates(the Projected Period). 07/01/2007 06/30/2008 (mm/yy)
TO
6.Indicate the time period for which you are performing a true-up. 12/01/2005 11/30/2006 (mm/yy)
7.Status of Previous Filing of FCC Form 1240(enter an"x"in the appropriate box)
YES NO
a.Is this the first FCC Form 1240 filed in any jurisdiction? X
b.Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the FCC? X
If yes,enter the date of the most recent filing: (mm/dd/yy)
YES NO
c.Has an FCC Form 1240 been filed previously with the Franchising Authority? X
If yes,enter the date of the most recent filing: 04/01/2006 (nim/dd/yy)
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Multiple Franchise Authority Listing
Headend#: H1751 G Headend Name:RENTON
FCC ID Franchise Authority Information
WA0068 BONNIE WALTON
B CITY CLERK/CABLE MANAGER
RENTON
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON,WA 98055
March/April 1,2007 Page 1 of 1
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
8.Status of Previous Filing of FCC Form 1210(enter an"x"in the appropriate box)
YES NO
a.Has an FCC Form 1210 been previously filed with the FCC? X
If yes,enter the date of the most recent filing: (nun/dd/yy)
YES NO
b.Has an FCC Form 1210 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? X
If yes,enter the date of the most recent filing: 04/05/1995 (mm/dd/yy)
9.Status of FCC Form 1200 Filing(enter an"x"in the appropriate box)
YES NO
a.Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the FCC? X
If yes,enter the date filed: (mm/dd/yy)
YES NO
b.Has an FCC Form 1200 been previously filed with the Franchising Authority? X
If yes,enter the date filed: 11/21/1994 (mm/dd/yy)
10.Cable Programming Services Complaint Status(enter an"x"in the appropriate box)
YES NO
a.Is this form being filed in response to an FCC Form 329 complaint? X 1
If yes,enter the date of the complaint: (mm/dd/yy)
YES NO
11.Is FCC Form 1205 Being Included With This Filing? X
12.Selection of"Going Forward"Channel Addition Methodology (enter an"x"in the appropriate box)
nCheck here if you are using the original rules [MARKUP METHOD].
Check here if you are using the new,alternative rules[CAPS METHOD].
If using the CAPS METHOD,have you elected to revise recovery for YES NO
channels added during the period May 15,1994 to Dec.31,1994? X
•
13.Headend Upgrade Methodology
*NOTE: Operators must certify to the Commission their eligibility to use this upgrade methodology and attach an equipment list and depreciation schedule.
Check here if you are a qualifying small system using the streamlined headend upgrade methodology.
Part I: Preliminary Information
Module A: Maximum Permitted Rate From Previous Filing
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
A l Current Maximum Permitted Rate I$ 13.4066 I I I I I
Module B: Subscribership
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
B 1 Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 1 17,462_
B2 Average Subscribership For True-Up Period 2 -
B3 Estimated Average Subscribership For Projected Period 17,924
Module C: Inflation Information
Line Line Description
Cl Unclaimed Inflation:Operator Switching From 1210 To 1240 1.0000
C2 Unclaimed Inflation:Unregulated Operator Responding to Rate Complaint ' 1.0000
C3 Inflation Factor For True-Up Period 1[Wks 1] . 1.0268
C4 Inflation Factor For True-Up Period 2[Wks 1] 1.0000
C5 Current FCC Inflation Factor L' ' 1.0189
Page 2 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
I
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Module D: Calculating the Base Rate
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
DI Current Headend Upgrade Segment -
D2 Current External Costs Segment 0.8708
D3 Current Caps Method Segment -
D4 Current Markup Method Segment 0.1900
D5 Current Channel Movement and Deletion Segment -
D6 Current True-Up Segment 0.4288
D7 Current Inflation Segment+G5 0.4183
D8 Base Rate[Al-Dl-D2-D3-D4-D5-D6-D7] 11.4987
Part II: True-Up Period
Module E: Timing Information
Line Line Description
El What Type of True-Up Is Being Performed?(Answer"1","2",or"3". See Instructions for a description of these types.) 2
If"1",go to Module I. If"2",answer E2 and E3. If"3",answer E2,E3,E4,and E5.
E2 Number of Months in the True-Up Period 1 12
E3 Number of Months between the end of True-Up Period 1 and the end of the most recent Projected Period 7
E4 Number of Months in True-Up Period 2 Eligible for Interest 0
E5 Number of Months True-Up Period 2 Ineligible for Interest 0
Module F:Maximum Permitted Rate For True-Up Period 1
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Fl Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period 1[Wks 2] -
F2 Markup Method Segment For True-Up Period 1[Wks 3] 0.1900
F3 Chan Mvmnt Deletn Segment For True-Up Period 1[Wks'4/5] (0.1382)
F4 True-Up Period 1 Rate Eligible For Inflation[D8+Fl+F2+F3] 11.5505
F5 Inflation Segment for True-Up Period 1[(F4*C3)-F4] 0.3100
F6 Headend Upgrade Segment For True-Up Period 1[Wks 6] -
F7 External Costs Segment For True-Up Period 1[Wks 7] 0.9313
F8 True-Up Segment For True-Up Period 1 0.4448
F9 Max Penn Rate for True-Up Period 1[F4+F5+F6+F7+F8] 13.2366
Module G:Maximum Permitted Rate For True-Up Period 2
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
GI Caps Method Segment For True-Up Period 2[Wks 2] -
G2 Markup Method Segment For True-Up Period 2[Wks 3] -
G3 Chan Mvmnt Delete Segment For True-Up Period 2[Wks'4/5] -
G4 TU Period 2 Rate Eligible For Inflation[D8+F5+G1+G2+G3] -
G5 Inflation Segment for True-Up Period 2[(G4*C4)-G4] -
G6 Headend Upgrade Segment For True-Up Period 2[Wks 6] -
G7 External Costs Segment For True-Up Period 2[Wks 7] -
G8 True-Up Segment For True-Up Period 2 -
G9 Max Perm Rate for True-Up Period 2[G4+G5+G6+G7+G8] -
Page 3 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved by OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Module H: True-Up Adjustment Calculation
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Adjustment For True-Up Period 1
H1 Revenue From Period 1 2,627,681.7600
H2 Revenue From Max Permitted Rate for Period 1 2,773,655.2502
H3 True-Up Period 1 Adjustment[H2-H1] 145,973.4902
H4 Interest on Period 1 Adjustment 18,329.3666
Adjustment For True-Up Period 2
H5 Revenue From Period 2 Eligible for Interest -
H6 Revenue From Max Penn Rate for Period 2 Eligible For Interest -
H7 Period 2 Adjustment Eligible For Interest[H6-H5] -
H8 Interest on Period 2 Adjustment(See instructions for formula) -
H9 Revenue From Period 2 Ineligible for Interest -
H10 Revenue From Max Penn Rate for Period 2 Ineligible for Interest -
H11 Period 2 Adjustment Ineligible For Interest[H10-H9] -
Total True-Up Adjustment
H12 Previous Remaining True-Up Adjustment -
H13 Total True-Up Adjustment[H3+H4+H7+H8+H11+H12-G8] 164,302.8568
H14 Amount of True-Up Claimed For This Projected Period 164,302.8568
H15 Remaining True-Up Adjustment[H13-H14] -
Part III: Projected Period
Module I: New Maximum Permitted Rate
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
I1 Caps Method Segment For Projected Period[Wks 2] -
I2 Markup Method Segment For Projected Period[Wks 3] 0.1900
I3 Chan Mvmnt Deletn Segment For Projected Period[Wks 4/5] (1.0116) _
I4 Proj.Period Rate Eligible For Inflation[D8+F5+G5+I1+12+I3] 10.9871 _
IS Inflation Segment for Projected Period[(I4*C5)-I4] 0.2077
I6 Headend Upgrade Segment For Projected Period[Wks 6] -
17 External Costs Segment For Projected Period[Wks 7] 0.9408
18 True-Up Segment For Projected Period 0.7639
I9 Max Permitted Rate for Projected Period[I4+I5+I6+I7+I8] 12.8995
I10 Operator Selected Rate For Projected Period $12.90
Note:The maximum permitted rate figures do not take into account any refund liability you may have. If you have previously been ordered by the Commission or your local franchising
authority to make refunds,you are not relieved of your obligation to make such refunds even if the permitted rate is higher than the contested rate or your current rate.
Certification Statement
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S.CODE TITLE 18,SECTION 1001),AND/OR FORFEITURE(U.S.CODE,TITLE 47,SECTION 503).
I ce i .• he state en made'n this form are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,and are made in good faith.
ignature I_, Date
�jrt g,�/I?fry- 04/01/2007
N• e and Title of Person C. pleting this Form:
im Waechter,Senior Regulatory Rate Analyst
Telephone number Fax Number
(720)267-2263 (720)267-2715
Page 4 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 1 - True-Up Period Inflation
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Line Period FCC Inflation Factor
101 Month 1 3.47%
102 Month 2 3.12%
103 Month 3 3.12%
104 Month 4 3.12%
105 Month 5 3.31%
106 Month 6 3.31%
107 Month? 3.31%
108 Month 8 1.89%
109 Month 9 1.89%
110 Month 10 1.89%
111 Month 11 1.89%
112 Month 12 1.89%
113 Average Inflation Factor for 1.0268
True-Up Period 1
114 Month 13
115 Month 14
116 Month 15
117 Month 16
118 Month 17
119 Month 18
120 Month 19
121 Month 20
122 Month 21
123 Month 22
124 Month 23
125 Month 24
126 Average Inflation Factor for 1.0000
True-Up Period 2
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
% N
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 3 - Markup Method
True-Up Period, Basic Tier
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period Projected Period
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.) X
Question 2.Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 _
X
Question 3.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 4.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sum of Previous Sum of Current
Line Period Regulated Regulated Average Per Channel Channels Total Cumulative
Channels Channel Channels Adjustment Added Adjustment Adjustment
301 Previous 0.1900
Month
302 Month 1 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
303 Month 2 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
304 Month 3 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
305 Month 4 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
306 Month 5 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
307 Month 6 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
308 Month 7 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
309 Month 8 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
310 Month 9 36 36 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
311 Month 10 36 35 77 0.0100 - - 0.1900
312 Month 11 35 34 76 0.0100 - - 0.1900
313 Month 12 34 34 76 0.0100 - - 0.1900
314 Average Period 1 Markup Method Adjustment 0.1900
315 Month 13 - -
316 Month 14 - -
317 Month 15 - -
318 Month 16 .
319 Month 17 -
320 Month 18 - -
321 Month 19 - -
322 Month 20 -
323 Month 21 - -
324 Month 22 - -
325 Month 23 .
326 Month 24 - .
327 Average Period 2 Caps Method Adjustment
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 3 - Markup Method
Projected Period, Basic Tier
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period Projected Period
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.) X
Question 2.Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
Basic Tier 2 _ Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
X
Question 3.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 4.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? N/A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sum of Previous Sum of Current Average Per Channel Channels Total Cumulative
Line Period Regulated Regulated
Channels Channel Channels Adjustment Added Adjustment Adjustment
301 Previous 0.1900
Month
302 Month 1 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
303 Month 2 33 _ 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
304 Month 3 33 _ 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
305 Month 4 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
306 Month 5 33-_ 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
307 Month 6 33 _ 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
308 Month 7 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
309 Month 8 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900.
310 Month 9 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
311 Month 10 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
312 Month 11 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
313 Month 12 33 33 75 0.0100 - - 0.1900
314 Average Period 1 Markup Method Adjustment 0.1900
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
TABLE A.
NON-EXTERNAL COST ADJUSTMENT FOR
CHANGES IN CHANNELS
Average Channels Adjustment
From: To: per channel
7 7 $0.52
7.5 7.5 $0.45
8 8 $0.40
8.5 8.5 $0.36
9 9 $0.33
9.5 9.5 $0.29
10 10 $0.27
10.5 10.5 $0.24
11 11 $0.22
11.5 11.5 $0.20
12 12 $0.19
12.5 12.5 $0.17
13 13 $0.16
13.5 13.5 $0.15
14 14 $0.14
14.5 14.5 $0.13
15 15.5 $0.12
16 16 $0.11
16.5 17 $0.10
17.5 18 $0.09
18.5 19 $0.08
19.5 21.5 $0.07
22 23.5 $0.06
24 26 $0.05
26.5 29.5 $0.04
30 35.5 $0.03
36 46 $0.02
46.5 99 $0.01
Page 2 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 4 - Residual
True-Up Period
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.) True-Up Period Projected Period
X
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Period One
401 Average Permitted Charge 125400
402 Average External Costs 0.9313
403 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94 for -
Channels Added Using Caps Method
404 Average Tier Residual[401-402-403] 11.6087
405 Average Channels per Regulated Tier 35.0000
406 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier -
407 Average Remaining Channels[405-406] 35.0000
408 Average Period 1 Per Channel Residual[404/407] 03317
Period Two
409 Average Permitted Charge
410 Average External Costs
411 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94 for -
Channels Added Using Caps Method
412 Average Tier Residual[409-410-411] -
413 Average Channels per Regulated Tier -
414 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier -
415 Average Remaining Channels[413-414]
416 Average Period 2 Per Channel Residual[412/415] -
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 4 - Residual
Projected Period
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.) True-Up Period Projected Period
X
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
401 Average Permitted Charge 13.4066
402 Average External Costs 0.8708
403 Average Total Per Channel Adjustments after 5/14/94 for -
Channels Added Using Caps Method
404 Average Tier Residual[401-402-403] 12.5358
405 Average Channels per Regulated Tier 36.0000
406 Average Caps Method Channels per Tier -
407 Average Remaining Channels[405-406] 36.0000
408 Average Period 1 Per Channel Residual[404/407] 0.3482
Page 2 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
a +
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
True-Up Period, Basic Tier
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
True-Up Period Projected Period
X
Question 2.Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
X
Question 3.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 4.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 0
1 2 3 4
Residual of Channels Residual of Channels Moved Net Per-Channel Cost Cumulative Net Per-
Line Period Deleted From Tier (added)to Tier Adjustment[Column 2- Channel Cost Adjustment
Column 1]
501 Previous Period -
502 Month 1 - - - -
503 Month 2 -
504 Month 3 - - - -
505 Month 4 - - - -
506 Month 5 - - - -
507 Month 6 - - - -
508 Month 7 - - - -
509 Month 8 - - - -
510 Month 9 - - - -
511 Month 10 0.3317 - (0.3317) (0.3317)
512 Month 11 0.3317 - (0.3317) (0.6634)
513 Month 12 - - - (0.6634)
514 Average Period 1 Channel Movement and Deletion Adjustment (0.1352)
515 Month 13 - - - -
516 Month 14 - - - -
517 Month 15 - - - -
518 Month 16 - - - -
519 Month 17 - - - -
520 Month 18 - - - -
521 Month 19 - - - -
522 Month 20 - - - -
523 Month 21 - - - -
524 Month 22 - - - -
525 Month 23 - - - -
526 Month 24 - - - -
527 Average Period 2 Channel Movement and Deletion Adjustment [ . -
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 5 - Channel Movement and Deletion
Projected Period, Basic Tier
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Question 1.Indicate the period for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
True-Up Period Projected Period
X
Question 2.Indicate the tier for which this worksheet is being used.(Put an"X"in the appropriate box.)
Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 _
X
Question 3.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 4.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? N/A
1 2 3 4
Residual of Channels Residual of Channels Moved Net Per-Channel Cost Cumulative Net Per-
Line Period Deleted From Tier (added)to Tier Adjustment[Column 2- Channel Cost Adjustment
Column 1]
501 Previous Period (0.6634)
502 Month 1 0.3482 - (0.3482) (1.0116)
503 Month 2 - - - (1.0116)
504 Month 3 - - - (1.0116)
505 Month 4 - - - (1.0116)
506 Month 5 - - - (1.0116)
507 Month 6 - - - (1.0116)
508 Month 7 - - - (1.0116)
509 Month 8 - - - (1.0116)
510 Month 9 _ - - - (1.0116)
511 Month 10 - - - (1.0116)
512 Month 11 - - - (1.0116)
513 Month 12 - - - (1.0116) •
514 Average Period 1 Channel Movement and Deletion Adjustment (1.0116)
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
True-Up Period
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period Projected Period
Question 1.For which time period are you filling out this worksheet? [Put an"X"in the appropriate box.] X
Question 2.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 3.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 0
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Period 1
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior
701 to 5/15/94 or After 5/15/94 Using Markup 144,282.0218
Method For Period
702 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period
703 Copyright Fees For Period 26,213.8293
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5%Markup 170,495.8511
705 Marked Up External Costs 183,283.0399
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period -
707 Franchise Related Costs For Period -
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period 11,862.0000
709 Total External Costs For Period 195,145.0399
710 Monthly,Per-Subscriber External Costs For 0.9313
Period 1
Period 2
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior
711 to 5/15/94 or After 5/15/94 Using Markup -
Method For Period
712 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period -
713 Copyright Fees For Period -
714 External Costs Eligible For 7.5%Markup -
715 Marked Up External Costs -
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
716 Cable Specific Taxes For Period -
717 Franchise Related Costs For Period -
718 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period -
719 Total External Costs For Period -
720 Monthly,Per-Subscriber External Costs For
Period 2
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
• Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 7 - External Costs
Projected Period
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
True-Up Period Projected Period
Question 1.For which time period are you filling out this worksheet? [Put an"X"in the appropriate box.] X
Question 2.How long is the first period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet? 12
Question 3.How long is the second period,in months,for which rates are being set with this worksheet?
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Period 1
External Costs Eligible for Markup
Cost of Programming For Channels Added Prior
701 to 5/15/94 or After 5/15/94 Using Markup 148,600.8447
Method For Period
702 Retransmission Consent Fees For Period -
703 Copyright Fees For Period 26,906.8833'
704 External Costs Eligible For 7.5%Markup 175,507.7280
705 Marked Up External Costs 188,670.8076
External Costs Not Eligible for Markup
706 Cable Specific Taxes For Period -
707 Franchise Related Costs For Period -
708 Commission Regulatory Fees For Period 13,680.4300
709 Total External Costs For Period 202,351.2376
710 Monthly,Per-Subscriber External Costs For 0.9408
Period 1
Page 2 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved By OMB 3060-0685
Washington,DC 20554
Worksheet 8 - True-Up Rate Charged
For instructions,see Appendix A of Instructions For FCC Form 1240
Question 1.How long is the True-Up Period 1,in months? 12
Question 2.How long is the True-Up Period 2,in months? 0
•
a b c d e
Line Line Description Basic Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
801 Month 1 $ 12.54
802 Month 2 12.54
803 Month 3 12.54
804 Month 4 12.54
805 Month 5 12.54
806 Month 6 12.54
807 Month 7 12.54
808 Month 8 12.54
809 Month 9 12.54
810 Month 10 12.54
811 Month 11 12.54
812 Month 12 12.54
813 Period 1 Average Rate 12.54
814 Month 13 $ -
815 Month 14 -
816 Month 15 -
817 Month 16 -
818 Month 17 -
819 Month 18 -
820 Month 19 -
821 Month 20 -
822 Month 21 -
823 Month 22 -
824 Month 23 -
825 Month 24 -
826 Period 2 Average Rate -
Page 1 FCC Form 1240
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Microsoft Excel 5.0 Version July 1996
, *:-V 1 4C t:,1...i -y n: r - i t t i t : ;
... < ,>az u :a y S.t..e i N ',vti tics T�3.r;.y ,w 3 ,a,
•
LIMITED CABLE SERVICE )N DEMAND AND PAY-PER-VIEW • HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE •
Auburn,Algona,Black Diamond, Limited Cable $ 14.30 lew Release Movies
Covington,Enumclaw,Federal Way,` (per movie) 23.99.99 Comcast Cable Customer $ 42.95
Maple Valley Normandy Park lb ryMovies(per movie) •
99
Pacific,Sea lac,South King Co. loubre Feature Movies 4•95 Non-Comcast Cable Customer $ 52.95
Burien Limited Cable $ 14.01 adult(per showing) $9.99-11.99 Standard Modem Rental" $ 3.00
Carnation,Fall Cityadult 4l pack) $ 10.00
Limited Cable $ 14.77 vents $ricees 16.99 "Plus"Service Tier
Des Moines Limited Cable $ 12.60 'remium ON DEMAND Free with Premium Service Subscription Home Networking Gateway(tdoor.eebear,peee,mud bew,:,•,•d)" $ 5.00
Issaquah,Highlands Limited Cable $ 12.60 'REE ON DEMAND Free with Digital Set-Top Receiver MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES
Kent,Tukwila Limited Cable $ •14.14 iQUIPMENT and OPTIONS(Equlpmentprtcespermonth.) . . 1 Additional 1P Address $ 4.95
Newcastle Limited Cable $ 12.30 temote Control $ 0.25
Renton Limited Cable $ 12.48 imited Only Equippment' $ 1.18
Up to 4 Additional IP Addresses $ 9.90
Snoqualmle,North Bend Limited Cable $ 14.99 ,ddressable Set-Top Receiver $ 4.70 INSTALLATION
Unincorporated King County-Lee Hiller Limited Cable $ 13.55 't to Digital Set-Tap Receiver" $ 4.70 Pricing end Installation subleat to change.
advanced Digital Set-Top Receiver* $ 6.50 Premium installation- $ 99.99
.han BASIC CABLE(Includes Limited Cable and'Expanded Cable Services) Warners
Guide $ 3.30 Self-Installation Kit-With Shipping
411 Areas Basic Cable $ 42.99 ann s to United 0e only MS a non Bel Top Receiver. pP g $ 39.90
Customers whoabsatbetomorethenLimitedSeMcewitha8et-TbpReceiver. Self-Installation Kit-Without Shipping $ 29.95
CABLE PACKAGES NSTALLATION and REPAIR(operator selected rates.) Unwired Outlet $ 13.99
VI Digital Cable Packages Include PPV Access,Digital Music Channels,interactive :ervice Protection Plan(Monthly) $ 3•50 Gaming Installation $ 99.99
programming Guide and One Standard Digital Set-Top Receiver. tome Installation(Wired) $ 27.99 2 PCs Including Home Networking $' 19
digital Classic $ 11.99 lome Installation Unwire nciudexp italgasutoProgremminglkr. ,dditionai Connection at Ti 3 PCs Including Home Networking $2 gg
Time of Initial Install $ 14.99
Digital(plus $ 15.99 additional Connection Requiring Separate Trip $ 21.99 4-5 PCs Including Home Networking $299.99
neludes:DI ital Classic end Digital Plus Programming liars.
Digital diver $ 27.99 love an Outlet $ 18.99 Installation of PC Cards,Separate Trip No Card $ 74.99
neludes:0i WClassicendDigitalPlusProgrammlgTeraand1PremiunS burly Service Charge $ 28.49 Reconnection of Service $ 27.99
Digital Gold Service. $ 39.99 pgrade or Down rade of Optional Services(Addressable) $ 1.99 Service Call $ 49.95
etudes:Di tal Classic and Digital Plus Programming This and 2 Peahen Services. Ipgrade of O oral Services(Separate Trip) $ 15.99
Digital Platinum $ 56.99 lowngrade o Optional Services Separate Trip) $ 12.99 EQUIPMENT
%ludas:Digital Classic and Digital Ras Programming Tian end age Premium Services.
DIGITAL A LA CARTE SERVICES :onnect VCR at Time of Initial Install $ 6.99 Ethernet Device $ 49.95
Vial Sallee does :enact VCR Requiring Separate Trip $ 12.99
g p per month. reconnection of Service $ 27.99 Modem Purchase $139.00
Digital Lite $ 4.95 :ervice Call • $ 19.99 Gateway/Modem $179.99
eludes PPVAccees,Digital Music,Interactive Programming Guide and One Digital Set Top Receiver.
Digital Extra Pack $ 5.99 AISOELLANEOUS Wireless Adapters $ 30.00
Digital Sports Tier $ 4.99 Ion-Sufficient Funds $ 25.00 Unretumed HSI-Cable Modem $139.00
Digital Video Recorder $ 9.95 field Service Charge $$ 16.00 Unretumed Gateway/Modem $179,00
�cludes Advanced DVR Set-Top ReceNa and DVA Functionality. ate Fee)(gitat Access-Additional Outlet3.00 Unretumed Wireless Adapters $ 30.00
•
lome Theater Access Fee $ 14.99 'urchase A/B Switch $ 10.00
oe-time lnretumed Standard Set-Top Receiver $ 90.00
'REMIUM lnretumed Digital Set Top Receiver(Model.700) 120.00 hJ/}.51 G t/a 4�•
'RE Services SERVICESb/e with Digital Set-Top Receiver only. lnretumed Digital Set-Top Receiver 275.00
IBC Package lnretumed Digital Set-Top Receiver with Dolby 5.1 300.00 0 , p(o
IBC Pare agekage $ 15 99 . lnretumed Addressable Set-Top Receiver $115.00 Fee- Fe4 �_.
l owtlm PackageP nretumed HD Digital Set-Top Receiver(Models 5100/6200) $346.00
he Chanel Package $ 15 99 lnretumed HD/DVR Digital Set-Top Receiver(Model 6412) $470.00 f /o7•5q
he Movie Package $ 15.99 lnretumed Universal Remote $ 6.25 .
Tore Package $ 15.99 • Jnretumed Digital Video Recorder Remote " $ 6.45
Jnreturned DCT Power Cord $ 1.15
4TERNATIONAL PREMIUM SERVICES lnretumed Wireless Phone Jack(Per Piece) $ 23.00
temefonal Premium Services available with Diggital Set-Top Recetveronly. lnretumed Cable Card $ 97.00 GENERAL INFORMATION
he Filipino Channel $ 11.99 Jnretumed Cable Modem
hong Tian Channel $ 11.99 $139.00 Insnot Intl d fees cep �y only to residential installationmay vary for fComcast Cable customersn and do
V JAPAN pot Include Requires
applk fe to e least
Con fees may edforcommercial rInstallations.
$ 24.99 1ENERAL INFORMATION Cal Cotaesubscriptionde to at Coursing a cable
modem Cable service.
ee TV Pull Corneae c for ds about t be f purchasing a cable modem or gateway and adapters.
V Asia $ 14.99 lease call us for complete details abord services end You must subscribe to Limited or Purchased cable modems must be from ComcosYa approved modem list,so as to meet
$ 14.99 asic SeMN to recebe other optimal video services.to receive certain optional services,you DOCSIS certification and other Comcast specific equipment requirements.Approved
ee TV&TV Asia Combination ust rent a converter end remota control for a separate charge.Installation, tip eupport/Corp1JpAO/Fa Del
$ 24.99 lditbnel outlet change of servlo end g equ ant, modem list located online at h accounts requit.com/ q nil 2427.html
aigon Broadcasting Television Network 9 Sarvnepropanmhg access other charges ma appy.You An Comeast Home Networking require rental or purchase of Comcast Home
V-5 $ 14.99 tat subscribe to"'Premium a In order to receive the multiplex versions of the some Networking gateway and purchase of adapters(up to 4).
$ 9.99 tanner.Prices do not Include franchise fees or applicable taxes.Franchise fees regulatory Money-back guarantee applies to monthly service fee and installation fees paid when you
ratite Radio$Television $ 1 99 'es taxes and other tees may apply with the actual amount depending on location and cancel service within the first 30 days.Prices shown do not Include applicable taxes and
ralcRadio
"vices ordered.Pricing,nog anmin0,channel location and packaging are subject to change. fees.Service subject to terms of Comcast High-Speed Internet Subscriber Agreement.
Al International Television Network $ 9•99 Digital Set-Top Receiver b required to receive at Digital Cable services including Digital Equipment required.Prices and services may change at any time without prior notice.
$ 14.99 ay Peavlew,On Demand and Premium Channels.AAemhan Charnel Service Subscription b Service not available In all areas.For rostrtdions,service avallobill�tyy,�minimum requirements,
O-AM'IV $ 14.99 seemly to view corresponding Premium On Demand content and completenot gduaranteed
about service end prices,affect
downloadl sped.0 Comcast Actual High-Speed
speeds vary
deflation prices re formulated by using the Hourly Service Charge as prescribed the and are not speed
s limited
Many factors attest speed.1pe erupstream
speedInternet
•OMCAST en ESPAAOL PACKAGES ached Communications Commbs mein:tied by the averagetMa for each installation Is limited to 708 IK ps.Call Coommcaae f and
ttrriccto s,miinimum Additional
prriices ad
electo Pack $ 6.99 :NV based upon historical data Non-standard(aerial beyond 126'of existing cable plant or complete details.m2005 Comeaat Corporation.An flights Reserved
New Digital Spanish Language interest Channels,8 New Spanish Language Digital Music Chamois nderground)Installations not listed above wit be charged at the Hasty Service Cheat For
bleLatino package reamers receiving service through commercial accounts,bulk rate arrangements with muhpk •
sited Cable includingoackag Digital Access,damwt enf spaM1d 1 Oct it Remote $ 25.99 welling owners,or similar arrangements,some of tie product,pricing and other Information
"stained herein may not apply,Please refer to the terms end conditions documents refleythg
ableLatino CornppletoO Local Package $ 48.99 xh separate arrangement;Where such are inconsistent with the information In this pricing sic able Including Unisiore,IXglW Access,Cmncast en Espanol,1 DC1r&Remote sucture,the terms and conditions re such separate agreements will apply. g Customer Service 1-888-COMCAST
ableLatino Compieto Local con HBO Package $ 58,99 tally end to the extent required by law after notice to you of a retie/h a of our services or •
sic Cable InductlIn�y UnlNsian D(3IW1 Access,Comcatt en 6pedd, de Increase,you may change yaw level of service at no additional charge for a period of 30
0 jnduding HBo i,stlrto),sinRZZt&Eneae,l DCT d Remote sys.Olhawi e:changes!Isis aervkes you receive which ere requested or caused by you wW. ._ . _ ..._ . . ..... win rranry is rfv A'I"TACHIVIENT 2A
- i 'F . Y CABLE Tu RATES h • + � i..
g k CA T PPNT) ti n
•
' •LIMITED CABLE SERVICE ON DEMAND AND PAY-PER-VIEW
Auburn,Algona,Black Diamond, Limited Cable $ 14.30 On Demand and Pay-Per-Wew Services available with Digital Set-Top Receiver only.
Covington,Enumclaw,Federal Way; New Release Movies(per movie) S 3.99-5.99
t Maple Valley,Normandy Park, Library Movies(per movie) S 2.99
Pacific,Sea Tac,South King Co. • Double Feature Movies(per showing) S 4.95
Burlen Limited Cable S 14.01 Adult(per showing) • $10.99-12.99 •
Carnation,Fail City Limited Cable S 14.77 Adult(4 pack) S 16.99
Des Moines Limited Cable S 12.60 Events • Prices vary
Issaquah,Highlands. Limited Cable S 12.70 Premium On Demand FREE with Premium Service Subsaiption •
I Kent,Tukwila Limited Cable S 14.14 Free On Demand FREE with Digital Set-Top Receiver 2
Newcastle Limited Cable S 12.30 �JA-S i C' /a,48
Renton Limited Cable S 12.48 EQUIPMENT AND OPTIONS(Equipment prices per month)
Snoqualmie,North Bend Limited Cable S 14.99 ' Remote Control S 0.15
Unincorporated King County-Lee Hills Limited Cable S 13.55 Limited Cable Customer Equipment' S 1.10 fe6 /��
BASIC CABLE(Includes limited Cable and Expanded Cable Services) Addressable Set-Top Receiver' S 3.eo `
Standard Digital Set-Top Receiver' S 3.80 II.„7-.J
All Areas Basic Cable S 45.99 Advanced Digital Set-Top Receiver' S 6.50
ENHANCED CABLE PACKAGE Channel .30
slomeaahoset toUmdedd�only�a Receives-Customesvassyb aibatomore
Enhanced Cable S 46.99 than Limited Cable with a w•Top Reairer.1ln.anwi uses.leis chei9e wil either be(*co nted revok t .
includes Basic Cable MOVIEprex On Demand Pay-Per-View Access Digital Music Channels.
Interactive Programming Guide and I Standard Digka►Set-Top Reecekec if applicable. .INSTALLATION AND REPAIR(Operator selected rates.)
DIGITAL CABLE PACKAGES Service Protection Plan(Monthly) S 3.50
Home Installation(Wired) S 27.99
Ahannell table. es i rdnde M and On Demand Pay-Per-NewAaese Digits!Musk •
Channels Interactive Guide and 1 Standard Digital Set-Top Receiver.is Home Installation(Unwired) S 43.99
Digital Classic $ 11.99 Additional Connection at Time of Initial Install S 14.25
Includes:0igtd Classic Progammkg Tier . Additional Connection Requiring Separate Trip S 21.99
•
Digital Plus $ 15.99 Move an Outlet S 18.99
Indudes DiOal Chssk am Digital Phs Programming Tee. Hourly Service Charge S 28.49
Digital Silver S 28.99 Upgrade or Downgrade of Optional Services(Addressable) S 1.99
D L D'cal Musk and Olga!Plus Proganmig This and 1 Pmmkm Service.' Upgrade of Optional Services(Separate Tri ) S 15.99
{ igitalold S 41.99 o9 p
bidcdrz Digital Classic and Digital Plus Pogamming Tien and 2 Premkxn Service.' Downgrade of Optional Services(Separate Trip) S 12.99
Digital Platinum $ 58.99 Connect VCR at Time of Initial Install S 5.99 •
Includes:Digital Classic and Digital Plus Programming Tiers and al it Preriun Services' Connect VCR Requiring Separate Trip S 12.99 •
'Excludes Playboy subscription. Reconnection of Service • S 27.99 `
ADDITIONAL DIGITAL SERVICES Service Cal • S 19.99 0
Digital Service prices p a r month. •
MISCELLANEOUS
Digital Extra Pack S 5.99
•
Digital Sports Pack S 4.99 Non-Sufficient Funds S 25.00
Family Tier S 14.99 Field Service Charge S 15.00 .
Regeres pechase or united Cable and 1 Standard Digital Set-Top Receiver and Remote. Late Fee S 3.00
•
Home Theater Access Fee S 14.99 Purchase A/B Switch S 10.00
pro•tiliechage) Unretumed Standard Set-Top Receiver S 54.00
Digital Video Recorder(DVR) $ 9.95 Unretumed Digital Set-Top Receiver(Model 700) S 96.00
Digital
Advanced td DVl OutSet-Top Recdverand DVRFunctionalty Unturned Digital Set-Top Receiver(Model 2000) S 167.00 •
Diggital Additional Outlet Service S 5.10 Unreturned Digital Set-TopReceiver(Model 2500) S 167.00
kidudesI Set-Top and remote iap'applicable. UnrUnreturned Addressable Set-Top Receiver $ 78.00
PREMIUM SERER VICES Urcetorned HD Digital Set Top Receiver(Model 5100). S 336.00
Premium Services available with Digital set-Top Receiver ony Unreturned HD D'ital Set-Top Receiver(Model 6200) S 320.00
HBO Package 15.99 g Set-Top
Showtime Package $ 15.99 Unreturned HD/DVR Digital Receiver(Model 3412) S 418.00
Cinemax Package $ 15.99 Urcetrrned HD/DVR Digital Set-Top Receiver(Model 6412) S 470.00
`• The Movie Channel Package $ 15.99 Unturned Universal Remote S 6.40
STARZI Package $ 15.99 - Unretumed Dgital Video Recorder Remote S 6.65'
Playboy Subscription .S 19.99 Unreturned DCT Power Cord • S 1.15
INTERNATIONAL PREMIUM SERVICES Unreturned Wireless Phone Jack(Per Piece) $ 23.00
international Premium Services amiable with Digital Set-Top Receive only• • Unturned CableCARD S 90.00
The Filipino Channel S 11.99
Thong Tian Channel S 11.99
TV JAPAN S 24.99 GENERAL INFORMATION-Cable TV Service.
r Zee TV S 14.99 Please�at us ra other details abort sew and prices.Yau must subsabe to United or Basic
TV Asia $ 14.99 Servepoem and i optimaniote coa bierrol for services.e To receive l certainl atonal
equipment additional ayoO must
tarnt a
Zee TV&TV Asia Combination S 24.99 ding§arsenics.pogenmig iaccess and Dylan dyni S ma way Val must subscribe to a Premium
i Saigon Broadcasting Television Network' $ 14.99 ssseeevvv���e is order to naive the Multiplex version d me adorn Prices do not include franchise fees
TVSMonde USA S 9.99 a wadable tales Franchise fees,regulator/fees.taxes and other fees may apply with the actual amount
depending on rim and senkes ordered nanq progammLiy chanelbcilon and packaging are
Arabic Radio&Television .S 11.99 subject to change. •
RAI International S 9.99 A Dotal Set-TopRecant Is required to receive all Digital Cable iM P -View. •
I Russian Television Network S 14.99 On Demand an �mium Channels.A Premium ChannelService Subscription Is sun to new
KOAM TV $ 14.99 Premium Orr Demand cotter&
COMCAST EN ESPAI�OL PACKAGES Inst`n° aka aareromxikted us tlieHourly SenaCharge espresabed NeFederal
•
Commmiaiiom me Ne average time for each installation based upon
historical dela Non-standard aerial d ousting cable polar.a e t his rot
IncluSalado Pack $ 6.99 fisted above wit be chart the Hail Service Gunge,IX receiving
Cable 10 Digital Spanish language Interest CMaeb I Spanish language Digital1en61t Charnels of the pallid.aawriin bi01y rate mr ei�ums with ned ianseay wayless.
aroncee term s.Some
CableLatlno Package S 25.99 dtieppk��othera rretioncomalred nmay apple aserelam tams and
i gg eondibans doaime. re xp such separate arrangements.Where such 3e inconsistent wth the
Includes Limited Caleb with Oriirvisixr SMato Pack Wamatin in this Facing sW fc ue.the tams nd coMitio s d such separate agreements lull apply
CableLatlno Comppleto Local Package $ 51.99 ycur ad to heerextent required dt laeertanouataop you ofapeetiaingrdaryssavicescr rate haease. �I N.T •
Incl des Bask Cable with visbo.Selecto Pack .S 61.99 De receive which we re cad err C d b- alit a atbjat Cohere upg de rdchanges M - ATTACHIVIE T.�B
CableLatinoCable Completo Local con HBO Packsyye....s requested by you
Induda Bask Cable withUmrisbn,Salado Pack HBO iodating HBO LNibo),START!i Encore downgrade ears isted atom .
I
` V Attachment 3A
T1 LM-T1 PROJ LM-PROJ
CLS:1751-KING COUNTY SOUTH Dec-2005 Sep-2006 Oct-2006 Nov-2006 Jul-2007 Jun 2008
Channel Information T CH T CH T CH T CH T CH T CH
NWCN B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2 B 2
KWPX B 3 B 3 B 3 B 3 B 3 B 3
KOMO B 4 B 4 B 4 B 4 B 4 B 4
KING B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5
KONG B 6 B 6 B 6 B 6 B 6 B 6
KIRO B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7 B 7
DSC-W B 8 B 8 B 8 B 8 B 8 B 8
KCTS B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9 B 9
KTWB B 10 B 10 B 10 B 10 B 10 B 10
KSTW B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11 B 11
KBTC B 12 B 12 B 12 B 12 B 12 B 12
KCPQ B 13 B 13 B 13 B 13 B 13 B 13
KBCB B 14 B 14 B 14 B 14 B 14 B 14
KHCV B 15 B 15 B 15 B 15 B 15 B 15
QVC B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16 B 16
HSN BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17
LEASEACC BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17 BS 17
KWDK B 18 B 18 B 18 B 18 B 18 B 18
HALLMARK-W B 19 B 19 B 19 B 19 B 19 B 19
KTBW B 20 B 20 B 20 B 20 B 20 B 20
GOVTACC B 21 B 21 B 21 B 21 B 21 B 21
GOVTACC B 22 B 22 B 22 B 22 B 22 B 22
TVW B 23 B 23 B 23 ' B 23 B 23 B 23
CSPAN B 24 B 24 B 24 B 24 B 24 B 24
CSPAN2 B 25 B 25 B 25 B 25 B 25 B 25
EDACC B 26 B 26 B 26 B 26 B 26 B 26
UWTV B 27 B 27 B 27 B 27 B 27 B 27
EDACC B 28 B 28 B 28 B 28 B 28 B 28
KWOG B 29 B 29 B 29 B 29 B 29 B 29
TVGC B 74 B 74
KCTS+ B 75 B 75 B 75 B 75 B 75 B 75
UWTV2 B 76 B 76 B 76 B 76 B 76 B 76
PUBACC B 77 B 77 B 77 B 77 B 77 B 77
TWC B 78 B 78 B 78 B 78 B 78 B 78
JEWELRY-D B 96
UNIVIS-W B 98 B 98 B 98 B 98
CBUT B 99 B 99 B 99 B 99 B 99 B 99
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls
03/20/20074:15 PM CLU 1240 Print Page 1 of 1
Attachment 3B
FCC FORM 1240-2007
Headend:H1751G
Headend Name:KING COUNTY SOUTH
Channel Line-Up Reconciliation
Basic
Number of Channels,Beginning of True-Up Period (From Attachment 3) 36
Changes During True-Up Period (2)
Number of Channels,End of True-Up Period 1 34
Number of Channels,Beginning of True-Up Period 2 (From Attachment 3) 34
Changes During True-Up Period 2 -
Number of Channels,End of True-Up Period 2 34
Number of Channels,Beginning of Projected Period 33
Changes During Projected Period -
Number of Channels,End of Projected Period 33
Summary of Channel Changes
Channel Date Date
Number Call Sign Channel Name Tier Added Deleted Period
74 TVGC TVGC B 10/01/2006 TU
96 JEWELRY-D JEWELRY-D B 09/01/2006 TU
98 UNIVIS-W UNIVIS-W B 01/01/2007 P
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Attachment 3B
Y
Attachment 4 '
c
FCC FORM 1240 - 2007
Headend: H1751G
Headend Name: KING COUNTY SOUTH
Basic
Basic Basic Copyright
Basic Programming Programming Effective Basic Copyright FCC User Fee FCC User Fee
Month Period Customers Effective Rate Cost Rate Cost Effective Rate Cost
Dec-2005 T-up 1 17,317 0.6884 11,921.0228 0.1251 2,166.3567 - -
Jan-2006 T-up 1 17,225 0.6915 11,911.0875 0.1251 2,154.8475 - -
Feb-2006 T-up 1 17,272 0.6915 11,943.5880 0.1251 2,160.7272 - -
Mar-2006 T-up 1 17,390 0.6915 12,025.1850 0.1251 2,175.4890 - -
Apr-2006 T-up 1 17,496 0.6915 12,098.4840 0.1251 2,188.7496 - -
May-2006 T-up 1 17,508 0.6915 12,106.7820 0.1251 2,190.2508 - -
Jun-2006 T-up 1 17,479 0.6915 12,086.7285 0.1251 2,186.6229 - -
Ju1-2006 T-up 1 17,441 0.6915 12,060.4515 0.1251 2,181.8691 - -
Aug-2006 T-up 1 17,594 0.6915 12,166.2510 0.1251 2,201.0094 - -
Sep-2006 T-up 1 17,616 0.6915 12,181.4640 0.1251 2,203.7616 - -
Oct-2006 T-up 1 17,594 0.6755 11,884.7470 0.1251 2,201.0094 - -
Nov-2006 T-up 1 17,611 0.6755 11,896.2305 0.1251 2,203.1361 - -
Ju1-2007 Proj 17,786 0.6909 12,288.3474 0.1251 2,225.0286 - -
Aug-2007 Proj 17,811 0.6909 12,305.6199 0.1251 2,228.1561 - -
Sep-2007 Proj 17,836 0.6909 12,322.8924 0.1251 2,231.2836 - -
Oct-2007 Proj 17,861 0.6909 12,340.1649 0.1251 2,234.4111 - -
Nov-2007 Proj 17,886 0.6909 12,357.4374 0.1251 2,237.5386 - -
Dec-2007 Proj 17,911 0.6909 12,374.7099 0.1251 2,240.6661 - -
Jan-2008 Proj 17,936 0.6909 12,391.9824 0.1251 2,243.7936 - -
Feb-2008 Proj 17,961 0.6909 12,409.2549 0.1251 2,246.9211 - -
Mar-2008 Proj 17,986 0.6909 12,426.5274 0.1251 2,250.0486 - -
Apr-2008 Proj 18,011 0.6909 12,443.7999 0.1251 2,253.1761 - -
May-2008 Proj 18,036 0.6909 12,461.0724 0.1251 2,256.3036 - -
Jun-2008 Proj 18,062 0.6909 12,479.0358 0.1251 2,259.5562 - -
Total Programming Costs(Worksheet 7,Line 701)
Basic
Programming
Cost Basic Copyright User Fees
True Up Period 1: 144,282.0218 26,213.8293 -
True Up Period 2: - - -
Projected Period: 148,600.8447 26,906.8833 -
WA-H1751-2_2K7RWB.xls Attachment 4
*'
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC.
FCC FORM 1240
PREPARATION DOCUMENTATION
2007 ANNUAL FILING
This memo will serve to document,in general terms,the approach and assumptions used in preparing the
2007 annual filing of FCC Form 1240 for systems owned and/or managed by Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC. Where an FCC Order or Public Notice applies, it is referenced by number.
Questions about the mathematical calculations and formulas used in the Form 1240 and the Worksheets
can be referenced in the"Instructions for FCC Form 1240."
MODULE A-MAXIMUM PERMITTED RATE FROM PREVIOUS FILING
Line Al The current maximum permitted rate equals the maximum permitted rate from the
prior Form 1240,Line I9. •
MODULE B: SUBSCRIBERSHIP
Line B 1B2 The average subscribership for True-Up Period 1 is calculated by taking the average of
the actual subscribers for each month of the True-Up Period indicated in Question 6 of
FCC Form 1240. For systems with greater than 12 months of actual subscribers,Line B2
will also be completed using the same approach.
Line B3 The estimated average subscribership for the Projected Period is calculated using
historical subscriber growth for the most recent 12 months ending as of the last month of
the True-Up Periods. The historical growth percentage is then applied to the last month
of actual subscribers to project subscribers through the end of the Projected Period
indicated in Question 5 of FCC Form 1240. The Projected Period subscriber calculation
may be adjusted in areas where seasonal fluctuations in subscribers are prevalent.
MODULE C: INFLATION INFORMATION
Line C3/C4 The inflation factor for the True-Up Period is calculated using the Gross National
Product Price Index. The individual factors used for each month of the True-Up Period
reflect the quarterly factors released by the FCC summarized as follows:
Quarter Months Covered Inflation
3Q05 Jul-05—Sep-05 3.31% (FCC DA 06-30)
4Q05 Oct-05—Dec-05 3.47% (FCC DA 06-773)
1Q06 Jan-06—Mar-06 3.12% (FCC DA 06-1388)
2Q06 Apr-06—Jun-06 3.31%(FCC DA 06-1987)
3Q06 Jul-06—Sep-06 1.89%(FCC DA 06-2449)
s For recently acquired systems,the subscriber growth percentage is calculated using historical subscriber growth for
the most recent period of actual data available.
2007-1240(4/1/2007)
MODULE C: INFLATION INFORMATION(continued)
The appropriate inflation factor is entered on Worksheet 1 for each month of the True-
Up Period and divided by twelve. The number 1.0 is then added to the result and entered
on Line 113 of Worksheet 1. For systems with a True-Up Period 2 (greater than 12
months of actual data),Line C4 will also be completed using the same approach.
MODULE G: MPR FOR TRUE-UP PERIOD 2
Module G is used to calculate the Maximum Permitted Rate(MPR)for True-Up Period
2. True-Up Period 2 will be completed when there are more than 12 months of actual
data to be trued-up. Worksheets used to calculate the numbers used in Module G are
attached to the Form 1240 as applicable.
WORKSHEET 7-EXTERNAL COSTS
Line 707 Franchise related costs included on Line 707 are taken from Attachment 5, "Franchise
Related Costs." The attachment provides information on how the franchise-related costs
are calculated for each period,e.g.,the type of cost being passed through and the number
of months of recovery.
WORKSHEET 8-TRUE-UP RATE CHARGED
Line 813 The True-Up Rate Charged reflects the actual rate charged included in the FCC Form
1240 calculation of the maximum permitted rate.*
*Franchises with rate ordered rates on Line Al will have a corresponding reduction in the applicable Module D
segment(s). For franchises that have paid refunds pursuant to a rate order,Line Al and Module D will match the
rate ordered rates and the Worksheet 8 rate will match the rate ordered rate for the applicable months.Additionally,
for franchises with FCC Form 1235,rates on Worksheet 8 will match Line Al per FCC Order DA 99-1779.
2 2007-1240(4/1/2007)
CITY OF RENTON
MAR 3,,0 2001
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC �� RECEIVED FFICE
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS, INC.
2006 ANNUAL FILING-FCC FORM 1205
PREPARATION DOCUMENTATION
This memo will serve to document, in general terms, the steps and methodologies behind the
preparation of FCC Form 1205 for systems owned and managed by Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc. ("Comcast").
Comcast has chosen to aggregate its equipment costs at the company level as provided by the
Federal Communication Commission's Report and Order released June 7, 1997 (DA 96-57).
The cost data included in the 2006 Form 1205 was obtained from the books and records at the
company level of Comcast as of December 31, 2006. The average hours per installation, costs
and hours of installation and maintenance of customer equipment were estimated based upon a
sample of Comcast's cable systems. Please see the enclosed "Sampling Plan & Analysis for
Comcast Cable System Rates" for more details.
SCHEDULE A--CAPITAL COSTS OF SERVICE INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT AND PLANT
Line A Represents the types of equipment necessary for installation and maintenance of cable
facilities such as vehicles and tools.
Line B Gross book value was taken from the books and records of Comcast at December 31,
2006.
Line C Accumulated depreciation was taken from the, books and records of Comcast at
December 31, 2006.
Line D Deferred tax balances were calculated by multiplying the difference between the net
book value and the net tax value by the sum of the Federal income tax rate (35%) and
the applicable state income tax rate (net of the Federal income tax benefit). Assets
identified at the company level use a weighted average state tax rate (7.01%) for this
calculation. Net tax value was calculated using gross tax value minus accumulated
tax depreciation. The net tax balances for 2001 through 2006 were adjusted to
account for tax basis bonus depreciation.
•
Line G4a Represents interest expense for Comcast Corporation taken from the company's 10K
for the year ended December 31, 2006. •
Line G4b Represents total net assets of Comcast Corporation taken from the company's 10K for
the year ended December 31, 2006. Total net assets equal total assets less total
current assets and goodwill. •
Line J Represents annual depreciation expense. Depreciation expense was taken from the
books and records of Comcast at December 31, 2006.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC/COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,INC.
SCHEDULE B--ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES FOR SERVICE INSTALLATION
AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT AND PLANT
Schedule B lists annual operating expenses (excluding depreciation) for installation and
maintenance of all cable facilities for the year ended December 31, 2006. Such expenses were
obtained from the books and records of Comcast at December 31, 2006 and are summarized as
follows:
Schedule B Schedule B Analysis
Salaries & Benefits Salaries, Commissions, Employee Benefits, and
Payroll Taxes
Supplies Operating Supplies
Other 1 Contract Labor, Converter Maintenance and Repair
Other 2 Vehicle Expense Gas and Oil, Vehicle Expense
Maintenance and Rentals/Lease Expense
SCHEDULE C—CAPITAL COSTS OF LEASED CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT
Line A Represents customer equipment for which there is a separately calculated charge. The
following items of equipment will have a separately calculated charge: converters for
"basic-only" customers, converters for customers receiving a level of service above
the basic tier (except HDTV-capable and DVR-capable converters), HDTV-capable
and DVR-capable converters, CableCARDs and remotes.
Line B Represents total maintenance and service hours for remotes and converters. Hours
were obtained from system personnel based on service call reports and the system
management's experience in performing various maintenance/service activities. If the
system utilized contract labor, those hours were included. Such hours were then
allocated 5% to remotes and 95% to converters. Please refer to Schedule C
Attachment for actual calculation.
Line D Gross book value was taken from the books and records of Comcast at December 31,
2006. Items such as non-addressable converters, addressable converters, remotes,
digital converters, digital video recorders, HDTV-capable converters, and
CableCARDs are included on this line.
Line E Accumulated depreciation was taken from the books and records of Comcast at
December 31, 2006.
Line F Deferred tax balances were calculated by multiplying the difference between the net
book value and the net tax value by the sum of the Federal income tax rate (35%) and
the applicable state income tax rate (net of the Federal income tax benefit). Assets
identified at the company level use a weighted average state tax rate (7.01%) for this
calculation. Net tax value was calculated using gross tax value minus accumulated
tax depreciation. The net tax balances for 2001 through 2006 were adjusted to
account for tax basis bonus depreciation.
2
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC/COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,INC.
Line J Current provision for depreciation was taken from the books and records of Comcast
at December 31, 2006.
SCHEDULE D—AVERAGE HOURS PER INSTALLATION
Schedule D includes the average hours for installations. The average times were based on the
sample systems' experience in actually performing such activities in 2006 and represent a
weighted average time that includes both in-house and contractor installation times.
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PERMITTED EQUIPMENT
AND INSTALLATION CHARGES
STEP A—HOURLY SERVICE CHARGE
Line 4 Represents the estimated percentage of the costs reported on Schedules A and B that
relate directly to installation and maintenance of customer equipment.
Line 5 Represents the estimated amount of costs related to installation and maintenance of
customer equipment.
Line 6 Represents an estimate of the total number of person hours that were spent on
maintenance of regulated customer equipment and service installation in 2006,
including contract labor.
STEP F-- CHARGES FOR CHANGING SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT
Line 36b Represents the average hours for changing service tiers or equipment and equals the
same number of hours listed for upgrade of service (requiring service call) at
Schedule D, Item 2.
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING TOTAL EQUIPMENT
AND INSTALLATION COSTS
This worksheet has not been completed since this is the annual filing of Form 1205, and not a
Form 1205 being filed in conjunction with FCC Form 1200, 1220, or 1225 for the purpose of
establishing cable service rates. Please refer to the instructions to FCC Form 1205,page 21.
3
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC/COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,INC.
Federal Communications Commission Approved by:OMB 3060.0703
Washington.D.C.20554 •
•
FORM 1205
DETERMINING REGULATED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
"EQUIPMENT FORM"
Comcast
Community Unit Identifier(CUID)of cable system Date of Form Submission
SEE FCC FORM 1240 FILING 3/1/07
Name of Cable Operator
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,LLC and COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS HOLDINGS,INC.
Mailing Address of Cable Operator
•
City State ZIP Code
Name and Title of person completing this form:
Telephone number Fax Number
Name of Local Franchising Authority
PLEASE SEE FRANCHISE AUTHORITY LISTING PROVIDED WITH FCC FORM 1240 FILING
Mailing Address of Local Franchising Authority
City State ZIP Code
I.This form is being filed:(Enter an"x"in the appropriate boss
In conjunction with FCC Fern 1200,FCC Form 1220,or FCC Fonn 1225.
Attach the completed FCC Form 1200,FCC Form 1220.or FCC Form 1225 to the front of this form.
OR
•
1 X In order to fulfill FCC roles requiring an annual filing of this form
Enter the dam on which you last filed this form 03/01/06 (mMddiyy)
Note:This should be the date on which the rates last justified,by using either FCC Form 393 or the prior filing of this form,were in effect.
2.Enter the date on which you closed your hooks for the fiscal year reflected in this form: 12/31/06 (mm/dd/yy)
Note.This will indicate the end oldie 12-month fiscal year for which you are filing this fomt.
3.Indicate the corporate status of.our cable system]Enter an"a"in the correct box(
X C-Corporation
Subchapter S corporation
Partnership
Sole Proprietorship
Other[Please explain below]
FCC Form 1205
Page I Excel 4.0 for Windows June 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved by:OMB 3060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
Comcast
SCHEDULE A:CAPITAL COSTS OF SERVICE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT AND PLANT
Maintenance Other I. Other 2.
A Equipment and Plans Vehicles Tools Facilities (Specify below) (Specify below)
B Gross Book Value S799.445 449.00 8522,984,001.00 S0.00
C Accumulated Depreciation S635.706.702.00 5380,249,342.00 S0.00
D Deferred Taxes 535,261,032.00 533,736,068.00 S0.00
E Net Book Value[B4C+D)1 $I28,477,7I5.00 S108,998,591.00 50.00 S0.00 50.00
F Rat Return
Rate R m 0.1125
G a(cufalinn a C a Gross-u R le
l v
GI Federal Income Tax Rate 0.35
2 G rate Income Tax Rate S 0.0701
3 Net Total
G tel Income Tax Rate GI+G G I x 2 G2
4 G Deductibility
Adjustment to Reflect Intercs c il it
Y
4 G a Actual Interest Am sent 0 2 0 4 0 S 6 0 0000.00 =i
Gob Total Net Asset
s 4 91 00 5 35 0000.00
a m G4c B u Room on Investment Amount 4 o t G bxF 4 7 S10 286 l 500-0
G4dInterest Deduc
tibility Factor I4a/G4 c
) 0.20 7
G5 Effective Tax to 4 Rate G3 x 1-G d [C-Corps ski to 7 G
( ( )I[ mx D 1
G6 Adjustments for Non-C Corporations
Base m v G6a B u Return on Investment Amount G4cI
o
I
G6b Distributions S0.00 - -
G6c Contri utio ns ma not exceed 6b - -- -
G6d Returns Subject to Income Tax - -
x G6a-G66�C,6c
J ( I
G6e Returns e to Income Tax a Percentage
c Subject
8 1 (G6d/G6a 1 N
7 G Gros-0 Rate rC orPsa/(1-GS)Othera/I GS z G )) 1.4624
H Grossed-Up Rate of Re mmF x G7 O1 =
I Return on Investment Grossed-Up for Taxes[E x II) S21.137:194.184 S 17:932,482.5613 50.00 $0.00 S0.00
Current Provision for Depreciation S61,593:346.00 S38,689,993.00 S0.00
K Annual Capital Costs[1*1) S82,730540.184 S56,622,475.5613 S0.00 S0.00 S0.00
L GRAND TOTAL Isom of Line K entries' 5139,353,015.7453
Box I.
Specify:Other I.
Specify:Other 2.
SCHEDULE B:ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES FOR SERVICE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT
Salaries Other 1. Other 2.
&Benefits Supplies Utilities Other Taxes (Specify below) (Specify below)
A Annual Op.Expenses for Svc.Install.and Maint.of Equip. S4.072,745.552.07 S12,927,637.88 S0.00 S0.00 S358,581,611.76 S282,054,234.50
B GRAND TOTAL Isom of Line A entries) 54,726J09,036.21
Box 2.
Specify:Other I.Contract Labor/Converter Maintenance
Specify:Other 2.Vehicle Expenses/Rentals and Lease Expense
FCC Form 1205
Page 2 Excel 4.0 for Windows June 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved by.OMB 1060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
Comcast
SCHEDULE C:CAPITAL COSTS OF LEASED CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT
A Equipment Remote l Remote 2 CableCARD Converter l Converter 2 Converter 3
B Total Maimenance/Service Hoots(Attach Explanation) 403,914 4,120 158,361 5,627,150 1,884,732
C Total II of Units in Service 19,974,098 114569 412,389 14,653,698 4,908,011
D Gross Book Value 8239,720,251.00 011,097,119.00 5581,837.00 $3,401,574,381.00 $2,034,519,911.00
E Accumulated Depreciation 5196,347,996.00 52,070,659.00 $576,623.00 $2,601,361,145.00 S517,694,510.00
F Deferred Taxes ($3,225,530.00) $2,149,903.00 ($3,564.00) S224,358,176.00 $380,798,251.00
G Net Book Value'D-(E+F)) 046,597,785.00 50.00 56,876,557.00 $8,778.00 S575,855,060.00 51,136,027,150.00
H Grossed- Rat - -
U Rate From Sched. Li
ne H
P ( 1
I Rem.on Investment Grossed-Up for Taxes(G x NJ S7.666,282.2816 $0.00 $1,131,333,326 41,444.1593 $94,739,856.0527 5186.899544.9357
1 Cunnot Provision for Depreciation 539,190,190.00 $1,558,197.00 $6,508.93 $364,241,706.29 S335,002,275.76
K Annual Capital Costs[I+JJ $46,856,472.2816 $0.00 $2,689,530.326 $7,953.0893 8458,981,5623427 $521,901,820.6957
L GRAND TOTAL'sum of Line K entries) SI,030,437,338.7354 •
Box 3_
SCHEDULED:AVERAGE HOURS PER INSTALLATION
A. Average Hours per Unwired Home Installation(attach an explanation) 13387
B. Average Hours per Pre-Wired Home Installation(attach an explanation) 0.9261
C. Average Hours per.Additional Connection Installation at Time of Initial Installation(attach an explanation) 0.5014
D. Average Hours per Additional Connection Installation Requiring Separate Installation(attach an explanation) 0.7703
E. Other Installation(by Item Type):
Item I.Relocate Outlet
Average Hours per Installation(attach an explanation) 0.6071
Item 2.Upgrade Non-Addressable
Average Hours per Installation(attach an explanation) 0.5I07
Item 3.Downgrade Non-Addressable
Average Hours per Installation(attach an explanation) 0.419
FCC Form 1205
Page) Excel 4.0 for Windows June 1996
•
Federal Communications Commission
Approved by:OMB 3060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
Comcast
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING PERMITTED EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION CHARGES
STEP A.Hourly Service Charge
I. Total Capital Costs of Installation and Maintenance[Schedule A,Box I) $139,353,015.7453
2. Total Annual Operating Expenses for Installation and Maintenance[Schedule B,Box 2) S4,726,309,036.21
3. Total Capital Costs and Operating Expenses for Installation and Maintenance(Line I+Line 2). 54,865,662,051.9553
4. Customer Equipment and Installation Percentage(attach an explanation). 0.1784
5. Annual Customer Equipment Maintenance and Installation Costs,Excluding Costs of Leased Equipment[Line 3 x Line 4) S868,078,444.44
6. Total Labor Hours for Maintenance and Installation of Customer Equipment and Services(attach explanation) 24,672,158.26
7. Handy Service Charge(HSC)(Line 5/Line 6) 535.1845
METHOD OF BILLING FOR INSTALLATIONS(place an"x"in the appropriate box)
Installations billed by the hour based on the HSC calculated in Line 7.
X Installations billed as a standard charge.
STEP B.Installation Charge
8. Uniform HSC for all installations(From Step A,line 7) I n/a.
OR
9. Average Charge for Installation Types
a.Unwired Home installation
al.HSC(Line 7) S35.1845_=al Average Average Hours per Unwired Home Installation(Schedule D,Line A) 13387 =;
a3.Charge per Unwired Home Installation[al x a2) $47.1015
b.Pre-wired Home Installation
bl.HSC[Line 7) $35.1845
................
62.Average Hours per Pre-wired Home Installation(Schedule D,Line B) 0.9261
b3.Charge per Pre-wired Home Installation NI x b2) S32.5844
c.Additional Connection Installation at lime of Initial Installation
el.HSC[Line 7) S35.1845
eL Average Hours per Additional Connection Installation at Time of!nit Install.[Schedule D,Line C) 0.5014
c3.Charge per Additional Connection Installation at Time of Initial Installation Jci x c2) S17.64151
d.Additional Connection Installation Requiting Separate Installation
di_HSC(Line 7) 535.1845
d2.Avg.Hours per Additional Connection Installation Req.Sep.Install.(Schedule D.Line D] 0.7703
d3.Charge per Additional Connection Installation Requiring Separate Installation[di x d21 S27.1026
e.Other Installations(As specified in Schedule D,Line El:
el.HSC[Line 7) $35.1845
e2.Average Hours per Installation of Item l[Relocate Outlet)
c3.Charge per Installation of Item I[el x e2] S213605
e4.HSC(Line 71 S35.1845
e5.Average Hours per Installation of Item 2[Upgrade Non-Addressable] 0.5107
e6.Charge per Installation of Item 2[e4 x e5J S17.9687
e7.HSC(Line 71 535.1845
e8.Average Hours per Installation of Item 3[Downgrade Non-Addressable)
e9.Charge per Installation of Item 3[c7 x e8] S14.7423
•
Page 4 FCC Form 1205
B Excel for Windows June 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved by.OMB 3060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
Comcast
STEP C.Charges for leased Remotes ab
(Calculate separately for each significantly different type) Remote I Remote 2 Cable Card
10. Total Maintenance/Service Hours(Corresponding column from Schedule C.Line B) 403,914 0. 4,120
I 1_ HSC(Line 7) S35.1845 S35.1845 S35.1845
12. Total Maintenance/Service Cost[Line 10 x Line II) 514.211.526.7385 50.00 5144,960.289
13. Annual Capital Costs(Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line K] S46,856.472.2816 50.00 S2,689.530326
14. Total Cost of Remote[Line l2+Line 13] S61,067,999.0201 50.00 S2,834,490.615
IS. Number of Units in Service[Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line C] 19,974,098 0. 114,569
16. Unit Cost[Line 14/Line 15j 53.0574 50.00 S24.7405
17. Rate per Month[Line 16/(12)] 50.2548 50.00 52.0617
STEP D.Charges for leased Converter Boxes a b c
(Calculate separately for each significantly different type) Convener Converter 2 Convener 3
18. Total Maintenance/Service Hours[Corresponding column from Schedule C.Line B) 158,361 5,627.150 1,884,732
19. HSC[Line 7) S35.1845 S35.1845 535.1845
20. Total Maintenance/Service Cost[Line IS x 19] 55,571,858.3308 S 197,988,662.6518 566,313.421.2056
21. Annual Capital Costs[Corresponding column from Schedule C.Line K] S7,953.0893 5458.981,562.3427 S521.901,820.6957
22. Total Cost of Convener[Line 20+Line 21) S5,579,811.4201 5656,970,224.9945 $588,215,241.9013
23. Number of Units in Service[Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line C] 412,389 14,653,698 4,908,011
24. Unit Cost[Line 22/Line 23] 513.5305 S44.8331 5119.848
25. Rate per Month[Line 24/(12)] SI.1275 53.7361 59.9873
STEP E.Charges for Other Leased Equipment
26. Total Maintenance/Service Hours(Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line B) 0.
27. HSC[Line 7] 535.1845_
28. Total Maintenance/Service Cost(Line 26 x Line 27) S0.00
29. Annual Capital Costs[Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line K] 50.00
30. Total Cost of Equipment[Line 28+Line 29] 50.00
3I. Number of Units in Service[Corresponding column from Schedule C,Line C] 0.
32_ Unit Cost(Line 30/Line3❑ 50.00
33. Rate per Month{Line32/(12)) 50.00
METHOD OF BILLING FOR CHANCING SERVICE TIERS OR EQUIPMENT(place an"x"in the appropriate box)
as a Nominal Charge(Enter the nominal charge in Line 34)
as a Uniform Hourly Service Charge
X as an Average Charge(Enter the Average Hours for Changing Service Tiers in Line 36b.)
STEP F.Charges for Changing Service Tiers or Equipment
34. Nominal Charge for Changing Service Tiers
If you use an escalating scale of charges,place an"x in the box at the right.
OR
35. Uniform Hourly Service Charge ' n/a
OR
36. Average Charge for Changing Service Tiers
36a.HSC[Line 7] 535.1845
36b.Average flours to Change Service Tiers 0.5107
36c.Average Charge for Changing Service Tiers[Line 36a x Line 3661 417.9687
FCC Form 1205
Pages Excel4.0 for Windows June 1996
Federal Communications Commission Approved by:OMB 3060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
Comcast
WORKSHEET FOR CALCULATING TOTAL EQUIPMENT AND INSTALLATION COSTS
1. Total Capital Costs of Installation and Maintenance[Schedule A,Box 1) S 139,353,015.7453
2. Total Annual Operating Expenses for Installation and Maintenance[Schedule B.Box 2) 54,726,309,036.21
3. Total Annual Capital Costs of Installation and Maintenance[Line l+Line 2) 54,865,662,051.9553
4. Customer Equipment and Installation Percentage(attach explanation).
5. Annual Customer Equipment Maintenance and Installation Costs,Excluding Costs of Leased Equipment S0.00
[Line 3 x Line 4)
6. Total Capital Costs of Leased Customer Equipment(Schedule C,Box 3) S1,030,437,338.7354
7. Annual Customer Equipment and Installation Costs[Line 5+Line 6) $1,030,437,338.7354
8. Percentage Allocation to Franchise Area(see instructions)
9. Allocated Annual Equipment and Installation Cost[Line 7 x Line 8) 50.00
10. Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost(Line 9/(12)1 50.00
11. Number of Basic Subscribers in Franchise
12. Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost per Subscriber(Line 10/Line 11) S0.00
13. Inflation Adjustment Factor[See Instructions)
14. Adjusted Monthly Equipment and Installation Cost per Subscriber(Line 12 x Line 13) S0.00
•
•
FCC Form 1205
Page 6 Excel 4.0 for Windows June 1996
Federal Communications Commission
Approved by.OMB 3060-0703
Washington,D.C.20554
•
Comcast
SUMMARY SCHEDULE
Current Equipment and Installation Rates IPennitted !Actual
I. Charges for Cable Service Installations
a.Hourly Rate[Step A.Line 71
b.Average Installation Charges:
I.Installation of Unwired Homes[Step B,Line 9a3[ S47.10 •
2.Installation of Prewired Homes[Step B.Line 91331 $32.58 •
3.Installation of Additional Connections at Time of Initial Installation(Step B.Line 9c3[ S17.64 • •
4.Installation of Additional Connections Requiring Separate Install[Step B,Line 9d3[ $27.10 •
5.Other Installations(specify)[Step B,Lines 9e3,9e6.9e9[
a.Relocate Outlet S21.36 •
b.Upgrade Non-Addressable 517.97 •
c.Downgrade Non-Addressable 514.74 •
2. Monthly Charge for Lease of Remote Controls[Step C,Line 17,columns a<[
Remote Control Type I:All Units $0.25 •
Remote Control Type 2: S0.00
Remote Control Type 3:CableCARD $2.06 •
3. Monthly Charge for Lease of Converter Boxes[Step D,Line 25.columns a-el
Convener Box Type 1:(Basic Only Units) S1.13 •
Converter Box Type 2:(All Other Units Excluding HD and DVR) S3.74 •
Converter Box Type 3:(High Definition and Digital Video Recorder) 59.99 •
4. Monthly Charge for Lease of Other Equipment(Step E.Line 331
Other Equipment(Specify) $0.00
5. Charge for Changing Tiers(if any)(Step F,Line 34,35 or 36c[ S17.97 •
LABOR COST AND POLICY CHANCES
Indicate your answer to the following three questions by placing an'x"in the appropriate box
I.Have you included the labor costs associated with subscriber cable drops in your charges for initial installation?
X YES
NO
2.Have you capitalized the labor costs associated with subscriber cable drops?
X YES
NO
3.If you have filed this form before,have you changed any policy.e.g.,cost accounting or cost allocation that causes an increase in the costs
included in the computation of equipment and installations charges?
YES(You must attach a full explanation)
X NO
CERTIFICATION STATEMENT
WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND/OR IMPRISONMENT
(U.S.CODE TITLE IS.SECTION 1001),AND/OR FORFEITURE(U.S.CODE.TITLE 47,SECTION 503).
I certify that the statements made in this form are we and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief,and are made in good faith.
Name of the Cable Operator Signature
Co Cable Communications,LLC and Co moist Cable V C4JW�r
Communications Holdings,Inc. /Wl
Date Title
3/1/07 Director of Rate Regulation
"'See 2006 Equipment and installation Rates Sheet.
FCC Fonn 1205
Page 7 Excel 4.0 for Windows June 1996
FCC FORM 1205
SCHEDULE D: AVERAGE HOURS PER INSTALLATION
Comcast
Item 4. Upgrade/Downgrade Addressable
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation)
Item 5.Connect VCR-Connect Initial
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation) 0.2176
Item 6. Connect VCR-Connect Seperate
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation) 0.4219
Item 7. Customer Trouble Call
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation) 0.8216
Item 8. (Specify)
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation)
Item 9. (Specify)
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation)
Item 10.(Specify)
Average Hours per Installation(Attach an Explanation)
Page 8 1205 Attachments
FCC FORM 1205
STEP B. INSTALLATION CHARGE
Comcast
elO.HSC[Line 7] N/A ..............
el I.Average Hours per Installation of Item 4 [Addressable Upgrade/Downgrade] N/A
...............
e l2-Charge per Installation of Item 4[e10 x ell] $1.9900
...............
...............
e13.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
eI4.Average Hours per Installation of Item 5[VCR Connect-Initial] 0.2176
e15.Charge per Installation of Item 5[e13 x eI4] $7_6562
.................
e16.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
e17.Average Hours per Installation of Item 6[VCR Connect-Separate] 0.4219
e l8.Charge per Installation of Item 6[e16 x e 17] $14.8444
e19.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
e20.Average Hours per Installation of Item 7 [Customer Trouble Call] 0.8216
e21.Charge per Installation of Item 7[e19 x e20] $28.9076
................
e22.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
e23.Average Hours per Installation of Item 8[Schedule D,Line E,Item 8]
e24.Charge per Installation of Item 8[e22 x e23]
._... ..........
...............
e25.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
e26.Average Hours per Installation of Item 9[Schedule D,Line E,Item 9]
e27-Charge per Installation of Item 9[e25 x e26]
................
e28.HSC[Line 7] $35.1845
e29_Average Hours per Installation of Item 10 [Schedule D,Line E,Item 10]
e30.Charge per Installation of Item 10[e28 x e29]
Page9 1205 Attachments
FCC FORM 1205
SUMMARY SCHEDULE
Comcast
Current Equipment and Installation Rates Permitted Actual
d. Upgrade/Downgrade Addressable $1.99 •
e. Connect VCR-Connect Initial $7.66
f. Connect VCR-Connect Separate $14.84 •
g. Customer Trouble Call $28.91 •
h.
J•
• See 2006 Installation and Equipment Rates Sheet
Page 10 1205 Attachments
FCC FORM 1205
SCHEDULE C
Comcast
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-REMOTE 1
LINE I. Total Labor Hours for Maintenance/Service of Remotes and Converters 8,078,277 hrs.
LINE 2. Percentage of Line 1 Allocated to Remotes 0.0500
LINE 3. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Remotes 403,914
LINE 4- Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Remote I 19,974,098
LINE 5. Number of Units-Remote I/Total Remote Units[Line 4/(Line 4+Line 8)) 1.0000
LINE 6. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Remote I(Line 3 x Line 5) ) 403,914 hrs.I
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-REMOTE 2
LINE 7. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Remotes(Line 3) 403,914'hrs.
LINE 8- Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Remote 2
LINE 9. Number of Units-Remote 2/Total Remote Units[Line 8/(Line 4+Line 8)]
LINE 10. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Remote 2(Line 7 x Line 9) ' hrs.I
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-CABLE CARD
LINE I I. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocate to Cable Card 4,120!hrs.
LINE 12. Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Cable Card 114,569
LINE 13. Allocation Percentage 1.0000
LINE 14. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Cable Card(Line II x Line 13) 4,120 hrs.I
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-CONVERTER 1
LINE 15. Line 1 above 8,078,277 hrs.
LINE 16. Total Labor Hours Allocated to Converters(Line I-Line 3-Line 12) 7,670,243 hrs.
LINE 17. Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Converter I 412,389
LINE 18. Number of Units-Converter I/Total Converter Units[Line 17/(Line 17+Line 21+Line 25)] 0.0206
LINE 19. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Converter 1(Line 16 x Line 18) 158,361 hrs.I
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-CONVERTER 2
LINE 20. Total Labor Hours Allocated to Converters(Line 16) 7,670,243!hrs.
LINE 21. Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Converter 2 14,653,698
LINE 22. Number of Units-Converter 2/Total Converter Units[Line 21!(Line 17+Line 21+Line 25)] 0.7336
LINE 23. Total Maintenance/Service Flours Allocated to Converter 2(Line 20 x Line 22) 5,627,150 hrs.,
SCHEDULE C,LINE B-CONVERTER 3
LINE 24. Total Labor Hours Allocated to Converters(Line 16) 7,670,243'hrs.
LINE 25. Schedule C,Line C-Total Units in Service-Converter 3 4,908,011
LINE 26. Number of Units-Converter 3/Total Converter Units[Line 25/(Line 17+Line 21+line 25)] 0.2457
LINE 27. Total Maintenance/Service Hours Allocated to Converter 3(Line 24 x Line 26) 1 1,884,732 hrs
Page 11 1205 Attachments
FCC FORM 1205 CAPITAL ASSETS/GENERAL LEDGER AUDIT REPORT 2006
Comcast Cable Communications,LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,Inc, PAGE 1
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE A INFORMATION GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
VEHICLES 799,445,449 635,706,702 35,261,032 128,477,715 61,593,346
TOOLS 522,984,001 380,249,342 33,736,068 108,998,591 38,689,993
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES
OTHER I - - • •
OTHER 2 - -
SCHEDULE A•TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS 1,322,429,450 1,015,956,044 68,997,100 237,476,306 100,283,339
SCHEDULE B INFORMATION I TOTAL AMOUNT
SALARIES&BENEFITS 4,072,745,552
SUPPLIES 12,927,638
UTILITIES _
OTHER TAXES -
OTHER I 358,581,612
OTHER 2 282,054,235
SCHEDULE B-ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSE 4,726,309,036
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE C INFORMATION UNITS GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
REMOTE 1 19,974,098 239,720,251 196,347,996 (3,225,530) 46,597,785 39,190,190
CABLE CARD 114,569 11,097,119 2,070,659 2,149,903 6,876,557 1,558,197
CONVERTER I(BASIC ONLY UNITS) 412,389 581,837 576,623 (3,564) 8,778 6,509
CONVERTER 2(ALL OTHER) 14,653,698 3,401,574,381 2,601,361,145 224,358,176 575,855,060 364,241,706
CONVERTER 3(HD&HDDVR) 4,908,011 2,034,519,911 517,694,510 380,798,251 1,136,027,150 335,002,276
SCHEDULE C-TOTAL CAPITAL COST 40,062,765 5,687,493,499 3,318,050,933 604,077,236 1,765,365,330 739,998,878
FCC FORM 1205 CAPITAL ASSETS/GENERAL LEDGER AUDIT REPORT 2006
Comcast Cable Communications,LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,Inc, PAGE 2
I SCHEDULE A BREAKDOWN
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE A-COMMON ASSETS GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
VEHICLES
TOOLS
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES -
OTHER I
OTHER2 -
-
SCHEDULE A-TOTAL AMOUNTS •
-
- - -
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE A•COMCAST SYSTEM ASSETS GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
VEHICLES 799,445,449 635,706,702 35,261,032 128,477,715 61,593,346
TOOLS 522,984,001 380,249,342 33,736,068 108,998,591 38,689,993
MAINTENANCE FACILITIES _
OTHER I - - - -
OTHER 2 -
- -
SCHEDULE A-TOTAL AMOUNTS 1,322,429,450 1,015,956,044 68,997,100 237,476,306 100,283,339
GRAND TOTAL SCHEDULE A 1,322,429,450.00 1,015,956,044.00 68,997,100,00 237,476,306.00 100,283,339.00
I SCHEDULE A•COMCAST SYSTEM ASSETS I I BOOK COST I BOOK ACCUM I NET BOOK I BOOK PROVISION I TAX COST I TAX ACCUM I NET TAX I DEF TAXES I
TOOLS 522,984,001 380,249,342 142,734,659 38,689,993 522,984,001 465,527,572 57,456,429 33,736,068
VEHICLES 772,846,465 609,267,299 163,579,166 61,499,281 772,846,465 698,184,584 74,661,881 35,175,678
CAPITALIZED VEHICLE LEASES 26,598,984 26,439,403 159,581 94,065 26,598,984 26,655,162 (56,178) 85,354
TOTAL SYSTEM ASSETS 1,322,429,450 1,015,956,044 306,473,406 100,283,339 1,322,429,450 1,190,367,318 132,062,132 68,997,100
I DEFERRED TAX CALCULATION I I NET BOOK I NET TAX I BOOK LESS TAX I NET TAX RATE I DEF TAXES
TOOLS 142,734,659 57,456,429 85,278,230 0.3956 33,736,068
VEHICLES 163,579,166 74,661,881 88,917,285 0.3956 35,175,678
CAPITALIZED VEHICLE LEASES 159,581 (56,178) 215,759 0.3956 85,354
TOTALS 306,473,406 132,062,132 174,411,274 0.3956 68,997,100
NET TAX RATE CALCULATION=[(FEDERAL TAX+STATE TAX)-(FEDERAL TAX'STATE TAX)) FEDERAL TAX: 0.3500 STATE TAX: 0.0701 NET TAX RATE: 0.3956
FCC FORM 1205 CAPITAL ASSETS/GENERAL LEDGER AUDIT REPORT 2006
Comcast Cable Communications,LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,Inc. PAGE 3
SCHEDULE B BREAKDOWN
SCHEDULE B-COMMON EXPENSES I TOTAL AMOUNT
SALARIES&BENEFITS -
SUPPLIES -
UTILITIES -
OTHER TAXES -
OTHER 1
OTHER 2 -
SCHEDULE B TOTAL•COMMON EXPENSES -
I SCHEDULE B•COMCAST SYSTEM EXPENSES I I TOTAL AMOUNT
SALARIES&BENEFITS 4,072,745,552
SUPPLIES 12,927,638
UTILITIES -
OTHER TAXES -
OTHER I 358,581,612
OTHER 2 282,054,235
SCHEDULE B TOTALS•COMCAST SYSTEM EXPENSES 4,726,309,036
GRAND TOTAL SCHEDULE B-OPERATING EXPENSE 4,726,309,036
SCHEDULE B-COMCAST SYSTEM EXPENSES TOTAL AMOUNT Schedule B,Line A Descriptions
SALARIES-REGULAR 2,422,194,174 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
SALARIES-OVERTIME 210,907,972 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
SALARIES•BONUSES 121,191,316 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
SALARIES•VACATION 150,945,481 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
COMMISSIONS 311,212,432 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
UTILITIES - UTILITIES
CONTRACT LABOR 317,872,503 OTHERI
BUILDING MAINTENANCE • SUPPLIES
M&R-CONVERTER 40,709,108 OTHERI
RENTALS/LEASE EXPENSE 106,848,390 OTHER2
VEHICLES-GAS&OIL 100,936,279 OTHER2
VEHICLES-REPAIRS&MAINTENANCE 74,269,565 OTHER2
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 583,999,337 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
PAYROLL TAXES 272,294,841 SALARIES AND BENEFITS
M&R•EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES
PARTS SUPPLIES SMALL TOOLS 12,927,638 SUPPLIES
PROPERTY TAXES • OTHER TAXES
INSURANCE - OTHER2
TOTAL COMCAST CABLE SYSTEMS 4,726,309,036
FCC FORM 1205 CAPITAL ASSETS/GENERAL LEDGER AUDIT REPORT 2006
Corneas(Cable Communications,LLC and Comcast Cable Communications Holdings,Inc. PAGE 4
SCHEDULE C BREAKDOWN
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE C-COMMON ASSETS GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
REMOTE I -
REMOTE 2 -
REMOTE 3 -
CONVERTER I(BASIC ONLY UNITS) -
CONVERTER 2(ALL OTHER EXCLUDING HD) -
CONVERTER 3(HD) -
CONVERTER 4(DVR) -
SCHEDULE C-TOTAL AMOUNTS - - - - -
ACCUMULATED DEFERRED CURRENT
SCHEDULE C-COMCAST SYSTEM ASSETS UNITS GROSS BOOK DEPRECIATION TAXES NET BOOK PROVISION
REMOTE I 19,974,098 239,720,251 196,347,996 (3,225,530) 46,597,785 39,190,190
CABLE CARD 114,569 11,097,119 2,070,659 2,149,903 6,876,557 1,558,197
CONVERTER I(BASIC ONLY UNITS) 412,389 581,837 576,623 (3,564) 8,778 6,270
CONVERTER 2(ALL OTHER EXCLUDING HD) 14,653,698 3,401,574,381 2,601,361,145 224,358,176 575,855,060 343,787,810
CONVERTER 3(HD/HDDVR) 4,908,011 2,034,519,911 517,694,510 380,798,251 1,136,027,150 294,849,356
SCHEDULE C-TOTAL AMOUNTS 40,062,765 5,687,493,499 3,318,050,933 604,077,236 1,765,365,330 679,391,823
GRAND TOTAL SCHEDULE C-TOTAL AMOUNTS 40,062,765 5,687,493,499 3,318,050,933 604,077,236 1,765,365,330 679,391,823
I SCHEDULE C•COMCAST SYSTEM ASSETS I BOOK COST I BOOK ACCUM NET BOOK BOOK PROVISION I TAX COST 1 TAX ACCUM I NET TAX 1 DEF TAXES
REMOTES 239,720,251 196,347,996 43,372,255 39,190,190 239,720,251 188,194,483 51,525,768 (3,225,530)
HD/DVR CONVERTERS 1,357,334,178 284,754,461 1,072,579,717 190,260,185 1,357,334,178 957,390,843 399,943,335 266,094,953
CABLE CARD 11,097,119 2,070,659 9,026,460 1,558,197 11,097,119 7,505,197 3,591,922 2,149,903
NON-ADDRESSABLE CONVERTERS 21,234,922 21,044,647 190,275 228,829 21,234,922 20,715,806 519,116 (130,089)
CONVERTER I 2.74% 581,837 576,623 5,214 6,270 581,837 567,613 14,224 , (3,564)
CONVERTER 2 97.26% 20,653,085 20,468,024 185,061 ' 222,559 20,653,085 20,148,193 504,892 (126,525)
ADDRESSABLE CONVERTERS 192,862,051 190,712,017 2,150,034 3,257,056 192,862,051 201,036,833 (8,174,782) 4,084,497
HD CONVERTERS 568,488,409 185,533,087 382,955,322 85,269,348 568,488,409 439,044,110 129,444,299 100,288,961
DIGITAL CONVERTERS 3,188,059,245 2,390,181,104 797,878,141 340,308,195 3,188,059,245 2,947,310,032 240,749,213 220,400,204
DVR 108,697,324 47,406,962 61,290,362 19,319,823 108,697,324 83,843,608 24,853,716 14,414,337
TOTAL COMCAST CABLE SYSTEMS 5,687,493,499 3,318,050,933 2,369,442,566 679,391,823 5,687,493,499 4,845,040,912 842,452,587 604,077,236
I SCHEDULE C-DEFERRED TAX CALCULATION I NET BOOK NET TAX BOOK LESS TAX NET TAX RATE DEF TAXES
REMOTES 43,372,255 51,525,768 (8,153,513) 0.3956 (3,225,530)
HD/DVR CONVERTERS 1,072,579,717 399,943,335 672,636,382 0,3956 266,094,953
CABLE CARD 9,026,460 3,591,922 5,434,538 0.3956 2,149,903
NON-ADDRESSABLE CONVERTERS 190,275 519,116 (328,841) 0.3956 (130,089)
ADDRESSABLE CONVERTERS 2,150,034 (8,174,782) 10,324,816 0.3956 4,084,497
HD CONVERTERS 382,955,322 129,444,299 253,511,023 0.3956 100,288,961
DIGITAL CONVERTERS 797,878,141 240,749,213 557,128,928 0.3956 220,400,204
DVR 61,290,362 24,853,716 36,436,646 0.3956 14,414,337
TOTALS 2,369,442,566 842,452,587 1,526,989,979 0.3956 604,077,236
NET TAX RATE CALCULATION=[(FEDERAL TAX+STATE TAX)-(FEDERAL TAX•STATE TAX)] FEDERAL TAX: 0.3500 STATE TAX: 0.0701 NET TAX RATE: 0.3956
SAMPLING PLAN& ANALYSIS FOR COMCAST CABLE SYSTEM RATES
—Year 2006 Data—
Prepared for:
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
Prepared by:
Robert C. Hannum, Ph.D.
Department of Statistics and Operations Technology
Daniels College of Business
University of Denver
Denver, Colorado 80208
February 22, 2007
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. I
SAMPLING PLAN&ANALYSIS•FOR COMCAST CABLE SYSTEM RATES
—Year 2006 Data—
Introduction
The primary purpose of this project is to provide estimates of the company-wide total and/or
average for the following variables in the population of cable management areas owned and/or
managed at or near year-end 2006 by Comcast Cable Communications(hereinafter Comcast)_
Primary Variables
I. Customer Equipment Maintenance and Installation Costs(End Amount)
2_ Labor Hours for Maintenance and Installation of Customer Equipment and Services (Total
Hours)
Secondary Variable
3_ Converter Maintenance Hours(Converter Hours)
Installation Time Variables (Other Secondary)
4. Unwired Home
5. Pre-Wired Home
6. AO Same
7. AO Separate
8. Move Outlet
9. Upgrade
10. Downgrade
11. VCR Same
12. VCR Separate
13. Trouble Calls
The estimates derived through the sampling plan described herein are used for regulatory
requirements, specifically FCC Form 1205. Values for the two primary variables are used to
obtain an estimate of the Hourly Service Charge(HSC).
For Installation Time variables 4 through 10, estimates of the population total hours spent on
installation and the population number of installations(activity levels)are used to acquire an
estimate of the mean time per installation.' This latter estimate incorporates both the average
time per install for each sampled area and the installation activity level for each area. For the
VCR Same, VCR Separate, and Trouble Call Time2 variables, installation activity levels were
not available and estimates for these variables are provided based only on the average time per
install for each sampled area.
' Installation time data for these variables was obtained for In-House and Contractor installs,with final
estimates based on a weighted average of the two types. For the Unwired variable,the estimate is a weighted
average of Unwired-Aerial and Unwired-Underground installations(with each of these latter variables incorporating
both In-House and Contractor installs).
2 The Trouble Call Time is based on the average of inside wire service calls,customer-owned equipment calls
and customer education calls,assuming equal activity levels for each.
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 2
In addition to the above-mentioned estimates,maximum permitted rates and associated margins
of error at 95 percent confidence are derived for each of the Installation type variables.
A further description of the sampling design and a summary of the statistical analyses conducted
are given below. Relevant formulas are provided in a separate section below entitled "Formulas
for Estimates and Standard Errors." Final estimates of the population mean and total for each
variable, the standard errors for these estimates, and the corresponding coefficients of variation
are given in the Appendix.
Sampling Plan
The population consists of 143 management areas managed by Comcast at year-end 2006. These
areas vary widely in size, as evidenced by the variation in the number of subscribers,a measure
of the area size(Appendix, page Al). In addition, the principal study variables are closely related
to the size of the areas. It is well known3 that stratified sampling can give large gains in precision
when these conditions are satisfied, with stratification resulting in a smaller variance for the
estimated mean or total than would result from a comparable simple random sample.
Available Prior Data
Several sets of reference data from previous years were available to assist in determining the
strata, the sample size, the allocation of the sample to the strata, and the areas to be included in
the sample. These data included:
• The number of subscribers (basic) for each of 422 systems as of October 1996.
• Year-end values for the two primary study variables, End Amount(customer equipment
cost)and Total (labor) Hours, for each of 236 regulated systems from the 1995
population.
• Sample data from previous years(1996—2005).
The 1995 data yielded Spearman correlation coefficients of.92 and.92 between number of
subscribers and each of the two primary study variables. The Pearson correlation coefficients
were .93 between number of subscribers and Total Hours and .94 between number of subscribers
and End Amount. These high correlations suggest the use of number of subscribers as an
appropriate stratification variable for estimating the company-wide End Amount and Total
Hours. Additionally, sample data collected each year from 1996 to present also support this
approach, with the analogous correlations similarly large. Finally, the 20 areas included the 2006
sample yielded Spearman correlation coefficients of.961 and .958 between number of
subscribers and each of the two primary study variables. The analogous Pearson correlations
were.968 and .960. There is no reason to believe that these correlations would be much different
for the entire population.
3 See, for example,Cochran(1977),p. 101.
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 3
Sample Allocation
Strata and sample allocation were determined to minimize the variance of the estimated totals.
Optimal allocation was chosen over proportional allocation due to the previously mentioned
wide variation in area sizes. When the population consists of large and small institutions
stratified by some measure of size, variances are typically much greater for the larger
institutions, making proportional allocation inefficient. In this case,optimal allocation will result
in a smaller variance for the estimated total than proportional allocation. Generally optimal
allocation will require a larger sample size in a given stratum if the stratum is larger,the stratum
is more variable internally, or sampling is cheaper in the stratum.
An optimal allocation(assuming equal sampling cost per unit for all strata) was determined using
customer equipment cost and labor hour variance estimates from prior data. The sampled areas
were selected randomly within each stratum from the August 2006 population frame of all areas.
The sample sizes and final stratum sizes are as follows:
Stratum Number of Subscribers Stratum Size Sample Size
1 Less than 150,000 80 9
2 150,000 to <300,000 35 6
3 300,000 to <400,000 19 2
4 400,000 to <600,000 8 2
5 600,000 and more 1 1
TOTAL 143 20
This author selected a stratified random sample of twenty areas, data was collected and recorded
by Comcast, and the author performed the statistical analysis.
Summary of Results
The twenty systems sampled in 2006 covered approximately 4.3 million of the 23.4 million
subscribers(18.1%). The complete analysis included calculation of the desired estimates and
their standard errors for each of the thirteen study variables, including three analyses—average
time per install, activity levels(number of installs),and total hours of install activity—for each
of the seven Installation Time variables 4 through 10 (see page 2). As mentioned previously,
both In-House and Contractor installs were taken into consideration for these Installation Time
variables and the final Unwired Time variable is a weighted average of Unwired-Aerial and
Unwired-Underground. Also mentioned previously, installation activity levels were not available
for the three remaining installation related variables, VCR Same, VCR Separate,and Trouble
Call Time,and estimates for these variables are provided based only on the average time per
install for each sampled area_ For the Trouble Call Time variable, inside wire service calls,
customer-owned equipment calls, and customer education calls were averaged, assuming equal
activity levels,to obtain an estimate and standard error for the combined average trouble call
time(per call):
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 4
Primary Estimates and Precision
The sample data, estimates, associated standard errors,and coefficients of variation are contained
in the Appendix. The coefficient of variation(CV)reflects the relative precision of the estimate.
For the two primary study variables, the CV values are 7.2%and 8.2% (Appendix, page A6).
These values are quite satisfactory. The U.S. Bureau of the Census typically seeks a CV of 15%,
while the Consumer Products Safety Commission requires a CV of 33%or less in its estimates of
the number of accidents(Gastwirth,page 494).
The final estimates for the two primary variables and the HSC are:
END AMOUNT: Estimated Total=$868,078,444
TOTAL HOURS: Estimated Total=24,672,158
HOURLY SERVICE CHARGE: $35.18
Given Total Costs of$4,865,662,052, the estimated End Amount equates to a Customer
Equipment and Installation Percentage of 17.8%.
Combined Ratio Estimate and Margin of Error for Hourly Service Charge
Hourly Service Charge(HSC)is the ratio of End Amount divided by Labor Hours. The estimate
of the company-wide HSC derived in the Comcast sampling study ($35.18) is a combined ratio
estimator based on a stratified random sample. Formulas and other technical details regarding the
calculation of this estimate and the associated margin of error are given in a separate section
below entitled "Formulas and Calculations for the Combined Ratio Estimate of Hourly Service
Charge and Associated Margin of Error."
Margin of Error and Confidence for Estimated Rates
The table below summarizes the 95% confidence level margins of error for the installation and
equipment maximum permitted rates for 2007, based on the estimates from the 2006 Comcast
data and sampling study. Two methods were used to estimate the margin of error for these rates,
one based on the hourly service charges for each of the systems in the sample, the second based
on the company-wide hourly service charge. The values listed below represent the conservative
of the two resulting values from each of these methods.
Installation Type Estimated Permitted Ratei 95% Margin of Error2
Unwired $47.10 ±$3.56
Pre-wired $32.58 ±$1.81
AO Same $17.64 ±$1.74
AO Separate $27.10 ±$1.66
Move Outlet $2L36 ±$2.51
Upgrade $17.97 ±$2.12
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 5
Downgrade $14.74 ±$2.30
VCR Same $7.66 ±$1.00
VCR Separate $14.85 ±$1.42
Combine Trouble Calls $28.91 ±$2.23
' Computed as(Combined Ratio Estimate of HSC x Estimated mean time per install).
2 The 95%represents the confidence level associated with this margin error.The margin of error is
equal to(1.96 x standard error).
References
Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. New York: Wiley.
Gastwirth,J.L. (1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy, Vol. II. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Govindarajulu,Z. (1999). Elements of Sampling Theory and Methods_ Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall_
Lohr, S_L_ (1999). Sampling: Design and Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury (Brooks/Cole).
Scheaffer, R.L., Mendenhall, W., and Ott, R.L. (2006). Elementary Survey Sampling, 6th ed.
Belmont, CA: Duxbury(Thomson, Brooks/Cole).
Corneas/Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 6
Formulas for Estimates and Standard Errors
N. =size of stratum i(#of areas in stratum i)
n; =sample size for stratum i
N =XN; =population size(here N= 106)
n=X n; =overall sample size(here n = 20)
y; =sample mean for stratum i
s; =sample standard deviation for stratum i
s; =sample variance for stratum i
Estimated Population Total: Y=I N;y;
Standard Error of Estimated Total:
N;(N;—ns)s2
n;
Estimated Population Mean: y=
X N,Y,
N
Standard Error of Estimated Mean:
1 zN;(N; —n;)s;
N z n,
Allocation: n; =n 'NS. where S,= true standard deviation for stratum i
N,S,
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 7
Formulas and Calculations for the Combined Ratio Estimate of Hourly
Service Charge and Associated Margin of Error
Hourly Service Charge(HSC) is the ratio of End Amount divided by Labor Hours. The estimate
of the company-wide HSC derived in the Comcast sampling study is a combined ratio estimator
based on'a stratified random sample and can be defined as follows.
Let Y =End Amount
X= Labor Hours
sty =population mean End Amount
px =population mean Labor hours
N. =size of stratum i(#of areas in stratum i)
n, =sample size for stratum i
N=Z N, =population size(here N= 106)
n = In,. =overall sample size(here n=20)
y, =sample mean End Amount for stratum i
=sample mean Labor Hours for stratum i
=estimated population total End Amount
=estimated population total Labor Hours
NY,
= N =estimated population mean End Amount
X N.x.
x = N` ` =estimated population mean Labor Hours
R =U'' =population ratio of mean End Amount to mean labor Hours
'ix
Then the combined ratio estimator of R and its estimated variance are given, respectively, by:
rc =—
x
and
N; 2( O2(P:; ;r1i
x2)
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 8
E(y_rcx)2
where sr, = =sample variance of the (y—rcx) terms within stratum i.
n, —1
To see the contribution from each stratum to the overall variance of the estimator rc, write the
within-stratum variance component for stratum i as:
z
N —n- 1
V(rc) = ill ) z
nEN, x, s"
The estimated variance of the combined ratio estimator can then be written as:
N. z
V(rc)=1 N 11(rc).
The following table summarizes the within-stratum components for the 2006 Comcast data:
Stratum n; N. y, x, Sr, v(rc
1 9 80 $2,011,591 71,726 484,103 4.49
2 6 35 $8,434,218 240,156 735,985 1.30
3 2 19 $11,456,607 305,256 2,412,958 27.95
4 2 8 $20,591,660 503,758 2,400,457 8.51
5 1 1 $29,544,746 698,723 0.00 0.00
20 143
The combined ratio estimator is:
r _ 868,078,444 =35.18.
c 24,672,158
The estimated variance of this estimator is:
2 2 2 2 z
V(rc) =( 80 1 (4.49)+ 35 (1.30)+ 19 (27.95)+ 8 (8.51)+ 1 (0.00)=2.00.
143) k143) (143) 143) 1431
1 � l
The estimated standard deviation of the combined ratio estimator is V2.00 = 1.42 providing a
95%confidence level margin of error of 1.96(1.42)=2.77. In summary, the combined ratio
estimate for the HSC is$35.18, with a 95%confidence level margin of error of±$2.77, yielding
a 95%confidence interval of($32.41,$37.96).4
°Slight differences are due to round-off error_
Comcast Cable Communications Report—2006 Data,p. 9
Population of Comcast Systems (12/2006)
60
54
48 1111111
42 111111011
o 36
m
C-
30
m
24
18
12
6 EigAiiiiMBE
0 ................................................................................................:.................:.......................................................................
80,000 160,000 240,000 320,000 400,000 480,000 560,000 640,000
Number of Basic Subscribers
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page Al
2006°SAMPLESYSTfM VARIABLES:BY'.STRATA::. ';:'..-GL NUMBER SYSTEM NAME STRATA SUBS End Amount Total Hours Converter Hours
E003138 MENDOCINO 1 10,954 $ 272,583 7,443 2,155
E003080 HUNTINGTON 1 24,753 $ 640,503 24,506 5,733
E000279 LAS CRUCES 1 41,123 $ 1,319,999 39,829 7,479
E000450 LAKE COUNTY 1 79,259 $ 1,964,267 74,879 18,267
E000426 TALLAHASSEE 1 89,722 $ 2,624,196 108,453 40,086
E000773 SPOKANE 1 100,857 $ 3,362,323 100,157 32,169
E003134 COLORADO SPRINGS 1 98,881 $ 1,491,052 51,608 34,767
E000544 AUGUSTA 1 102,290 $ 3,461,847 136,237 42,345
E000425 CHATTANOOGA 1 127,835 $ 2,967,548 102,419 20,960
TOTAL MEAN(M) $ 2,011,591 71,726 22,662
SD $ 1,165,782 43,381 15,362
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 80 (M*N) $ 160,927,271 5,738,048 1,812,974
E000770 NORTH PUGET SOUND 2 159,537 $ 4,716,545 133,928 39,618
E000255 INDIANAPOLIS 2 184,509 $ 5,455,218 167,684 47,026
E000470 SARASOTA 2 215,710 $ 3,935,388 142,725 52,631
E000263 FRESNO 2 194,838 $ 11,276,192 292,459 100,819
E000781 SALT LAKE CITY 2 250,619 $ 11,216,062 322,660 128,203
E000261 SACRAMENTO 2 282,399 $ 14,005,901 381,479 136,682
TOTAL MEAN(M) $ 8,434,218 240,156 84,163
SD $ 4,237,785 105,398 43,204
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 35 (M*N) $ 295,197,618 8,405,458 2,945,702
E000761 PORTLAND METRO 3 334,948 $ 11,710,550 360,967 80,416
E000289 WEST BAY 3 356,358 $ 11,202,664 249,545 89,122
TOTAL MEAN(M) $ 11,456,607 305,256 84,769
SD $ 359,130 78,787 6,156
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 19 (M*N) $ 217,675,533 5,799,864 1,610,613
E000632 SOUTH CHICAGO 4 467,196 $ 20,101,407 538,067 210,905
E000314 COMCAST NH/ME 4 498,857 $ 21,081,912 469,450 150,411
TOTAL MEAN(M) $ 20,591,660 503,758 180,658
SD $ 693,322 48,519 42,776
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 8 (M*N) $ 164,733,276 4,030,065 1,445,265
E000304 BOSTON/NATICK 5 630,264 $ 29,544,746 698,723 263,722
TOTAL MEAN(M) $ 29,544,746 698,723 263,722
SD $ - - -
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 1 (M*N) $ 29,544,746 698,723 263,722
IGRAND TOTAL 143 4,250,909 $ 868,078,444 $ 24,672,158 $ 8,078,277
Estimated HSC 1' 25.18.
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page A2
... rz;r.
.... .,....:.-av_ ._'_.- .: ;..i;.a�.�a,, Y nT x , ,,:�ran�.
- - :... �::y:.,iY":::.iY:no�:x:a,',':',::C,:,::..,.•%+S.x>.. _._ .. __,._ ,. _.r_.=. >_. ^.1k >::t.:',�'a�,�$ .gip'-;:
Y" Y,q;-; gay. =r� .
zi
.•�- ...`.Wefijhted-Avdie a aarrktalitil?eontrac`< S seilt ._. __.__-. ,
N toPiristetl;7lmea^�.. ....
Wioe
GL NUMBER SYSTEM NAME STRATA SUBS Unwired" ',rewired' AO Same' AO Separate' Move Outlet' Upgrade' Downgrade' VCR Same VCR Separate InaldServe Callre Owned
Custo Equmeipr ICE ducaCusttionmer Trouble Combi Cn aaller
E003138 MENDOCINO 1 10,954 1,5000 1.0000 0.3333 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.2500 0.5000 1.0000 0.7500 0.5000 0.7500`
E003080 HUNTINGTON 1 24,753 1.1667 0.7500 0.4167 0.5833 0.5833 0.4167 0.3333 0.1867 0.4167 1.0000 0.4167 0.4167 0.6111
E000279 LAS CRUCES 1 41,123 1.0850 0.8333 0.5000 0.7500 0.5000 0.5000 0.3333 0.3333 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.5000 0.6667
E000450 LAKE COUNTY 1 79,259 1.1667 1,0000 0.5000 0.7500 0,5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.3333 0.7500 0.7500 0.5000 0.6687
5000426 TALLAHASSEE 1 89,722 1.2500 1.0000 0.5000 0.7500 0.7500 0.5000 0.3333 0.1687 0.3333 0.8333 0.8333 0.8333 0.8333
5000773 SPOKANE 1 100,857 1.4000 0.8167 0.5000 0,7500 0.5000 0,6667 0.6187 0.2500 0.5000 1,1667 0,9833 0.8667 1.0056
E003134 COLORADO SPRINGS 1 98,881 0.9167 0.8000 0.4167 0.7500 0.7500 0.6833 0.2500 0.1667 0.3333 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
E000544 AUGUSTA 1 102,290 1,4167 1.0000 0.5000 0.7500 0.6333 0.5833 0.4500 0.2500 0.5000 1.0000 1.0000 0.7500 0.9167
E000425 CHATTANOOGA 1 127,835 1.5669 0.8333 0.3333 0.6667 0.6687 0.3333 0.3333 0.1667 0.3333 0.8333 0.8333 0.8333 0.8333
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1.2743 0,8926 0.4444 0.6944 0.5981 0.5204 0.4055 0.2130 0.3981 0.9537 0.7852 0.6889 0.8093
SD 0.2122 0.1048 0.0722 0.0932 0.1065 0.1114 0.1170 0.0605 0.0810 0.1258 0.2109 0,2106 0.1462
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 80 (M'N) 101.9431 71.4071 35.5556 55,5556 47,8516 41.6293 32.4436 17.0382 31.8607 76.2960 62.8142 55.1111 64.7404
E000770 NORTH PUGET SOUND 2 159,537 1.6333 0.9167 0.5000 0.7500 • 0.6500 0.6333 0.2500 0.5000 0.8833 0.7833 0.6833 0.7833
E000255 INDIANAPOLIS 2 184,509 1.4833 0.9833 0.5000 0.8833 0.5000 0.6259 0.6259 0.3333 0.5833 0.9687 0.9667 0,9667 0.9667
E000470 • SARASOTA 2 215,710 1.4262 0.8667 0.4167 0.7167 0.8500 0.6833 0.5000 0.2500 0.5000 0.9333 0,9333 0.9333 0.9333
E000263 FRESNO 2 194,838 1.2500 0.8500 0.5000 0.7500 0.5000 0.4500 0.3333 0.2500 0.5000 1.0000 0.5333 0.5333 0.6889
E000781 SALT LAKE CITY 2 250,619 1.3333 0.8333 0.5000 0.7500 0,5000 0.5833 0.3333 0.1667 0.5000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
E000261 SACRAMENTO 2 282,399 1,2500 0,8500 0.5000 0,7500 0.5000 0.4500 0.3333 0.2500 0.5000 1.0000 0.7000 0.6000 0.7667
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1.3960 0.8833 0.4861 0.7667 0.4750 0.5738 0.4599 0.2500 0.5139 0.9639 0.8194 0.7861 0.8565
SD 0.1493 0,0568 0,0340 0,0587 0.2716 0.1012 0.1465 0.0527 0.0340' 0.0476 0.1815 0.2045 0.1266
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 35 (M•N) 48.8614 30.9167 17.0141 26.8333 16.6250 20.0813 16.0948 8.7500 17.9869 33,7369 28.6802 27,513E 29.9786
E000761 PORTLAND METRO 3 334,948 1,5000 1.0294 0.6687 0,7500 0.7500 0.3333 0.3333 0.1667 0.3333 1.1167 0.9000 0.7833 0.9333
E000289 WEST BAY 3 356,358 1.0000 0.7500 0.3333 0.5000 0.3333 0.5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.3333 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500 0.7500
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1.2500 0.8897 0.5000 0.6250 0.5417 0.4167 0.4167 0.1667 0.3333 0.9334 0.8250 0.7667 0.8417
SD 0.3536 0.1976 0.2357 0.1768 0.2947 0.1179 0.1179 - 0.2593 0.1061 0.0235 0.1296
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 19 (M•N) 23.7500 16.9043 9.5000 11,8750 10,2914 7.9164 7.9164 3.1673 6.3327 17.7337 16.6750 14.5664 15.9917
E000832 SOUTH CHICAGO 4 467,196 1.7500 1.1667 0.5000 0.9167 0.9167 0.8333 0.5833 0.3333 0.5833 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
E000314 COMCAST NH/ME 4 498,857 1.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.6667 0.6667 0.5499 0.5000 0.1667 0.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.1667 0.5556
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1.5417 1.0834 0.5000 0.7917 0.7917 0.6916 0.5417 0.2500 0.4583 1.0000 0.7500 05834 0.7778
SD 0.2946 0.1179 - 0.1768 0.1768 0.2004 0.0589 0.1178 0.1788 0.3538 0.5892 0.3143
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 8 (M•N) 12.3333 8,6668 4.0000 6.3336 6,3336 6.5328 4,3332 2,0000 3.6664 8,0000 8.0000 4.6668 6.2223
E000304 BOSTON/NATICK 5 630,264 1.3333 10000 0.5000 0,6667 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.5000 0.8333 0.5000 0.3333 0.5555
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.6667 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.5000 0.8333 0.5000 0.3333 0.5555
SD _
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 1 (M•N) 1,3333 1.0000 0.5000 0,6667 0,5000 0,5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.5000 0.8333 0,6000 0.3333 0.5655
GRAND TOTAL 143 4,250,909 1,3162 0,9014 0,4655 0,7081 0.6706 0,6291 0,4286 0.2176 0.42191 II 0,9652 0,7949 0.7146 0,8216 Q
1 Weighted average of In-House and Contractor Install Times,with weights equal to activity levels or each type. -.....
2 Average or Unwired Aerial and Unwired Underground(equal weights),
3 Average or Inside Wire Service Calls,Customer-Owned Equipment Calls,am Customer Eaucation Calls,with equal weights for each type.
Comcast Cable Communications Report•2006 Data,Appentlix page A3
'l'F ,
.. �.��.. ..
.?>„. s ; [n
.,. I ' ?A •
� t.-..
s;•,N [!': . fi . � IVP .S IVTYp81(�S7A ' m' i � s � i�s �3:'� ,i�' -,:_
': i ik-:'.�, .�r . . . .x a . V . . � .< . . #n ..., ..>., ,.<r: �,Y c .�...._v :�_..,..,..:. _e.•.F,... ,A..,F:n.yx.». x(. .c;; ,. :h_e;.?.•�.s ,:..i_c.i � �W � ; s u�`7S� Y, g'°xan .Y;x;.*:,45sr').:_..
#of Unwired #of Prewired #of AO Same #of AO Separate` #of Move #of Upgrade #of Downgrade
GL NUMBER SYSTEM NAME STRATA SUBS Installs'22 Installs' Installs' Installs' Outlet Installs' Installs' Installs'
E003138 MENDOCINO 1 10,954 10,33 226.08 155,42 4,58 0,00 5,33 15.17
E003080 HUNTINGTON 1 24,753 117.33 782,33 1,406.50 39,08 23,50 39.08 15,67
E000279 LAS CRUCES 1 41,123 182.67 1,192.08 1,112.17 116,00 2,08 871,75 290.58
E000450 LAKE COUNTY 1 79,259 730,08 1,633,50 2,627.25 216,08 26.50 70.25 23.33
E000426 TALLAHASSEE 1 89,722 290.50 1,953.50 2,690,50 540.42 0,75 819.17 273.08
E000773 SPOKANE 1 100,857 199,83 2,638.33 2,185.08 272.83 0,00 944,33 314.75
E003134 COLORADO SPRINGS 1 98,881 119.17 90,83 30,75 3,33 0,00 191.50 235.00
E000544 AUGUSTA 1 102,290 242.92 3,078.58 4,634.75 518.75 0,00 359.67 119.92
E000425 CHATTANOOGA 1 127,835 275.58 2,818.42 3,406.75 443.50 0.00 241.25 107.50
TOTAL MEAN(M) 240.94 1,601,52 2,027.69 239.40 5.87 393.59 155.00
SD 203,50 1,111,03 1,509.94 217.42 10.89 380,66 124.52
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 80 (M*N) 19,274.81 128,121.48 162,214.81 19,151.85 469.63 31,487.41 12,400.00
E000770 NORTH PUGET SOUND 2 159,537 134.17 3,695.83 2,123.75 315,83 0.00 1,447,92 482,67
E000255 INDIANAPOLIS 2 184,509 329.00 4,823.42 4,662,42 837.50 23,58 1,771,42 590,50
E000470 SARASOTA 2 215,710 780,42 3,460,67 4,875,50 437.50 8.75 680,08 226,67
E000263 FRESNO 2 194,838 750.75 6,437.58 12,502.08 538,00 37.42 1,618,17 539.33
E000781 SALT LAKE CITY 2 250,619 910.58 6,941.50 3,604.33 890,83 0.00 4,683.08 1,561,08
E000261 SACRAMENTO 2 282,399 663,08 8,403.67 15,635.75 436.17 58,92 2,257,92 752.67
TOTAL MEAN(M) 594.67 5,627.11 7,233.97 575.97 21.44 2,076.43 692,15
SD 298.66 1,957,70 5,473.70 234.68 23.43 1,376.62 458,90
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 35 (MAN) 20,813.33 196,948.89 253,189.03 20,159.03 750.56 72,675.07 24,225.35
E000761 PORTLAND METRO 3 334,948 615.58 8,638.25 10,268.25 523,58 109.50 4,658,08 1,552,67`
E000289 WEST BAY 3 356,358 225,92 7,840.42 4,243,83 752.92 50,33 3,676,25 1,225.42
TOTAL MEAN(M) 420.75 8,239.33 7,256.04 638,25 79,92 4,167,17 1,389,04
SD 275.54 564.15 4,259.91 162.16 41.84 694.26 231.40
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 19 (M*N) 7,994.25 156,547,33 137,864.79 12,126.75 1,518.42 79,176.17 26,391.79
E000632 SOUTH CHICAGO 4 467,196 1,116.67 10,677.75 8,359,58 5,480.67 58.50 2,213.42 231.42
E000314 COMCAST NH/ME 4 498,857 707.67 17,757.92 3,212,25 1,014,50 95.17 3,129,83 1,043,33
TOTAL MEAN(M) 912.17 14,217.83 5,785.92 3,247.58 76,83 2,671.63 637.38
SD 289,21 5,006,43 3,639,71 3,158.06 25,93 648,00 574.11
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 8
(M•N) 7,297.33 113,742.67 46,287,33 25,980.67 614.67 21,373.00 5,099.00
E000304 BOSTON/NATICK 5 630,264 1,078,17 25,660,25 3,303.17 1,221.42 178,92 3,577,75 1,192,58
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1,078.17 25,660.25 3,303.17 1,221,42 178.92 3,577.75 1,192.58
-
-
SD
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 1 (M*N) 1,078.17 25,660.25 3,303.17 1,221.42 178.92 3,577.75 1,192.58
'GRAND TOTAL 143 4,250,909 394.81 4,342.80 4,215,80 549.93 24.70 1,456.57 484.68
1 Sum of In-House and Contractor Installs.
2 Sum of Unwired Aerial Installs and Unwired Underground Installs,
Comcast Cable Communications Report•2006 Data,Appendix page A4
Q 6 SA R4 cc , .� : x.
. ,
e,.... ,,.
.�:-
a•..r ...��
.....:..d: . :_.3 ,�., tt-:T.;xSit...n o.;..Y a: *... . ;?'G . .;1'`� . �. a;.r7j:",.?:: isy,r.. �::: ,•:� '`r>,•:v
GL NUMBER SYSTEM NAME STRATA SUBS Unwired'`2 Prewired' AO Same' AO Separate' Move Outlet' Upgrade' Downgrade'
E003138 MENDOCINO 1 10,954 15,50 226,08 51,80 2,29 0.00 2.67 7.58
E003080 HUNTINGTON 1 24,753 130,36 586.75 586.09 22,80 13,71 16,29 5.22
E000279 LAS CRUCES 1 41,123 198.19 993,36 556.08 87.00 1.04 435.88 96.85
E000450 LAKE COUNTY 1 79,259 921.15 1,633.50 1,313.63 162.06 13.25 35,13 11,67
E000426 TALLAHASSEE 1 89,722 367.79 1,953,50 1,345.25 405.31 0.56 409.58 91.02
E000773 SPOKANE 1 100,857 279,77 2,154,73 1,092.54 204,63 0,00 629.59 194.11
E003134 COLORADO SPRINGS 1 98,881 109.24 72.67 12.81 2,50 0.00 130,85 58,75
E000544 AUGUSTA 1 102,290 344,14 3,078.58 2,317.38 389.06 0.00 209.79 53.96
E000425 CHATTANOOGA 1 127,835 434,85 2,348.59 1,135.47 295.68 0.00 80,41 35.83
TOTAL MEAN(M) 311.22 1,449,75 934.56 174.59 3.17 216,69 61,67
SD 266.06 1,036.36 723.14 160.07 5.85 223.79 60.19
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 80 (M*N) 24,897.68 115,980.09 74,764.86 13,967.40 253.88 17,334.91 4,933.25
E000770 NORTH PUGET SOUND 2 159,537 219.13 3,387.97 1,061.88 236.88 - 941.15 305.67
E000255 INDIANAPOLIS 2 184,509 434.05 4,742,87 2,331.21 739.76 11.79 1,108.73 369,59
E000470 SARASOTA 2 215,710 1,137,70 2,999,36 2,031.62 313,56 7.44 464.70 113.33
E000263 FRESNO 2 194,838 827,08 5,471.95 6,251,04 403.50 18.71 728,18 179,76
E000781 SALT LAKE CITY 2 250,619 1,214.08 5,784.35 1,802.17 668.13 0.00 2,731,64 520.31
E000261 SACRAMENTO 2 282,399 751.67 7,143,12 7,817.88 327,13 29.46 1,016,06 250,86
TOTAL MEAN(M) 763,95 4,921.60 3,549.30 448.16 11,23 1,165.08 289.92
SD 387.84 1,553,15 2,776.58 206,31 11.45 801.38 144,58
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 35 (M'N) 26,738.31 172,256.06 124,225.43 15,685,51 393.14 40,777.66 10,147.27
E000761 PORTLAND METRO 3 334,948 923.38 8,892,21 6,845.84 392,69 82.13 1,552.54 517.50
E000289 WEST BAY 3 356,358 225.92 5,880.31 1,414.47 376.46 16.78 1,838.13 612.71
TOTAL MEAN(M) 574,65 7,386,26 4,130.16 384,57 49,45 1,695.33 565.11
SD 493.18 2,129.74 3,840.56 11.48 46.21 201.94 67.32
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 19 (M•N) 10,918.27 140,339.01 78,472.96 7,306.89 939.56 32,211.31 10,737,02
E000632 SOUTH CHICAGO 4 467,196 1,954.17 12,457,73 4,179.79 5,024.13 53.63 1,844.44 134.99
E000314 COMCAST NH/ME 4 498,857 943,53 17,757.92 1,606,13 676.37 63.45 1,721.10 521.67
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1,448.85 15,107.82 2,892,96 2,850.25 58.54 1,782.77 328.33
SD 714,63 3,747.80 1,819.86 3,074.33 6.94 87.22 273.42
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 8 (M*N) 11,590.79 120,862.59 23,143.67 22,801.98 468.30 14,262.14 2,626.61
E000304 BOSTON/NATICK 5 630,264 1,437,52 25,660,25 1,651.58 814.32 89.46 1,788,88 596.29
TOTAL MEAN(M) 1,437,52 25,660.25 1,651.58 814,32 89.46 1,788.88 596.29
•
SD - -
ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF SYSTEMS(N) 1 (MAN) 1,437.52 25,660.25 1,651.58 814.32 89.46 1,788.88 596.29
GRAND TOTAL 143 4,250,909 528.55 4,021.66 2,113.70 423.61 • 15.00 743.88 203.08
1 Weighted average of In-House and Contractor Install Times.
2 Based on the weighted average of Aerial and Underground Install Times,with weights equal to Activity Levels for each Install time type,
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page A5
•
•
PRIMARY VARIABLE 1: END AMOUNT(CUSTOMER EQUIP.&INSTALL COSTS)
Stratum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N-n)s2/n
1 80 9 2,011,590.89 160,927,271 1,165,782 857,710,696,219,117
2 35 6 8,434,217.67 295,197,618 4,237,785 3,038,034,684,750,980
3 19 2 11,456,607.00 217,675,533 359,130 20,829,316,261,427
4 8 2 20,591,659.50 164,733,276 693,322 11,536,680,660,300
5 1 1 29,544,746.00 29,544,746 - -
143 20 868,078,444 3,928,111,377,891,820
<:)=stiated>lbfat' S >>;><88'078::::44
Std.Error= $ 62,674,647.01
•
Estimated Mean= $ 6,070,478_63
• Std.Error= $ 438,284.24
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 7.22%
PRIMARY VARIABLE 2: TOTAL HOURS(RE:CUSTOMER EQUIP.&INSTALL)
Stratum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N-n)s2/n
1 80 9 71,725.60 5,738,048 43,381 1,187,678,616,671
2 35 6 240,155.95 8,405,458 105,398 1,879,230,343,336
3 19 2 305,255.99 5,799,864 78,787 1,002,496,514,356
4 8 2 503,758.12 4,030,065 48,519 56,499,347,587
5 1 1 698,723_24 698,723 - -
143 20 24,672,158 4,125,904,821,950
Efriafel:Tnfai.='i' ;>:';< ; . 4572` S$z32>
Std.Error= 2,031,232.34
Estimated Mean= 172,532.58
Std.Error= 14,204.42
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 8.23%
SECONDARY VARIABLE: CONVERTER HOURS
Stratum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N-n)s2/n
1 80 9 22,662.18 1,812,974 15,362 148,927,607,952
2 35 6 84,162.93 2,945,702 43,204 315,760,597,014 •
3 19 2 84,769.12 1,610,613 6,156 6,119,360,297
4 8 2 180,658.17 1,445,265 42,776 43,914,027,098
5 1 1 263,721.52 263,722 - -
143 20 8,078,277 514,721,592,361
Std.Error= 717,441.00
Estimated Mean= 56,491.45
Std_Error= 5,017_07
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= • 8.88%
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page A6
AVG.INSTALL TIME•UNWIRED' INSTALL ACTIVITY•UNWIRED** INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•UNWIRED***
Stratum N ni Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2ln Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n
1 80 9 1,2743 101.94 0.2122 28.41 1 80 9 240.94 19,274.81 203.50 26,135,398.88 1 80 9 311,22 24,897.68 268.06 44,674,946.30
2 35 6 1.3960 48.86 0.1493 3.77 2 35 8 594.67 20,813.33 298.86 15,089,270.08 2 35 6 763,95 26,738.31 387,84 25,446,081.43
3 19 2 1.2500 23.75 0.3536 20.19 3 19 2 420,75 7,994.25 275.54 12,261,088.97 3 19 2 574.65 10,918.27 493.18 39,280,686.23
4 8 2 1.5417 12.33 0.2948 2.08 4 8 2 912.17 7,297.33 289.21 2,007,372.00 4 8 2 1,448.85 11,590.79 714.83 12,258,589.98
5 1 1 1.3333 1,33 - • 5 1 1 1,078.17 1,078.17 5 1 1 1,437.52 1,437.52
•
143 20 188.22 54.45 143 20 56,457.90 55493129,91 143 20 75,582.57 121858303.93
Estimated Total= 188,22 Estimated Total= 56,457.90 Estimated Total= 75,582.57
Std.Error= 7.38 Std.Error= 7,449.37 Std.Error= 11,029.88
Estimated Mean= 1.3162 Estimated Mean= 394.8105 Estimated Mean= 528.5494
Std.Error= 0.0516 Std.Error= 52.0935 Std.Error= 77,1320
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 3.92% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 13.19% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 14,69%
'Average of Aerial and Underground(equal weights). ••Aerial and Underground combined. UNWIRED
2'35>i£9t met0ChiPopu10don`iMt:2'R:Tlme perhist91ti'!i i>iiiii it!>>i i4 338'7J
'••Weighted average of Aerial and Underground(weights=activity levels),
AVG,INSTALL TIME-PREWIRED INSTALL ACTIVITY•PREWIRED INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•PREWIRED
Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s'/n
1 80 9 0.8926 71.41 0.1048 6.93 1 80 9 1,601.52 128,121.48 1,111,03 779,039,889.17 1 80 9 1,449.75 115,980.09 1,036.38 677,837,190.17
2 35 6 0.8833 30.92 0.0568 0,55 2 35 6 5,827.11 198,948.89 1,957.70 848,347,634,57 2 35 6 4,921,60 172,256.08 1,553.15 408,075,026.48
3 19 2 0.8897 18.90 0.1976 6.30 3 19 2 8,239,33 158,547.33 564.15 51,400,445,74 3 19 2 7,386.26 140,339.01 2,129,74 732,527,982.17
4 8 2 1.0834 8,67 0.1179 0.33 4 8 2 14,217.83 113,742.67 5,006,43 601,545,120.33 4 8 2 15,107.82 120,882.59 3,747.80 337,103,628.75
5 1 1 1.0000 1.00 - • 5 1 1 25,660.25 25,660.25 - - 5 1 1 25,660,25 25,660.25
143 20 128.89 14.11 143 20 621,020.82 2050333089,82 143 20 575,097.99 2155543825.57
Estimated Total= 128.89 Estimated Total= 621,020.62 Estimated Total= 575,097.99
Std.Error 3.76 Std.Error= 45,610.87 Std.Error= 48,427,83
Estimated Mean= 0.9014 Estimated Mean= 4,342.8015 Estimated Mean= 4,021.6643
Std.Error= 0.0263 Std,Error= 318.9557 Std.Error= 324.6702
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 2.91% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 7.34% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 8.07%
PREWIRED
EStiai t0d>popafatl0kMeaitTJme:pe:b1Stag m< ::<»iniii i 4':06.il
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page A7
200 tm..... a n:::...,:.:::::::::.:.:::::::::::.::::::.:::.:: :. d 5taht€atc!>grcars:i<:":M <::'.:>:<:: :::::>::<s>€:<n>imou :> >n>�� :<` >m <>is;
AVG.INSTALL TIME•AO SAME INSTALL ACTIVITY•AO SAME INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•AO SAME
Stratum N n Mean N•Mean a N(N•n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)a2ln Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n
1 80 9 0.4444 35.56 0.0722 3.29 1 80 9 2,027.69 162,214.81 1,509.94 1,438,883,401,90 1 80 9 934.56 74,764.86 723,14 330,024,951.46
2 35 6 0.4881 17,01 0.0340 0.20 2 35 8 7,233,97 253,189,03 5,473.70 5,068,463,512.82 2 35 6 3,549.30 124,225.43 2,776,58 1,304,173,360.94
3 19 2 0.5000 9.50 0,2357 8.98 3 19 2 7,256.04 137,864.79 4,259.91 2,930,707,891,02 3 19 2 4,130.16 78,472.96 3,840.56 2,382,109,543.77
4' 8 2 0.5000 4,00 0.1437 0.50 4 8 2 5,785.92 46,287,33 3,639.71 317,940,485.33 4 8 2 2,892.96 23,143.67 1,819.86 79,485,121.33
5 1 1 0.5000 0.50 •
5 1 1 3,303.17 3,303.17 - 5 1 1 1,651.58 1,851.58
•
143 20 86,57 12.95 143 20 602,859.13 9755995290.88 143 20 302,258.50 4095792977.50
Estimated Total= 68.57 Estimated Total a 602,859.13 Estimated Total a 302,258.50
Std.Error= 3.60 Std.Error a 98,772.44 Std.Error= 63,998.38
Estimated Mean= 0.4655 Estimated Mean a 4,215.7981 Estimated Mean= 2,113.6958
Std.Error= 0.0252 Std.Error a 690.7164 Std.Error= 447.5411
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 5.41% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION a 16.38% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION a 21.17%
'Variance for stratum 4 imputed by averaging variances for strata 1,2,&3, AO SAME
ki..:? :ii stl iiiii o:piife:titij#:Nt ai r.6ii'ir lotst00%;'.if l ii€iSNOi6di*
AVG.INSTALL TIME•AO SEPARATE INSTALL ACTIVITY-AO SEPARATE INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•AO SEPARATE
Stratum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N•n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n
1 80 9 0.6944 55.56 0.0932 5.48 1 80 9 239.40 19,151.85 217.42 29,834,703.77 1 80 9 174.59 13,967.40 160.07 16,169,714.90
2 35 6 0.7667 28.83 0.0587 0.58 2 35 6 575.97 20,159.03 234.68 9,316,636.91 2 35 6 448.16 15,685.51 208,31 7,200,438,95
3 19 2 0.6250 11.88 0.1768 5.05 3 19 2 638.25 12,126.75 162,16 4,246,947.58 3 19 2 384.57 7,306.89 11.48 21,288.41
4 8 2 0.7917 8,33 0.1768 0.75 4 8 2 3,247.58 25,980.87 3,158.06 239,359,736.33 4 8 2 2,850.25 22,801.98 3,074.33 228,838,202,47
5 1 1 0.6667 0.67 5 1 1 1,221.42 1,221.42 - 5 1 1 814.32 814.32
143 20 101,26 11.88 143 20 78,839.71 282758024.57 143 20 60,578.10 250227624.73
Estimated Total a 101.26 Estimated Total a 78,639.71 Estimated Total= 60,578.10
Std.Error= 3.44 Std.Error= 16,815.41 Std.Error= 15,818.58
Estimated Mean= 0.7081 Estimated Mean= 549.9281 Estimated Mean= 423.6091
Std.Error a 0.0241 Std.Error= 117.5903 Std.Error= 110,6195
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 3.40% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 21.38% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 26.11%
AO SEPARATE
?S':':ii:::i:i!EBtifiit tCiP..QDL1AtI0.1119)PdR11111.:ijjBll ft1StWM::iFF ii i:i:i:i:i*i.01)*
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Date,Appendix page A8
<zno'':<
mates......... are... . d.5fa'1"'
.:d�iri€�Errtsrs:=> «< <> :><:::>�<�>'i >:> : :> ::>>::><>:>>��:�� <: :< '::�:><'»`><� :<>:<>< <;< ; ' ':'i:
AVG,INSTALL TIME•MOVE OUTLET INSTALL ACTIVITY•MOVE OUTLET INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•MOVE OUTLET
Stratum N n• .Mean N•Mean a N(N.n)st/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2/n Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)at/n
1 80 9 0.5981 47.85 0.1065 7,16 1 80 9 5.87 489.63 10.89 74,884.95 1 80 9 3.17 253.88 5.85 21,632.73
2 35 5 0.4750 16.83 0.2716 15.49 2 35 6 21.44 750.56 23.43 92,863.17 2 35 8 11.23 393.14 11.45 22,184.93
3 19 2 0.5417 10.29 0.2947 14.02 3 19 2 79.92 1,518.42 41.84 282,681.08 3 19 2 49.45 939.56 46.21 344,841,16
4 8 2 0.7917 6.33 0.1768 0.75 4 8 2 76.83 614.67 25.93 18,133.33 4 8 2 58.54 468,30 6.94 1,157,35
5 1 1 0.5000 0.50 - 5 1 1 178.92 178.92 5 1 1 89.48 89.46
143 19 81.60 37.42 143 20 3,532.19 466562.53 143 20 2,144.34 389796.18
Estimated Total= 81.80 Estimated Total= 3,532.19 Estimated Total= 2,144.34
Std.Error= 6.12 Std,Error= 683.05 Std.Error= 624,34
Estimated Mean= 0.5706 Estimated Mean= 24,7008 Estimated Mean= 14.9954
Std.Error= 0.0428 Std.Error= 4.7766 Std.Error= 4.3660
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 7.50% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 19.34% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 29.12%
•One missing value in stratum 2. MOVE OUTLET
[Ri "3gatUriaiOPcpi latEoo'M an Ti rie,i:Ofa'nst4,V > > ;;>f? ffi8Q:7..13i
AVG,INSTALL TIME•UPGRADE INSTALL ACTIVITY•UPGRADE INSTALL TOTAL HOURS-UPGRADE
Stratum N n Mean N•Mean a N(N-n)st/n Stratum N n Mean N'Mean s N(N•n)s2ln Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)st/n
1 80 9 0.5204 41.63 0.1114 7.84 1 80 9 393,59 31,487.41 380.66 91,450,864,59 1 80 9 216.69 17,334.91 223.79 31,607,290.63
2 35 6 0.5738 20,08 0.1012 1.73 2 35 6 2,076.43 72,675.07 1,376.62 320,585,396.90 2 35 6 1,165.08 40,777,66 801.38 108,840,984.17
3 19 2 0.4167 7.92 0.1179 2.24 3 19 2 4,167.17 79,178.17 694.26 77,842,733.08 3 19 2 1,695.33 32,211.31 201.94 8,585,910.52
4 8 2 0.6916 5,53 0.2004 0.96 4 8 2 2,671.83 21,373.00 848.00 10,077,834.08 4 8 2 1,782.77 14,282.14 _ 87.22 182,567.15
5 1 1 0.5000 0.50 - - 5 1 1 3,577.75 3,577.75 5 1 1 1,788.88 1,788.88 -
143 20 75.66 12.78 143 20 208,289,39 499956828.65 143 20 106,374.90 . 147018732.47
Estimated Total= 75.66 Estimated Total= 208,289.39 Estimated Total= 108,374,90
Std.Error= 3.57 Std,Error= 22,359.71 Std.Error= 12,125.05
•
Estimated Mean= 0.5291 Estimated Mean= 1,456.5692 Estimated Mean= 743,8804
Std,Error= 0.0250 Std.Error= 158.3618 Std.Error= 84.7905
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 4.72% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 10,73% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 11.40%
UPGRADE
...... ;`06ttti.i 040.;.OQUl,Bt(Q'n Mea'f t:M:e .t;iitlSCSllid?E 5<iii ;ii .4:1:07,,
•
Comcast Cable Communications Report•2006 Data,Appendix page A9
................................ ztici.4::. iit:::,5ts 5 i.iii• :•>:1:b;:: •:;;iii.: ,;3.0.is<::>Y:iii:: r, ?i r:a:i.,s,ili i n]i::::::>::i i i: :::::;::;:::::>: :i i,:<•;:;:::::i liN.::::::.::::.:::.:::•.::::•;:.:::.:.::::,.
AVG,INSTALL TIME•DOWNGRADE INSTALL ACTIVITY•DOWNGRADE INSTALL TOTAL HOURS•DOWNGRADE
Stratum N nI Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2/n Stratum N nI Mean N•Mean a N(N•n)s2/n
1 80 9 0.4055 32.44 0.1170 8.64 1 Stratum N n� Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s2ln
80 9 155.00 12,400.00 124.52 9,785,134.54 1 80 9 61.67 4,933.25 60.19 2,286,690.63
2 35 8 0.4599 16.09 0.1465 3.63 2 35 6 692.15 24,225.35 458.90 35,624,844.24 2 35 6 289.92 10,147.27 144.58 3,536,216.77
3 19 2 0.4167 7.92 0.1179 2.24 3 19 2 1,389.04 26,391.79 231.40 8,647,724.42 3 19 2 565.11 10,737,02 67.32 731,910.18
4 8 2 0.5417 4,33 0.0589 0.08 4 8 2 637.38 5,099.00 574.11 7,910,504.08 4 8 2 328.33 2,626.61 273.42 1,794,260.37
5 1 1 0.5000 0.50 •
•
5 1 1 1,192.58 1,192.58
•
143 20 61.29 14.59 143 20 69,308.72 5 1 1 596,29 596.29 •
61968207.28 143 20 29,040.44 8349086.95
Estimated Total= 61.29 Estimated Total a 69,308.72
Std.Error= 3.82 Estimated Total= 29,040.44
Std,Error a 7,871.99
Std.Error= 2,889.48
Estimated Mean= 0.4286 Estimated Mean a 484.6764
Std.Error= 0.0267 Estimated Mean= 203.0800
Std.Error= 55.0489 Std.Error= 20.2061
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 6.23% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION a 11.36%
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 9.95%
DOWNGRADE
>:::i.',.,:<iiiiai,iESttriTtl*.a.Oiiratt.6.6:Meaii4ifii:pat:itiatil#%::,::;>!<::::;:.,i4;0301
AVG.INSTALL TIME•VCR SAME AVG.INSTALL TIME•VCR SEPARATE
AVG,INSTALL TIME•TROUBLE CALLS••Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2/n Stratum N n I Mean N•Mean s N(N-n)s2/n
Stratum N n Mean N•Mean s N(N•n)s'/n
1 80 9 0.2130 17.04 0.0605 2.31 1 80 9 0.3981 31.85 0.0810 4.14 1 80 9 0.8093 64.74 0.1462 13.49
2 35 6 0.2500 8.75 0.0527 0.47 2 35 6 0.5139 17.99 0.0340 0.20 2 35 6 0.8585 29.98 0.1266 2,71
3' 19 2 0.1867 3.17 0.0823 1.09 3• 19 2 0.3333 6,33 0.1140
9
4 8 2 0,2500 2.00 0.1178 0.33 4 8 2 0.4583 3.87 0.1768 0.75 4 15.99 8 2 0.7778 0,129618.22 0.3143 2.37
5 1 1 0.1667 0.17 •
5 1 1 0.5000 0.50
143 20 31.12 5 1 1 0,6555 0.56
4.21 143 20 60.34 •
7.18 143 20 117.49 21.29
Estimated Total= 31.12 Estimated Total= 60.34
Std.Error a 2.05 Estimated Total= 117.49
Std.Error= 2.68 Std.Error= 4,61
p;% StittlO.tedMran';x: EE[? .fi.i23:76: :.;
<:<:»:; £Cif1tE1'dS9CifS7P.i(ff: %i :::`: >?s's:>9;ai$:; .::...::...... ... :•...:
Std.Error= 0.0143 ..iir:��Itlfet9Lf;MBdA ; >:.>aGi82'I6:
Std.Error= 0.0187 Std.Error= 0.0323
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 6.59% COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION= 4 e
•Variance for stratum 3 Imputed by averaging variances for strata 1,2,&4. 'Variance for stratum 3 imputed by averaging variances for strata 1,2,&4, COEFFICIENT VARIATION=
"Average of Inside Wire Serice Calls,Customer•Owned Equipment Calls,
and Customer Education Calls,assuming equal activity weights.
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page A10
. ............ .......
CONVERTER
STRATUM END AMOUNT TOTAL HOURS HOURS
(Total n=20)
1 MEAN $ 2,011,590.89 71,725.60 22,662.18
(n=9) SD $ 1,165,782.41 43,380.70 15,361.54
2 MEAN $ 8,434,217.67 240,155.95 84,162.93
(n=6) SD $ 4,237,785.47 105,398.06 43,203.76
3 MEAN $ 11,456,607.00 305,255.99 84,769.12
(n=2) SD $ 359,129.63 78,787.11 6,155.55
4 MEAN $ 20,591,659.50 503,758.12 180,658.17
(n=2) SD $ 693,321.73 48,519.48 42,775.59
5 MEAN $ 29,544,746.00 698,723.24 263,721.52
(n=1) SD $ - - -
Overall Estimate $ 868,078,444.44 24,672,158.32 8,078,276.70
Comcast Cable Communications Report-2006 Data,Appendix page All
•
- - '<�2006 " ::_ ....:_: ;-!::.>:ATA SU::..;;.. :,RYSTA::<i;-:;.:,IC:;;:>-:>�;:;<:>iitot1-;:i ; :;>::;::::> >:«<::>`.=»>: ->>::<:::
::. ..-4::.,;:::;:„,.:SAMPL. ©ATttSUMMARY.STA'T. tICS..:> s-taitat�onT..,...: :<.,._':::>::.;::.::::;:::::::;:;.
Average installation Times
Co Cot
ed
STRATUM Umvved'2 Prewved' AO Same' AO Separate' Move OWet' Upgrade' Downgrade' VCR Same VCR Separate Trouble Cans'
(Total n=20)
1 MEAN 1.2743 0.8926 0.4444 0.6944 0.5981 0.5204 0.4055 0.2130 0.3981 0.8093
(n=9) SD 0.2122 0.1048 0.0722 0.0932 0.1065 0.1114 0.1170 0.0605 0.0810 0.1462
2 MEAN 1.3960 0.8833 0.4861 0.7667 0.4750 0.5738 0.4599 0.2500 0.5139 0.8565
(n=6) SD 0.1493 0.0568 0.0340 0.0587 0.2716 0.1012 0.1465 0.0527 0.0340 0.1266
3 MEAN 1.2500 0.8897 0.5000 0.6250 0.5417 0.4167 0.4167 0.1667 0.3333 0.8417
(n02) SD 0.3536 0.1976 0.2357 0.1768 0.2947 0.1179 0.1179 - - 0.1296
4 MEAN 1.5417 1.0834 0.5000 0.7917 0.7917 0.6916 0.5417 0.2500 0.4583 0.7778
(n=2) SD 0.2946 0.1179 - 0.1768 0.1768 0.2004 0.0589 0.1178 0.1768 0.3143
5 MEAN 1.3333 1.0000 0.5000 0.6667 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.1667 0.5000 0.5555
(n=1) SD - - - - - - - - - -
Overall Estimate 1.3162 0.9014 0,4655 0.7081 0.5706 0.5291 0.4286 0.2176 0.4219 0.8216
1 Weighted average of In-House and Contractor Install Tines,with weights equal to acwty levels for each type. '
-1
2 Average of Unwired Aerial and Unwired Underground,wth equal weights for each type.
3Average of Inside Wire Service Ca&,Customer-Owned Equipment Cans-and Customer Education Calls,with equal weighs for each type.
4 These valees do not tetra into account activity levels.
Install Activity(Average it of installs per month)
STRATUM Unwved" Rewired' AO Sarno' AO Separate' Move Outlets Upgrade' Downgrades
(Total n=2.0)
1 MEAN 240.94 1,601.52 2,027.69 239.40 5.87 393.59 155.00
(n=9) SD 203.50 1,111.03 1,509.94 217.42 10.89 380.66 124.52
2 MEAN 594.67 5,627.11 7,233.97 575.97 21.44 2,076.43 692.15
(n=6) SD 298.66 1,957.70 5,473.70 234.68 23.43 1,376.62 458.90
3 MEAN 420.75 8,239.33 7,256.04 638.25 79.92 4,167.17 1,389.04
(n=2) SD 275.54 564.15 4,259.91 16216 41.84 694.26 231.40
4 MEAN 912.17 14,217.83 5,785.92 3,247.58 76.83 2,671.63 637.38
(n=2) SD 289.21 5,006.43 3,639.71 3,158.06 25.93 648.00 574.11
5 MEAN 1,078.17 25,660.25 3,303.17 1,221.42 178.92 3,577.75 1,192.58
(n=1) SD - - - - - - -
Overall Estimate 394.81 4,34280 4,215.80 549.93 24.70 1,456.57 484.68
5 Combined(sum of)In-House and Contactor Installs.
6 Average of 6 of Unwired Aerial Instals and 0 of Unwired Underground Installs.wah equal weighs for each type.
Total Install Hours
STRATUM Unwired'a Pmwired AO Same' AO Separate' Move Ou41et' Upgrade' Downgrade'
(Total n=20)
1 MEAN 311.22 1,449.75 934.56 174.59 3.17 216.69 61.67
(n09) SD 266.06 1,036.36 723.14 160.07 5.85 223.79 60.19
2 MEAN 763.95 4,921.60 3,549.30 448.16 11.23 1,165.08 289.92
(0=6) SD 387.84 1,553.15 2,776.58 206.31 11.45 801.38 144.58
3 MEAN 574.65 7,386.26 4,130.16 384.57 49.45 1,695.33 565.11
(n=2) ' SD 493.18 2,129.74 3,840.56 11.48 46.21 201.94 67.32
4 MEAN 1,448.85 15,107.82 2,892.96 2,850.25 58.54 1,782.77 328.33
(n=2) SD 714.63 3,747.80 1,819.86 3,074.33 6.94 87.22 273.42
5 MEAN 1,437.52 25,660.25 1,651.58 814.32 89.46 1,788.88 596.29
(n=1) SD - - - _ _
-
Overall Estimate 528.55 4,021.66 2,113.70 423.61 15.00 743.88 203.08
7 Weighted average of In-House and Contractor Install Tones. '
B Based on the weighted average of Ae ial and Underground Install Times,vat,weights equal to Activity Levels for each install time type_
Estimated Population Average Time per Install9
::::-;?�^^T(; iiii;:;4tei'�(CA: �i:atAO_Sei+!e; :$0$evana?Bii:;tAo+ell:Uggtiiui�Lli+k: .'fi4 '9�dsc`-�4ft:5eRt?#�'iTICK .�--i :=iT(A:iib(p.�:
.�. � ems.
.::::.:..........
61/Z2,.; ;,>15107 tYII190.•:; 0:257&;.:i::i0:82f9.:;: :::::::ffc82aSii=:
a These values rake into account activty level where available(all except VCR Same and VCR Separate).
"'
2007 Maximum Permitted Rates
:5::.`.':�:4;`:=..:::.:>:.;::;::f:,`:::;: : :'::- ;:-i; ::: ;:i::f:.- :i: i;=:`[:[::F ;:::;:'':::::: i: ;::i_. :::=Fa' -:: i=ix:ui= ::y::.:
HSC :::::::uaexra:;;:i;f?rda6ea:_:;: ii;;>tO:Squat i.:Av:Siyydtere`::Mfoig aim ::=4,4rgrads:::::;::O ofu'o:::.1/CR:Some::iVtR upxsiai +Ttot0l6- .... ..:
dlr:
$35 :;::::SnfxiQ:: ii.Uzi ti:.- ,:::�f7A:i. :<s27 6:=:_::iVi;. '>t:a i l.t :z :.: :. .:r:.a.:. ;`»...:_ : .::.iri,3 4:41,:
,36 .....i1...97" ..:..Li.Q:74::::::::;;�:�7:6G:.:.: ::;ib:11 z::-:;328.91:
,::<:95% n.ot.
--. of....... .56:;�;;;;;:::`,•..:.;:=�::::::;::" :.-:r-:::_.::;_�.;..,::.:� :<':.;.::._::r�;::<:-:.'..>�---�-:::Jr::,�-;;._:i:c: �>::>:�;=:�rz:?;;>:..:;::�.; ::-:-;;:::: =..... � ... .. 33 .. ...,..5'f,fli ,....::St.7d:. ..3i66.. :::.:S2:Si.:-t::: >::23`1,92;-:;:;::;:32;30;::::;::;<S1c00:=:;:�:=;:::�51'b2:: i: :�>a223i
ComwstCable Communictemns Repod-2006 Data.Appendix page Al2
From: Kelly Williams
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 3/29/2007 10:59:14 AM
Subject: Re: Cable Channel
The forum is being held on Tuesday, May 22 from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Community Center.
•
Here is the proposed agenda: •
1. Introductions of Officials and Welcome by Mayor Kathy Keolker
2. Introduction of new Director of Emergency Management (if hired by this date)- I. David Daniels, Fire
Chief
3. Overview of 2006 (flood,windstorm) - I. David Daniels, Fire Chief
- Lessons Learned
- Improvements
4. Discussion on what citizens can do to prepare- I. David Daniels, Fire Chief; Larry Rude, Deputy Fire
Chief; or Chief's designee
-Brief overview of CERT
-Introduction of Al Withers, CERT Volunteer
-Demo on how to change muddy water into drinking water-Al Withers
5. Open for citizen questions to City employee panel- I. David Daniels, Fire Chief or Larry Rude, Deputy
Fire Chief to serve as moderator
Thank you,
Kelly
>>> Bonnie Walton 03/29/07 10:45 AM >>>
That might be a good idea. As soon as you have the details determined---day, time and agenda, then let
me know so we can figure out what all we want taped. Then I'll line up a shooter/producer. I'd like the info
at least 3 weeks ahead of time, if possible.
Bonnie, x6502
>>> Kelly Williams 3/29/2007 10:37 AM >>>
Hi Bonnie, in May we will be holding a community forum at the Community Center on emergency
preparedness. We will have CERT volunteers and City officials in attendance. I thought it would be a
good idea to tape the forum and replay it on the Cable Channel and the website. Is this even feasible and
what would it take to get it done?
Thank you,
Kelly Williams
Renton Fire Department
1055 S Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
425-430-7055
FAX 425-430-7044
kwilliams(c�ci.renton.wa.us
CC: Rude, Lawrence
, Y CITY OF RENTON
177.',47, mr
E.V.Vq,
Kathy Ke ayoolker
46cMiEtinilimaaMticiDEEMBNISIUMI
L
April 27, 2007 CITY OF RENTON
APR 27 2007
Terry Davis, Director, Franchising & Government Affairs CITY CIEECREPSE8FFICE
Comcast Cable
4020 Auburn Way N
Auburn WA 98002
Dear Terry:
Enclosed;please find a signed fully executed copy of the Settlement Agreement fOr FCC Forms
1235 and 1240 for your records. As noted when you attended the March 20 public hearing,the
Renton City Council has an interest in learning more about the process and timing of changes to
rates and rebates to ratepayers as a result of these settlements. I would appreciate any
information you can provide to me about how subscribers will see changes in their Comcast rates
over the next few months.
Thank you for the information transmittal to Dick Treich of Front Range Consulting regarding
• the franchise fee audit document request. I know that you have received another request to refine
the advertising revenue inforination. I trust that you will be able to work together to allow for
data to be released that will assist the City of Renton in our franchise fee review, and you will
contact me if any assistance is needed.
Finally, I look forward to working with you to plan your presentation to the City Council
Committee of the Whole on May 21. I have requested briefing time,on Mayor Kathy Keolker's
calendar 5:00 p.m. that day for you to also discuss these issues with her Ordinarily, the Council
Committee of the Whole meeting begins at 6:00, and there are at least three other topics on their
agenda that evening. Full Council convenes at 7:00 P.m. You should expect to have 15 to 20
minutes for a conversation with all councilmembers at Committee of the Whole. I would like to
coordinate with you in advance about the topics you wish to cover. Could you please identify
some times the week of May 14 when we might have a phone or short in-person meeting to
ensure we have the same idea about how the presentation Will go? •.
Thank you again for your continued assistance. ,
Sincerely,
S .
—;/2//p—e : •
Marty Wine
Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
cc: Michael Bradley;Principal,Bradley&Guzzetta
Bonnie Walton,City Clerk .
RENTON
1055 South Grady Way-Renton,Washington 98O57-(425)430-6500/FAX(425)430-6523
4.
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
REFERENCE ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
CATEGORY POLICY
APPROVED
EFFECTIVE
1. PURPOSE
The purpose of these Operational Policies and Procedures is to define the
function of the Enumclaw Governmental Cable Access Channel 21,
(Enumclaw City TV (ECTV)) provide direction to City staff, and assist the
public in understanding the services offered by ECTV.
II. MISSION AND GOALS FOR ECTV
A. ECTV is designated as a government access channel, as provided for
in the 1994 Cable Act and the franchise agreement between the City of
Enumclaw and TCI Cablevision of WA, Inc. (now AT&T Broadband).
B. The mission of ECTV is to enhance the City's public information and
communications system, involve the community in local government
decision-making, and provide useful information to general and
specialized audiences.
III. CHANNEL PROGRAMMING
A. Programming Responsibility
1. The City of Enumclaw reserves the right to program ECTV
Channel 21 in accordance with the objectives identified above.
2. The City of Enumclaw shall follow all FCC guidelines for access
television.
3. As appropriate, any appeals of programming decisions shall be
made to the City Clerk. If unable to resolve, appeals may be
forwarded to the Community Services Committee. Their
recommendations will be forwarded to the Enumclaw City
Council who will make the final decision.
B. Programming Categories
1. All programming on ECTV shall fall within at least one of the
following categories:
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 1 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21-POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
i
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
Governmental Decision Making: Programming which provides
direct coverage of the deliberations of elected or appointed bodies,
as well as coverage of selected public issues forums. Examples of
programming in this category include:
City Council Meetings
Election Coverage
Board and Commission Meetings
Public Issue Forums
Community Information/Affairs: Programming that provides
information about City government or issues of local interest in
Enumclaw. Examples include:
Crime Prevention
Environmental Issues
Public Safety
Neighborhood Information
Cooperative/Community Programming: Programming produced or
provided in cooperation with other organizations that contain useful
information or that celebrates the achievements and
accomplishments of Enumclaw citizens. Examples include:
School Events/Information
Performing Arts
Recreation Activities
Unique Ceremonies
C. Programming Guidelines
1. All programming on ECTV must be either produced or approved
for use by the City Television Coordinator.
2. All programming on ECTV must support the channel's mission
and goals.
3. All programming on ECTV must fall within one of the channel's
designated categories.
4. All programming on ECTV must be of local interest and provide
community benefit.
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 2 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21 -POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
r
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
5. The City Television Coordinator shall establish allocation of
programming time among the designated categories.
6. The City Television Coordinator shall consult with ESD to
establish equitable broadcasting time between the City and
ESD. The City reserves final authority in scheduling of ECTV
programming.
7. City Council meetings, study sessions and any other public
meeting will be covered, to the extent possible, gavel-to-gavel,
without editing or interruption. Introductory or supplementary
information, which will aid the viewer in understanding the
context or issues, may be provided.
8. Videotaped coverage of meetings shall not be considered an
official record of said meetings, and there shall be no liability by
the City or its employees for inadvertent erasure or omissions,
technical difficulties, or for inaccurate information stated during
an aired event.
9. The City of Enumclaw shall archive videotapes of all meetings
for a minimum of one (1) year from the date of production.
Tapes may be transferred to VHS format for storage purposes.
10.Any City department may co-sponsor a programming proposal
from the community with the approval of the City Television
Coordinator, in consultation with the established chain of
command when necessary.
11.The City may cooperate with other media, municipalities and
agencies to acquire additional programming, which meets the
objectives and goals of ECTV.
12.Public issue forums or debates carried on ECTV must relate to
the channel's mission and offer a balanced perspective on the
issues.
13.Use of ECTV by individuals seeking public office or reelection is
prohibited unless participating in City sanctioned forums or
debates or if acting in an official capacity as part of regular
duties.
14.Duplication of tapes of original programming aired by ECTV is
possible in certain instances, upon request, for a fee (see City
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 3 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21 -POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
ip6e,
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
fee schedule), and with the permission of the City Television
Coordinator. Duplicates will be made available within two (2)
weeks of request and upon payment. One (1) complementary
tape copy will be provided upon request to the sponsoring
organization of an event.
15.Duplicates of tapes of City Council meetings and other original
ECTV programming may be made available upon request and
with the permission of the City Television Coordinator, for the
purpose of lending for a period of 10 days. Duplicates will be
made available within two (2) weeks of request. If these tapes
are not returned in the agreed upon manner, the loan will be
considered a purchase (see Section III. C. 14. of this
document), and the user will be billed accordingly.
16.AI1 programming produced for ECTV shall be copyrighted and
may only be reproduced for personal, non-commercial home
use by individuals. Retransmission or any unauthorized use of
ECTV programming (in part or whole) is strictly forbidden
without the written consent of the City Television Coordinator.
D. Prohibited Programming
The following types of programming shall be prohibited on ECTV:
1. Programming which does not comply with the mission of ECTV
or these guidelines.
2. Programming which violates FCC guidelines for access
television including: Commercial/for-profit making enterprises,
trade or business announcements, obscene, indecent, libelous
or slanderous speech, lottery information or other illegal content.
3. Programming which promotes political candidates, issues or
viewpoints except as provided for in City sanctioned debates or
forums.
4. The City reserves the right to refuse to transmit all or any
portion of a program which promotes any activity which is illegal
under City, State or Federal law or in violation of these
procedures and guidelines.
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 4 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21 -POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
por
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
IV. COMMUNITY CALENDAR
The Community Calendar is designed to provide a source of timely
information about a variety of community activities displayed by the ECTV
character generator system.
1. Textual information shall be displayed throughout the cablecast area
(see Section V) on Channel 21, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week, except at those times when other programming has been
scheduled by the City Television Coordinator, or the channel is
experiencing technical difficulties.
2. The form, The City of Enumclaw TV Message Display Request must
be used when submitting messages for display on Channel 21. The
form can be obtained from the City Television Coordinator at City Hall.
The City Television Coordinator will make every effort to include all
appropriate messages on the Community Calendar, but inclusion is
not guaranteed.
3. The ESD will collect and screen school messages for inclusion on the
Community Calendar, record them on the City of Enumclaw TV
Message Display Request form, and deliver them to City Hall.
4. A list of the Community Calendar guidelines is included on The City of
Enumclaw TV Message Display Request form. The form can be
obtained from the City Television Coordinator at City Hall.
5. Should an error result in the cablecast of incorrect information, neither
the City of Enumclaw nor the employee responsible shall be liable for
the inaccuracy of the information or for actions taken by anyone as a
result of the inaccurate information.
6. The City reserves the right to refuse to transmit all or any portion of a
message which promotes any activity which is illegal under City, State
or Federal law or in violation of these procedures and guidelines.
7. As appropriate, any appeals of Community Calendar decisions shall
be made to the City Clerk. If unable to resolve, appeals may be
forwarded to the Enumclaw City Council who will make the final
decision.
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 5 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21 -POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
PPIF
operational policies and procedures for enumclaw city
television (channel 21)
V. CHANNEL 21 CABLECAST AREA
As determined by AT&T Broadband, as specified in the franchise
agreement, AT&T cable customers within the boundaries of the City of
Enumclaw currently receive ECTV.
VI. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Channel 21 may be used at any time for the purpose of emergency
communication and response. In these cases, direction will be taken from
the procedures outlined in the City of Enumclaw Emergency Plan.
VII. JOINT OPERATIONAL USE WITH ENUMCLAW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Policies relating to the joint operation of ECTV resources with the
Enumclaw School District are governed by the terms and conditions set
forth in the City of Enumclaw and the Enumclaw School District Joint Use
Operations Agreement; this Operational Policies and Procedures for
Enumclaw City TV (Appendix A); and the Statement of Cooperation
Between the City of Enumclaw and Enumclaw School District (Appendix
B) established by the City of Enumclaw and Enumclaw School District.
VIII. PROGRAMMING AUTHORITY
The City of Enumclaw reserves the right to refuse a request for cable
programming or operations which is illegal under City, State or Federal
law or is in violation of the mission and goals for ECTV. The City Clerk
shall resolve disputes or appeals regarding such requests. If unable to
resolve, appeals may be forwarded to the Enumclaw City Council who will
make the final decision.
IX. REVISIONS TO OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Both the City and ESD may only modify these policies and procedures
through mutual consent. Requests for modification must be written and
received by either party at least thirty (30) days prior to requested change.
The City and ESD shall review the Joint Use Operations Agreement, the
Operational Policies and Procedures, and the Statement of Cooperation
by May 1 of each year.
CITY OF ENUMCLAW 6 of 6
OPERATIONAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR CHANNEL 21 -POLICY
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION 800-001
Page 1 of 27
1 �i•3�• t 1.[Z Viga
d F 2.3.hie pi
u a v
City of Seattle Legislative Information Service
InfOrmation updated as of July 6, 2007 10:53 AM
Council Bill Number: 114137
Ordinance Number: 120775
An Ordinance relating to cable service; amending SMC 21.60 by amending the customer
service standards for cable Customers, known as the "Cable Customer Bill of Rights."
Date introduced/referred: April 1, 2002
Date passed: April 22, 2002
Status: Passed
Vote: 8-0 (Excused: Pageler)
Date of Mayor's signature*: April 29, 2002
Committee: Police, Fire, Courts and Technology
Sponsor: COMPTON
Index Terms: CABLE-TELEVISION, FRANCHISES, PUBLIC-REGULATIONS,
ADMINISTRATIVE-PROCEDURES, CONSUMER-PROTECTION
References/Related Documents: Amending: Ord 119402
Note: Cable Customer Bill of Rights
Text
AN ORDINANCE related to cable services; amending SMC 21. 60 by
amending the Customer service standards for cable Customers, known
as the "Cable Customer Bill of Rights. "
WHEREAS, pursuant to federal law, a franchising authority such as the
City of Seattle has established and enforces Customer service
requirements on a Cable Operator; and
WHEREAS, the City currently monitors Customer Complaints through its
Office of Cable Communications; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that amendments are in order to make
the Cable Customer Bill of Rights more responsive to Seattle
citizens; and
WHEREAS, technological changes have occurred which warrant updating
consumer protection; „
WHEREAS, the City has an interest in ensuring greater privacy for its
citizens; Now, Therefore,
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 2 of 27
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF SEATTLE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. SMC 21.60.800 through SMC 21. 60.830, known as the Cable
Customer Bill of Rights, is hereby amended as follows:
21. 60.800 POLICY
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall be
permitted option and autonomy to first resolve cuctomor
Customer inquiries and complaints without delay and interference
from the City.
Where a given complaint Complaint is not addressed
by the cablo oporator Cable Operator to the
cuctomor'c Customer's satisfaction, the City may
intervene. In addition, where a pattern of, or unremedied,
noncompliance with the Standards is identified, the City may
prescribe a cure and establish a thirty (30) day deadline for
implementation of the cure. If the noncompliance is not cured within
thirty (30) days, monetary sanctions of up to $500.00
will may be imposed to encourage compliance.
These Standards are intended to be of general application; however,
the cablo oporator Cable Operator shall be relieved
of any obligations hereunder if it is unable to perform due to a
rogion-wido natural emergency force majeure event
affecting a significant portion of the franchise area. The
cablo oporator Cable Operator is free to exceed these
Standards to the benefit of its cuctomor Customers,
and such shall be considered performance for the purpose of enforcing
these Standards.
These Standards are supplementary to any cuctomor
Customer service requirements in any existing franchise agreements
between a cable operator Cable Operator and the City.
The provisions contained in tho ordinance codified in this
subchapter and in existing franchise agreements should be interpreted
consistently wherever possible. Where the provisions of this
subchapter and any existing franchise agreement are inconsistent, the
provisions of the franchise agreement will control for purposes of
assessing fines, penalties and compliance with the City's franchise;
however, for purpococ of the requirements for
maintaining in-City service centers as specified in SMC 21. 60.820B,
the privacy provisions of SMC 21. 60.830F, and for assessing
credits, refunds, or other specific remedies under Schedule A
hereto, the provicionc of thic cubchaptor control of this
subchapter, shall control over any inconsistent franchise provisions
21. 60.810 DEFINITIONS
When used in these sxctomor corvico ctandardc (the
"ctandardc") Customer Service Standards (the "Standards") ,
the following words, phrases, and terms shall have the meanings given
below.
"Cable Operator" moanc any porcon providing cable corvicoc
purcuant to a franchico agreement within any area of the Cites€
Soattlo, and cuah porcon'c omployooc, agontc, contractorc, or cub
contractorcshall have the meaning set forth in Section
602 (5) of the federal Communications Act. , 47 U.S.C. section522 (5) .
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 3 of 27
"Cable Services" shall mean (a) the one-way transmission to
Customers of video programming, or other programming service, and (b)
Customer interaction, if any, which is required for the selection and
use of such video programming or other programming service.
"Cable System" shall have the meaning set forth in Section
602 (7) of the federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 522 (7) .
"City" means the City of Seattle, Washington.
"Complaint" shall mean any issue raised by a Customer that is a
violation of the Cable Customer Bill of Rights.
"Customer" means any person who lawfully receives Cable
Services of any cort or Other Services from the
cablo oporator Cable Operator.
"Customer Service Representative" ("CSR") means any person employed
by the cable oporator Cable Operator to assist, or
provide service to cuctomorc Customers, whether by
answering public telephone lines, writing service or installation
orders, answering cuctomor Customers' questions,
receiving and processing payments, or performing other cuctomor
Customer service related tasks.
"Other Service" means any wire or radio communications
service, including, but not limited to, any interactive television or
Internet Service, provided through the use of any of the facilities
of a Cable Operator that are used in the provision of a Cable
Service.
"*?en— .c4andard inctallation Non-Standard
Installation" means any installation of cable services that
requires the installation of facilities from a point more than one
hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the cuctomor'c
Customer's property line to: (1) for a prewired dwelling unit, the
federal demarcation point; or (2) for an unwired dwelling unit, a
point not less than twelve (12) inches from the exterior wall of the
dwelling unit; or (3) any underground installation in an area where
plant facilities are not underground; or (4) any installation calling
for multiple outlets in a dwelling unit; or (5) a commercial
installation.
"Normal bucinocc hourc Business Hours" means the
hours of oight 8:00 a.m. to covon 7:00 p.m. ,
Monday through Friday, and nino 9:00 a.m. to five
5:00 p.m. , Saturday, excluding legal holidays.
"Normal operating conditionc Operating Conditions"
means service conditions within the control of the Cs
able Oaperator. Those conditions that are not
within the control of the cable oporator Cable Operator
include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil
disturbances, power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or
unusual weather conditions. Those conditions that are ordinarily
within the control of the cable oporator Cable Operator
include, but are not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view
events, rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand periods, and
maintenance or upgrade of the cablo cyctom Cable System
"Standard ..Installation" means (1) for an unwired
dwelling unit, an installation of cable service to the
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 4 of 27
cuctomor'c Customer's dwelling unit located up to one
hundred twenty-five (125) feet from the existing distribution system,
plus additional inside wire and at least one (1) outlet sufficient to
receive cable services; and (2) for a prewired dwelling, the
installation of cable service to the federal demarcation point
located on the cubccribor'c Customer's property up to
one hundred twenty-five (125)_feet from the cuctomor'c
Customer's property line, sufficient to receive cable
services and where the prewired equipment will allow the Cable System
to meet all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) technical
requirements.
21.60.820 Customer service.
A. Courtesy.
All employees of the cable oporator Cable Operator
shall be courteous, knowledgeable and helpful and shall provide
effective, timely and satisfactory service in all contacts with
cuctomorc Customers.
B. Accessibility.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall provide at
least one (1) service center for each seventy-five thousand (75,000)
cuctomorc Customers served, located at a safe,
visible site within itc corvico aroa the City of Seattle
, that is handicapped accessible, and located along mass transit
routes. Except as otherwise approved by the City, all service
centers shall be open Monday through Friday, oight 4
8:004. a.m. to covon 47:004.
p.m. , and Saturdays from nine (9:004-
a.m. to five 45:00- p.m., excluding
legal holidays, and shall be fully staffed on-site with CSRs
offering the following services to cuctomorc Customers
who come to the service center: bill payment (including the
ability to provide change and Customer receipts) , equipment
exchange, processing of change of service requests, and response to
cuctomor Customer inquiries and requests. The City
may approve alternatives for service centers that provide
substantially equivalent services. offoring loccor corvicoc,
or that aro within ton (10) miloc of itc corvico area, at any cite to
which the public hac general accocc. The cable oporator
Cable Operator shall post a sign at each service center
advising cuctomorc Customers of its hours of
operation and of the addresses and telephone numbers at which
to contact the City and the cable oporator Cable
Operator if the service center is not open at tho timoc
poctod other than Normal Business Hours. The cable
oporator Cable Operator shall provide free exchanges of
faulty converters at the cuctomor'c Customer's
address.
CSRs will be available to respond to cuctomor Customer
inquiries during normal bucinoce hourc Normal
Business Hours. The cable oporator Cable Operator
shall maintain local or toll free telephone access lines that shall
be available during normal bucinoce hours Normal
Business Hours for service/repair requests and billing inquiries.
The cable operator Cable Operator shall have
dispatchers and technicians on call twenty-four (24) hours a day,
seven (7) days a week, including legal holidays, for emergency
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 5 of 27
purposes.
The cablo operator Cable Operator shall retain
sufficient Customer Service Representatives and telephone line
capacity to ensure that telephone calls to service/repair and billing
inquiry lines are answered by a CSR within thirty (30) seconds or
less, and that any transfers are made within thirty (30) seconds.
The Customer shall be able to speak with a Customer Service
Representative within five (5) minutes. These standards shall be
met no less than ninety (90) percent of the time, measured
monthly on a quarterly basis under normal oporating
conditionc Normal Operating Conditions. Compliance with
this standard shall be reported on a quarterly basis.
The total number of calls receiving busy signals shall not
exceed three (3) percent of the total telephone calls. This standard
shall be met ninety (90) percent or more of the time, measured
monthly on a quarterly basis under normal oporating
conditionc Normal Operating Conditions.
The Cable Operator shall also retain sufficient Customer Service
Representatives and telephone line capacity to ensure that a Customer
shall make contact with a human being within five (5) minutes.
C. Responsiveness.
1. Guaranteed Seven-day Standard Installation and Service.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall complete all
standard inetallationc Standard Installations and
Service Repairs requested by cuctomorc Customers
within seven (7) business days after an order has been placed, unless
otherwise requested by the cuctomor Customer.
This standard must be met ninety-five percent (95%) of the time under
Normal Operating Conditions measured on a quarterly basis. If the
cuctomor Customer requests a non-ctandard
inctallation Non-Standard Installation, or the cablo
oporator Cable Operator determines that a =
ctandard inctallation Non-Standard Installation is
required, the cablo oporator Cable Operator shall
provide the cuctomor Customer in advance with a total
installation cost estimate and an estimated date of completion.
All underground cable drops from the curb to the home shall be
buried at a depth of no less than twelve (12) inches, and within no
more than ono (1) three (3) calendar weeks
from the initial installation, or at a time mutually agreed upon
between the cablo oporator Cable Operator and the
cuctomor Customer.
2. Residential Installation and Service Appointments.
Customers requesting installation of cable service or repair
service to an existing installation may choose any available
four (4) hour block of time for the installation appointment during
normal bucinocc hourc Normal Business Hours. The
cable oporator Cable Operator may cchodulo
corvico calls and othor inctallation activitioc outcido now
bucinocc hourc at the roquoct of and for the convonionoc of the
•
cuctomor shall provide Customers the option of service or
installation appointments weekday evenings until 7:00 p.m. and a
minimum of four hours on Saturdays at the request of and for the
convenience of the Customer. The cable oporator
Cable Operator may not cancel an appointment with a cuctomor
Customer after fivo (5:00) 5:00 p.m. on
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 6 of 27
the day before the scheduled appointment.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall contact
new Customers by telephone, mail, e-mail and maintain
rocordc of a roaconablo camplo of itc cuctomors within two (2) wookc
aftor inctallation to accuro ovorall cuctomor caticfaction with tho
work complotod or in person within two weeks after
installation or provide a self-addressed stamped response postcard to
all Customers in its installation materials to assure overall
Customer satisfaction with the work completed. The Cable Operator
shall maintain records of a reasonable sample of Customer responses
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall be deemed
to have responded to a request for service under the provisions of
this section when a technician arrives within the agreed upon time
and, if If the cuctomor Customer
is absent when the technician arrives, the technician loavoc
airi ti€ioation afarrival and et„rn t;o, an 1 4f
that notification is kopt by tho cablo oporator shall verify
the appointment with his/her dispatcher by telephone while at the
Customer's door and leave written notification of timely arrival.
A copy of that notification shall be kept by the Cable Operator.
In such circumstances, the cablo oporator Cable
Operator shall contact the cuctomor Customer
within forty-eight (48) hours. In the event that a technician
arrives without a prior appointment, and the Customer must be present
for service to proceed, and the Customer is absent, it shall not be
deemed that the Cable Operator has responded to a request for
service.
If a cable oporator Cable Operator
representative fails to keep an installation or service
appointment for any reason, the cablo oporator Cable
Operator will contact the cuctomor Customer before
the end of the scheduled appointment, and reschedule the appointment
at a time convenient for the cuctomor Customer.
3. Rocidontial Sorvico Intorruptionc. Outages.
In the event of system outages (loss of reception on all
channolc of sound or video or interactive television, or
failure of Internet or e-mail connections) resulting from
cable oporator Cable Operator equipment failure affecting
five (5) or more cuctomorc Customers, the cablo
oporator Cable Operator shall corroct cuch failuro
initiate repairs within two (2) hours after the third
cuctomor Customer call is received. All Customers who
call the Cable Operator to report an outage shall receive credit for
the entire day on which the outage occurred and for each additional
day the outage continues. The Cable Operator shall notify the City
of any outage of at least four (4) continuous hours that affects at
least ten percent (10%) of its Customers.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall
correct initiate repairs to all other service
interruptions resulting from cable oporator Cable
Operator equipment failure within twenty-four (24) hours.
A Cable Operator shall initiate repairs to Customer reported
Tel corvico outages and service
interruptions_, for any cause beyond the control of the
cablo oporator Cable Operator, chall bo corrected
within twenty-four (24) hours after the conditions beyond its
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 7 of 27
control have been corrected.
4 . TV Reception and Cable Modem Internet Connection.
Tho cable oporator shall provido clear tolovicion rocoption that
moots or oxcoodc tochnical standards octablichod by tho United Statoc
Fodoral Communications Commission (FCC) . The signal quality
provided by the Cable Operator shall meet or exceed technical
standards established by the United States Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) . Cable modem Internet connections shall meet •
performance specifications advertised by the Cable Operator. The
cablo oporator Cable Operator shall render efficient
service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt service only for good
cause and for the shortest time possible. Scheduled interruptions
that the cablo oporator Cable Operator anticipates
will last more than four (4) hours shall be preceded by at least
twenty-four (24) hour's notice to affected Customers, and shall
occur during periods of minimum use of the system, preferably between
midnight and cix (6:00) 6:00 a.m. Such
notification of a planned outage may take the form of a door hanger,
a message or insert into the monthly bill, a telephone call, or
supplemented with on-screen messages announcing the planned outage.
Cable modem Internet Customers may receive notification by e-mail.
If a cuctomor Customer experiences poor
vidoo or audio rocoption signal quality or interruptions of
Cable or Other Service attributable to the cable oporator'c
Cable Operator's equipment, the cable oporator
Cable Operator shall respond and repair the problem no later
than the day following the cuctomor Customer call
provided that the Customer is available and the repair can be made
within the allotted time. If an appointment is necessary, the
cuctomor Customer may choose a four (4) hour block of
time during normal oporating hours Normal Business Hours
. At the cuctomor'c Customer's request, the
cable oporator Cable Operator shall repair the problem at
a later time convenient to the cuctomor Customer.
The Cable Operator shall provide Customers the option of service or
installation appointments weekday evenings until 7:00 p.m. and a
minimum of four (4) hours on Saturdays.
5. Problem Resolution. mom^ A cable
oporator'c Cable Operator's CSRs shall have the authority
to provide credit for interrupted service or any of the other credits
listed in Schedule A, to waive fees, to schedule service
appointments and to change billing cycles, where appropriate. Any
difficulties that cannot be resolved by the CSR shall be referred to
the appropriate supervisor who shall make best efforts to
contact the cuctomor Customer within four (4) hours
and resolve the problem within forty-eight (48) hours or within such
other time frame as is acceptable to the cuctomor
Customer and the cable oporator Cable Operator.
6. Billings, Credits, Refunds, and Deposits. Cable oporator
Customers will receive a clear and concise bill every month.
To be considered clear and concise, due dates shall be required, and
a bill shall be issued. The cable oporator Cable
Operator shall respond to a cuctomor'c Customer's
billing inquiry, general question, or comment made by telephone
or e-mail within forty-eight (48) hours and to a written
billing inquiry within two (2) wookc aftor receiving it. The
Cable Operator shall respond in writing to a written billing inquiry,
general question or comment within two weeks of the date of receipt
of the letter. The Cable Operator shall provide the option of a
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
!page 8of27
mailed bill and payment to Customers upon request.
The cable operator Cable Operator shall allow at
least thirty (30) days from the beginning date of the applicable
billing cycle for payment of a cuctomor'c Customer's
service bill for that period. If a cuctomor'c
Customer's service bill is not paid within that period of time the
cable operator Cable Operator may apply an
administrative fee to the cuctomor'c Customer's
account. If the cuctomor'c Customer's service bill
is not paid within forty-five (45) days of the beginning date of the
applicable service period, the cable operator Cable
Operator may perform a "soft" disconnect of the cuctomor'c
Customer's service. If a cuctomor'c
Customer's service bill is not paid within fifty-two (52) days of
the beginning date of the applicable service period, the cable
oporator Cable Operator may disconnect the cuctomor'c
Customer's service; provided, it has provided ten (10)
days notice to the cuctomor Customer that such
disconnection may result.
If a cuctomor Customer requests disconnection of
any or all services, billing for affected services shall end on the
same day, or on the future date for which the disconnect is ordered.
The cuctomor Customer shall not be responsible for
cable corvicoc Cable Services delivered after the
request. The cable operator Cable Operator must
refund any credit balance owed the cuctomor Customer,
less any owed or disputed amounts, within _fifteen (15)
business days after the close of the cuctomor'c
Customer's billing cycle following the return of the equipment and
request for disconnection. The cable operator Cable
Operator shall issue a credit or refund to a cuctomor
Customer within fifteen (15) business days after the close
of the billing cycle following the return of the equipment and
request for disconnection.
Deposits shall accrue interest at a fair market rate. Within ten
(10) days after termination of service, the cable operator
Cable Operator shall repay any deposit with a statement showing
accrued interest to the cuctomor Customer, less any
sums owed to the cable operator Cable Operator.
7. Treatment of Property Owner's Property. Trees and shrubs or
other landscaping on a cuctomor'c Customer's property
that are damaged by the cable oporator Cable Operator
, or any employee or agent during installation or construction
for the Customer or in the process of serving adjacent structures,
shall be restored to their prior condition or replaced. Trees and
shrubs shall not be removed without the prior permission of the owner
or legal tenant ) )of the property on which they are located.
The cable oporator Cable Operator shall, at its own
cost and expense, and in a manner approved by the property owner and
the City, restore any property to as good condition as before the
work causing such disturbance was initiated. The cable operator
Cable Operator shall repair, replace or compensate .&
all property owners for .4xy damages
resulting from the cable oporator'c Cable Operator's
installation, construction, service or repair activities for a
Customer.
Except in the case of an emergency involving public safety or
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 9 of 27
service interruption to a large number of cubccriborc
Customers, the cable oporator Cable Operator shall
give reasonable notice to property owners or legal tenants prior to
entering upon private premises, and the notice shall specify the work
to be performed; provided that, in the case of construction
operations such notice shall be delivered or provided at least
twenty-four (24) hours prior to entry. Nothing herein shall be
construed as authorizing access or entry to private property, or any
other property, where such right to access or entry is not otherwise
provided by law. If damage is caused by cable oporator
Cable Operator activity, the cable oporator Cable
Operator shall reimburse the property owner one hundred (100)
percent (100%) of the cost of the damage or replace the
damaged property. For the installation of pedestals or other major
construction or installation projects, property owners shall also be
notified by mail or door hanger notice at least one (1) week in
advance. In the case of an emergency, the cable oporator
Cable Operator shall attempt to contact the property owner or
legal tenant in person, and shall leave a door hanger notice in the
event personal contact is not made.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall clean all
areas surrounding any work site of debris caused by the Cable
Operator's activities and ensure that all cable materials
havo boon are disposed of properly.
D. Services for Customers with Disabilities. For any
cuctomor Customer with a disability, the cablo
oporator Cable Operator shall at no charge deliver and
pick up converters at cuctomor'c the Customer's
home... In tho caco of a malfunctioning convortor, tho
tochnician chall provido anothor convortor , hook it up and oncuro
that it is working properly, and chall roturn the defective convertor
to tho cable oporator. In the case of malfunctioning
equipment, the technician shall provide and install substitute
equipment, ensure that it is working properly, and return the
defective equipment to the Cable Operator.
The cablo oporator Cable Operator shall provide
TDD/TYY service with trained operators who can provide every
type of assistance rendered by the cable operator's
Cable Operator's CSR for any hearing-impaired cuctomor
Customer at no charge.
The cablo operator Cable Operator shall provide
free use of a converter remote control unit to mobility-impaired
euctomorc Customers.
Any cuctomor Customer with a disability may request
the special services described above by providing the oablo
oporator Cable Operator with a letter from the
cuctomor'c Customer's physician stating the need, or by
making the request to the oablo oporator'c Cable
Operator's installer or service technician, where the need for the
special services can be visually confirmed.
E. Customer Information. Upon (1) installation;
, and at any time tho cuctomor may roquoct, tho cable operator chall
provide the following information, in clear, conoico written form
; (2) annually; and (3) at any time the Customer requests, the
Cable Operator shall provide the following information, in clear,
concise written form:
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
• Page 10 of 27
Products and services offered by the cablo oporator
Cable Operator, including its channel lineup. Thirty (30) days
prior to the Cable Operator changing its channel lineup, the Cable
Operator shall provide subscribers with the revised channel lineup
The cablo oporator'c Cable Operator's prices and
options for programming services, conditions of subscription to
programming and other corvicoc Other Services, and
policies concerning changes in services offered, notification of
changes, disconnection and service downgrades. Thirty (30) days
prior to the Cable Operator changing any of the above, the Cable
Operator shall provide subscribers with the changes;
These .Standards, with Schedule A, and any other
applicable cuctomor Customer service standards. A
written copy of these Standards or a summary approved by the City
shall be provided to Customers at installation and annually; an on-
line version shall be considered acceptable annual dissemination of
the standards to cable modem Internet Customers;
Installation and service maintenance policies, including the
cuctomor'c Customer's responsibilities for equipment;
Instruction on the use of cable TV service., remote
control and on standard VCR hookups;
Instruction on the use of interactive television if provided by
the cable operator;
Instruction on the use of cable modem service;
Channol pocitionc of programming;
Billing and .Complaint procedures, including the
address and telephone number of the cablo oporator'c
Cable Operator's offices, the cablo oporator'c Cable
Operator's policies on deposits and credit balances, returned
check charges, refunds for disruption of service or poor reception,
and telephone numbers and descriptions of services of the FCC and the
City's Office of Cable Communications;
Policies concerning protection of cuctomor Customer
privacy. The Cable Operator shall include a postage paid self-
addressed mail back postcard for opt-out purposes;
Use and availability of parental control/lock out device;
Special services for cuctomorc Customers with
disabilities including any other discounts required by the
franchise;
Days, timoc hours of operation, and locations of
the service centers;
A sample of all notices provided to the cuctomor
Customer shall be filed (by fax acceptable) concurrently with the
City;
The cablo operator Cable Operator shall provide
cuctomorc Customers with written notification of any
changes in programming, services or channel positions as soon as
possible in writing and, when it becomes technologically feasible,
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
• Page 11 of 27
through announcements on the cable cyctom Cable System
. Customers shall be given a description of the changes, their
options (including costs) for changing services they
receive, phone number for questions and effective date. Notice must
be given to cuctomorc Customers a minimum of thirty
(30) days in advance of such changes if the change is within the
control of the cablo oporator Cable Operator. In
addition, the cable oporator Cable Operator shall
notify cuctomorc Customers thirty (30) days in
advance of any significant changes in the other information required
by the preceding subsection. Channel lineup changes that result
from a cablo oporator'c Cable Operator's rebuild of
its Cable System are exempt from the thirty (30) day notice
requirement;
All officers, agents, and employees of the cablo oporator
Cable Operator, its contractors and subcontractors who are in
personal contact with cablo cuctomorc
Customers shall have visible identification cards bearing their
name and photograph ac approved by tho City. The cable
oporator Cable Operator shall account for all
identification cards at all times. Every vehicle of the cablo
oporator Cable Operator used for providing services to
Customers shall be clearly visually identified to the public as
working for the cablo oporator Cable Operator. All
CSRs shall identify themselves orally to callers immediately
following the greeting during each telephone contact with the public.
Officers, agents, and employees of the Cable Operator, its
contractors and subcontractors shall identify themselves to the
Customer when making a service call or installation;
All CSRs, technicians and employees of the cablo oporator
Cable Operator in every contact with a cuctomor
Customer shall state the estimated cost of the service, repair,
or installation orally prior to delivery of the service or before any
work is performed, and shall provide the cuctomor
Customer with an oral statement of the total charges before
terminating the telephone call or before leaving the location at
which the work was performed;
All promotional materials advertising cable services shall
accurately disclose price terms. For non-automated orders, the
CSRs shall make clear the price of pay-per-view and pay-per-event
programming before an order is taken. The cable operator
Cable Operator shall distribute promotional material in multi-
unit buildings only with the approval of the building owner. The
cable oporator Cable Operator shall not condition the
provision of cable corvicoc Cable Services on the
receipt of such approval;
The cable oporator Cable Operator shall not charge
cuctomorc Customers for any services they have not
affirmatively requested; provided that, this subsection shall not
prevent a cable oporator Cable Operator from adding
programming to an existing tier.
F. Cable Customer Privacy. Tho cable oporator chall
monitor cable tolovision signals to dotormino tho individual
viowing pattornc or practicoc of any cuctomor without prior writton
concont from that cuctomor, except ac othorwico pormittod by the
applicable franchico, and by federal law. The cable operator ic
pormittod to diccloco such information if ouch dicclocuro ic
nococcary to render, or conduct, a legitimate bucinocc activity
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scri pts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 12 of 27
rolatod to a cablo corvico or othor corvico providod by tho cable
oporator to ite cuctomorc. In addition to complying with the
requirements in this Subsection, a Cable Operator shall fully comply
with all obligations under 47 U.S.C. section 551.
1. Definitions
"Affiliate, " for purposes of this Subsection F, shall mean
any person or entity that is owned or controlled by, or under common
ownership or control with, a Cable Operator, and provides any Cable
Service or Other Service.
"Necessary, " for purposes of this Subsection F, shall mean
required or indispensable.
"Non-cable-related purpose, " for purposes of this Subsection
F, means any purpose that is not Necessary to render, or conduct a
legitimate business activity related to, a Cable Service or Other
Service provided by the Cable Operator to a Customer. Market
research, telemarketing, and other marketing of services or products
shall be considered Non-cable-related purposes.
"Personally Identifiable Information, " for purposes of this
Subsection F, means specific information about a Customer, including,
but not be limited to, a Customer's (a) login information, (b) extent
of viewing of video programming or Other Services, (c) shopping
choices, (d) interests and opinions, (e) energy uses, (f) medical
information, (q) banking data or information, (h) web browsing
activities, or (i) any other personal or private information.
"Personally Identifiable Information" shall not mean aggregate
information about Customers which does not identify particular
persons.
2. Collection and Use of Personally Identifiable Information
(a) A Cable Operator shall not use the Cable System to
collect, record, monitor or observe Personally Identifiable
Information without the prior affirmative written or electronic
consent of the Customer unless, and only to the extent that, such
information is: (a) used to detect unauthorized reception of cable
communications, or (b) Necessary to render a Cable Service or Other
Service provided by the Cable Operator to the Customer.
(b) A Cable Operator shall take such actions as are
necessary to prevent any Affiliate from using the facilities of the
Cable Operator in any manner, including, but not limited to, sending
data or other signals through such facilities, to the extent such use
will permit an Affiliate unauthorized access to Personally
Identifiable Information on the computer or other equipment of a
Customer (regardless of whether such equipment is owned or leased by
the Customer or provided by a Cable Operator) or on any of the
facilities of the Cable Operator that are used in the provision of
Cable Service. This Subsection F.2 (b) shall not be interpreted to
prohibit an Affiliate from obtaining access to Personally
Identifiable Information to the extent otherwise permitted by this
Subsection F.
(c) A Cable Operator shall take such actions as are reasonably
necessary to prevent a person or entity (other than Affiliates) from
using the facilities of the Cable Operator in any manner, including,
but not limited to, sending data or other signals through such
facilities, to the extent such use will permit such person or entity
unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information on the
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 13 of 27
computer or other equipment of a Customer (regardless of whether such
equipment is owned or leased by the Customer or provided by a Cable
Operator) or on any of the facilities of the Cable Operator that are
used in the provision of Cable Service.
3. Disclosure of Personally Identifiable Information
A Cable Operator shall not disclose Personally Identifiable
Information without the prior affirmative written or electronic
consent of the Customer, except as follows:
(a) A Cable Operator may disclose for a Non-cable-related
purpose the name and address of a Customer to any general programming
tiers of service and other categories of Cable and Other Services
provided by the Cable Operator if the Cable Operator has provided the
Customer the opportunity to prohibit or limit such disclosure in
accordance with this Subsection F and Section 631 of the federal
Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 551, and such disclosure does
not directly or indirectly disclose:
1. A Customer's extent of viewing of a Cable Service or Other
Service provided by the Cable Operator;
2. The extent of any other use by a Customer of a Cable Service or
Other Service provided by the Cable Operator, including, but not
limited to a disclosure of the particular viewing selections by a
person subscribing to a Cable Service or Other Service, or the
particular web sites visited by a Customer to cable modem service
(i.e. , a Cable Operator may only disclose the fact that a person
subscribes to cable modem service) ; or
3. The nature of any transactions made by a Customer over the Cable
System of the Cable Operator.
4. The nature of programming or sites that a Customer subscribes to
or views (i.e. , a Cable Operator may only disclose the fact that a
person subscribes to a general tier of service, or a package of
channels with the same type of programming) .
A minimum of thirty (30) days prior to making any disclosure of
Personally Identifiable Information of any Customer as provided in
this subsection F.3 (a) , the Cable Operator shall notify in writing
the Office of Cable Communications and each Customer (that the Cable
Operator intends to disclose information about) of the specific
information that will be disclosed, to whom it will be disclosed, and
notice of the Customer's right to prohibit the disclosure of such
information for Non-cable related purposes. The notice to Customers
may be included with or made a part of the Customer's monthly bill
for Cable Service or Other Service or may be made by separate mailed
notice. Each time that this notice is given to a Customer, the Cable
Operator also shall provide the Customer with an opportunity to
prohibit the disclosure of information in the future. Such
opportunity shall be given in one of the following forms: a postage
paid, self-addressed post card provided by the Cable Operator; a box
that may be checked by the Customer on the Customer's monthly bill
for Cable Services or Other Services; a toll-free number that the
Customer may call; or such other equivalent methods as may be
approved by the Office of Cable Communications.
Additionally, within forty-five (45) days after each disclosure of
Personally Identifiable Information of any Customer as provided in
this subsection F.3 (a) , the Cable Operator shall notify in writing
the Office of Cable Communications and each Customer (that the Cable
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
• Page 14 of 27
Operator has disclosed information about) of the specific information
that has been disclosed, to whom it has been disclosed, and notice of
the Customer's right to prohibit the disclosure of such information
for Non-cable related purposes. The notice to Customers may be
included with or made a part of the Customer's monthly bill for Cable
Service or Other Service or may be made by separate mailed notice.
Each time that this notice is given to a Customer, the Cable Operator
also shall provide the Customer with an opportunity to prohibit the
disclosure of information in the future. Such opportunity shall be
given in one of the following forms: a postage paid,- self-addressed
post card provided by the Cable Operator; a box that may be checked
by the Customer on the Customer's monthly bill for Cable Services or
Other Services; a toll-free number that the Customer may call; or
such other equivalent methods as may be approved by the Office of
Cable Communications.
(b) A Cable Operator may disclose Personally Identifiable
Information only to the extent that it is Necessary to render, or
conduct a legitimate business activity related to, a Cable Service or
Other Service provided by the Cable Operator to the Customer.
(c) To the extent required by federal law, a Cable Operator
may disclose Personally Identifiable Information pursuant to a
subpoena or valid court order authorizing such disclosure, or to a
governmental entity.
4. Access to Information
Any Personally Identifiable Information gathered and
maintained by a Cable Operator shall be made available for Customer
examination within thirty (30) days of receiving a request by a
Customer to examine such information at the local offices of the
Cable Operator or other convenient place within the City designated
by the Cable Operator. Upon a reasonable showing by the Customer
that the information is inaccurate, a Cable Operator shall correct
such information.
5. Privacy Notice to Customers
(a) A Cable Operator shall annually mail a separate, written
privacy statement to Customers consistent with 47 U.S.C. section
551 (a) (1) , and shall provide a Customer a copy of such statement at
the time the Cable Operator enters into an agreement with the
Customer to provide Cable Service or Other Service. The written
notice shall be in a clear and conspicuous format and be printed in
ten point type or larger.
(b) In the statement required by Subsection F.5 (a) , a Cable
Operator shall state substantially the following regarding the
disclosure of Customer information: "Unless a Customer affirmatively
consents electronically or in writing to the disclosure of personally
identifiable information, any disclosure of personally identifiable
information for purposes other than to the extent Necessary to
render, or conduct a legitimate business activity related to, a Cable
Service or Other Service, is limited to:
(i) disclosure pursuant to a subpoena or valid court order
authorizing such disclosure, or to a governmental entity, but only to
the extent required by applicable federal law.
(ii) disclosure of the name and address of a Customer to any general
programming tiers of service and other categories of cable and Other
Services provided by the Cable Operator that do not directly or
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 15 of 27
indirectly disclose:
(A) A Customer's extent of viewing of a Cable Service or Other
Service provided by the Cable Operator,
(B) The extent of any other use by a Customer of a Cable Service or
Other Service provided by the Cable Operator, including, but not
limited to, a disclosure of the particular viewing selections by a
person subscribing to a Cable Service or Other Service, or the
particular web sites visited by a Customer of cable modem service
(i.e. , a Cable Operator may only disclose the fact that a person
subscribes to cable modem service) ; or
(C) The nature of any transactions made by a Customer over the Cable
System.
(D) The nature of programming or sites that a Customer subscribes to
or views (i.e. , a Cable Operator may only disclose the fact that a
person subscribes to a general tier of service, or a package of
channels with the same type of programming) ."
The notice shall also inform the Customers of their right to
prohibit the disclosure of their names and addresses in accordance
with Subsection (b) for Non-cable related purposes. This opportunity
will be presented in the form of both a toll-free telephone number
and a postage paid, self-addressed post card, provided by the Cable
Operator with the privacy notice or other manner acceptable to the
Office of Cable Communications. If a Customer exercises his/her right
to prohibit the disclosure of name and address as provided in
Subsection F.3 (a) or this Subsection, such prohibition against
disclosure shall remain in effect permanently, unless the Customer
subsequently notifies the Cable Operator in writing that s/he wishes
to permit the Cable Operator to disclose his/her name and address.
6. Privacy Reporting Requirements
The Cable Operator shall include in its quarterly report to
the City required by SMC 21. 60.830D information summarizing:
(a)
1. the type of Personally Identifiable Information that was actually
collected or disclosed during the reporting period;
2. for each type of Personally Identifiable Information collected or
disclosed, a statement sufficient to demonstrate that the Personally
Identifiable Information collected or disclosed was: (A) collected or
disclosed only to the extent Necessary to render, or conduct a
legitimate business activity related to, a Cable Service or Other
Service provided by the Cable Operator; (B) used only to the extent
Necessary to detect unauthorized reception of cable communications;
(C) disclosed pursuant to a subpoena or valid court order or to a
governmental entity to the extent required by federal law ; (D)
names and addresses disclosed in compliance with Section 3 (a) of
this Ordinance; or (E) a disclosure of personally identifiable
information of particular subscribers, but only to the extent
affirmatively consented to by such subscribers in writing or
electronically.
3. the names of all entities to whom such Personally Identifiable
Information was disclosed, except that a Cable Operator need not
provide the name of any court or governmental entity to which such
disclosure was made if such disclosure would be inconsistent with
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 16 of 27
applicable federal law;
(b) Describe measures that have been taken, or could be
taken, to prevent the unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable
Information by a person other than the Customer or the Cable
Operator, including, among other things, a description of the
technology that is or could be applied by the Cable Operator to
prohibit unauthorized access to Personally Identifiable Information
by any means.
7. Nothing in this Subsection F shall be construed to prevent
the City from obtaining Personally Identifiable Information to the
extent not prohibited by section 631 of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. section 551.
8. Any aggrieved person may commence a civil action for
damages for invasion of privacy against any Cable Operator.
9. Destruction of Personally Identifiable Information
A Cable Operator shall destroy, within ninety (90) days, any
Personally Identifiable Information if the Personally Identifiable
Information is no longer Necessary for the purpose for which it was
collected and there are no pending requests or orders for access to
such Personally Identifiable Information under Subsection 3 of this
Subsection, pursuant to a court order, or pursuant to Section 631 of
the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. section 551.
10. Rulemaking.
The Office of Cable Communications shall adopt such rules as it deems
necessary or advisable to implement these privacy provisions of the
Customer Cable Bill of Rights.
G. Safety. The cable oporator Cable Operator
shall install and locate 3s its facilities, Cable
System, and equipment in compliance with all federal, state, local,
and company safety standards, and in such manner as shall not unduly
interfere with or endanger persons or property. Whenever the
cablo oporator Cable Operator receives notice that an
unsafe condition exists with respect to its equipment, the cablo
oporator Cable Operator shall investigate such condition
immediately, and shall take such measures as are necessary to remove
or eliminate any unsafe condition.
H. Satisfaction Guaranteed. The cable oporator Cable
Operator shall guarantee cuctomor Customer
satisfaction for every cuctomor Customer who requests
new installation of Cable Service, video, interactive television
or Cable modem Internet or adds any additional programming service
to the cuctomor'c Customer's cable subscription. Any
such cuctomor Customer who adds bacie or
expanded basic or other higher tier of video service, interactive
television, or cable modem service to his or her account, and then
requests disconnection discontinuation of such upgraded
service within thirty (30) days due to dissatisfaction with the
service, shall receive a credit to his/her account in an amount equal
to the pro rata charge for the remaining days of service following
the request to disconnect. If a Customer subscribes to a service
under a promotion that provides free service and chooses to
disconnect during the promotion window, there shall be no charge of
any kind for the service or for disconnection of the service.
Shall rocoivo a crodit to hic/hor account in the amount of ono (1)-
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 17 of 27
month'c cubccription chargo for tho corvico that hac boon
dicconnoctod
21. 60.830 COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
A. Complaints to the Cable Operator. The cablo oporator
Cable Operator shall establish written procedures for
receiving, acting upon, and resolving cuctomor complaints
Customer Complaints, and crediting cuctomor
Customer accounts in accordance with company policies or
Schedule A, "Credits to Customers", which cchodulo is
incorporatod herein, whichever is greater, and shall
publicize such procedures through printed documents at the cablo
oporator'c Cable Operator's sole expense. For
violations of this Ordinance, credits shall be made to the Customer's
account. In the event that the Customer no longer receives Cable
Service or Other Services from the Cable Operator, the Cable Operator
shall issue a check to the Customer within thirty (30) days of the
resolution of the Complaint.
Said written procedures shall prescribe a simple mannor
process— by which any cuctomor
Customer may submit a complaint Complaint in
person or by telephone, electronic mail or in writing to the
cable operator Cable Operator that it hac
violated any regarding an alleged violation of any
provision of these cuctomor corvico ctandardc Customer
Service Standards, any terms or conditions of the customer's
Customer's contract with the cablo operator
Cable Operator, or reasonable business practices.
At tho conclusion of the cable oporator'c invoctigation of a
cuctomor complaint, but in no moro than fifteen (15) calendar days
oftor receiving the complaint, the cable operator chall notify the
cuctomor of the rocultc of its invoctigation and itc propocod action
or credit. The Cable Operator will make best efforts to
resolve Customer concerns or Complaints at the first contact. The
City will make best efforts to redirect to the Cable Operator all
Cable Customers who have contacted the City first with a Cable or
Other Service inquiry, concern, or Complaint. Within fifteen (15)
calendar days after receiving a Complaint, the Cable Operator shall
notify the Customer of the results of its investigation and its
proposed action or credit. If the Complaint is in writing, a written
response shall be sent to the Customer within two (2) weeks of
receipt.
The cable operator Cable Operator shall also
notify the cuctomor Customer of the cuctomor'c
Customer's right to file a complaint Complaint
with the City in the event the cuctomor Customer
is dissatisfied with the cable operator's Cable
Operator's decision, and shall thoroughly explain the
necessary procedures for filing such complaint Complaint
with the city ) )City.
The cable oporator'c complaint Cable Operator's
Complaint procedures shall be filed with and approved
Jay the City prior to implementation.
B. Security Fund. Within thirty (30) days of the effective date
of these sStandards or the effective date of any
franchise granted by the City, whichever occurs first, the cable
operator Cable Operator shall deposit with an escrow agent
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 18 of 27
approved by the City a security deposit of fifty cents ( ($.50) per
cuctomor Customer. The escrowed funds shall
constitute the security funds for ensuring compliance with these
standards for the benefit of the City and Customers. The
escrowed funds shall be reviewed and maintained annually by the
cable oporator Cable Operator at the level of fifty cents
($.50) per cuctomor Customer per year, and will be
replenished within fourteen (14) days in the event that amounts
greater than ten percent (10%) of the required fund are withdrawn.
The security fund shall serve as security for the payment of any
penalties, fees, charges or credits as provided for herein and for
the performance by the cable oporator Cable Operator
of all its obligations under these cuctomor corvico ctandardc
Customer Service Standards.
The rights reserved to the City with respect to the security fund
are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved by
any applicable franchise agreement or authorized by law, and no
action, proceeding or exercise of a right with respect to same shall
in any way affect, or diminish, any other right the City may
otherwise have.
C. Complaints to the City. Any cuctomor Customer
who is dissatisfied with any proposed docicion
disposition of 44a a Complaint by a cable
oporator Cable Operator or who has not received a decision
within the required fifteen (15) day period ac roquirod
shall be entitled to have the complaint Complaint
reviewed by the City.
The cuctomor Customer may initiate the review
either by calling the City or by filing a written complaint
Complaint, by letter or in electronic form, together with the
cable oporator'c Cable Operator's written decision,
if any, with the City.
The cuctomor Customer shall make such filing and
notification within twenty (20) days of receipt of the cable
oporator'c Cable Operator's decision or, if no decision
has been provided, within thirty (30) days after filing the original
complaint Complaint with the cable operator
Cable Operator.
If the City decides that further evidence is warranted, the City
may require the cablo oporator Cable Operator and the
cuctomor Customer to submit, within ten (10) days of
notice thereof, a written statement of the facts and arguments in
support of their respective positions.
The cable oporator Cable Operator and the
cuctomor Customer shall produce any additional evidence,
including any reports from the cable operator Cable
Operator, which the City may deem necessary to an understanding
and determination of the complaint Complaint.
The City shall issue a determination within fifteen (15) days after
examining the materials submitted, setting forth the basis for its
determination.
The City may extend these time limits for reasonable cause and may
intercede and attempt to negotiate an informal resolution.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 19 of 27
If the City determines that the cuctomor'c complaint
Customer's Complaint is valid and that the cable oporator
Cable Operator did not provide the complaining
cuctomor Customer with the proper solution and/or credit,
the City may reverse any decision of the cablo oporator
Cable Operator in the matter and/or require the cable
oporator Cable Operator to grant a specific solution as
determined by the City in its sole discretion, and/or any credit
provided for in these standards; or the City may provide the
cuctomor Customer with the amount of the credit (as set
forth in Schedule A) by means of a withdrawal from the security fund.
D. Verification of Compliance. The cable oporator
Cable Operator shall maintain, in a manner consistent with the
privacy rights of cuctomorc Customers, an accurate
and comprehensive file of (1) any and all complaints
Complaints regarding the Cable System or the cablo oporator'c
Cable Operator's operation of the Cable System, by number
and type and their disposition; (2) service requests, identifying the
number and nature of the requests and their disposition; (3) service
interruptions and their disposition; ) ) (4) required
cablo oporator Cable Operator contacts with cuctomorc
Customers after installation, and (5) Customer privacy
information as per SMC 21. 60.820 (F) (6) .
Tho cablo oporator shall provido the City an oxocutiva
summary each quarter, which cummarizoc the above information.
) )Re Arts detailing compliance with the standards herein shall be
provided by the Cable Company on a quarterly basis, within 30 days of
the end of the quarter and shall be in a format consistent with the
output capabilities of a Cable Operator's call tracking technology
sufficient for the City to monitor the Cable Customer Bill of Rights.
If the Cable Operator fails to provide such reports on a timely
basis, or if they are incomplete, monetary sanctions of up to $500.00
for the first quarter, up to $1000.00 for the second consecutive
quarter of noncompliance, up to $1500.00 for the third consecutive
quarter of noncompliance, and up to $2, 000.00 for all subsequent
consecutive non-compliant quarters may be imposed to encourage
compliance. The cable oporator Cable Operator
shall permit the City to review and audit the information at any time
during normal bucinoss hours Normal Business Hours
upon reasonable notice.
E. Overall Quality of Service. The City may evaluate the overall
quality of cuctomor Customer service provided by the
cable oporator Cable Operator to cuctomorc
Customers, in conjunction with any performance review provided
for in the franchise agreement; or at any other time, at its sole
discretion, based on the number of cuctomor complaints
Customer Complaints received directly by the City or reported by
the cable oporator Cable Operator in its quarterly
reports.
F.
Procedure for Remedying Violations. Noncompliance with
,provision of there ctandardc is a violation of thoco ctandardc.
If the City has reason to believe that the Cable Operator has
failed to comply with any of these Standards, or has failed to
perform in a timely manner, the City may require in writing that the
Cable Operator remedy the alleged noncompliance and provide an
opportunity to cure. If the alleged noncompliance is denied or not
cured to the satisfaction of the City, the City may impose monetary
sanctions or follow other procedures set forth in individual
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 20 of 27
franchise agreements.
C. Procoduro for Romodying Violations. If tho City hac
roacon to boliovo that tho cablo operator hac failod
timoly manner, the city may domand in writing that tho cablo operator
romody tho allogod noncompliance. If tho allogod noncomplianco is
doniod or not romodiod to tho satisfaction of the City, the City may
opt to follow the procoduroc cot forth in individual franchico
agroomontc.
. G. Notice. At the City's request, the
cablo operator Cable Operator shall include on its billing
statement, in a clear and conspicuous manner, information on how to
contact the City's Office of Cable Communications. At the City's
discretion, such information may include, but shall not be limited
to, the address, telephone number and e-mail address of the Office of
Cable Communications.
At least annually, the cablo operator Cable Operator
shall notify its cuctomorc Customers through a
bill insert of the existence, location and function of the City's
Office of Cable Communications, and shall provide a summary of
Cable Customer Bill of Rights the ordinance codified in
this subchapter and the remedies and procedures available to its
cuctomorc Customers. Cable modem Internet Customers
may receive such notification via e-mail if the Customer does not
receive a written bill.
Schedule A - Credits to Customers
Standards of Minimum Compensation
Customer Service For Noncompliance
COURTESY
All cable operator Cable Fivo Dollars ($5) credit to
Operator cmployooc shall bo friendly, cuctomor account $5.00
knowledgeable and helpful in thoir orodit
and provide timely services.
RESPONSIVENESS
Guaranteed Seven (7) Day Residential Installation and Service
Cablo operator Cable Free installation, or one (1)
Operators shall complete standard month's basic corvico, if the foo
installations Standard has been waived for promotional
Installations and service requested by reasons; for a service
a cuctomor Customer violation, $10 credit
within seven (7) business days after
order has been placed.
Cable operator Cable Free installation, or one (1)
Operator shall provide cuctomorc month'c basic corvico, if the foo
Customers seeking has been waived for promotional
non-standard installations reasons
Non-Standard Installations with a
total installation cost estimate and an
estimated date of completion.
All underground cable drops shall be Fivo Dollars ($5) credit to
buried no loss than twolvo (12) inohoc cuctomor account $5.00
deep and work shall be completed in no credit
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 21 of 27
more than three (3) working
iiayc calendar weeks from the
installation.
Residential Installation and ServiceAppointments
All cablo oporator Cable Ton Dollarc ($10) crodit to
Oporator cuctomore cuctomor account $10.00
Customers wanting installation of credit
cable or service may choose any
availablefour (4) hour time block
during normal bucinocc hourc
Normal Business Hours.
The cablo oporator Cable Ton Dollarc ($10) crodit to
Operator may not cancel an appointment cuctomor account.$10.00
with a cuctomor Customer credit or the guarantee offered
after five 5:00 p.m. by the cable oporator
}) ) p.m. on the day before the Cable Operator, whichever
scheduled appointment. is greater
If a cable oporator Cable Ton Dollarc ($10) crodit to
Operator cannot make an appointment cuctomor account, $10.00
for any reason, the ca e� era or relit, a ditiems to
Cable Oporator chall contact any or the
the cuctomor Customer guarantees offered by
before the end of the scheduled the cable oporator
appointment and reschedule at the Cable Operator, whichever is
convenience of the customer greater
Customer.
If a cablo operator Cable Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
Operator tochnician arrivoc within tho cuctomor account. $5.00
agreed upon time, and the cuctomor crodit if the cuctomor is not
Customer is absent, the contacted within forty-eight (48)
technician shall leave written hours
notification of arrival and return time,
and the cablo oporator Cable
Operator shall contact the
cuctomor Customer within
forty-eight (48) hours to reschedule.
Rocidontial Sorvico Intorruptionc Outages and Service Interruptions
System outages resulting from cablo Ono (1) day's froo corvico for
oporator Cable Operator each twonty-four (21) hour
equipment failuro affecting five (5) or delay for affoctod cuctomorc
more cuctomorc Customers, day in which there is an
the Cable Operator shall e o age a each uctomcr it e
corroctod initiate repairs reports an outage
within two (2) hours after the third
cuctomor Customer call is
received.
Repairs shall be initiated for all One (1) day's free service for
A other interruptions each twonty-four hour delay
roculting from cablo oporator for affected cuctomorc
Cable Operator equipment failure day in which there is an outage
chall bo corroctod within for each Customer who reports an
twenty-four (24) hours. outage
Initiate repairs for allAll Ono (1) day'c froo corvico for
service outages or interruptions each twenty-four hour delay •
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
• Page 22 of 27
boyond the control of cable for affoctod cuctomorc
oporatorc Cable Operators day in which there is an outage
chall bo corrected within for each Customer who
twenty-four (24) hours after the outage
cablo oporator Cable Operator
regains control.
TV Reception Difficulties and Cable Modem Internet Connection
All cablo oporator Cable One (1) day's free service for
Operators shall make repairs promptly, each twenty-four hour dolay
and interrupt corvico only for good for affoctod cuctomorc
cause, during periods of minimum use of day in which there is an outage
the system, and for no more than for each Customer who reports an
twenty-four (24) hours, except where outage
unavoidable.
All cable oporator Cable One (1) day's free service for
Operators shall provide clear each day in which
television reception that meets or twonty-four (2i) hour period
oxcoodc FCC technical ctandardc. that reception falls below FCC
standards for affoctod
cuctomorc Customers
who report reception that does
not meet FCC standards
All Cable Operators shall meet all One (1) day's free service for
specifications advertised for Internet each day in which any advertised
services. specification is not met for
affected Customers
If a cuctomor Customer One (1) day's free service for
experiences poor video or audio reception each twenty-four hour delay
duo to cable oporator Cablo for affoctod cuctomorc.
Operator equipment, the cable day after the Cuctomor hac called
Cable Operator shall and the problem remains
repair the problem no later than the next uncorrected
day, unless otherwise agreed to with the
cuctomor Customer.
Problem Resolution
All cablo oporator Cable Fivo Dollarc ($5) credit to
Oporatorc cuctomor corvico cuctomor account. $5.00
roprocontativoc Customer Service credit
Representatives shall be able to
provide credit, waive fees, schedule
appointments and change billing cycles.
Any difficulties that cannot be resolved
by the Customer service representatives
shall be referred to a supervisor who
shall make best efforts tocontact
the Customer within twenty-four (24) hours.
In the case of difficulties that cannot Fivo Dollars ($5) credit to
bo rocolvod, the cuporvicor chall cuctomor account. $5.00
make best efforts to contact the credit
cuctomor Customer within
four (4) hours and resolve the problem
within forty-eight (48) hours or within
such other time frame as is acceptable
to the cuctomor Customer
and the cable oporator
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 23 of 27
Cable Operator.
Billing, Credits and Refunds
Cablo oporator cuctomorc ) ) Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
Cuctomorc chall rocoivo a cloar and cuctomor account. $5.00
concise bill monthly. The cablo crodit
oporator Cable Operator shall
respond to a cuctomor'c
Customer's billing inquiry made by
telephone or e-mail within
forty-eight (48) hours, and to a written
billing inquiry within two (2) weeks
aftor rocoiving it of
receipt of the inquiry.
All cablo oporator Cable Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
2poratorc chall allow thirty (30) dayc cuctomor account. $5.00
from the beginning date of the applicable credit
billing cycle before imposing an
administrative fee. If the bill is not
paid within forty-five (45) days from the
beginning date of the applicable service
period, the cablo oporator
Cable Operator may perform a "soft"
disconnect.
If a cuctomor'c Customer's Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
bill is not paid within fifty-two (52) cuctomor account. $5.00
days of the beginning date of the credit
applicable service period, the cablo
operator Cable Operator may
disconnect the cuctomor'c
Customer's service, but only upon
showing that it has provided ten (10)
day's notice to the cuctomor
Customer that such disconnect may
result.
If a cuctomor Customer Fivo dollar ($5) credit
roquoctc dicconnoction of any or all $5.00 credit to
corvicoc, billing for affoctod corvicoc cuctomor account or refund
shall end on the same day, or on the if the cuctomor'c
future date for which the disconnect is Customer's account has closed
ordered. All cablo oporator
Cable Operators shall issue a credit
or refund within fifteen (15) business
days after the close of the
cuctomor'c Customer's
billing cycle following the return
of the equipment and request for
disconnection.
Deposits shall accrue interest at a fair Fivo Dollarc ($5)
market rate. Within fiftoon (15) $5.00 crodit to cuctomor
bucinocc ton 10 dayc after account or refund if the
termination of service for any reason, cuctomor'c
the cablo oporator Cable Customer's account has closed
Operator shall repay any deposit with
a statement showing accrued interest to
the cuctomor Customer,
less any sums owed to the cable
oporator Cable Operator.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/—scripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 24 of 27
Respectful Treatment of Cuctomor'c Property
Cable Operators shall Ton Dollarc ($10)
replace anytrees or shrubs damaged $10.00 credit plus any
during anyinstallation or additional repairs or
repairon tho cuctomor'c roimburcomont if tho Cablo
=0. Operator fails to replace or
repair the damage
Cable Q perators shall Ton Dollarc ($10)
restore any damaged property to the same $10.00 credit plus any
condition it was before damage occurred. additional repairs or
reimbursement if the Cable
Operator fails to replace or
repair the damaged property
Cable aOperators will Ton Dollarc ($10)
give notice to property owners before $10.00 credit if the Cable
entering premises, specifying the work to Operator fails to provide notice
be done. In the event of an emergency, or enters premises without
the cable ^ r for Cable permission, plus any
Operator shall attempt to contact the additional repairs or
property owner or legal tenant in person, reimbursement
and shall leave a door hanger notice in
the event personal contact is not made.
All cablo oporator Cable Ton Dollarc ($10)
Operator personnel shall clean up $10.00 credit plus a
the aroa currounding dobric additional ropairc
caused by the Cable Operator's activities cleanup and disposal of debris
at a work site and properly dispose
of cable materials.
Services For Customers With Disabilities
All cable oporator Cable Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
2porators will dolivor and pick up cuctomor account. $5.00
converters at the home of cuctomorc credit
Customers with disabilities.
In the case of a malfunctioning
converter, the technician shall provide
another converter, hook it up and ensure
that it is working properly, and shall
return the defective converter to
the ab ^ ,tor Cable
Operator.
All cable oporator Cable Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
Oporatorc will provido TDD/TYY cuctomor account. $5.00
service through trained operators who can credit
provide any assistance regularly
available from a CSR at no charge.
Cable aOperators will Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
inctall, at no charge, any olocod cuctomor account. $5.00
captioning device purchased by a credit
hearing-impaired cuctomor
Customer.
Cable Operators will provide free use of Fivo Dollarc ($5)
a converter remote control unit to $5.00 credit to cuctomor
mobility-impaired cuctomorc account, and provision of
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 25 of 27
Customers. remote control unit
CUSTOMER INFORMATION
Upon installation, or at a Provide ouctomor
cuctomor'c Customer's Customer with the requested
request, cable oporator information. $5.00 credit for
Cable Operators will provide failure to provide
the following requested information
and credit information:
A. Products and services offered;
B. Complete range of service options and prices;
C. Customer service standards;
D. Instruction on use of cable TV,interactive TV, Internet service, remote
and on standard VCR hookups;
E. Billing, collection and disconnect polices
F. Customer privacy requirements;
G. Complaint procedure, containing the City or the designated agency to whom the
complaintc Complaints should be addressed;
H. Use and availability of A/B switch;
I. Use and availability of parental control/lock- out device;
J. Special services for ouctomorc Customers with visual,
hearing or mobility disabilities;
K. Days, times of operation, and locations of the service centers.
Cable eQperators shall Fivo Dollarc ($5)
provide cuctomorc Customers $5.00 credit to cuctomor
and the City with iritton account for each affected
notification of any change in rates, cuctomor Customer
programming, or channels at least thirty
(30) days before the date of the change.
Every omployoo of cable oporatorc in Fivo Dollarc ($5) crodit to
contact with cuctomorc will have viciblo cuctomor account. $5.00
an identification card with their name crodit
and photograph. All officers,
agents, and employees of the Cable
Operator, its contractors and
subcontractors in personal contact with
the Customer shall have a visible
identification card with their name and
photograph and shall orally identify
themselves upon first contact with the
Customer.
All CSRs shall identify themselves orally Fivo Dollars ($5) crodit to
to callorc immediately following the cuctomor account. $5.00
greeting during each telephone contact credit
with the public.
Each CSR, technician, or employee of the Fivo Dollars ($5) crodit to
cablo operator Cable cuctomor account. $5.00
Operator in each contact with a credit
ouctomor Customer shall
state the estimated cost of the service,
repair, or installation orally prior to
delivery of the service or before any
work is performed, and shall provide the
cuctomor Customer with an
oral statement of the total charges
before terminating the telephone call or
before leaving the location at which the
work was performed.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
• Page 26 of 27
CUSTOMER PRIVACY
Cable oporatorc will not monitor tho Tho cuctomor hac tho choice
cable tolovicion cignalc to determine of oithor a chock for at loact
viowing pattorc of a cuctomor without Ono Hundrod Dollarc ($100) , or a
prior written cuctomor concont. crodit to cuctomor account in the
camp amount.
Cablo oporatorc will not cell Fivo Dollarc ($5)crodit to each
or mako availablo ouctomor lict affoctod cuctomor.
or other porconally idontifiablo
cuctomor information other than ac
orproccly providod in a franchico
agreement.
( + The Customer has the choice of
either a check for $100.00, or a
( + For any violation of privacy per SMC credit to Customer account in the
21.60.820F of the Cable Customer Bill of same amount.
Rights
SAFETY
When the cable operator At least Twenty-five Dollars
Cable Operator receives notice ($25) a day for each twenty-four
that an unsafe condition exists with (24) hour delay in responding to
respect to its equipment, the cuctomor Customer
cable operator safety concerns
Cable Operator shall investigate
such condition immediately,
and shall take such measures as are
necessary to remove or eliminate any
unsafe condition.
SATISFACTION GUARANTEED
Cable eOperators will The cuctomor
guarantee cuctomor Customer Customer will have the
satisfaction for every cuctomor opportunity to cancel bacic
Cuctomor who roquoctc or oxpandod corvico
bacic or expanded basic cable upgraded Cable Service or Other
corvico new or upgraded Cable Service within thirty (30)
Service or Other Service. days after activation
of receiving the service and
receive a pro rata credit in an
amount equal to the pro rata
charge for the remaining days of
service being disconnected if the
Customer is dissatisfied with the
service, except where a free
promotion has been offered, there
shall be no charge of any kind
for the service or for
disconnection of the service
at no charge.
Section 2. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, or part of this
ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances,
shall for any reason be adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction
to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair, or invalidate
the remainder of this ordinance, or its application to other parties
or circumstances.
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Page 27 of 27
Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty
(30) days from and after its approval by the Mayor, but if not
approved and returned by the Mayor within ten (10) days after
presentation, it shall take effect as provided by Municipal Code
Section 1.04 .020.
Passed by the City Council the day of , 2002, and
signed by me in open session in authentication of its passage this
day of , 2002.
President of the City Council
Approved by me this day of , 2002.
Mayor
Filed by me this day of , 2002.
City Clerk
04/16/02
(Ver. 8)
to
ai
C1/46{{ yf ^la mhie
http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/Nscripts/nph-brs.exe?s1=&s2=&s3=114137&s... 7/6/2007
Office of Cable Communications Frequently Asked Questions Page 1 of 1
Public access provides citizens with a video"soapbox"to express themselves on
whatever topic they choose,within a set of rules established by SCAN and
applicable law. As long as the producer stays within these standards,the
program can continue to be broadcast.
•
Because the program producer enjoys rights under the First Amendment to the
Constitution,programs are not previewed before they are broadcast. SCAN's
rules, however,establish a process for reviewing a program if and when a
complaint is received. If you watch a program that you believe is objectionable,
please contact SCAN at 522-4758 for information regarding how to file a
complaint. Your written complaint will trigger a review process. If the program is
found to be obscene,that finding may result in a suspension of broadcast
privileges for the program producer.
The City is not authorized to review program content on SCAN,therefore, it is
best to contact SCAN directly regarding issues concerning programs you find
objectionable.
•
,
xv•
b.n V..
http://www.pan.ci.seattle.wa.us/cable/faq.htm 7/6/2007
4'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY
CABLE ACCESS POLICY AND PROCEDURE GUIDELINES
I. PEG ACCESS PROGRAMMING 2
A. Public Access 2
B. Educational Access 2
C. Government Access 2
H. PROGRAM CONTENT 3
A. Gambling 3
B. Obscenity/Pornography 3
C. Solicitation 3
D. Advertising 3
E. Products or Service 3
F. Commercial Identification 4
G. Misrepresentation 4
H. Illegalities 4
I. PROGRAM DISCLAIMER 4
J. Approval,Clearances 4
K. Program Underwriting 4
L. Underwriting Guidelines 4
M. Political Guidelines 5
III. TAPES REFUSED FOR CABLECAST 5
IV. TAPE LABELING 5
V. FORMAL GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE 5
VI. GUIDELINES ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE 6
VII. MISCELLANEOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS 8
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
-2 -
NORTH LIBERTY CABLE ACCESS POLICY AND PROCEDURE GUIDELINES
I. PEG ACCESS PROGRAMMING
The City of North Liberty defines three(3) types of access programming for the Access
Channel and any other access channels as follows:
A. PUBLIC ACCESS:
1. Any citizen of North Liberty or Johnson County may produce and/or submit a
program for cablecast,by completion of a Cablecast Request form.
2. Requires personal identification, sponsorship and DISCLAIMER:
a. Must run at least thirty(30) seconds.
b. Must contain the name of the citizen(s)who produced and/or sponsored the
program.
c. Must contain the DISCLAIMER(which is the DISCLAIMER referred to
throughout this text):
"THE VIEWS EXPRESSED IN THE FOLLOWING VIDEO
PRESENTATION ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE
PRODUCER(S) AND THUS DO NOT REPRESENT THE VIEWS OR
OPINIONS OF THE CITY OF NORTH LIBERTY, THE MAYOR, CITY
COUNCIL, OR CITY STAFF".
3. The Telecommunications Production Coordinator shall attempt to resolve
conflicts. (See Section V, "Formal Grievance Policy and Procedure")
B. EDUCATIONAL ACCESS:
1. Programming produced or supplied by recognized representative of an educational
institution,public or private; such as:
■ Iowa City Community School District.
• Clear Creek Community School District.
• The University of Iowa.
• Other local educational institutions.
2. Educational institution representatives determine if content is"educational".
3. Requires personal identification DISCLAIMER
C. GOVERNMENT ACCESS:
1. Programming supplied or produced by local government agencies.
2. Content of program qualifies as an open meeting as defined by Iowa Code.
3. Meeting may be taped by Telecommunications Production Coordinator at the
direction of the City Administrator.
4. Highest priority in scheduling.
5. As a guide,priority in taping and scheduling shall be in this order:
a. The Telecommunications Production Coordinator shall ensure that the
following public meetings are routinely cablecast live and taped for showing on
local PEG access channel:
•
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
- 3 -
• North Liberty City Council
• North Liberty Planning and Zoning Commission
b. The following public meetings may be cablecast live and taped at the
discretion of the Telecommunications Production Coordinator,in consultation
with the City Administrator:
• North Liberty Library Board
• North Liberty Parks and Recreation Board
• North Liberty Telecommunications Commission
• North Liberty Board of Adjustment
• North Liberty Tree Board
• North Liberty Cemetery Board
• Iowa City School Board
• Johnson County Board of Supervisors
6. Programming should include personal identification of sponsorship and producer
responsibility.
7. Each program submitted for local government access shall be shown a minimum of
two times.
8. These meetings must be taped gavel to gavel.
II. PROGRAM CONTENT
In accordance with federal, state and local law, a program being cablecast live or on tape on the
PEG Channel may not include gambling or obscenity/pornography. If the Telecommunications
Production Coordinator believes herein that a program may violate the guidelines stated,the
Telecommunications Production Coordinator will contact the City and County Attorney and
follow the instruction given by same. The recommendation of the County Attorney may include
removing the program in question from cablecast pending review and fmding of the County
Attorney. "Time,place, and manner restriction"may be applied by the County Attorney on the
PEG Channel.
A. GAMBLING. No program may promote or conduct any commercial lottery,raffle,
contest or game involving prizes award in whole or in part by lot or chance.
B. OBSCENITY/PORNOGRAPHY. The program may not contain material which is
obscene as defined by:
1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards,would find that
the work,taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.
2. The work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable state law.
3. The work,taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,political or scientific
value.
C. SOLICITATION. The program may not solicit funds or other property of value from
viewers.
D. ADVERTISING. The program may not promote the sale of products or services
including prices, or promote or endorse a trade or business.
E. PRODUCTS OR SERVICE. The program may not discuss or show products or
service made available by persons, corporation or institutions which have a commercial
interest in the subject of the programs. It may,however, identify underwriters
•
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
-4 -
providing grants or contributions to defray the cost of programs. The identification
format must be exactly like the following:
THIS PROGRAM HAS BEEN MADE POSSIBLE (IN PART) BY A
GRANT FROM/BY SUPPORT FROM THE (SPONSOR'S FULL NAME).
F. COMMERCIAL IDENTIFICATION. The program may not promote, or make
reference to any products, service,trademark or brand name in any manner which does
not in some way correlate with the message being brought forth in the program on the
access channel,providing grants or contributions to defray the cost of programs.
G. MISREPRESENTATION. The program may not contain any material intended to
defraud the viewer or designed to obtain money by false or fraudulent pretenses,
representation or promises.
H. ILLEGALITIES. The program may not contain any material which constitutes libel,
slander, defamation, invasion of privacy or publicity rights,unfair competition or
violation of trademark or copyright or which may otherwise violate any local, state or
federal law.
I. PROGRAM DISCLAIMER. The following DISCLAIMER will appear preceding
every program that is submitted for cablecast. It is the responsibility of the producer
to edit on this DISCLAIMER before the first cablecast of a program. If the
DISCLAIMER does not appear on the program, that program will be pulled out of the
cablecasting schedule and the producer notified that her/his program will not be
cablecast again until the program DISCLAIMER is edited onto the program. See
Section I, "PEG Access Programming,"Article A, "Public Access," Section 2-c for
complete DISCLAIMER.
J. APPROVALS, CLEARANCES. Producers must obtain in writing, and be able to
produce upon request, all necessary approvals, clearances, licenses, etc... for the use of
any program material to be cablecast. This includes,but is not limited to, approvals by
broadcasting stations,networks, sponsors,music licensing organizations, copyright
owners,performers' representative, and all persons featured in the program material,
and any other approvals that may be necessary to transmit the program via public
access channel.
K. PROGRAM UNDERWRITING. The underwriting of community access programs to
defray cost is permitted on the PEG access channel provided that such underwriting
does not constitute commercial exploitation of the PEG Access Channel.
L. UNDERWRITING GUIDELINES.
1. Advertising, as defined in the"content" section, is not permitted.
2. Corporate logos with an accompanying slogan are permitted at the opening and/or
close of programming.
3. Underwriters' phone numbers are not permitted.
4. Underwriting acknowledgments may be spoken and/or written but are limited to
ten(10) seconds each at the beginning or the end of the program.
5. Any mention of product or services performed is prohibited.
6. The picture of the commercial establishment underwriting a program is not
permitted,unless it is part of the copyrighted company or corporation logo.
M. POLITICAL GUIDELINES. Legally qualified candidates for public office desiring to
use the PEG access channel must adhere to the following:
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
- 5 -
1. For municipal, state and county offices,material is cable cast after the last official
deadline for filing papers has passed, and ending at 6:00 p.m. the Saturday before
the election.
2. For federal officers,the material is cablecast beginning six months before the
election and ending at 6:00 p.m. the Saturday before the election.
3. The minimum length of any program in which a candidate appears is five minutes.
4. The total amount of time allotted to any one candidate from public office to appear
on the PEG Access Channel is one hour per month, excluding panel discussions or
candidate forums.
M. TAPES REFUSED FOR CABLECAST
Tapes that are refused to be cablecast must be retrieved within fourteen(14) days notification for
correction. If not retrieved within that time, or if a stamped self-addressed mailer has not been
provided,the City and Telecommunications Production Coordinator reserves the right to erase
and recycle or discard these materials.
IV. TAPE LABELING
All programs must be accurately timed and labeled on cassette front and spine of storage case
with the following:
A. Producer's name.
B. Producer's telephone number.
C. Series or program title.
D. Program record date.
E. Type of access programming (educational access, government access,public access).
F. Preroll (length of tape to run before switching to cable) and total run times.
V. FORMAL GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Any person may present a formal written grievance to the Telecommunications Production
Coordinator, in person or by mail. All formal written grievances requires the following
information in order to be processed:
A. Name of all persons participating in filing of the grievance, or identification of a single
"contact"person to whom the response should be presented by an individual in the event
that a person claims to represent a group or organization.
B. The current address of all persons participating in the filing to the grievance or of the
designated"contact"person.
C. Current name and work telephone numbers of all persons participating in the filing of the
grievance or of the designated"contact"person.
D. An indication of the time of day and location at which persons filing the grievance and/or
the designated"contact"person can most likely be reached.
E. The nature of the grievance clearly stated with relevant details as follows:
1. If the grievance is based on a policy or procedure, or program content, it should
include:
a. An explanation of which policy or procedure is in question.
b. The nature of the grievance against the policy or procedure.
c. The recommendation(s) for change in policy or procedure that is believed needed.
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
- 6-
2. If the grievance is based on an incident, it should include the following relevant
information:
a. The name of, or a description of,the staff person(s) involved in the grievance
incident.
b. The name of, or a description of, any other person(s) involved in the grievance
incident.
c. The date and the time of day of the grievance incident.
d. The location where the grievance incident occurred.
e. A clear and complete explanation of what occurred and of the reasons and/or
behavior of the staff person(s) and/or other person(s) involved in the incident.
F. Once the grievance is received,the Telecommunications Production Coordinator will
attempt to make an initial contact with the person(s) filing the grievance, or with the
designated"contact"person,within five(5)working days. A written response can be
expected no later that 14 working days from the date that the grievance was received,with
appropriate allowance given for postal delay.
G. If party requesting grievance is not satisfied with the Telecommunications Production
Coordinator's decision, they can then take their appeal to the Telecommunications
Commission. If not satisfied with the Telecommunications Commission, they may appeal
to the City Administrator. If not satisfied with the City Administrator's decision they may
appeal to the City Council and then to the City Attorney. The City Attorney's decision
will be final and conclusive.
H. Failure to follow the grievance policies and procedures as stated above may result in a
delayed response to any grievance. Successive failure to follow grievance policies and
procedures will relieve the City from any responsibility to respond to the grievance.
VI. GUIDELINES FOR ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURE
A. When the Telecommunications Production Coordinator determines that there has been
an apparent violation of any of the guidelines that have been previously mentioned in
this document the Telecommunications Production Coordinator may:
1. With regard to alleged violations of any of these guidelines and procedures he/she
will send the user written notification of the alleged violation and advise the user of
her/his right to meet with the Telecommunications Production Coordinator before
a final determination, including possible sanctions, is made. The user shall be
advised that her/his request for a meeting must be made to the
Telecommunications Production Coordinator orally or in writing within two weeks
of the date of the letter of notification.
2. Immediately suspend cablecast of a program,provided that the program contains
alleged violations of procedures previously stated in these guidelines, or provided
that continued cablecast of the program would create clear and substantial risk of
legal liability for Public Access Channel. In the event of suspension of Cablecast,
the user shall be sent written notification of the alleged violation within 48 hours of
the suspension. Copies of that notice shall be sent at the same time to all members
of the Telecommunications Commission, City Council and City Administrator. All
other procedures for processing alleged violations, indicated in the following
section, shall also apply.
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
-7 -
B.After meeting with user, or, if no meeting is requested, after two weeks from the date,the
user was notified of the infraction,the Telecommunications Production Coordinator must
take one or more of the following actions:
1. Take no further action.
2. Suspend for a period of time, or revoke, in whole or in part, the user's rights to use
the Public Access Channel.
3. Take such other action as is fair,reasonable and equitable.
C. No person shall have user rights suspended or revoked unless the Telecommunications
Production Coordinator determines that the user's conduct is an aggravated infraction of
the PEG Access Channel rules and regulations. In determining whether an infraction is
aggravated,the Telecommunications Production Coordinator shall consider whether:
1. The user has been involved in previous infractions.
2. The infraction reflects a serious disregard by the user of the personal or property rights
of others.
3. The infraction was intentional or demonstrated a willful disregard for these rules and
procedures.
D. The Telecommunications Production Coordinator shall notify the user in writing of a
decision to impose sanctions as soon as possible. If the Telecommunications Production
Coordinator suspends or revokes user rights and if the Telecommunications Production
Coordinator determines that the user's conduct seriously endangered the person or
property of others,the notice shall so state, and the revocation or suspension shall take
effect immediately. Otherwise, sanctions shall not take effect until 20 days after the user is
notified of the Telecommunications Production Coordinator's decision. The
Telecommunications Commission,Mayor, City Council and City Administrator shall be
sent a copy of any notice required by this section. If party is not satisfied with
Telecommunications Production Coordinator's decision,they may appeal to the
Telecommunications Commission. If not satisfied with the Telecommunication
Commission's decision,they may appeal to the City Council. If not satisfied with the City
Council's decision,they may appeal to the County Attorney.
E. Upon receipt of appeal from a user,the Telecommunications Commission shall include the
matter in its agenda, granting priority over all the other agenda matters except for the
appeals made under this section. That portion of a Telecommunications Commission
meeting at which an appeal is heard shall be open to the public and shall be recorded. At
the meeting the Telecommunications Production Coordinator shall describe any sanctions
imposed and the basis for alleging a violation of the Public Access Channel's rules. The
user shall then be entitled to testify regarding the alleged violation and any sanctions.
Both user and the Telecommunications Production Coordinator may present witnesses or
evidence related to the alleged violation. Public comment will be taken at the discretion of
the Commission.
F. If the Telecommunications Commission determines that there is sufficient basis to justify
the Telecommunications Production Coordinator's determination of a violation of the
Public Access Channel's rules,then that determination shall be affirmed. The
Telecommunications Commission may modify the Telecommunications Production
Coordinator determination or any sanctions imposed or may make a new determination or
impose new sanctions. If the Telecommunications Commission determines there was not
North Liberty Cable Access Policy and Procedure Guidelines
- 8 -
basis for the Telecommunications Production Coordinator's determination of a violation
of the Public Access Channel's rules,the Telecommunications Commission shall remove
any sanctions which were based upon the determination.
G. Any decision by the Telecommunications Commission may be appealed to the City
Council. All decisions made by the City Council shall be final and conclusive.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS
There will be no charge for playing videos over the channel.
The Telecommunications Production Coordinator can make copies of NLTV and City
programs at her/his discretion based on the following charge scale:
NLTV new tape: $10 per copy
NLTV used tape: $ 7 per copy
Tape provided by recipient: $ 5 per copy
POLICY & PROCEDURE
Subject: Index: Administration
Access of Renton Government Access Channel and
Use of Character Generator Number: 100-09
Effective Date Supersedes Page Staff Contact Approved By
7/1/95 1/1/87 1 of 4 Marilyn Petersen ,Q
1.0 PURPOSE
To establish policy and procedural guidelines for the use of City-operated telecommunications
equipment. This equipment is used to communicate non-editorial public information in a video
and text format on the City of Renton's Government Access Channel.
2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED
All departments and divisions.
3.0 REFERENCES
[To be determined.]
4.0 DEFINITIONS
4.1 Access Channel. Free composite cable television channel used by government and public
agencies and/or their representatives for local carriage of municipal and public services
information.
•
4.2 Character Generator. A device used to generate messages in text, such as announcements
of community events, on the access channel.
4.3 Live Local Programs. Live programming of meetings and selected other public events of
general community interest.
4.4 Tape Delayed Local Programs. Cablecast of pre-recorded live local programming.
4.5 City of Renton Produced Programs. Programs produced by the City to illustrate the
functions or operations of an agency or other part of City government, or otherwise
consistent the objectives of the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC").
4.6 Outside Source Programs. Programming produced other than by the City which focuses
on local government issues, concerns, and operations, or which is otherwise consistent with
the objectives of the RGAC.
}
Page 2
4.7 Character Generated Messages. Messages suitable for cablecast and displayed using the
character generator. Audio entertainment during the display of messages using the
character generator may be provided by radio signals from stations that have been
approved by the City Clerk.
5.0 POLICY
The Renton Government Access Channel is not the same as a public access channel. Access to
the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC")shall be limited to City meetings,hearings,
functions, operational information,training, and other uses as are deemed to be consistent with
these policies and procedures. Specific policies include the following:
5.1 No Vested Rights. Decisions regarding the use of the municipal channel will be made by
the City Clerk, taking into account the objectives of the policies,the available cable
television technologies, directives by the Renton City Council, and technical, financial,
labor and other resources available to the City. No decision to cablecast a particular
program or message shall be considered to create a right to have any other programs or
messages cablecast, whether identical with, similar to, or different from, the original
program or message.
5.2 Responsibility. The Renton City Clerk's office shall be responsible for gathering,
formatting, and programming the information submitted by City departments and external
organizations for cablecast.
5.3 Used for Information:Not Official Record. This communication tool is intended to serve
as a supplement to existing public notification activities. It does not substitute for existing
publication requirements mandated by law.
5.4 Limitations of Use. Information that is transmitted shall be limited to news and
announcements that are locally oriented (cablecast area) and of interest and benefit to the
general public (i.e. public meetings, schedules, community, and cultural event calendars.)
5.5 No Commercial Purposes. No message shall be transmitted which involves any
advertising material designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services. This
shall include,but not be limited to,the following: advertising by or on behalf of.
candidates for political office; advertising for events which will produce profits benefiting
a private enterprise or individual;job announcements for other than public agencies.
5.6 Other Prohibited Uses. The following other programming shall not be allowed:
Indecent or obscene matters.
6.0 PROCEDURES
6.1 Request for use forms to place textual information on the Government Access Cable
Channel must be submitted to the City Clerk at least three days before the cablecast date.
Page 3
6.1.1 Forms submitted by City of Renton departments or divisions must be signed by the
4 appropriate department director.
6.1.2 Each public entity or community group desiring to use the character generator on
an ongoing basis must provide the City Clerk's office with a list of those
individuals authorized to submit messages, a sample signature for each individual,
and their telephone number.
6.1.3 There is room for three separate messages on each form. Each message on a form
should be scheduled to begin and end on the same dates. If events occur on various
dates, a separate form should be used for each message.
6.1.4 When composing each message, be brief. Use standard abbreviations whenever
possible.
6.1.5 Each message should contain.a headline. The headline should briefly convey the
main idea of the message. It should attract attention and encourage the viewer to
read the message. Examples:
FREE CONCERT Monday, June 7 - Liberty Park
Noon- 1:30 p.m. - Questions 235-2560.
HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS - Available to rehabilitate existing housing.
Seniors and low income may apply. Further information 235-2553.
6.1.6 The City Clerk's office will review each form and, when necessary, conform the
message to accommodate page format and style.
6.1.7 If the Clerk determines that the contents of any message submitted conflict with the
intent of this policy,that message must be submitted to the Mayor's office for a
review and final determination.
6.2 Requests to cablecast videos or schedule live programming must be submitted to and
scheduled by the City Clerk. The following programming is specifically authorized:
6.2.1 Public Meetings - City. All public hearings,public meetings, and work sessions of
the City Council and of City boards, commissions, committees, and subcommittees
(except executive sessions thereof).
6.2.2 Promotions. Promotional announcements for City sponsored events and public
service announcements for City agencies. Promotional announcements for events,
charities, or outside nonprofit organizations in which the City has no official
interest or sponsorship must be approved for cablecast by the City Clerk.
6.2.3 Departmental Programming. Requests of City departments for programming, if
consistent with these policies and procedures, and if authorized by the City Clerk.
}
Page 4
6.2.4 Individual Statements -Mayor. Individual statement by the Mayor of the City of
Renton or the Mayor's designee, if consistent with these policies and procedures F.
and after consultation with the City Clerk.
6.2.5 Individual Statements -Council. Individual statements by the President of the City
Council, or the Council President's designee, if consistent with these policies and
procedures and after consultation with the City Clerk.
6.2.6 Emergency Cablecasts. Cablecasts during any type of emergency if authorized by
the Mayor or designee,pursuant to the City's Emergency Management Operations
Plan.
6.3 Editing Policy:
Public Meetings. Any public meeting, hearing, or work session which is cablecast shall
not be edited in any material manner or subjected to editorial comment, except that minor
editing, and editing of technical flaws or problems is permitted. Introductory or
supplementary information which will aid the viewer in understanding the context or issues
may be provided. Videotapes shall not be considered an official record of meetings and
there shall be no liability for inadvertent erasure or omissions.
Departmental Programs. Any programming prepared or provided by an individual City
department or outside services may be modified or edited as appropriate for cablecast.
Legal Review. If deemed necessary by the City Clerk, any video may be subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney.
Errors. Should an error result in the cablecast or incorrect information,the City of Renton
and the employee responsible therefor shall not be liable for the inaccuracy of the
information or for actions taken by anyone in reliance thereon.
Program Schedules. Program schedules will be cablecast daily on the RGAC, and •
published weekly in the local news.
7.0 APPEAL
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the City Clerk pursuant to these policies and procedures may
appeal the decision to the Mayor,within ten(10) days of notification of the decision being
appealed. The decision by the Mayor shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.
8.0 NO LIABILITY
The Mayor, the City Council, and the employees of the City of Renton shall have no liability for
any decisions made, any actions taken, or any failure to act, in connection with the operations of
the access channel. None of the described persons or entities shall have any legal liabilities as a
consequence of any cablecast program or message.
RENTON COMMUi ACCESS CHANNEL
REQUEST FOR USE OF CHARACTER GENERATOR
AGENCY DEPT/DIV FOR PRERECORDED (VIDEO) CABLECAST REQUESTS
SUBMITTED BY PHONE
Program title
User agrees to hold harmless the City of Renton, its officials, Producer name
employees, agents and operators for any and all liability, damages or Address
losses incurred because of actions, errors or omissions related to the Format Length (exact running time)
use of the Character Generator. Cablecast time
• Brief Description
Signature Date
DIRECTIONS
All messages must be typewritten. Compose the message the way Intended audience.
you would like it displayed. Type the message within the margins
set below. Use separate forms for messages with different start I hereby assume all responsibility for the content of this video and
and/or end dates. Attach any photo or graphic to be used as assume all liability that may arise from the cablecasting of this
background for the message. product. I further certify that the content is comprised of no
material prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission
MESSAGE Rules and that I am authorized to permit cablecasting of the above
described product.
Name
Organization
Address •
Phone
Signature Date
Display dates for messages/videos on this form: Begin End
:....:.... .... ............
::::..::. ..
CITY OF RENTON VIDEO RELEASE FORM
GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS, CHANNEL 28
For valuable consideration received, I hereby give the CITY OF RENTON the following
absolute and irrevocable rights and permission, with respect to the audio and video recording, and
to the audio and video tapes that he/she has taken of me, or in which I may be included with
others. Also any video tapes he/she has taken of my property, structures, vehicles and/or
equipment.
This release shall apply to all interactions, processes and products associated with, or
resulting from, this video tape.
(a) To copyright the same in his/her own name or any other name he/she may choose.
(b) To use, reuse, publish and republish the same in whole or in part, individually or in
conjunction with any other audio or video tape in any medium and for any purpose whatsoever,
including but not limited to illustration, promotion, advertising and trade, and graphics.
(c) To include my name in the credits at the end of the video tape if he/she chooses. The
individuals may be acknowledged as a group, with no use of individual names.
I hereby release and discharge the CITY OF RENTON from any and all liability claims and
demands arising out of or in connection with audio or video tapes, or any other process, product
. or interaction arising from the video tapes.
This authorization and release shall also insure to the benefit of the legal representatives,
licensees and assigns of the CITY OF RENTON.
I hereby release and absolve the CITY OF RENTON from any and all damages,
responsibility, loss injury, accident, and any and all forms of consequential and incidental damages
for myself in connection with travel to and from location sites for recording.
I am over the age of eighteen years. I have read the foregoing and fully understand the
contents thereof.
NAME
(Please print)
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE PHONE
If subject is under eighteen (18) years of age, the name and signature of a consenting parent or
legal guardian is required. Said party warrants and represents that they have the authority to
execute this release.
•
NAME OF
GUARDIAN
(Please print)
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE OF
GUARDIAN
Government Only Model Page 1 of 1
Government Only Model
Many government access channels are "government only cable channels". This means only city-produced or
other government programming is allowed. Outside programming must be affiliated and approved with a City
department. This is the strictest model of government access television. It is also the safest option, and the
direction the channel is expected to take.
The difficulty with a "government only channel" is the possibility that the startup is delayed. Participation of all
City departments is vital. This can be a drawback as many City departments are absorbed with day-to-day
activities they find it difficult to allocate time and resources to a government cable channel. In these instances,
the City Manager or City Council must give strong support to the government channel and encourage
departments to become involved. Then over time, with quality productions and community feedback, the city
departments will willingly participate and initiate activities.
Another concern a "government only channel" faces is that government subjects can be challenging to produce.
Ideally, a video production of a government subject would be educational and benefit the public. Yet, it might
not capture the viewing interests of your audience. They cannot be faulted for this as they are not overly
concerned with the strategies and goals of the channel's programming. It is the channel manager's responsibility
to strike the balance between the needs of City departments and the planned criteria for interesting
programming.
There are several cities across the country that produce creative, cutting edge government programming. It takes
an innovative staff to develop new ideas and approaches to tell a story. A talented staff that can create unique
graphics, inventive camerawork, and skillful editing techniques will produce successful programming. A
supportive management that encourages and motivates this type of excellence is bound to do well. Management
who expects "safe," proper, and straightforward videos, risks creating a monotonous work environment and dull
programming. A combination of supportive management and fearless staff is necessary to make the formula
work.
•
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/links/govonly.htm 7/9/2007
CITY TV 10! Your City - Your Issues - Your Channel Page 1 of 2
What is a government access channel? .i 1 D ;O +l �lI ' r
A government access channel is one three kinds of"Community Access Channels"first .r`-- • p
�- u v:r ,i i.,
designated under the "Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984" to provide residents :,-
with local television programs and information over dedicated Public, Educational and s ' ' J '
Government(PEG)cable channels. 4,
C1T 1 L14.;1'
ps c� ^s
Authorized by the FCC and by local ordinances and franchise agreements, government y; - =',
access channel are vehicles used by cities and counties to communicate information V I -1N
generated by each respective legislative body.
it v
How does a government access channel differ from a public or educational C�
access channel? V' 20 ' .. v ardi
Government access channels differ from public and educational access channels in '\, t.. 1.1y@E
some important ways. Unlike Public Access channels,government channels are granted aa \51 R15
editorial rights to choose the manner,format, and type of information to be disseminated
to the public. Unlike Educational Access Channels, government channels selectively
offer legislative information to the general community. Realizing how impractical it would 11„;:3- ''. .F„ ;
be to format and distribute the entire information available, local governments highlight iara �,ro 'rar`rm 2ao6
on the channel what they feel are the mort relevant points for residents. The basic idea 14"PRO `Ht Gu
is to attract viewers to learn more about what local governments have to offer and to
:-C-`' ;
encourage greater citizen participation. �..__ �, �_ � i
Why have a government channel? r
The principal reason to have a government channel is to provide local information from a ,. - t9" Qom:
local perspective.Traditionally,government have been among the primary developers of NEWSGRAM FOR YOU!
local information, but have relied on commercial news sources to disseminate it to the
public. This situation changed with the introduction of government access channels in
the 60's and 70's.Today these channels provide a convenient and inexpensive way for
the local government to teach citizens about the day-to-day workings of local
government.
Another reason is to provide services to city departments and agencies in the form of
public service announcements, program series or the coverage of public meetings and
other events. Furthermore, government access channels promote city services among
constitutes, and market the accomplishments of local government to potential
businesses and residents.
How is the government access channel funded?
The cable franchise agreement requires the payment of a franchise fee which is used to
support the channel. The local franchise authority collects 5% of gross revenues from
the cable operator, which is used to support the on-going operations of the government
channel and regulatory oversight.
Who can use the channel?
Use of the government access channel and studio by non-city departments or non-city
agencies is prohibited.
Eligible users include City of St. Louis elected officials, City of St. Louis departments and
agencies and City sponsored agencies. Eligible municipal access users may submit
video service requests, pre-produced programming, public service announcements or
requests for alpha-numeric text messages.
Where is the studio located?
CITY TV 10 is located in Forest Park at the intersection of Kingshighway and Oakland.
Our address is 4971 Oakland, St. Louis, MO 63110. We're across the street from St.
Louis University High School and about 100 feet from the St. Louis Science Center.
What are your cablecast hours?
CITY TV 10 is automated and offers programming 24 hours a day,seven days a week.
Is there a way I can get a videotape copy of a program I've seen on CITY TV 10?
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/citytvl0/faq.htm 7/6/2007
CITY TV 10! Your City - Your Issues - Your Channel Page 2 of 2
Yes. You may request a copy of any program produced by CITY TV 10 by calling us at
552-2900 or by clicking here. There is a $10.00 tape charge for each tape requested.
All DVD tapes must be paid in advance. Tapes will be held at our offices for pick-up.
You may pick up your tapes Monday-Friday between the hours of 8:30 am and 5:00 pm.
If you wish to have the tape mailed to you, there will be a $4.00 fee to cover postage
and handling.
Please make a copy of the videotape request form and mail it in with your payment
payable to:
Communications Division, CITY TV 10,4971 Oakland Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110.
My local organization is planning an event will CITY TV 10 cover our event?
If you're organization is planning a community event, please inform CITY TV 10.We ask
that you provide us with written information on letterhead which tells us about the
upcoming event with the particulars of where and when and fax the information to (314)
552-2985. While we can not guarantee that we will provide video coverage of your
event, we may be able to help promote the event. Such a decision will be at the
discretion of CITY TV 10 and you will be notified.
What is prohibited on CITY TV 10?
Cablecasting of the following material on the Local government Access Channel shall be
prohibited.
-Any advertising materials or other information which is designed to promote the sale of
any commercial product or service; any advertising message that promotes publicly
declared candidates for elective public office or persons advocating any causes or
endorsements; lottery information or games of chance, copyrighted materials, or any
material which constitutes libel, slander, pornography, violation of Trademark or which
might violate any local, state or federal laws including FCC regulations or otherwise
unprotected by the Constitution of the United States.
For a detailed list of prohibited materials write for a copy of our Program Policies and
Procedures Manual.
If I win a prize on CITY TV 10, how long before I am eligible to win again?
CITY TV 10 has implemented a policy regulating prize winner eligibility rules to be
applied to all prize winners. Prize winners will only be eligible to win once every 90-days.
All contest participants are asked to observe our 90 day eligiblity rule. Upon winning a
prize on CITY TV 10, you are not eligible to win again until the completion of 90 days.
CITY TV 10 reserves the right to revoke prizes to participants who are found to be
ineligible.
To obtain a prize, winners must present themselves in person. An official form of
identication is required to claim prizes. All prizes will be held in the offices of the
Communications Division 4971 Oakland Ave.,St. Louis, MO 63110.
Do you offer internship opportunities for college students?
CITY TV 10 offers a student internship program year round. Students matriculating at
area community colleges or universities and majoring in a communications field are
encouraged to apply for our paid internship program. Our internship is a hands-on video
production program which can last up to one year. For more information on the college
internship go to www.citytvl0.com/internships.htm.
http://stlouis.missouri.org/citygov/citytv10/faq.htm 7/6/2007
NewTV - Newton Communications Access Center : 617-965-7200 Page 1 of 5
About Access
Q. What is access?
A: Access can be subdivided into public access, educational access and government aco
The term "PEG access" is called "public, educational, and government use" under the Cz
Act.
Public access consists of video programming and other electronic information produce
directed, and engineered by community volunteers. (For convenience, all types of inform
carried on PEG channels will be referred to as "programming," although PEG channels
used to carry video information, data, video text, and voice communications.) In the ca5
public access, the programming is developed or acquired by nonprofit community grou
neighborhood organizations, social service agencies, and individual citizens. It focuses
many aspects of community life, ranging from the services and activities of communit
organizations to the opinions and beliefs of individuals in the community.
Educational access is developed or acquired by school or college employees, students,
school volunteers. It typically focuses on distance learning, school activities, and informE
that the school/college wants to get out to the community or share among schools.
Government access is created or acquired by local government employees, elected offici
and volunteers. It typically focuses on information about services provided by local, Ste
and regional governments, issues faced by local governments, and public meeting cover
Government access is also used for other purposes, such as providing training to Cit)
employees or exchanging information between City agencies and other institutions.
The content of the material carried on PEG access is determined by the individuals, grouj
organizations that produce it. There is also "institutional" use or institutional access.
Institutional use typically involved the transmission of information among public buildin
hospitals, educational institutions, and other similar institutions. The residential subscri
may not receive the transmission.
This institutional use can be thought of as a subcategory of PEG access Access progra
content is controlled by the group, organization, institution, or individual that produces
provides a program. PEG access is typically noncommercial in that there are no commer
advertising spots and there are typically no so-called "infomercials" run on PEG acces:
Access channels sometimes do carry PBS-style credit for underwriters. Programming c
educational
channels may include credit classes for a fee that must be paid in order to obtain acade
credit.
Q: Why do communities include access requirements in cable franchises?
A: Both the Cable Acts of 1984 and 1992 permit local governments to include and enfo
requirements for PEG access equipment, facilities, services, and support in a franchise.
Acts explain the purposes of access well:
"Public access channels are often the video equivalent of the speaker's soap box or th
electronic parallel to the printed leaflet. They provide groups and individuals who gener
http://www.newtv.org/aboutaccess.htm 7/6/2007
NP,WTV - Newton Communications Access Center : 617-965-7200 Page 2 of 5
have not had access to the electronic media with the opportunity to become sources c
information in the electronic marketplace of ideas."
These federal laws also permit local government to require institutional networks that ca
used by local community institutions.
Q: Is the goal to produce programming of a certain type?
A: No. The goal is to create a sort of "electronic park" where everyone can be a provide
well as a recipient of information, and where everyone can participate in public debat
electronically. Cable companies often argue that access channels do not get ratings the
an ESPN gets ratings. That misses the point of the PEG channels. In some ways, PEG
channels are meant to allow an electronic dialogue and exchange of information. There i
be a limited number of people interested in any particular dialogue, but the availability o
channels means that there is an opportunity for voices to be heard. As a result, a very ty
pattern for a wellsupported access channel is that relatively few people will be watchinc
any particular time, but that over a period of time, a large number of people will tune it
the channel.
For example, access channels expand the ability of community residents to be more act
participants in government and educational meetings by cablecasting City Council and sc
board meetings. One would not be surprised if the viewership level of any one particul
meeting would be low when compared to many other television channels. But the fact t
the program is carried means that, as particular issues become part of the agenda, viev'
with an interest in that issue can view the public debate and participate in it. Over tim
many subscribers will watch. Further, the availability of the channel means that those v
could not participate "live" may be able to participate by watching a rebroadcast of a
particular event. It also means that programmers can target programming to reach parti.
segments of the community that need help. For example, one of the problems confronte
social service agencies is outreach: a shelter for battered women may wish to produce
access program about their services, and finds this to be a more efficient way to reach
public than available alternatives. From a community's standpoint, the issue is not "will
attract the same number of viewers that watch HBO," but is instead "will this allow mem
of the community to work together more effectively."
Q: Is access well established in many communities?
A: Access has been in operation for 15-25 years in many communities across the count
Included are major cities and very small towns, like Austin, Texas; Chicago, Illinois; Mal,
Massachusetts; Bloomington, Indiana; Gresham, Oregon; Sacramento, California; Portly
Oregon; Dayton, Ohio; Grand Rapids, Michigan; Anoka, Minnesota; and Burlington, Verrr
Access has existed since the early 1970's and much has been learned about how to ope
and utilize PEG access channels.
Q: What is the preferred management structure for a PEG access operation?
A: The creation of a nonprofit corporation is broadly recognized as an advantageous appr
to developing and facilitating public access as well as educational and government access
community. These nonprofit access management corporations are created specifically
manage access channels, facilities, and equipment and to provide access services. They
tax-exempt and are identified as 501(c)(3) organizations under U.S. tax law and the Int(
Revenue Service Code. Such corporations exist in hundreds of communities both large
http://www.newtv.org/aboutaccess.htm 7/6/2007
NewTV - Newton Communications Access Center : 617-965-7200 Page 3 of 5
small.
Examples include:
. Berkeley, California (PEG)
. Davis, California (P)
. Mountain View, California (PG)
. Napa, California (PEG)
. Oceanside, California (PEG)
. Palo Alto, California (P)
. Petaluma, California (PEG)
. Sacramento, California (P)
. Santa Cruz, California (PEG)
. Santa Rosa, California (PEG)
. Tucson, Arizona (P)
. Chicago, Illinois (PE)
. Salina, Kansas (PEG)
. Cambridge, Massachusetts (PEG)
. Malden, Massachusetts (PEG)
. Newton, Massachusetts (PEG)
. Anoka, Minnesota (PG)
. Minneapolis, Minnesota (PEG)
. Missoula, Montana (PEG)
. Reno, Nevada (PEG)
. Lockport, New York (PEG)
. Enid, Oklahoma (PEG)
. Gresham, Oregon (PEG)
. Portland, Oregon (PEG)
Q: What are the advantages of the nonprofit corporation model?
A: There are many advantages to the nonprofit corporation model for access managem(
including:
. Demonstrated track record of achievement in many communities.
. Primary purpose of nonprofit is to assure the wide use of access resources.
. Operations and programming efforts are more responsive to the community's nee,
. Provides a community-based approach to decision making.
. Board of Directors of nonprofit is broad-based and representative of the communi
. More accountability to the community.
. Provides a degree of insulation between local government and cable company in arE
program content and liability for program content. This insulation has proven to t
extremely valuable to both the local government and cable company in many
communities.
. Allows government to have accountability function regarding public access rather t
control over content of public access programs.
. Because of the nonprofit status and the combined PEG approach there are morE
potential sources of funding for special activities and projects.
Many of the nonprofit access corporations listed above provide access services not only
http://www.newtv.org/aboutaccess.htm 7/6/2007
NewTV - Newton Communications Access Center : 617-965-7200 Page 4 of 5
public access but also for educational and government access. The advantages of thi:
combined approach to PEG access management are fairly obvious. Some of them includE
a more efficient use of available equipment, facilities, and operating dollars; (2) a desire
create a truly cooperative relationship between public, educational and government acc(
and (3) elimination of unnecessary layers of bureaucracy associated with multiple accE
management entities. This approach also assures the ability for each speaker whether
citizen, a community group, a school, or City government to maintain control of their
program content and at the same time have all the benefits derived from collaborations
other groups and entities.
Q: How would a nonprofit access corporation relate to the City and the cable company
A: The nonprofit access corporation would operate access channels and facilities and pro
services as specified in contracts with the City and the cable company.
Q: What types of services would the access organization provide?
A: 1. Operate Public, Educational, and Government Access Channel(s).
Operate the access cable channels for PEG access programming with the primary purpc
being to administer, coordinate, and assist those requesting access on a non-discrimina.
basis.
2. Operate a Community Access Center.
Provide a video production facility and equipment that shall be available for public use at
hours and times as are determined by the access corporation. Access to equipment ar
facilities shall be open to all those who receive training or who receive a certification fron
access corporation identifying the user(s) as having satisfied training requirements.
3. Develop Operating Rules and Procedures.
Develop rules and procedures for use and operation of the access equipment, facilities
channel(s) and file such rules and procedures with the City.
4. Training.
Teach video production techniques to City residents and, when requested, City and sch
employees. Provide technical advice for the productions.
5. Playback/Cablecast.
Provide for the playback/cablecasting of programs on the access channel(s).
6. Maintenance of Equipment.
Provide regular maintenance and repair of all video equipment.
7. Promotion/Outreach.
Actively promote the use and benefits of the access channel(s) and facilities to subscrib,
the public, access users, community groups, local government, educational institutions
the cable operator.
8. Volunteer Management.
Develop and manage a pool of volunteers who create community-based programs and a:
others wishing assistance. While a wide range of community volunteers typically produ(
access programming, staff must provide the services listed above in order to assure tha
http://www.newtv.org/aboutaccess.htm 7/6/2007
NewTV - Newton Communications Access Center : 617-965-7200 Page 5 of 5
infrastructure is in place to support community producers.
Q: How would the access organization be funded?
A: The funding for access falls into two broad categories, funding for equipment and faci
and funding for access services. Typically, the funding for equipment and facilities is pros
by the cable company. Under the Cable Act local franchising authorities have the ability
require and enforce a requirement of funds for this purpose in the franchise agreemer
The second type of funding required is funds for the provision of the access services lisi
earlier. Frequently, the two primary funding sources of funding for access services are i
cable company and the City (using of a portion of cable franchise fees received by City
Under the Cable Act a local franchising authority can enforce access services offerings. D
idiosyncrasies in the Cable Act, the funds for access services that are provided by the a
company must be transferred through a separate agreement between the access corporE
and the cable company. This approach preserves the separation between access servic
funds and franchise fees.
http://www.newtv.org/aboutaccess.htm 7/6/2007
Choosing Cable Channels Page 1 of 3
Foe Federal FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filinq I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People
, c Communications _.
Commission „ .
y
�� � tit
Consumer & Governmenta
l Affairs -
- FCC>CGB Home>Cgnsumer Publications>Choosing Cable Channels FCC lIlg_fneR
.: fef Q Jry FCC
Consumer Facts
Bac'cground
In general, a cable television operator has the right to select the channels and services that are
available on its cable system. With the exception of certain channels like local broadcast television
channels which are required to be carried by federal law, the cable operator has broad discretion in
choosing which channels will be available and how those channels will be packaged and marketed
to subscribers. In order to maximize the number of subscribers, the cable operator usually selects
channels that are likely to appeal to a broad spectrum of viewers.
Tiers
Cable companies generally are required to offer a basic service tier. The company generally
requires all subscribers to purchase this tier before purchasing additional video programming. The
basic service tier is required to include, at a minimum, the local broadcast television stations and
the public, educational, and governmental (PEG) access channels that the operator may be
required to offer pursuant to an agreement with the local government. After complying with these
minimum requirements, the cable operator may offer additional programming as part of the basic
service tier.
With the exception of programming that is required to be carried on the basic tier, the cable
operator and the entity that owns the channel or programming service negotiate the terms and
conditions for carriage on the cable system. Terms may include whether the channel or service will
be offered in a package with other programming or whether the channel or service will be offered
on a per-channel or pay-per-view basis.
tier-Changan' ("A La Carte") and Pay-Per-view Progs.. mrnis
Per-channel or"a la carte" programming means a channel is offered on an individual per-channel
basis rather than as part of a package or tier of programming. Cable television operators are not
required to offer channels on an a la carte or individual basis. However, cable operators are free to
offer channels other than those required to be on the basic tier on an a la carte basis. For example,
premium movie services are often offered on an individual basis rather than as part of a package.
"Pay-per-view" means there is a separate charge for each program or event. For example, a
separate charge may be incurred for each movie or sports event the viewer chooses.
Cable operators, as well as other entities that offer video programming services to subscribers
(such as satellite television providers), continue to have broad discretion to determine if services
are offered on a per-channel or pay-per-view basis and how programming will be packaged and
marketed to consumers.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html 7/6/2007
Choosing Cable Channels Page 2 of 3
For example, if a cable company offers MTV in a package with other channels and the subscriber
wants only MTV, the subscriber must purchase the entire package. If the company, however,
chooses to offer MTV a Ia carte, a subscriber may purchase just MTV.
Tier Buy-Through Prohibition
A cable company cannot require a cable subscriber to purchase anything except the basic tier in
order to have access to pay-per-view programming or channels offered on an a Ia carte basis. For
example, if a cable company offers both a basic and expanded basic tier, a subscriber cannot be
required to purchase the expanded basic tier in order to access pay-per-view programs. In addition,
the tier buy-through provision prohibits a cable operator from discriminating between consumers
who subscribe to only the basic tier and other subscribers with regard to the rates charged on a
per-channel or per-event basis.
The tier buy-through prohibition does not apply if the cable operator is subject to "effective
competition." In addition, a cable operator may request a waiver of the tier buy-through prohibition
from the FCC.
"Multiplex" Services
Some "per-channel" services, like HBO, Showtime, and other premium movie services, may be
offered on a "multiplex" basis, where multiple sub-channels of programming are available. The FCC
has decided that multiplex services are to be treated as a per-channel service. A consumer is not
required, therefore, to purchase any intervening tier or tiers of programming in order to subscribe to
multiplex service.
Complaints or Questions Concerning Cable Programming
If you have a complaint or question concerning programming services or channels, contact your
cable company. In many cases, the customer service representatives at your cable company will be
able to help you. The telephone number for your cable company can be found on your cable bill.
For more information on cable programming, contact the FCC's Consumer Center by:
Internet: www.fcc.gov/cgb
E-mail: fccinfo@@fcc.gov
Telephone:
1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice
1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY
Fax: 1-866-418-0232
Mail:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer& Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.
For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format
(electronic ASCII text, Braille,large print, or audio)please write or
call us at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov.
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html 7/6/2007
ChoosiDg Cable Channels Page 3 of 3
To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through
the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on
h ✓w.ww_fcc,gov/cgb/contactsl.
This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not intended to
affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject matter or related issues.
04/26/07
Federal Communications Commission•Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau•445 12th St.S.W.•Washington,DC 20554
1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) • TTY:1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) •Fax:1-866-418-0232 •www.10,ggy/sg12/_
last reviewed/updated on 04/26/07
FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People
Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) -Priva.cy._Policy.
445 12th Street SW TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) -Website Policies&Notices
Washington, DC 20554 Fax: 1-866-418-0232 -Required Browser Plug-ins
More FCC Contact...Information... E-mail:fccinfo.a�fcc.gov -Freedom of Information Act
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablechannels.html 7/6/2007
Regyiation of Cable TV Rates Page 1 of 3
Ecc Federal FCC Home I Search I Updates I E Filinct I Initiatives I For Consumers I Find People,
Communications 7-7
Cammission ;; '
onsumer & Governmental-Affairs Bureau:
'`;_' - FCC > CGB Home > Consumer Publications > Regulation of Cable TV Rates FcG-slte-man.
? _ 4.4 ': . a4 :4s � FCC
i�eg'ulation, ofi Caible TV Rates
ee4� aa,. Consumer Facts
Background
Your local franchising authority (LFA) regulates the rate your cable company can charge for basic
services programming and your cable company determines the rate you pay for other cable
programming and services, such as premium movie channels and pay-per-view sports events.
How Cable TV Rates Are Regulated
Your local franchising authority (LFA) -- the city, county, or other governmental organization
authorized by your state to regulate cable television service -- may regulate the rates your cable
company charges for the basic services tier. The basic services tier must include most local
broadcast stations, as well as the public, educational, and governmental channels required by the
franchise agreement between the LFA and your cable company. If the FCC finds that a local
cable company is subject to "effective competition" (as defined by Federal law), the LFA may not
regulate the rates it charges for the basic services tier. The rates charged by certain small cable
companies are not subject to regulation. They are determined by the companies.
Your LFA also enforces FCC regulations that determine whether a cable operator's basic
I services tier rates are reasonable. The LFA reviews rate justification forms filed by cable
I operators. Contact your LFA if you have any questions about basic service tier rates.
Non-Regulated Rates
The rates for any tier of service (other than the basic services tier) and for any pay-per-channel
programming (i.e., a premium movie channel) and pay-per-program services (i.e., a pay-per-view
sports event) are not regulated. Your cable company is free to charge any rate for these services.
However, your cable company may not require you to purchase any additional service tier other
than the basic services tier in order to have access to pay-per-view events or premium channels
offered on an "a la carte" or individual basis. On the other hand, there is no law that requires cable
companies to offer channels or programs on an "a la carte" basis.
Your LFA also is authorized to enforce FCC rules and guidelines in the following areas:
• customer service, for instance complaints about bills, or a cable operator's response to
inquiries about signal quality or service requests; and
• franchise fees, which the cable company pays the LFA for the right to access public rights of
way to offer cable service.
LFA Certification
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablerates.html 7/6/2007
Regylation of Cable TV Rates Page 2 of 3
Before it can regulate basic services tier rates, your LFA must be certified to do so by the FCC. The
LFA must prove that it:
• has the legal authority and the personnel necessary to regulate rates;
• will adopt rules consistent with FCC rules governing the basic services tier; and
• will adopt procedural rules providing for notice and comment in rate regulation proceedings.
The LFA's certification becomes effective 30 days after it is filed with the FCC, unless it is denied.
The LFA must then adopt the necessary rate regulation rules within 120 days of certification.
What to Expect from Your LFA and Cable Company
• When the LFA regulates basic services tier rates, it should review any basic services tier rate
increases to determine whether they are justified by increases in the cable company's
programming or other costs. Questions concerning this review process should be directed to
the LFA.
• You are entitled to write or call your cable company whenever you have complaints about
cable services provided or program cost increases. You should expect a speedy response.
Complaints or Questions?
Contact your LFA with complaints or questions about customer service, basic services tier rates, or
franchise fees. The name of your LFA is found on your cable bill or in your local telephone book.
Contact your cable company with complaints about rates for pay-per-channel and pay-per-program
services, which are not subject to regulation.
If you are not satisfied with your cable rates, look for alternative multichannel video programming
services that may be available in your area, such as competitive cable services, satellite television
services, and open video system services.
You can also contact your local and state consumer protection organizations for assistance in
understanding your rights and responsibilities as a cable subscriber.
You can also make general inquiries about cable regulation by e-mailing the FCC at
fccinfo@fcc.gov, calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-
5322)TTY, or writing to:
Federal Communications Commission
Consumer& Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
455 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554.
For More Information
To obtain the FCC's cable television rules and regulations, Title 47, Part 76 in the Code of
Federal Regulations, visit http://wireless.fcc.gov/rules_html or write to:
Federal Communications Commission
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablerates.html 7/6/2007
Regjlation of Cable TV Rates Page 3 of 3
Media Bureau
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554.
For this or any other consumer publication in an accessible format
(electronic ASCII text, Braille,large print, or audio)please write or
call us at the address or phone number below, or send an e-mail to FCC504@fcc,gov.
To receive information on this and other FCC consumer topics through
the Commission's electronic subscriber service, click on
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/contacts.
This document is for consumer education purposes only and is not
intended to affect any proceeding or cases involving this subject
matter or related issues.
09/12/06
Federal Communications Commission•Consumer&Governmental Affairs Bureau•445 12th St.S.W.•Washington,DC 20554
1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) • TTY:1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) •Fax:1-866-418-0232 •www.fc_cgg_v_/egbf
last reviewed/updated on 09/13/06
FCC Home I Search I Updates I E-Filing I Initiatives I For Consumers l Find People
Federal Communications Commission Phone: 1-888-CALL-FCC(1-888-225-5322) - Privacy Policy.
445 12th Street SW TTY: 1-888-TELL-FCC(1-888-835-5322) -Website Policies& Notices
Washington, DC 20554 Fax: 1-866-418-0232 -Required Browser Plug-ins
More FCC_Contact..Information,.. E-mail:fccinfo@fcc.gov -Freedom of Information Act
http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cablerates.html 7/6/2007
Rules for Using Cable Channel 5 &21
Excerpt from Rules Governing the Access Channels
Chapter III, IX. G/E Information Service Channel
9.1 The rules pertaining to the Government/Education Information Service(GEIS)apply only to the placement of text
messages on the Government or Education Access Channels and do not apply to video productions.
9.2 (a) The purpose of GEIS is to announce events, activities, meetings or public service information.
Announcements may be provided by any government agency or by an education institution accredited by
the State of Nebraska.
(b) Pershing Center shall be allowed to place announcements noting events,attractions or conventions,even
though some of these announcements may be commercial in nature.
9.3 (a) Announcements for government agencies should be sent to 5 City-TV,555 S. 10`h St.,Suite 115, Lincoln,
NE 68508
(b) Announcements for educational institutions should be sent to 5 City-TV,555 S.10`h St.,Suite 115, Lincoln,
NE 68508.
(c) Announcements must be submitted for approval on the required forms at least two weeks in advance of the
intended cablecast date. Announcements may be placed and removed at the discretion of the Citizen
Information Center.
(d) Messages will be aired for a maximum 30 days. Messages of the same intent or nature from the same
organization must be submitted on a new form.
(e) The Citizen Information Center may edit announcements to provide for clarity and to maximize the use of
space.
(f) Messages placed on the channel must contain the name and/or telephone number of the agency or
institution placing the announcement.
(g) Message forms containing the name of the agency,the name of the individual submitting the message,and
a telephone number shall be kept on file for 30 days after the announcement has been taken off the system.
These records are available for review by the public.
9.4 (a) Events, activities, meetings announced on the channel must be open to the general public.
(b) Events which are open to the public and are intended to raise funds for public purposes may be placed on
the channel. The message must indicate if admission is charged.
(c) GEIS may not be used to advertise or promote the commercial sale of goods or services;to solicit donations
for non-governmental purposes;or to praise a product,service,business, or person. -�
(d) Any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery,gift enterprise,or similar scheme is prohibited.
(e) Announcements for specific job positions is not permitted. Information on where to apply jobs in the public
sector are allowed.
(f) Announcements requesting volunteers will be allowed provided it is a general request for volunteers.
(g) Announcements which promote/oppose candidates for office or ballot issues are prohibited.
(h) GEIS shall not be used to advertise or promote enrollment in schools, colleges or universities for which a
fee or tuition is charged to gain admittance.
9.5 Emergency announcements shall have priority over all other announcements.
9.6 The City of Lincoln, the Government/Educational Access Coordinator shall not be liable for the inaccuracy of
information placed on the channel.
..LL
POLICY & PROCEDURE
Subject: Index: Administration
Access of Renton Government Access Channel and
Use of Character Generator Number: 100-09
Effective Date Supersedes Page Staff Contact Approved By
7/1/95 1/1/87 1 of 4 Marilyn Petersen G)Q SC.
1.0 PURPOSE4>,,svv\AA_
To establish policy and procedural guidelines for the use of City-operated telecommunications
equipment. This equipment is used to communicate non-editorial public information in a video
and text format on the City of Renton's Government Access Channel.
2.0 ORGANIZATIONS AFFECTED
All departments and divisions.
3.0 REFERENCES
[To be determined.]
4.0 DEFINITIONS
4.1 Access Channel. Free composite cable television channel used by government and public
agencies and/or their representatives for local carriage of municipal and public services
information.
4.2 Character Generator. A device used to generate messages in text, such as announcements
of community events, on the access channel.
4.3 Live Local Programs. Live programming of meetings and selected other public events of
general community interest.
4.4 Tape Delayed Local Programs. Cablecast of pre-recorded live local programming.
4.5 City of Renton Produced Programs. Programs produced by the City to illustrate the
functions or operations of an agency or other part of City government, or otherwise
consistent the objectives of the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC").
4.6 Outside Source Programs. Programming produced other than by the City which focuses
on local government issues, concerns, and operations, or which is otherwise consistent with
the objectives of the RGAC.
'i
Page 2
4.7 Character Generated Messages. Messages suitable for cablecast and displayed using the
character generator. Audio entertainment during the display of messages using the
character generator may be provided by radio signals from stations that have been
approved by the City Clerk.
5.0 POLICY
The Renton Government Access Channel is not the same as a public access channel. Access to
the Renton Government Access Channel ("RGAC")shall be limited to City meetings,hearings,
functions, operational information,training, and other uses as are deemed to be consistent with
these policies and procedures. Specific policies include the following:
5.1; No Vested Rights. Decisions regarding the use of the municipal channel will be made by
the City Clerk, taking into account the objectives of the policies, the available cable
television technologies, directives by the Renton City Council, and technical, financial,
labor and other resources available to the City. No decision to cablecast a particular
program or message shall be considered to create a right to have any other programs or
messages cablecast, whether identical with, similar to, or different from, the original
program or message.
5.2 Responsibility. The Renton City Clerk's office shall be responsible for gathering,
formatting, and programming the information submitted by City departments and external
organizations for cablecast.
5.3 Used for Information:Not Official Record. This communication tool is intended to serve
as a supplement to existing public notification activities. It does not substitute for existing
publication requirements mandated by law.
5.4 Limitations of Use. Information that is transmitted shall be limited to news and
announcements that are locally oriented(cablecast area) and of interest and benefit to the
general public (i.e. public meetings, schedules, community, and cultural event calendars.)
5.5 No Commercial Purposes. No message shall be transmitted which involves any
advertising material designed to promote the sale of commercial products or services. This
shall include,but not be limited to,the following: advertising by or on behalf of
candidates for political office; advertising for events which will produce profits benefiting
a private enterprise or individual;job announcements for other than public agencies.
5.6 Other Prohibited Uses. The following other programming shall not be allowed:
Indecent or obscene matters.
6.0 PROCEDURES
6.1 Request for use forms to place textual information on the Government Access Cable
Channel must be submitted to the City Clerk at least three days before the cablecast date.
•
Page 3
6.1.1 Forms submitted by City of Renton departments or divisions must be signed by the
1 appropriate department director.
6.1.2 Each public entity or community group desiring to use the character generator on
an ongoing basis must provide the City Clerk's office with a list of those
individuals authorized to submit messages, a sample signature for each individual,
and their telephone number.
6.1.3 There is room for three separate messages on each form. Each message on a form
should be scheduled to begin and end on the same dates. If events occur on various
dates, a separate form should be used for each message.
6.1.4 When composing each message,be brief. Use standard abbreviations whenever
possible.
6.1.5 Each message should contain.a headline. The headline should briefly convey the
main idea of the message. It should attract attention and encourage the viewer to
read the message. Examples:
FREE CONCERT Monday, June 7 - Liberty Park
Noon- 1:30 p.m. - Questions 235-2560.
HOME IMPROVEMENT LOANS - Available to rehabilitate existing housing.
Seniors and low income may apply. Further information 235-2553.
6.1.6 The City Clerk's office will review each form and,when necessary, conform the
message to accommodate page format and style.
6.1.7 If the Clerk determines that the contents of any message submitted conflict with the
intent of this policy,that message must be submitted to the Mayor's office for a
review and final determination.
6.2 Requests to cablecast videos or schedule live programming must be submitted to and
scheduled by the City Clerk. The following programming is specifically authorized:
6.2.1 Public Meetings - City. All public hearings,public meetings, and work sessions of
the City Council and of City boards, commissions, committees, and subcommittees
(except executive sessions thereof).
6.2.2 Promotions. Promotional announcements for City sponsored events and public
service announcements for City agencies. Promotional announcements for events,
charities, or outside nonprofit organizations in which the City has no official
interest or sponsorship must be approved for cablecast by the City Clerk.
6.2.3 Departmental Programming. Requests of City departments for programming, if
consistent with these policies and procedures, and if authorized by the City Clerk.
Page 4
6.2.4 Individual Statements-Mayor. Individual statement by the Mayor of the City of
Renton or the Mayor's designee, if consistent with these policies and procedures
and after consultation with the City Clerk.
6.2.5 Individual Statements - Council. Individual statements by the President of the City
Council, or the Council President's designee, if consistent with these policies and
procedures and after consultation with the City Clerk.
6.2.6 Emergency Cablecasts. Cablecasts during any type of emergency if authorized by
the Mayor or designee,pursuant to the City's Emergency Management Operations
Plan.
6.3 Editing Policy:
Public Meetings. Any public meeting, hearing, or work session which is cablecast shall
not be edited in any material manner or subjected to editorial comment, except that minor
editing, and editing of technical flaws or problems is permitted. Introductory or
supplementary information which will aid the viewer in understanding the context or issues
may be provided. Videotapes shall not be considered an official record of meetings and
there shall be no liability for inadvertent erasure or omissions.
Departmental Programs. Any programming prepared or provided by an individual City
department or outside services may be modified or edited as appropriate for cablecast.
Legal Review. If deemed necessary by the City Clerk, any video may be subject to review
and approval by the City Attorney.
Errors. Should an error result in the cablecast or incorrect information,the City of Renton
and the employee responsible therefor shall not be liable for the inaccuracy of the
information or for actions taken by anyone in reliance thereon.
Program Schedules. Program schedules will be cablecast daily on the RGAC, and
published weekly in the local news.
7.0 APPEAL
Any party aggrieved by a decision of the City Clerk pursuant to these policies and procedures may
appeal the decision to the Mayor, within ten(10) days of notification of the decision being
appealed. The decision by the Mayor shall be binding and conclusive on all parties.
8.0 NO LIABILITY
The Mayor,the City Council, and the employees of the City of Renton shall have no liability for
any decisions made, any actions taken, or any failure to act, in connection with the operations of
the access channel. None of the described persons or entities shall have any legal liabilities as a
consequence of any cablecast program or message.
RENTON COMMU ACCESS CHANNEL
REQUEST FOR USE OF CHARACTER GENERATOR
AGENCY DEPT/DIV FOR PRERECORDED (VIDEO) CABLECAST REQUESTS
SUBMITTED BY PHONE
Program title
User agrees to hold harmless the City of Renton, its officials, Producer name
employees, agents and operators for any and all liability, damages or Address
losses incurred because of actions, errors or omissions related to the Format Length (exact running time)
use of the Character Generator. Cablecast time
• • Brief Description
Signature Date
DIRECTIONS
All messages must be typewritten. Compose the message the way Intended audience.
you would like it displayed. Type the message within the margins
set below. Use separate forms for messages with different start I hereby assume all responsibility for the content of this video and
and/or end dates. Attach any photo or graphic to be used as assume all liability that may arise from the cablecasting of this
background for the message. product. I further certify that the content is comprised of no
material prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission
MES SAGE Rules and that I am authorized to permit cablecasting of the above
described product.
Name
Organization
Address .
Phone
Signature Date
Display dates for messages/videos on this form: Begin End
::::::::::::::::::;.:::.::.�r:::•:;}:;:.}>:•:::::>'< :::.:;:y<;;;:;�•:::;•:-2�::::::-:'<:;r>:::;>:;}::;>:.;;.,.:•:;»::i'>`;::%Y:::i:::Y•:}»:5::•`.:>:;:;:::::: 'Y'<i>;:j;::r: :2y:::;i>:::;:S:;S:;>:>::i:
.................. ....... .....................
CITY OF RENTON VIDEO RELEASE FORM
• GOVERNMENTAL ACCESS, CHANNEL 28
For valuable consideration received, I hereby give the CITY OF RENTON the following
absolute and irrevocable rights and permission, with respect to the audio and video recording, and
to the audio and video tapes that he/she has taken of me, or in which I may be included with
others. Also any video tapes he/she has taken of my property, structures,vehicles and/or
equipment.
This release shall apply to all interactions, processes and products associated with, or
resulting from, this video tape.
(a) To copyright the same in his/her own name or any other name he/she may choose.
(b) To use, reuse, publish and republish the same in whole or in part, individually or in
conjunction with any other audio or video tape in any medium and for any purpose whatsoever,
including but not limited to illustration, promotion, advertising and trade, and graphics.
(c) To include my name in the credits at the end of the video tape if he/she chooses. The
individuals may be acknowledged as a group, with no use of individual names.
I hereby release and discharge the CITY OF RENTON from any and all liability claims and
demands arising out of or in connection with audio or video tapes, or any other process, product
. or interaction arising from the video tapes.
This authorization and release shall also insure to the benefit of the legal representatives,
licensees and assigns of the CITY OF RENTON.
I hereby release and absolve the CITY OF RENTON from any and all damages,
responsibility, loss injury, accident, and any and all forms of consequential and incidental damages
for myself in connection with travel to and from location sites for recording.
I am over the age of eighteen years. I have read the foregoing and fully understand the
contents thereof.
NAME
(Please print)
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE
DATE PHONE
If subject is under eighteen (18) years of age, the name and signature of a consenting parent or
legal guardian is required. Said party warrants and represents that they have the authority to
execute this release.
NAME OF
GUARDIAN
(Please print)
ADDRESS
SIGNATURE OF
GUARDIAN
What is a Government Access Channel? Page 1 of 2
Chapter 1: What is a Government Access Channel? Back
A government access channel is one of the three types of
"Community Access Channels" first designated under the
"Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984." This Act provides
residents with local television programs and information over
dedicated Public, Educational and Government (PEG) cable
channels. In this guidebook, these channels may collectively be
referred to as GATV (Government Access Television).
Authorized by the FCC, local ordinances, franchise agreements,
and government access channels are used by cities and
counties to communicate information to citizens, constituents
and employees.
Government access channels differ from public and educational
access channels. Unlike public channels, government channels
are granted editorial rights to choose the content, format, and
subject of information broadcasted to the public. In addition, a
government channels has access to stored data and holds the
rights to selectively highlight the most relevant issues. This
"selection" process is determined by the channels target
audience. This concentrated insight into local government
workings allows the public to be more informed and in turn
increases participation in the community and government.
Why have a Government Access Channel?
A government channel purpose is to provide local information
from local perspectives. Traditionally, governments are among
the primary developers of local information, but have relied on
commercial news sources to deliver it to the public. This
situation changed with the introduction of government access
channels in the 60's and 70's. Today these channels provide a
convenient and inexpensive way for local governments to
educate citizens about the daily operations within local
governments and community events.
Governments are now able to provide professional looking
public service announcements, video segments, program
series, public meeting coverage with their own channel and
equipment. If governments were to contract with outside
vendors for these services the price would be too high.
Governments now have the equipment and the ability to create
their own programming, making a government access channels
an essential and cost-effective communication tool.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/chl.htm 7/6/2007
What is a Government Access Channel? Page 2 of 2
Government access channels also promote city services,
provide education, and market accomplishments to potential
investors. Promotion of local events is often a neglected yet
important function of government. Government channels
provide a convenient forum for this purpose.
Channels can be incorporated into a government's public
information distribution process, along with newsletters, press
releases and other written material. This abundance of material
and information will attract developers, new businesses, and
new residents. To make the the idea of government
programming information more alluring, many government
channels incorporate "talk shows," news coverage, sports
productions, and magazine shows. In an era when there is an
abundance of information sources, government channels
develop programs for local enjoyment and enrichment.
Copyright 2000 © CATVINSTITUTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/chl.htm 7/6/2007
Developing a Strategy Page 1 of 2
Chapter Two: Developing a Strategy Back
Before any equipment is bought, a government channel needs to develop a
strategy. The strategy will spearhead the concept for the channel,which will
determine how all components will carry-out the strategy. The strategy can
take different forms, depending upon how the city wishes to articulate it.
A strategy is formed to help the channel begin operating in an organized
fashion. A strategy may be formed in the following ways:
• A strategy may be informal and agreed upon orally by the key
participants
• A strategy may be a conceptual plan with timetables and budgets for
approval by management or the city council
• Drafting and developing reasonable policies can determine a strategy
• The defining a budget can determine the strategy when funding for
specific projects and equipment is approved
Four issues that will help define the overall concept of the
government access channel:
• Program Content Goals
• Technical Goals
• Financial Goals
• Miscellaneous Goals
Additional Questions:
How will the channel be funded?
• Internal Department Chargeback System
• Revenue
Who is our Audience?
• Audience Profile
• Focus Groups
• Questionnaires and Surveys
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch2.htm 7/6/2007
Developing a Strategy Page 2 of 2
4
Copyright 2000 © GATIfhisTiniTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch2.htm 7/6/2007
The First Five Years Page 1 of 2
•
Chapter Three: The First Five Years Back
Authorizing Environment
An important aspect to consider when planning a government access channel
is the Authoring Environment. An authoring environment is the legal and
contractual parameters in which the channel will operate. Each authorizing
environment differs from city to city; for example,review processes can vary
among departments. Despite the differences between governments and their
offices, they generally share one of two basic elements:
• Cable or Telecommunications Ordinances
• Franchise Agreements
Cable or Telecommunications Ordinance
In most cases, government channels need an ordinance that authorizes their
existence. This ordinance is usually based on the 1984 Cable Act and is
supported in principal by enacted federal cable(1992) and
telecommunications (1996) laws. This authorizes a legislative council to
maintain a government access channel.
Franchise Agreements
The second element is the franchise agreement between the local government
body and a cable operator. The franchise agreement is the operational "bible"
used by government channel managers. The agreement's provisions often
establishes policies regarding funding,placement in the channel line-up,
equipment purchases,power to raise funds, develop underwriters, staffing
levels, and the use of volunteers. In short, the agreement determines to what
extent the channel will be allowed to develop over the duration of the
franchise.
All current and new government channel managers should be familiar with the
franchise agreements, local and federal cable and telecommunications
ordinances.
Using the Strategy and Audience Data to Rollout the
Government Channel
Once the government channel is provide with a legal and contractual
foundation, the next step is to incorporate the channel strategy and audience
data into a practicable "rollout plan". This is the point at which the overall
goals for the government access channel are combined with the information
you've collected about the viewers the channel intends to serve.
The Rollout Plan
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch3.htm 7/6/2007
The First Five Years Page 2 of 2
The "rollout plan" refers to the introduction of the channel to the public. The
rollout plan should also navigate authorities through a long-term
implementation plan. Typically, a government channel is introduced in a
series of phases. Although these vary widely, the following is a common
phased approach to launching government access channels.
Phase 1 (Year 1): Electronic Bulletin Boards
Most channels are launched with the introduction of cable bulletin boards,
using a presentation system similar to the Millennium TM Multimedia
Management System created by FrameRateTM. Bulletin boards provide generic
and time dated information on the channel's computerized bulletin boards
from government departments, councils,boards, non-profit organizations, and
school districts. The information is created using text, graphics and image
backgrounds. This organization and display of information usually runs for the
first year while the channel becomes familiar with operations.
Phase 2 (Years 2-3): Video Programming
The next phase may vary among jurisdictions,but usually begins with a few
hours of video programming. Some programs may be produced by outside
agencies, PBS stations, non-profit organizations, or commercial producers.
Often programs that are produced outside the channel are joined with live
coverage of community festivals, recreational events, or edited segments
produced by channel staff.
The first appearance of video,on a government access channel is a significant
occasion as it marks the point when the channel begins competing for viewers
with commercial channels. Many cities celebrate this stage with fanfare and
often send promotional notices to the media.
Phase 3 (Years 3-5): Meeting Coverage
Some channels begin this phase by introducing coverage of city council or
local meetings as programs. Issues that need to be considered at this phase are:
lengthened approval cycles,publish hearings, the cost of automated
equipment, staffing and use of volunteers, styles of coverage, and reluctance
of some public officials to appear on television. Most local governments
overcome these obstacles by covering public meetings earlier in the process.
Over time managers of mature government access channels often realize that
coverage of local meetings is the "hook" that initially attracts viewers to the
channel. If given the choice, some managers wish they had started this
programming earlier to begin building the audience/channel relationship
closer to the initial "rollout."
Copyright 2000 © GATIFINsliniTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch3.htm 7/6/2007
Who Operates the Channel? Page 1 of 2
Chapter Four: Developing Policies Back
Policies should be developed during the planning and approval process, and must
be updated as the channel matures. The cable channel manager should have
control over the policies.
There are many options to consider when developing policies for government
access channels. Some policies should be extensive, while others can be a
paragraph. Some should be constantly revised, while others can remain unchanged
for years. Again, the detail and length of access policies depend on the
organization and political environment of the channel.
For this reason, the following is a broad discussion about policy formation
considerations, along with the authors'personal recommendations. Overall
recommendations to consider when developing a policy:
• Minimize government access policies in order to maximize flexibility
• Retain editorial control of the channel at all costs
• Consider the long term direction of the channel when establishing policy
• Don't make short term policies to appease others today that would make it
impossible to reach future goals
There are two main types of policies formats, General and Detailed Policies.
General Policies
General policies provide a basic framework for operation,but leave actual
implementation and operation to the discretion of the staff. This provides the staff
with the freedom to explore the full potential of the channel. Room for policy
interpretation gives a policy the flexibility to adapt to changing situations. In Santa
Monica, simple and basic policies have allowed a new Cable TV manager to come
in and change the entire direction,program line-up,priorities and identity of the
channel --with no change in existing policies.
Minimal policies allow the channel to evolve naturally with minimum fuss, review
and debate. In this situation, the staff feels free to implement their own vision for
the channel,while remaining personally accountable for that vision. A well trained
staff and channel leadership is critical for a general policy to be successful. A
general policy demonstrates trusts in the judgment and abilities of the government
access channel staff.
Detailed Policies
Detailed policies are better suited for municipalities that deal with large
bureaucracies. A detailed policy emphasizes forms and procedures that provides
clear guidelines that specifies how the channel works and what resources that are
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch4.htm 7/6/2007
Who Operates the Channel? Page 2 of 2
available. This provides an established framework for the operations and
procedures of the channel.
Detailed policies create a sense of comfort to elected officials and upper
management. At anytime rules and procedures can be reviewed for clarification if
a dispute arises. Detailed policies provide guidelines to make the proper
decisions.
Take caution with channels that use detailed policies. Often, with detailed policies,
the staff becomes too involved with following the correct procedures that the
channel's vision is lost. The quickest way to halt creativity and productivity is to
create policy confusion.
Different Models of GATV Channels:
• All meetings, All of the time
• Government Only Model
• Government/Community
Key components within a policy:
• Editorial Control
• Eligible Users
• Elected Officials
• Who Operates the Channel?
• Access and Resources
• Content Guidelines
• Technical Goals
• Public Meeting Coverage
• Election Coverage
• Outside Programming
• Policy Board/Steering Committees
Copyright 2000 © GATVIN571711TE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch4.htm 7/6/2007
Management Structure Page 1 of 2
Chapter Five: Management Structure Back
Another factor in the development of a government channel
is the way it will be managed within the government
organization and the operating staff. Cable management
and operations vary extensively in this area. Some
jurisdictions place administrative control under the city
manager or chief administrative officer. Others make the
channel part of the library, parks/recreation, the city clerk's
office, public information, or information technology. In a
number of cases, the channel starts under the city
manager, then is moved to another department or made
into a department on its own.
Which department the government channel is placed in
indicates how well it has achieved its goals. Therefore, it is
important to weigh carefully which department will best
implement the channel's initial objectives.
It is also important to realize that the ability to remain
independent and serve other departments depends on how
the channel was first organized. The following paragraphs
are a number of management and staffing models are
currently in use by government channels. Like all models,
they have a historical basis, and each share common
management elements consisting of a manager/department
head and one or two key employees.
Retraining Current Employees
Some cities recruit current employees to manage and staff
the government channel. This method was originally used
when government channels first appeared, and cities had
trouble finding qualified personnel. The process is successful
if the retained staff are dedicated to the new tasks and are
well-trained. However, two potential drawbacks are: (1)
determining if the retained employees are qualified, and (2)
the extra time spent for training. It can be difficult to
determine which employees have the abilities to handle the
demand of a government access channel, and how long it
will take to train.
Hiring New Employees with Operations Experience
Once government channels were established, the traditional
method of staffing was to hire staff with operations
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch5.htm 7/6/2007
Management.Structure Page 2 of 2
• experience. This method proved successful and many
channels flourished as a result. However, experienced
personal can enter the job situation with preconceived ideas
and set patterns of working. The rise of strong unions and
civil service exemptions institutionalized these patterns and
may lead to less innovation.
Combinations of Contract Employees and Civil Service •
Realizing the potential drawbacks of hiring experienced
staff, newer government channels have opted to hire both
civil service and contract employees. Government channels
tend to be enriched by the influence of employees with
commercial media experience. There are also savings in
cost of benefits in this model.
Using Volunteers and Interns
Some cities use only volunteers and interns for their
channel staffing needs. Because they work for little or no
pay, they usually commit to working for short periods of
time. It can be very difficult to develop regular, consistent
government programming when staffing is this inconsistent.
However, student interns and/or volunteers are usually
happy for the experience and work very hard for a good
recommendation. In this model there is great potential for a
rewarding experience for each side.
Combining Forces
These are only some of the viable staffing models. We do
not recommend using any one method, but rather a
combination of methods. Government channels that are
most successful keep their staffing options open. The
general rule of thumb is always: Remain flexible and ready
for change.
Copyright 2000 © GATifhorimTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch5.htm 7/6/2007
Programming Page 1 of 1
Chapter Six: Programming Back
Programming is the core of a government channel. This
guide is not intended as a step-by-step production guide,
as qualified staff will produce the programming. There are
many elements to consider when planning the
programming. The following is a broad discussion of the
role that programming plays on the development of the
channel and strategies to consider for implementation of a
programming schedule.
Program Types
The types of programs to air is an important consideration
in terms of budget, resources and audience type.
Experience has demonstrated that government access
channels find the most success with the following types of
programs, all types of programs can be considered, as
long as they respond to local viewership and are within the
budget:
• News Programs
• Magazine Programs
• Community Event Coverage
• Documentaries
• Public Affairs/Talk Shows
• Public Service Announcements
• Sports Shows and Sports Coverage
• Public Meeting Coverage
Scheduling a Program Line-Up
Part of the consideration for any station is self-promotion.
Be sure to consider the following in your programming:
• Scheduling a Program Line-up
• Channel's Brand Name Identification
• Legal Considerations
Copyright 2000 © GATINsTiTuTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch6.htm 7/6/2007
Equipment Page 1 of 5
Chapter 7: Equipment Back
Once you have defined the channel's strategies, funding,policies, and program goals,
purchasing the equipment is the next phase to plan.
Note: Since equipment and model numbers are constantly changing, references to
equipment made in this section should be considered as examples for updated
products.
Basic Issues to be Considered
Each channel is different and works within a fixed or limited equipment budget. Each
operation must optimize limited resources in terms of quantity and quality of
production. The channel should always consider the total budget when considering
equipment purchases. Within the budget an adequate staff and resources that will
fully utilize the equipment also need to be considered. Planning for initial and future
equipment purchases is essential. The following are some planning considerations
that affect equipment budgeting.
• Technologically Advanced Equipment and the Life Expectancy
• Quality versus Quantity
• Purchasing Equipment
• Individual Pieces of Equipment
• Outsourcing
Technologically Advanced Equipment and the Life Expectancy
Technology is constantly changing and advancing in the video field. The purchasing
process is complex and may take awhile. With that in mind, it is possible that the
equipment you purchase may have been upgraded by the time it arrives. Do not get
stuck with a discontinued model that cannot be upgraded. In your bid document
include language that makes it clear that it is the supplier's responsibility to ensure, at
time of delivery, that all equipment ordered is the latest version.
Generally, the life expectancy of video equipment is five years. However, a piece of
equipment that lasts and functions beyond five years may receive little manufacturer
support after three years. With proper maintenance and repair, many pieces of
equipment can last well beyond five years.
Government access channels tend to have small capital budgets and few
opportunities to replace equipment over the years. This leads to extraordinary efforts
to keep equipment functional and working. Usually when extra money is available it
is used to expand facilities. This can work for a while,but eventually the equipment
is not repairable and/or parts are no longer available.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch7.htm 7/6/2007
Equipment Page 2 of 5
Quality Versus Quantity
User Skill
User skill is the first consideration. Generally, the more expensive the equipment, the
more technically sophisticated it is. This type of equipment requires extensive
training, and skilled personal to operate it. If trained professionals will use the
equipment, then it is appropriate to use sophisticated equipment. In contrast, channels
that depend on volunteers and interns, an emphasis should be on the less expensive,
easy-to-use equipment. All things considered, it is important to establish a realistic
budget and combined with several of these issues to create a well-rounded,
professional channel.
An example of this issue is in Santa Monica, California the channel emphasizes
broadcast quality produced with sophisticated equipment paying part-time staff
below the market rate. The channel is able to attract skilled personal because the
technicians want the opportunity to use and learn broadcast quality equipment. In
addition,volunteers get "free" education of state-of-the-art equipment as they use it.
Amount of Programming and Ability of Equipment
The amount of programming produced can dictate the kind of equipment that is
needed. For example, if there is high production volume, there may be a need for two
on-line edit bays or multiple cuts-only edit bays as it is more efficient and time
worthy.
The capability of the equipment should be considered for the type of programs
produced. There may not be adequate funds for a mobile production van and a
production studio, so the decision might support a simpler facility and lower cost
equipment.
Generally, government channels with larger capital budgets tend to buy fewer,more
expensive pieces of equipment from well-established manufacturers. Those with
smaller budgets tend to buy less expensive equipment with multiple functions.
Budgets often dictate a choice between two types of equipment, integrated video
systems and individual pieces of equipment
Purchasing Equipment
Budgets often dictate a choice between two types of equipment:
• Integrated Video Systems
• Individual Pieces of Equipment
Integrated Video Systems
An integrated video system is a collection of different items of video equipment that
must function together. Examples of a typical integrated video system include public
meeting coverage systems, studio control rooms and linear on-line editing systems.
These systems also require signal distribution,black, synch and electrical grounding.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch7.htm 7/6/2007
Equipment Page 3 of 5
' More complex than connecting A to B. Usually, functional drawings must be drawn
to determine how one piece of equipment will relate to other equipment. Once the
location in the rack(a shelving system) is determined, wiring diagrams must be
drawn with wires individually numbered and labeled. The wires must then be
bundled neatly to avoid a mess of cable behind the rack. These types of systems are
complex and are best purchased as a complete, functioning system.
Consultants
In most cases a consultant is hired to prepare your functional drawings and bid
document. The consultant will work with you to determine the amount and types of
equipment you need. The consultant will recommend a range of manufacturers and
models that will fit your system. The consultant will review the bids received from
dealers, system integrators, and assist in determining who to purchase from. In this
type of situation the bid is not awarded solely on the basis of price. The bidder's
qualifications,project team, and ability to provide the type of system needed is all
considered. The consultant will preview and approve the drawings for the system,
monitor, installation, test and accept the final system. A consultant is considered to
be the preferred method for acquiring a system because the consultant works for the
city and does not receive a commission or bonus from any manufacture. The
consultant is paid to do what is in the best interest of the city.
Dealers
Another option is to work with a dealer that provides system integration to develop
the integrated video system. Dealers usually have good relationships with
manufactures, assist with setting up demonstrations, and get product specifications
for your consideration. Many times the dealer will provide demos,budgets and
proposals for different configurations of equipment at no cost.
A drawback of using a dealer is they may not represent all of the products that you
might want to consider for your system. This may limit what is considered or
pressured to buy a product that is inappropriate for your system. In addition, the
dealer may recommend a product that will give them a higher commission or bonus.
When an integrated system project is put out to bid as "one-system" the vender is
responsible for delivering a functioning one-system. This type of bid should be
written with the vender held responsible for listing additional pieces of equipment
that are required to make the system functional but may not be listed in the bid
document itself. If not, they will provide those pieces at no charge if they are
discovered later
If you have a knowledgeable staff with a good understanding of technical systems,
drawings and signal flow, your staff can serve as the consultant in putting together an
integrated video system. This provides you with a cost efficient way to put together a
working integrated system. If you use this option there will not be consultant to hold
accountable for the system functioning and operations, the station manager takes this
responsibility. It is important to have complete trust in the staffs ability.
Individual Pieces of Equipment
Individual pieces of equipment are interchangeable with other pieces of equipment
and are not reliant on an integrated system's infrastructure in order to function. Most
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch7.htm 7/6/2007
Equipment Page 4 of 5
field production equipment,microphones, lighting, support, and grip equipment fall
into this category. In this case they are called Box Houses.
Box Houses
Box houses are businesses that sell equipment directly to you in the box.No
demonstrations,no salesperson,just the equipment. The advantage is price. Box
houses are great when you know exactly what you want for the lowest price
available.
The disadvantage is that personnel are not very knowledgeable and cannot provide
reliable assistance. You can order the wrong piece of equipment and find it difficult
to find accessories. If you order the wrong accessory, figuring out what you really
need, and returns can be a problem. In addition,box houses provide no service, repair
or warranty service. You have to go to the manufacturer of each item.
Other Equipment Options
Leasing Equipment
Leasing or utilizing a lease-purchase agreement is another option several cities
consider. Leasing offers the chance to spread out their payments for capital
equipment over several years. This works well when synchronized with the
government budget processes.
Used Equipment
Another way to stretch an equipment budget is to purchase used or "B" stock
equipment. "B" stock equipment is video equipment that has been lightly used and is
usually available from the manufacturer. An example of "B" stock equipment is
equipment that was used to cover the Olympics or used as demonstration equipment
at the National Association of Broadcaster's convention. The equipment is priced
lower than new equipment, reflects current models, and is under manufacturer
warranty.
There is a mixed experience from buying used equipment. In some cases, a channel
may prefer to spend money for equipment that is used but of higher grade. Others opt
for new, lower grade equipment at a decreased cost. This is an individual
decision. There are usually consequences when buying used equipment. Warranty
service can be difficult to implement. If the equipment turns out to be a lemon, there
is usually no recourse. Moreover, there is a shorter life span. For some durable, low
failure equipment, such as switchers or patch panels,buying used is ideal. Santa
Monica, California could not have continued to broadcast professional quality
without buying used equipment.
Outsourcing
For some types of equipment, outsourcing may be a viable alternative. Outsourcing
provides services and capital equipment through a monthly payment plan that fits in
the channel's budget. Over time, this can prove the most cost-effective alternative to
buying capital equipment and hiring staff.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch7.htm 7/6/2007
Equipment Page 5 of 5
• An example of this is FrameRate Corporation's contract electronic bulletin board
service. The City pays an initial start-up fee and then a monthly service fee.
FrameRate provides a turnkey state-of-the-art bulletin board at the channel's site. The
city submits text for the bulletin board messages directly to FrameRate Corporation
via fax or the Internet. FrameRate then returns ready-to-use graphics for the bulletin
board system within 24 hours. For cities that cannot afford the cost of an electronic
bulletin board system and the staff resources needed to create quality graphics, this is
an easy alternative to implement. Please see Product Quotes for real Quotes from
Kristen Tetherton at Burst Communications California.
Copyright 2000 © GAIlfleiTiTurf All rights reserved world wide.
•
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch7.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 1 of 13
Chapter 8: Educating Yourself Before Buying
Equipment
"Bulletin Board Systems"
by James R. Harvey Back
There is a lot to learn when educating yourself about the type of
equipment needed for a government access channel. The
following is an overview of the main pieces of equipment to
consider when purchasing an electronic bulletin board system. The
decision requires research and an evaluation of the channel's
particular situation.
Overview
A bulletin board system produces a continuous stream of video
programming without user interaction. In short, it automates the
video program. Video output can range from simple "character
generator" displays to complex multimedia presentations that
include playback of digital video or video tape.
As defined, a bulletin board system is computer software that
automates video programming, making the selection of a
computer and software the most important part of the decision.
Decisions made at this level will affect the on-air "look and feel" of
the channel. The technical and staffing decisions are the most
important aspects to consider. A poor choice will translate into
high costs later on.
The basic components you will need for a bulletin board system
are:
• A computer as the primary computing resource for the
system. The computer can be as simple as a stand-alone
character generator to a sophisticated multi-computer client-
server system.
• Software to create, schedule, and display the programming.
For simple systems, graphics design software is usually
embedded within the bulletin board system. For more
sophisticated design, the software can be multi-user, multi-
tasking, and in operation across the enterprise on multiple
computers.
• Scan converter to convert computer video into NTSC or PAL
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 2 of 13
video. For low cost systems, this device is often incorporated
within the computer.
• Modulator to convert the NTSC or PAL video into an RF signal
that can be sent over a broadband cable network. This device
may be located at your facility or at the headend. The
location depends on how the video signal is sent to the
headend.
The above items are required, but additional components can be
added to enhance system performance or provide additional
capabilities. Additional components include:
• Software for automated machine control, program
scheduling, data acquisition from the Internet or intranet
sources, remote control via touch-tone dial-up or emergency
alert system (EAS) equipment, weather logging, graphics,
digital video encoding (MPEG), E-mail, word processors,
spreadsheets, databases, animation programs, etc.
• VCR Controller for one or more video tape recorders, players,
or other video sources.
• Scanner for scanning photos.
• Weather instrumentation for displaying real-time local
weather data on your channel.
• Digital camera for capturing digital images.
• Color printer for review and archive documents.
As you can see, there are many options are available for bulletin
board systems. The decision you make will have a long-term
impact. Successful implementation of bulletin board systems also
requires the consideration of technical design, staffing, training,
and other issues. The following are some examples:
• Outsource or Not?
• Build or Buy?
• Architecture
Outsource or Not?
An outsourcing service bureau provides services and capital
equipment through a monthly payment plan that fits within the
budget. Over time, this can prove to be the most cost-effective
alternative to buying capital equipment and hiring staff.
Your first choice is whether or not to outsource the production of
your bulletin board channel. If management is outsourced to a
service bureau, then all decisions related to computer hardware
and software is the responsibility of the service bureau.
Otherwise, you have a number of system design decisions to
make.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 3 of 13
• The opportunity of outsourcing is new within the industry.
FrameRate Corporation offers an outsourcing program that
provides the creation of all content and channel management
services via the Internet.
If you decide to not to outsource, all decisions are yours. Make
sure you choose vendors and staff with proven records of
accomplishment. Evaluate carefully, with an eye toward building
long-term relationships.
Build or Buy?
Building your bulletin board system using components selected by
your staff can be a rewarding and cost-effective solution if you
understand all of the technology issues involved.
Morre's Law states that, for a given cost, the capabilities of
technology doubles every eighteen months. This means that
anything you buy will be obsolete not long afterward. That doesn't
mean that it becomes useless, just outdated. The proper choice of
both hardware and software components is very important.
Your first choice is the basic platform, for example, Windows 98 or
2000, Windows NT etc. Once this decision is made, you can decide
on hardware and software components.
The second decision is hardware. If you build your system from a
number of hardware components, make sure that this knowledge
is shared. If one person is the "guru," you will run into trouble if
the "guru" leaves.
Remember, you are not in the business of designing video
messaging systems. Your business is communication, and the
system is only a tool to achieve that goal. While some of the key
technology decisions are yours, a vendor can advise you on your
choices.
The third decision is software. With so much available, you have a
great deal to choose and decide between. The least advantageous
option is writing your own software. This requires at least 250,000
lines of code (approximately 250,000 hours to write and debug),
and it is code that already exists. Trust proven suppliers.
Architecture
In general, you have a choice between a single computer and
client-server design. In most cases, a single computer solution
requires you to take the system off-air to update the media
programming. This is not always a serious drawback as you can
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 4 of 13
• cover-up the bulletin board output by playing a video tape.
The client-server solution is a two-computer system (or more)
that allows you to create or update programming without taking
the system off-air. This design is the most convenient. While more
expensive than a single-computer system, the time savings can
be significant. Content can be created by a number of people on
various computers, and then accessed by the system for
playback. Updates can be sent to the system from your local area
network or from home using a dial-up connection. In addition,
since content design and scheduling are done on one or more
computers, the display engine never needs to be interrupted,
allowing for continuous playback.
Typical Solutions/Scenarios
Solution #1: Outsourcing
A channel management service bureau accepts your information
and generates the on-air programming necessary to deliver your
information on the channel. The service bureau provides most or
all of the on-site equipment needed to generate the video
programming. You send information to the bureau via E-mail,
postal mail, FedEx, the Internet, fax, or other means. Turn-
around time depends upon several factors and can greatly
influence the service costs.
The idea of a service bureau is relatively new. Until recently, there
has never been a concentrated effort to provide channel
management services on a larger scale. By developing quality
management procedures, it becomes possible to automate a great
deal of the work, and reduces cost to individual clients.
Outsourcing solves two important problems. First, you won't need
to purchase capital equipment. The computers, software, and
related peripheral equipment are provided by the service bureau.
The risk of technological obsolescence is born by the service
bureau. Given, there is no capital equipment to buy, the decision
making process is much faster.
With outsourcing, you don't need to hire new staff or divert
existing staff to the channel. You won't need to train anyone. This
is especially important when you consider that the creation of a
professional-looking channel requires some work, and if only one
person knows a job, the impact of losing that person is very high.
A service bureau eliminates this risk since they are responsible for
servicing multiple customers with numerous staff members.
One of the first questions posed about outsourcing is how long it
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 5 of 13
• takes to get changes or new information on-air? If the processes
are well defined, it can be accomplished.quickly. Today's
operating systems and networks make connectivity rather minor--
if this is the method used to transfer updated information.
Outsourcing can be a win-win situation for both the cable
company and the city government. By placing the playback
computers in the cable operator's headend, the need to run a
video link between the headend and city hall is eliminated. The
headend environment is ideal for housing the computer that
automates the bulletin board software.
Some recommendations for the outsourcing solution are:
• Choose a service provider that also markets bulletin board
systems. It is a sure bet they know how to operate their own
systems efficiently.
• Get the ground rules for updating programming up front.
Choose a vendor with documented processes.
• Choose a vendor using state-of-the-art "mainstream"
equipment.
Solution #2: The Simple Character Generator
A Character Generator (CG) can be a cost-effective solution for
your bulletin board. Yet, in some cases, simple CG does not
provide the kind of flexibility required by organizations that
communicate a lot of information.
At first glance, the requirements for a bulletin board system using
a CG appear to be minimal. This is not the case. Prices range from
under $500 to well over $70,000. These costly systems are
designed for creating on-air graphics in real-time and are used for
titling over newscasts, sporting events, etc. These devices are not
suited for use in an automated bulletin board system.
Some recommendations for selecting a CG are:
• Choose an external stand-alone box as opposed to a PC card
that can be plugged into a computer. Support for internal
cards is usually limited and performance depends on many
factors.
• Take a close look at how the CG is updated. Can updates be
made while on-air? Are they easy to update with a minimum
of keystrokes or mouse clicks?
• Is the CG designed for automated program output or is it a
"production device" designed to create titling over video
tape? You should avoid trying to use a production CG in an
automated environment.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 6 of 13
• Solution #3: Microsoft Power Point
This article wouldn't be complete if we didn't mention Microsoft's
PowerPoint presentation package as a solution for your bulletin
board system. Power Point is a exceptionally capable presentation
software package that has the advantage of being inexpensive.
If you use Microsoft Power Point, computer considerations should
be reviewed carefully. Before making the final decision, consider
the drawbacks of using a presentation software package as an
automated bulletin board system. Some of these are:
• Power Point was not designed to be an automated television
channel and does not have the necessary error logging to
track problems. If it quits a large, white box is displayed
letting viewers know the program is not working.
• The idea of using Power Point as an alternative is all right if
the user has the ability to manage the deficiencies in the
product for this application. This translates to a high
maintenance cost. The price of a product designed for this
application is less in the long run.
• Native file format contains all objects embedded rather than
linked. This creates huge files. If linking is used, the file
structure must be identical between the target system and
authoring system, which makes updating difficult if multiple
users are providing content.
• Embedded files do not allow sharing of content across files,
which leads to duplication of data on the hard drive, and file
management problems.
• Requires transmission of large files for small content
changes. File sizes can be several megabytes if graphics are
used, taking up a lot of memory.
• Lacks a media file database, making management of
thousands of content files nearly impossible.
• Lacks ability to automatically detect the need for file updates.
• Lacks built-in file transport, making remote site management
very difficult.
• Lacks remote site file management, leading to inefficient use
of remote file space.
Solution #4: Bulletin Board Vendors
There are a number of vendors marketing turn-key bulletin board
systems and software. This section provides information on
system design considerations.
A turn-key solution involves the purchase of an integrated
computer and software package from the vendor. You buy the
system and it arrives ready to "plug and play." Since the vendor
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 7 of 13
' supplies all the components, you have one supplier to talk to for
service and support.
Some vendors provide "software-only" solutions in addition to
turn-key systems. If you decide to purchase the components
separately, buying the software from a bulletin board vendor, and
computers from a local supplier, you might be able to save some
money. You should choose this solution only if you have the
internal expertise to install and configure the software on your
own.
Another purchase option is the hybrid purchase. This involves
buying your own computers and sending them to the vendor for
integration at their facilities. The vendor returns the system and
installs it as if it were a turn-key solution.
Some recommendations for the vendor solution are:
• Choose a vendor that knows how to work with city
governments.
• Look for an integrated product based upon a proven platform
that has the necessary support.
• Choose a complete product that has capabilities beyond what
you currently need. You'll need to know up front if the
company is continuing to develop new product features and
capabilities.
• Find out the vendor's policy regarding software upgrades.
What happens when a new version comes out?
• Evaluate the service plan. Do they offer well-defined
programs? Do they have a web site? A user group?
• Check references!
Technology Considerations
Platforms
The platform you choose sets the stage for all other decisions. In
many ways, the choice of the platform must be driven by what is
dominant in the market. This is especially important when trying
to staff your organization with trained people. Here are the three
likely choices:
• Microsoft Windows on Intel or equivalent -- the dominant
platform in the market today. Microsoft products are found in
over 90% of the computers worldwide, so finding people to
operate computers on this platform is fairly easy. Clearly, the
dominant platform is not likely to disappear anytime soon.
Microsoft's NT operating system is becoming the "system of
choice" in enterprise networks, and you will not go wrong by
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 8 of 13
building a bulletin board in a platform that integrates so
easily with your enterprise network.
• Apple Macintosh -- is undergoing a revival. In 1997 and
1998, there were times when it looked as if the company
would not survive. Apple's market share is improving but is
under 10% as of this writing. Unlike the Microsoft platform,
the operating system is closed.
• Amiga -- there was a time when the Amiga computer
marketed by Commodore was the system to beat when it
came to computerized video. After Commodore went
bankrupt, the brand-name Amiga has been bought and sold
by a number of companies. It is not clear as of this writing
whether or not the Amiga computer will continue to be
manufactured. Support, parts and service for existing Amiga
computers are increasingly difficult to find.
Computer Manufacturers
Whether you buy a turn-key system or build a component system,
you will have to evaluate the computers in the package. In the
early days of the PC, the IBM name dominated. Compaq came
along and offered a lower cost alternative. The "open architecture"
aspect of this particular platform spawned thousands of computer
retail shops that sell computers.
This picture is changing with the emergence of three dominant
computer suppliers. These are Dell, Gateway, and Compaq. Dell,
for example, has made the purchase of a computer online easy
and error-free. Dell offers a 3 year on-site next business day
warranty on the system. The capabilities of computers purchased
from these vendors is cutting edge. They continue to remain
competitive.
If you buy a turn-key system from a bulletin board vendor, ask
them if they can provide computers from one of the suppliers
listed above. If they will not or cannot, make sure you are getting
a quality system using "best of breed" technology that is backed
by a solid warranty and service plan.
Networking
Current trends are toward the use of 100 MBit networks. Most
computer cards will handle both 10 MBit and 100 MBit speeds.
Remember, you cannot mix speeds on the same network cable.
Peripheral Equipment and Other Components
Future revisions of this guide will contain information on
peripheral equipment including modulators, video cameras, digital
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 9 of 13
cameras, scan converters, frame grabbers, VCR controllers,
weather instrumentation, image scanners, monitors, and printers.
Other components consist of memory, motherboards, and power
supplies.
Scan Converters
This section describes a variety of scan converters used with
television bulletin board systems. Computer generated video
usually starts out in a VGA display format. This format must be
converted into a television video signal before it can be displayed
on a broadband television system. This is the purpose of the scan
converter. The device takes the output of the VGA computer
graphics card and converts it to an NTSC or PAL video signal.
There are several manufacturers of scan converters in a variety of
architectures. Video quality ranges from very poor to very good.
The old adage of "you get what you pay for" applies here. Terms
such as "consumer quality," "industrial video quality," and
"broadcast quality" are commonly used. There are some bargains,
however, you should not blindly use price as the only gauge of
product quality. You should evaluate the product's technical
merits along with the "staying power" of the manufacturer.
There are two basic architectures for scan converters, internal and
external. Internal devices are housed within the graphics
computer, either as a separate computer board or as part of the
VGA graphics board. External devices are separate from the
computer.
Internal -Architecture Advantages/Disadvantages
• Space efficient
• Low cost if combined with VGA card
• Not cost-effective for high performance
• Settings made by taking system off-air
• System goes down if combination converter card fails
• Fewer features available on most units
External - Architecture Advantages/Disadvantages
• High performance and full-featured units available
• Easy change out in case of failure
• Settings can be made while on-air
• More space needed
High Sampling Rate
If the image sampling rate is too slow, the scan converter will not
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 10 of 13
• faithfully reproduce the fast-changing video. This will affect how
transitions and digital video (MPEG) will be rendered. There are no
specifications for this feature and critical viewing is needed to
determine if the scan converter meets your requirements.
Color Depth
The output of the scan converter is an analog signal. High quality
units convert using 10bit, 16bit, or 24bit resolution. Anything less
will produce color or gradient artifacts on the display. This
performance can be checked by looking at a subtle color gradient.
If the gradient is rendered with obvious steps, find another scan
converter.
Refresh Rate
NTSC or PAL video has a refresh rate of 50 Hz or 60 Hz,
respectively. The scan converter must be able to produce this for
a variety of input refresh rates. While some scan converters can
handle refresh rates higher than 50 Hz or 60 Hz, it is best to
operate at these rates. Operation at different rates can cause odd
flickering or image artifacts.
Resolution
Generally computers can have resolutions as high or higher than
1024 x 760. For display purposes anything over 640 x 480 is a
waste and not necessary because televisions cannot display
resolution over 640 x 480. Therefore, you shouldn't spend a lot of
money on high resolution scan converters.
Settings Memory
Make sure that all settings are retained when the power is turned
off. Some do not do this! In fact, some early converters would not
power up again after a power loss. Also, it is convenient to be able
to change settings without running setup software. All internal
scan converters and some external converters must be taken "off-
air" so that software settings can be changed.
General Quality
Take a close look at the construction of the scan converter. Are
the connectors well-designed and reliable? Consumer-grade scan
converters look almost like toys.
Flicker Filtering
Because NTSC or PAL video is interlaced, flicker becomes a
serious problem when showing graphics that have very thin lines.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 11 of 13
This is because the scan converter will place the line in only one
field of the output video. A "flicker filter" is a digital technique
used to add blurring to sharp edges or lines. This helps eliminate
the flicker.
Some flicker filtering is absolutely necessary! More expensive scan
converters have better flicker filtering.
Video Output Settings
The ability to adjust video levels or other aspects of the video
output signal can be very important. At a minimum, you must be
able to adjust sizing and position. More expensive scan converters
provide adjustments for genlock phase, brightness, contrast, black
level, and other parameters.
Genlock
The term "genlock" refers to the ability of the scan converter to
produce video that is synchronized (genlocked) to an external
video source. This feature is necessary if you plan to switch
between your bulletin board video and a VCR. Without genlock,
you may see the picture tear or roll when the switch occurs.
Genlock, combined with a vertical-interval switcher, can eliminate
this problem. Another use for genlock is to synchronize video so
that downstream keying can be used to insert titles over video.
Keying
Some scan converters provide the ability to title over another
video source. This requires a keying capability. A "luminance key"
allows graphics video to pass when it exceeds a certain luminance
level (brightness). A "color key" allows you to define a specific
color that will allow the source video to be visible.
Manufacturers
The following list of manufacturers is, by no means, complete.
Check the vendor web sites where they exist.
AlTech International http://www.aitech.com/
TVOne Multimedia Solutions http://www.tvone.com
Extron http://www.extron.com
Communications Specialties http://www.commspecial.com
Focus Enhancements (formerly PC Video Conversion)
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 12 of 13
http://www.focusinfo.com/
Power Pixel Technologies http://www.powerpixel.com/
Magni Systems http://www.magnisystems.com/
RGB Spectrum http://www.rgb.com
Disk Storage Devices (Hard Drives)
This section describes disk storage devices and considerations for
using them with a television bulletin board system. The
performance of the hard disk is a very important element in the
overall performance of the system. Anytime you consider
purchasing a new or upgraded hard drive, you should review the
current trade literature to learn about key features and recent
technology changes.
AN-Rated Drives
Generally, best performance is obtained using an A/V-rate hard
disk. These drives are designed to deliver large quantities of data
without interruptions due to thermal recalibration. This is
especially important if your system will deliver AVI, Quicktime,
MPEG1, or MPEG2 video streams. If thermal recalibration occurs
during video playback, it can cause the video to freeze or appear
jerky.
Minimum Requirements
• Speed 4500 RPM
• Access Time 3 mS track to track, 10.5 mS read, 18 mS full
stroke
• Size 4.3 GB minimum
• Cache 128 KB minimum, 512 to 1024 KB preferred. This
cache serves as a buffer for data being transferred to and
from the drive. If the cache is too small, the video playback
may appear to freeze or skip frames. Data can be lost during
recording audio or video.
• Transfer Speed Internal Data Rate: 41 to 95 MB/sec
• Data Transfer Rate: 16.67 MB/sec
• Reliability MTBF: 400,000 hours minimum
• Interface FastATA-2, Ultra/33 Enhanced IDE, SCSI Ultra,
SCSI Ultra-Wide. These formats support the transfer of large
amounts of data with minimal interruption.
Configurations
For best results, a two drive configuration can be used. The
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Educating Yourself Before Buying Equipment Page 13 of 13
• "system" drive stores the operating system and all playback
software. A "media" drive is used to store all programming
content to be played back.
James R. Harvey is the CEO of FrameRate
,.rarneRatem
tdu lion.G a itin;din 6.fn arq
Corporation.
He is active in NATOA and the Southern California
and Nevada (SCAN) Chapter of NATOA.
Copyright 2000 © V t TJW TE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch8.htm 7/6/2007
Marketing and Promotion Page 1 of 1
Chapter 9: Marketing and Promotion Back
With a full schedule of live City Council meetings, ongoing
series, and news shows your staff will be kept busy meeting
deadlines and maintaining high production quality standards.
Due to a hectic schedule marketing and channel promotion
might be neglected. Marketing and promotion is a big part of
becoming a successful channel.
There are numerous ways a government access channel can
promote itself, some exclusive to government access channels,
others are adaptations of successful commercial advertising.
Some of theses ideas just take time and effort, while others
require a budget as well.
Marketing and promotion ideas include:
• On-Air Promotions
• Program Schedules
• Print Promotions (newsletters, banners, bus panels, flyers)
• Booths at Community Events
• Public Radio
• Networking
• Mascots and Booster Clubs
• Marketing Campaigns
Copyright 2.000 © GATVITiTuTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/ch9.htm 7/6/2007
Forming Partnerships Page 1 of 2
Chapter Ten: Forming Partnerships Back
Forming partnerships can maximize opportunities and resources,
making this option a serious consideration for a government
access channel. Rather than relying solely upon the channel's own
resources, partnerships are capable of improving the quality of
programming, saving in production costs, and increasing the
quantity of programming.
Partnerships
The idea behind forming partnerships with other government
access channels is the government access channels are not in
competition with one another. We do not compete for the same
audience, we do not serve the same viewing area, we do not •
compete for advertisers, and we do not compete for funding from
a joint pool of funding. The only area of competition may be in the
area of program awards, but fundamentally, there is no
competition.
While the outstanding accomplishments of other government
access channels are applauded, the demise of any local
government access channel is grieved. We celebrate other's
triumphs, but if one should fall, we are forced to take a strong
reflective look at our operations.
In terms of programming few would notice if several government
channels aired the same programs. There is no need for
government access channels to differentiate ourselves from each
other, we only need to differentiate ourselves from broadcast and
other cable channels. Programming that can be aired by 'a
multitude of government access channels provides everybody with
the needed programming. In this case, the programming
produced must be generic enough for all participating cities to air
it. Ideally, it would be of high quality so it enhances the look of
each channel. Our collective futures are entwined with one
another, and this becomes more evident as cities renegotiate
cable franchises and attempt to procure resources for government
access.
Public access is struggling across the country and the educational
access experience varies widely. Local origination efforts are
increasing as cable companies strive to show us that they can do
local programming better and make it a viable commercial model
as well. Government access channels face the mandate of being a
useful, relevant and valuable resource in the communities they
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/chl0.htm 7/6/2007
Forming Partnerships Page 2 of 2
' serve.
Partnerships can help us survive the onslaught of competitors.
There are several ways that partnerships are especially beneficial
to government access channels. Shared resources is the key to
government access channel partnerships. In addition,
partnerships can make government access programming more
fun. It is beneficial to interact with others and create good
programming together. The following are some partnership ideas
that have been implemented in Southern California by various
SCAN members.
• Pooled Equipment
• Pooled Labor and Resources
• Joint Programming Projects
• Partnerships with Professional Organizations
Copyright 2000 © CATViNsTiTuTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/chl0.htm 7/6/2007
Conclusion Page 1 of 1
Chapter 11 : That's a Wrap! Back
Creating a successful government access channel can be a great
challenge, yet meeting that challenge can be an exciting journey
that brings unmatched satisfaction of great achievements.
Foremost, just as television shows and genres change and
evolve, a government access channel should be flexible to the
same changes. The channel must not loose sight of the long-
term development vision. The day-to-day hustle of creating
programs and meeting deadlines can leave you with little time
for other thoughts. Evaluate your government access channel's
role in the community. Set goals with that in mind.
Look at your policies and determine if they need to be updated.
Never lose an opportunity for promotion and marketing of the
channel on an everyday basis. This will help the continued
expansion of your government access channel.
Each jurisdiction has its own individual circumstances,
limitations, and resources. To work within those parameters,
you must uncover your talents, creativity, and experience to
create a great government access channel. It is our hope that
this guidebook has given you some ideas and food for thought in
several areas of developing GATV. For many of us, creating a
government access channel has been an experience that has
provided the chance to create, build, innovate and achieve. We
hope it will be the same positive experience for you.
Copyright 2000 © GaiViNsTiTuTE All rights reserved world wide.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/chll.htm 7/6/2007
From: Mark Santos-Johnson
To: Walton, Bonnie
Date: 6/18/2007 10:37:39 AM
Subject: Re: Fwd: The CURVE-Channel 21 schedule
Hi Bonnie,
I am working with Alex& Preeti to prepare some material for the City's website to help promote the new
Curve cable Channel 21 program. Do you have a broadcast schedule that you can provide me so that I
can incorporate the information on the new webpage? Thanks.
Mark
>>>Alexander Pietsch 06/18/2007 9:44 AM >>>
can you check on that asap?
Mark... I know you haven't seen this show, but can you start working on creating the page? I'll get the DVD
back from the Mayor today and let you watch it. We'll need to work with the Clerk to find out when it will be
airing on Ch. 21.
Alex Pietsch
Administrator
Dept. of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods & Strategic Planning
City of Renton
425.430.6592 voice
425.430.7300 fax
http://rentonwa.gov
>>> Preeti Shridhar 06/18/07 9:37 AM >>>
Sure- let me know what we need to do from here.
If your department can create the page- I'll work on links from the home page and other promotion.
One thing I had noticed - it uses rentonwa.gov/curve as the web address.We'll need to check if the/curve
is possible or we keep it rentonwa.gov, click on curve. In the latter case it is a link.
Preeti
>>>Alexander Pietsch 6/18/2007 9:31 AM >>>
Preeti... if we get a distribution list to you, can you help us with this e-mail blast?Also, we need to get"the
Curve"page built. Should we do that down here, or do you and Christy want to take a run at it?
Alex Pietsch
Administrator
Dept. of Economic Development,
Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning
City of Renton
425.430.6592 voice
425.430.7300 fax
http://rentonwa.gov
>>>"Ken Saunderson" < ken a(�hamiltonsaunderson.com >06/18/07 9:26 AM >>>
Check out THE CURVE-the hot, new, must-see Renton television show. Part Alton Brown, part John
Curley, all ahead of the curve story telling. Thats The Curve! This quarters cable television show features
four lively segments: o Foodies Flock to Renton - Did you know that Renton has more restaurants per
capita than any other major city in Washington? Check out The Curve and see what's on Renton's menu.
o Dreams Take Flight in Renton - Under Rentons new Schools Superintendent Mary Alice Heuschel,
school test scores are soaring. n Brain Power Soars in Renton - Meet Valley Medical Centers Dr. David
Vossler, director and founder of the innovative and unique Washington Neuroscience Institute. o
Seahawks Forge Championship in Renton - Heres a hot Curve story: downtown Renton's Uptown
Glassworks is attracting glass artists and shoppers from throughout the Northwest. Recently, Uptown
Glassworks was the site of a creative photo shoot for a new Renton print ad that features Seattle
Seahawk President of Football Operations/General Manager Tim Ruskell and Chief Executive Officer Tod
Leiweke. Check out the Seahawks forging their winning team in Renton! The Curve dramatically shows
why Renton is the center of opportunity. Renton is hot and the proof is in the numbers:101% increase in
AV over past 10 years
-75% increase in sales tax collections over past 10 years
-40% population growth since 1990
More people moved to Renton than any King County city except Seattle (2000 to 2005)
Number of housing units increased by 20% since 2000.
Renton is the right choice- its the center of opportunity in the Puget Sound region where businesses and
families thrive. Renton's perfect for:
Companies looking for the right location. Developers looking for a hot opportunity. Employers looking to
recruit the best of the best. Families considering a new place to buy a home and educate their
children.Need Renton marketing materials? Contact us today- Renton's Department of Economic
Development, Neighborhoods &Strategic Planning at 425.430.6580. The Curve is proudly sponsored by
the Renton Community Marketing Campaign, a partnership between the City of Renton, the Renton
School District, Renton Technical College, Valley Medical Center, and Renton Chamber of Commerce.
The Curve is produced by Hamilton/Saunderson. The Curve also can be viewed at www.RentonWA.gov
And remember, always stay ahead of the curve.
©2007 The City of Renton
CC: Mathias,Angie; Pietsch,Alexander; Shridhar, Preeti
Government/Community Model Page 1 of 1
Government/Community Model
In many cities, there is limited coverage by the local media of the City's issues, interests and concerns. Even
when there is adequate coverage of these issues, there are often issues of high interest in the community that are
ignored. This could include coverage of local sports and/or high school performing arts.
The following is an example of a city in need of government programming:
The City of Santa Monica, CA, is a suburb of Los Angeles and does not have a daily paper of its own. The
majority of the local television news tends to only cover Los Angeles news. Unless there is sensationalized
murder or similar incident in Santa Monica, coverage is non-existent. To promote positive aspects of the city,
programming that supports high school sports,performances and other issues of importance would heighten city
moral. Local issues such as pedestrian safety, speed bumps, and traffic on Montana Avenue are of high
community interest but not covered by the local news. Programming that highlights these topics is the type of
programming to be presented to the city government.
Just as other channels specialize in sports, news or music videos, the community is the perfect niche for a
government access channel. In most cases, no one else is doing it, so the channel fills a void. Community
programming draws logical viewership of community members interested in community events and issues.
Community Support
The government/community model is a long term strategy in support of the channel. Over time cities have highs
and lows in respect to the economy and city budgets. During a decreasing economy or budget, cities closely
evaluate each service they are providing to the community. To preserve the long term existence of the channel,
channel managers must revue what activities draw in community and political support. If you cover community
events, community sports, school activities and local museums, you can expect the school district, college,
museums, and non-profit organizations to support the channel with letters of support and meeting attendance.
If the channel is government-only, the base of support may be limited in times of budget crises. The manager's
goal is to make the channel an integral part of both the city government and the community so that no one
would think of living without the channel.
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/links/govcomm.htm 7/9/2007
All Meetings, All the Time Page 1 of 1
All Meetings, All the Time
This type of channel is modeled after C-SPAN and primarily features live and replayed
coverage of City Council meetings. In most cities, live and replayed coverage of City
Council meetings has the highest viewership. The City of Sacramento, CA is an example
of this type of continuous coverage. This particular channel covers local City Council
meetings and School Board meetings for several jurisdictions. In most cities, live and
replayed coverage of City Council meetings is the most consistently watched program,
especially when heated debates or issues are discussed.
Live coverage can be provided through various types of media:
• In Los Angeles, CA, City Council and other meetings are available live via telephone over a service
called "Councilphone"
• In Santa Monica, CA, limited coverage of City Council meetings is provided over a local public radio
station
• In Richmond, CA, the City has its own local radio station and simulcasts the government access channel's
audio feed to provide meeting coverage
• Several cities make Council meetings available as an audio service over the Internet. For example in the
City of Torrance, CA the video and audio portion of their government access channel is available on the
Internet at http://www.ci.toirance.ca.us/city/dept/cable/cabhome.htm
http://www.gatvinstitute.org/gb/links/allmeets.htm 7/9/2007
Kirkland Television Regulations Page 1 of 3
Kirkland Government Television
The Kirkland Channels are Government Access Cable Channels granted to the City of
Kirkland. The channels exist to inform and involve citizens in government, civic and
community affairs. It is the goal of the Kirkland channels to provide a multimedia
program service for the City of Kirkland, its citizens, officials, and employees. The
channels operate 24 hours a day, Channels 21 and 75 on Comcast cable, and an
interactive website, http://www,ci.kirkland.wa.us/TV . The Kirkland channels strive to
produce compelling content that helps inform citizens about City issues, resources and
services. The channels work to help citizens get the information they need to engage in
civic dialogue, to make civic decision and participate in the life of the city.
Our programming purpose is to inform and engage Kirkland citizens in the
governmental, community and cultural affairs of Kirkland through our television
resources. We offer unedited coverage of City Council meetings and press conferences.
We will illuminate and explain public issues. We-will convene discussion and offer
analysis of local and regional issues. We will create opportunities for dialogue between
City officials and citizens, forums, debates, etc. We will inform citizens about community
and cultural opportunities. We will strive to be accurate, fair and useful.
For information regarding Cable Franchising_ and Cable_Television..._Discounts click here
Channel Objectives
The objectives of the Kirkland channels are:
• A commitment to use our facilities to foster an informed and active citizenry by
reflecting the activities of City of Kirkland government, its communities and its
culture.
• A commitment to create two-way communication between City government and its
citizens producing programming that informs, educates, enlightens and encourages
participation in government activities and decision-making.
• A commitment to encourage debate, discussion and a diversity of viewpoints on
local issues, and to disseminate and support programs and events that might not
otherwise be available to Kirkland citizens.
• A commitment to be mindful of the interests and concerns of ethnic minorities and
other special audiences. We make a concerted effort to bring the views and
interests of these groups into our programming.
• A commitment to provide information about Kirkland City government and to serve
as a forum for on-going dialogue on issues pertaining to public policy, City
government services and programs.
Channel Policies
a. Meetings of the City Council shall not be edited for content nor subjected to
editorial comment. Coverage shall be provided whenever possible.
b. In rare instances, primarily related to intense public interest in a special topic, the
MultiMedia Communications Manager, in his or her discretion may rebroadcast a
segment of a meeting or public hearing previously shown in its entirety. In that
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page669.htm 7/6/2007
Kirkland Television Regulations Page 2 of 3
event, the entire segment on that particular issue shall be cablecast unedited.
c. The channel is not intended as a mechanism for building support for a particular
ballot issue or candidate for public office. This provision does not preclude the cable
casting of non-partisan programs sponsored by a neutral third party designed to
inform the citizens of election issues and candidates.
d. In any programming concerning subjects that may be interpreted to be materially
controversial, the channel will maintain a position of neutrality, providing unbiased
information. Requests for presentation of an opposing viewpoint during a legislative
meeting will be directed to the appropriate agency for action on their agenda.
e. There will be no discrimination in the delivery of its services on the basis of race,
color, creed, national origination, sex, sexual orientation or physical ability.
f. The channel will not cablecast any programming that exposes or promotes any
particular religious group or belief.
g. To maximize resources, Kirkland Government Access Channels will seek out high
quality pre-produced programming that addresses the needs and interests of the
citizens of Kirkland and that meets the priorities spelled out in this document.
Programming Priorities
1. Emergency information involving the safety and health of the city; In the event of
an emergency, KGOV Channel 21 will be available as needed and emergency
information shall have priority over all programming. KGOV will work with the
Emergency Services to coordinate the use and programming of the channel during
emergencies;
2. Public proceedings and meetings involving officials of the City of Kirkland;
3. Programs that explain policies and programs of the City of Kirkland or that solicit
citizen input on these policies and programs;
4. Issues of significance that are being addressed at the neighborhood or community
level;
5. Public meetings of other government agencies and programs about public policy
issues that are relevant to local government or affect Kirkland citizens;
6. Programs that feature cultural and historic aspects of the city and its citizens and
other programs of general interest to the citizens of Kirkland; and
7. Public service announcements.
Elections
Candidates for election or re-election to a publicly held office shall not be provided
access to Kirkland channels or its facilities prior to the election for that office, except in
the normal course of their official duties. Candidates may appear on the Kirkland
channel in political candidate forums and video voter guides in which all candidates have
equal opportunity to participate.
Copyrights and other Restrictions
Programs containing copyrighted materials will be used only if copyright clearance has
been obtained. The ownership and copyright for any program produced by the City shall
be held by the City.
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page669.htm 7/6/2007
Kirkland Television Regulations Page 3 of 3
Programs that meet the legal definition of obscenity, salacious, or which are defamatory
are prohibited. Any material which violates federal, state or local law is also prohibited.
DVDs of public meetings are not the official public record and there shall be no liability
for inadvertent erasures or omissions.
Tapes and DVDs are reused in the normal course of business. Timely requests for copies
of public meetings will be accommodated by copying available programs at a reasonable
fee to cover our cost. Request is made in writing via the City Clerk's Office.
Tape Retention and Duplication
Videotapes of public meetings are not the official public records, and there shall be no
liability for inadvertent erasures or omissions. Tapes are re-used in the normal course of
business. Timely requests for copies of public meetings will be accommodated by
copying available programs at a reasonable fee to cover costs. Copies are provided in a
DVD format.
Management and Complaints
The Channels are part of the Information Technology Department and are managed by
the MultiMedia Communications Manager. The Channels have independence in
programming decisions and shall not be subjected to editorial control beyond the
guidance provided by this document. Programming and scheduling decisions will be non-
partisan, equitable, and determined on content. The MultiMedia Communications
Manager is responsible for the production, acquisition, scheduling and cable casting of
programs and production facilities that create programs. The MultiMedia
Communications Manager executes policy, establishes procedures and determines
programming for the Government Television Channels.
• Cable Franchise & Discounts
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page669.htm 7/6/2007
Currently Kirkland Page 1 of 1
current lYI .Currently Kirkland I
.. ...J
currently-kirkland is a bi-weekly news and information program aired on KGOV
Channel 21 and KLife Channel 75.
City Manager David Ramsay suggested currently-kirkland as an effective way to
quickly inform the public of upcoming City programs, forums, public meetings, news and
events.
Residents will learn more about City activities, when and where they will occur, and gain
a basic understanding of what they are about. They will be notified of breaking news
items such as traffic revisions and public safety updates. currently-kirkland will
provide information regarding the status of ongoing City programs and development
activity.
Current Program:
Community Building Project - City Volunteers, Economic Development, Lakeview Walk,
Business Recycling and more.
g �` , 4 .,:-�� __,f 9 :-, '' Easy access to the programming that you are interested
°I ,‘1 'a?C=3 Li--- t4 1'13 N a- in. View new and archived programs and meetings from
- li
City flP Kirkland Video Library the convenience of your desktop.
Windows Media Player version 9.0 or higher
is required
Ai windows to view this content. Windows Media Player
k - Media Player is available
at no charge for Mac or PC users at the
i Microsoft site.
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page314.htm 7/6/2007
K-Life Channel 75 Community Message Display Page 1 of 2
What is the Community Messaging?
The City of Kirkland offers community messaging on Cable Channel 75, K- 'life
Life as a free public service to promote communication among public, CHANNEL 75
educational and governmental sources. Cable channel 75 is available to
homes within the city limits of Kirkland that subscribe to basic cable from Comcast. So,
if you have information or an invitation you would like to send to the Kirkland
Community use the Community Calendar Message Display.
Examples: Holiday Bizarre South Rose Hill
Neighborhood Picnic
Gifts and Treats for the
Choosing Saturday, July 1, 2006
Saturday, November 5, 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
2006 South Rose Hill Park
1:00 p,m. - 5:00 p.m.
123 Anywhere Avenue, 12730 N.E. 72nd Street
Kirkland Admission is Free
Admission is Free
Messages are displayed throughout the day, 7 days per week during all non-program
(taped or live) playback hours.
Instructions to submit your message for display on channel 75.
la. Complete a Message...._Display..._Request.._Form. and submit to K-Life Channel 75 a
minimum of 5 working days prior to the first requested display date.
lb. You may also download the form, fill in the necessary information and mail it to:
K-Life Channel 75, c/o MultiMedia Communications Manager, City of Kirkland, 123 Fifth
Avenue, Kirkland, WA 98033. A contact name and telephone number is required.
2. Messages may be edited by the Station Manager to maximize the impact, clarity and
efficiency of the message.
3. Event messages should indicate whether they are free or if there is an admission
charge. Fees will not be listed so it is important to include an information telephone
number.
Rules for message postings
1. In order to maximize the use of the Message Board for messages of broad public
interest, regular community group and religious service schedules will not be
announced.
2. Advertisements on behalf of a political candidate or measure of a ballot are
prohibited. Note: this does not preclude the production by the Kirkland City Channel of
programming which includes the opportunity for all candidates for a particular elective
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page1557.htm 7/6/2007
K-Life Channel 75 Community Message Display Page 2 of 2
post or proponents of all sides of an issue to appear in a fair and equitable fashion.
3. Advertisements including specific messages on behalf of or opposing any measure
under consideration by the Kirkland City Council is prohibited.
4. Promotional material concerning products or services presented for the purpose of
any solicitation of funds or items of value by anyone other than government or non-
profit groups is prohibited.
5. Material which constitutes libel, slander, pornography, violation of trademark or
copyright, or which might violate any local, state, or federal laws, including FCC
regulations is prohibited.
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page1557.htm 7/6/2007
KGOV TV Broadcast Schedule Page 1 of 3
as Watch KGOV Live!
Wednesday
5:30am Public Safety Spotlight 1
6:30am Currently Kirkland
7:00am Inside Transportation
7:30am Sound Transit In Motion
8:00am Sound Transit Board Meeting
12:00pm Kirkland City Council Meeting Replay -
1st and 3rd week
5:00pm Special Feature 2
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:30pm Legislative Update - when in session
8:00pm Lecture Series
10:30pm Currently Kirkland
Thursday
12:00am Special Feature 4
6:30am Currently Kirkland
7:00am Perils For Pedestrians
8:00am Kirkland City Council Meeting Replay -
1st and 3rd week
3:00pm Special Feature 1
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:30pm Legislative Update - when in session
8:00pm Kirkland in Focus
9:30pm Fire Safety 1
10:30pm Currently Kirkland
11:00pm Public Safety Spotlight 1
Friday
5:30am Public Safety Spotlight 1
6:30am Currently Kirkland
7:00am Inside Transportation
7:30am Sound Transit In Motion
8:00am Sound Transit Board Meeting
12:00pm Kirkland City Council Meeting Replay -
1st and 3rd week
5:00pm Special Feature 2
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:30pm Legislative Update - when in session
8:00pm Lecture Series
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page302.htm 7/6/2007
KGOV TV Broadcast Schedule Page 2 of 3
10:30pm Currently Kirkland
'Saturday
12:00am Special Feature 1
6:30am Currently Kirkland
9:00am Spotlight on Environmental Health
10:00am Project Impact
11:00am Special Feature 4
3:00pm Lecture Series
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:00pm Kirkland City Council Meeting Replay -
1st and 3rd week
Sunday
5:30am Public Safety Spotlight 1
6:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Special Feature 4
12:00pm Kirkland City Council Meeting Replay -
1st and 3rd week
5:00pm Special Feature 2
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:30pm Legislative Update - when in session
8:00pm Inside Transportation
8:30pm Sound Transit In Motion
9:00pm Sound Transit Board Meeting
Monday,
6:30am Currently Kirkland
7:00am Perils For Pedestrians
9:00am Spotlight on Environmental Health
10:00am Project Impact
11:30am Public Safety Spotlight 1
1:00pm Perils For Pedestrians
5:00pm Special Feature 2
6:30pm Currently Kirkland
7:30pm Legislative Update - when in session
8:00pm Kirkland in Focus
9:30pm Fire Safety 1
10:30pm Currently Kirkland
11:00pm Public Safety Spotlight 1
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page302.htm 7/6/2007
KGOV TV Broadcast Schedule Page 3 of 3
12:00am Special Feature 1
5:30am Public Safety Spotlight 1
9:00am Project Impact
10:00am Spotlight on Environmental Health
11:00am Special Feature 4
3:00pm Lecture Series
6:00pm Kirkland City Council Meeting Live - 1st
and 3rd Tuesday
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page302.htm 7/6/2007
KLife TV Guide Page 1 of 4
Watch KLife Live!
Wednesday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
1:00am Arts &Artists 1
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Education News Parents Can Use
9:00am Health & Safety 50+
10:00am Words That Cook
11:00am Health Issues
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Arts &Artists 1
2:00pm Wild About Washington
4:00pm Senior Council Spotlight
6:30pm Redmond Presents
7:00pm Bellevue Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm History
9:00pm Fire Safety 2
10:00pm We've Got Issues
11:30pm Public Safety 2 •
Thursday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
12:30am We've Got Issues
6:00am Arts &Artists 2
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Words That Cook
9:00am Senior Council Spotlight
10:00am Education News Parents Can Use
11:00am Public Safety 2
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Special Feature 4
4:00pm Health &Safety 50+
6:00pm Arts &Artists 2
6:30pm Bellevue Presents
7:00pm Redmond Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm Special Feature 3
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page304.htm 7/6/2007
KLife TV Guide Page 2 of 4
9:00pm Special Feature 4
Friday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
1:00am Arts &Artists 1
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Education News Parents Can Use
9:00am Health & Safety 50+
10:00am Words That Cook
11:00am Health Issues
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Arts &Artists 1
2:00pm Wild About Washington
4:00pm Senior Council Spotlight
6:30pm Redmond Presents
7:00pm Bellevue Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm History
9:00pm Fire Safety 2
10:00pm We've Got Issues
11:30pm Public Safety 2
Saturday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
12:30am We've Got Issues
6:00am Arts &Artists 2
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Words That Cook
9:00am Senior Council Spotlight
10:00am Education News Parents Can Use
11:00am Public Safety 2
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Special Feature 4
4:00pm Health &Safety 50+
6:00pm Arts &Artists 2
6:30pm Bellevue Presents
7:00pm Redmond Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm Special Feature 3
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page304.htm 7/6/2007
KLife TV Guide Page 3 of 4
10:00pm We've Got Issues
Sunday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
1:00am Arts &Artists 1
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Education News Parents Can Use
9:00am Health &Safety 50+
10:00am Words That Cook
11:00am Health Issues
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Arts &Artists 1
2:00pm Wild About Washington
4:00pm Senior Council Spotlight
6:30pm Redmond Presents
7:00pm Bellevue Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm History
9:00pm Fire Safety 2
10:00pm We've Got Issues
11:30pm Public Safety 2
Monday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
6:00am Arts &Artists 2
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Education News Parents Can Use
9:00am Health &Safety 50+
10:00am Words That Cook
11:00am Public Safety 2
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
2:00pm Wild About Washington
4:00pm Senior Council Spotlight
6:00pm Arts &Artists 2
6:30pm Redmond Presents
7:00pm Bellevue Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
9:00pm Fire Safety 2
We've Got Issues
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page304.htm 7/6/2007
KLife TV Guide Page 4 of 4
10:00pm
Tuesday
12:00am Currently Kirkland
12:30am We've Got Issues
7:30am Currently Kirkland
8:00am Words That Cook
9:00am Senior Council Spotlight
10:00am Education News Parents Can Use
11:00am Health Issues
12:00pm Currently Kirkland
1:00pm Arts &Artists 1
4:00pm Health &Safety 50+
6:30pm Bellevue Presents
7:00pm Redmond Presents
7:30pm Currently Kirkland
8:00pm Special Feature 3
9:00pm Special Feature 4
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/ shared/printpages/page304.htm 7/6/2007
Kirkland TV Programming Page 1 of 2
Ortll� lk Z1 ,, Currently Kirkland I
4,. r,._
' ` fl • -
,
Legislative Update
3
"` ` ' Kirkland
4 City Council
":
4 ,m I :We've Got Issues
�K�, ;tp _v_-:,--.. - - . .�. .;__._ _
~ Kirkland In Dacus ��
` } Magazine.
OU " , Sound Transit. ,
RIDE THE On.,the fVlove`
Perils for
_ 1 'I
Pedestrians
z
`3 / Project impact ,
4f1' ,
II. , i , t ri'1, Wild About[; ,
Washington 1
jj
ii .� Public Safely
• . Special Features
Easy and direct access to the Kirkland programming that
- ,=;,<`-�,:} . _.-..." �, you are interested in.
a'i P O6RAMN4 Nt
r,, tidy of Kirkland Video Library View new and archived programs and meetings from the
convenience of your desktop!
j. Windows Media Player version 9.0 or higher
t. is required
°- Windows do view this content. Windows Media Player
::!_ Media Player is available
at no charge for Mac or PC users at the
i, Microsoft site.
• Currently Kirkland
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page313.htm 7/6/2007
Kirkland TV Programming Page 2 of 2
. Legislative Update
. Kirkland City Council
. We've Got Issues
. Kirkland In Focus
. On the Move
. Public Safety
. Project Impact
. Wild Abo ut.,.Washington
. Perils for Pedestrians
http://www.ci.kirkland.wa.us/_shared/printpages/page313.htm 7/6/2007
4,
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 316 760 500 700 40.00%
Operating Supplies 5310200 30 0 0 0 0.00%
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 5350100 0 625 0 0 0.00%
Office Furniture&Equipment 5350200 1,005 309 350 0 0.00%
Total for Supplies: 1,351 1,694 850 700 -17.64%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 0 0 2,500 0 0.00%
Communication 5420100 1,067 504 935 800 -14.43%
Postage 5420200 9 2 0 0 0.00%
Travel and Subsistance 5430100 162 513 900 800 -11.11 %
Advertising 5440100 426 346 440 600 36.36%
Interfund Rental-IT Oper Chrg 5459101 12,265 11,981 11,981 18,928 57.98%
Interfund Rental-IT Repl Chrg 5459102 1,912 1,936 1,936 1,702 -12.08%
Intrnd Rental-Telecom Oper Ch 5459401 640 917 917 1,019 11.12%
Interfund Rental-Copier Charge 5459701 0 238 500 450 -10.00%
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 352 100 200 200 0.00%
Miscellaneous 5490100 0 154 100 100 0.00%
Training 5490200 1,085 1,342 1,867 2,200 17.83%
Dues and Memberships 5490300 745 855 880 1,030 17.04%
Printing 5490400 261 117 200 200 0.00%
Total for Other Services and Charges: 18,924 19,005 23,356 28,029 20.00%
Intergovernmental/Interfund
Intergov'I Professional Svc 5510100 6,259 4,312 4,250 4,500 5.88%
Total for Intergovernmental/Interfund: 6,259 4,312 4,250 4,500 5.88%
Total for Capital Outlay: 0 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Purchasing Services 315,025 319,051 336,268 358,226 6.52%
(0104411840):
Total for Financial Services: 1,420,150 1,554,789 1,569,262 1,651,252 5.22%
Division: City Clerk
Key: Records(0104511430)
Salaries&Wages
Regular Salaries&Wages 5100100 165,550 303,843 292,644 309,676 5.82%
Hourly Wages 5100200 1,915 0 1,829 10,926 497.37%
Overtime Pay 5100300 201 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Salaries&Wages: 167,666 303,843 294,473 320,602 8.87%
Benefits
Budgeted Benefits-Salaried 5200100 0 27,079 104,423 121,420 16.27%
Budgeted Benefits-Hourly 5200200 0 0 226 1,740 669.91%
h
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Employee Pensions 5201000 2,320 4,637 0 0 0.00%
MEBT 5201500 8,919 11,497 0 0 0.00%
Industrial Insurance 5202100 1,238 1,755 0 0 0.00%
Medicare Contributions 5202300 1,837 3,051 0 0 0.00%
Medical Insurance 5203100 20,347 32,835 0 0 0.00%
Dental Insurance 5203200 3,040 4,771 0 0 0.00%
Vision Care 5203300 807 1,056 0 0 0.00%
Life Insurance 5203400 691 984 0 0 0.00%
Pension and Disability Pay 5290100 2,073 2,895 0 0 0.00%
Total for Benefits: 41,272 90,560 104,649 123,160 17.68%
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 2,668 5,269 6,300 6,000 -4.76%
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 5350100 0 272 0 0 0.00%
Office Furniture&Equipment 5350200 7,985 901 0 1,400 0.00%
Computer Hardware-non capita 5350300 4,450 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Supplies: 15,103 6,442 6,300 7,400 17.46%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 69,103 161,942 168,300 193,000 14.67%
Legal Services 5410200 20 0 400 400 0.00%
Communication 5420100 1,398 1,538 3,379 1,200 -64.48%
Postage 5420200 0 7 0 0 0.00%
Travel and Subsistance 5430100 2,476 3,851 4,650 5,500 18.27%
Advertising 5440100 12,465 29,404 21,000 30,000 42.85%
Operating Rentals&Leases 5450100 179 0 0 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Oper Chrg 5459101 12,072 24,531 24,532 28,391 15.73%
Interfund Rental-IT Repl Chrg 5459102 3,886 8,171 8,171 5,018 -38.58%
Intrnd Rental-Telecom Oper Ch 5459401 515 1,413 1,413 1,527 8.06%
Interfund Rental-Copier Charge 5459701 0 6,182 8,400 10,400 23.80%
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 7,458 4,374 7,700 7,850 1.94%
Miscellaneous 5490100 95 1,086 0 0 0.00%
Training 5490200 1,145 2,956 3,150 4,100 30.15%
Dues and Memberships 5490300 465 1,120 1,600 1,200 -25.00%
Printing 5490400 10,162 9,875 12,500 10,000 -20.00%
Software(All Purchases) 5490500 243 669 0 0 0.00%
Total for Other Services and Charges: 121,682 257,119 265,195 298,586 12.59%
Intergovernmental/Interfund
Intergov'I Professional Svc 5510100 69,192 187,213 227,125 247,245 8.85%
Total for Intergovernmental/Interfund: 69,192 187,213 227,125 247,245 8.85%
Total for Capital Outlay: 0 0 0 0 0.00%
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Total for Records(0104511430): 414,915 845,177 897,742 996,993 11.05%
Key: Mail Services(0104511891)
Salaries&Wages
Regular Salaries&Wages 5100100 23,409 62,930 58,333 70,909 21.55%
Hourly Wages 5100200 5,819 5,998 2,486 7,284 193.00%
Terminal Vacation Pay 5100900 751 0 0 0 0.00%
Wage Reimbursements 5102000 0 -20 0 0 0.00%
Total for Salaries&Wages: 29,979 68,908 60,819 78,193 28.56%
Benefits
Budgeted Benefits-Salaried 5200100 0 7,625 28,258 34,704 22.81 %
Budgeted Benefits-Hourly 5200200 0 227 340 1,159 240.88%
Employee Pensions 5201000 324 971 0 0 0.00%
MEBT 5201500 1,514 2,467 0 0 0.00%
Industrial Insurance 5202100 355 624 0 0 0.00%
Medicare Contributions 5202300 436 744 0 0 0.00%
Medical Insurance 5203100 2,824 5,509 0 0 0.00%
Dental Insurance 5203200 419 839 0 0 0.00%
Vision Care 5203300 25 0 0 0 0.00%
Life Insurance 5203400 70 194 0 0 0.00%
Pension and Disability Pay 5290100 344 694 0 0 0.00%
Total for Benefits: 6,311 19,894 28,598 35,863 25.40%
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 320 358 1,000 1,000 0.00%
Operating Supplies 5310200 175 956 5,050 5,800 14.85%
Total for Supplies: 495 1,314 6,050 6,800 12.39%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 1,024 0 0 0 0.00%
Communication 5420100 202 -184 430 0 0.00%
Postage 5420200 68,358 139,075 139,000 0 0.00%
Travel and Subsistance 5430100 0 0 100 450 350.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Oper Chrg 5459101 2,820 5,673 5,673 10,955 93.10%
Interfund Rental-IT Repl Chrg 5459102 541 968 968 684 -29.33%
Intrfnd Rental-Fleet Oper Chrg 5459201 1,920 4,260 4,260 5,520 29.57%
Intrfnd Rental-Fleet Repl Chrg 5459202 1,980 3,960 3,960 5,280 33.33%
Intrnd Rental-Telecom Oper Ch 5459401 29 459 459 509 10.89%
Interfund Rental-Copier Charge 5459701 0 13 0 0 0.00%
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 1,549 3,605 3,900 4,250 8.97%
Training 5490200 0 125 250 600 140.00%
Software(All Purchases) 5490500 0 0 0 500 0.00%
h
i
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Total for Other Services and Charges: 78,423 157,954 159,000 28,748 -81.91%
Total for Mail Services (0104511891): 115,208 248,070 254,467 149,604 -41.20%
Key: MultiMedia Services(0104511892)
Salaries&Wages
Regular Salaries&Wages 5100100 156,237 196,059 195,621 0 0.00%
Hourly Wages 5100200 3,823 10,886 11,000 0 0.00%
Overtime Pay 5100300 2,133 165 2,065 0 0.00%
Wage Reimbursements 5102000 -5,100 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Salaries&Wages: 157,093 207,110 208,686 0 0.00%
Benefits
Budgeted Benefits-Salaried 5200100 0 0 56,604 0 0.00%
Budgeted Benefits-Hourly 5200200 0 0 1,463 0 0.00%
Employee Pensions 5201000 2,260 3,899 0 0 0.00%
MEBT 5201500 8,702 11,522 0 0 0.00%
Industrial Insurance 5202100 1,095 2,031 0 0 0.00%
Medicare Contributions 5202300 1,757 1,969 0 0 0.00%
Medical Insurance 5203100 20,580 27,529 0 0 0.00%
Dental Insurance 5203200 3,237 3,965 0 0 0.00%
Vision Care 5203300 672 749 0 0 0.00%
Life Insurance 5203400 637 778 0 0 0.00%
Employee Transportation Prog 5204700 -60 0 0 0 0.00%
Pension and Disability Pay 5290100 1,951 2,294 0 0 0.00%
Total for Benefits: 40,831 54,736 58,067 0 0.00%
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 1,926 1,061 1,800 0 0.00%
Operating Supplies 5310200 5,786 7,434 4,000 0 0.00%
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 5350100 0 0 2,500 0 0.00%
Office Furniture&Equipment 5350200 109 495 0 0 0.00%
Computer Hardware-non capita 5350300 5,203 649 3,800 0 0.00%
Total for Supplies: 13,024 9,639 12,100 0 0.00%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 91,634 96,582 43,200 0 0.00
Communication 5420100 405 128 435 0 0.00%
Postage 5420200 0 18 0 0 0.00%
Travel and Subsistance 5430100 973 0 1,950 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Oper Chrg 5459101 10,238 16,538 16,538 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Repl Chrg 5459102 4,397 4,962 4,962 0 0.00%
Intrnd Rental-Telecom Oper Ch 5459401 630 865 865 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-Copier Charge 5459701 0 2,765 300 0 0.00%
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 5,346 17,086 20,950 0 0.00%
Training 5490200 2,882 845 2,365 0 0.00%
Dues and Memberships 5490300 0 890 1,200 0 0.00%
Printing 5490400 174 161 1,100 0 0.00%
Software(All Purchases) 5490500. 1,666 526 3,000 0 0.00%
Total for Other Services and Charges: 118,345 141,366 96,865 0 0.00%
Total for MultiMedia Services 329,293 412,851 375,718 0 0.00%
(0104511892):
Total for City Clerk: 859,416 1,506,098 1,527,927 1,146,597 -24.95%
Division: Human Resources
Key: Human Resources(0104611620)
Salaries&Wages
Regular Salaries&Wages 5100100 311,824 0 0 0 0.00%
Hourly Wages 5100200 40,566 0 0 0 0.00%
Overtime Pay 5100300 217 0 0 0 0.00%
Terminal Vacation Pay 5100900 2,054 0 0 0 0.00%
Wage Reimbursements 5102000 -10 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Salaries &Wages: 354,651 0 0 0 0.00%
' _ Benefits
Employee Pensions 5201000 4,338 0 0 0 0.00%
MEBT 5201500 18,062 0 0 0 0.00%
Industrial Insurance 5202100 1,879 0 0 0 0.00%
Unemployment Compensation 5202200 93 0 0 0 0.00%
Medicare Contributions 5202300 5,202 0 0 0 0.00%
Medical Insurance 5203100 32,156 0 0 0 0.00%
Dental Insurance 5203200 4,788 0 0 0 0.00%
Vision Care 5203300 942 0 0 0 0.00%
Life Insurance 5203400 1,243 0 0 0 0.00%
Pension and Disability Pay 5290100 3,303 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Benefits: 72,006 0 0 0 0.00%
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 2,617 0 0 0 0.00%
Operating Supplies 5310200 20,139 0 0 0 0.00%
Medical Supplies 5310300 1,257 0 0 0 0.00%
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 5350100 1,806 0 0 0 0.00%
Total for Supplies: 25,819 0 0 0 0.00%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 75,915 0 0 0 0.00%
- Communication 5420100 2,326 0 0 0 0.00%
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
• Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Advertising 5440100 1,879 2,127 2,400 2,400 0.00%
Intrfnd Rental-Fleet Oper Chrg 5459201 4,500 2,460 2,460 2,700 9.75%
Intrfnd Rental-Fleet Repl Chrg 5459202 • 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 0.00%
Intrnd Rental-Radio Oper Chrg 5459301 1,000 1,070 1,070 1,120 4.67%
Intrfnd Rental-Facil Oper Chrg 5459501 0 0 0 114,552 0.00%
Insurance 5460100 22,403 29,856 30,609 32,589 6.46%
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 557,148 1,026,746 992,267 1,566,230 57.84%
Miscellaneous 5490100 51 0 0 0 0.00%
Training 5490200 21,566 65,850 65,850 59,700 -9.33%
Dues and Memberships 5490300 737 5,700 1,170 5,650 382.90%
Printing 5490400 270 231 300 480 60.00%
Software(All Purchases) 5490500 257,676 297,072 297,072 257,072 -13.46%
Total for Other Services and Charges: 1,126,163 1,859,315 1,819,308 2,359,320 29.68%
Intergovernmental/Interfund
Operating Transfer Out 5550100 37,500 94,964 94,964 333,500 251.18%
Total for Intergovernmental/Interfund: 37,500 94,964 94,964 333,500 251.18%
Capital Outlay • .
Office Furniture and Equipment 5646402 0 59,775 63,506 72,226 13.73%
Total for Capital Outlay: 0 59,775 63,506 72,226 13.73%
Reserves
Operating Reserve 5990100 0 0 223,500 366,031 63.77%
Replacement Reserve 5990300 0 0 1,441,403 1,120,170 -22.28%
Working Capital 5990400 0 0 222,535 201,715 -9.35%
COLA Reserve 5990500 0 41,654 41,654 270,000 548.19%
Total for Reserves: 0 41,654 1,929,092 1,957,916 1.49%
Total for Information Technology 4,115,730 5,747,170 7,969,881 8,951,376 12.31%
(5226101880):
Key: MultiMedia Services(5226101892)
Salaries&Wages
Regular Salaries&Wages 5100100 0 199,388 202,889 455,251 124.38%
Hourly Wages 5100200 0 13,416 15,153 80,806 433.26%
Overtime Pay 5100300 0 236 2,065 2,000 -3.14%
Total for Salaries&Wages: 0 213,040 220,107 538,057 144.45%
Benefits
Budgeted Benefits-Salaried 5200100 0 32,699 62,824 161,598 157.22%
Budgeted Benefits-Hourly 5200200 0 788 2,207 22,129 902.67%
Employee Pensions 5201000 0 2,556 0 0 0.00%
MEBT 5201500 0 6,148 0 0 0.00%
City of Kirkland
2007-08 Budget
Expenditures
2003-04 2005-06 2005-06 2007-08 Percent
Actual Estimate Budget Budget Change
Industrial Insurance 5202100 0 1,022 0 0 0.00%
Medicare Contributions 5202300 0 927 0 0 0.00%
Medical Insurance 5203100 0 14,758 0 0 0.00%
Dental Insurance 5203200 0 2,494 0 0 0.00%
Vision Care 5203300 0 370 0 0 0.00%
Life Insurance 5203400 0 433 0 0 0.00%
Pension and Disability Pay 5290100 0 1,256 0 0 0.00%
Total for Benefits: 0 63,451 65,031 183,727 182.52%
Supplies
Office Supplies 5310100 0 3,508 1,800 3,800 111.11 %
Operating Supplies 5310200 0 6,957 4,000 14,721 268.02%
Small Tools&Minor Equipment 5350100 0 1,198 2,500 5,000 100.00%
Office Furniture&Equipment 5350200 0 590 0 804 0.00%
Computer Hardware-non capita 5350300 0 1,014 2,000 7,000 250.00%
Total for Supplies: 0 13,267 10,300 31,325 204.12%
Other Services and Charges
Professional Services 5410100 0 66,884 69,700 53,988 -22.54%
Communication 5420100 0 12 416 832 100.00%
Postage 5420200 0 168 0 300 0.00% ,
Travel and Subsistance 5430100 0 1,787 1,950 5,600 187.17%
Advertising 5440100 0 1,000 0 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Oper Chrg 5459101 0 17,974 17,974 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-IT Repl Chrg 5459102 0 5,380 5,379 0 0.00%
Intrnd Rental-Telecom Oper Ch 5459401 0 930 930 0 0.00%
Interfund Rental-Copier Charge 5459701 0 2,601 0 0 0.00%
Insurance 5460.100 0 0 0 6,835 0.00%
Repairs and Maintenance 5480100 0 21,950 21,950 45,500 107.28%
Training 5490200 0 2,088 2,365 6,800 187.52%
Dues and Memberships 5490300 0 1,200 1,200 2,700 125.00%
Printing 5490400 0 1,086 1,100 4,000 263.63%
Software(All Purchases) 5490500 0 2,788 3,000 10,000 233.33%
Total for Other Services and Charges: 0 125,848 125,964 136,555 8.40%
Total for MultiMedia Services 0 415,606 421,402 889,664 111.12%
(5226101892):
Total for Information Technology: 4,115,730 6,162,776 8,391,283 9,841,040 17.27%
Total for Information Technology: 4,115,730 6,162,776 8,391,283 9,841,040 17.27%
Total for Information Technology: 4,115,730 6,162,776 8,391,283 9,841,040 17.27%
