Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-90-0613r s qli 07/26/90 HHSOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION HXPRESSM; THE CITY OF MIAMI' S OPPOSITION TO OAb2 COUM ORDINANCE NO. 90-73 AN IT RELATES TO DIVISION Or CABLE THLNVISION LICENSE FENS 139"192M THE COUNTY AND ,. MUNICIPALITIES; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS "SOLUTION TO THE: BOARD Or COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Or DADE �- COUNnt' FLORIDK. , WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners of Dade County, Florida, adopted Ordinance No. 90-73, known as the Dade County 1990 Cable T.V. Ordinance, to provide uniform and more effective control in regulating cable television within Dade County; and .i' WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 90-73 requires each cable licensee in incorporated areas to pay Dade County two percent (2%) of its g gross revenues on a quarterly basis; and 1 ! WHEREAS, the City of Miami maintains a cable communications office for the purpose of regulatory oversight and ensuring t compliance by its cable licensee with the terms and conditions of City of Miami Cable Television License Ordinance No, 9332, t adopted on November 19, 1981; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami and Dade County have a prior t: i agreement wherein the City of Miami receives four percent (0) of license fee revenues to compensate for the costs of regulatory r; oversight and Dade County receives one percent (1%) of the license fee revenues to be utilized for public access programming costs; and WHEREAS, Dade County Ordinance No. 90-73 requires that a two percent (2%) license fee be paid to Dade County from {cable licensees in the incorporated areas of the County pursuant to m license granted after the enactment of said Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City of Miami will continue to perform regulatory functions in connection with its cable licensee in the City of Miami and is therefore opposed to the license fee division as provided in Ordinance No. 90-73; a" WNW i s s' JUL 20�^ 9 .lam 3 �; s a �x r ny�+ copy of this Resolution to the Board of County Commissioners of iM at,r Dade County, Florida. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective Z } immediately upon`its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTN SS: { e�Y+ GE L. FE DEZ A CI Y ATTQRNE CI TA` 1 hpk;. AQJ:bf:M1683 �w s S 4 a P<. 2 _ s 4 (4ilu 4ataInAt ^-W Pr s/{1 �, i'7lRAI ity Mf,l {.M C* Clerk t t At2tjust 24, 1990 1 l a {{ ' Mr. Ray Reed Clerk of.the 'Board of County Commissioners y suite 210* Metro Dade Center M ill N.W. lot Street -j Miami, PL 33128-1974 , RE, BADE COUNTY ORDINANCE 90-73 RE: DIVISION OF CABLE TELEVISION { _} -; LICENSE FEES Dear Mr. Reed: Enclosed he please find a copy of Resolutions No 90-613, the City of Miami Commission at wr'ich was passed and held on adopted by July 261? 1990, which is self-explanatory. its meeting Please distribute one copy of said Resolution to the members of - the County Commission. J —i Thank you for your continued cooperation. If you have any questions, please do.not hesitate to call. V truly yours, T HIRAI City Clerk — MHsvg Enc. a/s I j -i l t` OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK/City Hall/m Pan American Drive/P.O,Sox 33070e/Mlami, Florida 33233 OOV(M) V94063 ry ra CAM T-V PNOPOSED COUNTY ORDINANCE 1990 The proposed Dade County Ordinance would change the Cities -County split of the 5% franchise fee (maximum allowed) assessed to cable companies. Most cities In Dade receive 3SP while the County receives 2%. City of Miami receives 45 County 1%, negotiated with and agreed to by, the County. FINANCIAL IMPACT ON CITY OF MIAMI: 1% = $1379500-00 TC1 (Miami's cable company) agreement expires in 1996. At that, time, under,'the proposed Ordinanoeq the 45 City - 1%* County -split. would change to 3% County 2% City. This 'would- mean -.a $2750000.00 1038 to the City. The'expiration date could change earlier it, for whatever re asonf* the'TCI agreement would be reissued, or If another company would` be authorized to also provide cable t-v. ' Proposed County Ordinance passed first reading July 99 199o, v by- 2Commissioners with three m sioners absent., VOTING FOR VOTING AGAINST ABSENT 'Carey Clark Ruvin' :0003ten Dus3eau Schreiber Hawkins Va ldez Winn Ref erred to Internal ftnagement/Tourism Committee chat Sherman Winn' That Committee met Monday; --July COMM,531or tier HaWkL03 proposed, an amendment- changing 2 112% Cities 2 1/2% County. This would -mean a - load of: $2061o250-00 annually to the City. 39COND READING OF ORDINANCE TUESDATO JULY 249 1990. Y .mod . ...... AM Mr Joaquin_Avino Dade County'Manager Government Center I11N.V.I Street Miami, "FL` 331:28 Re: County Cable Ordinance Dear` Joaquin: The proposed County Cable T-V Ordinance poses both economic and philosophical concerns for the City of Miami. We have voiced our opposition to the proposed change in the distr.ibutl6h. df the franchise fee,` to Commissioner Hawkins , personally,`-,- and to _ the Internal 'Management/ Tour i m Committee at its'_ July 16, lggo_ meeting. - As,you.'are aware, most cities in Dade receive 3% and the County 2%''under` the current distribution of the franchise fees: Miami and,,Coral Gables, however, have different agreements with Lhe County.'" The City of Miami and the County, in good faith`. negotiations, agreed to a 4% City, 1% County Splitr of the french se`fee. Under the distribution of fees originally proposed in this new. Ordinance, 2% would go to the cities, while 3% would go to', -the'. County.. Whereas other cities would lose 1%, a loss of .'2% would- be experienced by the City of Miami. The fiscal impact on -the"., City by this arrangement would be a loss of approximately° $275000.00 aanually. Commissioner Hawkins proposed at Monday's Internal Manageieent Committee meeting to amend the Ordinance to provide for` $split' of 2 l/2 to the cities and 2 1/2% to the County. Thin Would'; Posea 1/2%" loss to those dities with a current 3%.2% split, butt x it would create a-1 1/2x,`or an approximate $2060250.00 annu10: fr loss to Miami. -} Neither of those two options is acceptable to the City. ;y L • . �� Yti Y E' The Cits agreement with TC1 f6r cable service expires in 199+�� The; City,s .e-r�eeMent with the County, which providta for''the 4% U split of the franchise fee, `would expire at that scene 'tim6� An earlier date could occur, if, for Whatever ree►eon, the agreement with the gable company were to be reissued, or if another company were selected to also provide cable service. f The agreement between the City and Cotlnty compensates the City x for providing regulation over the cable company, and ,receiving and resolving cable complaints from Miami citizens. Since the r inception of its Cable office eight years ago, the City has been highly successful in providing those services. To disrupt those services would create confusion, and would not be in the best Interest of Miami's citizens. The adoption of a new County Cable Ordinance will not relieve or change the regulatory obligations of the City of Miami under its Cable Television Ordinances. However, adoption will severely affect the City's financial ability to carry out its regulatory responsibilities. The City, therefore, is emphatically opposed to any change in the current Cable T-V franchise fee distribution between the cities } and the County. We believe that the City's negotiated 4$ .- 1% fee split with the County is fair and 'reasonable, and .that ,it should remain in effect now and in the future. -+ Since ly~ yours, Ce H. Od io =i Ci y Manager cc: Honorable Mayor and Members k ii"A -,: of the County Commission z -Honorable Mayor and Members aE of the Miami City Commission T wf 4 titi4 N a r z T% y NOW 5� y� R i•. c. bolt, $66*6 � �rti`�Alt �. t$1�1�: � � MtAMt,,M'iA11inA'.►J' �3Ji17�9� ' ��' ��tr �A�� 56s=ssr►ass�r { , uk aL�4 July 19,. 1990 r, t - _ '4 >a. Rass Marchner, Executive Director Dade.County League of Cities, Inc. .. 7 480 Fairway Drive Suite 209 Miami, FL 32302 He: County Cable T-V Ordinance Dear Huss: Your efforts on behalf of the' City of Miami and other Dade municipalities affected by the County's proposed Cable T-V' Ordinance is deeply appreciated. we must continue to make a, united effort in combatting the proposed cities -county split` of ' the 5% franchise fee assessed to cable companies doing business in Dade County. As you are aware, most cities in Dade receive 3%, While the County receives 2%. The City of Miami and Coral Gables have. different arrangements. The fully negotiated Miami -County agreement calls for 4% to the City and l% to the County. The City is on record as vehemently opposing any change to that 4%-1% split. We are not the least bit interested in a 2% County.3�6 City split as was originally proposed, nor in any other rsplit that would change the current agreement now or at anytime in the future. M' Obviously, then, we are not interested in Commissioner Hawkins` amended 2 1/2% county 2 1/2% cities split. Whereas those cities wF. With a current 3-2 split would lose 1/2%, the City with'#ts 4 split would lose 1 1/2%, or approximately $2069250.00 annually. Y This is totally unacceptable.` ,x The City of Miami supports the efforts of the League and of her cities in Dade, as long as those efforts address a "status qoo" h; approach to the franchise fee split. Language in the Ord#nanoe,`: s therefore, trust address the "status quo," and must not .eake' r reference to a specific numerical split of the franchise feet,p tx f k 1�A � < \ � .. . \ ��� � � . � � �� � \ �\ . � � � .� . � -\_ � %� § . \ . � =2 . � . � ��� s .� ..;.. : � \� \ \�� � \ \� : � , <+a . . ,? © . . � « * � \ � - � � ƒ � \� » : < . \�� � � � � � `� � ��» . . \ \ � � � � . � . «� " � ,� � «� � ~ ~\ ~ \ � . . � . . . . �. ��� y��; � - � � ^ � . � � � � � . � � . � � � � � � / 2 \ ? . � . � °�� !J . . . . � ?«m :: ... .. .. .. . < r ,y.«� � 2� >%r� � . . . � . . . >,� /« - �. :. � » w \ »»z«� %»> wv � . . . . . ..ac,�y« ^ - . . .. . » � . .. . . .. � - m yd� � � � � �§��� �� ^ � /\�����/����\ \ \� \ �\ § �� .� . § .. --��� 2«\. � \ ; ©2©y2:\?:»y\: d\»2\»\ «2:� :w. �:\© ��� d2� - . .. .g. >y::.>yy�.. ,: :<><«»:« w w w. � . . . . .. . ez.a . . ... : a ... :way �. » ? �. �� :w©«� <x� »� w<,y .�,