HomeMy WebLinkAboutO-098314 }
1, i,h4 ?pex
d'- 84-2OS
6/15/84
ORDINANCE NO. 9831
ANtRDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO, 9332, THE
TELEVISION LICENSE
CITY OF MIAMI CABLE
'ORDINANCE; AMENDING THE APPENDIX TO SAID
Y�
ORDINANCE RELATING TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICA-
DEFERRING
TIONS AND SYSTEM CHARACTERISTICS BY
THE REQUIREMENT FOR IMPLEMENTING TWO-WAY
INTERACTIVE SERVICES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE
THAT SUCH SERVICES TO
COMMISSION DETERMINES
RESIDENTIAL SUBSCRIBERS ARE E'EASIBLE, AFTER-
NOTICE AND PUBLIC HEARING, AND AMENDING ALL
ORDINANCE TO CONFORM TO
PROVISIONS OF THE
THIS AMENDMENT.
WHEREAS, in accordance with Article III, Section 301-of
Ordinance No. 9332, the Cable Television License Ordinance
(herein the "License Ordinance"), the Cable Television Licensee
(herein the "Licensee"), within 30 days after the effective date -
of said.License Ordinance, filed a plan with the City Manager
setting forth the technical specifications and standards for the
cable television system (the "Technical Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Technical Plan included the requirement to
offer on the cable television system two-way interactive services
to residential subscribers; and
`r
WHEREAS, the.Commission has expressed its opposition to the'
y
capability in the subscriber system of preference or opinion
polling by customers of the subscriber system, and has mandated
iM
that an,interactive capability not be incorporated in --the cable
television system; and
2,,
f;
WHEREAS, at the request of the Commission, the Cable
Television Licensee has heretofore executed a written agreement
X;
with the Co�amLss cn not to offer opinion or preference po.i.ny in
the system; and.x
TV
WHEREAS, the Commission has determined to defer the require-
meat for such two-way interactive services to residential
until such date as the Commission, after notice and
subscribers
public nearing, determines that such two-way interactive service►$
r
to residential subscribers are feasiblef
i k
�
�1
-
n 4
MR
z51'"s'i'r7J�2`�+ 4 air il° t`'�^ r '�.'G .' :4r.'i', •°:,.;
L '.;a;...? t _ '` - _ f :,7-, .A ..F. E,r, ��.Yseiz v 1 � .:.4•ppK77i :r, _ 1 3,+p�: i':.t�115,.y
NOW THEAEPORE BE IT ORDA1NE13 BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY '
x; OP MIAMI , PLORIDA: _.��..
Section 1. The technical plan initially filed by the -4
Cable Television licensee, which sets forth the technical
specifications and performance standards for the cable television
system (the "Technical Plan"), and any reference to such M--
' 66hnic l Plan in the Appendix of Ordinance No. 9332, is hereby =
a'
amended to delete the requirement for immediate implementation of
two-way inteeacti've services to residential subscribers.
Section.2. The implementation of the use of two-way
interactive services to residential subscribers within the cable
television system of Licensee is deferred until such time as the
Commission, after notice and public hearing, determines that r
such''two-way interactive services to residential subscribers are:
'. feasible.
' Section 3. All provisions of Ordinance No. 9332 and the u`
Appendix thereof, are hereby amended to conform to the provisions
4-t, of this Amendment.
PASSED ON FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY this 2 th day of
1984.
PASSED AND'ADOPTED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING BY TITLE ONLY
r. -
-a this 10th day of May , 19.84.
=' Efti 7 Hill
Tgrr
Ma or0 MAURICE A. FERRE '
RA G. ONGIE
City Clerk
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTRISS
f=
'_
,
5,
s
AQU _ , 1II OSE CIA-PEDROSA
Deputy Cit ttpr ey, City Attorney
<3
W pb/020
61
a
`d'n-4}ar"Jt,-t=t erg
fw
.-....._- _ , t, rt t rxa. , : • . .. .: i .'v'? axe^a - }a>w 3p
_ c
dilty op MIAMI. FLOP10A
M trlfNOPANDUM
��, 1984
Honorable Me or aitr<c1 ,,r: March aLc: a-
ie>ers of City Commission
subjterrt Report on Pehalty negotiations
with Miami Cablevision -`ab
r*6M: Howard V a I V , r NEF6R6NCfft
City Manager
914CLCBU11Cf: Exhibits f
This report contains the following sections: ':-
:tt
Section Y Findings of fact and conclusions on the service ;y
croasr -connections issues; ==.
SectionY: Issues for negotiations concerning cross-y..._:.
cosrsnections. togethe'*ith tables sett_ incr
forth° the_ cost estimates of the City- and, - <_
Y
Miami CableV'ision=
Section IIY. A table''desscribing the financial ability; off
Miami Cablevisicn to fund -'the correction'/
G modification of cross- connections '
Sectionf `N: i" Tha proposal of the City Manager 'to"' se'ttle"a'�
the cross-connectiosn.,and interactive service_, °= r
t
qi
s, to residential subscr3berg' i4s3ues and ..:,
} Section V. mcommen$ation and conclusion 3
on. t rkl.
1-2
i a-r
f Wit.
,s 7W _
-
`•`.� u'
� r
_ e
_k
s
HOhdrAbIG Mayor and
Members of City Commission Page 2 March 28, 1984
i.
vvnn����,c�n �.sstiae�. •
After closely reviewing and considering the allegations
made by Miami. Cablevision, as well as the information
provided by City staff, the City Manager has made the
following findings of fact and conclusions regarding
the issue of service cross -connections.
1. Miami Cablevsion asserts that it is being fined for not
constructing its cable lines on both sides of the streets,
and that when the table RFP was issued by the City, it did
not contain this specification.
As an initial matter, it should be understood that the
Department of Public Works (DPW) has never required
the licensee to build on both sides of the street.
DPW's'only•contention has been and still is that the
licensee should follow the utility lines that have
been rebuilt to minimise unsightly cross -connections
over recently rebuilt streets.
Further, the RFP included a copy of the enabling ordinance
which required the licensee to construct the system paral-
lel to utility wires whenever possible. That ordinance
also provided that the City could reasonably designate
where a licensee's facilities are to be placed within
--,',the public -rights -of -way, and/or easements of the City:
when required by'the City because of public improvements.
2. Miami Cablevision states that there was no notification to
bidders during the cable hearings regarding cross -connections.
• As set forth above, the RFP notified all applicants-
that-construotion of the cable system must be parallel to
(follow/46•along,with)t utility lines and that cable -.
facilities'must'be'-moved°at licensee expense, to,accom
mcAate'-public improvements. The license ordinance -which
was`aecepted°by the-licensee'contained the -
same -.pro -visions,
3. Miami Cablevision states that it:did not accept the license
contingent on,constructinq both sides of the street nor•.did
it agree to this.
The`.Iicensee;accepted the requirements of the ordinance
which included the requirement that the cable system
parallel -the utilities, For example, if the utilities
make one 'crossing per block, so should the licensee:
Honorable Mayor and
Members Of City Commission Page 3 March 28, 1994
4. Miami Cablevision states that the snaps given to the City
showing five miles of proposed cable construction showed
construction on one side of the street.
• These maps were reviewed in pebruary and March 1982
by the City's engineering consultant, Atlantic Research*
Inc. As is documented in Exhibit I (attached), there
are no Cable crossings in vvo aMn of the City's
ordinance shown on these slaps. No one reviewing the
five mile design submission could conclude that the
cable operator was intending to disregard the rehabil-
itation policies of the City in future plant construction.
In fact# the small design area submitted in the rehabil-
itation area shows compliance with City policy of
paralleling existing crossings.
S. Miami Cablevision argues that the City Manager gave it
written notice to proceed constructing on only one side
of the street..
• The City Manager gave Miami Cablevis-ion permission to
commence construction in accordance with the provisions
and terms of the license ordinance. Notice to proceed
with construction was not contingent upon construction
on only one side of the street, nor did such notice
authorise in any way noncompliance with the City's
street improvement policy.
6. Miami Cablevision states that the Department of Public Works
did not notify it regarding construction on "both sides of
the street" until one and one-half years after the license
was awarded.
First, DPW has never required the licensee to build a.
double system. The company was required to follow the:
utilities, limiting crossings to a minimum of one or;_
two per block: Second, construction of the cable system-
did not begin until May 1982,-- the headend only._
Through the late fall of 1982, the licensee constructed
trunk and -feeder network, not service connections..;,
Five miles of active plant with sixty subscribers was_.,.,,
in place by December 31, 1982. Thus, the first oppor-
tunity of DPW to observe the licensee's practice of,
cross -connections to subscribers' homes did not occur
until December 1982. In December 1982, DPW notified
the licensee regarding the City's highway improvement
policy and met with the licensee to discuss this policy.
Notwithstanding these discussions, the licensee has
continued for over a year to construct the system in
disregard of the City's highway improvement policy.
Additionally, it in standard practice throughout the
cable industry that prior to any CAW systems construction
77777777 J"
7
r
r
tt
X
Honorable Mayor.and
Members 6f City COMMLssion -Page 3 March 28 , 1984
£=
r t
4. Miami Cablevision states that the reaps given to the City
showing five Mites of proposed cable construction showed
construction on one side of the street.
• These maps were reviewed in February and March 1982
by the City's engineering consultant, Atlantic Research#
Inc. As is documented in Exhibitl (attached)+ there
are no cable crossings in VLo aati'o`n of the City's
ordinance shown on these maps. No one reviewing the
five mile design submission could conclude that the
cable operator was intending to disregard the rehabil-'
itation policies of the City in future plant construction.
In fact# the small design area submitted in the rehabil-
itation area shows compliance with City policy of
paralleling existing crossings.
S. Miami Cablevision argues that the City Manager gave it
written notice to proceed constructing on only one side
of the street:.;
• The City Manager gave Miami Cablevision permission to
commence construction in accordance with the provisions
and terms of the license ordinance. Notice to proceed
with construction was not contingent upon construction
on only one side of the street, nor did such notice
authorize in any way noncompliance with the City's
street improvement policy.
6. Miami Cablevision states that the Department of Public Works
;6
did not notify it regarding construction on "both sides of ._
the street" until one and one-half years after the license.
was awarded.
• First# DPW has never required the licensee to build'a_:
double system. The company was required to follow_ the,
utilities, limiting crossings to a minimum of, one or.;,_.
two per block. Second, construction of..the cable system..
did -not begin until May 1982 -- the headend, only.,
Through the late fall of 1982, the licensee constructed
trunk and feeder network# not service.connections..-
Five miles of active plant withsixty subscribers was
in place by December 31, 1982. Thus, the.first oppflF-
tunity of DPW to observe the licensee's practice
cross -connections to subscribers' homes did not occur
until December 1982. In December 1982s, DPW notified
the licensee regarding the City's highway improvement
policy and met with the licensee to discuss this policy.
Notwithstanding these discussions, the licensee has
continued for over a year to construct the system in
disregard of the City's highway improvement policy. y
Additionally, it is standard practice throughout the
cable industry that prior to any CATV system construction,
4'
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Commission Page 4
7.
March 28 ► 1+994
a caible company will request a meeting with the munici-
pal department of public works to discuss the necessary
permits and municipal policies regarding construction
in the public rights -of -way. Consistent with this
.practices it was incumbent upon the licensee to meet
with DPW to find out the applicable policies and permits
of the City.
The.City.Manager determined.to impose penalties on
the licensee only after there existed clear grounds for
r.
doing so and after concluding that it would be inconsis-
tent with the responsibilities of the City Manager to
do otherwise.
;
Miami Cablevision argues that the aerial construction.of
itn.sy stem is 960 completed and is constructed on -one side
r
of the street.
' As noted.above, Miami Cablevision continued to construct
the system for over a year after DPW notified the licensee
=:
of its cross -connections in violation of the City's street
iriiprovement policy. When DPW met with the licensee in
December 19820 less than 5• of the cable plant was built.
Thus, DPW raised the flag early. By disregardinq this
clear warning, Miami Cablevision accepted the risks of
.noncompliance.
Miami Cablevision contends that it is -not aware of any other
city.that has'"mandated that it's cable system be constructed
on both -sides of the street."
' The-truthis that the City of Miami has not mandated that
the licensee construct on both sides of the street. in
fact, the City has required the licensee to comply with
,
is street cleanup program in°less than 10% of the'cab_ e
s stem.: This program requires the licensee to kee crossinqx
at. a:miuimnm,:such as the telephone and electric utilities
have done.,. All cities have road projects of 'some kind:
Some, cities- require the use of all rear easements
Coral Gables). Some cities require all new construction
to be buried te.g., Miami Beach). The City of Miami
chose a loan expensive procedure for improving its street¢.
Miami Cablevision has chosen not to comply.
t
y
Honorable Mayor and
Aetfrbers of . City- Commission 'Page 5 March 20, 1984
11. Issues
The fundamental issues cofteorninq cross -wiring are s
(1) the number of miles in which the company roust
modify its plant and when that Codification shall take
place, and (2) the cost of the modification.
i' Mileage/Tire period. The company contends that the
City s requ► ring it to modify 270 miles or nearly SOi
of its aerial system over the next three years.
This is not and never has been the City's position.
The City'* position is that the company must modify
immediately the cable in the 75 silos of streets which
the City has already rehabilitated. The 75 street mill
YYV.R W ia..Yt
in t o u re,the company wuld raveto Modify an
average.of M street miles per year for the 13 years
remaining in the license term. The 10 street ®ilea
annual oasis.
• Cost. The company contends that it will cost $15.2
mill�oti over the next 13 years to modify its plant as
required by the City. This figure is wrong for several reasons!
(2) The figure is based on incorrect mileage assumptions$ and
(2) the figure is based on the incorrect assumption that
both sides of the street -must be built in every block.
`-
The City has repeatedly advised the company:
(1) that the mileage is 75 miles now and an average of
10 miles in the future per year and
54
(2) that the company may cross each block one or two times
where the utilities cross.
Based on the r mile costs in the co
mpany's oaapany's contract r3ith
,t
its construction subcontractor, the City estimated the
total cost of :codification over the next 13 years to be
$3.4'millions $1.3 million to clean up the 75 miles plus
$2.08 million to modify plant at an average rate of 10 miles
per year.
t
Two days a o, the company Y 4 Y Provided the City staff for the
first time with per mile cost estimates for the modification.
These costs are significantly higher than the figures upon
rE
which the City relied for its cost estimate of the modifies
Y
cation. Even multiplying the company's new, higher cost
estimates by the correct mileage, the cost to the company.
Ar
over the neat 13 years would be $6.9 million.
This is 18.3 million less than the cqMnX1S on final estimate
t:
o million, re resew n a sav s to e c an - o
more thanf
z
r�n f
= Css
f %u
4
Honorable Mayor and
xembets of. City Commission Page 6 March 19, 1904
We believe that the company's new cost estimates provided
to the City two days ago are on the high side and that it
will not cost the company M9 million to modify its plant.
We further believe that the original costs given by the
City staff are reasonable estimates for which the system
co_ uld be modified. However# the City does not control the
companywN costae its subcontractors, or its construction
practices. in addition, the City staff did not know that
the company's subcontractors would increase their construction-:
price, as the company asserted two days ago. Accordingly,
.the cost of modification may be higher than the estimates
prepared by the City based on the company's previous per
mile costs,
The City proposes to work with the company to minimize the
cost of modification. The City must be able to review and
approve plans.which contain the following detail prior to'
and after modification: cost, design, maps, and beginning
and completion dates on a block by block basis.
Set forth below are charts and tables containing the companyls
cost estimates based on its erroneous mileage assumptions
and on the correct mileages the City's original cost estimates
and those estimates adjusted at a rate of 100 per year; and,,,,,
the company's annual capital outlays under the City's and
the company's cost estimates.
G
Fi
T V
2'1
F5
Page 7
MU MWAL, CAPITAL.- BUDGXTSrolw
cost MUM& -annual factor- or_._j'0'W_.aw4CI'tY
Unadjusted
75 miles already rehabilitated 1#300#UUO 4 1#3000000
SO additional miles by 1090 $71,720 8000000
So additional miles by 1996
MAL $ 502180400 3,380,000
2. C 0"Any-cost estimates
270 miles in 3 years plus replacement 15.2 million
3. Annual capital budget from 1984 through -expiration ,of.license-,(1996).
4
.Company company City Ent. City Eat.
per mile cost x per mile cost x per mile cost per mile cost
Company Mileage City mileage x city Mileage x rAw 1111�
Ad bated . Ltudjgtad
IM Sg366#000 1,846,332 ($ 11300t000 1 $ 11,3000000
1 1600,000 1 160,000
1985 506880000 421g752 170,,600 1600000
1986 441"000 421,752 1930600 1600,000
1987 29,pO00* 421,752 212,960 160,000
1988 4110111 421,752 234,560 1600000
LM 4110111 421,752 2570680 1600000
283v440 1600000
IM 4118111 4210752
1991 4110111 4210752 311t790 1at000
1992 MOM 421g752 342#970 160,000
1993 411g111 421J52 377#260 160,000
-411#111 IM 4210752 414#990 160,000 .
1995 411l111 4210752 456t490 00000
1996 MaIll 421,752 502,140 160,000 -
'
70TAL $15,223,999 $6g907p356 $5#218#480 -$3 380100v
oft CIMPOW's figarss an b=W CM modit tion of the systam In 3 Y*sL* (1994-1906)
-'4'WqI7)'thxvu0 the end of the'llcows tume the in yew L n , - ., -
Of punt. PW lil pap=", the chart,dow
X!m 19W to the *d MOW
=4 4"nvfipd f at the 11MM two. AlthAM111
city with a total i i i t,cmt tram MS tlwajO the ad of the lioahs6'
nwer
P=N;4%d to the City an wwxu4 bcoakftin of carts for that tin
shadd be noted, banw, that the c=MW has stated tbikt the bulk, of the =W
will am, in the last Umn yom (1994 - 19%) of the tam
mi
sIbs-two estimated; coos fm 1984 aveof s $10300#000 for vaWicaticn giant in 15 Um
allvady rehabilitated and $1600000 for modification Of plate in average of 10 oil" pa
TIL
y.
t CUMVL.AT/VE CAPITAL xprij i>o ruRcs
i
...r—.
_ ..... r,
.- _ ,_.. ..
.i+,., -
•ice...-.�...-....
40
-- - r b
4
i
....—.. i ...
a
1
2
r
t
�g'
;a
tt
�r`r
rss
14
xNt.„
h
�r
i�► �srr . iir� -is�. too/ isss 190.1 rm fsss E�rc
t erg
i;
c -
L
pa
a
co
�'�
<.
., l,1 10,q
......,..h.i+�d..s•�rry�krt'�rrwi�x�i'e�+Ma'r., RI
4^
ti
��ite ""-'S'un -3' 7� �' � a " �' xavnnsnx,.^..r.,. me"va�.r^ecr*tn .«�.r�t. �i`.FI>s. ...,.. •I ' I
:rd�M
_ I
k
x ,�{J
Honorable Mayor and
members Of city commission
Page 9 March 28 o 1084
III. finai�di�nd of--godification
As demonstrated below, tho'company can afford to.modLfy
its plant to comply vith the City'st street improvement policy.
Construction cost required
by section 301 of the ordinance $45,000,000
Less funds jeonstruction, headende
equipment) expanded by Miami
Cabliirisionto date as per
1903. annual report $17#300o000
TOTAL AVAILABLE UNDER ORDINANCE
FOR R=AXNING CONSTRUCTION $2&0700t000
2. Bank Loan
Total bank loan of Miami Cablevision $31,600,000
Total equity required by bank loan
-900tOOO
documents $170
Total funds available under
bank loan $49j500'0000-.-
Lass -funds 1constructionj headendv
A equipmut) expanded by Miami
CablevisLan to date $17,r30:--P'000
......... .......
TMAL, yUNDS AVAILABLE UNDER
NMLOAN $32'8`400400:"I
I
N
IP
R7f
Honorable Mayor and �
Members of City Commission Page 10 March 29, 1904
z_
1V. Itecommnded_ Aettlement _ Pro osal
As directed by the City Commission, the City Manager.and
Miami Cablevision (the "Company") have had a number of
meetings to discuss the settlement of the issues of ser-
vice cross -connections and the provision of interactive
services to residential subscribers. At the last meeting
of the City and'the Company on March 27, 1984, the City. -
Manager and the Company discussed the following principles
of a proposed settlement: _
1. The City anticipates that it will rehabilitate an
average of 10 miles of streets per year under the high-
way improvement -program. Miami Cablevision Ahall correct/
modify service cross -connections in these 10 miles of
rehabilitated streets per year, beginning in 1984 and
extending throughout the 13 years remaining in the
license'ters, provided that in any year that the City
rehabilitates less than 10 miles per year, the Company
shall be required to correct service cross -connections
only in the number of miles actually rehabilitated.by
the City.
2. if the City rehabilitates more than 10 miles of streets
:
per year, the Company shall be required to correct/
modify service cross -connections in no more than 10-
r
miles of rehabilitated streets, provided that the Com-
pany must move its cables to the new utility poles as
soon as the poles are available in'all streets rehab-..
ilitated each year, so that the utilities can remove
their old poles. The number of miles rehabilitated in
excess of 10 miles in any given year shall be placed
in a pool on a cumulative basis over the term of the -
license. in the last year of the term of the license
(1996), the Company shall correct/modify all service
cross -connections ins (a) the street miles.accumulated
in the pool and (b) the street miles rehabilitated'by..,
'the City in 1996.
3. By April 2, 1985, the Company must correct/modify;
service cross -connections in the 75 milew.of;streets
already rehabilitated by.the City. The, City shall"not :r
.Approve completion of construction until the. C any ,-
has corrected/modified the service croAs-(connect ons
U$
in the 75 miles and the City has approved such corrections
modifications.;
+y.
aS M
f
Y'
i
x d
hy�yn.
_ v.3`
0
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Commission page 11
March 20, 1994
4. "The Company -shall correct/modify its plant as des-
cribed in paragraphs 1-3 above, at its burr expense.
S. Failure of the Company to comply with the requirements
of the agreement between the City and the Company shall
trigger automatically the penalties specified in the
license ordinance. The process of automatic penalties
gill be similar to that specified in the amendment to '
the license approving a revised construction schedule.
6. prior to and after the Company's correction/modification
of service cross -connections, the Company must submit,
for the review and approval of the City, plans which
shall include the following details on a block -by -block
basis: costs designs maps; and beginning and completion
dates.
7.
The Company oust comply with the following construction
standardst A
a. All cables crossing roadways must be raised to
conform to the standards specified in the National
8lectric Safety Code.
b. No cables or wires may be attached to "street light
only" poles.
c. All service crossings must follow utilities' cross- Y
ings, limiting crossings to 1 or 2 per block.
-'
d. Rear easements shall be used whenever available.
8.
The Company shall acknowledge that it has violat6d
Section 605 Obi of the license ordinance in failing
to install cables parallel to existing telephone and
electric wires whenever possible and that the City has E
.correctly applied the pertinent provisions of the }
license ordinance to the cross -connections issue. }.
_
- The following
g points were discussed concerning penalties
.
on
the issues of cross -connections and interactive services
to
residential subscribers in consideration of the Company's
agreement to settle, as described above:
1.
The City will return to the security fund one-half of the
penalties on the issue of service cross -connections, as
of larch 27, 1984, the date of the meeting between the
Company and the City. As required by the license ordinance,
x.2
x
r
i
: a� 1
t
A .�z
k41x
lea
Honorable mayor and
Members of City Commission page 12 march 28, 1984
thi company *hall replenish the security fund in the
amount of any penalties not returned to the fund by
the City. It is estimated that the Company would re-
plenish the fund in the amount of $156,422.16.
2. The.City will not retain penalties in connection with
the issue of orovidina interactive services to resident-
ial subscribers. The Cownission will hold a public hear -
in* no later than December 31. 1994. to determine whether
to defer the implementation of the provision of inter -
""active services to residential subscribers.
V. Recommendation add Conclusion
The City Manager recommends that the foregoing principles
in Section IV above be accepted as a total package to
settle all issues relating to cross -connections and inter-
active services to residential subscribers. The Company has
not agreed to the foregoing principles as a total package.
Therefore, the City Manager vast report to the Commission
that an agreement has not yet been reached with the Company
on service cross -connections and interactive services to
residential subscribers.
•h
l
>1
v
�
♦
#1
t1
t -g
�' ss
CITY 4W MIAM1. FLOW"
eN'MD• *PPjD1t MEMORANDUM
rrs. Howard V. Gary
yabruary 24 # 1964 +�xe
city manaller
}
$'Y'71'1' tW BY- CONSULTING ztGt
.mso, PArry Moliar m
+ «
Assistant to City Ital�Or
for Cable t:twnications
�+«�• $►
It * Dennis Siurswn,. the city's
Consulting =agineer, has provided
r
the attached statmiant.
enct
�Q
pro
•
,
fs
m
s
•
t
.
r}fie
t
C
„r
c -
n•
l.'S .FXM1.
w.
:.. f
k
f X�
.i_
r�+
n
rabruary 34, 1994
There are no cable Crossings -in violation of the City's
ordnance shown on the 5-mile maps submitted by the
cable company on March 31, 1983.
The cable crossings shown on the 5-mile submission by
the cable company are in copliance with the ordimme
in that they are shown parallel to the existing utilities.
There are no subscriber drop cables shown on the S-mile
submitted maps to indicate the company's disregard for
crossingpolicy• to the submission, 1341 feet of design
are shown in a rehabilitation area. The rehabilitation
design shows cable crossing the streets with powet and
telephone in compliance with the City rehabilitation
policies.
lso one reviewing the five -mile design submission could
conclude that !be cable operator was intending to
disregard the rehabilitation policies of the City of Miami
in future plant construction. in fact, the small design
area submitted in the rehabilitation area shorn compliance
with City policy of paralleling existing crossings.
i
I ':
C11'y or MIAMI. 1=L011I0A
IN_rgp.opplat MEM0AAk0UM
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
4' FROM. Jose Garcia -Pedrosa
City Attorney
1
... x.'.i
0ATt: March 21, 1984 FILE
SUi3JECT:
Second leading of Ordinance
deferring implementation
of
Cable T.V. Two -Way interactive
REFERENCES: services
City Commission Agenda of 3/29/84
ENCLCSURESo
at the
Theattached Ordinance passed on first Itaisnscheduled
February 28,re
1984 Commission Meeting.
for second reading on March 29, 1984.
JGP/AQJ'/cm
cc: Howard
.9. -Gary, City Manager
Asst. to City Manager
fir.
Manny
Ralph-
Alvarez, -Special
G..,Ongie; , City' Clerk .
w
Aurelio E. Pere,x-Lugoues, Director+
P 6 _Z_
Administration Boards
Clark
Mart, to to City -Manager for
_
IatergoverUmental Affairs/Cable
Merry
Sue Smoller, Asst. to City Manager/
r
Cable.
Communications.
rEr- A'INA
T f
S-
� 4 t
T
APO i
Torn Acha
TV I Radio Editor
"You Are the Jury
should be' hanged
for.lack of taste
-Every now and then, the Ameri-
can viewing public does something
reassuring. The overwhelming re-
jection Sunday night of "You Are
the Jury. a
Mai balloon on
NBC, was one
of those acts.
Countless
thousands of
Americans
must have
gone to bed
that night with I I
their confl- JiChs
dense In justice
diminished — or. should I day fur-
ther diminished' as a result of
-this unconscionable mimicking of
the judicial system.
I That's only one of the reasons
why "You Are the Jury" Is among Efrem Zimbelist jr. Wai the
the most objectionable programs
to appear on TV in recent years. host Of 'YOU Are the Jury' -
Themore' than a quarter-i'llillon IL
dollars* pumped .into Ma Bell's manslaughter. Can't you just me
bloated coffers by the misguided the rest of the country comment -
souls who participated, via a spe- Ing on yahoo Southern justice?,
dal 900 phone number, is another. VVhIIe the majority of those who
For those prudent enough to., p 'cipatelln *lbe.poll were un-
lbsv* skipped' this'*Iectroule jury d:btdly outraged, NBC had to
duty. , It worked thusly.,Excer ts be delighted. The Idea; of. course.
from a murder.trial e— i'FlaTda was to get people,talking about
ease as It turned out'.:,- ' were re- "You Are the Jury.N,--A!! J.
*enacted, with narration provided "it NBC wants to. 'coiduct_this
by Efrem Zimballat Jr.,-J. Edgar kind of p)ebescite on whether to
Hoover's personal
I choke for
ir head boll a lobster or-to'pIck the "Win -
of T%rs 'FBI." Even —1 re Jesti- nor of a beauty contest, let the
many. was -completed, -timbalist buyer beware. But demeaning our
invited viewers .to exprAss,their system of justice In such a way Is
-:verdict on the guilt or Ifinocence reprehensible., dr �iw 5'17,n
of the defendant. At the end of the ,The good news Is; thanks to the,
program, the public tally was selective --Viewing -ot-Nlelsen*s:
compared to the actual verdict., households, this sorry spectpcie
A revolutionary group dedicated will probably not he repiittd' De-
t6 the overthrow of American ju. spite -the strong: lead-in 'supplied
rlaprudence 5
coulon't,have done a by "V,".the case for *:You Are the
more devastating -number 'on the Jury" was throwilout ln'tbikrat-,
system. From what'wad presented,' ngs: Accordlngto "Nielsen. i.
It was logical to assume that the on the 13,-to. 10. p.m. 'time fierlod-
case in question probably extended with 32 percent' of the
eel I�t
over at least two to thr from 10, to 11. "Jury" could hold
days
at
The jury at home got to we a -se- only 24 percent, loss than both the
lected, 40 minutes or so. !'final.
'final hour of —rho Last Dos of
,The edited case madethe defen. Pomkil. PV I" -'on ABC and
dent more of a candidate for can- '"Trapper Jobh,'M.D:" on CBS.
onization than', IncarceraUon. A -That's a verdict NBC will have
loving, -who ab *problem underganding.ZI,
worked
�Allm
faithful ' husband,,
two jobs to provide for J—)
his wife, discovers the has a regu. "•A .mote wort6wdile. enjoyable
lar lover on the side. a sleazy, un- -and ,productive, viewer participa-
couth bartender. Furthermore, the tion exercise Was kicked off Mon -
Mrs. has been banking some of the day by "PM Magazine' " ,
fruits of bar husband's labors In a audience has-
"'Invit-
otc
becia g account with her ed to d votes for Its favorite to-
rri.d, a . cal radio, DJ or talk 1
%afronted by the lius6taq; the _host. The poll 'tax In, this vlection
paramour taunts him and suggests _host.
$1 per.ballot, with all funds do -
that he's probably not the father acted to Miami Childrens Hospl-
of the child his wife bore during -sal.
their ".The polls will remain 'Open
teotioa. the creep boasts that he, " tW hrough the first three weeks in
not W &,1.111141 whlcbcoincidentally. fall
to at the tiow-Is the real father of , periods for both TV
her first child. Who the defeadent d radio. 4•
bad graciously adopted as his own.
. Some of the local teenybopper
Pushed over the brink by catch- stations 'have already organized
jag the lovers together in his sic- stuff -the -ballot -box * • cimpalva.
Aar -in-law's pad, to which he "?M" executive producer Oscar
lured by his wife, the husband Welch i said updates on the ballot,
blows away the boyfriend. His do- Ing R 111illumounced periodically
loose*. Temporary Insanity. on "PM " with the 'announcentoot
By a 7-1 margin among 371,037 of the winner, accompanied by a
calls — at So cents a shot — the profile, set for May 29.
' d not guilty. The actual Ballots should be sent to Mlaml
public
Illy f first degree mur- Children's Hospital, 1530 Modraga
ter. knocked of
an appeal to Ave., Carla Gables, Fla. 33140.
-5-1-sq L4C,
-5-1-sq L4C,
Tom Acha
TV / Radio Editor
"You Are the Jury'
should be -hanged
for. lack. of taste
'towe1then, the Ameri-
can �"ew! %11c dw.-
meth. reassuring. re-
Jectlon
h ght of "You Are
the Jury,"
. trial I"Ifoo, Sunday.
NBC, was one
of those acts.'
Countless
thousands , of
Americans
must I have
gone to bed
i that night with
their cOnfl- --Jiths
dence In justice
diminished — or, should I day fur-
ther diminished " as a result of
-this unconscionable mimicking of
the judicial system.
That's only one of the reasons MORM
Are the Jury" Is among Efrom Zimbalist Jr. Wai the
the mo
st `r.: objectionable programs
to host of 'You Are the Jury'
-
The on TV In recent years. 0 Ty
more' than a quarter -'million
dollarspumped Into Me Bell's manslaughter. Cant you just see
bloated coffers by the misguided the rest of the country comment -
souls who participated, via a spe. Ing on yahoo Southern justice?. - :
dal 900 phone number, is another. " While We majority of those who
I For 'those •prudent enough to participated in the.poll were un-
,have skip this. electronic jury doubtedly outraged, NBC had to
duty, it worked thusly. Excerpts be delighted. The Idea: of,voutle,
'frorn'* murder.trija !.- V'Florlda Was to get people talking about
ease is It turned out '-;-,were re- "You Am the Jury.' -- - —A 41 J i
16natted. with narration provided . "It NBC wa^ts to. candiit"Chis
by Efrem Zimballst - Jr..- J.Edgar kind of plebescite on whether to
Hoover's I choice f, r head boll lobster 6r'to'pIck the'Win-
of T%rs km.'n
Even be re testi- ner of a beauty contest,- let the
mony was completed. Ipmballst buyer beware. But demeaning our
Invited viewers to txpr4ss,their •,System of justice in such a way it,
-.verdict on the guilt or Ifinocence reprehensible.,
,'of the defendant. At the end of the . The good news Is; thanks to the
program, the public tally was .4ilective e viewing -of -Melsen's
compared to the actual verdict.: households, this sorry specljicle
A revolutionary group dedicated will probably not be repeated:'De-'.
46 the overthrow of .American ju- spite -the strong lead-in 'suppUed'
'risprudence couldn't ,have done a by !!V.".the case for ",You Are the
more devastating number 'on the Jury". was thrown out lathe' rat
From what' was presented. ugs. Aci*rdIDg1o'*NIeIsetk,r!"V'1 I
m It was logical to SMIUe that the on the a-WIO.P.M."Ume period
I with
can in question probably extended ' th 32 percept of tbo�'iklidlence-'
over at least two to three% ys "From 10 to H. "Jury", could hold
The jury at home got to see a at- only 24 percent, lose thin' -both the
lected 40 minutes orso. , 444 , . S . 11nal hour of "The'Last, Days'of
.
.,The edited case made th;'jejen- Pomkil, Past 1"z-'*6 ABC and.
dant more of a caca ndidate for n- -Trapper John. MM." on CBS.
onization than '. Incarceration. A -!-That's a verdict NBC will have
loving...fafthful,* husband. 'Who n0'problem
worked two jobs to'provfdo for 13 -A-At
Whi a, injoyab a
his wife. d1sonvers she has a resu- 'worthwhile, i' I
let lover on the aide, a sleazy, un- and 'productive. viewer iparticipa-
couth bartender. Furthermore, the don exercise was kicked of Mon -
Mrs. has been banking some of the dot, by "PM Mapdne
fruits of bar husband a labors to a Me' audience i;; been Invit.
joint checking account with bet
ed to cast vow for its favorite In -
boyfriend,
—Confronted
cal radlo.,personality. DJ or talk
bost. The ta,thisviection
by the bus 4; the
paramour taunts him and suggests
I poll'tax
Is $1 par ballot. with sit funds do -
that he's probably not the father
sated to Miami ChtldrWsHospl-
of the child his Wife bore during
their marriage. To bolster his con-
set.
*,'",The polls will remain 'open
tention, the creep boasts that he.
through the first three weeks in
not the man the wife was married
•Which, coincidentally. - tau
to at the time, -Is the real father of
bar brat child. who the detandent
tu"�j
, a ratings periptis, for Ty
- radio. . 1. 1 ,.,. N� I
bad sraciously adopted as his own.
, Some of the local tonylooppor
, Pushed over the brink by catch.
stations 'bove already orgaulged
Ing the lovers together in his at&.
stuff -the -ballot -box '- campaigns,
tat,in-law's pad, to which he 'war
"PM" ."scutlive producer *am
lured by his wife, the busband
Welch said updates on the Wine -
blows awiy the boyfriend. HIS 4L-
1115 Will W mmouncod Wodirolly
team: Tomporsty Insanity.
on "PM," with doe 'announcement
By a 7-1 margin among 371,007
of the ;Anner. accompanied by a
Calls; — at so cents a shot — the
profile, set for May 29. 1
public voted not guilty. The actual
Ullots should be Out to Mom[
verdict: Guilty of first degree mur-
ChiMm's Hospital. 1550 Modrup
ter. knocked down on appeal to
Ave, Carol Gablm Fla, 3314C
"R7,
'VN
F-W
wi Iihad bill-y #XOeot Watt
Legal Hbiiaeyi<
MOM&
-COUNTY OP DAIM
twowtv-10'"Oft A
i0m oh bath *a" dw jWjs AW$tilnt :7
Xkfsh MOM
Of
Utwdq
jaijej"BlVd, 5" 0 LA19M
Now* It, ltta matw of
aw
91331
OAD
1 44
Court.
Inthe ...... X X X. ............. -L ..............
in
984.
May, 171 - I
40w= in
_4
bown 71
florift *0011 AMY
Jpu*
Yoga -
w pww,m om,'YM-
jum
.7h
7
..........
t _4
fR.
5
UZ
MIMUIEW
low
�,Wb o MW
ITA
00,610
CE
v n;:4,
�A A
.............•. I......... ...
In UM IWWOPSW In Ww" Of
ell
is,
44
roii Ah,
t
iF s.,A
• �t, rsM
F i t~ • F F:�'�� Rr�t f 1+j��{Yi �'�'�.cl l+ `* �����'�,,"hTE'�'��'�''�� t-�1 � �' y x 1'• f+
•- -j z'"j' � t'F' i I �'i, C {b1� ,�F� � ;�•S.k�.m.,ad ti �k,�"ry
jet ex �xtri °� y�'i� f
f• • • 2: i x'j'"t���;*%y h, t ti rf4 t�' 4 �fraa
{ +-
.•Y:I;u
aye/ •.� Y�m \} r4 �"a`A ty }'� i S r�,,..
n�C s� tj�y ..�� F s _two @I°ixc� �'.,.� t� �3` . ���,IFt �7 F pso �,•�k,.p£�.
FT t �S ; r a S� 'i ii s•
• �^�%L`' Fl '`vr tiro "?' Fs'Y {t
i F YF E; �� 4 x "� k t• F
It
7el ayd t eta
t` T r
. 5 �-� � r''�i � ,at•�r`t*' si . j Il � �� Ps' ���r�1 ..
`. t k j`t� i �r'��",.�j + "�' � �,'F n• � F 1j �y+'�t`"e�Yyr,��v�"�',�'�v�F�" £r t �. �A
.`!I,; v"Ni--tA�` Z�73��FT-`-9��vt1! � ��-i4' �� °q��
Y t
E r t ns y
t ; v��
irk �+ t r •�._ S1 F�t�-� v !i.` t
e; 1 vi
•, FE r f -
�"
M i' r.wctt - r
ham. 5 S t
� sz